If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Showing posts with label freedom of speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of speech. Show all posts
Friday, January 24, 2020
The Virginia Democratic Party Proposes Bill That Attacks Freedom of Speech
The Democratic Party in Virginia proposes a Virginia law that can be used to attack free speech. House Bill 1627 says:
If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Sunday, December 9, 2018
It Is Time to Force a First Amendment Debate on the Democrats
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I have discovered in recent weeks that the left wing of the Democratic Party increasingly opposes the First Amendment. Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute reports a 2017 survey that finds that, while 71% of Americans believe that political correctness has tended to cause Americans to silence important discussions, opinion is split along party lines: 52% of Democrats favor restrictions on the First Amendment.
The survey also finds that 65% of Americans believe that students who prevent speakers from speaking at universities should be disciplined and that 72% of Republicans and 60% of independents oppose government restrictions on the First Amendment.
It will be fruitful for Republicans to force a debate on the First Amendment, which will expose the increasing authoritarianism and extremism of the Democratic Party. Political correctness can be a wedge issue that pushes increasing support to Republicans, who are more mainstream on this issue.
For example, Republicans might propose a bill that withholds funding to universities that do not discipline students who disrupt public discussions, or they might propose one that ties federal funding of private universities to their complying with the First Amendment in personnel decision making. Perhaps funding could be withheld from universities whose faculty members advocate abrogating the First Amendment. Then, we might enjoy watching the Democrats complain that the bill violates the same First Amendment that they and their left-wing core wish to abrogate.
Respectfully,
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I have discovered in recent weeks that the left wing of the Democratic Party increasingly opposes the First Amendment. Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute reports a 2017 survey that finds that, while 71% of Americans believe that political correctness has tended to cause Americans to silence important discussions, opinion is split along party lines: 52% of Democrats favor restrictions on the First Amendment.
The survey also finds that 65% of Americans believe that students who prevent speakers from speaking at universities should be disciplined and that 72% of Republicans and 60% of independents oppose government restrictions on the First Amendment.
It will be fruitful for Republicans to force a debate on the First Amendment, which will expose the increasing authoritarianism and extremism of the Democratic Party. Political correctness can be a wedge issue that pushes increasing support to Republicans, who are more mainstream on this issue.
For example, Republicans might propose a bill that withholds funding to universities that do not discipline students who disrupt public discussions, or they might propose one that ties federal funding of private universities to their complying with the First Amendment in personnel decision making. Perhaps funding could be withheld from universities whose faculty members advocate abrogating the First Amendment. Then, we might enjoy watching the Democrats complain that the bill violates the same First Amendment that they and their left-wing core wish to abrogate.
Respectfully,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Cc: The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Cc: The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Russell Senate Office Building
317 Delaware Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20510
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Prohibit Socialist rather than Racist Speech
Since socialism has been more murderous than racism, pro-socialist speech should be prohibited before pro-racist speech. As evil and murderous as racism is, the record on socialism is worse. For instance, the commencement of World War I, called the August Madness, was heralded as a triumph of communitarianism over selfishness, of gemeinshchaft over geselleschaft, of community over market. The communitarian death count during World War I was 20 million, and an additional 20 million were maimed and disfigured. The renaissance of communitarianism meant the invention of nerve gas, mass killing, and scorched earth policies. The racism of the Ku Klux Klan never came close.
Subsequent socialist, totalitarian models were based on World War I and its war economy, and the mass murders associated with twentieth century socialism were modeled on measures taken, especially by the Germans and Turks, but also by the British, French, and Americans, during the Great War. The degree to which Nazism influenced Swedish socialism is rarely discussed, but in his book The New Totalitarians, Roland Huntford describes Gunnar Myrdal's admiration for Nazism.
The death counts due to Soviet, Chinese and other communist-linked socialisms are disputed, but Josh London's estimates on this page, based on the Black Book of Communism, are as follows:
U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths; China: 65 million deaths; Vietnam: 1 million deaths; North Korea: 2 million deaths; Cambodia: 2 million deaths: Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths; Latin America: 150,000 deaths; Africa: 1.7 million deaths; Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths; The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths… The total approaches 100 million people killed.
