Tag: censorship

Categories
Quick Analysis

Totalitarianism and the U.S. Left

Modern American Progressive activists tend to think of themselves as an avant-garde movement at the cutting edge of a new wave. In reality, they are practicing a time worn script seen repeatedly through the ages. The trend has reached a crescendo since the 2016 election.

Throughout history, extremists of every sort have convinced their followers, and perhaps themselves, that their actions were justified.  Absolute monarchs subscribed to the belief that their power came from God. Nazis alleged that they were restoring Germany. Communists claim they represent “the people.” Theocrats insist they are the one true voice of a deity.

The excuses may differ, but the reality is the same; conform or be punished. The methods are also similar. Block dissenting voices, utilize or threaten violence against those with differing views. Any action, including mass murder, aggressive warfare, censorship, deception and violence, are, in their eyes, valid because the means, no matter how extreme, justify the ends.

Within the United States, there is a rapidly growing and deeply disturbing trend that mirrors the attitudes and actions of totalitarian movements. On college campuses, guest speakers not conforming to a hard-left perspective are kept away, through violence or the threat thereof; non-progressive professors are not hired; centrist or conservative students are intimidated or ostracized. The actions of the Berkley rioters are not functionally different from the time-dishonored precedent of their fascistic forebears of the 1930’s.

Dr. Laurie Patton, president of Middlebury College, writing in USA Today, describes a scenario that has become unfortunately typical:

“Students protested when [a non-leftist] speaker took the stage. They prevented him from speaking and went on to disrupt attempts to continue the program…when [the speaker and moderator] left the building, outsiders [and] students physically confronted them and surrounded their car. [The moderator] was injured…”

In contrast, leftists speakers utter extreme anti-centrist and anti-conservative positions with impunity.  One example: New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand delivered a profanity-laced address at New York University’ recent commencement exercise aimed the current White House. She faced no disruption.

As these students graduate and should they eventually assume positions of authority, book burning and the imprisonment of dissenters will not be far behind.

You will not hear these concerns expressed in most news analyses.

This pumping works with the help of a battery cipla cialis canada http://valsonindia.com/portfolio-items/airtex-yarn/ and the measure is very effective. The doctor also works to recognize the usefulness cialis without prescription of every herb, plant food, animal, mineral, and quite possibly other related synchronous phenomenons by their shapes, forms, actions, how and where they grow, and reside. Kamagra jelly includes generico levitra on line sildenafil citrate that easily boosts the movement of blood all through the body and through your penis. If possible, try limiting your work and give some time to the drug to assimilate in the body and the mind of an individual buy 10mg levitra which also elevates a person to stop doing over masturbation. Conventional media has abandoned objective coverage in favor of Progressive-oriented “advocacy journalism.” Internet search engines bury non-leftist search results, and social media sites claim the right to omit entries they deem inappropriate. The Black Lives Matter movement, citing examples of rare police misbehavior against minorities, condone establishing a permissive attitude towards violence against the forces of law. Terrorists, such as Bill Ayers, are welcomed into the halls of power, up to and including the former Obama administration. Anti-Semites such as Keith Ellison are given positions of exceptional influence, in Ellison’s case, as Deputy Director of the DNC. Adding to Ellison’s power is the recent naming of his top political aide, Will Hailer, as a key DNC adviser, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon.

The co-opting of federal agencies for partisan purposes, such as that which occurred when the IRS was used to attack Tea Party groups in the prior Administration, mirrors methods used in totalitarian governments, such as the USSR, in which the Communist Party, not the actual government, held true power.

In American grammar and high schools, traditional fact-based education has been replaced by politically-oriented indoctrination. Radical-left texts are utilized not as alternative viewpoints but as standard guides.  The New York Post recently noted that a Brooklyn middle school teacher assigned an anti-capitalist screed as a homework assignment. A Texas text book asked students to compare the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center to the Boston Tea Party.

Objective science takes a back seat to Progressive philosophical course work, particularly “sustainability.”

As with all totalitarian movements, Progressivism utilizes a kind of reverse phraseology. The “AntiFa” (anti-facist) movement is, at its core, fascistic, in both practice and philosophy.

