Leftist Campaign To Block Conservative Websites At Work
From Human Events:
I wanted to drop a line about the inability to access JihadWatch at work. I work for the Fed Gov. Three weeks ago, Memri was blocked. Two weeks ago HotAir, which I used to look at on my lunch break for your updates, was blocked. As of Friday, June 29th, JihadWatch was blocked. I can however, visit CAIR, read anything about Islam, and even get the Arab news. The censors I deal with are from the Dallas area. It is very easy to see that this censor is not operating according to the proper rules of access. They are operating by their political beliefs (or hopes.) It is unfortunate that these people block the very information that we need in these times…
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
I’ve read the same thing on another site. Leftist elitists still think that truth can be suppressed by such tactics. They get away with it, because no one bothers to take them to court.
Guess they never heard of the Bill Of Rights. You know the part that says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Folks this is your Fairness Doctrine at work. What’s fair to the left is OK. What’s fair to the right is bigotry.
Karl Marx is alive and well. Tell the people a lie enough times and eventually they’ll believe it.
Sorry leftist dick-suckers, you can’t suppress the truth.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:39 amKeep trying though. Eventually, you’ll just push us too far, and you’ll have a fucking revolution on your hands.
I hear things like this and I really want to splurge and get me one of those new iPhones. Wireless.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:47 amWhen the surrender monkey’s talk about redeploying the troops, I SAY AGAIN, redeploy them to Washington DC and start “house” to “house” combat operation and rid the district of the ‘rats..
July 13th, 2007 at 9:01 amWeren’t we fighting against this in WWII?
July 13th, 2007 at 9:18 amGood post Dan and 0311inohio..
July 13th, 2007 at 9:31 amI gotta tell you this leftist march has already gone too far and I agree there will be a revolution eventually if this keeps up. I couldnt imagine letting some liberal pig take away my rights and freedoms and then in a one two punch push their bullshit idealogy on me without a chance to respond
Ah this is too good not to share…Off topic but whatever…The Dutch want to ban Burquas because they oppress women. Another Dutch Doh moment huh?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289190,00.html
July 13th, 2007 at 9:38 amIf Memri & Jihadwatch is blocked, CAIR and its ilk should be blocked by the same token. Here’s a good one: the State Bar of Calif. offers continuing education courses at its convention. Guess what course is being offered for one credit: Sharia Law. Like we need to know about Sharia Law in the US of A, which is based on English Common Law. I guess the State Bar of Calif. knows something we don’t know: it’s always been in the forefront of the legal trends.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:51 amI can’t even load that site and I am at home. I wonder if it is victim of a DDOS attack from our friends in the desert.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:57 amDSG
Gotta love them Marines. Off topic again. Tough shit:
July 13th, 2007 at 10:16 amhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289174,00.html
I have worked for IT departments of several major Federal Agencies and can tell you that this sort of thing is not uncommon.
It is likely that the filter policy is based on the whim of some punk executive director who is so entrenched in his agency that nobody can tell him what to do.
Yay beaurocracy…
July 13th, 2007 at 10:33 am0311inohio… I am also a 0311 from Ohio… and I agree totally with you…
July 13th, 2007 at 11:38 amHi,
Great Photo From Iraq:
http://www.defendamerica.mil/photoessays/jul2007/p071107b5.html
A young Iraqi girl embraces Capt. Janet Rose assigned to the 431st Civil Affairs Battalion, at the Baqouba Women and Children’s Hospital, June 9, 2007. Iraqi soldiers and troops assigned to the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, brought the hospital much needed equipment during the morning visit, including 25 incubators and 15 heart monitors. U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Anthony White
___
Peace!
July 13th, 2007 at 12:05 pmDan2
http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/
Of course this is all part of the dems’ attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. They see their strangle-hold on the public has slipped and folks are thinking for themselves and getting their news and info from other, more reliable sources, these days, not trusting the LMSM anymore. So, silence the others (Dollard, Rush, Hannity, Beck …) And since my links aren’t being accepted here allow me to post this:
” HILLARY’S SECRET WAR”
The plan to silence
Internet journalists
——————————————————————————–
Posted: July 6, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor’s note: The following is an eye-opening look into New York Times best-selling author Richard Poe’s revealing book, “Hillary’s Secret War.” Whereas Edward Klein’s book on the New York senator reveals previously unknown aspects of her personal life, Poe’s expose focuses on how Hillary Clinton and the left’s “shadow government” have labored to put her and her far-left agenda in the White House by controlling the still-uncensored flow of real news to Americans – via the Internet.
