“Hate Speech” = Anything a Liberal Disagrees With

Tolerance is Becoming Intolerance

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Expose Obama.com

Modern America preaches the value of tolerance. This says you have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to mine. We can agree to disagree. While this level of tolerance for all viewpoints has never been completely achieved, those on the left certainly preach it when they are vilifying those who hold traditional values, and attempt to label them as intolerant. In recent years, and culminating in the election of Barack Obama, we are entering a new era where you have only the right to agree with the modern liberal view, or else be ostracized as an extremist.

Upon Obama’s election, he promised to usher in a new era of post-partisan politics. No more conservative and liberal — just hope. On abortion, he said he wanted to move past the tired old politics. Translation: he wants to repeal all restrictions on abortion, but expects pro-life supporters to drop their disagreements and support him. Obama said it’s no longer about whether government is too big or too small, it’s about how effective it is. In reality, Obama has ushered in the largest expansion of federal government in any 100-day period in United States history. This period of censorship of disagreement goes well beyond Obama to many of the liberal elites.

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano joined the thought police by allowing her department to issue a report labeling any person holding a conservative political viewpoint a potential terrorist. This is the same Department of Homeland Security that said from now on, terrorism will be called man-caused disasters. Napolitano will tolerate Islamic terrorists, yet she has no tolerance for pro-life individuals. People who favor a smaller federal government are considered dangerous enemies of the state. This type of discrimination against opposing viewpoints is becoming rampant in our society.

American “enemies of the state” took to the streets to show their support for fiscal responsibility by attending tea parties. Because this view was not approved by the liberal elites, these protesters were mocked incessantly on CNN, NBC and CBS. The worst case of disdain for tea party participants came from Janeane Garofalo. Speaking on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” she said, “Let’s be very honest about what this is about. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don’t know their history at all. It’s about hating a black man in the White House.This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that.” Garofalo proceeded to claim that conservatives suffer from a mental disorder. None of this was refuted in any way by host Keith Olbermann. Evidently, hate speech is only allowed when it is against Christians or conservatives. There are allegations that the FBI was spying on these very peaceful demonstrations.

Another example of this suppression of traditional thought occurred at the Miss USA pageant. Celebrity judge Perez Hilton, a famous gay blogger, asked Miss California if she supported gay marriage. She very politely and graciously said that is up to the different states but she personally opposes it. The Miss USA contest strongly disagreed with Miss California’s position, and after the show Perez Hilton launched a diatribe calling the young lady a “dumb B” and later called her the C-word. These hateful attacks would certainly be repudiated if it were a conservative saying them. However, Perez Hilton and his far-left cohorts are free to say whatever they want as long as they are attacking conservatives.

This same principle applies as the left pushes the fairness doctrine and attempts to pass hate-speech laws that will silence Bible-believing Christians. If you disagree with them, then you have no right to speak your beliefs.

America is founded on the principles that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights protected by our Constitution. These rights and protections are what separate our free society from authoritarian governments that have no constraints on government power. Yet Alexis de Tocqueville warned about coercion of thought in his classic book, “Democracy of America.” He cautions us, saying that democracies can become even more oppressive than other forms of government when conformity is pushed in the culture. This conformity is being shoved on our society at an alarming rate. Christians and people who hold conservative viewpoints are demonized and mocked in schools, in the media and now by the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Obama administration. Those who hold traditional viewpoints had better speak out; otherwise, in the near future they may be forced to keep their lips zipped.

Fuel for the Coming Fire Storm

Either enough Americans wake up and retake control of the government that is rightfully ours, or we pack up now and head for the hills.  I feel a revolution coming, and unless enough Americans wake up soon enough to make it a peaceful one at the ballot box, it’s going to be ugly.

Monday, April 06, 2009

---

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
WorldNetDaily
Will bill give Obama control of Internet?
Proposed new powers called ‘drastic federal intervention’

---

Posted: April 04, 2009
10:35 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn

---

WorldNetDaily

Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller, D-W.V.

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared “cyber emergency.”

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what’s being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.  (What ever happened to the idea of SMALLER government?  That baby got thrown out with the fiscal restraint bath water)

A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation’s infrastructure “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.” (NOTHING you do online will be private, not that it really is now.  But your government will have unrestrained access to ANYTHING you do online.  George Orwell was a prophet.  His predictions were just 25 years ahead of their time.)

Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm over the act’s broadly drawn government powers.

“The cybersecurity threat is real,” says Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S.773, “but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy.”

