Conservative Hatrolic Comments Tucson Sheriff Comments about Giffords Shooting

Glorious Politics When Fundraising Trumps Responsiblity

Glenn Greenwald debates WikiLeaks with Frances Townsend on CNN

Glenn Greenwald objected to this premise:

"No, you're absolutely wrong because the New York Times used its sources all the time and take classified information that they are not authorized to disseminate...good investigative journalists, maybe CNN doesn't do this, but good investigative journalists work their sources all the time to convince them to give them classified information to inform the citizens of the United States about what the government is doing."

In a free country, the government cannot, should not and does not have unlimited power to determine what publishers can publish and what the public can read.

Tell us America, is there a First Amendment in our Nation? If the answer is yes then why hasn't our elected government heard about it? Our guess is self interest not public interest which is the American Dilemma. Too much secrecy does not serve the interests of the people of our Nation and is the cancer of democracy.

Jon Stewart - Moment of Sincerity

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
Jon Stewart - Moment of Sincerity
http://www.comedycentral.com/
Rally to Restore Sainty and/or Fear The Daily Show The Colbert Report

Jon Stewart takes time to talk about why exactly he held the Rally to Retore Sanity

Jullian Assange WikiLeaks Founder Assails Fox News, Huckabee and Palin

After listening to this interview of Jullian Assange, I encourage American's to review the Wednesday, December 8, 2010 posting below, "Bad Citizenship May Be A Crime."

Jullian Assange makes very strong points about the inappropriate, if not criminal conduct that has taken place by members of Fox News and some of our own elected government representatives. Their conduct needs to address and it is time for the American people to call them onto the carpet. We need to do our own thinking America and stop listening to irresponsible politicians and shock jocks who fancy themselves journalists.

Importantly, there is an issue related to the treatement of PFC Bradley Manning, cooking the facts and the absence of due process that has taken place on his behalf. Americans have reason to start demanding accountability from members of our own governmental.

The exclusive MSNBC December 22, 2010 of interview oJullian Assange can be seen at the URL that follows here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/julian-assange-msnbc-fox_n_800471.html

Should America Shoot the Wiki Messenger?

The Queen of England tells President Obama why Shooting the Wiki Messenger is not America's Best Choice

BAD CITIZENSHIP MAY BE A CRIME

BAD CITIZENSHIP MAY BE A CRIME


By RANDELL A. MONACO, Esq.
December 8, 2010

Does restricting access to the Internet infringe upon freedoms of speech? Certainly not in the eyes of United States Senator Joe Lieberman, chair of the Homeland Security Committee, who has now taken credit for getting Amazon.com to kick Wikileaks off its servers. Amazon continues to deny that their decision had anything to do with Lieberman despite that he has warned other tech firms not to host the site either.

Joe Lieberman suggested on Fox News today that the four media outlets that have publicized the Wikileaks cables should be investigated. "To me, the New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship," Lieberman said. "Whether they've committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.”

Has access to the internet become a basic human right? Certainly not in the United States where access seemingly belongs to PayPal, eBay and Amazon to plunder the nickels and pennies that still trickle down to the shrinking middle class. Does anyone think that Lieberman might now be indebted to these companies for their cooperation?

Does restricting access to the Internet infringe upon our fundamental constitutional rights to freedoms of speech and press? The legal analysis of this question requires a “strict scrutiny” test which simply stated requires a judicial determination of whether there is any other possible less restrictive way to avoid the harm threatened. Off the top of my head, it seems obvious that competent security of State Department Cables would be a much less restrictive manner presuming that diplomatic inconvenience is actually a threatened “harm” which outweighs the rights guaranteed Americans. This analysis seems to close the circle bringing us back to the issue of competence.

Apparently Joe Lieberman a former state attorney general, has little regard for our freedom of the press stating to Fox News that, “I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department” referring to whether the New York Times had committed a crime by publishing the diplomatic cables. How is the “publishing” by Wikileaks or the republishing by the New York Times different? The fact is that neither of them stole or conspired to steal the diplomatic cables that were downloaded by U.S. Army PFC Bradley Manning while serving abroad who then brought them home to Boston and, while on leave, sent them off to WikiLeaks.

Despite the absence of discussion, you might be interested to know that PFC Manning has not been formally charged, but is in custody. This raises the issue of why? If there is a genuine threat of “harm” and not mere diplomatic embarrassment or inconvenience then why hasn’t he been charged with treason? My guess is that the facts may still be cooking and that PFC Manning might be needed to testify should the Justice Department come up with a recipe to charge Julian Assange.

Julian Assange, I believe has, the same fundamental right that supposedly we each have which is to publish statements others make if they are true and accurate. He has a right to speak and the question that factually continues to elude discussion is, how does an Australian citizen publishing diplomatic cables from a foreign country commit an act of treason or some other crime? Without a discussion of jurisdiction, a “crime” of any sort requires the unity of a mental state and, as in this case, an act, presumably publishing.

I personally find these suggestions coming from a U.S. Senator UN-AMERICAN! After all these are the fundamental freedoms that our ancestors left their homes, fought and shed their blood to win for us. America, it appears Joe Lieberman and other senior government officials have deemed inconvenience, embarrassment and concealing truth more important.
Again, to my way of thinking, there is something seriously wrong when in this “digital age of enlightenment” one person like Joe Lieberman can cut our people off from global consciousness? The term for this, had Lieberman properly sought a Judicial Order to enlist the cooperation of PayPal, Amazon and eBay, is prior restraint. Knowingly, Joe Lieberman has violated the rights of every American with his admitted end run on our judicial processes by either, intimidating, bullying or bartering with PayPal, Amazon and eBay and intimidating other American tech companies not to host WikiLeaks.

In the end these unjust restrictive efforts and attempts to censor internet content, I expect, will strengthen the resolve of those who seek to and have a voice and disobey Joe Lieberman?
Last week, The New York Times and four other news organizations began carrying articles based on an archive of a quarter-million confidential State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks making them available to their readers. Does America think that is a crime? I’m betting no!

In this holiday season, I urge American’s to show eBay, PayPal and Amazon that there is no place for their services here in the United States.