ALIPAC Alleges Facebook Censorship Of Anti-Obama Protest

The conservative group Americans For Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) is planning a nationwide protest against President Barack Obama. But the group’s organizers claim that Facebook is making it difficult to get the word out for conservative Americans to converge on State capitals all over the country by stifling political free speech.

ALIPAC has called on Americans who oppose Obama’s policies to gather at State capitals for a nationwide protest on Saturday between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.

According to a press release, attendees will partake in “unprecedented picket style, friendly flash mob style protests [which] will be conducted on public sidewalks outside of state capitol buildings.” ALIPAC claims that more than 20,000 people throughout the Nation have confirmed they will attend via the group’s website and Facebook page.

ALIPAC organizers now allege that Facebook has moved to block ads for the event and black out any information about the anti-Obama protest on the social network.

ALIPAC president William Gheen said: Facebook blocked our ads, blocked those not already invited to the event page from finding our protest on the Facebook search engine, and is preventing us from stopping pro-Obama trolls from posting large volumes of aggressive comments on our event.”

A direct link to the Facebook page for the event can be found here. According to WND, attempts to access the page by searching for the event yields results that include “several new, and unauthorized, clone events with hardly any attendees.”

There is, however, a possibility that the clone events are simply supporters of ALIPAC attempting to try to drum up support for the local protest event by creating unauthorized pages, thereby unintentionally burying ALIPACS initial event posting.

In the following video Gheen explains how he believes Facebook is going about blocking out his group:

 

 

This is not the first time Facebook has been accused of stifling political free speech. Alternative media pioneer Alex Jones’ website Infowars reported last October that the social networking site was using its “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities”  to remove political opinions:

Attempting to login to Alex Jones’ Facebook account, which has over 321,000 subscribers, Infowars staff were met with a message from Facebook denying access to the account until it was acknowledged that Facebook’s terms had been violated.

“We removed content you posted,” stated the message, underneath which was a black and white image of Osama Bin Laden with the words “Al-CIA-da” emblazoned across it. Facebook removed the image because it “violatesFacebook’s Statement of RIghts and Responsibilities.”

A secondary screen then warned that other infringing images should be removed if the account was to remain in good standing.

Facebook also made recent headlines, as CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly held a fundraiser for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at his Palo Alto, Calif., home Tuesday night.

Gun Control Fanatics Continue Biggest Gun Nanny Contest

The State lawmaker one-upmanship with regard to gun control continues with a proposal from Missouri House Democrats to confiscate firearms from law-abiding residents.

Missouri House Bill 545 would make a felon of any owners of so-called assault weapons in the State who refused to destroy their firearms, move them across State lines or turn them over to law enforcement officials within 90 days of the bill’s passage.

From the proposed legislation:

Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

The bill borrows from State and Federal proposals for assault weapon bans proposed by other lawmakers throughout the Nation in the wake of recent shooting tragedies in that its descriptions focus on magazines and the aesthetic characteristics of firearms.

The bill, proposed by Democratic Representative Rory Ellinger, has been largely dismissed by Republican lawmakers in the State who hold a majority in both the House and Senate.

Despite no action being taken on the bill, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action issued a statement about the measure, reading in part: “Compelling law-abiding citizens to surrender their firearms and magazines is unconstitutional, wrong and another failed attempt to reduce crime.  Criminals—by definition—violate laws, especially gun control laws. They will never surrender their firearms, or comply with any gun control scheme. HB 545 would only affect the lawful, while ignoring the actual problem of violent criminals who misuse firearms.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Senate Democrat Dianne Feinstein has announced that on Feb. 28 she will hold another hearing on her Federal assault weapons ban bill. The Senator claims she was not satisfied with the testimony of witnesses called for the first full Judiciary Committee hearing last month.

Below is a clip of one of the more fact-filled moments that Feinstein may have disliked from the previous hearing:

 

Research: Partisanship Could Re-Wire Your Brain

Research from a group of political scientists and neuroscientists reveals that political preference can have an impact on how the brain functions.

The findings, published in PLOS ONE, demonstrate that Democrats and Republicans rely on different parts of the brain when they make decisions that could be considered risky. Though the researchers suggest that parental influence and genetics play the biggest role in brain development, they contend that political affiliation also influences the brain’s function.

