Category Archives: free speech

Verizon Reverses Itself, Allows Text Messages by NARAL Pro-Choice America

Posted on September 28th, 2007 | Comments Off on Verizon Reverses Itself, Allows Text Messages by NARAL Pro-Choice America

NARAL Pro-Choice America issued a press release this afternoon announcing that Verizon has reversed it’s decision of Sept 25, 2007 prohibiting it from using its text messaging services. The other major carriers never saw a problem. Verizon got a black eye for its censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America, claiming abortion was too controversial.

From NARAL Pro-Choice America’s press release:

“Let’s hope Verizon has learned a lesson today: citizen participation in democracy is neither ‘unsavory’ nor ‘controversial,'” NARAL Pro-Choice America’s ‘s President Nancy Keenan said. “As soon as the story first came out last night, we were deluged with calls from Americans outraged over Verizon’s corporate censorship. We thank all of our members, bloggers, and other concerned citizens who joined us in putting pressure on Verizon to reverse this decision. We should take great solace in this initial victory, but we must remain vigilant in preventing corporations, business interests, and other third parties from blocking Americans’ ability to participate in the democratic process.”

See our earlier post “Are Democrats Next to be Banned from Texting by Verizon?” for more background.

Comments Off on Verizon Reverses Itself, Allows Text Messages by NARAL Pro-Choice America

Posted in free speech

Tagged , ,

Are Democrats Next to be Banned from Texting by Verizon?

Posted on September 27th, 2007 | Comments Off on Are Democrats Next to be Banned from Texting by Verizon?

The headline on an article in the New Times today reads, “Verizon Rejects Text Messaging From an Abortion Rights Group.” Verizon has teamed up with the political philosophy of the Chinese Government in saying it has the right to block “controversial or unsavory text messages”.

Verizon has rejected a request by Naral Pro-Choice America to allow its customers to sign up to receive text messages. The New Times notes that the other major wireless carriers have allowed their customers to sign up to receive text messages.

Verizon, by refusing the request to set up the text messaging program, prevents all messaging by Naral – including those that for example ask someone to contact their US Senator to oppose pharmacists refusing to provide US approved birth control or opposing Bush’s global gag rule against birth control for the world’s poorest women.

What wasn’t clear from the article was how Verizon arrived at its decision that the Naral text messages were controversial. Does Verizon, or would it, also ban text messages from any Pro Life group then as a result of this decision? It was a blanket denial for Naral.

By its action Verizon is saying it has the right to censor any group it deems controversial. I wonder if Verizon had existed in the South in 1860 if they would have banned texting by any group opposing Slavery as this was surely controversial.

Or would they if they had existed in 1890 have opposed any groups advocating for the Right of Women to Vote as this was surely controversial then.

Entering the world of corporate censorship is pretty scary to say the least. It puts Verizon in the category of the form of censorship that China does, prohibiting the free exchange of ideas. Some of this censorship is self imposed by business like Goggle so they can do business in China. For example Goggle Blogoscoped found about 9% of a list of 10,000 commonly used words were self censored by Goggle from the Chinese, including words like democracy, democrat, democratic, political, politics, rights and repression.

Is the issue of gun control controversial in Verizon’s eyes? Would Verizon accept text messages from the National Rifle Association and ban those from Cease Fire? Or would it ban all messages from groups advocating or opposing any gun use issue.

What about a group sending out messages about the Iraq War? Will it accept messages from some political groups and not others or ban all messages by groups with a position on this controversial issue? What about the recent controversy over MoveOn.org and General Petraeus? Would it now ban text messaging from MoveOn.org but allow those of a group calling itself Swiftboat Veterans for Petraeus? I made up the swiftboat name and am not aware of such a group but how does Verizon as a private company intend to make decisions as to which organizations to censor and which issues are controversial?

