In Their Own Words: Laws Which Ban Books Are Fine, because they are never enforced.

Banning books - it is fine if the government passes a law that would ban books, because the law has never been enforced.


Comforting.  I have NEVER heard a Conservative argue in any way, shape, or form, that it was fine to have a law banning books.


The nominee to the Supreme Court thinks it is perfectly ok.



In her words.


















in their own words

When you are too negative.

Imagine if someone said to you - we can't have you around because you are such a downer.

According to a report on Drudge -

One network insider claims it was the book's theme -- a brutal examination of liberal bias in the new era -- that got executives to dis-invite the controversialist. "We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now," a TODAY insider reveals. "It's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."

Her complaint/criticism is proven with the statement purportedly made by an INSIDER.






Obama

The One: Fairness and Censorship

Michael Barone is recognized by anyone with any understanding of the political world as a leading expert on the presidency and elections. He is a senior writer with U.S. News & World Report and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years.



The Coming Obama Thugocracy
Michael Barone
Saturday, October 11, 2008

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago -- papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

To their credit, some liberal old-timers -- like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey -- voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Website and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.

Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes -- we know where you live -- and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.





Obamania

Islamo-Fascists Win

Random House pulls novel on Islam, fears violence

Thu Aug 7, 2008 6:39pm EDT

By Edith Honan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Publisher Random House has pulled a novel about the Prophet Mohammed's child bride, fearing it could "incite acts of violence."

"The Jewel of Medina," a debut novel by journalist Sherry Jones, 46, was due to be published on August 12 by Random House, a unit of Bertelsmann AG, and an eight-city publicity tour had been scheduled, Jones told Reuters on Thursday.

The novel traces the life of A'isha from her engagement to Mohammed, when she was six, until the prophet's death. Jones said that she was shocked to learn in May, that publication would be postponed indefinitely.

"I have deliberately and consciously written respectfully about Islam and Mohammed ... I envisioned that my book would be a bridge-builder," said Jones.

Random House deputy publisher Thomas Perry said in a statement the company received "cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

"In this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel," Perry said.

Jones, who has just completed a sequel to the novel examining her heroine's later life, is free to sell her book to other publishers, Perry said.

The decision has sparked controversy on Internet blogs and in academic circles. Some compared the controversy to previous cases where portrayals of Islam were met with violence.

Protests and riots erupted in many Muslim countries in 2006 when cartoons, one showing the Prophet Mohammed wearing a turban resembling a bomb, appeared in a Danish newspaper. At least 50 people were killed and Danish embassies attacked.

British author Salman Rushdie's 1988 book "The Satanic Verses" was met with riots across the Muslim world. Rushdie was forced into hiding for several years after Iran's then supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proclaimed a death edict, or fatwa, against him.
Jones, who has never visited the Middle East, spent several years studying Arab history and said the novel was a synthesis of all she had learned.

"They did have a great love story," Jones said of Mohammed and A'isha, who is often referred to as Mohammed's favorite wife. "He died with his head on her breast."

*******************************************

They have given in to threats before there were threats. they have censored themselves, before they were asked - they have surrendered, before war was declared.

They are useless.






Never buy from Random house

China, the Olympics and Censorship

Something interesting.

The Olympic Committee gave in to the thugs in Beijing and censored themselves. China is one large censored society.

They don't allow discussion of Tiananmen Square, no searches on the internet of said event, no searches about censorship, nor any searches about censorship of censorship or anything to do with anything not condoned by Beijing.

So then who is it that visits the website from Beijing and reads about censorship?

Beijing should understand that you cannot control the will of liberty, for it will prevail inevitably. History has shown this. The fact Chinese history is so long and government plans are slow to fruition, or that your history books show something quite different - is regardless of the reality.

Thugs and dictators are washed away by history to face a certain future. The fact a bunch of spineless wimps from Europe and the rest of the world give in to your demands, does not alter the inevitability of what will be, for we cannot stop the tide of liberty - we can only slow it down. Dictators and tyrants may trample upon the tide of freedom, and oppress the people, but eventually those dictators will stand upon soil that will swallow them.

I have had 15 visits from Beijing.
- 16 visits
- 18 visits
-20 visits

China

Thuggery

China, Euros, the Olympics and Censorship

You bloody hypocrites.

Does it make you feel better attacking the US over perceieved violations of civil liberties, when confronted with gross violations in China - you bloody hypocrites. You chose China, you then have to defend your choice or look stupider than stupid with a brown mess on his face. So you agree to allow censorship, you regulate your athletes, you monitor ... to all those who say it couldn't happen, it just did - China didn't need to conquer you moronic Euros ... you agreed to censor yourselves for them. And while it all ends when the Olympics end, and you find ways around the walls, you have set a precedent.