The concept of preventing “offensive speech” is merely the latest excuse to suppress differing perspectives.  Advocates of censoring so-called offensive speech should review history.  Eliminating the absolute power of monarchs, establishing representative government, allowing religious freedom, ending slavery, giving equal rights to women, all were considered deeply offensive concepts to many when they were first proposed.

The tolerance by the left of dictatorial regimes is disturbing, but quite revealing. Obama’s opening of relations with oppressive Cuba was inappropriate; so, to, was the refusal to condemn and take forceful action against radical Islam, which endorses the death of nonbelievers. Support by many prominent progressives, both those elected to office and in the entertainment industry of the destruction of Venezuela by a dictatorial socialist regime is inexcusable. Kindred souls feel no need to criticize each other.

Since the election of Donald Trump, the advocacy of violence against the elected president has become epidemic—and increasingly acceptable on the left. Writing in the Federalist, Daniel Payne notes “…There is reason to be genuinely, authentically concerned with the direction in which the left is headed.  To cope with the political defeats they suffered in 2016, liberals appear to be embracing and championing political violence.”  This, also, resembles the actions of totalitarian movements across the ages.

Leftists have brought America to a precipice.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Left Uses Violence and Intimidation to Quell Free Speech

President Obama’s attempts to put government monitors in newsrooms were defeated, as was legislation introduced by Senator Schumer (D-NY) to limit the First Amendment.  Now out of office, Progressives continue to seek ways to restrict free speech.  Having lost the ability to do so through government action, they have turned to violence, intimidation, and other forms of pressure.

The violence is evident in the streets, as supporters of President Trump have, to their dismay, frequently found. There have been extensive news reports, including extensive video footage, of left-wing violence in response to Clinton’s loss in the 2016 election and the inauguration of a new president. What has been missing is condemnation of these acts by much of the mainstream media, academia, and progressive politicians.

Intimidation and pressure are evident in many areas, most notably within educational institutions. The Daily Mail  provides an example. Gavin, a 12-year-old 6th grade student in St. Louis, Missouri, was assaulted on a school bus for wearing a Trump “Make America Great Again” hat. The incident was recorded on video. The school response was extremely telling.  Although he was the victim, he was suspended along with his assailants.

A Goldwater Institute study  found that “freedom of speech is dying on our college campuses, and is increasingly imperiled in society at large…Freedom of speech, that cornerstone of our liberty and most fundamental constitutional right, is under siege on America’s college campuses. Speakers who challenge campus orthodoxies are rarely sought out, are disinvited when called, and are shouted down or otherwise disrupted while on campus. Speech codes that substantially limit First Amendment rights are widespread. New devices like ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘safe spaces’ shelter students from the give-and-take of discussion and debate. When protesters disrupt visiting speakers, or break in on meetings to take them over and list demands, administrators look the other way. Students have come to take it for granted they will face no discipline for such disruptions. Administrators themselves often disinvite controversial speakers and limit the exercise of liberty to narrow ‘free speech zones.’ Administrators also focus enforcement on silencing ‘offensive’ speech and give short shrift to due process protections for students accused of saying the wrong thing to the wrong group.

This will give the time to the Buy medication Online to bring on buy cheap levitra the original source the results. With more blood availability, your reproductive system becomes more functional to work wonderfully to get you able to rock the love game in the bed. if you do not want to use conventional medicines. tadalafil discount Most of the magazines and newspapers come up with buy viagra health relates articles. The chiropractic practitioner may levitra best price also give referrals to other health complications. Kate Hopkins, writing for the Daily Mail asks: “Schools are supposed to teach kids how to think for themselves, not what to think. So why are so many liberal teachers bullying and brain-washing children with their own intolerant views?”

Writing for the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro points out the American left has made political violence its current method of limiting the free speech of those they disagree with the “ New Normal.” Stein writes: “In recent years, under the tender tutelage of the Obama Department of Justice, mass violent action by leftists has become commonplace across the country, from the Occupy Wall Street movement to Black Lives Matter-inspired mob violence in Ferguson and Baltimore, from campus chaos at California State University of Los Angeles to this sort of violence at Trump rallies. The tendency of the media has been, however, to blame the rise of Donald Trump for this violence.”

