Written by: Kaitlyn Burkhart

After a short and heroic uprising of the Internet community, it seems as if the people have won the battle against censorship of the Internet. On Friday January 20, Congress dropped the bills in the wake of the largest online protest in history. A staggering 13 million people took the time to add their names to the petition, alongside a voluntary blackout held by thousands of websites (including Wikipedia, the sixth most-visited site in the world),  in order to keep the Web free of censorship and out of the hands of the government and big business. The swift building of this movement, and it’s direct impact that hit the government straight in the legislature, has possibly been the most successful (if not the only, disregarding the rather ill-organized Occupy Wall Street) display of democratic power from the people in the recent past, with comparisons to the Arab Spring Movement, and our forefathers’ Boston Tea Party.

With the Internets’ uprising being hailed as a great success, it seems to be that maybe this movement of power from the people will shine the light on us as citizens, and how we’ve sat idly by as unfair, unconstitutional, and extraordinarily-out-of-touch-with-citizens’-lives legislature has been passed without even a whimper. Until, that is, they tried to take our Internet. Is this what Democracy has come to in the US? They can cut taxes for the rich, monopolize the elected government official positions to weed out any person who can’t spend millions on a campaign, slash spending on our education systems yet boost Congress’ payrolls, and most recently pass a bill that gives you no rights under the Bill of Rights if the military thinks you’re a terrorist.

Was it not so much that we were fighting for Freedom of Speech, or was it that the Internet the last free thing we had?

Remember this?

Many social commentators have been speaking out on the apathetic nature of Americans today, noting that if most of the things we let slide today happened 50 years ago, the people would have been pulling up the roots of the administration, making noise in the streets, and children would be writing letters to state representatives in their classrooms. What happen to the America where people were actively fighting for their rights? Where if people saw something that was wrong, and actually thought they could change it?

Let me ask you a question; When was the last time you watched, read, or discussed the people running for the positions in Congress or the spots in the next Presidential election? Were your thoughts afterward about the policies those people were promoting, or were you merely dissatisfied with how the entire thing seemed to be about how clueless our political leaders were, or how the debates had seemingly become pissing contests between GOP members, where one person commented on how much money the other person had made, how many wives they had, or why Obama is a socialist and needs to be stopped?

Seriously? Watching a debate nowadays is like watching an episode of The Real Housewives of New Jersey. Same amount of cat fights, less fabulously dressed.

And somehow equally trashy.

With so many people displeased with the happenings in the government, it’s amazing that it took them threatening our Internet for something to happen. The people won have won a battle, maybe that will be the thing to stoke the proverbial fire under our chairs to win the war. Or, at least, do something to put the power back in our hands.

Technorati Tags: Congress, GOP, government, Internet, pipa, sopa, SOPA/PIPA, SOPA/PIPA stopped, Wikipedia blackout

President Obama speaks to a group about Health Care on Wednesday

Written by: Katie Garren

Recently, President Obama made a statement on the subject of birth control that became a hotly contested issue. Recently, there seems to be an increased focus placed on the matter of women’s health.  This matter always seems to come up during an election year. This year has been no different, with a slew of Republican hopefuls bringing up the subjects of birth control and abortion.

In Obama’s policy, he stated that health insurance plans would be required to provide free birth control to all female employees, including plans for Catholic hospitals, universities and charities.  The President’s administration saw this as a matter of equality for women.  Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, said upon the policy’s announcement, “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”  This policy was intended to provide even preventative medicine for both men and women.  The contraceptive requirement was accompanied by requirements for blood-pressure screening and childhood immunizations.

The speech quickly became a talking point, both for people who approve and those who do not approve of its requirements.  Religious leaders were not at all open to the concept of providing contraceptives to women.  Catholic bishops were outraged, saying that this requirement “continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions.” They later vowed to fight the legislation through the other two branches of government.  Many leading Republicans also saw an opportunity to attack the President’s speech and interpret it as anti-religious. “This attack … on religious freedom in our country cannot stand and will not stand,” Speaker of the House John Boehner said in a speech on the floor of the chamber.  Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich added to the increasing ire having said, “If he (Obama) is re-elected he will wage war on the Catholic Church the day after (he is elected). We don’t trust him.”

On Friday, Obama changed his position. In a calculated measure, Obama sought to quell the controversy created by his policy.  In this revision, he states that religious organizations would not be required to provide free contraceptives to female employees.  “Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women,” Obama told reporters.