To find out how much politics affect how the brain works, Darren Schreiber, Ph.D., a researcher in neuropolitics at the University of Exeter, examined the brain activity of groups of Americans in a lab environment as they played a simple gambling game. He and his team then looked up the political party registration of the 82 participants in public records. They found that Democrats and Republicans take similar risks, but differ greatly in what parts of the brain lead them to do so during a high-risk activity.

Schreiber concluded, seemingly appropriately, that liberals are more likely to concentrate with the left side of the brain (insula) and conservatives (amygdala) with the right. According to the researchers, neuroscientists often associate the left brain with social and self-awareness and the right brain with fight-or-flight reflexes.

The researchers believe that by simply monitoring brain activity, they could determine whether a person is a Democrat or a Republican with 82.9 percent accuracy.

“Although genetics have been shown to contribute to differences in political ideology and strength of party politics, the portion of variation in political affiliation explained by activity in the amygdala and insula is significantly larger, suggesting that affiliating with a political party and engaging in a partisan environment may alter the brain, above and beyond the effect of heredity,” Schreiber said.

Obama Vacation No. 2 For 2013, Banning Lewd Photoshopping, More Gun Control And Celebrity TSA: Thursday Morning News Roundup 2-14-2013

Here is a collection of some of the stories that Personal Liberty staffers will be keeping an eye on throughout the day. Click the links for the full stories.

  • There are questions about the direction of the Republican Party’s future. The difference between Senator Marco Rubio’s response to the President’s State of the Union address and Senator Rand Paul’s response is a good example of the divide.
  • Secretary of State John Kerry called all the foreign ministers of countries that deal with North Korea following Monday’s nuclear test, but Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov won’t return his call.
  • A State lawmaker in Georgia is so perturbed that someone used Photoshop to put his head on a porn star’s body that he now wants any kind of lewd Photoshopping to be banned.
  • Taxpayers will send President Barack Obama on his second vacation of the year Friday aboard Air Force One for a Presidents Day weekend excursion to West Palm Beach, Fla.

Check back for updates, news and analysis throughout the day. Like us on Facebook.

Celebrate ‘Bastardized’ Media

Vice President Joe Biden called on the “legitimate news media” Sunday to assist in furthering the President’s gun control agenda. But Biden’s call to action was less a directive for mainstream media to push gun control (as if he needed to ask) than it was a move to discredit any grass-roots information initiatives that have the potential to derail government propaganda.

“We’re counting on all of you, the legitimate news media, to cover these [gun policy] discussions because the truth is that times have changed,” Biden said during a press conference.

The Vice President also added that reports suggesting the Administration wished to take weapons away from gun owners were a “bunch of malarkey.”

Of course, Biden had no reason to beg media to jump on the gun control bandwagon. According to research conducted by the Media Research Center (full disclosure: MRC describes its mission as “holding the liberal media accountable for shamelessly advancing a left-wing agenda, distorting the truth, and vilifying the conservative movement”), analysis of 216 gun policy stories from the nightly news programming of NBC, ABC and CBS showed that coverage from those outlets favored more strident gun laws 8-1. FOX News was not included in the survey.

Here are some of the MRC numbers:

Evening Newscasts Slant 8-to-1 Against Gun Rights

Out of 92 evening news segments, anti-gun news stories outnumbered pro-gun stories by 46 to 6 (with 40 neutral stories), or an almost 8 to 1 ratio.

■ CBS’s Evening News was the most biased in favor of gun control, airing 19 anti-gun stories to only 1 pro-gun segment, with 20 neutral stories. Anti-gun talking heads (42) outnumbered pro-gun talking heads (21) by a 2 to 1 ratio, with 17 neutral soundbites.

■ ABC’s World News wasn’t much better, airing 15 anti-gun segments to just 2 pro-gun segments, with 8 neutral stories. Surprisingly, ABC’s World News did offer a fairer result when it came to soundbites as anti-talking heads (28) almost matched pro-talking heads (27) with 15 being neutral.

■ NBC’s Nightly News offered 12 anti-gun segments and delivered 3 pro-gun segments, with 12 neutral stories. On Nightly News, 51 talking heads supported gun control to just 29 opposed to more regulations, 20 soundbites were neutral.

Suffice it to say, the Vice President would certainly count any of the aforementioned networks in the “legitimate news media category.” Despite already appearing to have fallen in line with the Administration’s agenda, Biden’s call may be part of the reason NBC News programs, as well as MSNBC, CNBC and NBC News Digital, decided to launch a series of special reports called “Flashpoint: Guns in America.” The purpose of the network-wide initiative will be to examine gun violence, gun legislation and gun ownership, according to TVNEWSER.