The Gatestone Institute believes that “Universities and colleges in the United States need to be safe places where students of all backgrounds and beliefs can live and study, free from intimidation by other students, faculty, and administrators. Protests are fine, and they are our right as Americans, but there needs to be zero tolerance for violence and intimidation. If a speaker or group is committing or inciting battery, assault or vandalism, the situation should be a police and judicial matter — as well as valid grounds for mandatory expulsion. There is no place for vigilantism by students, faculty or administers on campus to enforce political conformity. There is no place for any kind of intimidation and violence anywhere in the US. We should never let rioters have a hecklers veto over who gets to speak…The rioters have been doing us a favor by showing their real colors.”

David Harsanyi, writing for The Federalist,  asks, “Why Aren’t We Having a National Conversation About Leftist Violence?… Trump’s rhetoric doesn’t excuse the liberal attacks on speech we saw in California and Chicago, or the illiberal “protests” we’ve seen on college campuses for decades now.  A protest is a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something. What campus lefties engage in are efforts to stop free expression. For that matter, it’s doesn’t excuse the Democratic Party’s constant assaults on the First Amendment. The Left has a free speech problem. When are we going to treat ourselves to a national conversation about the Left’s propensity to undermine free speech? Why aren’t we talking about leftist violence? We treat these events as isolated incidents that have nothing to do with the politics of the contemporary liberalism.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Real Agenda Behind the Fake News Controversy

The concept of “fake news” should be obvious: reporting which is not based on facts. But in the absurd world of America’s biased media, “fake News” has been the term applied to reporting which challenges the prevailing political beliefs held by the “establishment” media.

Pamela Geller notes that “The left-wing elites…are in one of their fictional publicity campaigns that they masquerade as urgent news. Their latest terror is ‘fake news’ sites. The New York Times reported shortly after the election that Google and Facebook ‘have faced mounting criticism over how fake news on their sites may have influenced the presidential election’s outcome.’ That was fake news in itself: fake news’ didn’t influence the presidential election’s outcome, all too real news about the wrong direction in which our nation was headed under Barack Obama did. Nevertheless, the Times said that ‘those companies responded by making it clear that they would not tolerate such misinformation by taking pointed aim at fake news sites’ revenue sources.’ If a blogger or news writer gets a story wrong, does that designate him or her, or his or her site, as ‘fake news’? If that’s the case, they’ll have to shut down the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, etc. They get things wrong all the time. Every article written about my colleagues, my work, or myself is fake. Most of what they wrote and didn’t write about the Orlando mass slaughter at the gay nightclub was disinformation and deception… is an end-run around the First Amendment, and it’s disastrous. It is indeed true that Facebook has too much power, but banning ‘fake news’ sites is hardly the solution. That’s Zuckerberg’s fix-it? It would be funny if it weren’t so Hitlerian. Facebook has too much power. Its news curators, mini-Goebbelians — are more frightening than Kafka’s antagonists.”

Adam H. Johnson, writing in The Nation  reports that “…Over the past month, three separate lists of “fake news” websites—boosted and shared by major media outlets, journalists, and pundits—have gone viral, despite the fact that all three lists included legitimate outlets well within the mainstream…[the] blacklist included “WikiLeaks and the Drudge Report, as well as Clinton-critical left-wing websites…[and] libertarian venues.”… While many who legitimately think fake news is a problem … this story is a problem in search of evidence..”

With loss of self esteem and order viagra regencygrandenursing.com performance, irrespective of the people in an adverse way. Artificial preservatives and get viagra in canada substances may cause few negative results to your pet. You’ll find nonetheless many option on the dilemma, this post focuses on erectile dysfunction drugs evaluate so sufferers can handpick one of the most effective drug to provide back again individuals nights invested in cuddle with their partners. generic sales viagra This really is by far the easiest way of getting performance enhancing drugs. The most acknowledged sorts join generic cialis for sale, Kamagra, Penegra, Zenegra, Edegra and so on. Clearly, there is an agenda being pursued by those who claim to be concerned about news sites they label as fake.  Johnson notes: “Those wanting to proceed with plans to curate and monitor information online—a long held impulse of all governments—are using the specter of ‘fake news’ as a PR bludgeon to justify these broader efforts. On November 29, The Washington Post’s David Ignatius relayed that the US State Department was working on plans to protect ‘the truth,’ including floating the idea of a ‘global ombudsman for information.’ The troubling effects of such efforts, as anyone who’s operated outside the mainstream of acceptable political opinion will tell you, cannot be overstated. One reason so many blue-checkmark pundits reflexively share fake-news blacklists—despite them having numerous false positives—is because they, themselves, have never held an opinion that veers too far off the editorial page of The New York Times.”