Technorati Tags: Barack, Gingrich, Health care, Newt, Obama, President, Religion, Women

If SOPA/PIPA pass, images like this might be pervasive on the Internet.

Written by: Alexis Poole

Bill H.R. 3261 (SOPA) and Senate Bill 968 (PIPA) both aim to “protect intellectual property of content creators” and “create American jobs” by cracking down on Internet piracy. It actually reads like a horribly invasive bill that seeks to strike out Internet-based companies, put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and infringe upon the privacy of anyone who uses the Internet.

Provisions under SOPA would allow judges to order ISPs to block access to websites that infringe on copyright law. Now, that sounds good and even makes sense at face value until we investigate what it takes to block a website. That order to block a website also allows them to check IP addresses of customers who visit that website. This is called IP-blocking and is a highly invasive process that would monitor users’ web traffic. So from Google to Facebook to Twitter to other “questionable” sites we may visit, the government would watch and track it all, like some peeping tom peering into your house to watch you pee.

Now, replace that peeping tom with members of the military. That’s my guess as to who these purported American jobs will go to. SOPA claims that it will protect against copyright infringement by law enforcement. I’d bet that those enforcers would need security clearance in order to even be interviewed for a job that would include daily surveillance of people’s private information. I know I don’t have any such clearance and I’d be willing to bet that the majority of current job seekers don’t either. Politicians like to throw catch phrases like that on the first page of bills because they know it’s more likely to garner votes from members of the House and Senate seeking brownie points come re-election time. That way, they can subtly remind everyone that they voted FOR American jobs.

What IS it with the undying love of extra-long acronyms for the names of these bills? We already have the USA PATRIOT Act, otherwise known as Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism. Now there’s SOPA, which stands for Stop Online Piracy Act. Additionally, there’s PIPA, an acronym with a double meaning. It stands for Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property. Read more commonly as “Protect IP Act,” the bill’s title seems to indicate that it will somehow protect IP addresses. These acronyms hide their bills’ true equal and opposite intentions. For example, the PATRIOT Act claimed that it would unite America when all it really did was tap our phone lines. SOPA and PIPA similarly propose to protect the rights of artists and maintain that the Internet won’t be affected but the bill reads like it’ll knowingly violate major privacy rights and cripple a booming Internet industry in one fell swoop.

Hypothetically, let’s say that SOPA/PIPA created 100,000 jobs…for the military, since they have the security clearance. That sounds great! At least that’s 100,000 jobs not going overseas, right? Sure, but think about the hundreds of American software companies, domain name system servers, entrepreneurs, and freelancers it would put out of work for even one small infringement. SOPA claims it wouldn’t attack entire DNS servers, just the subdomains that infringe on copyright law. They would do this by requiring DNS servers to stop linking requests for a webpage to the IP address requesting it. Domain Name System servers by design deal with request failures by finding other servers that can and will grant the original request’s wish, even if they have to go overseas to do it. Requiring servers to stop referring these requests to other servers directly affects the integrity of the DNS system as a whole. Since this hole in the proposal was pointed out, this and other DNS-related provisions have been removed from SOPA as of January 12, 2012. But SOPA/PIPA is a butt that just won’t quit.

Opposers of SOPA/PIPA are really concerned with the biggies: the First Amendment, privacy and legal liability for websites where users can upload illegal content. YouTube comes to mind. Let’s say I can’t understand the lyrics of a song. I go to YouTube, type in “lyrics to [popular song] by [popular artist]” and listen to a user-uploaded copy of the song and a cheesy Powerpoint-style presentation of the lyrics. With a room full of the military’s finest following me from webpage to webpage, they can hold me liable for accessing the copyrighted content, hold the original poster liable for uploading it and essentially sue YouTube for allowing it to be uploaded in the first place. Supporters of SOPA maintain that websites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have nothing to fear, but why shouldn’t they when the responsibility for policing infringement falls on the website itself? No wonder businesses look overseas to invest where laws like this are more lax.

Many of those who oppose SOPA/PIPA also have signed petitions asking Google to leave the Chamber of Commerce like Yahoo has already done. So far, SOPA/PIPA have been tabled for more time to review and resolve these and other issues. Many more wants to see this bill eliminated than those who want it passed. Just mentioning SOPA and PIPA sends shivers down the spines of all who value privacy and freedom from censorship.