The original question of Verizon banning Naral text messaging actually has a swiftboating analogy. The company, Creative Response Concepts , that produced the swiftboat ads against Kerry is actually involved in the abortion /”Pro Life” issue, as AlterNet reports in a post entitled “Swiftboaters Recruited to Push Abstinence”

Creative Design Concepts has been hired involved by the National Abstinence Education Association to run a public relations campaign supporting abstinence only education policies. Does Verizon’s rejection of Naral’s controversial text messages also mean that the National Abstinence Education Association and Creative Response Concepts are also prohibited from using Verizon’s text messaging program or would Verizon allow them to do so if they wanted to.

Verizon has created a huge public relations blunder and in fact has now contributed greatly to the rationale for net neutrality. As the NY Times notes


“The dispute over the Naral messages is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of “net neutrality” — whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.
“This is right at the heart of the problem,” said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. “The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling.”
In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation’s two largest wireless carriers, told Naral that it does not accept programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”


OK I am a Verizon user and so is my family. I am going to take Verizon at their word saying that they not accept message programs from groups that may be seen as “controversial or unsavory to any of our users” I am sure I am not alone in saying that I as a user find the Republican Party’s agenda for America offensive and I find the Iraq War offensive. So please , Verizon, do not allow any group that supports the Republican Party or the Iraq War to set up a text messaging program. I do not consider the Democratic Party controversial so please allow any Democratic organization to text. Thanks for listening and responding.

Addendum: For the record, according to AlterNet, the Swift Boat Ad Group, “Creative Response Concepts’ other clients have included the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, the Discovery Institute (a Seattle-based think tank that promotes “intelligent design” creationism), Regnery Publishing (a conservative publisher with David Limbaugh, David Horowitz, and Oliver North among their authors’ list), the Coalition for Patient Choice (a group advocating against managed care reforms, and which includes the conservative Eagle Forum as a member), the Media Research Center (a conservative media watchdog organization which recently honored Rush Limbaugh with the “Buckley Award for Media Excellence”), and a group called USA Next (which was formed as an alternative to the “liberal activism” of the AARP).”

Update – As reported on ClickZ this afternoon Verizon has reversed itself and now will allow text messages from Naral Pro Choice America. Naral issued a press release noting that over 20,000 messages protesting Verizon’s action were sent to Verizon in just 2 hours..

 

Comments Off on Are Democrats Next to be Banned from Texting by Verizon?

Posted in Democrats, free speech

Tagged , , , , , , ,

"Burn the Books. Who Needs Science?" says Bush to EPA

Posted on December 20th, 2006 | Comments Off on "Burn the Books. Who Needs Science?" says Bush to EPA

In Germany in 1933 they burned the books for having “unGerman ideas”. Here in America today the Bush Environmental Protection Agency is literally doing the same on behalf of its conservative corporate patrons supporting the Republican Party by closing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Libraries and destroying material.

The EPA, under Bush’s directive is quietly and rapidly closing the libraries in their national and regional offices without Congressional oversight or approval. The head of the EPA is appointed by Bush and does his bidding.

As the Kansas City Star reports, regional EPA libraries in Kansas City, Chicago, and Dallas have been closed. The National EPA library has closed along with a specialized library on chemicals. Other libraries like in Seattle are on reduced hours and are in imminent danger of being closed.

It is another action by the Bush Imperial Presidency that believes it can do whatever it wants. It is another example of the Bush Administration’s blatant hostility toward science and environmental concerns. They are carrying out the anti-environmental agenda of their corporate patrons with the fervor of Nazi Stormtroopers.
The American Library Association reports that:

“the EPA is closing libraries and dispersing resources in accordance with an Administration budget directive that has neither been approved nor formally enacted by Congress. Implementation of the library reorganization is proceeding at a rapid pace. Reports of the library closures, information destruction, and property auctions continue to surface despite the objections to the plan raised by EPA professional staff, EPA employee union representatives and the American Library Association. “

As one after another of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional libraries close, both public access and access by EPA scientists is lost, further hindering the implementation of public policy based on science rather than politics. As books and scientific studies are being boxed up and sent to storage, material is also being destroyed. It is Bush’s modern day equivalent to Hitler’s “Book Burning.”