The numbers in the USSR may have been much higher. As well, the Black Book of Communism excludes non-communist socialists such as the national socialists of Nazi Germany and the left-inspired socialists of fascist Italy. The word "fascist," which has its roots in the fasces or tied rods, which Romans used to signal imperium or the right of command, was first used as a symbol by democratic socialists in the 19th century, most importantly by the militant socialist group Fasci Siciliani. Mussolini himself was for much of his life an active socialist. The distinction between fascism and "progressive" models in the US is difficult to defend. Fascism was a nationalistic ideology, much like American Progressivism.
No other ideology in history comes close to the horror and murder committed by socialists. The number of dead, when one includes the crimes of right wing socialists such as Hitler and Mussolini, is likely in excess of 200 million.
Yet, lying on behalf of socialism continues to be a preoccupation of the American left. Prohibitions on speech are ill advised, but if we are protect ourselves from the horrific consequences of ideology, then the most realistic place to start is socialism.
Subsequent socialist, totalitarian models were based on World War I and its war economy, and the mass murders associated with twentieth century socialism were modeled on measures taken, especially by the Germans and Turks, but also by the British, French, and Americans, during the Great War. The degree to which Nazism influenced Swedish socialism is rarely discussed, but in his book The New Totalitarians, Roland Huntford describes Gunnar Myrdal's admiration for Nazism.
The death counts due to Soviet, Chinese and other communist-linked socialisms are disputed, but Josh London's estimates on this page, based on the Black Book of Communism, are as follows:
U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths; China: 65 million deaths; Vietnam: 1 million deaths; North Korea: 2 million deaths; Cambodia: 2 million deaths: Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths; Latin America: 150,000 deaths; Africa: 1.7 million deaths; Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths; The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths… The total approaches 100 million people killed.
The numbers in the USSR may have been much higher. As well, the Black Book of Communism excludes non-communist socialists such as the national socialists of Nazi Germany and the left-inspired socialists of fascist Italy. The word "fascist," which has its roots in the fasces or tied rods, which Romans used to signal imperium or the right of command, was first used as a symbol by democratic socialists in the 19th century, most importantly by the militant socialist group Fasci Siciliani. Mussolini himself was for much of his life an active socialist. The distinction between fascism and "progressive" models in the US is difficult to defend. Fascism was a nationalistic ideology, much like American Progressivism.
No other ideology in history comes close to the horror and murder committed by socialists. The number of dead, when one includes the crimes of right wing socialists such as Hitler and Mussolini, is likely in excess of 200 million.
Yet, lying on behalf of socialism continues to be a preoccupation of the American left. Prohibitions on speech are ill advised, but if we are protect ourselves from the horrific consequences of ideology, then the most realistic place to start is socialism.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Glenn Beck Exposes Obama's Anti-Free Speech Impulses; Sowell Applauds
I haven't watched Glenn Beck previously. The left long claimed that it favored free speech. But now that it has power, it is taking rapid steps to regulate speech; control the media; and suppress dissent. If you are one of the few people who have not watched this sequence as I had not, please do. It is chilling. The American people have taken steps much like Hitler's in the last phases of the Weimar Republic. Chilling indeed.
Another friend sent me Thomas Sowell's excellent article in the Jewish World Review describing how Obama is dismantling the American constitution (in the broad sense, the fundamental values upon which our nation rests). Sowell credits Fox News with uncovering Obama's appointment of a wide range of advocates of totalitarianism and suppression of speech. He writes:
>Any miscalculation on (Obama's) part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.
>Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year — each bill more than a thousand pages long — too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question — and the biggest question for this generation.
The nation is now in serious trouble. Generations of Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that authoritarian socialist solutions are necessary for "progress". In fact, the stagnant real hourly wage since 1970 and major economic declines in states like New York are symptomatic of the socialist steps that have taken us to the brink of totalitarian rule.
Barack Obama is a symptom of the underlying socialist power structure. It was clever of Wall Street to use race as a pretextual ruse to institute their lackey who would donate trillions to their coffers and fight to suppress dissent against their interests.
