Happy Easter and some hate speech legislation...

Sorry about not posting the past couple of days.  I was working some major overtime:), I like to blog, but I like to get paid more.  First off  Happy Easter to all my fellow bloggers and visitors who may trip over my little corner of the internet.

    Now to this posting so I can go to sleep so I can go to work again tonight.    I heard about this a couple of days ago but I didn't have time to post anything about this until now...

   Here is the information....:

Boston (April 16, 2014) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, introduced legislation to examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes. The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes.

In 1992, then-Rep. Markey, through the Telecommunications Authorization Act, directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to examine the role of telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes. Senator Markey’s legislation will provide a comprehensive updated report on the current prevalence of hate crimes and hate speech in telecommunications, as the last report was conducted and submitted to Congress over two decades ago, in December 1993. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3878.

“We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel in the United States, which is why it is critical to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment,” said Senator Markey. “Over 20 years have passed since I first directed the NTIA to review the role that telecommunications play in encouraging hate crimes. My legislation would require the agency to update this critical report for the 21st century.”

“The Internet has proven to be a tremendous platform for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. However, at times it has also been used as a place where vulnerable persons or groups can be targeted,” said Rep. Jeffries. “I commend Senator Markey for his longstanding leadership with respect to combating Hate Crimes in America. He understands that in the digital era it is important to comprehensively evaluate the scope of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of First Amendment protection. With the introduction of Senator Markey’s bill, we have taken a substantial step toward addressing this issue.” 

“I thank Senator Markey for his career-long commitment to ensuring that we have the data necessary to confront and combat hate speech in the media that targets our most vulnerable communities,” said President & CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition Alex Nogales. “NHMC has long-recognized that an update to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's 1993 report, ‘The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes’, is long overdue and desperately needed given the incredible evolution of our communications systems over the past 21 years as well as the ever-increasing numbers of hate crimes targeting Latinos and others. As the author of the original piece of legislation directing the 1993 report, there is nobody better than Senator Markey to join Congressman Hakeem Jeffries and others in calling on the NTIA to study this pressing issue once again.”

###

   I have several salient points to make.  First off you noticed that both people are from the Godless,corrupt,self serving,hates America,big government Democratic Party...,   I also wonder who is going to decide what "hate speech" is?   As from what I read from the legislation,  If I say anything that might "offend" a protected minority or religious group, I will be targeted by the Feds.  Now I do have several questions...First off...There is the 1st amendment;  The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

     Now that we have clarified this, those clowns basically want to shut down dissent opinions that according to some bureaucrat I might offend some "protected group".  The brush is soo broad that anything that I might say about the Obama regime or anything that supports a conservative viewpoint. would be considered "Hate Speech".  

      Let me clarify, I will use the first amendment as a back drop.  First thing is the 1st amendment says "Prohibit the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion.  Now I remember a couple of years, we have had people from the Department of Justice telling any muslim groups that if anybody says any thing bad about the islamic faith to let them know and they would pursue federal action against the offenders.  Now this sounds like we already have a state sanctioned religion and it is islam.  I don't see the same offer made to the Christians and Jewish faiths.  We have islamic groups trying to shut down christian groups and they are using the courts and the justice department to do so. You doubt me....go check out what is going on in Dearborn Dearbornistan in the state of Michigan.  I am using this as an example,  

     Now to continue my using the 1st amendment as a backdrop.  Abridging the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press.  Now these people want to curtail my freedom of the speech because I might offend somebody?  This will use this law to punish and squash any dissent against the Obama regime or anybody else that falls into the progressive orbit..  Since he is a "protected minority" president, if I say "Obama sucks"  I can get hemmed up in this legislation.  This is a full assault on the 1st amendment.  Remember when "W" was president we had Queen Pelosi screech "Dissent is patriotic."   Now they want to muzzle the opposition to the president or anybody else that is liberal.   The double standard is galling.

     The federal government has grown too large and is usurping our right and the rights of our states and the people have no clue, we are losing our freedom a little bit at a time..Well in this case...it is a lot.  Will there be "political commissars   observers" in the newsrooms to make sure that the news puts out a sanitized version that wholly supports the Obama Junta and any other democrats.  This is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind and what they feared so they had the 1st amendment because they knew that a unbiased aggressive media is a bulwark against tyranny from the government.  

     Now to the 2 gentlemen that proposed this piece of legislation......

Remember we also have the 2nd amendment to support the 1st.