Ironically this closing of the libraries of the EPA is not hypocritical on the part of the corporate friendly anti-science Bush/Cheney Administration. Most of their decisions have not been based on science anyway but on politics. Global warming is just one example.
Democrats in Congress have tried to stop the library closings but have been ignored by Bush. They have asked that all closing of libraries be stopped immediately. As noted in a November 30th letter to the EPA :

“Eighteen Senators sent a letter on November 3, 2006, to leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee asking them to direct EPA “to restore and maintain public access and onsite library collections and services at EPA’s headquarters, regional, laboratory and specialized program libraries while the Agency solicits and considers public input on its plan to drastically cut its library budget and services”(attached). Yet, despite the lack of Congressional approval and the concerns expressed over this plan, your Agency continues to move forward with dismantling the EPA libraries.

The National EPA Library closed on Oct 1, 2006. I know there really wasn’t any need for any of the Republican Congress or Bush’s cabinet or Presidential staff to really have an environmental library, particularly in Washington, D.C. They never used it. But the EPA library also had been open to the public and of course the EPA staff. But with things changing in Congress Bush doesn’t want any facts and science to get into the hands of any incoming Congressional Democrats who might read it and use it as they pass laws. So shut the damn thing down quick before anyone has a chance to stop what’s being done. No public input. No budget approval.

Beginning October 1, 2006, the EPA Headquarters Library, located in Room 3340 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, will become one of three EPA repositories for paper copies of EPA documents, reports and publications. The other two repositories will be located at the EPA-RTP Library, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 27711, and at the Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268.”

Rather than the regional offices having access to scientific information in each of their offices the plan is to box it up and send it to a repository. And probably destroy any duplicates. It’s much easier to only have one copy or no copies of a negative pesticide report to hide than multiple reports in offices around the country. And when you close a library you no longer have a need for a librarian to run the library – that’s one less person who knows about the reports.

The Bush EPA PR people are saying that the material will be digitized and put on the computer. But wouldn’t you do that before you shut everything down? Where is the plan. It’s just like Iraq? No plan – shoot first. The Republican scheme of things is box it up, because once it’s boxed up, fewer people will have access to deciding what is to be digitized. Its called controlling and denying access to information. Like you can really expect that the reports critical of Bush’s position of doing nothing on global warming are going to put up on the Internet?

On Dec 13, 2006 ALA President Leslie Burger issued the following:

It is a gross oversimplification to state that everyone benefits when libraries go digital.

This is only true when there is a thoughtful digitization plan that ensures valuable information is not lost and public access is retained. We are still waiting for the EPA to disclose its digitization plan and budget,” Burger said.

All this is just one more reason to support a Democrat for President in 2008. Bush represents the Republican philosophy of supporting corporations over public health and the environment. He supports controlling access to information over open public libraries that foster a free exchange of information. He doesn’t support science or the use of science in making public policy.

Do you hear any Republicans running for President protesting the closing of the EPA libraries? I don’t. Things just get worse and worse under Bush, despite the Nov elections because he is not going to listen or act in the behalf of the public interest. Shutting down the EPA libraries has nothing to do with saving money. It has all to do with the continued assault by corporate America on science and putting economic interests of the corporations above public health and the environment.

I urge you to contact your members of Congress and demand the EPA libraries be kept open. Congress needs to hear from us that this assault on science, libraries and the environment is not acceptable. If we don’t speak up who will?

Comments Off on "Burn the Books. Who Needs Science?" says Bush to EPA

Posted in Environment, free speech, Republicans

Tagged , , , , , ,

Support Big Media Ownership on Thursday in Seattle.

Posted on November 27th, 2006 | Comments Off on Support Big Media Ownership on Thursday in Seattle.

Are you tired of channel surfing, trying to check different news stories? How about having more than one newspaper to read like Seattle does with the Seattle PI and Seattle Times? Tired of too damn many different radio stations that give you different editorial opinions that conflict with each other?

Life is too cluttered and busy to have to figure all this out. The answer is media consolidation. Let corporate America own as many radio and TV and newspapers as they want. Eventually it won’t matter whether you hear the news on Channel 5 or 7 or 4 or 13. It won’t matter which radio station you listen to. And you won’t ever have to read more than one newspaper. Because one corporation will own them all and the “news” and the opinions will all be the same.