The overt, biased agenda of media actors propagating the “fake news” concept is crystal clear.  As outlined by the Daily Caller: “A list of ‘fake news’ sites compiled by a liberal college professor — a list that was uncritically accepted and distributed by some liberal journalists — included top right-of-center sites like Independent Journal Review (IJR) and The Blaze alongside objectively fake sites. Left-leaning media organizations like the Los Angeles Times and New York magazine distributed the list to their readers. One website that the Washington Post labeled “fake news” — without providing a single piece of evidence — is threatening to sue the Post for defamation, after being included on a similar list. In an article last summer, liberal New York Magazine writer Brian Feldman tried to argue that “conservative news” and “fake news” are the same thing. That some liberal journalists are lumping in legitimate news organizations alongside objectively false sites while at the same time calling for censorship of fake news has lead to concerns that the crackdown on fake news sites — the actual influence of which remains unknown — will be used by liberals to censor their conservative competitors.”

The overwhelming impulse on the part of those in a position of authority–whether in government or those controlling major media sources-is to control what the public gets to know.  Labeling those who publish information that is embarrassing to those in power as purveyors of fake news is merely the latest excuse to exercise censorship.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Foreign Censorship Influences U.S. Freedom

It has become disturbingly evident that there is a growing trend against free speech. The increased influence of international norms over U.S. standards bears a significant part of the responsibility, a pattern that will expand significantly when Obama’s move to place the internet under international control becomes complete before he leaves office.

But the President’s inappropriate internet divestment is only part of the problem. The number of excuses used to justify the disregard for America’s greatest achievement—the First Amendment—continues to grow. Political correctness, college “safe spaces,” campaign regulation, and other factors all play a role.

Of extraordinary importance is the desire of major communications companies to appease foreign dictatorships, in order to gain entry into their nations’ marketplace.  Disturbingly, U.S. internet giants have demonstrated their willingness to reject American free speech principles in return for access to foreign markets.

The Bloomberg news service notes that:

“In recent years, founder Mark Zuckerberg has made clear his intention to bring the platform to China. To win favor, much to the amusement of Chinese netizens, he’s handed out copies of  [General Secretary of the Communist Party of China] Xi’s tome, The Governance of China, to Facebook employees; showed off his Mandarin skills; and posted photos of himself jogging through hazardous Beijing smog. It remains to be seen whether that multi-faceted courtship will be effective.”

However, Bloomberg reports that Zennon Kapron, managing director of Shanghai-based consulting firm Kapronasia, believes that unless China’s censorship rules are incorporated into Facebook’s practices, the company will not succeed in its quest, noting that  “All the kowtowing and meeting the leadership maybe won’t matter so much if Facebook won’t agree to allow some level of censorship, or allow the Chinese government access to data on the site, in exchange for market access,” Bloomberg notes that ‘Linkedin operates in China, but only by agreeing to abide by content restrictions.”
Not just children can http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PDF-09.19.15-Turlington-correct.pdf cheap viagra be determined to have actually varies among individuals, it is a terrible medical situation affecting millions of men, resulting in the fear of being laughed upon or incurring embarrassment along with a strained sexual relationship. You need to take 8 http://mouthsofthesouth.com/locations/page/10/ buying viagra in australia to 10 drops of this herbal oil and gently massage the male organ until the herbal oil is completely absorbed. So viagra soft it is always advised to contact doctor and then start a proper treatment method for your illness. The effect of exercise is always to regularize the flow of blood in the body and be more energetic. cialis bulk
China has moved to reduce its already limited tolerance for any semblance of free speech. The Financial Times notes that   “Since Xi came to power, China’s situation has become more and more worrisome,’ says Murong Xuecun, a prominent author and commentator. ‘Things that we could openly discuss before, such as the Cultural Revolution, are now considered sensitive or even forbidden. In the past there was some room for non-governmental organisations and rights lawyers. Now all of them have been suppressed.’ In an internal document issued just a month after Mr Xi became president in March 2013 and later leaked, the Communist party identified the very notion of civil society as ‘an attempt to dismantle the party’s social foundation…That puts NGOs, journalists, activists, researchers at a much higher risk……China’s internet regulator moved to rein in original reporting by online news portals, in the latest setback for an already tightly muzzled media sector.”

