Key Internet summit to discuss online rules

The world's most powerful Internet and media barons gathered in Paris on Tuesday in a show of strength to leaders at the G8 summit, amid rows over online copyright, regulation and human rights.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy kicked off the gathering in Paris, hailing the assembled players as the leaders of the "Internet revolution", but warning that with their power comes great responsibility.

He hailed the role of the Internet in helping protestors organise recent Arab uprisings such as the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, but insisted it must be underpinned by "values" and "rules."

And, while acknowledging the net's power as a force for freedom elsewhere, western countries differ on how to harness or curb it on their own doorsteps.

That's right. Western Rulers are looking to "curb" the Internet's "power as a force for freedom ... on their own doorsteps."

What are they afraid of? Simple.

First of all, the Internet has made it increasingly difficult for governments to control the flow of information. Second, the Old Media corporatist donors who run the state organs are losing market share.

Sarkozy woos Web giants, urges state role

French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged Internet leaders gathered in Paris on Tuesday to work with governments and share fairly the benefits of a revolution he compared to the discoveries of Columbus, Galileo and Newton.

Sarkozy, widely mistrusted in the online world ... maintained governments have a role in setting ground rules to limit the abuses and excesses of the Internet, citing in particular privacy and intellectual property, as well as voicing a concern over monopolies forming online.

The debates at the forum, whose conclusions ... pit passionate advocates of two opposing views of the Internet against each other.

One, espoused by Silicon Valley companies such as Google and Twitter as well as many academics, favors a hands-off approach to allow innovation and freedom of information.

The other, embraced by many established media companies, privacy advocates and governments in Europe, favors more regulation to cope with the broad changes to business and society brought on by the web.

News Corp, whose Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch is among the speakers at the forum, has led a movement to stem the flood of free information online by charging readers and viewers for content on the Web.

John Perry Barlow, a founding member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which campaigns for Internet civil rights, said: "It's about the revenge of the mass media."

Of course this is about revenge. Well, revenge and power.

Let's take a look at how "rules" and regulations play out in the real world.

White House Adds New Position to Deal with Unfavorable Online Media

The White House has named Jesse Lee to a new position within its communications department titled Director of Progressive Media & Online Response. According to The Huffington Post, Lee will essentially be responsible for building up Obama’s online presence as he prepares for his reelection bid, and squashing any negative stories ...

If you’re going to post something online about Obama that isn’t true, Lee is going to be the one to handle you. Considering that Lee’s first tweet about his new position included a picture of The Terminator, we suggest you watch what you say OR BE DESTROYED.

Nice, huh?

Senate debates president's power during cyber-attack

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the administration's legislative proposal, announced two weeks ago, that would rely on a pre-World War II radio emergency law to provide the president with authority to protect key computer and communication networks — like those mainly in private hands that run power grids, phone systems and banking services — from a cyber-attack.

At issue is one of the more controversial elements of any new cybersecurity law — what powers the president should have over the Internet in the event of a catastrophic attack on vital U.S. assets.

"Clearly, if something significant were to happen, the American people would expect us to be able to respond and respond appropriately," said Phillip Reitinger, Homeland Security undersecretary for infrastructure protection, during the hearing.

"Different people have different views about how the government ought to be empowered and what the constraints on the government exercise of authorities ought to be," responded Mr. Reitinger, adding he hoped "there would be further discussions" with Congress "to figure out the right set of mechanisms, if any, that were necessary to move forward."

It appears that Internet control will soon be added to the ever-expanding list of Executive Branch powers. Great.

We're slipping down that slippery slope.

Feds Seize 8 More Domains in Piracy Crackdown

The seizures, first reported by TorrentFreak, came as Congress is mulling dramatically increasing the government's legal power to disrupt and shutter websites "dedicated to infringing activities."

The sites seized are:

Re1ease.net

• Watchnewfilms.com
• Dvdcollectionsale.com
• Dvdscollection.com
• Dvdsetsonline.com
• Newstylerolex.com
• Mygolfaccessory.com
• Overbestmall.com

DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency began seizing the domains last year in a program known as "Operation in Our Sites."