Just think, you could get all the news you want on either Fox TV or FOX Radio or the FOX newspaper. Because they could own all the media in a market like Seattle or Washington State or the West Coast or the USA. And no matter whether you listened or watched or read, it would all be the same stories, same opinion, same conclusions.

Who really needs all these different news outlets and different opinions?

If you agree with this opinion I suggest you keep it to yourself and just let Fox and others decide what we can listen to, read and watch.

If you disagree with this opinion then I suggest you check out this opinion by The Nation on Nov 24, 2006 which warns that:

“… once again, media-industry lobbyists and their allies on the FCC are working to revise the rules on media ownership to allow a single corporation to own most, if not all, of the newspapers, radio and TV stations and Internet news and entertainment sites in your town. Last June, new FCC chairman Kevin Martin issued a draft policy proposal — called a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making — that kick-started Big Media’s latest attempt to weaken the rules protecting local voices, vibrant competition and diverse viewpoints.”

They suggest you visit the website Reclaim the Media which alerts us to a Seattle hearing this week on media ownership.

“On Nov. 30, a Seattle public hearing on media ownership, takes place at the Seattle Public Library, with FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. The hearing will help the FCC gather public comment as it considers revising its media ownership rules, which help protect viewpoint diversity by limiting the number of newspapers, TV and radio stations a single company may own or control. This is Seattle’s opportunity to weigh in on an issue which is critical to our culture and our democracy. The hearing takes place at 6pm, Thursday Nov. 30, in the Seattle Public Library‘s main auditorium. Stay tuned for more details! Hearing cosponsored by Reclaim the Media, The Seattle Times, KBCS 91.3fm Community Radio, the Minority Executive Directors Coalition and the UW Department of Communication.”

You can either testify at the hearing or send the FCC your statement opposing media consolidation. Click here , courtesy of Stop Big Media ,to send an e-mail. Rewrite the sample message in your own words. Comments are due by Dec. 21, 2006

Senator Maria Cantwell and Rep Jay Inslee will make opening statements at the hearing.

see also:
““FCC Hearing in Seattle” – OlyBlog 11/19/2006
Hold the line on media consolidation” – Seattle Times Ray Blethan 11/24/2006

Comments Off on Support Big Media Ownership on Thursday in Seattle.

Posted in free speech

Tagged

"Words" Assaulted Vice President Cheney? Arrested Man Sues Secret Service.

Posted on October 4th, 2006 | Comments Off on "Words" Assaulted Vice President Cheney? Arrested Man Sues Secret Service.

A man arrested in June after he told Vice President Cheney “I think your polices in Iraq are reprehensible” has filed suit in Federal Court saying a Secret Service agent violated his civil rights. It is quite telling that the arrest occurred 10 minutes after the man spoke to Cheney. The agent asked that the man be charged with harassment but the charges were later dropped.

from the New York Times:

In his suit, filed in Federal District Court in Denver, the man, Steven Howards, an environmental consultant who lives in Golden, Colo., says he stepped up to the vice president to speak his mind in a public place and found himself in handcuffs — in violation, the suit says, of the Constitution’s language about free speech and illegal search and seizure

from the Rocky Mountain News :

Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.

According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible,” or words to that effect, then walked on.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards’ lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had “assaulted” the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

The lawsuit states that the Secret Service agent instructed that Howards should be issued a summons for harassment, but that on July 6 the Eagle County District Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges against Howards.

from the Vail Daily on 6/19/2006 – Secret Service Quiet about Man Arrested Near Cheney:

BEAVER CREEK – The U.S.Secret Service is offering no details about the arrest of Steven Howards, who they allege acted strangely around Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday during an economic summit in Beaver Creek.

“His behavior and demeanor wasn’t quite right,” Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren saidon Friday. “The agents tried to question him, and he was argumentative and combative.”

On Monday, another spokesman for the Secret Service refused to say what wasn’t quite right” about Howards’ demeanor and whether federal charges were brought against Howards.