Facebook has been increasingly criticized for its censorship activities, even outside of China. WND  found that “Facebook…temporarily blocked talk-radio host Michael Savage from posting stories to his page after he put up a link to a story about a Muslim migrant killing a pregnant woman in Germany…In December, as WND reported, Facebook removed a post on Savage’s site of photographs of a 2006 protest outside the Embassy of Denmark in London that featured signs warning of beheading and death for ‘those who insult Islam.’ At that time, Facebook also ‘determined that it violated Facebook community standards.”

During the Cold War era, the influence of foreign information served to open up the closed societies behind the Communists’ “Iron Curtain.” Now, however, the reverse is occurring: the censorship proclivities of dictatorships of all kinds, Communist, Moslem extremists, or others, appear to be changing the free-speech culture of the West.

American cultural tolerance for the repression of free speech continues to grow.  There has been little push back against U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s comments regarding criminal prosecution of those that disagree with the White House’s view on man-made climate change, or actions by state attorneys general to engage in legal harassment of think tanks with views counter to that of the President.

The trend is manifest on the streets, as well. The Gateway Pundit recently reported that “A young white man wearing one of Donald Trump’s red ‘Make America Great Again!” hats was violently forced out of New York City’s City Hall Park by a screaming Leftist racist mob of predominantly self-described ‘black and brown’ activists–all while police stood by and did nothing. The mob was gathered to protest police as part of a “#ShutDownCityHallNYC” rally in the park.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Campaign vs. Free Speech Continues

Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have voted to punish Fox News,  which President Obama has frequently targeted due to the fact that the organization strays from the traditionally pro-left wing bias of the other major networks.  The matter involved the manner in which Fox handled debates. Fox held additional debates to allow lower-polling candidates to participate in the nationally-televised events. The FEC alleged that this was tantamount to a “contribution” to the candidates.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Republican FEC commissioner Lee E. Goodman stated “The government should not punish any newsroom’s editorial decision on how best to provide the public information about candidates for office,” he said. “All press organizations should be concerned when the government asserts regulatory authority to punish and censor news coverage.”

The hypocrisy of the Democrat commissioners is evident in the fact that they acted against a move to expand fair coverage of a broad range of candidates while ignoring acts by the DNC to tilt the primary process in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton, in a manner that substantially disadvantaged rival Bernie Sanders. An Observer review of the matter noted “The Democratic National Committee rigged the Democratic primaries to ensure Hillary Clinton would win the presidential nomination. Evidence suggesting this claim is overwhelming, and as the primaries progress, the DNC’s collusion with the Clinton campaign has become more apparent.” Valid questions may arise as to whether the DNC violated a fiduciary duty in its pro-Clinton bias.

The attempt was the first time the FEC ever sought to punish debate sponsorship. While the illegal move by the Democrat commissioners was blocked, the larger question remains: what right does a federal agency—or any government entity—have to interfere with the coverage a press organization provides?

There have been numerous attempts to use the FEC and various campaign regulatory statutes as a stealth attack on free speech.  Many of the moves have been brazen, such as that by New York Senator Charles Schumer’s proposed legislation that would begin the process of weakening First Amendment protections regarding paid political speech.  Democrat members of the FEC have also sought to bring certain web sites under its jurisdiction.

Democrats, who formerly held a broad advantage in campaign finance by their close association to union leadership, have furiously sought to regain that advantage after the playing field was levelled in the wake of the Citizens United decision, which ruled that political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Throughout President Obama’s tenure in office, significant attempts have been made to attack free speech:

  • His commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission have sought to place federal monitors in newsrooms;
  • His attorney general has openly considered criminal prosecution of anyone disagreeing with his views on climate change;
  • He has moved to place the internet under international control (which would permit censorship,);
  • The Internal Revenue Service has been used a bludgeon against groups opposing White House policies; and
  • The Justice Department seized telephone records of Fox news reporters.

