Posts Tagged ‘debates’

No Censorship; Keep the Internet Free as in Free Speech

December 11, 2010

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, has been on top of issues affecting freedom on the Internet. The wiki-leaks incidents are part of that.

I have said they are a distraction from other important issues, but upon viewing some of the things that have happened in the aftermath of the latest diplomatic leaks, it appears that our government has made it a more central issue again.

Without a conviction or court judgment, without formal charges, without even one court-ordered warrant to search or seize even one thing, without a chance for a formal legal defense, without the chance to face its accusers, the Obama-Clinton administration barely said “Boo” and got host to shut down the wiki-leaks website.

They got PayPal to shut down its account and cut off Assange’s access to several hundred dollars already in the account.

They got MasterCard and Visa to refuse all transactions with them.

And note that he is not even a United States citizen.

Meantime, it seems unbelievable to me that one buck private could have leaked all this. Take Hillary Clinton’s order to steal credit cards and other such personal information from the diplomats at the UN.

I’m sure most of those delegations, especially the big ones, engage in the same dirty shenanigans, but to have this on a system with so many having access to it is a security breach that would horrify any CIO of any company, and would send the stock price of any such public company to the floor.

They’re still blaming one buck private for all this, a guy who was probably sworn to keep these things secret and broke trust with his superiors, at least. If the charges are true, anyway.

But there is more to this.

This just may be an attempt by the United States to join the other nations of the world in high-handed attempts to control the Internet, and ban anything it doesn’t like. Under cover of “protecting national secrets”, watch them go beyond that to anybody who dares to information they get with others.

The KGB sent a message not so many months agone to defectors from its ranks, when it poisoned Alexander Litvinenko. The Obama-Clinton regime is trying to establish a precedent that it will use against dissenters.

Already there have been stealthy attacks on free speech in this country, which was once the very symbol of freedom for the world, a beacon of light.

In one of those attacks, Google cut off access to a website only after they had posted a video of a document analyst explaining the basis for his belief that the birth certificate posted on the candidate Obama website was fraudulent.

I don’t necessarily buy into that, and I also have sharp differences of opinion with the owner of that website, but she has as much right to say something, and so does that tech, as you or I do. Natural right, constitutional right, and how about some more glasnost?

But the stats graphs the web site owner cut and pasted and posted from Google itself showed the change the day after that story appeared.

And sometimes when I click on a Yahoo search result, they first give me a yahoo page telling me that Yahoo does not approve of that site! What!?! And proceed at my own risk!

This a lying, sniveling, sneaky way to censor by scaring off people who might not be able to see through the political arrogance of such a message!

I’m still searching for a good search engine to replace google and yahoo. The problem is that most of the other “search pages” use one or both of those search engines under the covers.


Judge Walker: Busted!

August 8, 2010

So says the headline: “Irate Prop. 8 backers say gay judge not impartial – Sacramento News:”

Get this, both a U-Cal professor Joslin AND this runaway judge expose their own moral arrogance with which they condemn others, condemning themselves by their own mouths, the judge in his own reasoning, and the professor in choosing this quote from the decision as an example of “impartiality”:

‘….Joslin said Walker’s 136-page decision, in which he declared that “moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,” reflected the legal determination of a seasoned jurist – not of an advocate for gay marriage….’

(1) First, that quote alone shows he is engaging in moral disapproval himself, and that

(2) ..and WITH NO FACTUAL BASIS WHATSOEVER, presumes to read the minds of all the citizens that voted YES to Proposition 8, telepathically one might assume,

(3) ..and presumes that they all voted “irrationally” on the basis of “moral disapproval alone”.

(4) I’m sure there were better arguments for Prop 8 before this gay judge by its advocates than reported, but it is an irrational judge that makes these presumptions, and if he did not request better arguments then he is incompetent.

(5) That might be something that reflects a “seasoned jurist” in the warped upside-down world of today’s wildly unconstitutional regimen, but not a rational jurist and not a just jurist.

(6) He presumes, along with many others, that there is a “right” to marry that they say is violated by the “equal protection under the law” clause. But then does he address the fact that nobody in their right mind before 1950 would be able to state that the Constitution clearly covered a constitutional “right” to marry anybody in the first place?

Or what moronic text at law lead them to believe that the developers Constitution could have ever envisioned that there would be a denial of the obvious distinction between the roles of natural man and natural woman?!

Of course that’s a rhetorical question, because these liars only use “constitutional review” to change the Constitution when it suits them, and they say so. The new definition of constitutionality in the schools of law across the country, is, “Whatever the Supreme Court says it is”.

But it’s not so. That’s another way of saying the Supreme Court is above the law.

Citizens should ask their politicians why have they never ever used their constitutional power to restrict the renegade decisions of the court?

But this arrogant unconstitutional judge also shows either a gigantic ignorance of the facts, or shows that he does not mind telling one of the biggest lie of gay advocacy –and being from the “Left Coast” as it’s been called, he cannot claim cover in ignorance:

“The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal,” Walker wrote in his exacting, 136-page opinion.

That word “better” in this “exacting” opinion has its own subjectivity load, but the rest of flies straight against every available metric of every available study. Where did this idiot get this? Wikipedia?

Nevertheless, the mindless zombies of the clueless, their brains rewired by Big Brother’s life-long indoctrinations, cheer on these lies as if they were gospel. All they had to do was to say it for one month, and now everybody thinks there’s a “gay gene”, another lie that apparently this imposter “judge” at least bit his lip to keep from saying.


Little Christian school out-debates them all, again

January 26, 2010

Homeschool haven Patrick Henry College tops Harvard and other colleges:

See this link:

Just 10 years old, 350-student Patrick Henry College won its fourth national debate championship in six years.

The Virginia evangelical Christian school, founded by the leading Christian homeschool organization, is the only college or university to win the American Collegiate Moot Court Association national championship more than once.

Other schools competing included Harvard, Miami, Syracuse, Holy Cross, the College of Wooster and Fitchburg State College.

PHC, in Purcellville, Va., near Washington, D.C., sent the maximum number of eight teams to the 64-team competition at Florida International University College of Law in Miami and placed first, third, ninth, 11th, 13th and 17th.