VOTERS
July 19, 2009 I will admit that I have not been complimentary toward the Democratic Party, especially the leadership. Nor will I be complimentary in the future as long as their arrogant disregard for the "Law of the Land"continues to be their motif. I do not dislike Democrats. I have Democrat friends, my parents were Democrat, and my brother was Democrat. But the Party Leadership today is to be feared.I have a few questions for those who voted for this "Administration" Do you know that during his Chicago days your President hired and trained employees while an attorney representing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, (ACORN)? Do you know that ACORN and /or its employees are under investigation and /or indictment in at least 14 states for voter fraud? Do you know that Senator John Conyers (D, MI) tried to launch a probe into ACORN's activities and financial roots and was told to back off by the "Powers that be"? This is unethical in the very least and your leadership doesn't seem to care. Do You? Do you know that your President's Department of Justice has struck down laws passed by State Legislatures requiring voters to provide valid identification in an attempt to curb said voter fraud? This is unconstitutional and your leadership doesn't seem to care. Do You? Do you know that your President wants ACORN to participate in the up-coming census? Do you know that ACORN is partially funded by taxpayer money? This is illegal and your leadership doesn't seem to care. Do You? Do you know that your President has so far "appointed" 30+ so called Czars to oversee many key departmental functions within "his administration"? Many pundits say this is an attempt to wire around Cabinet Members and Congress and centralize power in the White House. This is unethical in the least and possibly unconstitutional and your leadership doesn't seem to care. Do You? Do you know that your President has appointed Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law Professor, to head a newly created "White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs"? Do you know that Professor Sunstein's office was created to devise a way in which the White House can control information posted on the internet? This is unconstitutional and your leadership doesn't seem to care. Do You? There is more, much, much more. But if you don't care that you have a President elected with the help of a fraud wrought organization funded illegally by taxpayer money to conduct unethical, illegal, unconstitutional actions against the American People then you will get exactly what you voted for. I refuse to believe this was your intention. I cannot believe this kind of "CHANGE" was what you voted for. One of the most important tools in a free society to maintain its freedom is a "Free Press". Free Press is a vital information source that should keep the public aware of the workings of their government. Free Press forced Nixon to resign the White House and rightfully so. The press did its job. Root out corruption and demand justice for illegal activity. However the press today, prints and broadcast, is woefully remiss and has proven to be absolutely dishonest at times. Generally speaking, I am sorry to say, the media today is not a reliable source for good information. But the inter-net can be if used properly. There is a wealth of information about almost any subject one can imagine if one is willing to look for it. Jesus said to find the truth, "search the scriptures". I think He meant to search ALL the scriptures not just the KJV or The New Amplified International but ALL the scriptures perhaps the Torah, or even the Koran or the "banned books" and the Nag Hammadi Library. Which brings up this point. The newly created "White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs" headed by Professor Cass Sunstein. Professor Sunstein has a book out "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, and What Can Be Done"? I quote from an article by Austin Hill posted July 19, 2009 on Townhall.com pointing at some of Professor Sunstein's ideas to control information posted on the internet. "He argues for a so-called ‘notice and take down' law. Under this provision, those who operate websites-The Washington Post, radio stations, private bloggers, and perhaps even you, yourself-we would all be required ‘take down falsehood upon notice' from the U.S. Government." "And not only would the original content of websites be scrutinized by the government for ‘falsehoods,' website operators would be held responsible for the content of ‘posts' created by the website visitors and readers. At first blush it may seem that, for a web operator to be held accountable for content generated by ‘posters', is completely untenable. But that may very will be Mr. Sunstein's goal-to create an untenable situation for website operators-given his assertion that ‘a chilling effect on those who would spread destructive falsehood can be an excellent idea'." "But who shall determine what, exactly, is true and false? Mr. Sunstein laments the supposed ‘lie' that emerged during last year's presidential race that ‘Barack Obama pals around with terrorists.' Despite the fact that a friendship between Obama and known domestic terrorist William Ayers was something both men acknowledged. Sunstein alludes to the notion that this was one of those ‘destructive falsehoods' of the sort that needs to be policed." "It appears that the Obama Administration may be ushering-in an era of harassment for website operators. Regardless of what U.S. Courts may or may not say about this in the future, a ‘notice and take down' letter from the White House could have quite a ‘chilling effect' for today." But this is illegal and unconstitutional, you say. Freedom of Speech is a protected right, you say. Think about it. The list of questions I posed above contains true verifiable statements. However, they are anything but complimentary in fact they are very critical of the Democratic Party and Obama's Administration. Will opinions and critical statements be considered "destructive falsehoods" deserving of a "notice and take down" letter of "chilling effect"? The administration controls most of the print and broadcast media but the internet is still a threat and I don't think Obama would blink an eye at curtailing my freedom of speech and his Congress would support him. Note: I will post this article on Tiger Express web log and it will be shared world- wide. Should I be concerned ? Chilling isn't it... Be very afraid of Obamunism. Toma Watonga, OK
Toma