Another friend sent me Thomas Sowell's excellent article in the Jewish World Review describing how Obama is dismantling the American constitution (in the broad sense, the fundamental values upon which our nation rests). Sowell credits Fox News with uncovering Obama's appointment of a wide range of advocates of totalitarianism and suppression of speech. He writes:
>Any miscalculation on (Obama's) part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.
>Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year — each bill more than a thousand pages long — too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question — and the biggest question for this generation.
The nation is now in serious trouble. Generations of Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that authoritarian socialist solutions are necessary for "progress". In fact, the stagnant real hourly wage since 1970 and major economic declines in states like New York are symptomatic of the socialist steps that have taken us to the brink of totalitarian rule.
Barack Obama is a symptom of the underlying socialist power structure. It was clever of Wall Street to use race as a pretextual ruse to institute their lackey who would donate trillions to their coffers and fight to suppress dissent against their interests.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Sweden Is A Backward, Authoritarian Land
Someone brought up Sweden recently. The socialist American media is biased in its reporting on Sweden so it is difficult to find factual information. You won't find it in the New York Times, written on the sixth grade level of the American left. A number of years ago Roland Hunter's book entitled The New Totalitarians described the suppressive nature of the Swedish government. In 2006 the sadly now-defunct New York Sun, commenting on the lies and propaganda that appeared in the Economist Intelligence Unit about Sweden, noted:
"Dissent is powerfully discouraged. In Sweden, whose murder rate is currently twice that of America...the Swedish press routinely depicts America as crime-ridden. Polls show that the majority of Swedes are deeply disturbed by their country's dramatic social changes and highly critical of the policies that brought them about. Yet the crime and violence generally go unreported, so only rarely does any of the criticism seep into the press."
In other words, Sweden is a country run like New York City, where lies are taken for truth and school children are indoctrinated in left wing propaganda (as in the New York City school system) and, I add, new ideas are forbidden.
Moreover, Sweden is not immune from the nationalist hatred and bigotry that frequently characterizes socialism:
"Instead of reporting on such worrisome findings, politicians and the press alike focus on the evils of America and Israel."
Similarly, the book publishing industry in Sweden serves as a mouthpiece for the authoritarian state:
"Swedish book publishing is similarly unbalanced. Recently Michael Moynihan, an American writer based in Stockholm, toted up the English-language political books that had been translated into Swedish since September 11. His long list included several works apiece by Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, plus volumes by the communist historian Eric Hobsbawm, the anti-American journalist John Pilger, and the 'Holocaust industry' critic Norman Finkelstein. On the entire list, only one author was not a leftist."
There is only one independent television station, and the Swedish government has attacked it for failing to adopt the government's views:
"When voices of dissent do break through in Sweden, they're often punished. During the runup to the Iraq war, the Swedish government censured the independent TV channel TV4 for running an "Oprah" episode that presented both pro- and anti-war arguments. TV4 was charged with violating press-balance guidelines when in fact its offense was being too balanced — it had exposed Swedish viewers to ideas from which journalists had otherwise shielded them."
The opposition party, Sweden Democrats, are repeatedly attacked by the Swedish government and their speech suppressed:
"Earlier this year, for example, the government closed down the Sweden Democrats' Web site because it had published a cartoon of Muhammad. Stig Fredriksson, head of the free-speech organization Publicistklubben, complained bitterly. But the incident was hardly reported in Sweden — and, of course, barely caused a ripple abroad. If the Bush administration had closed down a Democratic Party Web site¸ there would be scare headlines and editorials thundering about dictatorship — and rightly so. But when Sweden's rulers did it, it was apparently acceptable — because they did it in the name of political correctness."
Opponents to the Swedish government's policies are routinely fired from their jobs:
"a few weeks ago, a junior diplomat was dismissed when it became known that he was a member of the party and had criticized his country's immigration policy. On several occasions, thugs loyal to the ruling parties have broken up Sweden Democratic meetings and beaten up party leaders. And this is a nation in which a party led by an admitted communist was, in recent memory, part of the ruling coalition."
Moreover:
"Swedish elections aren't really secret — other people at the polling place can look at your ballot and see which party you support."