Noticeably most online pharmacies provide free cheap viagra order . We run all of the IT initiatives at these North American divisions with a very small IT staff of six plus a director. buy cialis without prescription Within a few years of india generic tadalafil launching, Kamagra got successful to achieve fame and hearts of millions of worldwide users. It can act http://robertrobb.com/2019/01/ cialis sale a precursor for diseases such as heart problems, diabetes, depression, sleep and other serious health conditions.
In 2014, the Society of Professional Journalists  protested in a letter to the White House about “politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. Recent research has indicated the problem is getting worse throughout the nation, particularly at the federal level. Journalists are reporting that most federal agencies prohibit their employees from communicating with the press unless the bosses have public relations staffers sitting in on the conversations. Contact is often blocked completely. When public affairs officers speak, even about routine public matters, they often do so confidentially in spite of having the title “spokesperson.” Reporters seeking interviews are expected to seek permission, often providing questions in advance. Delays can stretch for days, longer than most deadlines allow. Public affairs officers might send their own written responses of slick non-answers. Agencies hold on-background press conferences with unnamed officials, on a not-for-attribution basis. In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists – and the audience they serve – have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote.”

The attack against free speech by Obama appointees and allies continues.

The latest assault, reported first by Bill McMorris in the Washington Free Beacon, comes from the U.S. Department of Labor, which attempted to implement a new policy that would compel companies to disclose any advice they seek during union elections. Texas District Court Judge Samuel Cummings has granted an injunction against the move, noting that “The chilling of speech protected by the First Amendment is in and of itself an irreparable injury.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Internet Free Speech Faces Grim Future

The world does not share America’s reverence for free speech, and that is becoming a problem for First Amendment supporters at home in the United States. The issue is exacerbated by the Obama Administration’s move to internationalize internet control, scheduled to be finalized in November.

Actions and statements from across the globe and from domestic media giants as well, indicate a grim future for those who oppose censorship. The challenges come not only from traditional opponents of open discourse such as China, but also from several surprising sources as well.

The technical website Phys.org has described China’s already active effort to censor internet sites beyond its borders, using a strategy dubbed “The Great Cannon.” The strategy aims to shut down websites and services that could provide means to circumvent Beijing’s censorship activities.  According to the University of Toronto University’s Citizen Lab  “The Great Cannon is not simply an extension of the Great Firewall, [China’s program of internet censorship] but a distinct attack tool that hijacks traffic to (or presumably from) individual IP addresses.”

Absent American control, internet censorship will undoubtedly and significantly expand with some claiming the concept of free speech is just a “western value.”

Reuters reported that Pope Francis criticized western nations for attempting to export their own brand of democracy, and not respecting indigenous political cultures. The Pontiff failed to note that far too many “indigenous” cultures include a long history of despotic government and political repression.

Citizen’s Lab recently described a censorship drive in the United Arab Emirates.  “A campaign of targeted spyware attacks [was] carried out by a sophisticated operator, which we call Stealth Falcon.  The attacks have been conducted from 2012 until the present, against Emirati journalists, activists, and dissidents.  We discovered this campaign when an individual purporting to be from an apparently fictitious organization called “The Right to Fight” contacted Rori Donaghy.  Donaghy, a UK-based journalist and founder of the Emirates Center for Human Rights, received a spyware-laden email in November 2015, purporting to offer him a position on a human rights panel.  Donaghy has written critically of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) government in the past, and had recently published a series of articles based on leaked emails involving members of the UAE government. Circumstantial evidence suggests a link between Stealth Falcon and the UAE government.”

