Rest of story Here

I hope more Senators take up this cause.

I just can't see any good coming from U.N. control.

We've nothing to fear. Yoss and SMan are on our side.

I've been researching this topic for several days now and it is the most confusing thing I've ever seen going on in Congress. The biggest problen in understand it is the fact that most congressman are clueless on the subject. I'm starting to understand it now so I'll pass on what I know and what I suspect.

First of all, this WSJ piece is complete bullsh!t designed to create hysteria in the general internet-using public, as well as in Congress itself. Nobody likes the UN so they think this will generate the public support they need to accomplish their goal, which I'll get to later. There is a tiny bit of truth to it but it's nothing new and it's blown way out of proportion.

Read it again.

The wording almost sounds like a science fiction cartoon.

Now look for one shred of evidence he provides. Anything. A document. Is there a quote from this UN proposal? Or even an identifying number. If there was we could see it online. There's a 2 word quote, "political coup" from an unidentified EU Declaration that was from an unnamed article by an unnamed journalist on an unspecified date. He didn't name one of those European telecommunications companies that have already dissented from the EU's Geneva announcement, nor the executive who pronounced it "a U-turn by the European Union that was as unexpected as it was disturbing."

The only quote in the article that can be attributed to anyone is this one:

The chairman of the WSIS Internet Governance Subcommittee himself recently affirmed that existing Internet governance arrangements "have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges."

For the WSJ to print this when for the past 2 years they have ignored and/or criticized dozens of people who have spoken out personally against the Bush administration is the height hypocracy. At least they didn't have the audacity to put their own name on it.

Norm Coleman is a political hack that's beholden to Bush and the Republican party after they spent millions of dollars to get him elected. And he still barely made it even though his opponent, Paul Wellstone, mysteriously died in an airplane crash a month before the election. I wouldn't let him clean my toilet.

Now that I have that off my chest, on to their little scheme.

The legislation he's trying to pass is H. R. 4194.



Look famaliar? It's almost identicle to the one that I posted here 2 days ago. they've made it sound a little more important by adding Internet Anti-Corruption to the name but it's still a modification to the Federal Election Campaign Act and it adds a few more words to it. It's confusing but basically it's aim is to stop what you and I are doing right now, although it's main target is the big blogs and in case you're not aware the Democrat blogs like Dailykos are mopping the floor with the Republican blogs.

These posts appeared today on redstate.org and Dailykos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/7/123547/363

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/11/7/18448/0975

I never thought I'd see those 2 sites agree on anything, much less cooperate by posting cross links to each other.

This is getting too long but there is much more to this story and I'll be honest, I'm still not sure exactly who's behind all of it. For instance Coleman is a Republican and the 2 people mentioned in the post at Redstate are from each party. To furtuer confuse things, the bill that I ridiculed the other day is actually good news and is supported by all the big blogs. It was killed by the House leadership in a sneaky way by placing it on the Suspension Calendar, which means it can't be amended but it also then needed 2/3 support instead of 51%. It would have passed otherwise with bipartisan support.

More tomorrow.

Since when do you need evidence to run with something? Oh, only when it is a Bush or republican bash.

Please explain what you mean by this quote about the blogs.

That's purely a matter of personal opinion, and yours in this case is just plain WRONG!

I could be wrong I suppose considering that I based that one sentence in part on a study that was conducted and published by the Moonie Times. I'm not providing you guys links any longer since you rarely do the same but it shouldn't be too hard to find. From what I recall it said that Instapundit was 2-3 times bigger than Daily Kos in 2003 but now DK is 4 times bigger than Reynold's blog and in fact is the largest in the world. It also said that although conservative blogs outnumber liberal ones on the whole the top 40 are mostly liberal ones.

But really size doesn't matter, what matters is money. How much they generate in campaign contributions. Again my sources could be wrong but in arguing for regulations, some conservative congressmen have stated on the house floor that liberal blogs generate more than 10 times the money that conservative ones do.

Yep, that's right. I love going after those Republicans. It's my one and only form of "perverse pleasure" that B's always talking about.