If that sounds too fantastic to be true, read on.
On Feb. 11, 1998, Hillary Clinton told reporters that the Internet needed an “editing” or “gatekeeping” function. The World Wide Web was out of control, she said. It needed to be reined in. Five years later, Hillary’s dream is on the verge of being realized.
The McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 empowers federal judges and Federal Election Commissioners to determine who is allowed to say what about political candidates in all electronic media. On Sept. 18, 2004, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the FEC to extend its enforcement of McCain-Feingold to the Internet.
In the face of a massive outcry from bloggers, the FEC backed down from fully implementing Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order. However, the order stands. Sooner or later, it will be enforced.
Proposals are already on the table to require bloggers to register with the government and to report to the FEC any election-related blogging they undertake as “political contributions” subject to campaign finance law.
How did we get to this point?
The simple answer is that we failed to treat the Clinton threat as seriously as we once treated the Nixon threat. Nixon’s abuses were aggressively investigated and punished. The Clintons’ abuses were swept under the carpet.
Nixon’s political machine evaporated following his resignation. The Clinton machine has only grown stronger with each passing year. Today, the Clintons effectively control the Democratic Party. The McCain-Feingold Act is largely their handiwork.
You won’t hear about any of this from major media….”
July 13th, 2007 at 12:45 pmthere is more on the World Net Daily site. Since I can’t drop the link here, try searching for the entire article by using the title and author (Richard Poe).
July 13th, 2007 at 12:46 pmJust a little off the subject but still in the neighborhood.The Stalinists in the Senate want to reinstitute the “Fairness Doctrine” well we should consider it,, only if we start with the Newspapers- NY TImes, WAPO ,The Gannett Chain, The AP etc. Then bring in the Television networks,their news and entertainment divisions, then NPR and PBS. Then the Hollywood movies to make sure all sides of every issue be presented fairly.After a period of time when we are able to make certain that the “Fairness Doctrine” is working in those areas then and only then bring in the Radio Am/FM talk radio. God Bless America- Is it time for the Revolution yet? Griff
July 13th, 2007 at 12:52 pmJohn -
I tried to link to that also. It’s being Kennedy driven. Also had a link to the audio/video of Norm Coleman on the Senate floor today. Seems the dems in the senate are even refusing to debate it.
Can we now replace the (D) after their names with (Chavez) … or how about (BB) Big Brother.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:07 pmSorry for the length, Pat, but I couldn’t drop the link. This also from World Net Daily:
[Kennedy’s secret strategy to stick it to radio hosts
From start, Fairness Doctrine was about silencing opposition
——————————————————————————–
Posted: July 11, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – While Democrats in Congress claim they are only seeking balance, accuracy and truth with renewed calls for the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, history shows government enforcement of the broadcast rule was selective, heavy-handed and used purposely to squelch political opposition – by both Democrats and Republicans.
According to a Heritage Foundation report, President Richard Nixon, facing a hostile press, began a systematic campaign of harassment of radio and TV stations considered unfriendly to his administration.
But Nixon hardly invented the idea of using the Fairness Doctrine to stifle debate and criticism of government policies.
Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce in President John F. Kennedy’s administration, candidly recalled the way the doctrine was used in the early 1960s.
“We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue,” he explained in Fred Friendly’s 1976 book, “The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment.”
That strategy was developed in 1962 when Kennedy’s plans for approval of a nuclear test ban treaty by the U.S. Senate were facing sustained attack from opposition broadcasters.
The Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, established and funded by the Democrats, began demanding free reply time under the Fairness Doctrine any time a broadcaster denounced the treaty. The campaign was successful. The Senate overwhelmingly ratified the treaty.
In the 1964 presidential campaign, President Lyndon Johnson and his Democratic machine prepared a kit explaining “how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine.” The campaign produced 1,035 letters to stations and 1,678 hours of free air time for the Democrats, playing, in the eyes of the practitioners, no small part in Johnson’s landside defeat of Sen. Barry Goldwater.