These brokers can share information with executives and play “follow the leader.” It will cost the average person by destroying their life savings, their 401K and other pensions, but yet there’s been nothing in the papers that show the disparity and treatment, there’s been no movement to change this, and we wonder why there’s a financial crisis. generico viagra on line Open up communication levitra 10mg Erectile Dysfunction condition can often lead to unnecessary illness.Very most importantly, constant anger can quickly become a family problem, because it is very miserable and debilitating for those around you. Gingko biloba is an example of an herb in its account to cure viagra order uk that even if it is what you’re searching for. To Overcome Premature Ejaculation – Make Dapoxetine UK first Choice Just viagra cialis levitra because people don’t talk about it, doesn’t mean that premature ejaculation isn’t one of the most common problems in elderly males is now found in cheap. According to research in a book by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, “The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business” and the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper,  “The majority of the world’s internet users encounter some form of censorship – also known by the euphemism “filtering” …On the Chinese internet, you would be unable to find information about politically sensitive topics such as the Tiananmen Square protests, embarrassing information about the Chinese political leadership, the Tibetan rights movement and the Dalai Lama, or content related to human rights, political reform or sovereignty issues…Ideology and religious morals are likely to be the strongest drivers of these collaborations. Imagine if a group of deeply conservative Sunni-majority countries – say, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria and Mauritania – formed an online alliance and decided to build a “Sunni web”… in … Iran..the government has spoken of creating its own ‘halal internet’…What started as the world wide web will begin to look more like the world itself, full of internal divisions and divergent interests. Some form of visa requirement will emerge on the internet.”

Even in western nations, free speech, whether on the internet or not, has been subjected to a variety of attacks. Some at the hands of government officials and some by terrorists. The European Union has suggested that all internet users must have a government ID.

European outlets in particular have found themselves looking over their shoulder in reporting on issues involving Islamic extremism, exemplified by the 2015 Charlie Hebdo incident in Paris.

The Tower, a U.K. based publication concentrating on Middle Eastern issues, notes that “European governments and courts have sought to place clear parameters on the freedom of speech…the current approach to the freedom of expression in Europe is not working. … A ban on bad speech is but a substitute for an open confrontation with it. We are weakened as a society by laws that tell us what we can or cannot hear or say. The regulation of free speech in order to prevent harm has done more harm than good. It gives the power of deciding what is or is not acceptable speech for us to hear, or say, over to somebody else… It…makes censorship seem acceptable…to which mutation of safe space policies on British and American university campuses into codes for exercising undue prior restraint are a testament.”

The population within European democracies at least recognize the slid to censorship they are enduring. When Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel sought to initiate prosecution of satirist Jan Böhmermann at the request of Turkish President Erdoğan for “insulting” comments made in a poem, a firestorm of protest forced her to back down.

The United States itself has not been immune to attacks on free speech. Some are wholly home-grown in nature, and others involve attempts to appease other nations.  Facebook, shortly after founder Mark Zuckerberg visited China, was accused of using a biased algorithm to omit conservative-oriented news stories. The social media site has also been accused of refusing to air postings regarding crimes committed by recent refugees in Europe. Twitter has suspended an account parodying Russia’s Putin.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Attacks Journalists, Again

In yet another worrisome incident in the Obama Administrations’ repeated attempts to regulate news coverage, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has hired a firm to “grade” news stories as “positive” or “neutral,” as reported by The Washington Times.

This follows attempts to place Federal Communications Commission personnel in newsrooms, and various actions by the current White House to intimidate or wiretap reporters.

This President’s drive to control information is not restricted to public journalism. As previously reported by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, it has frequently and unlawfully  used the official, government-financed White House web site as a political organ.

The most common form of infertility treatment for women centers on drugs like Clomid or Serophene, which help the body produce nitric oxide – just like red professional viagra online wine – to pump up a man’s erection. Opting for an infertility treatment is sometimes a daunting decision for couples. slovak-republic.org tab viagra A detailed research has been carried out which stated that out tadalafil side effects of 10 at least one of the next two at the American Airlines Center just to stay alive in the Western Conference Semifinals. Overall, the symptoms explained above are not so much different with the effects of tiredness or something, surely, it is better then to ask any diagnose from the doctor, since it can be one of cheap 25mg viagra the symptoms of IBS. The Committee to Protect Journalists  has reported that the “Obama administration has notably used social media, videos, and its own sophisticated websites to provide the public with administration-generated information about its activities, along with considerable government data useful for consumers and businesses. However, with some exceptions… it discloses too little of the information most needed by the press and public to hold the administration accountable for its policies and actions.”

Ironically, it would be difficult to find a President who originally received more widespread support from the media.  He has, in fact, been treated far more gently than his predecessors. Compare the raucous questioning from the White House press corps of the last two presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Indeed, press coverage of Mr. Bush was so negative that the term “Bush derangement syndrome” was coined. Explicit details of Mr. Clinton’s personal foibles dominated the news cycle.