IOC agrees to Internet blocking at the Games

By Andrew Jacobs
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

BEIJING: The Chinese government confirmed Wednesday what journalists arriving at the lavishly outfitted media center here had suspected: Contrary to previous assurances by Olympic and government officials, the Internet would be censored during the upcoming games.

Since the Olympic Village press center opened Friday, reporters have been unable to access scores of Web pages - politically sensitive ones that discuss Tibetan succession, Taiwanese independence, the violent crackdown of the protests in Tiananmen Square and the sites of Amnesty International, Radio Free Asia and several Hong Kong newspapers known for their freewheeling political discourse.

On Wednesday - two weeks after its most recent proclamation of an uncensored Internet during the Summer Games - the International Olympic Committee quietly agreed to some of the limitations, according to Kevan Gosper, chairman of the IOC press commission, Reuters reported.

Gosper said that he regretted the limitations but that "IOC officials negotiated with the Chinese that some sensitive sites would be blocked on the basis they were not considered Games related."

A government spokesman initially suggested the problems originated with the site hosts, but on Wednesday, he acknowledged that journalists would not have unfettered Internet use during the Games, which begin Aug. 8.

"It has been our policy to provide the media with convenient and sufficient access to the Internet," said Sun Weide, the chief spokesman for the Beijing Olympics organizing committee. "I believe our policy will not affect reporters' coverage of the Olympic games."

The Chinese government and the IOC had repeatedly suggested up until two weeks ago that the 20,000 journalists covering the games would have full Internet access. Jacques Rogge, the International Olympic committee president, declared that the foreign media would be able to report and publish its work freely in China and that the Internet would be uncensored.

The revelation that politically sensitive Web pages will be off limits to foreign reporters comes at a time of growing skepticism about the government's commitment to pledges made when it won the right to stage the games in 2001: that it would improve its record on human rights and provide athletes with clean air.
Despite a litany of measures that include restricting private vehicles and shuttering factories, Beijing's skyline in recent days has been shrouded in a thick haze, prompting some hang-wringing over whether the government can deliver on its promise of a "blue skies" Olympics.
In recent months, human rights advocates have accused Beijing of stepping up the detention and surveillance of those it fears could disrupt the Games. On Tuesday, President George W. Bush privately met with five Chinese dissidents at the White House to drive home his dissatisfaction with the pace of change. Bush, who leaves for the opening ceremonies in just over a week, also pressed China's foreign minister to ease political repression.

Concerns about free access to the Internet in Beijing had intensified Tuesday, when Western journalists working at the main press center in Beijing said they could not get to Amnesty International's Web site to see the group's critical report on China's failure to improve its human rights record ahead of the Olympics.

Journalist groups complained last week about treatment from security officials while trying to interview people waiting in line for Olympic tickets, according to Bloomberg News.
Jonathan Watts, president of The Foreign Correspondents Club of China, said he was disappointed that Beijing had failed to honor its agreement to temporarily remove the elaborate firewall that prevents ordinary Chinese from fully using the Internet. "Obviously if reporters can't access all the sites they want to see, they can't do their jobs," he said. "Unfortunately, such restrictions are normal for reporters in China, but the Olympics were supposed to be different."
Sandrine Tonge, the IOC media relations coordinator, said the organization would press the Chinese authorities to reconsider the limits.

Reporters Without Borders is encouraging journalists covering the Beijing Olympics to skirt censorship with tips on how to get around firewalls, lock computer files and find safe translators, The Associated Press reported from Paris.

In a guide published on the Internet on Wednesday, the organization advised reporters to conduct phone calls and write e-mail messages with the knowledge that they might be monitored.

The new guide will probably help only journalists who have not yet left for Beijing: The press freedom group says its Web site, www.rsf.org, remains blocked in China. The country has backed away from a promise to lift all Internet blocks on foreign media.







Olympics




Hypocrits

Three points of view

A person, actually a couple people informed me that there were several points of view on issues. I suggested that there were two. I think we are both wrong, yet, perhaps we are right. Perhaps we were talking past each other, and perhaps we are both right and both not so correct.

We grow up today and are told, actually indoctrinated with the belief that no culture is better than any other. We are all the same. We are all equal. No one is better. No belief is better. No behavior is better. It makes sense for us to then translate this into a world view - there is no truth but the one we determine based on our opinion.

That position is simply not rational. Humans are told we cannot fly. We are told only birds and planes can fly. I believe I am a bird - I like seeds, I flap my arms, I like to nest, I am fixated on eggs. I believe I am a bird. I do not believe humans are not able to fly because I am a human-bird. I feel like a bird, I eat like a bird, I have created a nest in my home made of sticks, twigs, yarn, mud, and I sleep in the nest. Am I a bird? Can I fly?