Technorati Tags: bill, infringement, Internet, jobs, pipa, piracy, privacy, protect, sopa, SOPA/PIPA, strike

Recently, President Obama appeared on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer and responded to scrutiny by Newt Gingrich, calling him “the most effective [food stamp] president.” Rather than debase himself to name-calling and slander, Obama chose to focus on the issues at hand, saying that he’s leaving it up to Americans to decide “who reflects the sort of core values that helped create this country–the values of hard work, responsibility, but also looking out for one another–and who is tapping into some of our worst instincts.”

With such diplomatic answers, Sawyer leans and implies, “Watching the debates?”

Obama shook his head saying, “You know, I don’t watch the debates, I gotta say. Now I read the reports, and what I get a sense of is that whoever wins the Republican primaries is going to be a standard bearer for the vision of the country that I don’t think reflects who we are.”

By not watching the debate, Obama focuses on the facts that have culminated to our country’s current state, rather than view sensationalized debates that have been watered down to slanderous disrespect and a riddling off of certain keywords and phrases used to illicit a positive response from would-be constituents. Hopefully, his charts and graphs are better than what we’ve been subjected to.

Given the mistakes, could you trust this author's credibility?

Separating the Jelly Beans Fact From Fiction

As we move from reading our news in papers onto reading primarily on the Internet, we must take into consideration the time lost in heavy research and who stands to gain from our inability or sheer lack of inclination to fact check all we come across through fast channels like Twitter and Facebook. Election time always brings out the emotional side in us all, tugging at purse strings and heart strings like a puppeteer. However, as American citizens, it is our duty to choose a worthy candidate through means of logic. And that’s where this chart falls flat, at the peril of MrConservative.com.

Since when does 8.5 percent minus 7.8 percent equal a difference of 9 percent?

When graphs like this one are presented, it’s our duty to use all the skills that our educated selves can conjure up and look at everything from an OBJECTIVE perspective. It also helps if we can add and subtract, unlike the odd math in row 2: Unemployment Rate.

First of all, subtracting percentages is simple enough. In the case of row 2, where the difference between 8.5 and 7.8 is somehow bigger than either initial number, the chart creator’s credibility comes into play. One could suggest that the percentages in row 2 should have been number of people in the millions, where a difference between them could very well be 9%–but since Mr. Conservative can’t edit his own work, his credibility is shot, as should anyone’s trust in him.

Secondly, in order for a chart to be accurate, it must compare separate and equal entities. If the chart presented the responses of a number of people who favored one jellybean flavor over another, we should all be able to agree that no matter how many different flavors presented, we’d still be talking about jellybeans.

According to the above chart, the ‘Inauguration Day’ column stands for, and could have been more accurately titled, ‘Pre-Obama’. Two presidential terms’ worth of George Bush, Jr equals the figures in the first column, whereas the middle column ‘Today’ combines the figures of both Bush terms and Obama’s singular term. To be completely fair, a graph would have to compare presidents’ contributions singularly and side-by-side; For example…We would ONLY have 14 million people on SNAP benefits (food stamps) if it wasn’t for Bush’s initial “contribution” of 32 million. While the numbers have indeed risen in almost every category, Obama’s “contributions” to these issues are far less than what he was presented with when he took office. Our deficit would only be $4.6 trillion if it wasn’t for Bush’s “contribution” of $10.6 trillion.

Instead of focusing on the differences however, we should be wondering how we incurred a deficit (of any size) to begin with. We all pay our taxes every year, we all get taxes taken out of our checks, some more than others. What is any elected official doing with our tax dollars? We need to be objective and prioritize our expectations. We know we elect human beings for president. Can we expect one human being (a president) or one group of human beings (an Administration) to clean up two terms’ worth of declining numbers AND make every American prosperous and happy? AND IN ONE TERM, no less?! We know the presidents we elect are human. We hope whoever holds the next term is HUMANE as well. Compared to Bush Jr. and the wildcard Mitt Romney, Obama might be the most humane of all…that is, unless we turn a little more attention to Ron Paul.

Technorati Tags: americans, bush, deficit, Diane Sawyer, food stamps, GOP, newt gingrich, Obama, President, scrutiny, SNAP, world news

Obama speaking at 2012 State of the Union Address

Written by: Nick Mingay

WASHINGTON – President Obama gave his State of the Union Address in Washington Tuesday in which he promised to pass legislation to help America continue its recovery, even in an election year.