“The whole thing smells bad to me,” writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an Internet and print news source on technology issues. “I don’t like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don’t like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president.“

According to a Senate document explaining the bill, the legislation “addresses our country’s unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure.”

In a statement explaining the bill’s introduction, Sen. Rockefeller said, “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on.” (It’s the “at all cost” liberal laundry service again.  Scare, tax, spend, repeat.)

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who is co-sponsoring the bill, added, “If we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.”  (Olympia Snowe is NOT a republican.  She is a RINO, and a liberal.  She must go.)

Critics, however, have pointed to three actions Rockefeller and Snowe propose that may violate both privacy concerns and even constitutional bounds:

First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect “critical infrastructure” networks from the Internet – including private citizens’ banks and health records, if Rockefeller’s examples are accurate – if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president. (Once again, the Obama power grab rears its ugly head.  In Obama’s America, he or his people will CONTROL EVERYTHING.  You will have no rights, privacy, security, personal property, wealth, or anything you associate with freedom and prosperity.  Mr. Hussein Obama will start by deciding that conservative blogs and news sights are a “threat” to America (“threat to America” defined as “could potentially reveal the truth about Obama and his actions) and he will shut them down.  Anything else on the internet that doesn’t dovetail with his agenda will soon be declared to be a “cybersecurity threat,” and will be shut down.  It’s coming, People.  Unless enough of us wake up and do what is necessary to stop it.)

Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as “the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information,” including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the “critical infrastructure.”

Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional.

And while the critics concede the need for increased security, they object to what is perceived as a dangerous and intrusive expansion of government power.  (Are you seeing this?  This is just a small piece of what adds up to marxist, totalitarian control.  Don’t doubt me on this…)

“There are some problems that we face which need the weight of government behind them,” writes Seltzer in eWeek. “This is not the same as creating a new federal bureaucracy setting rules over what computer security has to be and who can do it.” (Uh, what?  It sounds like you’re saying there is no BLACK and WHITE, just white and melanin impaired.)

“It’s an incredibly broad authority,” CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim told the Mother Jones news website, troubled that existing privacy laws “could fall to this authority.”

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill is “contrary to what the Constitution promises us.” (The U.S. Constitution be damned if you’re a liberal or B. Hussein Obama.  They have already discarded the constitution and no one is doing a D@#$ thing about it.)

According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the “critical” networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure. (Duh.  That’s exactly what they want.  Big Brother.  BIG BROTHER.)

“What are the critical infrastructure networks? The examples provided are ‘banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications.’ Let’s think about this,” writes Seltzer. “I’m especially curious as to how you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet when they are, in large part, what the Internet is comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I would think about going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in cash.”

S. 778, which would establish the Office of the National Security Advisor, and S. 773, which provides for developing a cadre of governmental cybersecurity specialists and procedures, have both been read twice and referred to committee in the Senate.

“You do not know the power of the Dark Side.”

Bobby, by jove, you’ve got it! Obama IS Emperor Palpatine. Would that mean that Rahm Emanuel is Darth Vader? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi aren’t smart enough to be anything other than battle droids. John Murtha must be Jabba the Hutt. Sadly, the rebellion can’t seem to find any real Jedi to champion our cause and save us from the Dark Side. I can see someone like Ted Nugent in the role of Han Solo. Perhaps we will find that the force is strong with some of the up and comers such as Bobby Jindal. “Help us, Obi Wan. You’re our only hope.”

‘Once the crisis has abated, I will lay down these powers’

Posted By Bobby Eberle On March 27, 2009 at 6:58 am

With money comes power, right? That is how the old saying goes. If that is the case, then it should surprise no one that with all the money pouring out of Washington (actually China), that the move to consolidate power would closely follow.

This week, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner released details of the Obama administration’s plan to further inject government control over the private sector. If Obama and Geithner have their way, more financial institutions will be forced to “report in” to the government and have restrictions placed on what the institutions and the investors can and can not do with their money. With each passing day, Obama and company are chipping away at America.

The premise of this new Obama/Geithner plan is to do something about “toxic assets,” which the government is now calling “legacy assets,” because it sounds less… well… toxic. As the Heritage Foundation describes in a new report, these assets represent “securities and loans held by financial institutions whose value is uncertain in the wake of the financial crisis.”

Under the proposed plan, “the idea is to use federal funds to facilitate the purchase of toxic (or what Treasury now calls “legacy”) assets by public-private investment groups, which would bid against each other for the assets.”