“No further comment,” said the spokesman, Jonathan Cherry.

The New York Times notes two other case of the Bush/Cheney effort to stifle free speech and dissent that are before the courts. In another Colorado case two people are suing for being evicted from a public event because their car had an anti-war sticker. The other case is in West Virginia where two people were arrested for wearing ant-Bush t-shirts.

Last April in a post entitled “Annoy Me, Go to Jail” we discussed this same intolerance of any thing not pleasing to Republican ears and its attempt to stifle free speech on the internet.

Republican hypocrisy crys out to us again and again . The Constitution is a great thing until someone exercises it against them – like the right to free speech.

Comments Off on "Words" Assaulted Vice President Cheney? Arrested Man Sues Secret Service.

Posted in free speech, Republicans

Tagged ,

"The Path to 9/11" – Conservatives Attempt to Re-write History.

Posted on September 9th, 2006 | Comments Off on "The Path to 9/11" – Conservatives Attempt to Re-write History.

Melanie McFarland in the Seattle PI today makes an outrageous statement about the controversial Disney/ABC movie on 9/11 slated to be aired this Sunday and Monday.

“Some groups, including members of Congress, also requested the show be pulled from broadcast altogether. Wrong move. No political body in a free society has the right to pressure any network into censoring entertainment, even one with factual misrepresentations.”

There is a stange concept here. Two months before an election that could change the political party controlling Congress, McFarland considers a conservative re-writing of what actually happened on 9/11, entertainment and that one shouldn’t question the truthfulness of what is depicted.

Republicans and Bush are trying to make 9/11 and fighting terrorists part of their political game plan to retain Republican control of Congress. Yet McFarlard in her article headline says “Fudged drama put ‘Path to 9/11’ on slippery slope”. So how is it censoring something when members of Congress and others, including those actually represented,say that the movie is full of factual misrepresentations and untruths and should not be aired as written.

Does McFarland really believe that a movie entitled ‘The Path to 9/11″ will be seen as a fictional made up ‘story’ for entertainment? Most members of the public will see no distinction between a so called docudrama and and a documentary. They will see what appears to be a truthful rendition of what happened. Problem is, it isn’t truthful.

Just like H.G.Wells’ infamous radio reading of “The War of the Worlds”, presented as if true for entertainment value, most viewers also will not notice the disclaimer by Disney/ABC which also says it based on the 9/11 Commission report.

The Washington Post on Thursday noted:

Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her “false and defamatory.” Former national security adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger said the film “flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions.” And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: “It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known.”

ABC’s entertainment division said the six-hour movie, “The Path to 9/11,” will say in a disclaimer that it is a “dramatization . . . not a documentary” and contains “fictionalized scenes.” But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission’s report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.

As the Washington Post notes, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media are not considering it fictional.

Limbaugh, saying that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a friend of his, told his radio audience that the film “indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail.”

Elsewhere the Washington Post notes: “Nowrasteh, who has described himself as a conservative …”

Do you start to get the picture? The screenwriter for this movie is not unbiased but is producing a movie in which he is adding made up dialogue that represents his political bias. He did not consult with the principals like Madeline Albright as to what she may have said or how she reacted but is instead putting words into their mouths to say that are not true.

And as ThinkProgress notes, while Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives received copies of the movie, requests by principals in the movie, like President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, were not given copies of the film to review, despite sending letters requesting to get a copy.

And to further call into question that this movie is not politically motivated, answer why George W Bush has scheduled a press conference at 9 P.M. on the second day of the movie. This will preempt the show on that day and move it’s starting time back. Bush wants to be associated with this movie and has set himself up to be the leadin on Monday night.

See also:
The Oregonian – ABC’s “Path to 9/11” problematic, no matter what
CoolAqua – Willful Deception, ABC/Disneys Partisan & Libelous Attack on History
CoolAqua – Disney Management Puts Party (RNC) Above Fudiciary Responsibilities
Evergreen Politics – The Story Behind ABC’s “Path to 9/11”
PamSpalding.cpm – The Pet Goat excised from ABC’s “Path to 9/11”
ThinkProgress – ABC Refuses to Provide Copies of Path to 9/11 to Clinton, Albright, Berger
Northwest Progressive – President Clinton to ABC – Pull this Trash

Comments Off on "The Path to 9/11" – Conservatives Attempt to Re-write History.