I have not looked at Swedish banking practices but if the banking system is state controlled, I wonder how open to new and innovative ideas it might be. Sweden has never been an innovative country. Its industries are imitative. It is able to survive on small beer because it has a small population. Should the world adopt a Swedish model, suppression and stagnation would follow.
"Dissent is powerfully discouraged. In Sweden, whose murder rate is currently twice that of America...the Swedish press routinely depicts America as crime-ridden. Polls show that the majority of Swedes are deeply disturbed by their country's dramatic social changes and highly critical of the policies that brought them about. Yet the crime and violence generally go unreported, so only rarely does any of the criticism seep into the press."
In other words, Sweden is a country run like New York City, where lies are taken for truth and school children are indoctrinated in left wing propaganda (as in the New York City school system) and, I add, new ideas are forbidden.
Moreover, Sweden is not immune from the nationalist hatred and bigotry that frequently characterizes socialism:
"Instead of reporting on such worrisome findings, politicians and the press alike focus on the evils of America and Israel."
Similarly, the book publishing industry in Sweden serves as a mouthpiece for the authoritarian state:
"Swedish book publishing is similarly unbalanced. Recently Michael Moynihan, an American writer based in Stockholm, toted up the English-language political books that had been translated into Swedish since September 11. His long list included several works apiece by Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, plus volumes by the communist historian Eric Hobsbawm, the anti-American journalist John Pilger, and the 'Holocaust industry' critic Norman Finkelstein. On the entire list, only one author was not a leftist."
There is only one independent television station, and the Swedish government has attacked it for failing to adopt the government's views:
"When voices of dissent do break through in Sweden, they're often punished. During the runup to the Iraq war, the Swedish government censured the independent TV channel TV4 for running an "Oprah" episode that presented both pro- and anti-war arguments. TV4 was charged with violating press-balance guidelines when in fact its offense was being too balanced — it had exposed Swedish viewers to ideas from which journalists had otherwise shielded them."
The opposition party, Sweden Democrats, are repeatedly attacked by the Swedish government and their speech suppressed:
"Earlier this year, for example, the government closed down the Sweden Democrats' Web site because it had published a cartoon of Muhammad. Stig Fredriksson, head of the free-speech organization Publicistklubben, complained bitterly. But the incident was hardly reported in Sweden — and, of course, barely caused a ripple abroad. If the Bush administration had closed down a Democratic Party Web site¸ there would be scare headlines and editorials thundering about dictatorship — and rightly so. But when Sweden's rulers did it, it was apparently acceptable — because they did it in the name of political correctness."
Opponents to the Swedish government's policies are routinely fired from their jobs:
"a few weeks ago, a junior diplomat was dismissed when it became known that he was a member of the party and had criticized his country's immigration policy. On several occasions, thugs loyal to the ruling parties have broken up Sweden Democratic meetings and beaten up party leaders. And this is a nation in which a party led by an admitted communist was, in recent memory, part of the ruling coalition."
Moreover:
"Swedish elections aren't really secret — other people at the polling place can look at your ballot and see which party you support."
I have not looked at Swedish banking practices but if the banking system is state controlled, I wonder how open to new and innovative ideas it might be. Sweden has never been an innovative country. Its industries are imitative. It is able to survive on small beer because it has a small population. Should the world adopt a Swedish model, suppression and stagnation would follow.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Pro-Obama Thugs Shut Down Phil Berg Interview--Please Protest
Phil Orenstein just forwarded this e-mail from Vigilant Freedom:
"On the No Compromise Show recently the guest was Attorney Phil Berg, who has filed a lawsuit against B.Hussein Obama asking to see Mr. Obama's birth certificate. After about 10 minutes into the conversation between No Compromise and Mr. Berg the show was shut down.
"There is no proof of what or whom promoted the outrageous lies, excuses and defamation of why the No Compromise show was shut down, but an educated guess would be it was most likely those same people who are suppressing the proof that Barack Hussein Obama does or does not qualify to be President of the USA.
"I understand that the host reported that:
"I was about 13 minutes into my show and BTR decided to remove my show right in the middle of my interview claiming that my show was “racially or ethnically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating or harassing; 2. contains falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage BlogTalkRadio or any other person;” stated BTR assistant Director of Customer Relations, Shannon Dingee-Kramer.