The answer is not subjective nor is it a matter of opinion. It is either yes or no, very clearly so. It is not ambivalent nor can you have your own view of my being a bird. I am or I am not. I am not sort of.

The reason this dishonesty has caught on is because of the examples used to lure young people into accepting it - not everyone can wear the same shoes, even if they are the correct size. Not everyone likes the same type of food and when we do like the same food, we like it produced differently (hot dogs: mustard, ketchup, relish).

This is a failure by those in authority to understand the difference between taste and reality. As for matters of taste: I like blue, I like feathers, I like mud, I like relish on hot dogs - there is no correct/right answer. It is all a matter of taste. as far as issues of reality are concerned - I am not a bird and as much as I believe I am a bird, I will never fly unless I am in a plane. regardless of your opinion or your third view point - I cannot be a bird and I cannot fly.

One person informed the class they did not believe the government. They raised the question of - did the US give Saddam chemical / biological weapons. I explained that they did not. Instead, we provided a sample of a serum for antidote. The serum used contained dead viruses and therefore would not be useful in reproduction or reverse engineering to find out the weapon use. However, using technology provided by Germany, it is possible he was able to develop the blueprint, but would have needed to receive a live sample. Where this live sample came from is questionable - Russia is the best possible source given the close military alliance Saddam had with them.

The student said she didn't believe the government. How do we know they didn't. The student went on to suggest that Americans know less about our government than do other peoples elsewhere.

I was taken aback a bit by that. Another student added their thought - that maybe there is another view, not either or, just different.

The result of the indoctrination of American youth with silliness.

I am a bird or not. There IS NO 3rd position. The US did or did not give chemical weapons to Saddam. There is NO 3rd position.

I was informed that one student never believed anything the US government said. They would believe what the Chinese government says about something before our own.

The result of the indoctrination of American youth with silliness.

50% of ALL NEWS in Russia MUST be positive. All NEWS in RUSSIA must go through the Kremlin and be vetted for positive or negative before it is released. Additionally, all news is vetted by the Kremlin before it can be published.

The Chinese government prohibits access to most western news sources and prohibits ALL ACCESS to anything the government of China does not approve. The US is portrayed as the enemy. All Internet and news follow this standard.

Syria, Lebanon, Iran, N Korea all follow suit. The Internet and news is controlled by the government. You cannot go online and surf Google news for information. In Cuba and Venezuela, the government controls much of the media. The major newspapers print what they are told. There is no criticism of the government. The people are told the enemy of the people is the US.

In Britain, there is censorship. The government prohibits the printing of news about Royals who are either in trouble or in war. THAT is censorship. Whether it is reasonable or prudent, is immaterial to the fact it is censorship.

In Germany and France you cannot deny the holocaust or you will be arrested and imprisoned. That is not FREE SPEECH, that is censorship.

Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines - strict government control over the media - what is reported about their governments and ours.

Superstition and fear are common throughout Asia and Africa to the point supersition grabs hold and doesn't let go - no reality, just fantasy and delusions. I could point out the nuts who marry their goats or the slave trade in Morocco or Portugal. The list is endless and would stop only when i ran out of countries.

I could go on but I hope I have made the point. The world is actually quite ignorant of the US government. Americans are naive about the world. There is a distinction. We believe they are decent and respectful. We are wrong but we can access any information without restriction, on the Internet. They are misinformed and lied to and don't know the difference, but they believe it. They are ignorant.

Liveleak

A 15 minute diatribe by a Dutch politician has Europe (and the Dutch government in particular) in an uproar. He first placed the 15 minute video on Liveleak and when removed, put it on a webpage served by an American company outside the reach of Dutch laws. That company pulled the video.


The first company - LIVELEAK recently placed an ad or response to why it pulled the video.

More interesting details about this.

Gert (the Dutch fellow) had not even released the video [READ: No one had seen it.] and NETWORK SOLUTIONS told him he could not put the video on their server - ostensibly because it violated some terms of their codes. Fine. But they had never seen it.

Can you say censorship.

Sidenote:
What is truly sad is soooooooo many young people wake up every day and feel that something they believe in has been censored by the government. What we do not realzie is censorship will not and has not come from the government.

Back to NETWORK SOLUTIONS. They received so many complaints from Muslims and presumably non-Muslims that they pulled it BEFORE it was ever shown - BECAUSE it violated some term in their agreement.

Perhaps it is the same terms as those hizbollah/al-qaida violated when they used NETWORK SOLUTIONS and posted their videos and nothing was done, immediately.

(I have yet to discern which evil branch used Network Solutions - they are quite different and I am not implying nor suggesting they both did, only one to my knowledge. Which one, I am unsure. The larger point is, that it really doesn't matter which one. they are two peas in an evil pod.