In a confidential report to the Democratic National Committee, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former Federal Communication Commission staffer, explained: “The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule.”
While the House of Representatives voted last month 309-115 to deny federal funds to implement the Fairness Doctrine, the action is significant only through 2008. Should Democrats maintain control of both houses of Congress and gain control of the White House, the prospects are good for reintroduction and passage of the Fairness Doctrine.
However, the enthusiasm expressed for reviving the discarded regulation by Democratic Party leadership, and even some Republicans in the wake of the Senate battle over immigration, almost assure the issue will be resurrected as a campaign issue next year and as a legislative certainty in 2009 should Democrats remain in control of Congress and capture the White House.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a former radio talk-show host, led the charge last week to stop the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters – sometimes referred to as “the Hush Rush bill,” because of its preoccupation with conservative talk radio as epitomized by nationally syndicated stars Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham.
“Unless broadcasters take steps to voluntarily balance their programming, they can expect a return of fairness rules if Democrats keep control of Congress and win the White House next year.” said Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly, a news analyst for NBC, MSNBC and CNBC.
In recent weeks, particularly during that immigration debate, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Trent Lott, R-Miss.; John Kerry, D.-Mass.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, have all called for the Fairness Doctrine to be considered or reinstated once again.
As early as February, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., attempted to introduce the Media Ownership Reform Act. MORA’s provisions included regulations that would prohibit consolidation and mass domination of broadcasting groups to serve the public interest. It also included the Fairness Doctrine.
Even though that quiet attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine failed, advocates of a more direct approach to reviving it see the potential to debate it openly and successfully in the near future.
The debate opened up wide following an interview of Feinstein on “Fox News Sunday” by Chris Wallace.
“In my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole,” she said. “It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.”
Pressed by Wallace about whether she is for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, Feinstein said, “Well, I’m looking at it.”
Following that exchange, others were more direct.
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Durbin. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee for the Democrats, also came out swinging.
“I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back,” he said on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. “These are the people that wiped out … one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye.”
Perhaps the biggest surprise in the Fairness Doctrine debate came when former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott made harsh comments about talk radio during the immigration debate – a debate in which he found himself on the losing side.
“Talk radio is running America,” he fumed, adding “we have to deal with that problem.”
Later Lott clarified his remarks to suggest the remedy he had in mind was better communication with voters, not governmentally imposed restrictions on free speech. But Lott actually has a history of support for the Fairness Doctrine.
In 1987, he opposed efforts by President Reagan and many of his own Republican colleagues to get it scrapped.
“We have unfairness now even with the Fairness Doctrine,” he said at the time. “Heaven knows what would happen without a Fairness Doctrine.”
The FCC did indeed end the Fairness Doctrine requirements in 1987. First enacted in 1949, the policy mandated that when a broadcast station presented one viewpoint on a controversial public issue, it must also counter with the opposing viewpoint. Repealed by a vote of 4-0, it was concluded the Fairness Doctrine had begun to inhibit political discourse rather than enhance it.
Congress tried to reinstate the doctrine but President Reagan vetoed the attempt. Again in 1991, another attempt to revive the doctrine failed when then-President George H. W. Bush threatened a veto.
Before 1967, the principles that make up the Fairness Doctrine were applied selectively. But that year the doctrine was incorporated into the rules of the FCC. The constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine was initially upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, but a series of later court rulings – Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tormillo and FCC v. League of Women Voters – pushed in the other direction.
Maybe the most surprising development in the most recent kerfuffle over the Fairness Doctrine were those in the public eye – including some elected officials – who clearly had no idea what the debate was all about.
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, was asked by Hannity during the immigration fireworks how he viewed efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
“Fairness Doctrine – I’m all for it, whatever it is,” he said. “I think everyone should be open to show the other side. That’s what you do every night on Fox. That’s great!”
When Hannity reminded Voinovich the Fairness Doctrine would establish government regulatory bureaucracies to enforce this balance, Voinovich quickly retreated.
Similarly, PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley seemed to be caught totally off-guard when asked by C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb for an opinion on the Fairness Doctrine.
