President Barack Obama and his Democrat Party are doing everything they can to squelch the First Amendment. Which in part reads:
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
To undo these rights – and to open the Pandora’s Box of bad actions that will inexorably follow – President Obama and his Party are attacking on all fronts.
The Obama Administration has illegally, unilaterally imposed Network Neutrality.
All things news, media and communications will in the not-too-distant future be delivered solely on the Web.
Thusly is Net Neutrality your one-day-soon one-stop-shop for censorship.
Have a radio talk show host you want to shut up? Net Neutrality.
Have a TV show you don’t like? Net Neutrality.
Someone writing something of which you aren’t fond? The Big NN.
As every place we get our news and information continue their rapid migration to the Internet, Net Neutrality will lord larger and larger over the free market – and our free speech.
Who on the Web is the Democrat-Government Complex going to favor? Breitbart.com’s Big Government – or DailyKos and MoveOn.org?
Not illegal and unilateral enough for you?
Obama Gives Himself Control of All Communication Systems in America
US President Barack Obama quietly signed his name to an Executive Order on Friday, allowing the White House to control all private communications in the country in the name of national security.
But President Obama’s just getting warmed up. He and his Democrats are again pushing the DISCLOSE Act. Which forces every political donor – i.e. engager in the First Amendment – to be turned in to the federal government.
Democrats and their allies want to pass (the DISCLOSE Act) in order to be able to intimidate donors to the GOP, to Romney, and to conservative causes….
(W)ithout knowing the identity of the donors who are giving the money to the GOP, they can’t send their mobs arising out of the “Occupy” movement and like-minded groups to the homes of donors in an effort to intimidate them into closing their checkbooks.
Think we’re exaggerating?
Last week, for example, hoards of protesters descended on a neighborhood in New York to picket the home of a couple holding a Romney fundraiser, including a plane towing an obnoxious banner overhead.
Think we’re exaggerating?
Democratic Campaign ‘Trackers’ Tape, Post Videos of Republicans’ Homes
Think we’re exaggerating?
Prop 8 Donor Web Site Shows Disclosure Law Is 2-Edged Sword
FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation….
The targets of this harassment blame a controversial and provocative Web site, EightMaps.com.
The site takes the names and ZIP codes of people who donated to the ballot measure — information that California collects and makes public under state campaign finance disclosure laws — and overlays the data on a Google map….
EightMaps.com is the latest, most striking example of how information collected through disclosure laws intended to increase the transparency of the political process, magnified by the powerful lens of the Web, may be undermining the same democratic values that the regulations were to promote.
You think?
And once the Democrat-Government Complex has detailed details of Republican donors, the possibilities are endless.
(M)ultiple (auto bailout recipient Chrysler and General Motors) dealers who have been closed are found to have contributed millions to Republicans and mere hundreds to Obama….
“It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers. It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President (Obama)’s automotive task force,” said attorney Leonard Bellavia.
And wait until the Democrat-Government Complex gets a hold of health care – and the IPAB board gets to decide which donors get treated, and which donors do not.
The First Amendment was written primarily and mainly to protect political speech. Turning in free speakers to government fundamentally undermines that Constitutional protection.
We need transparency FROM government – not transparency TO government.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.