"Of course, Ms. Dingee-Kramer provided no proof of this apparent violation of this vague and arbitrary offense. It’s just pure opinion which seems to be more important than my opinion or Mr. Berg’s opinion.
"Her decision to remove my show was ARBITRARY and unacceptable! There was nothing abusive about my show on ANY level however, the action taken against me was very abusive!
"In fact, I find BTR’s and specifically, Ms. Dingee-Kramer’s opinion and action politically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating and harassing; 2. which contains falsehoods and misrepresentations that HAS damaged ME as a person!
"Those who are voting for Obama didn’t like my guest, nor my content, and they demanded my show be removed. Is this acceptable behavior? NO! Is this how BTR handles free speech issues? YES! They shut people down because they disagree with the speech?
"This is disgusting and Orwellian at best! The BTR leadership ought to be ashamed of themselves for their unAmerican actions! Americans should NOT care about offending people MORE than protecting one’s Right to speak! Where do you people live? North Korea?
"Regards
"Aeneas
Vigilant Freedom urges that you please email Blog Talk Radio to express your outrage at the way the No Compromise Show has been treated. Not sure who the appropriate person would be to complain about this free speech issue but there are some people who could perhaps be contacted for an explanation at the following link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/contactus.aspx
I have written the following message to Mr. Philip Recchia, Director, Programming and Communications, BlogTalkRadio:
Dear Mr. Recchia: I understand that thugs who support Barack Obama have shut down the Phil Berg interview. I have personally experienced harrassment from Obama supporters who triggered a spam mechanism on Blogger that shut down my blog (http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com). Similarly, there are reports of repeated incidents of harrassment, intimidation and attacks by the Obama campaign against all who disagree with it (see http://www.texasdarlin.wordpress.com who have been reporting on these and similar attacks on an ongoing basis).
I urge you to air Mr. Berg's interview in full. The lying and misrepresentation surrounding Barack Obama's candidacy has not been examined by the mainstream media. For instance, his residence in Indonesia for four years as a child and questions about the place of his birth are cloaked in secrecy. When Mr. Berg attempted to obtain simple documents such as birth certificate through the legal process, rather than simply provide the information Barack Obama and the DNC have preferred to fight revealing birth information in court. Yet, being a natural born citizen is a Constitutional requirement for presidency.
Your station would do a major public service by re-airing the Berg interview and not allowing pro-Obama thugs to inhibit free speech as they have done with respect to the mass media.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
"On the No Compromise Show recently the guest was Attorney Phil Berg, who has filed a lawsuit against B.Hussein Obama asking to see Mr. Obama's birth certificate. After about 10 minutes into the conversation between No Compromise and Mr. Berg the show was shut down.
"There is no proof of what or whom promoted the outrageous lies, excuses and defamation of why the No Compromise show was shut down, but an educated guess would be it was most likely those same people who are suppressing the proof that Barack Hussein Obama does or does not qualify to be President of the USA.
"I understand that the host reported that:
"I was about 13 minutes into my show and BTR decided to remove my show right in the middle of my interview claiming that my show was “racially or ethnically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating or harassing; 2. contains falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage BlogTalkRadio or any other person;” stated BTR assistant Director of Customer Relations, Shannon Dingee-Kramer.
"Of course, Ms. Dingee-Kramer provided no proof of this apparent violation of this vague and arbitrary offense. It’s just pure opinion which seems to be more important than my opinion or Mr. Berg’s opinion.
"Her decision to remove my show was ARBITRARY and unacceptable! There was nothing abusive about my show on ANY level however, the action taken against me was very abusive!
"In fact, I find BTR’s and specifically, Ms. Dingee-Kramer’s opinion and action politically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating and harassing; 2. which contains falsehoods and misrepresentations that HAS damaged ME as a person!
"Those who are voting for Obama didn’t like my guest, nor my content, and they demanded my show be removed. Is this acceptable behavior? NO! Is this how BTR handles free speech issues? YES! They shut people down because they disagree with the speech?
