Get Adobe Flash player
You are here:FEATURED STORIES > Obama's New Propaganist Kook

Video: DC Liberals Sign Petition to Ban Conservative Websites

Video: DC Liberals Sign Petition to Ban Conservative Websites - Friday, May 27, 2011
After hearing news the other day that the Obama administration had appointed a new position to monitor and push back against negative online press we thought some liberals in DC might think it wasn’t enough.

Stephen Gutowski
Newsbusters
May 27, 2011

After hearing news the other day that the Obama administration had appointed a new position to monitor and push back against negative online press we thought some liberals in DC might think it wasn’t enough. So we sent Joe Schoffstall out to see just how far liberals would go to silence conservative speech. Joe went around Georgetown in DC with a petition to “Ban Conservative Hate Sites” that said this:

“The undersigned hereby adamantly demand that the United States government shut down right wing hate sites. The hate speech propagated by sites like the Drudge Report, Hot Air, Instapundit, Big Government, and others must not be allowed to corrupt our political discourse any longer. These sites are dangerous not only to truth and freedom but also to our society as a whole. BAN THEM NOW!”

That is pretty radical rhetoric that no reasonable, freedom-loving, red-blooded American could possibly agree with, right? Well, see for yourself:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/dc-liberals-sign-petition-ban-conservative-websites



It’s shocking isn’t it? Then again, perhaps it shouldn’t be.

After all Exposing Leftists, um, exposed that liberal college student in California were willing to ban conservatives from talk radio.

Plus the Fairness Doctrine, which essentially bans conservatives from radio, has been a sweetheart of the left for decades.

 read more ...

White House Hires A New Terrorist ‘Terminator’ To ‘Squash Negative Stories’ About Obama

Infowars.com
May 24, 2011

White House Hires Terminator To Squash Negative Stories About Obama 240511top
Image: Wikimedia Commons

In a bid to ‘squash negative stories’ about Barack Obama that appear on the Internet, the White House has hired a dedicated propagandist whose role will be to savage people who tell “lies” about the President, in a chilling reminder of how prosecutors threatened people with jail time during the 2008 campaign if they criticized Obama.

“The Obama administration has created and staffed a new position tucked inside their communications shop for helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community,” reports the Huffington Post.

The man tasked with the role of “disseminating push back” against Obama’s online critics by direct order of the White House will be Jesse Lee, a blogger who has previously put out White House spin in response to claims made by Glenn Beck.

“The post is a new one for this White House. Rapid response has been the purview of the Democratic National Committee (and will continue to be). Lee’s hire, however, suggests that a portion of it will now be handled from within the administration. It also signals that the White House will be adopting a more aggressive engagement in the online world in the months ahead.”

White House Hires Terminator To Squash Negative Stories About Obama 240511top2

Lee’s first Tweet as an official mouthpiece for White House propaganda and the Obama administration’s move to launch an “aggressive defense of the president and his policies” gives us some indication of what we can expect – the post includes a picture of the Terminator robot.

“If you’re going to post something online about Obama that isn’t true, Lee is going to be the one to handle you,” reports Chris O’Shea, noting that the move is about “squashing any negative stories” that could derail Obama’s re-election bid.

Lee obviously sees himself taking the role of ‘Terminator’ in destroying ‘conspiracies’ and ‘disinformation’ about the Obama 2012 campaign, similar to how Obama-supporting prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri threatened people with jail time for telling “lies” about Obama during the 2008 campaign. News agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio were also sent threatening letters demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama’s anti-gun stance.

This has nothing to do with circulating “lies” about Obama, this is about intimidating, silencing and smearing anyone who dares tell the truth about Obama’s record or his highly dubious personal history.

As we documented in 2008, the Obama campaign’s effort to target “lies” about the president’s record was actually a transparent bid to keep his extreme anti-second amendment record under the radar as the election neared.

Not only was he on record as opposing handgun rights in Washington DC, Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban groups and research in the country. In addition, Obama voted for a bill that would “expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition” and “support[ed] banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons,” including 223 and .308 caliber bullets, the most common rifle ammunition. He supported the Illinois Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) Card, mandatory for residents when they buy any firearm in the state.

Obama’s record was clearly anti-second amendment to the hilt, but to communicate this fact to the public was characterized as “lying about the campaign” by Obama’s enforcers, and was met with threats and intimidation.