But you have to admit I'm good at it though. Look, I got the entire country all worked up about Bush lying to start a war with no evidence at all. Most people would need several ex-White House officials to support their claims, maybe some British documents saying he was fixing the intelligence, you know, stuff like that. Not me. I just keep bashing him here at the HM Forums and before you know it, he’s 35% in the polls.

And the Plame investigation? I got the VP's COS indicted with absolutely no evidence at all. Same thing for the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. The poor guy didn't do a thing. I just started a thread about him here a few months ago and BAM!, he's gone. Piece of cake.

It took a little longer for my torture conspiracy. I put my tin foil hat on for that one about a year ago and now I have the whole world all worked up. What the hell, I think I'll pin this one on Dick Cheney. He’s such a likable guy I know but I’m ruthless when it comes to bashing Republicans.

Next up for me is Randy "Duke" Cunningham". I hate it when people think that they're John Wayne. And then I think I'm going back to KY for a quick vacation and I might go after Governor Fletcher while I’m there.

But I'm saving the big one for last. I'm going to cast a large net when I bring down Jack Abramoff. I just don't like the way that guy looks.

Damn I'm good! Imagine what I could do if I had any evidence.

If liberal blogs are such hot poop, I'd guess it is because it is where they bat back and forth their loony conspiracy theories to one another since no one else will listen. After all, we know how well lib talk radio does, don't we? I guess the blog is the only place they can go since it is basically free...

Y'all are so scared of guys like Limbaugh you have senators trying to get his time cut back on the armed forces network even though the actual listeners want more of it. Of course, you libs know what dummies those armed forces guys are, don't ya?

"It sounds like a Tom Clancy plot. An anonymous group of international technocrats holds secretive meetings in Geneva. "

Sounds like the "backdoor" meeting Editor says Sheetz and AC&T had!

This is not a secret I've been reading about this for a while now.

This is from Oct.
Rest is here

But things seem a little different now.

This week we have this.


Rest of story here

So from what I'm reading after the news got out the U.N. backed off.

Idiot the WSJ piece was just the last one I happened to read. Boy you sure can read into a story though.

Are you drunk Snoopy?



Sorry, I had to get you back for asking me the same thing a while ago.

You're missing the point if you think that post was intended to brag about the leftie blogs. That's your feud. I don't give a sh!t about any of them, they could fold up tomorrow and it wouldn't bother me. I don't post there because it would be like preaching to the choir. But I obviously struck a nerve if you have to roll out the heavy artillery.

My concern is for this medium. Read the legislation. It does not protect online group activity from regulation. Basically, "any group site that has more than $1000 in server and other costs/expenditures over the course of the year, and which uses its site to occasionally discuss federal candidates, would have be classified as a political committee with formal filing and disclosure requirements." Do you think HM wants to do that? Or any site for that matter. They are trying to suppress freedom of speech online to keep their cash cow. They should keep their stinking noses out of our personal lives and do their Fv(king jobs.

I'll say the same thing about any senator that's trying to keep Limbaugh off the armed forces radio network, which I had no clue was even happening. You may find it hard to believe but I don't waste much time thinking about Rush Limbaugh.

BTW, I mean no offense but were you ever in the armed forces? You really need to get out more if you seriously think that GIs are sitting around listening to Rush like Ma and Pa out on the front porch. When I was at Clark AB there was a tribe of Negretos (Filipino pigmies) that lived near a remote part of the base where our base radio transmit antenna was located. They were always cutting and stealing the cables and it was sometimes weeks before anyone even reported it as being off the air.

I've been there and I sympathize with them. It's the Republicans who are treating them like dummies. Maybe we should ask them if they'd rather come home or stay there and listen to Rush.

Deal averts Internet showdown



Well I guess that's over for now.

Yeah, for now.

But the attack on our online freedom of speech is not over, it's just gearing up.

Ya didn't miss this, did ya Idiot? From the liberal Wash Post...


End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Friday, September 1, 2006; A20

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey

Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

You can bet he didn't miss it he just dosen't want to talk about it.

Wouldn't they have to get Al Gore's permission?