“The Fairness Doctrine,” he fidgeted. “Hmmm. Let me think about that one. I haven’t thought too much about that. Come back to that question later.” ]
July 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pmCan’t be certain this is the case, but my work is starting to filter based on how frequently a site is visted. The most popular sites become “surf blocked” in an effort to stop staff from “wasting” time. Communist bastards… if I wanna get paid to “patdollard” I should, damn it!
July 13th, 2007 at 2:40 pmJust cause I feel like it:
July 13th, 2007 at 3:12 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJNqep77vBw
Another moment brought to you by the Demo-Communists…
Will Mexico collapse as a nation-state?\
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/07/with-the-united.html
This is what I’m smelling…
Have the borders been purposely left open to collapse there crappy nation, so when the collapse comes we ‘walk in’ to help it out? And take the oil?
What gives…?
July 13th, 2007 at 3:17 pmHere’s another relating to the Fairness Doctrine (hope the link goes through):
The Fairness Doctrine is Not Dead
By Cliff Kincaid | July 2, 2007
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5577_0_3_0_C/
July 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pmI know this is way off topic on this thread but since it’s at the top of the page I really want yunz to see it and access the video of the interview. Pat has highlighted this brave and beautiful woman on this site before. Please watch the video interview, and try NOT to puke because of the jack ass interviewing her.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on ON THE MAP with Avi Lewis (a Canadian interview show). Ayaan really puts it to the Canuck jerk, but her quote I’ve included says it all:
http://www.cbc.ca/onthemap/fullpage.php?id=87
“…You grew up in freedom … You can spit on freedom because you don’t know what it is NOT to have freedom …”
Lewis accuses Ali of spouting pro American talking points, even asking her if there was a school she had gone to to learn all the things she was saying … Never mind the fact that Lewis dragged out every anti American and DNC talking point to counter her testimony to her joy of freedom in America.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:57 pmMSM hasn’t posted Yasir’s cause of death, suprise AIDS, I wonder how he got that!
July 13th, 2007 at 5:01 pmSlightly off topic but,
I contacted Evan Sayet today and asked when his book was coming out.
The book is based on this must-see speech:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
Here is an excerpt of the email he sent in response:
Hi POD1,
Thanks for taking the time to write and for your kind words.
The book comes out from Regnery press in April of ‘08 so that hopefully it’ll have an effect on the elections.
Keep your eye out for the book (tentatively titled “Regurgiating the Apple: How Modern Liberals ‘Think’”)
and please spread the word.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Evan
July 13th, 2007 at 5:43 pmComes the revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I hate all Democrats without reservation. I will never acknowledge any of them including any who become president. They can all go to hell.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:26 pmI find it absolutely amazing how ignorant the masses have become to the wishes of our founding fathers and their true intent on giving us words on paper that would create the building blocks for our country. The Constitution; the Bill of Rights; Declaration of Independence. They knew that those in power would become drunk with power and they always believed that it was the common man who should make the final decision on how this country operates.
“”Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”
-John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
“A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
-James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788
“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781
“History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781
“The instrument by which it [government] must act are either the AUTHORITY of the laws or FORCE. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government there is an end to liberty!”
-Alexander Hamilton, Tully, No. 3, August 28, 1794
*************************
It is apparent that the left loathes any article of news that should shed light of a positive matter on this war. The Fairness Doctrine is what they seek to stop the “lies” about the War On Terror. Sorry, but this theory is slightly askew. It is the left who fears the truth. The bright light of justice hurts their eyes.
When asked why I support the war, I reflect upon the following words:
“Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to “bind me in all cases whatsoever” to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?”
-Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776
“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.” ~D.H. Lawrence, Classical American Literature, 1922
Just like the men who’s quotes are mentioned above, this is our century’s revolution. But the founding fathers had it easier, in a sense, than us.
1) First, we knew whom we were fighting against and where the enemy was. That cannot be said today. Europe and numerous other countries have allowed a terrible cancer to take hold and spread unchecked for too long. Now, our enemy is everywhere. But, luckily, we can kill the heart (Iran) and drop the beast of oppression and hate in its own tracks.
2) The 13 colonies were united (for the most part). In this war, we can easily see the media and politicians beating on their chests and crowing like a bunch of old cock crows. These factions have worked hard to fragment this country, and, in turn, line their own greedy pockets with blood money.