For “legacy” loans, private investors would provide 1/14 (about 7 percent) of the partnership’s total assets, matched by another 1/14 provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The remaining amount (6/7 of the total, or about 85 percent) would be covered by guaranteed loans provided by FDIC. For “legacy “securities (as opposed to loans), up to five fund managers pre-qualified by the Treasury Department would raise private capital that would be matched dollar-for-dollar by the government. Treasury would also provide loans to enable the partnership to purchase even more assets.

In both cases, while the government would share profits equally with the private-sector partner, taxpayers bear most of the risk of losses. In other words, the private-sector partner cannot lose more than its investment. Any further losses after the private capital is gone would be covered by the taxpayers.

The Heritage Foundation notes multiple flaws in this plan. In particular, “the plan will almost inevitably lead to even more expanded government micro-management of financial firms.”

Recent history with the TARP program shows that participants in PPIP (“Public-Private Investment Program”) can expect controls—sometimes retroactive—over compensation and other management decisions. It is hard to imagine a hedge fund or other investment group enjoying profits under this program without some level of federal restrictions accompanying the deal or following soon thereafter. It is equally possible that if profits exceed some unspecified percentage, there will be an effort to “recapture” them.

This big-government plan has thankfully drawn swift opposition. As noted in the news story Financial overhaul plan draws GOP opposition, not only do some lawmakers and business people reject more government intrusion, they also question whether it would accomplish the specified result.

“We’re not in this mess because we need new rules,” said Bill Fleckenstein, a Seattle-based hedge fund manager who accurately predicted the housing bubble. “We need to enforce the rules we already have,” he said. “What we had was a complete breakdown by all our regulators. They simply didn’t do their jobs.”

We don’t need new rules? We just need to enforce the ones we have? Sounds eerily similar to what conservatives have said about immigration reform and a host of other issues!

Some of Geithner’s proposals as reported in the news story include:

• Imposing tougher standards on financial institutions that are judged to be so big that their failure would threaten the entire system.
• Extending federal regulation for the first time to all trading in financial derivatives — exotic instruments such as credit default swaps that are blamed for much of the economic carnage.
• Requiring larger hedge funds and other private pools of capital, including private equity and venture capital funds, to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
• Creating a regulator to monitor the biggest institutions. Geithner did not say which agency should wield such authority, but the administration is expected to favor the Federal Reserve.
• Empowering the government to take over major nonbank financial firms such as insurers and hedge funds if deemed necessary.

The last thing America needs is more control transferred to the federal government. Once control is taken by Obama, the next logical step is to seize more power. No one ever gives it back.

Begin Side Note

• Being a fan of Star Wars, I can’t help but recall Emperor Palpatine’s words as he was granted even more power by a willing society: “It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!” (Yeah, right. And I’m the inventor of the internet.)

End Side Note

Obama goes on television with his townhall press conference, answers softball questions from an audience that is growing more and more dependent on government, and he just smiles. He smiles because he knows that he is moving America exactly in the path that he wants… a path toward socialism.

This Geithner plan is just one more step in lulling the American public into placing more power in government. Thankfully, more legislators are speaking up, and more of the public is taking notice. But will it be too late?

HR 1388 GIVE Act Aimed at “Re-Educating” and Indoctrinating Your Children

I started reading (yes, actually reading) the WHOLE bill last night. I’ve gotten about half way through it so far, and what I’ve seen so far SCARES THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF ME!

Here are some of things that scare me about what I’ve read so far:

• “Service Learning”: Thinly veiled wording for indoctrination. This follows the model of Soviet Russia with their “re-education camps.” Though the original language of this bill called the re-education/indoctrination centers “camps,” they have since changed the names to “campuses.”
• “Service Corps”: The more I read, the more these look like the basis for the mobs/militias that Obama mentioned in his campaign, but quickly covered up. He said he would form a security force funded as well as the military. Every dictator and despot ruler has had the same thing: a paramilitary force to “persuade” citizens to bend to the will of the despot.
• Backdoor attack on home schooling: The more I read, the more it becomes apparent that Obama intends to make attendance in public, government run schools mandatory. In recent years there have been increasing attacks on those who wish to home school their children in order to teach more conservative values to them. The communists/socialists have known for a long time that if you control the children, you will eventually bypass the parents and control the society.
• Prohibition on any display or exercise of religion: Sect 125 (a)(7) reads thusly…
  

  ‘(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
  (7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

The only way they’ll take my kids to these camps is over my cold, dead body.

I’m uncovering more and more bad stuff in this bill. Please read as much of this, and every other bill, as you have the opportunity to read. Expose what our corrupt politicians are trying to keep in the dark.

Read HR1388 here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/text

________________________________________________________________