Article Archives by Subject:  Speech

03-26-2010

Permalink



Shut Up!
Subject: Obama's Full Frontal Attack on Free Speech

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, two articles discuss the immediate effect of the new health care legislation. In ObamaCare Day One, we hear about companies like Caterpillar, which is reporting a first year cost of $100 million or more in order to comply with the new regulations. In another article titled The ObamaCare Writedowns, it is reported that government-mandated accounting rules require corporations to immediately restate earning to reflect the present value of their long-term health care liabilities and taxes. In response to that requirement, today AT&T took a one billion dollar writedown. Other companies reporting health care related losses include: Deere & Co, ($150 million); 3M Corporation ($90 million); AK Steel ($31 million); Valero Energy ($20 million). The consulting firm Towers Watson is estimating that the total for all businesses may reach as high as $14 billion.

What does this mean? It means that the U.S. economy just lost another 14 billion dollars. That's $14 billion that will not be available for capital investment or research. $14 billion that is now unavailable for business expansion and new jobs creation. $14 billion that will never make it into the wallets of workers. That's $14 billion real dollars, created through productive work — not paper money simply run off the government's printing presses.

However, if that were not bad enough, just like kangaroo*, the President and his congressional cohorts are "hopping mad at this sort of talk!" How dare anyone say a bad word about their amazing technicolor gift to us all? Gary Locke, the Commerce Secretary, said that companies having the gaul to report such gigantic costs were being "irresponsible". And Representative Henry Waxman announced that in response, the Democrats are going to haul the heads of these businesses before a House panel and grill them on their statements. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to silence the CEOs through intimidation. In other words, its an all out attack on their free speech. And it's getting to be routine.

We saw Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America, silenced after being made the scapegoat for the Merrill Lynch fiasco. We've seen the automotive executives hauled before Congress, making it clear that they were to quietly comply with the government's nationalization of their industry—or else. Medical and insurance companies where threatened with punishment and placated with bribes to silence their opposition to the health care legislation. And when the medical device makers refused to go along, Congress slapped huge new taxes on them to make sure that everybody else got the point. Just another "teachable moment" for the Obama administration.

The main stream media has become nothing more than a propaganda tool for the administration, self-censoring any troublesome story including Climategate, ACORN, Anita Dunn's Mao comments, Van Jones, to name a few. Then there is Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar, who, in his book On Rumors, has proposed making internet blogs and hosting sites responsible for the remarks of posters, allowing the government and others to censor and demand deletion of objectionable "false rumors", or else be sued. Congress has threatened the reimposition of the "fairness doctrine" as a means of muting the voice of conservative commentators. And Representative Linda T. Sanchez introduced bill H.R.1966 in the House stating:
    Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Chilling open ended language like this could be used to silence anyone. Who is to say what qualifies as "substantial emotional distress"? And there is S.733, the Cybersecurity Act, sponsored by John Rockefeller, which anoints the President with the authority to shutdown the entire internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency", the definition of which is left entirely to his discretion. Legislation such as this empowers the President with the ability to stop all citizens from effectively communicating with one another with the wave of a hand.

The assault on our free speech is a clear and present danger, with this administration constantly testing the water to determine just what they can get away with. And given how the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act was just snuck through as a rider on the health care legislation, don't put it past this administration to try something similar with other controversial legislation that threatens your other rights.

Stay alert. No one else is looking out for your interests.


* "Kangaroo were hopping mad at this sort of talk. She thought herself far superior in intelligence to the others. She was their leader; their guru. She had the answer."   [Remind you of anyone?]
--
The Story Of The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles, by Jethro Tull
02-14-2010

Permalink



Craig Mundie
Subject: Government Takeover of the Internet

On April 1, 2009, Senators John Rockefeller [D-WV] and Olympia Snowe [R-ME] introduced the still pending S.773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which empowered the President to shutdown the internet for undefined "critical infrastructure information system or network" in the event of a further undefined "cybersecurity emergency". From the text of the bill:
    The President--(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network

On December 22, 2009, President Obama appointed former Microsoft security executive and Ebay CIO, Howard Schmidt, as the new "Cyber-Security Czar", with broad responsibilities to "secure government networks and critical U.S. infrastructures."

This followed the March 11, 2009 appointment of Microsoft's chief trustworthy infrastructure strategist, Philip Reitinger, to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where he was charged with "protection of the government's computer networks and [to] work with the private sector to help secure critical infrastructures."

Of course, when you think of computer security, Microsoft is the name that first comes to mind! Now, we have Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer, Craig Mundie, proposing that access to the web should require government registration — something equivalent to a "driver's license" — that would eliminate anonymity and allow everyone's activity to be tracked by the government. As others have pointed out, this is similar to a scheme recently tried and abandoned by the Chinese government as too repressive. But that hasn't stopped the United Nations from expressing interest is something along these lines as well.

So there you have it. Microsoft, a company which has demonstrated that it is unable to solve the technical problems relating to computer security, is now in charge of our technology infrastructure and proposing that instead, every citizen be registered, regulated and fully monitored as the best solution to achieving security.

The current administration's march towards a totalitarian state continues, one bill, one czar, and one regulation at a time, with their relentless advance for the repeal of individual rights, starting with the right to free speech. And remember Rahm Emanuel's dictum:
    "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

I believe that J. R. Dieckmann summed it up best when he wrote about Obama's appointment of a cyber-czar:
    Here is the problem that I see with this whole plan. We have seen the tactic used by this administration over and over again: find or create a crisis, then violate the people's liberties to deal with it. We saw it with the banking industry. We saw it with the mortgage industry. We're seeing it with the auto industry and the energy industry, the global warming hoax, and many others. This is a president who wants the federal government to control everything of any significance. Controlling the Internet would be most helpful to him in forcing his Marxist agenda down the throats of the American citizens.
    [...]
    Just like with the banking, energy, and auto industries, once Obama gets his foot inside the door he uses that foot to kick the door wide open and take over the industry. First come the government demands, then the regulations and finally the control. If we allow him to do this with the Internet then we can be assured that our first amendment rights to free speech will be seriously curtailed and the Democrat Socialists will gain a clear advantage in all future elections.

'Nuff said.