Posted in Congress, free speech

Tagged , ,

God is Not in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights

Posted on July 8th, 2006 | 4 comments

Neither God or Jesus are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Nor are they mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Satan also doesn’t show up. Colin McGinn was on Bill Moyers special series on Faith and Reason on PBS last night and mentioned that God is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

So I checked this morning and could not find God or Jesus or any of his disciples, or for that matter Satan, in the U.S. Constitution. I guess I just never looked that closely before because to hear all the debate from the right wing evangelicals and Bush conservatives I could have sworn it had to be there somewhere or what was all the fanatical noise about – like “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

It’s like if you don’t say “under God” when you say the Pledge of Allegiance you willl never be able to run for public office or if in public office you shall be voted out. There are probably people who think you shouldn’t even be allowed to vote, unless you believe in God.

The current President Bush’s Father, George G.W. Bush seemed to believe that, when he told an atheist that,
“No, I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

Curiously Article VI Section (3) of the U.S. Constitution is the only reference to religion in the original Constitution and it says “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution: but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States.

The framers of the Constitution were saying said that there shall be no test as to whether one shall be a Catholic, or a Protestant or other member of a religious community to hold office.

But wait a minute. There is also the test of public opinion. What does the Pledge of Allegiance say?

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Um, isn’t this some kind of religious test? Seems to me my very own Congressman, Jim McDermott was skewered for not saying “under God” in the past. It seems to me that some people are and have made this a religious test of sorts and that they are out of step with the U.S. Constitution. Evangelicals want people to profess support for a statement which singles out a specific belief system.

More clearly, there’s the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. It says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: …”

By singling out” under God,” as distinct from eliminating this phrase and going back to the previous version before 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance is a statement affirming a specific religious belief that a Christian God exists, as distinct from other religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court has previously said that no one shall be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, but public pressure and ostracism awaits anyone you doesn’t. It is in fact a form of religious discrimination and bigotry.

All this pressure to recite the words, under God, in the Pledge of Allegiance are contrary to what America should represent at it’s best. It is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a sign that we still have to go a lot further to go eliminate religious intolerance.

Interestingly enough but not suprisingly, there have been attempts to add God and Jesus to the US constitution. Christian attempts to amend the US Constitution occurred in 1864, 1874, 1896 and 1911.

The original version of these amendments stated “We, the people of the United States recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Wisely Congress never passed this or similar amendments . But that doesn’t mean God didn’t creep in in other ways. For example, there is our current national moto which is printed on our money.

Wikipedia notes that “In God We Trust” is the national motto of the United States of America. It was so designated by an act of Congress in 1956 and officially supersedes “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of Many, One) according to United States Code, Title 36, Section 302. President Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July 1956.[1


4 Comments

Posted in free speech

Tagged , , ,

You’re Kidding? Rumsfeld Approved Photos?

Posted on July 3rd, 2006 | Comments Off on You’re Kidding? Rumsfeld Approved Photos?

No, I kid you not. The Republican war hysteria noise machine pulled a fast one on the American people and the news media. New York Times photographer Linda Spillers told Glenn Greenwald in an e-mail that:

“Ironically, photos were taken with Secretary Rumsfeld‘s permission.”

Greenwald wrote a detailed scathing commentary on the bogus Republican hit on the New York Times Travel section, that included pictures of Rumsfeld‘s vacation home, entitled “Conservative pundits reveal murderous plot by the Travel Section of the NYT! “

As Greenwald reports in a new post today entitled, “What is Left of Malkin,Hinderkaer and Horowitz’s Credibility?”