3) We sought freedom from oppression and a desire for a governing body that represents the people, not select peoples of power or a select group. With Iraq, if we as a country were truly proud of the history of this land, we would not be having this discussion or needing Pat’s website for information. Instead, the truth would be printed in black and white and honesty portrayed on the television set.
“The patriot’s blood is the seed of Freedom’s tree.” ~Thomas Campbell
“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”
~Abraham Lincoln
“No one is free when others are oppressed.”
~Author Unknown
“Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.”
~Woodrow Wilson
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788
“We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.” ~Edward R. Murrow
July 13th, 2007 at 8:46 pmIt never ceases to amaze me that I can post and access all the leftist, tree-hugging, anti-conservative crap I want. But if I were to say, “I think we should round up all illegal hispanic immigrants and extremist muslims with ties to AQ, and send them packing back to their homes.” I’m automatically labeled a racist. I’m not a racist, I’m a man who believes that America has sold herself out. ILLEGALS and TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS are just that…LAW BREAKERS.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pmI’ve been in Iraq since Jan 04. The more time I spend here, the less I like Americans. We’ve sold out our values, our honor, and our pride. Every prime-time show has a least one homosexual character. This is to brainwash my kids into accepting all people as equals and that alternative lifestyles are to be accepted by everyone. Public schools have removed the pledge of allegience, national athem, and prayer. They’ve replaced these core values with, Call 911 if your parents yell or hit you. One the questions that has become standard practice when taking your kid to the Dr is, “Do your parents have guns in the house?” WTF, it’s not anyone’s business if I have guns in my house. What happens is the kid is put in a position where they dime their parents out. 3 year olds don’t lie. The next line of future questioning will be, “Who did your parents vote for?” I know this is a bit off subject. However, it is just one more way of invading our personal lives. Keep up the good work, Pat. I’ve sent the link to Pat Dollard to everyone in my mailing list. I’m sure I’ve now been put on the DemocRAT terrorist watch list. It’s harder and harder to identify who the enemy of America is.
beurg:L
July 14th, 2007 at 2:41 amIts not really hard to identify the enemy.
You did this already.
The teachers of the public school system, taking any feel of patriotism and value out of the school system,The msm and Hollywood for taking out any sembalance of normality from the sitcoms by including gays, and the medical profession who are asking inapropriate question of young patients.
I, if I was a US resident make a really heavy respose to the questioning of young children about their parents holding guns in their homes. Its none of their business and neither it should be. This is a stalinist attitude that “whatever information I get will be handed to the Authorities and then the transgressors will get their just desserts”
There comes a time to clear the air(and the population) of fifth column wankers who would dob in a responsible citizen.
Where are these peoples responsibilities, and who gave them the right to interrogate innocent children.
Send them back to NY and get some really decent American Patriotic doctors who aint gonna behave like stazi troops.
Dont let this kind of shit florish, thats the start of the slippery slope.
Beware of the “summertime patriot” Hound them out of your neighbourhood. Only then will you be able to sleep peacefully in your bed, knowing that the only thing that will wake you is the crow of the morning cock and not the 2 AM knock on the door.
POD1
The first 10 minutes of Evan Sayet’s speech sums things up nicely. Real eye-opener. I sent it to my conservative and captital L Liberal friends. Maybe they will see the light. Damned good post. Buerger
July 14th, 2007 at 2:53 amI had an 84 year old lady tell me the other day that if clinton gets elected, who needs alquidi
July 14th, 2007 at 3:11 amPOD1:
I saw that on C-SPAN awhile back. I enjoyed watching it again. Evan Sayet is a brilliant guy. Anyone interested in why Libs(not small L) are so fucked in the head, should read his stuff.
Evan Sayet has the three things that modern Liberalism lack: critical thinking, rationality and common sense.
Good stuff there dude.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:00 amI have created a category link on my blog to provide rolling updates on the issue of blog censorship, including who is being blocked, who is doing the blocking, contact information, current status, and so forth.
Please bookmark this link:
http://1389blog.com/category/blog-censorship/
Thank you!
1389
September 4th, 2007 at 8:17 pm