At a time when the nation is enamured with the Republican Caucuses, a Newt and a Mitt, Obama had his shot to make a pitch to the American electorate and jump start his campaign for reelection. He began by focusing on the troops coming home and the end of Osama Bin Laden, his two biggest accomplishments since becoming President.

Throughout the speech, Obama emphasized the need to work together within Washington. He recognized the frustration Americans had over routine task such as the debt ceiling increase. Obama made it clear he was willing to play ball with either side of the aisle if it helped the country.

“As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum,” Obama said.

Obama also pinpointed the tax code as a major issue in 2012. His major attack was on those companies who outsource jobs to other countries. Obama said he would have those companies take a tax deduction to subsidies others bringing jobs back to American soil.

“From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax,” Obama said. “And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America.”

Later in the speech, Obama spoke on growing small businesses by expanded the tax relief to them. He also proposed getting rid of regulations that hinder entrepreneurs from starting their own business. These factors would allow small businesses to gain a foothold in the market and create more competition amongst established companies.

Obama also touched on how Americas reliance on foreign oil. The Keystone XL Pipeline was an obvious setback for this, but Obama laid out other avenues that could help domestic energy production.

He mentioned using hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking,  to collect natural gas as one way to help alleviate America’s crutch on foreign oil. There has been some debate about the detriment hydrofracking has on communities close to the operation because some companies have used diesel fuel in the process. Obama wanted to stop this from expanded into a bigger issue by stating that he will require those involved in hydrofracking to disclose the materials in the solution they use.

Obama finished his speech by noting again that the world will no longer have to worry about Bin Laden terrorizing a nation or about American troops in Iraq in 2012. This was the jumping off point for his reelection campaign. We can only wait to see if Obama’s charisma and political platform will carry him to another presidential election.

Technorati Tags: 2012, America, americans, Congress, Election, Obama, president barack obama, president obama

Super Politician Ron Paul!

What is faster than a liberal? More politically powerful than a lobbyist? Able to leap Ben Bernanke in a single bound? It’s..it’s….Ron Paul action figures! Representing a new wave of politically clever campaigning, the figures are being sold by Revolution PAC with all proceeds going to support Paul’s run for president. And who can blame Paul or his supporters for thinking outside-the-box, considering Paul’s main obstacle in running for the White House.

Since Ronald Ernest Paul first emerged on the presidential spectrum in 1988 as the Libertarian Party’s nominee, equal coverage has always been an issue. In his inaugural presidential campaign in 1988, Paul’s received little attention even within his own libertarian party. Garnering not even 1% of the vote in the presidential elections, nobody seemed to mind as George Bush went on to defeat Michael Dukakis.

A decade later in the 2008 presidential elections, not much had changed. While Paul opted for the Republican nomination that time around, his congressional record in the previous ten years apparently gained him little or no respect, perhaps evidenced  by the fact that FOX News chose to leave Paul off the debate invitee list.

Has the Paul campaign experienced any difference in treatment in 2011-12? Certainly the age of free-social media advertising has helped level the playing field, giving all candidates an equal voice, right? (Did anyone realize that the Socialist Party of California Chairman, Stewart Alexander is running! Or Fred Karger, the first openly gay presidential hopeful?)

In a recent media report published by the Pew Research Center, Texas Congressman Ron Paul received the least amount of news coverage of all, serious, GOP candidates (astoundingly, he was even beat out by Sarah Palin whose presidential campaign this year…..oh wait). While Pew’s report does state that Paul received a great deal of attention in the blogosphere, as well as an overall positive spin, this should not be equated to things like mainstream media coverage, or time and attention garnered in the one too many GOP debates.

Even more damming evidence against Paul’s fair coverage emerged as he announced his “Plan for America.” Contrary to ex-running mate Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan or Mitt Romney’s 59 point proposal, Paul’s plan has received little attention even by the endlessly hungry 24-7 news cycle. Maybe it just needs a catchier moniker?

The lack of attention attributed to Ron Paul could easily be attributed to his “radical” ideas, but why hasn’t his vision caught on with more of those dissatisfied with status quo politics? With the continuing malcontent rising in the American voice and Occupy movements, many citizens are completely dissatisfied with “politics” in general.  For instance, in the 2008 election, 56.8% of the voting population turned out, leaving nearly half the nation at home. While that percentage is considerably large relative to past elections and the highest since 1968, it still leaves close to a hundred million people who decided to abstain.