“The reprehensible lynch mob hysterics – Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Red State, David Horowitz – spent the weekend screaming that the Times was guilty of gross recklessness and/or a deliberate intent to have Rumsfeld killed, by virtue of publication of this article. That bloodthirsty frenzy caused other bloggers to
publish the home address and telephone number of Spillers and urged that other NYT editors and reporters be “hunted down.” Other followers of Malkin and Hinderaker suggested to their readers that this was yet more evidence of the unpatriotic recklessness of the NYT.

All along, Don Rumsfeld gave his express permission to the NYT for these photographs to be taken. How can anything other than complete scorn be heaped on Malkin, Hinderaker, Horowitz, Red State, and all of the uber-patriotic copycat accusers who spent the weekend spewing the most dangerous accusations possible based on completely false premises? Who would think that any of them have a shred of credibility after seeing how irresponsible and impervious to facts they are — even when knowingly catalyzing lynch mobs against people?”

Once again the Republican’s have succeeded in diverting attention from the real issues by putting up a smokescreen and changing the topic away from issues they can not justify. Instead of questions being pursed about Bush’s Presidential authority to go through bank records in pursuit of terrorists, the issue becomes the New Times Times and patriotism. Then it becomes trumped up charges of trying to kill Rumsfeld. Again noise, noise, noise and the media follows the noise like children following the Pied Piper.

Where is the backbone of the press? Is our countries destiny to have a press approved by Presidential fiat only? Say bye, bye free press, unless everyone wakes up and sees the lies and deceit of an arrogant President and his followers who believe they are above the law. The issue here is one of Presidential power and a free press.

The Republican noise machine is in full force. Divide and conquer. The Republican answer to any questions of Constitutionality and Presidential power is to say we are in a war and that trumps all else. But if we give up a free press we have lost the war anyway.

Comments Off on You’re Kidding? Rumsfeld Approved Photos?

Posted in free speech, General interest, Republicans

Tagged , , ,

Dirty Dog New York Times and Free Press are Traitors!

Posted on July 3rd, 2006 | Comments Off on Dirty Dog New York Times and Free Press are Traitors!

The right wing Republican Noise Machine has jumped into hyperdrive this last week. The hysteria is foaming. Like the rapist accusing his victim, they have mounted an assault on the New York Times that explodes with venom and war time hysteria. They are attaching the very idea of a free press as unpatriotic.

Several others have done excellent posts on the issue and I recommend them to you.

Dave Neiwert of Orcinus – The Drums of Elimination

“Documenting the mounting drumbeat of eliminationist rhetoric from the American right has long been a staple of this blog. But even I have to shake my head in wonder at the turn of events this past week — most of it in the wake of the New York Times’ publication of stories detailing the Bush administration’s use of banking data in its search for terrorists.The upshot has been a significant escalation in this rhetoric, coming not just from the usual rabid quarters but coming over the national airwaves from figures who supposedly represent mainstream conservatism — and it is aimed not just at the usual “liberal” targets, but at the entire institution of the free press.”

Paul Waldman at Media Matters – “A Declaration of War”

“This week, the conservatives declared war.
Not on The New York Times.
Not even on the media in general. No, this week the entire conservative movement — from the White House to Republicans in Congress to Fox News to right-wing talk radio to conservative magazines — declared war on the very idea of an independent press.
They declared war on the idea that journalists have not just the right but the obligation to hold those in power accountable for their actions. They declared war on the idea that journalists, not the government and not a political party, get to decide what appears in the press. They declared war on the idea that the public has a right to know what the government is doing in our name.”
This is a profound threat to our democracy, and we underestimate it at our peril.

Glenn Greenwood at Unclaimed Territory – “Conservative Pundits reveal murdeous plot by the Travel Section of the NY Times”

“I learned today from Michelle Malkin, Powerline’s John Hinderaker, Red State, and David Horowitz, among others, that The New York Times not only wants to help Al Qaeda launch terrorist attacks on the United States, but that newspaper also want to do everything possible to enable The Terrorists to ssassinate Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. That is the conclusion which these sober leaders of “conservative” punditry drew after reading

this article in the Times’ Travel section, which features the tiny, charming village of St. Michaels on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where both Cheney and Rumsfeld have vacation homes.”

Comments Off on Dirty Dog New York Times and Free Press are Traitors!

Posted in free speech, Republicans

Tagged , ,

Federal Election Commission Clarifies Rules on Internet Blogging and Federal Candidates

Posted on May 17th, 2006 | Comments Off on Federal Election Commission Clarifies Rules on Internet Blogging and Federal Candidates

On May 12, 2006 the Federal Election Commission’s amended rules on the use of the internet in Federal election campaigns went into effect. Bloggers in Washington State have been very active blogging on candidates for US Senate and Congress, like Darcy Burner and Peter Goldmark running for Congress and Maria Cantwell running for re-election to the US Senate..

The new rules are in response to a recent US District Court decision that said the Commission could not give a wholesale exemption from reporting for all Internet activity.

The FEC, in adopting new rules, clarified a number of issues involved but basically exempted all blogging and Internet communication from campaign reporting except for paid advertisements placed on another person’s website.

Surprisingly this exemption for bloggers even included the rabid, rapidly growing in number, rapacious, not so vacuous and insipid as to make you cry bloggers here in Washington state and the Northwest. That doesn’t mean they aren’t busy over at the NSA trying to decipher what it is we’re saying.

The 26 pages of clarification and rules were published April 12, 2006 in the Federal Registry. They make for interesting reading for all bloggers and anyone interested in the free and unregulated use of the Internet under the First Amendment.

“Through this rulemaking, the Commission recognizes the Internet as a unique and evolving mode of mass communication and political speech that is distinct from other media in a manner that warrants a restrained regulatory approach. The Internet’s accessibility, low cost, and interactive features make it a popular choice for sending and receiving information.

Unlike other forms of mass communication, the Internet has minimal barriers to entry, including its low cost and widespread accessibility. Whereas the general public can communicate through television or radio broadcasts and most other forms of mass communication only by payingsubstantial advertising fees, the vast majority of the general public who choose to communicate through the Internet can afford to do so.

When paid advertising on another person’s website does occur on the Internet, the expense of that advertising sets it apart from other uses of the Internet, although even the cost of advertising on another entity’s website will often be below the cost of advertising in some other media.

These final rules therefore implement the regulatory requirements mandated by the Shays District decision by focusing exclusively on Internet advertising that is placed for a fee on another person’s website. In addition, these rules add new exceptions to the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” to protect individual and media activity on the Internet. As a whole, these final rules make plain that the vast majority of Internet communications are, and will remain, free from campaign finance regulation. To the greatest extent permitted by Congress and the Shays District decision, the Commission is clarifying and affirming that Internet activities by individuals and groups of individuals face almost no regulatory burdens under the Federal Election Campaign Act. The need to safeguard Constitutionally protected political speech allows no other approach

The FEC noted in its decision that the number of people who relied on the internet for campaign information increased from 30 million in 2000 to 63 million in 2004. They cited reports that some 11 milion people in 2004 looked to blogs as their main source of information and some 18% of American citizens in 2004 viewed the internet in general as their main information source in deciding on who to vote for as President.

Regarding blogging specifically, the Commission noted that:

In light of the evolving nature of Internet communications, the Commission is not explicitly excluding from the definition of ‘‘public communication’’ any particular software or format used in Internet communications. The final rules already exclude ordinary blogging activity from the definition of ‘‘public communication’’ because blog messages are not placed for a fee on another person’s Web site. Thus, an explicit exclusion focused on ‘‘blogging’’ is not only unnecessary but also potentially confusing to the extent that it implies that other forms of Internet communication, such as ‘‘podcasting’’ or e-mailing, might be regulated absent an explicit exclusion for each different form of Internet communication.

The commission also excludes e-mail as a form of political advertising subject to regulation and disclosure. It bases its decision on the fact that e-mail is basically a free activity with no cost involved.

Posting a video is also excluded from regulation and disclosure unless it is placed on another website for a fee.

Comments Off on Federal Election Commission Clarifies Rules on Internet Blogging and Federal Candidates

Posted in Elections, free speech

Tagged , , ,