J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Freedom of Speech’ Category

Florida Rep. Kathy Cantor spoke to a roomful of people but said nothing about the same amount of people forced to stand in the hallway while being roughed up by some from the inside.

This is not telling us about health care. It’s ramming it down our throats with communist-like actions. And Pelosi talks about the “angry mobs wearing swastikas”. I haven’t seen a swastika yet, but I may have missed it.

Profanity Warning:

Here’s what was going on outside the meeting room in the hallway:

From the person who attended the mayhem and put it up on YouTube is this description of what went on in the hallway:

As Rep. Kathy Castor was introduced, the reaction was overwhelmingly against her, with boos and chants of “You work for us.” And in the lobby, the counter of Planned Parenthood representatives shouting, “Healthcare Now.”

Shortly thereafter, violence erupted, where there were 2-3 big goons came out and started pushing those in line, and roughing up one in the corner (see top left screen) as well as another being put in a choke hold. Directly in front of the gentleman in the plaid type shirt, is one of them in a flower print. (eleven o’clock from the camera phone in the scene.) To right of the phone, another in a white shirt. Keep your eye on him, as he then goes for the choke hold on one of the people.

Deep in the corner of your upper left screen, there’s a gentleman in a green shirt, whose is getting roughed up, as these two are pushing others. A police officer enters the seen, (Dark blue uniform, short, and a black officer.) You still see the gentleman getting roughed up. The cop not doing anything. They then let the guy go, as they slam the door shut. Later in the video, you see the officer conversing with the gentleman who got roughed. After a brief description from myself, the cop walks away.

And they wonder why we’re angry and think we’re paid ringers. I hope to have an opportunity to ask my congressman his opinion on health care and I will be respectful and listen politely.

Now from a reporter’s point of view:

It’s not just right-wing nuts, but Democrats and Independents, too, who are interested in keeping a public option off the table. It was the union thugs who helped “organize the meeting room” (line up chairs?) who beat up people in the hallway. Who knows what political persuasion they were. Even people in support of Obamacare were turned away. A back door for those in the know and the locked front door for the rest.

I do not condone violence or bad manners in a situation like this. I believe we should all listen to our congressmen/women and senators and hear them out and then ask the questions we have that concern us so everyone in the room can hear the answers.

But I’m not in charge and these people are really angry whatever side they support.

With the snitch on your neighbors, friends and family policy of the current administration and the in your face style of politics it plays and with Obama telling Democrat Congress people and senators to hit back twice as hard when opposed you can see this man has torn the country apart and not brought us together.

We haven’t seen tactics like this since the Viet Nam protests and the Nixon enemies’ list. This is shameful.

Tweet This Post

And they wonder why the crowds are angry. It’s not astroturf, Pelosi, Reid and Obama. It’s called “grass roots”, something that is done by people who believe in a cause and not because you dole money out to them to attend a meeting.

Tweet This Post

Every Republican member in both Houses of Congress should be questioning the health care snitch program the Obama administration has initiated.

I’m not aware if others have done so, but Senator Cornyn has addressed the issue in a letter to the White House:

A leading Republican US Senator on Wednesday sharply assailed a White House request for supporters to help track “fishy” claims about President Barack Obama’s plans to overhaul US health care.

“I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ?fishy? or otherwise inimical to the White House?s political interests,” John Cornyn of Texas wrote US President Barack Obama.

“As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights,” he wrote.

Cornyn was responding to a message on Tuesday from Obama’s director of new media, Macon Phillips, who asked on an official White House blog for members of the public to forward questionable claims to the administration.

Are we supposed to cower in fear at the mere thought of disagreeing with this administration? Should we not talk to our neighbors, friends or relatives about the important issues of the day due to fear of retribution in some form?

Who is going to maintain this list and exactly what type of information do they intend to secure?

I know this summer cold continues to have its moments when I feel like there is a waterfall traveling through my head so I hope I did not miss vitally important news.

Just checking. Do we still reside in the good old USA?

Senator Cornyn concludes with this:

Cornyn, who also leads the Republican effort to expand its 40-seat minority in the Senate, asked how the White House would use the information collected, what actions if any the White House would take against citizens linked to “fishy” claims, and whether they would be told about being flagged.

“I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House,” Cornyn wrote, referring to former president George W. Bush.

“I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program — and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action,” he wrote.

emphasis-admin

Well said, sir.

Tweet This Post

Rush Limbaugh in a radio interview with Mark Levin discusses recent events emanating from comments to members of congress attending a White House meeting:

[Warning: minimal strong language not suitable for children]

This clip was created by your Radio Equalizer

Tweet This Post

Civic responsibility in the form of Jury Duty calls today so I will not be posting the traditional Tuesday Tid-Bits.

I did however see this interesting video at the NRCC website which defines a series which has recently been completed.

The NRCC recently sat down with several Members of Congress to ask them about the most pressing issues facing voters today, and why the Republicans can, and will, win back the Majority. The web series, entitled “Rediscover Your Party,” will run throughout the fall.

This above video reflects a compilation of the 6 individual videos linked below. Many of the longstanding differences between the two controlling parties in Congress are addressed. The entire collection takes roughly 20 minutes to view.

Episode 1: Iraq
Episode 2: Earmark Reform
Episode 3: Accountability and Transparency
Episode 4: Free Speech
Episode 5 – Republicans Running to Regain the Majority
Final Episode: Election 2008

Tweet This Post

Verizon wireless has rejected a request from NARAL to allow text messages to its customers.

I’m a Verizon customer and have had the text messaging feature turned off when someone was sending pornographic text messages to me, but I’m still glad they are not doing this at least for now.

Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.

The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.

Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters.

But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

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.” Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times.

In another paragraph the spokesman for Verizon says they may reconsider their position.