On one hand, they are the apathetic, the disinterested, and the jaded. If a candidate could tap into the lethargic voting base, the political scene could dramatically change in an instant. On the other side of the spectrum, we have the Occupy Wall Street groups whose platform, though admittedly undefined, more closely resembles Ron Paul’s positions than any other candidate on either siade of party lines. Surely the ultra-libertarian Paul and these groups could form a politically strong symbiotic relationship that, if nothing else, should garner Paul more attention than he is getting.

In the past decades of Paul’s political career, the narrative on him certainly has been that he is a “fringe candidate”, a “kook”, and at best, someone whose ideas were interesting but just so crazy that they shouldn’t even be considered a realistic possibility. But as the Occupy Wall Street protesters like to remind us, aren’t we in need of some radical change? If the country is to reverse it’s a trajectory, one in which the majority of Americans believe is going in the wrong direction, it won’t be made at the margins with tax tweaks or spending cuts here and there. Systemic change, the kind President Obama promised yet hasn’t seemed to deliver, is necessary. In which case, taking Ron Paul’s ideas more seriously should be more than just an interesting notion.

Technorati Tags: 2012, campaign, GOP, President, republican primaries, Ron Paul

Civilians and soldiers can't seem to stem the violence.

The dusty village of Akobo resides on the Southern edge of Sudan, the war torn country that has seen more ethnic and political violence in recent years than perhaps any other country in Africa. Last August, reports surfaced describing a horrific massacre in Akobo where 185 people died in the attacks. Eye witnesses recount seeing bodies of women and children floating along in a river, gunshot wounds to children who were deliberate targets, and survivors crawling towards hospitals desperately seeking aid.

Last Wednesday over fifty civilians were killed in more raids between the Lou Nuer and the Murle people in Jonglei, one of the 10 new South Sudan states.  Humanitarian agencies estimate more than 60,000 people have fled the region as a result of the ongoing violence. It has been over a year since South Sudan gained its independence from the northern provinces, but little has changed. Disputes over oil and natural resource control rage on.

The slaughters in Akobo and Jonglei are just a few events out of dozens that demonstrate the level of turmoil afflicting the country. The same country that was subjected to the well documented genocides that began in 2003. The same country that thought a 22 year long civil war had ended when a peace deal was struck in 2005.

Location of Jonglei in South Sudan

The future of Sudan certainly appears grim and disheartening. With the combination of a recessionary world economy, and a volatile Middle East that has seen its own share of political unrest in recent months, it is enough for the World to once again turn a half-closed eye to Africa. Perhaps more important than the political party details of which tribe is killing which ethnic group, is the question of how much we, American citizens, care. Is it possible that the public has grown so accustomed to seeing news stories like those of the Akobo massacres that we are past the point of feeling?

Perhaps it is as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert suggests in his article generically entitled “Changing the World” – that our ambivalence and apathy has grown so strong that it prevents us from taking any action, feeling the task too great.

The ultimate solutions to Africa’s complex problems are impossible to see at this juncture, that is for certain. However, the first steps are always the same and easy to begin. It starts with a desire and action to gain two things. Understanding and knowledge. Something that is well within all our capabilities.

Protesters sitting outside the White House, objecting the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Obama administration denied a permit to expand the Keystone oil sands pipeline Wednesday, saying the deadline set by congressional Republicans did not allow enough time to sufficiently review TransCanada‘s proposal.

In his statement, Obama blamed Republicans for trying to force an early decision on the expansion of the Keystone pipeline, which would deliver crude oil from Alberta, Canada to refineries in Texas, requiring the administration to evaluate the situation by a Feb. 21 deadline.

“As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment,” Obama said in his statement. “As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.”

Russ Girling, president and chief executive officer of TransCanada, the energy infrastructure company behind the project, immediately responded to Obama’s statement.

“While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL,” said Russ Girling. “Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project. We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

For three years, the Keystone XL pipeline has been at the center of debate. TransCanada, oil industry supporters, and congressional Republicans argued that the project would create thousands of jobs and lessen the nation’s dependency on oil, while environmentalists feared that the transportation of crude oil would create a large carbon footprint, threaten the Great Plains, and make U.S. waterways more prone to oil spills.

James T. Callahan, president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, said Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL was “a blow to America’s construction workers.”

“Blocking the Keystone pipeline would be an enormous mistake by the Obama administration,” said H. Sterling Burnett, lead analyst of the National Center for Policy Analysis. “We need the oil and we need the jobs it would bring. This is as ‘shovel ready’ as anything Obama has proposed, yet because his radical environmental constituency objects, he’s apparently halting the pipeline. He simply needs their support too much in an election year.”