Hey, at least we get to "elect" our own dictator.

G8 Internet Summit and Unfavorable Online Media is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

Freedom sucks, eh?

Why "the right" let's so many important issues of liberty and freedom slip by, I do not know. Natural rights and individual sovereignty are the very pith of what it means to be American. But today, partisanship and war, it's always war, have trumped these foundations of our once civil society.

Dissent in the age of Obama

Recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) raided the homes of at least eight anti-war/social justice activists here in the US.

I happen to be a prominent anti-war activist myself, and have joked that I am a “little hurt” that I was not raided and perhaps I should try harder. Even though, we have the urge to try and be light-hearted in this time of an increasing police state, with civil liberties on the retreat, it really isn't funny considering that the activists could face some serious charges stemming from these raids.

I have felt this harassment on a smaller scale myself and I know that defending oneself against a police state that has unlimited resources, time and cruelty, can be quite expensive, time consuming and annoying.

There is nothing noble about an agency that has reduced itself to being jackbooted enforcers of a neo-fascist police state, no matter how much the FBI has been romanticised in movies, television and books.

For example, in one instance, early in the morning of September 24, at the home of Mick Kelly of Minneapolis, the door was battered in and flung across the room when his partner audaciously asked to see the FBI’s warrant through the door’s peephole. At Jessica Sundin’s home, she walked downstairs to find seven agents ransacking her home while her partner and child looked on in shock.

These raids have terrifying implications for dissent here in the US.

Yes. That's the infamous Cindy Sheehan, published in Al Jazeera. So what?

It matters not whether you like her personally, or agree with her on the issues. What should matter deeply to you is, that fellow Americans are being raided by the FBI for the crime of gasp! ... disagreeing with the Ruling Class wars. Seriously, have we devolved into a bunch of fucking useless communists?

We are either free, or we are not. There is no middle ground.

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. -- Potter Stewart

If you can't simultaneously support the war and its dissenters, that says a lot more about you and your war than it does about the dissenters. As Joseph Sobran famously said, "The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honor you can bestow on him. It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself."

It amazes me how many important issues of individual liberty like this, "the right" has surrendered to the statist left. Quite frankly, I find it embarrassing. Even worse, by supporting "crackdowns" on antiwar protesters, you're sending people seeking personal freedom into the arms of tyrannical statists. Literally pushing them into the arms of the pied piper!

When Obama behaves like Bush, only on steroids, he amply demonstrates why other people hate our country so much. Persons in other countries are not nearly as blind as Americans. They know that even though Obama went to Cairo to blather about building understanding between the US and the Muslim world, actions speak louder than words and Obama’s actions drip with carnage and pain.

I beg of my fellow travelers on the political right, make your voice be known by standing up for these protesters God-given "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." For if we don't enjoy the freedom to protest the war, what's the point in even fighting it? Serfdom?

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it. -- Edward R. Murrow

Liberty or Bust!

War is pointless if it isn't being fought for liberty and freedom. Raiding antiwar protesters is the polar opposite of freedom - it is the action of a police state. Are you sure this is really what you want?

Never forget, YOU have been targeted by "your" "patriotic" government too! Conservatives Decry Homeland Security Report on "Rightwing" Extremism. Every policy and government action you support can and will be used against you.

Here's Paul Craig Roberts, President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury on the FBI antiwar raids.

It Is Official: The US Is a Police State

"Violent extremism" is one of those undefined police state terms that will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. In this morning’s FBI’s foray into the homes of American citizens of conscience, it means antiwar activists, whose activities are equated with "the material support of terrorism," just as conservatives equated Vietnam era anti-war protesters with giving material support to communism.

Anti-war activist Mick Kelly whose home was raided, sees the FBI raids as harassment to intimidate those who organize war protests. I wonder if Kelly is underestimating the threat. The FBI’s own words clearly indicate that the federal police agency and the judges who signed the warrants do not regard antiwar protesters as Americans exercising their Constitutional rights, but as unpatriotic elements offering material support to terrorism.