"This is disgusting and Orwellian at best! The BTR leadership ought to be ashamed of themselves for their unAmerican actions! Americans should NOT care about offending people MORE than protecting one’s Right to speak! Where do you people live? North Korea?
"Regards
"Aeneas
Vigilant Freedom urges that you please email Blog Talk Radio to express your outrage at the way the No Compromise Show has been treated. Not sure who the appropriate person would be to complain about this free speech issue but there are some people who could perhaps be contacted for an explanation at the following link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/contactus.aspx
I have written the following message to Mr. Philip Recchia, Director, Programming and Communications, BlogTalkRadio:
Dear Mr. Recchia: I understand that thugs who support Barack Obama have shut down the Phil Berg interview. I have personally experienced harrassment from Obama supporters who triggered a spam mechanism on Blogger that shut down my blog (http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com). Similarly, there are reports of repeated incidents of harrassment, intimidation and attacks by the Obama campaign against all who disagree with it (see http://www.texasdarlin.wordpress.com who have been reporting on these and similar attacks on an ongoing basis).
I urge you to air Mr. Berg's interview in full. The lying and misrepresentation surrounding Barack Obama's candidacy has not been examined by the mainstream media. For instance, his residence in Indonesia for four years as a child and questions about the place of his birth are cloaked in secrecy. When Mr. Berg attempted to obtain simple documents such as birth certificate through the legal process, rather than simply provide the information Barack Obama and the DNC have preferred to fight revealing birth information in court. Yet, being a natural born citizen is a Constitutional requirement for presidency.
Your station would do a major public service by re-airing the Berg interview and not allowing pro-Obama thugs to inhibit free speech as they have done with respect to the mass media.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
O'Malley v. Karkhanis in the New York Post
Dareh Gregorian has written an article in the New York Post about Susan O'Malley's lawsuit against Sharad Karkhanis (also see earthtimes.org coverage here). While the article is a good one (see below), Gregorian fails to ask a few critical questions:
(1) Why haven't O'Malley and her attorney contacted the producers of Judge Judy, which is a more appropriate venue for a case that O'Malley herself describes as "silly" than is the New York State Supreme Court?
(2) Why are the people of the state of New York being asked to subsidize a case that the plaintiff describes as "silly"? Here are the synonyms of "frivolous" from dictonary.com :
barmy*, childish, dizzy*, empty-headed*, facetious, featherbrained*, flighty, flip, flippant, foolish, fribble, frothy, gay, giddy*, harebrained*, idiotic, idle, ill-considered, impractical, juvenile, light, light-minded, minor, niggling*, nonserious, not serious, paltry, peripheral, petty, playful, pointless, puerile, scatterbrained*, senseless, shallow, silly, sportive, superficial, tongue-in-cheek*, trivial, unimportant, unprofound, volatile, whimsical
(3) Why is the Professional Staff Congress unable to provide a dispute resolution mechanism that will spare the public the cost of resolving this "silly" dispute through the courts?
(4) One of the chief justifications of unionism is the provision of low-cost dispute resolution mechanisms. If unions like the Professional Staff Congress utilize the court system as a dispute resolution method of first resort, can such unions be justified from the standpoint of public policy?
(5) Has the Professional Staff Congress ever established guidelines for competent hiring?
CUNY PROF WAR
LIBEL SUIT OVER 'TERROR'
By DAREH GREGORIAN
November 5, 2007 -- A CUNY professor has filed a $2 million lawsuit against a fellow Ph.D. who's been lambasting her for allegedly trying to "recruit terrorists" to teach within the City University system.
In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Susan O'Malley charges that professor emeritus Sharad Karkhanis defamed her by accusing her of having an "obsession with finding jobs for terrorists" in recent issues of a newsletter he's been e-mailing to CUNY faculty members for 15 years.
Citing O'Malley's efforts to land jobs for convicted activist lawyer Lynne Stewart's co-defendant Mohammed Yousry and former Weather Underground member Susan Rosenberg, Karkhanis wrote:
"Has Queen O'Malley ever made a 'Job Wanted' announcement like this for a nonconvicted, nonviolent, peace-loving American educator for a job in CUNY? . . . Why does she prefer convicted terrorists bent on harming our people and our nation over peace-loving Americans?"
