Posts Tagged ‘Bipartisanship’

h1

Obama’s Ice Age: The Chilling of Speech

June 9, 2009

I got wind of a story yesterday during  a local (Las Vegas, NV) AM radio show that may be the inspiration of an Orwellian sequal called 1985…or 1984 part II. 

Apparently, some comments on the Las VegasReview-Journal’s blog site have ruffled some feathers at the US Attorney’s Office.  None of the comments were criminal, libelous, nor did they seem to incite a clear and present danger to anyone.  The comments were normal for any online blog or website.  However, according to the Review-Journal, a Federal subpoena mandated the presentation of the:

full name, date of birth, physical address, gender, ZIP code, password prompts, security questions, telephone numbers and other identifiers … the IP address,” of all commenters on a certain post.

The Review Journal has decided to fight the subpoena “tooth and nail”.  For starters, the majority of the commenting public use pseudonyms, fake e-mail addresses, and the RJ does not require registration to comment; i.e., physical addresses, names, phone numbers (etc.).  It is impossible to find this information.  Further, these subpoenas will have a chilling effect on public discourse, and are in direct violation of the Supreme Court and the US Constitution’s views on the Freedom of Speech and the internet. 

Unlike child pornography and terorrist websites, the government does not have a compelling governmental interest in what I comment on the Las Vegas Review Journal or what websites I have visited.  This is in direct violation of everything the First Amendment stands for; public discourse.  I hope the Review Journal stands up for my liberties and rights as an American Citizen.  I enjoy participating in local politics and I have commented many times on such websites.  If these subpoenas are allowed, a horrible precedent would be set for future Federal Magistrates regarding subpoenas and warrants.  People will stop commenting and participating.  I agree that many of the posts are ignorant and have little to say, but the First Amendment is very clear

Congress shall make NO law respecting . . . or abridging the freedom of speech.

No sign of the ACLU just yet. 

-reagan21

h1

Congress will never be bipartisan UNTIL we gain control of it

October 29, 2008

I am not sure Pelosi understands what bipartisan means.  It does not mean the ability to do whatever the Democrats desire.  If the Dems gain to 60 senators, the conservative voice will be shut off.  No filabusters, no chance to override a veto (I can’t think of a scenario where this congress would override an Obama signing) and even no chance to have a radio station/tv station worth watching

The First Amendment was put in place to ensure healthy debate.  If one party has the control the debate is slashed, burned, and tossed to the wayside.   Two parties involved in the governental process, that is the definiton of bipartisan!!! Somehow a PC version of bipartisan has entered our vernacular.  Bipartisan now means to compromise with flowers in our hair whilst we ride on the backs of unicorns  to the free health clinic.  Who cares if there is argument and indecision.  That is how it was meant to be.  When one party is too powerful the will of the people is not always carried out.  Pelosi somehow thinks that if the Dems carry congress bipartisanship will magically emerge.  Man are we in trouble.

-reagan21