Almost every Republican and conservative and, indeed, the majority of Americans will fall for this, only to find, later, that it is subversive to complain that their Social Security was cut in the interest of the war against Iran or some other demonized entity, or that they couldn't have a Medicare operation because the wars in Central Asia and South America required the money.

Americans are the most gullible people who ever existed. They tend to support the government instead of the Constitution, and almost every Republican and conservative regards civil liberty as a coddling device that encourages criminals and terrorists.

As another Nazi leader Herman Goering said, "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace-makers for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger."

This is precisely what the Bush and Obama regimes have done. America, as people of my generation knew it, no longer exists.

Strong words, but he's right on! Think about it.

Politics on the Right

Maybe you've given up on freedom and joined the left in their love of the State. Maybe you're just obsessed with war. Well then, what about the politics of it all?

Supporting war protesters freedoms against their own government would not only give you the moral high ground, but take away an effective issue for the left, while confirming your commitment to the Constitution as the highest law of the land.

But hey, what do I know? Statism and killing an arab is the new American way!

P.S. - In re-reading this post, it seems my rhetoric may have been a little strong. I'm leaving it as is however, because my readers are adults who can handle the brutal truth. No coddling needed.

Liberty or Bust! In Defense of Protesters. is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.

For those of you who support various limits on speech, I beg of you, beware.

Because while today you may be censoring speech you find abhorrent, tomorrow the very precedent you helped establish ... will doubtlessly be used against you.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. -- Noam Chomsky

Speech and thought control have been preached (and enforced) on college campuses in America for decades now, slowly permeating our culture. The result being ...

America's regression from the "land of the free" to the "home of subjection." A sad and frightening story indeed.

Free Inquiry? Not on Campus

Much campus censorship rests on philosophical underpinnings that go back to social theorist Herbert Marcuse, a hero to sixties radicals. Marcuse argued that traditional tolerance is repressive—it wards off reform by making the status quo . . . well, tolerable. Marcuse favored intolerance of established and conservative views, with tolerance offered only to the opinions of the oppressed, radicals, subversives, and other outsiders. Indoctrination of students and “deeply pervasive” censorship of others would be necessary, starting on the campuses and fanning out from there.

By the late 1980s, many of the double standards that Marcuse called for were in place in academe. Marcuse’s candor was missing, but everyone knew that speakers, student newspapers, and professors on the right could (make that should) receive different treatment from those on the left. The officially oppressed—designated race and gender groups—knew that they weren’t subject to the standards and rules set for other students.

Marcuse’s thinking has influenced a generation of influential radical scholars. They included Mari Matsuda, who followed Marcuse by arguing that complete free speech should belong mainly to the powerless; and Catharine MacKinnon, a pioneer of modern sexual harassment and “hostile environment” doctrine. In MacKinnon’s hands, sexual harassment became a form of gender-based class discrimination and inegalitarian speech a kind of harmful action.

Confusing speech and action has a long pedigree on the PC campus. At the time of the first wave of speech codes 20 years ago, Kenneth Lasson, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, argued that “racial defamation does not merely ‘preach hate’; it is the practice of hatred by the speaker”—and is thus punishable as a form of assault. Indeed, the Left has evolved a whole new vocabulary to blur the line between acts and speech: “verbal conduct” and “expressive behavior” (speech), “non-traditional violence” (Lani Guinier’s term for strong criticism), and “anti-feminist intellectual harassment” (rolling one’s eyeballs over feminist dogma).

Campus censors frequently emulate the Marcusian double standard by combining effusive praise for free speech with an eagerness to suppress unwelcome views. “I often have to struggle with right and wrong because I am a strong believer in free speech,” said Ronni Santo, a gay student activist at UCLA in the late nineties. “Opinions are protected under the First Amendment, but when negative opinions come out of a person’s fist, mouth, or pen to intentionally hurt others, that’s when their opinions should no longer be protected.”