The president clarified that, despite the denial of the Keystone XL oil sands project, the administration will continue to find alternative ways to increase energy security, in partnership with the oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: Congress, keystone oil sands, keystone pipeline, keystone xl, keystone xl pipeline, obama administration, obama rejects pipeline, tar sands, transcanada

The brave journalist fighting against the hindrance of American rights

Written by: Jill Heagerty

Chris Hedges, a well-established and accomplished journalist, is suing President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. His questioning over the legality comes from the section of the bill that allows the military the right to indefinitely detain without trial U.S. citizens suspected to be terrorists or associated with any terrorist activities.

2012’s NDAA is a major blow to the Constitution and Bill of Rights that guarantees every citizen the right to due process. Terrorism is terrifying, but so is the American government stripping away the country’s core beliefs in democracy and liberty.

According to Hedges’s blog, he believes the purpose of this bill is to “thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state.” It is not hard to be considered as a terroristic suspect in our country, acts such as hoarding more than seven days of food, paying cash for a hotel, and trying to conceal a private text message in a public place are suspicious to the government. Mostly everyone I know is suspected of terrorist activity with that in mind. Hedges suspects that the Occupy movement will be added to this list for its treacherous behavior to question the motive behind corporations and the government, which is not a far off thought as Biden has already compared the actions of tea partiers to that of terrorists.

The government is afraid of anyone who questions its motives, so laws that hinder our rights are being put in place to keep us complacent and afraid. The NDAA of 2012 does not explicitly state what it considers necessary to hold citizens indefinitely. Could it include anyone speaking freely against public actions? Will the right of freedom of speech be considered treason if the speech is anti-government? Could freedom of the press go out the window with free speech?

Hedges’s lawsuit is the right step to protecting our rights. America invades foreign countries under the pretense of promoting peace and democracy, yet democracy is not even being promoted at home anymore. The country is on the road to a dictator form of government if this continues. Already we have seen police brutality with Occupy protestors, demoting the right to assembly. Now the right to a trial no matter what is extinguished, and it would not be shocking to see other Amendments be taken away with the guise of protecting ourselves from terrorists. If Hedges and other fighters for liberty fail, America could be the country writers such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley only dreamed of years ago.

Technorati Tags: American rights, Chris Hedges, law, NDAA, Obama

“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.”

Freedom of speech is the first amendment in The United States Constitution. Blood has been shed to keep this and the other amendments sacred.  One could say it is written in black, white, and red.

The press has always been under the control of the wealthy and those of higher powers in the country, and because of this the public has lost its faith in the fact that the press will report the truth and nothing but the truth.  Reporting stories via the news has become a corrupt and secretive business.

The press was initially created to serve the people with issues about its nation and the world.  To inform us, warn us, and provide us with the truth.  In a democracy the news media’s role is like a watchdog, monitoring the government.  When the powers at be, control the information that is broadcasted to the public, it hinders that nation’s freedoms and weakens the relationship and trust between the public and the news media system.

But in today’s world we are bombarded with censored news from the media that we are told to trust.  Whether it is for the greater good of the people, or simply to benefit the government; with either reason, it is infringing our first amendment.  Censorship is a hand grenade of an accusation, and a writer should be serious before pulling the pin.

In September of 2006, it was said there was less than ten embedded journalists covering the war in Iraq, the public was outraged at this.  During the Vietnam War there were many more and they had the liberty of going where they wanted and covering any story they felt needed to be broadcasted.  The public is blaming the news networks for the lack of journalists on the war front, but in actuality the government only permits one embedded journalist for every 75,000 soldiers.  And in the long run, most journalists give up on their task due to the dangers that they face.  So in reality, fingers can be pointed in every direction; at government officials and the journalists themselves.

Free speech is what separates us from every other country in the world.  We, the United States have more freedoms than anyone else.  But the government tries to take away more and more, lit by little. Our founding fathers wrote the first amendment to give the people the right to speak up against the British without being punished.  Censorship is a complete contradiction to what our forefathers wanted for this nation.  If our first amendment is altered or worse removed entirely, what’s next? We might as well live in a communist country where we won’t have to think, because the government won’t allow it.  We might as well put a gag around the Statue of Liberty’s mouth, because that is the image we will be representing if censorship isn’t fought against.

Technorati Tags: 1st Amendment, America, Censorship, News