But with little resistance from mainstream media against the Administration’s gun policy suggestions, why the need for the Vice President’s call to action? Unfortunately, it appears that the assault on the 2nd Amendment from the Administration of Barack Obama is lending itself to a more subtle assault on the 1st Amendment:

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.

Despite the efforts of certain mainstream media outlets to further the agenda against the 2nd Amendment, a hearty backlash has been mounted by grass-roots, “fringe,” conservative and conspiratorial (whatever you want to call them) media outlets enabled by the ability to reach mass audiences via the Internet. Perhaps Biden would refer to these subversive and lesser-known outlets as the bastardized news media.

There is no guarantee that information provided by smaller news outlets is provided without political bias, and most of their consumers realize this. The problem for people like Biden is that the more grass-roots journalistic efforts require the information consumer to think critically about the claims made, a far departure from the automatic authority granted to the mainstream “legitimate news media” controlled by a handful of major news networks. The result is the need of statists like Biden to delegitimize those outlets that require thought. Unfortunately, in doing so the Vice President is granting himself the authority to do something that only the Supreme Court has the power to do: define the meaning of “press” in the 1st Amendment.

The Supreme Court has never explicitly defined the Free Press Clause or given any indication of whom or what comprises the “press.” Biden, in his quest to further limit the 2nd Amendment, is attempting to do it for the court by defining the press as “legitimate media” or, more accurately, as those news organizations that bend to the will of the Administration. There should be no expectation that mainstream media outlets would reject to Biden’s attempt to interpret the 1st Amendment; they’re in on it. Traditional media outlets have been trampled by grass-roots media and citizen journalism in recent years. The last power players in the mainstream media world are the biggest, and they will never cede legitimacy to small media organizations offering dissident opinions.

The 1st Amendment will remain intact only as long as the bastardized news media is allowed to continue to exist. But as witnessed in December, when in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy Connecticut cops warned that anyone posting so-called “misinformation” on the case was committing a crime, the battle for the airwaves is on.

Yesterday, Obama reportedly issued an executive order that is meant to provide critical infrastructure protections against cyberattack. The order, similar to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act that was scrapped in Congress after grass-roots media stirred public outcry, promises to grant the government expansive power over the Internet, the portal of uncensored information enabling bastardized media to spread uncensored information.

Oddly enough, the order was actually signed, effective immediately, on Tuesday. The Administration simply asked members of the legitimate media to withhold the information from the public until the day following the State of the Union address. The press complied.

Here’s BuzzFeed’s version of the story, published Wednesday:

The order — setting up new programs aimed at stopping online espionage and terrorism — was already the law of the land, signed by the president. But it was also secret.

The document was “embargoed until delivery of the President’s in the State of the Union address” — despite the fact it had already been signed.

Such embargoes — imposed unilaterally, rather than agreed-upon — are not binding on news organizations, which weigh the urgency of the news against the headache of, for instance, being dropped from the White House’s distribution list. BuzzFeed abided by the embargo, having participated in a background briefing on the move, but thought it appropriate to report on the unusual delay.

The media takeover is in its last and final stages. The last step for the statists is to do away with independent media outlets like Personal Liberty Digest, The New American, Prison Planet and any others not fitting into Biden’s narrow “legitimate news media” category.

This isn’t the first time a government has attempted to obtain a monopoly on all information spread on American soil. The first multipage newspaper in America, Publick Occurrences, Both Forreign and Domestick, was printed by Richard Pierce and edited by Benjamin Harris in Boston on Sept. 25, 1690. The paper promised in the first — and what turned out to be the only — issue of the newspaper to publish “once a month, or, if any Glut of Occurrences happen, oftener.”

British colonial authorities didn’t feel the newspaper was legitimate news media and ordered the paper shut down:

Whereas some have lately presumed to Print and Disperse a Pamphlet, Entitled, Publick Occurrences, both Forreign and Domestick: Boston, Thursday, Septemb. 25th, 1690. Without the least Privity and Countenace of Authority. The Governour and Council having had the perusal of said Pamphlet, and finding that therein contained Reflections of a very high nature: As also sundry doubtful and uncertain Reports, do hereby manifest and declare their high Resentment and Disallowance of said Pamphlet, and Order that the same be Suppressed and called in; strickly forbidden any person or persons for the future to Set forth any thing in Print without License first obtained from those that are or shall be appointed by the Government to grant the same.