Expect the same thing to happen for 2012 – verifiable facts about Obama’s voting record and his stance on key issues, as well as documented examples of his deception on a myriad of different topics, will be targeted for ‘termination’ by Obama’s team of online attack dogs led by Jesse Lee.

And all this from the same administration that wants to give Obama a figurative ‘kill switch’ for the Internet that would hand the President Communist Chinese-style powers to shut down parts of the Internet for “security reasons,” in other words to silence and censor legitimate political opposition to Obama’s big government agenda.

Of course, this is all straight out of Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for hijacking and censoring the Internet by government regulation. Sunstein, Obama’s White House information czar, wrote a series of papers before the 2008 election in which he advocated banning or taxing “conspiracy theories,” including skepticism about man-made global warming, in addition to mandating by law that websites link to opposing information or that pop ups containing government propaganda be forcibly included on political blogs.

Obama supporter Bill Clinton, not known for his honesty, also recently advocated the creation of an Internet ministry of truth to address “misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet.”

OR SEE HERE FORFULL STORY on the Clinton Kooks who want to be the Ministry of Truth Propaganists..

  

Obama's internet kill switch

Government Internet Takeover Continues Apace - Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Steve Watson & Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 24, 2011
Government Internet Takeover Continues Apace 210710cybersecurity
Moves to place restrictions and controls on the internet by Western governments are gathering pace, with the US setting the standard as the Department of Homeland Security seized yet more domain names over the weekend and shut down several websites under the guise of piracy and copyright regulations.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing Monday to debate the Obama administration’s proposed move to provide the president with the authority to completely shut down the internet during a national emergency.

As we have documented, the administration’s vision provides the President the power to shut down the Internet with a figurative flick of a switch, and has made it clear that his Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act is about big government deciding who can say what on the web.

Critics in the Senate, including Maine Republican Susan Collins, argued that the government is taking advantage of “outmoded yet potentially sweeping authorities granted in the Communications Act of 1934″ that allow for the president to take over radio stations in a time of national emergency.

The administration is seeking to extend those powers to online communications.

Long term internet censorship proponent, Joe Lieberman argued that “The country would be better off if we did create some new law regarding the authority of the president to act in these emergencies,”

Last year, Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee pressured Amazon to axe Wikileaks from its servers. At the time, the Senator stated that the “Decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material.”

Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston labeled Amazon’s decision to kill the website “disappointing,” adding that “pressure” from Lieberman’s office or any other authority serves to “limit the materials the American public has a First Amendment right to access.”

Lieberman’s vision for the Internet is less of an information superhighway and more of a government-controlled sanitized clone of cable television, where the web is purged entirely of dissent in a system even more draconian than that employed by the Communist Chinese.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley in 2010.

This is what Lieberman envisions for the future of the Internet in the United States, a highly regulated, state-controlled forum where the government can shut down websites it disapproves of on a whim, as is already being done by Homeland Security without court order, as yet more cases have proven this week.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the vehemently unpopular French President Nicolas Sarkozy has convened a global conference to push the idea that governments should have supreme authority over the internet.

The gathering, dubbed the e-G8, is taking place this week in Paris. Guests include Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch, and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

“You need to hear our limits, our red lines.” Sarkozy told the gathering today as he argued for enforced government rules to ” prevent misuse of the Internet”.

Included in that definition, according to Sarkozy are websites such as Wikileaks. Referring to the whistle blowing website, Sarkozy warned the gathering:

“Do not let [the internet] become an instrument in the hands of those who want to damage our security, and so our integrity. Do not let the revolution that you have launched harm the basic right each person has to a private life,” he said.

France was one of the first countries to crack down on the servers on its territory that enabled WikiLeaks to publish vast amounts of material last year.

In 2009 the Sarkozy government attempted to pass draconian copyright laws to restrict the internet. The law, known by the acronym Hadopi, set up a new state agency with the power to cut off internet access for up to a year for people who download music and film illegally.

The French Constitutional court ruled against the powers however, defining “free access to public communication services on line” as a fundamental human right. The government is still pushing the proposed law, however. Currently only judges have the authority to restrict internet access. The same law was instituted in Britain in 2010.

Sarkozy’s government also operates an internet black list, that targets any website that is reported as “offensive”. Similar policies are now being employed by supposedly democratic governments around the world.

The push to restrict and control the internet, as we have repeatedly warned for years, is being pursued by an establishment petrified at the fact that alternative and independent sources of information are now eclipsing corporate and government controlled media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

The move needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.

 read more ...