Tweet This Post

Funny how you can read two articles back to back and one allows for a warm and prideful feeling while the other stirs a bit of anger and frustration.

Such was the case this morning as I first enjoyed this story from the Examiner.

We’re fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and debating them in Washington. Yesterday my oldest son left to join the Army.

In our circle of friends, it’s been the topic of lots of discussion and no small amount of criticism. This group is part of the information elite: people who live in coastal enclaves and get paid to move information around. They’re well-educated and well-traveled, have high incomes and typically view themselves as cosmopolitan in outlook.

Our kids are supposed to go to East Coast colleges and then to graduate or professional school, not join the military as enlisted men. In this circle, I count only one other family whose son went into the military. That’s two children out of maybe 50 or 60 families.

Reagrdless of the authors politics, anything which speaks to a parents fears for their child, moves the reader beyond disagreement. You tend to ignore the ” political statements” the writer incorporates and remember this:

Being a parent seems to be a series of those moments, of watching your children pulling away and stepping out into a wider and wider world of responsibility and risk. And after yesterday, my son will be in the widest and riskiest world there is.

I fed him and paid his tuition. He’s taken those materials, and now the man he’s used them to become has set out to navigate that wide, risky world. I watched his back again as he walked down our driveway last night.

HT: Lorie Byrd

Unfortunately, I moved immediately from Mr. Danzinger’s piece to one published in “The Recorder.”

The opinions of Ryan Yeomans move beyond critical thinking and thought provoking material to nothing more than a question in my mind of his understanding of world events and the serious threats we face today.

As of late, if you were to bring up the president in a discussion you would find that many Americans disapprove of the decisions he has made. At the same time, Osama bin Laden presents many good arguments against the president and many of his reasons for disapproving of Bush are similar to those of anti-Bush Americans. Would it be wrong to assume that there is some kind of connection between feelings of the American people and those of Osama bin Laden? As I would love to make this connection, I ultimately cannot because of the actions of our president. If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed.

In finding myself in this predicament, I questioned myself as to who the lesser evil actually is. I ask, “Who has done more damage to the lives of the American people?” Personally, I worry more about the next bad decision Bush is going to make than I worry about a potential Osama bin Laden organized terrorist attack.

I originally said this moved me to anger but in re-reading, I almost feel sorry for the author. There is a sense of BDS here which has moved him beyond reality if he is more frightened of his own government than he is of the capabilities of those who would kill him in an instant.

Fortunately there are those like Mr. Danzinger’s son and many, many others willing to take on the real enemy to preserve Mr. Yeoman’s right to express his views.

HT: Drudge

Tweet This Post

I believe this Washington Post article by Monica Hesse was meant to be her version of funny, but somehow I find it unhumorous.

Titled Fred, Fred, Fred: Thompson’s Challenge Has a Name she goes on to make fun of his name as some stupid hick from the back woods of the South.

I suppose a lot of people could and have made fun of my name, including me. The thing is, we didn’t name ourselves (except my sister who decided to take her first and middle name and have it be her full name. It sounds quite funny.)

For all we know Fred Thompson may have been named for a relative his parents loved.

To make fun of a name is getting pretty low, especially when your first name is Monica. Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post

I was extremely disturbed to read this report in the Opinion Journal.

A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows 6 in 10 Americans think the Democratic Congress “hasn’t brought much change.” Eager to change this impression, the Democrats are frantically trying to pass legislation before Memorial Day. First on the agenda is a bill restricting lobbying, which is heading for the House floor with lightning speed. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to pass it tomorrow, sending it to the full House for a final vote next Tuesday or Wednesday.

When a bill moves that quickly, you can bet someone will try to make some last-minute mischief. Hardly anyone objects to the legislation’s requirement that former lawmakers wait two years instead of one before lobbying Congress. Ditto with bans on lobbying by congressional spouses and restrictions on sitting members of Congress negotiating contracts with private entities for future employment.

But the legislation may be amended on the floor to restrict grassroots groups that encourage citizens to contact members of Congress. The amendment, pushed by Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, would require groups that organize such grassroots campaigns to register as “lobbyists” and file detailed quarterly reports on their donors and activities. The law would apply to any group that took in at least $100,000 in any given quarter for “paid communications campaigns” aimed at mobilizing the public.

The same groups that backed the McCain-Feingold law, limiting political speech in advance of an election, are behind this latest effort to curb political speech. Common Cause and Democracy 21 say special-interest entities hide behind current law to conceal the identities of their donors, whom they would have to reveal if they were lobbying Congress directly. “These Astroturf campaigns are just direct lobbying by another name,” says Rep. Meehan, who is resigning from the House this summer and views his bill as his last hurrah in Congress.

But the First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from abridging “the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” The Supreme Court twice ruled in the 1950s that grassroots communication isn’t “lobbying activity,” and is fully protected by the First Amendment. Among the groups that believe the Meehan proposal would trample on the First Amendment are the National Right to Life Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union. The idea goes too far even for Sen. John McCain, who voted to strip a similar provision from a Senate lobbying reform bill last January.

Some of us made a fuss over McCain-Feingold as we felt it violated our first amendment rights to free speech. Some of the bill has been struck down by the SCOTUS if memory serves me, but there was a poison pill in there that if some of it was unconstitutional the bill could still stand even after taking out what was challenged and won in the courts.

Quick legislation is bad legislation. If Congress is embarrassed by not having any bills signed into law other than naming post offices they are going to rush anything through so they can claim some sort of accomplishment.

At what price to the right of freedom of speech is this bill going to be passed?

The rich will be able to get around it just as they got around McCain-Feingold with their 527 organizations.

If we continue to allow Congress to chip away at our rights we will suddenly realize one day we gave it all away and to quote T.S. Eliot, Not with a bang but a whimper.”

Tweet This Post