    Now I am tired and I will fade away to sleep   zzZZZZZZZZZZZ

  

        

Why I don't FACEBOOK or other social media...

This question was mentioned on a reply to one of Old NFO's post while he was down under and the subject of blogging and Facebook came up.  Well I relayed that I used to Facebook, partly because others were doing it and it was a chance to keep up with my friends and also network.  My Army unit that I went to the gulf is on Facebook as is my last employer Ford Motor Co Atlanta Assembly plant.  The plant is gone, making way for Porsche to build a headquarters for their North American operations.  Well the people that used to work there formed a Facebook page and that is how we keep tabs on each other and also tell others if there are any jobs at and where to go. 
    

My problems happened when I was taken to task by one of the liberal friends of a good friend that I have known for many years.  Well I got thought about it for a while then proceeded to rebut all the half assed assertions and distortions that this person made.  My response was quite lengthy and my friend *Shelldude* as I refer to him was quite impressed and since he has known me for a long time and he knows that I am quite the polite person and it takes a lot to get me riled up knew that I was pissed by my response.  This was the rant that got me suspended from FB for 3 weeks.   I removed the name of my friend that is involved.

" .Hit the enter button again..*dangit* I would have responded yesterday but I was off the internet due to SOPASTRIKE..Well I read your rant or diatribe, and since I am the only person on the other side of the fence from the rest of y'all I guess it is directed at me. That is fine, so I will go down your screed and make my counterpoints. I do not look the other way on things, When I debate somebody I make sure that I have facts to back up my statements. Verify with XXXXXX on that. Yes I have stood in the shoes of the poor, the crap I went through after I got out in 1991, Ask XXXXXX, I dropped off the face of the planet for several years. Being soo poor and afraid to face my friends that knew me from before to see how far I have fallen. Having just enough change in the ashtray of my truck to buy a burger so I could eat. I remember those days and swore that I would never be there again. I work many jobs that I despised but I needed the money and worked them until I got a better job. That is how I climbed out of poverty. Like I have stated, there is a difference from people actually being down and out and the moochers. When I work the food pantry, the people that are down and out appreciate whatever we do for them. they are grateful. The moochers bitch about the food they get and make specific demands. The entitlement mentality is on display. They expect others to provide for them because they exist and put forth no effort to better themselves and break the cycle. The government is supposed to be "we the people" but the special interest have taken root. That is what happens when we have career politicians. They on both sides are more concerned about getting reelected and maintaining their power and perks. I like the idea of a citizen legislator, they spend part of their time in D.C stirring up trouble. I never came out of a trailer park and that is as bigoted as the comments you deplore. I am not stupid, but I am angry when I have seen what has happened to this country, we used to be the beacon of the world, the envy of the world, We as a society believed in American exceptional-ism, Now we are told we are just like everybody else and that infuriates and saddens me. President Obama and the Democrats have screwed it up. They picked up where the establishment Republicans left off. Then you threw the race card on me..."closet racist" any criticism of the president is considered "racist" Is this where I am supposed to apologize for all the sins of my ancestors and grovel on the alters of Political correctness and diversity?......Naaa don't feel it. How can there be any political discourse debated when the race card is thrown down. When all else fails, the opponents are "racist so I don't have to debate them since I have the moral high ground". When will it end? I also have been discriminated against, Discrimination isn't just a Black or a Female thing. I lost jobs and job opportunities because I wasn't a minority or a female. If you want I will tell you specific examples. We all have been discriminated against at one time or another. I remember it and don't like the feeling, so I go out of my way not to do it to others. you saluted Mr Thompson for being a wise person and basically told me to screw off since I do not breath the rarified air that you leftist inhale...or drink the koolaid for that matter. You are correct on the assertion that the politicians give us little to keep us pliable. that is how they maintain control. That is all it is, the ability to maintain control, our freedom is surrendered on the promise of security and we became slaves to the government and the political masters that control the government. If you or XXXXXX want to defriend me on account of this reply, that is your decision to make. We will have to agree to disagree. I thank you for your time

 Well I was reported  to Facebook for "Hate speech".  Although there was nothing that I had said that violated FB's terms of use.  It took 3 weeks for FB to release my access again and by this time I was so angry I started blogging instead.  I have since learned that this is a favorite tactic of the left is to "flag" what they consider inappropriate content and FB and twitter is very quick on the banning of conservative thought, but slow to release the access.  Whereas the left can say things quite incendiary and nothing is done.  They control the narrative.  This presents a problem where speech is censored for " thought control" or "hate crimes".  This is a slippery slope to tyranny. 