Media, it seems, has come full circle in America with Biden’s claim of “malarkey” spread by bastardized news media resembling the British Governor and Council finding “sundry doubtful and uncertain Reports” in Publick Occurrences. There is a reason words and weapons are the first issues covered in the U.S. Constitution: The men who wrote it lived in a time and place where both were outlawed, a time and place they never wanted another American citizen to experience.

Campaign Celebrating White Guilt Embraced At Wisconsin University

School officials at the University of Wisconsin-Superior are supporting a campus campaign to make it clear to students that those born white should feel extremely guilty about their genetic makeup.

The Un-Fair Campaign, a project whose originators claim is an effort to teach white people that “systems and institutions are set up for us [whites]” and it is unfair to every individual who does not have white skin.

Officials at the school claim the project is an “opportunity on our campus to talk about all privilege and to create conversation,” according to Campus Reform.

“We really felt that this was an opportunity for the campus and the neighboring community to learn and to grow together,” a spokeswoman for UWS told the website.

Plastered throughout the campus are posters similar to those below:

unfair

person-1

The campaign has also reportedly been advertised in a handful of towns throughout the Nation. In January 2012, residents in Duluth, Minn., launched the campaign in their town and erected billboards advertising how unfair it is to be white.

Napolitano: Borders Stronger Than Ever

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that U.S. border security has “never been stronger” during a Wednesday Senate hearing regarding immigration reform.

Napolitano’s remarks came as she worked to convince Senators that they should agree to an immigration reform package that provides both heightened border security and an easier pathway to citizenship for immigrants already in the Nation.

“I often hear the argument that before reform can move forward, we must first secure our borders,” Napolitano said in her opening remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“But too often, the ‘border security first’ refrain simply serves as an excuse for failing to address the underlying problems. It also ignores the significant progress and efforts that we have undertaken over the past four years. Our borders have, in fact, never been stronger.”

According to the Homeland Security Secretary, a record 409,000 illegal immigrants were detained last year.

But Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said the Administration of President Barack Obama simply has not done enough about immigration to be in a position to ask for an easier path to citizenship for illegals.

“I truly believe, had this Administration done a better job of enforcement, been more effective in moving forward with a lawful system of immigration, you would be in a much stronger position with the American people who ask for a more broad solution to the problem,” Sessions said.

Dead Dorner, Russian Smokers and Economy-Killing Taxes: Wednesday Morning News Roundup 2-13-2013

Here is a collection of some of the stories that Personal Liberty staffers will be keeping an eye on throughout the day. Click the links for the full stories.

  • There are reports that law enforcement officials set on fire the house where alleged cop killer Christopher Dorner was holed up.
  • If you didn’t catch the President’s State of the Union, take it from Uncle Ted: “My favorite part was when I couldn’t hear clearly,” said Nugent to reporters after the speech. “Then I didn’t get angry.”
  • Middle school teacher Ned Walker, 41, was arrested Monday in his school’s parking lot for having a .380 loaded semi-automatic handgun with a 7-round magazine as well as a 2.5-inch locking-blade knife in his vehicle.
  • In Russia, where more than 40 percent of the adult population smokes, lawmakers are working to ban smoking in public.
  • The President had lunch with members of the press yesterday. But America will never know what they discussed, as the whole event was “off the record.”

Check back for updates, news and analysis throughout the day. Like us on Facebook.

Obama To Issue Cybersecurity Order Today

President Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order today to create new standards related to what private-sector companies must do to protect their computer systems from a cybersecurity breach.

The prospect of a cybersecurity executive order being on the horizon was raised last year when, due to outcry from Internet privacy groups, Congress refused to pass the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). The bill was criticized by privacy advocates because it created a government/private sector information pipeline and broadly defined information that could be snooped by government agencies with the help of service providers as “information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system or network.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed this week that the President will now work unilaterally to implement cybersecurity provisions similar to CISPA, but he didn’t give any details.

“It represents a huge challenge for our country. He has called on Congress to take action. Unfortunately, Congress has thus far refused legislatively,” he said at a press briefing with reporters. “But I don’t have any previews to provide.”