In their 1993 book, The Shadow University, Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate turned some of the early speech codes into national laughingstocks. Among the banned comments and action they listed: “intentionally producing psychological discomfort” (University of North Dakota), “insensitivity to the experience of women” (University of Minnesota), and “inconsiderate jokes” (University of Connecticut). Serious nonverbal offenses included “inappropriate laughter” (Sarah Lawrence College), “eye contact or the lack of it” (Michigan State University), and “subtle discrimination,” such as “licking lips or teeth; holding food provocatively” (University of Maryland). Later gems, added well after the courts struck down campus codes as overly broad, included bans on “inappropriate non-verbals” (Macalaster College), “communication with sexual overtones” (Lincoln University), and “discussing sexual activities” (State University of New York–Brockport). Other codes bar any comment or gesture that “annoys,” “offends,” or otherwise makes someone feel bad. Tufts ruled that attributing harassment complaints to the “hypersensitivity of others who feel hurt” is itself harassment.

As I've said many times before, it's a joke to believe we won the Cold War, defeated fascism, or that we're making gains against radical Islam. After all, America now has a fascist economy, Soviet-style speech crackdowns, Sharia law protections, and enslaved its citizens in debt ("justified" by the totalitarian Keynes' Magic Formulae).

Make no mistake about it either, speech and thought control isn't about saving anyone from getting their feelings hurt. No. It's about silencing political dissent ... and driving America back to the totalitarian stone ages.

Don't fool yourself ... They will be coming for you next.

Silencing Dissent is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

We Interrupt this Soiree . . . . .

I would like to interrupt your tea and cakes party for a little explication of the obvious. First and foremost, what I am trying to do is save Nancy Pelosi's life, here. Her and all of her ilk. You folks seem to think, unlike the Founders, that polite politics will be sufficient to the maintenance of your liberties. To repeat myself, this bill demands that we -- every living soul in this country -- pay or play in their brave new tyrannical system. If we refuse, we will be fined. If we refuse to pay the fine, we will be arrested. If we resist arrest, we will be killed.   Dutchman 6

Communist.  Government takeovers of banks.  Auto companies.  Insurance companies.  Radically enhancing the powers of the Federal Reserve and the authority of the IRS,  fortifying the power of labor unions and altering social relatiosnhips at the levels of life and death -- literally.  What we're witnessing simply has no precedent in American history, given its scale and the criticalness of the hour.  We have a political elite dedicated to nationalizing not just the U.S. economy, but every aspect of our lives.  It has been 15 months since Obama took office but the relentless Drumbeat of "progressivism" has only one end: POWER.   What crisis are they trying to solve?  They're not solving a crisis.  They're exploiting one.

The Dawn of Democracy.  What is left of the American Republic is being pushed to the breaking point by those who announce their compassion for an electorate of sheep who have grown accustomed to accepting Leviathan's bribery.  The results are disastrous, but predictable, as they have been assiduously courted by those who have "educated" us and provided our "news" the last 50 years and more.  In such a climate as ours, Time Magazine can freely argue:

The advocates for nationalizing U.S. banks have been out in force recently. Senator Lindsay Graham, who almost certainly does not have a PhD in economics or finance told ABC News that banks were in such deep trouble that government ownership of the institutions may be the only way to save the financial system. Economist Nouriel Roubini, who probably has several advanced degrees, wrote in The Washington Post that the Swedes set a precedent for bank nationalization nearly 20 years ago. The first counter to his argument is that it is dark over 20 hours a day in Sweden during the winter which causes a level of depression among the population that may undermine their judgement and views of how dire any economic situation is. If this theory is true, banks in Panama will never face being taken over by the government.  The Case for Nationalizing the U.S. Economy

The Stimulus Scam.  Who is this elite?  Do they hate us?  Are they conscious of their hostility toward us peons, or merely Orwellian in their porcine predilections?  The question is often more complex than meets the eye.  For example, how would you build a sewage treatment system from scratch for Los Angeles County?  You can't do that very well with a 19th Century state, as some conservatives seem to argue -- or, at least, liberals say they argue for.  You need a modern bureaucracy armed with engineers, computers, and enough cash to contract out to gargantuan, techno-centric corporations seeking profit.  But the difference between a genuine communitarian and a communist is not subtle at all: communism is necessarily about coercion.  Communitarianism will resort to force only under exigent circumstances.  The elite who seeks to rule us are not communitarians in the American colonial sense.  They are Orwellian pigs.