     I have since then blogged a lot, met a lot of good people on the blogosphere and have an outlet for my writing.  having a blog allows me to say things that I want, put up stuff that I find interesting, and it helps me be a better writer and helps organize my thoughts.    I stay on FB because of my Army unit and my Ford buddies.  I use a "nom-de Guerre" on this site, I don't want people finding out where I work at and try to get me fired because they didn't like what I have to say.   My employer is very risk adverse and would can me in a new-york minute to avoid bad publicity.   Liberals like free speech if it is what they agree with it.  If they don't like it they try to silence it. ........... The tolerant left.

     the cartoon that is shown with this article is what I believe would happen if I continued posting on FB.  The left in the past few years had several phone numbers and websites that were organized by the government  if they wanted to "fink" on their neighbors if they believed them to be "extremist" or a "danger to society"  They tried this with "attackwatch" and also the white house had its own "narc" line to squeal on your neighbors.  Goebbels would be so proud of the modern left. 

The Germans are very sensitive to a police state since a large portion remember living under the East German Government until reunification.  They are not happy with Obama and the NSA spying on everybody else.  

He has tried to deflect this stating that this was a holdover from the Bush administration......Really?   You still gotta blame your predecessor?   When you gonna grow a pair and actually take responsibility for something that happened on your watch.   Oh yeah...You have dodged the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, Bengazi?, Solendra, Fiskers, and many other scandals and your compliant media still covers for you.

I will continue to blog since I find it therapeutic and when I see something that either pisses me off or something that I think is "Neat!"  I will post it here.   If I did it on Facebook, anything would be lost among the noise that is Facebook.  Also blogging has made me a better writer and better able to organize my thoughts.   So I will keep on blogging.

More Government support for the Obama Administration.

   I have stated in past post that the active assistance of government agencies of a president is dangerous to the republic.  We went to a merit type system to prevent government jobs being tied to political patronage as was the past system like the Tammany Hall system of patronage.  Now we have government agencies in active support for certain candidates and certain political parties.  This will cause a further disconnect where we have government that will actively target certain groups.  When people have faith no longer in their vote or ability to vote without being persecuted will cause a farther chasm in the political system.  When people believe that they have no say any longer in the voting process, they will start doing other things from going Galt to civil disobedience to active resistance and possible revolt.

Thanks to the TaxProf blog and to Instapundit, I discovered this chart detailing political giving by government lawyers:

With certain limitations understood (we don’t know the affiliations of non-donors), the chart above looks more like the political affiliations of Ivy League women’s-studies departments than those of an allegedly impartial federal bureaucracy.
The civil-service system was designed to replace the spoils system, which — in addition to creating chaotic rushes of office-seekers with each change of administration — packed political hacks into important administrative positions. A civil service was supposed to change that unacceptable reality by placing the administration of the more neutral functions of the government into the hands of dispassionate professionals. Thus the strong federal job security in the civil service, greater security than enjoyed by virtually any private-sector employee. The job security — so the argument goes — was necessary to prevent the re-emergence of blatant political patronage.
But what if the combination of increasingly activist government with strong bureacratic bias re-creates federal service as a kind of permanent spoils system for the Left? Isn’t it inevitable that this leftist bureaucracy will eventually view itself not as a servant for all citizens but as an instrument of its own righteous ideology?
If the recent history of our universities is any guide, the products of a leftist bureacratic monoculture will be characterized by the following:
Ignorance: Groups of like-minded people are notoriously incurious about the ideas and perspectives of dissenters.
Condescension: They don’t let ignorance stand in the way of a bulletproof sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
Hatred: Since all the good people they know agree with them, they ascribe the worst of motives to the other side, believing them to be motivated by little more than greed and bigotry.
And, finally . . .
Fanaticism: Cass Sunstein described the ”Law of Group Polarization like this: “In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments.” In other words, when like-minded individuals deliberate, their common views grow more extreme over time.
We conservatives have a problem with Big Government, no matter who’s running it. But we also have a particular problem with this big government, as key agencies are increasingly staffed and run by individuals who wield enormous power, cannot be fired, and despise roughly half the American population. When Barack Obama urges supporters to “PUNISH OUR ENEMIES,” there are many federal employees only too willing to comply.

Obama and the left's waiver of Bill Maher

Got this off American Spectator

Obama's Waiver for Bill Maher

By Aaron Goldstein on 3.7.12 @ 6:07AM

We're still waiting for the president to call to Sarah Palin.