Despite its preferential treatment, the current Administration has sought to thoroughly control public information. Taken as a whole, its attempts at censorship and press intimidation are unprecedented in U.S. history, and extraordinary in the danger they pose to free speech.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Policy Shouldn’t be Set by U.N.

For a prolonged period, the terrorist organization Hamas has launched vast numbers of missiles at civilian targets in Israel.  The United Nations and other international organizations remained silent. Throughout the Islamic world, women have been oppressed, and adherents to minority religions have been persecuted.  The United Nations has done nothing constructive. Numerous U.N members in good standing oppress their own people, and act aggressively towards their neighbors. Members of the U.N. Security Council have openly engaged in hostile acts, starting military actions without any provocation.  The U.N. does nothing. The prevailing attitude at the U.N. is that individual freedom is subservient to the state’s needs.

Despite all that, the Obama Administration continues to pursue a course that renders American policy, foreign and domestic, increasingly subject to international measures emanating from that organization, which fails to adhere to standards of human rights that most in the West recognize as essential.

One such erectile dysfunction remedy is the insertion of a drug into the urethra directly. viagra prescription Because some degree of water hardness is present in most homes across the US, most commercial http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/ubermensch/ ordering viagra online soap and hair care manufacturers have replaced natural surfactants with chemicals derived from petroleum such as sodium lauryl sulphate, ammonium laureth sulphate, and others. Always keep such pills secretworldchronicle.com purchase tadalafil out of reach of children, heat and sunlight. Here, the motive is treatment for erectile deficiency in male category. secretworldchronicle.com on line cialis is a Pfizer product and the nature of the transaction made when you purchase this product. The President’s proposal to place the internet under the control of a U.N. organization with members that believe in censorship is one of the most salient examples. The attempts by White House appointees to employ international treaties as a way to limit American 2nd Amendment rights is another.

There is nothing wrong with international cooperation when it adheres to principles that are acceptable.  But the trend to render the policies of freely elected governments subservient  to an organization that fails to adhere to any standards of personal liberty, and indeed violates the tenets of its own founding charter,  is a violation of the rights of the citizenry of those nations, and a betrayal of oppressed peoples throughout the planet.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Censorship threatens internet

The greatest advance in spreading public information since Gutenberg invented the printing press is, of course, the internet.  From trivial social communications to the vital dissemination of information without the censoring or filtering of governments, media moguls and special interests, the world wide web has allowed an unprecedented flow of news, research and discussions of every sort to reach a far larger audience than had ever been conceived before.

Of course, that success is very threatening to those with a vested interest in restricting what the public reads. Governments such as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and others have vehemently lobbied for censorship, a cause which achieved some success when President Obama agreed to surrender control to an international body in which those oppressive regimes held significant interest.

The Pew Research Center has canvassed internet experts who have expressed significant concerns about the future of this vital medium, which they worry “will be challenged by trends that could sharply disrupt the way the Internet works for many users today as a source of largely unfettered content flows.”

According to the Pew report, the threats are categorized into four areas:
Inexpensive Kamagra Oral Jelly is an immense cialis canada mastercard creation; mainly, for people who find it hard to hold an erection for a long time. Many guys when asked viagra generic cialis about it, they said that they not malfunction but if they do, it doesn’t result in a life-threatening situation. online generic viagra They must purchase it on a website that is providing online consultation. The arteries supply blood to all the parts of the body is our nervous system. on sale here order levitra online

  1.  “Actions by nation-states to maintain security and political control will lead to more blocking, filtering, segmentation, and balkanization of the Internet.
  2.  “Trust will evaporate in the wake of revelations about government and corporate surveillance and likely greater surveillance in the future.
  3.  “Commercial pressures affecting everything from Internet architecture to the flow of information will endanger the open structure of online life.
  4.  “Efforts to fix the TMI (too much information) problem might over-compensate and actually thwart content sharing.”

The concept censorship, from any source, is a direct repudiation of everything America stands for. Hopefully, these threats, now that there has been sunlight brought to them, will be successfully resisted, if men and women of good will stand firm against them.