A draft executive order that is similar in nature to the original CISPA bill, however, details what the President likely has in mind. Hyped as a “voluntary” effort with a public/private partnership and cooperation, the measure charges government regulators with the following:

  • Determine what pre-existing authority they have to regulate cybersecurity.
  • Create a “prioritized… set of actions” that should be taken to “mitigate or remediate identified cybersecurity risks.”
  • Finally, regulators “are encouraged to propose regulations… based on such set of prioritized actions.”

Obama is expected to increasingly use his executive authority to circumvent Congress on a number of other policy issues during the remaining years of his Presidency. This has conservative Americans like Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) fearing the President has developed a “king complex.” Last month, Paul proposed the Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013 in response to Obama’s 23 executive actions on gun control. The Act would nullify anything the President does that resembles legislation. The Act refers to Article I of the Constitution, which states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”

Obamacare’s Generation Of Slaves

Did some of America’s liberals just wake up from a four-year coma?

Throughout the 2012 election cycle, conservatives complained that the online “social news organization” BuzzFeed served a propaganda arm for the campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama. But in recent days, the youthful news organization has published story after story explaining how the Obama Administration has been and is poised to continue “screwing” its base and young Americans.

In a piece published to the website early this week, BuzzFeed staff writer Ben Smith admonishes that the unConstitutional healthcare package the President designed ultimately will be most expensive for young Americans.

From the article:

State and federal officials and the health-care industry are currently preparing to implement two specific ObamaCare provisions taking effect on Jan. 1, 2014, acting on this politically perverse principle of shifting resources from your supporters to your opponents. The first is the individual mandate, which aims to force the young, childless, and healthy — “Young Invincibles,” as they are said to think of themselves — to buy health insurance, even if they think (and even perhaps make a rational, if risky, bet) that they don’t need it.

The second is a lesser-known policy to limit the practices of charging different premiums to different ages, known as age-rating. Many states currently set a limit on this difference, often mandating that an old person shouldn’t pay a premium more than five times a younger person’s, even if she’s expected to use more than five times as much health care. The ObamaCare provision kicking in next Jan. 1 would reduce that ratio to three-to-one, essentially limiting what the elderly pay in part by forcing young people to carry a larger share of the total cost of national health care.

Though Smith may have been too blinded by the prospect of “hope” and “change” to realize it, it has not been a grand secret that Obama’s healthcare initiative costs young people while lining the pockets of the Nation’s older Americans and insurance companies. That would explain why the AARP (which Smith branded the “implacable lobby for retired people”) so championed the healthcare overhaul.

The President and fellow Democrats have lauded the ability of American youth struggling to gain healthcare benefits through employment to stay on their parents’ healthcare plans longer as a key strength of the plan. But a recent study of healthcare changes coming in 2014 from the American Action Forum notes that, in reality, Americans under the age of 27 that do have to purchase insurance under the Obama plan will see their healthcare costs triple.

The study estimates young, healthy people will be hit with insurance premium hikes nearing 169 percent, while older and sicker Americans will enjoy a 22 percent decrease in premiums because of healthcare vouchers under the system of mandatory insurance.

Some people might suggest the bottom line is that the Obama Administration has managed to put into place the machinations to enslave a whole generation of Americans. And those who will be enslaved are the very people who enabled the Administration’s rise to power.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein attempted to soften the message of Smith’s article in a rebuttal bearing the headline “Don’t worry, kids. Obamacare is a good deal.” Klein writes:

Universal health-care systems in general, and Obamacare in particular, move money from the rich to the poor. The program fully subsidizes insurance for anyone making less than 133 percent of the poverty line and partially subsidizes it up until about 300 percent of the poverty line. On the other side, Obamacare pays for itself in part by taxing the rich. Both parts of the bill effectively redistribute from older Americans to younger ones.

So at a time when youth unemployment is hovering around 13.1 percent, the Presidential healthcare overhaul is going to slam young Americans with high healthcare premiums on top of crippling college debt and in spite of little positive economic outlook. But, worry not, pundits of Klein’s vein say; because on the whole, Obamacare will redistribute money from rich to poor by paying for itself with high taxes on high earners.

For anyone keeping score, it appears that Smith is winning the argument. Not only are young Americans going to get screwed in the beginning with high mandatory healthcare costs, but they will also get screwed in the long run when they mature and themselves become high earners who are subject to the high taxes that pay for Obamacare.