After Rush Limbaugh referred to Georgetown University Law Student Sandra Fluke as "a slut" on his radio program last week, the Obama Administration wasted little time in coming to her defense.
On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed that President Obama had spoken with Fluke. When Carney was asked to describe their conversation, he replied:

They had a very good conversation. I think he, like a lot of people, feels that the kinds of personal attacks that she's -- that have been directed her way are inappropriate. The fact that our political discourse has become debased in many ways is bad enough. It is worse when it's directed at a private citizen who was simply expressing her views on a matter of public policy.

Although Rush would issue an apology the following day it wasn't enough for longtime Obama adviser David Axelrod who said, "I think what Rush Limbaugh said about that young woman was not only vile and degrading to her, but to women across the country."
So what do Messrs. Carney, Axelrod and, for that matter, President Obama have to say for Bill Maher?
It is no secret that Maher despises conservatives especially of the female variety. Nearly a year ago, Maher delighted both himself and his left-wing audiences when he called Sarah Palin "a dumb twat" and "a c--t" -- words even harsher than the ones Rush used against Fluke.
Let us remember that Carney lambasted Limbaugh for being inappropriate towards Fluke because she is a "private citizen who was simply expressing her views on a matter of public policy." Well, the last I checked Sarah Palin is a private citizen who expresses her views on public policy. Does the Obama Administration believe Palin should be afforded the same courtesy as Fluke? Do they believe what Maher said about Palin was inappropriate? Or does the Obama Administration believe that some points of view more equal than others?
Let us also remember that Axelrod wasn't satisfied with Rush's apology because what he said about Fluke "was not only vile and degrading to her, but to women across the country." So does Axelrod also believe that Maher said things about Sarah Palin that "were not only vile and degrading to her, but to women across the country?"
Or has Bill Maher been granted a waiver by the Obama Administration for saying degrading things about Sarah Palin and other conservative women who do not agree with their policies? Consider how Maher bragged that he could get away with what he said because he is on HBO while Rush is at the mercy of commercial sponsors. This surely sounds like a man who has been granted dispensation from the highest authority.
After all, it was with great fanfare last month that Maher donated $1 million to Priorities USA Action, an Obama Super PAC. As the large check was being hauled out on stage, Maher said to his audience at Yahoo headquarters in Silicon Valley, "I think Mitt Romney's going to get the (Republican) nomination, and then I hope Obama beats him like a runaway sister-wife." Well, it's good to know that a joke about domestic violence (not to mention Mormonism) is such a hit with liberal audiences. Of course, had Rush joked about domestic abuse (not to mention Muslims) the very same audience would rise in unison to accuse him of hate speech.
Now I, for one, did not like what Rush said about Fluke. In one fell swoop, he shifted the issue from the heavy handedness of government in compelling religious organizations to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to the heavy handedness of Rush Limbaugh in casting aspersions upon someone for taking a point of view which differs from his own. His intervention was not helpful and Rush was ultimately right to make amends to Fluke. Unlike Axelrod, I accept both Rush's apology and his reasons for doing so. As Rush put it:

I ended up descending to their level. It's important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week.

Of course, it should come as no surprise that Axelrod would not accept Rush's apology. The Left has wanted Rush excised from the airwaves for nearly a quarter century. Now Rush has stumbled and they see blood in the water. So at this point, the Obama Administration is about as willing to accept Rush's apology as Afghan President Hamid Karzai is willing to accept the Obama Administration's apology last week for the accidental Koran burnings at Bagram Air Base. Karzai wants to put American soldiers on trial while liberals yearn to do the same with Rush. Both proceedings would be sure to have all the fairness found in a kangaroo court.
Unfortunately, I suspect that this double standard is not likely to be raised by the White House Press Corps (with perhaps the possible exceptions of Jake Tapper at ABC or Ed Henry at FNC). If I were a member of that scrum, I would ask Jay Carney the two following questions, "In light of Rush Limbaugh's apology to Sandra Fluke for his inappropriate comments, why didn't you call upon Bill Maher to apologize for his inappropriate comments against Sarah Palin a year ago? Will President Obama now publicly call for the Super PAC acting on his behalf to return the $1 million donated by Maher?"
When it comes to Sarah Palin and other conservative women being pilloried for expressing their views on public policy, I don't think the Obama Administration will put the money where Bill Maher's mouth is. In other words, the Obama Administration has no waivers for conservative women like Sarah Palin.