The retired Kingsborough Community College political-science professor said O'Malley, an English professor there, "is recruiting naive . . . faculty into her Qaeda-Camp to infiltrate . . . Personnel and Budget Committees in her mission - to recruit terrorists in CUNY. Given the opportunity, she will bring in all her indicted, convicted and freed-on-bail terrorist-friends."
O'Malley believes the terrorist-recruiter claim to be libelous. But an unapologetic Karkhanis, 73, told The Post: "Give me a break. I'm going to fight this vigorously."
He added that he considers what he wrote to be satire but that he was also "raising questions I believe are appropriate."
He said O'Malley crossed the line when she tried to land a job for Yousry, who's out on bail pending appeal of his conviction for helping Stewart disseminate messages from 1993 World Trade Center bomb plotter Omar Abdel-Rahman.
O'Malley, on leave from CUNY, could not be reached for comment.
dareh.gregorian@nypost.com
(1) Why haven't O'Malley and her attorney contacted the producers of Judge Judy, which is a more appropriate venue for a case that O'Malley herself describes as "silly" than is the New York State Supreme Court?
(2) Why are the people of the state of New York being asked to subsidize a case that the plaintiff describes as "silly"? Here are the synonyms of "frivolous" from dictonary.com :
barmy*, childish, dizzy*, empty-headed*, facetious, featherbrained*, flighty, flip, flippant, foolish, fribble, frothy, gay, giddy*, harebrained*, idiotic, idle, ill-considered, impractical, juvenile, light, light-minded, minor, niggling*, nonserious, not serious, paltry, peripheral, petty, playful, pointless, puerile, scatterbrained*, senseless, shallow, silly, sportive, superficial, tongue-in-cheek*, trivial, unimportant, unprofound, volatile, whimsical
(3) Why is the Professional Staff Congress unable to provide a dispute resolution mechanism that will spare the public the cost of resolving this "silly" dispute through the courts?
(4) One of the chief justifications of unionism is the provision of low-cost dispute resolution mechanisms. If unions like the Professional Staff Congress utilize the court system as a dispute resolution method of first resort, can such unions be justified from the standpoint of public policy?
(5) Has the Professional Staff Congress ever established guidelines for competent hiring?
CUNY PROF WAR
LIBEL SUIT OVER 'TERROR'
By DAREH GREGORIAN
November 5, 2007 -- A CUNY professor has filed a $2 million lawsuit against a fellow Ph.D. who's been lambasting her for allegedly trying to "recruit terrorists" to teach within the City University system.
In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Susan O'Malley charges that professor emeritus Sharad Karkhanis defamed her by accusing her of having an "obsession with finding jobs for terrorists" in recent issues of a newsletter he's been e-mailing to CUNY faculty members for 15 years.
Citing O'Malley's efforts to land jobs for convicted activist lawyer Lynne Stewart's co-defendant Mohammed Yousry and former Weather Underground member Susan Rosenberg, Karkhanis wrote:
"Has Queen O'Malley ever made a 'Job Wanted' announcement like this for a nonconvicted, nonviolent, peace-loving American educator for a job in CUNY? . . . Why does she prefer convicted terrorists bent on harming our people and our nation over peace-loving Americans?"
The retired Kingsborough Community College political-science professor said O'Malley, an English professor there, "is recruiting naive . . . faculty into her Qaeda-Camp to infiltrate . . . Personnel and Budget Committees in her mission - to recruit terrorists in CUNY. Given the opportunity, she will bring in all her indicted, convicted and freed-on-bail terrorist-friends."
O'Malley believes the terrorist-recruiter claim to be libelous. But an unapologetic Karkhanis, 73, told The Post: "Give me a break. I'm going to fight this vigorously."
He added that he considers what he wrote to be satire but that he was also "raising questions I believe are appropriate."
He said O'Malley crossed the line when she tried to land a job for Yousry, who's out on bail pending appeal of his conviction for helping Stewart disseminate messages from 1993 World Trade Center bomb plotter Omar Abdel-Rahman.
O'Malley, on leave from CUNY, could not be reached for comment.
dareh.gregorian@nypost.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