And then there is the ideological factor -- isn't there?

Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  How many times have you heard, "I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal"?  This is what passes for high discourse in America today.  It's mostly a brain dead thing to say, but it does sum up where we've been since the 1980s: people want a lean government with maximum social freedom.  Okay.  Then why do they tolerate exponential expansions of the State?  Decade after decade, both political parties -- see, CL? I learned something from you -- cannot address the financial and bureaucratic reform that would ensure a prosperous American future.  Prosperity is not their aim.  Control is.

Reading Mark Steyn today, he mentioned in passing one of my persistent observations about the strange new world being engineered in Washington; a world in which all, except for the elite, lead smaller, much smaller lives than ourselves or our parents. Lives made smaller because they were sold and bought stunted dreams from a wilfully diminished history. Where all are equal all are smaller.  Welcome to Your Small World, Suckers

Not a Revolution, But a Coup d'Etat?  Social Security provides the perfect analogy.  How much wealthier would we be if there wasn't a 15.8% payroll deduction in America?  Yet the minute you so much as breathe the idea that freedom would be the better course, those who say they are "fiscal conservatives" resort to Jesse Jackson mantras and the subject is closed.  This debate preceded my physical incarnation in this earth and did not get resolved with the Reagan presidency.  Reagan was a diversion, not a denouement.  Leviathan continued to grow, and American society continued its degradation.  Is leftist ideology the sole cause of that deterioration?  I don't think so.  Will conservative ideology be what saves us?  I doubt it.  We are living through a communist revolution whose ostensible root is the New Deal Class War, but in reality is the fruit of a godless, post-modern devotion to the State -- an American Maoism.  While the average American seems impervious to ideology, "liberals" drive us ever onward on the supposed moral superiority of their ideology.  We who like to say we are "fiscal conservatives and social liberals" are now under a full scale humping by Leviathan, courtesy of our "liberal" brethren.  That cute little blue jeans and microwaved bumper sticker slogan doesn't cut it now.  We're in trouble.

We are living through a Comminist Revolution.  What else can we call it?

And yet, consistent with blue jeans and microwaved dinner, it doesn't seem like a Soviet Revolution (where are the stormed barricades, the shop lootings?), even if it should.  Many in the country labor along under the impression that this is business as usual.  It is not.

What they are trying to do is to create an America very unlike the America that has existed for centuries — the America that people have been attracted to by the millions from every part of the world, the America that many generations of Americans have fought and died for.   Thomas Sowell

Obamacare Threatens U.S. Future.  Regardless of whether Obama Care passes or not, we have a team of rabid dogs in political power right now who mean to fully commandeer America.  Not just its economy; not just its people.  The whole goddamned country.  When does it become advisable to protect ourselves from them?  They will continue the fight.  No amount of wishful thinking will change that.  It is all or nothing for them:

If Obamacare is defeated this time around, look for the Alinskyites to start rioting for bigger government and more largess; the right not to work, and of course, free taxpayer subsidized education with healthcare. After all the coming insurrectionist have been practicing; lately in the University of California school system, perfecting tactics taught by community organizers who know how to stir up the easily agitated, self-indulgent sociopath dupes doing their bidding for a greater evil.   Friend Fuchs

I do not think the end will be as apocalyptic as others think.  I think America will go broke and become a 2nd -- perhaps a 3rd -- world nation:

As anyone who has ever looked at a government program knows, if HCR is this junked-up at the start, then it will take no time after passage before it becomes the biggest bureaucratic mess ever inflicted upon a free people. We all -- or or at least most of us -- will rue the day. Never mind the lost jobs, tax increases, medical rationing; that's just the tip of the iceberg that we can see from a distance. This thing will be worse. America's medical system will become riddled with government inefficiencies, politically-correct tinkering, and endless corruption. A two-tiered medical system will emerge, each coexisting as separate worlds: one for well-connected elites, and one for everyone else. Chills will crawl up your neck the first time you hear that someone in this country had to "tip" a hospital staffer in order to make sure a loved one got clean bed sheets. If government-run health care is bad in Europe, it will be a disaster here in America, where that magnificently American concept, E Pluribus Unum, went out of fashion at about the time the Me Generation got its hands on the culture.  Jed Skillman, Democrats Have Painted Us into a Corner

Government services will be cut at every level. Potholes will deepen, infra-structure problems will worsen, pension plans will become insolvent, school systems will declare bankruptcy, police and fire protection will be reduced, etc. etc. You will be "nickled and dimed" in terms of new fees and taxes. Public unions will strike, providing further disruption. But when there are no funds, there is nothing to gain.  Monty Pelerin, Is Government at All Levels FUBAR?

I believe the fighting objected to earlier today is unavoidable, but I don't think it will be the stuff of World War II movies.  I believe it will be more along the lines of  lawless sectors of the country marauding rural redoubts.  I don't think we will be able to rescue ourselves from our own moral deterioration.  We are fated, I believe, to have to live through the consequences of our spiritual emptiness.  I don't mind being wrong, of course, but as I look around at the huge evil that is being perpetrated against my country, with so many Americans' assent, can you blame me for saying YOU ARE NOT UP TO THE TASK OF SAVING YOUR COUNTRY? 

By the way, did I tell you I'm a lawyer?  No?  I need to work on that, I guess.  One thing is for sure: I want to thank my friend CL for allowing me to post here.  It is an Honor.

It's a Mandate, Stupid

Victor Davis Hanson:  Reflections on the Revolution in America

Today's Revolutionary Aristocracy, Part I

Today's Revolutionary Aristocracy, Part II

Leviathan is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

The Census and the Constitution

The Census Bureau estimates that the life cycle cost of the 2010 Census will be from $13.7 billion to $14.5 billion, making it the costliest census in the nation's history. Suppose you suggest to a congressman that given our budget crisis, we could save some money by dispensing with the 2010 census. I guarantee you that he'll say something along the lines that the Constitution mandates a decennial counting of the American people and he would be absolutely right. Article I, Section 2 of our constitution reads: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

What purpose did the Constitution's framers have in mind ordering an enumeration or count of the American people every 10 years? The purpose of the headcount is to apportion the number of seats in the House of Representatives and derived from that, along with two senators from each state, the number of electors to the Electoral College.

The Census Bureau tells us that this year, it will use a shorter questionnaire, consisting of only 10 questions. From what I see, only one of them serves the constitutional purpose of enumeration — namely, "How many people were living or staying at this house, apartment or mobile home on April 1, 2010?" The Census Bureau's shorter questionnaire claim is deceptive at best.

The American Community Survey, long form, that used to be sent to 1 in 6 households during the decennial count, is now being sent to many people every year. Here's a brief sample of its questions, and I want someone to tell me which question serves the constitutional function of apportioning the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives: Does this house, apartment, or mobile home have hot and cold running water, a flush toilet, a bathtub or shower, a sink with a faucet, a refrigerator, a stove? Last month, what was the cost of electricity for this house, apartment, or mobile home? How many times has this person been married?

What to do? Unless a census taker can show me a constitutional requirement, the only information I plan to give are the number and names of the people in my household. The census taker might say, "It's the law." Thomas Jefferson said, "Whensoever the General Government (Washington) assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

Read the whole thing: The Census and the Constitution »»

Is Walter Williams good for the Tea Party movement? Or is this just too Very Scary?

Hey, we don't want to upset our Beltway Betters, do we? You know how dangerous non-conformist thinking is. It'll ruin us, I tell you. It'll ruin us all!

Time to PURGE Walter Williams!

Note: If you failed to pick up on the sarcasm, don't worry, it's an acquired taste. Please stop by the Classic Liberal more often. We enjoy having you around!

Crazy, Radical, Dangerous, Dissent, PURGE! is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog