"Conservatives4Palin" - The land of "Palin-utopia", where you get banned for "disrespecting the Governor" and where outlandish Palin-worshipping is encouraged

By Patrick

The time has come to say a few words again about our "special friends", the people from Sarah Palin's top-fansite "Conservatives4Palin" ("C4P"), where the Palin-worshippers have created a land of Palin-utopia that allows not the slightest deviation from the "Palin party line" and encourages the most outlandish Palin-worshipping. It is a place where an alternate reality has been created and is being nurtured by a busy team of editors every day.

It is a website which claims to be independent from Sarah Palin and her official organizations, but Sarah Palin's former top-aide Frank Bailey inconveniently revealed in his book "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin" that Conservatives4Palin received their talking points from Palin-aide Meg Stapleton in 2009 in order to discredit Juneau-resident Chip Thoma (p. 323). As a result of the communications between Meg Stapleton and C4P, their writer Joey Russo published a bogus-story about the invented fact that Thoma wanted to "close down Piper Palin's lemonade stand."

Today the moderators were busy again at C4P, as in the comments of the current "Open Thread" the party line was not obeyed. The trouble started when long-time right-wing commenter "njinfl" uttered dissatisfaction about Sarah Palin being "mute" on political issues:

Oh no - it was clear that there was trouble ahead in paradise. Deviation from the daily Palin-worshipping, especially questioning the wisdom of the "Governor" is considered high-treason over at Sarah's most fanatical fan club.

Then "njinfl" doubled down and criticised Sarah Palin for being silent on the immigration policies:

Quite reasonable criticism from a right-wing point of view, don't you think? The commenter "njinfl" expresses unhappiness that Sarah Palin is silent on certain issues - and "njinfl" has a point, because Sarah Palin's main occupation these days is to pose for photos, give boring speeches for insane amounts of money and blast on Obama on facebook and twitter for everything he says or does (receiving a collective "yawn" from the general public). So there is apparently not much time left for creating policies which could save the United States of America, which would be quite difficult anyway as this would also require a certain degree of "intelligence", amongst other things.

However, as was to be expected, the story wasn't over at this point, because high-treason had been committed. The "Governor" had been criticised. Such a grave offence could not be left unpunished!

So the moderator, C4P-author and dedicated Palin-fan Steve Flesher, who interestingly and somewhat surprisingly is also the founder of the website gayconservative.org, had to step in. He first rebuked "njinfl" for leaving the comments and quickly afterwards deleted the comments altogether and banned "njinfl."

Of particular interest is Steve Flesher's explanation of his actions, as this beautifully demonstrates the authoritarian mindset which Sarah Palin's cult followers have incorporated - a mindset which is expressed also in virtually thousands of published emails by the "Governor" herself in which she rants about bloggers, journalists and other miscreants who dared to not love her words and/or actions as they were expected to do.

Moderator Steve Flesher commented:

"Governor Palin has been at the forefront of holding GOP politicians in every rank of government accountable. What in world would you argue that she is doing? Accusing her of hypocrisy is not something one would do when they consider all the facts and comments like that are not welcome here. Disrespecting the Governor especially without facts is grounds for banning. Please don't let it happen again."

"Disrespecting the Governor is grounds for banning!" Actually, Sarah Palin couldn't have said it better herself. Well done, Steve!

So these are your "freedom-loving" Palin-fans for you. You have the freedom to love Sarah Palin, that is for sure!

But going after detractors is just one of the main attractions of the No.1 website of the Palin-cult. The other question is just how far the Palin-cultists will go with their boundless adoration of the "Governor." There is one commenter at C4P who thoroughly deserves to be mentioned, and this is of course the beloved and somewhat unfortunately named "Brianus Berkleianus." He provides us with new entertainment every day, although his activities are virtually indistinguishable from parody. However, he is the real thing indeed!

"Brianus" not only leaves the most inventive, ridiculously enthusiastic comments imaginable, he also started a website quite a while ago which is dedicated to analysing every page of Sarah Palin's autobiography "Going Rogue" - and he slowly "analyses" one page after the other. The current count at his website with his "Reflections" ends at page 125.  If you are looking for the ultimate Palin-worshipper, it has to be "Brianus Berkleianus." He might see this as a compliment, but one has to be at the absolute bottom of the rabbit hole in order not to see the insanity. As I said, absolutely indistinguishable from parody - but real.

One of his most recent comments:

Just one example - excerpt from his analysis of page 111 of "Going Rogue":

OUR FRIENDS VOLUNTEERED

What profound matter for reflection is contained in the tiny yet vast compass of these three little words (four for "uncle" joe biden).

First, think how many more true FRIENDS Sarah has now than she did when she launched her campaign for Governor back in 2005. At that time the fields of her friendships were mostly confined to the Great Land; now, now, because she has fought and suffered so greatly for America since 2008, she has millions upon more millions of true friends who have either met her in person over the course and career of the last four-plus years, or, even though they may never have encountered her in her lovely person, feel that they have in Sarah of Alaska a TRUE FRIEND, a personal friend … almost a family member!!

Now let us consider briefly the word "volunteer." What is its etymology? It comes from the Latin word VOLUNTAS, "Free Will."

Sarah's friends chose to help her out of the depths of their free will.

I think that history has demonstrated over and over what a few FREE fighters can accomplish when they are set against SLAVE armies of the opposition.

As one example, just consider Leonidas' 300 Spartan warriors and what they accomplished against the slave hordes of the Persian King, Xerxes, at the famed and fateful Pass of Thermopylae in 480 BC.

As another example, consider what the warriors of the American Revolution wrought against the professional soldiers of the British Empire and against their Hessian mercenaries!

FREE service proceeds and wells up from all the depths of the "deep heart's core"; it comes from LOVE!!!

Yes, Sarah's friends volunteered to help her in 2005-2006.

This will be as nothing compared to what, IMV, is just around the corner.

When she raises her Alaskan and American Battle Standard;

When she sounds Freedom's Trumpet Call of Thunder;

We shall behold:

AN ARMY, A VAST ARMY, A FREE ARMY, A PATRIOT ARMY, AN ARMY OF FRIENDS, AN ARMY INVINCIBLE AND INDESTRUCIBLE!!!

Sarah and her Free Friends will save America!!!

Therefore Brianus achieved to merge parody and reality in an absolutely unique way, which is quite an accomplishment. Maybe not the accomplishment that Brianus was hoping for, but from an entertainment point of view it is actually quite remarkable in my opinion.

"Conservatives4Palin" is a website where merciless persecution of detractors and critics and boundless, fact-free adoration of Sarah Palin go hand in hand. It is actually a fitting tribute to Sarah Palin. If Sarah Palin herself had to create a website, I am sure it would be "Conservatives4Palin." After all, "Utopia" is just a mouse-click away, if you want it! The personality-cult in action. Belieeeeeve!

Breaking: The business conference website "TED Talk" tried to suppress impressive speech by US multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer who makes convincing case that rich citizens should pay more taxes

By Patrick 

You may not have heard about the "TED Talk" conferences, and you also may not have heard about multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer, but all this is about to change.

When a multi-millionaire explains in a brilliantly delievered speech that rich people should pay more taxes because businesses demand a strong middle-class to grow and prosper, and that rich people alone do not create jobs, then such an opinion is viewed by some people in the USA as being so outside the range of acceptable opinions, that they apparently feel compelled to suppress it. Facts which in many other capitalist countries are regarded basically as universal knowledge are considered by some people in the USA as so shocking and "partisan", that they apparently do not want other people to be bothered by them.

So what happened? On March 1 this year, venture capitalist and multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer, who was the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com, gave a short speech at a "TED conference" which received a standing ovation. "TED" (their motto is called "Ideas worth spreading") has an extensive website where afterwards many of the speeches from these conferences are published, but the speech by Nick Hanauer did not make the cut - despite a complaint by Nick Hanauer himself.

At their blog, "TED" today explained their reasons:

Here's what actually happened.

At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings.

At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media.

We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed.

So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets.

And a non-story about a talk not being chosen, because we believed we had better ones, somehow got turned into a scandal about censorship. Which is like saying that if I call the New York Times and they turn down my request to publish an op-ed by me, they're censoring me.

Today, Nick Hanauer's speech has been published at youtube, and you really need to check out this "mediocre" and "explicitly partisan" speech yourself. Again it has been proven that in the age of internet, the free flow of "inconvenient" information is difficult to stop, and this short, but amazing speech has now started to go viral, because its content and message is simple, straightforward and compelling:

Nick Hanauer has been around for a while. He recently published the book "The Gardens of Democracy: A New American Story of Citizenship, the Economy, and the Role of Government" and has given numerous interviews, for example to an ignorant Neil Cavuto on Fox News and to the US Progressive blog.

The "National Journal", which originally broke the story, reported in an update that TED-curator Chris Anderson took issue with some of the statements by Nick Hanauer, and also thought that the speech was "out and out political", as he wrote in an email message to Hanauer on May 7, and that TED therefore could not publish the speech on their website.

But this argument is weak, as for example Ezra Klein observed in a comment at the Washington Post which he published a few hours ago:

To my ears, Hanauer framed the issue in a way that was explicitly nonpartisan. The only mention of either party comes at the beginning: “If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down,” Hanauer says. “This idea is an article of faith for Republicans, is seldom challenged by Democrats, and has indeed shaped much of the economic landscape. But sometimes the ideas we’re certain are true are dead wrong.”

My impression is that the statements by Nick Hanauer in this speech were simply too hot to handle, as the assertion that rich people need to pay extremely low taxes is seen as a "quasi-religious dogma" by many US-politicians, and certainly not just by Republicans.

Nick Hanauer's speech has now caused a sensation, and several media outlets like the "Atlantic", the "Washington Post" and the "Huffington Post" are on the case, which is good. But it would be even better to have an open and frank discussion about the role of the middle-class in the USA, as this would be one really important step in the right direction. The message by Nick Hanauer is as simple as it is true: It's the middle-class which drives a capitalist economy, and not the very rich people. In the USA, this is not any different than in other capitalist countries - and I can confirm Nick Hanauer's opinion by my own observations, living in a country in which the middle-class always has been very strong. Businesses only employ new people if there is strong demand for their products - and this demand needs to come from the middle-class.

Finally, here are some of the slides from Nick Hanauer's speech:

SOPA: The Trojan Horse of Censorship 1/2

by Nomad

Unconstitutional?

At a recent House Committee Meeting, Congressman Jared Polis, a Democrat from Colorado, asked Department of Justice head Eric Holder an interesting question about Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), an Internet censorship bill currently under review.

If you don’t know already, SOPA is a proposal aimed at stopping online piracy of copyrighted material, such as films, books, and music, sheet music and many other kinds of intellectual property. SOPA is just one of a series many proposals recently introduced.

Notice how Polis skillfully questioned Holder about how the Justice Department planned to implement certain aspects of the bill, namely enforcement. It is no small matter given the sheer number of potential copyright infringement cases that the bill proposes to outlaw. To calculate how many sites would be adversely affected is impossible but the figure is bound to be astronomical. YouTube, Twitter, blogspot, Google would all be negatively affected by the law.

Despite the fact that the legislation has been demanded by many corporations and organizations in the entertainment industry, others have expressed their disapproval for the bill. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe says SOPA violates the First Amendment and "should not be enacted by Congress."

However, another problem and the point that Polis astutely makes is that the Justice Department of any nation would never be able to find the budget required to prosecute every violation. Thus, in order to put the proposed anti-piracy laws into effect it would require a very selective process of prosecution. According to the Constitution, selective prosecution is a direct violation of the guarantee of equal protection for all person under the law. As one source puts it:

On the federal level, the requirement of equal protection is contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibition on selective prosecution to the states. The equal protection doctrine requires that persons in similar circumstances must receive similar treatment under the law.

As we see in the video clip, Holder immediately sees the problem that Polis is calling attention to and makes a quick attempt to dodge. Why is it so important?

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates the Rule of Law, allowing those in authority to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, this almost inevitably leads to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.

Writing a bill and finding enough support to make it into law is not the problem- even in this political climate. Many have charged that this particular bill is poorly written and badly thought-out. Another real problem, as Polis also delicately pointed out, is enforcement. Relying solely on the discretion of the Justice Department prosecutor opens the door for all manner of injustice. In an interview with CNET, Polis stated:

I find this particularly hypocritical, this proposal, coming from many Republicans. (Not Darrell Issa, who's consistent and opposed to SOPA.)

Other Republicans have been very skeptical of the attorney general's leadership, of his use of discretion. And here we're going to give him enormous powers over the Internet and allow him to use them at his discretion in a selective way.

He's going to have to make some choices about enforcing it. And that raises the specter of that being colored by political considerations or economic considerations or ideological considerations--or who knows what considerations will be used by any attorney general when it comes to selective enforcement.

More than any other member of Congress, House Representative Jared Polis’ opinion has, perhaps, a bit more validity than other politicians. The Colorado Democrat has founded a series of successful Web-based businesses and has in-depth experience with both sides of the piracy debate. After examining the bill, Polis became a outspoken critic of the proposed legislation and has warned that the bill, if enacted, would “destroy the Internet as we know it.”  You should believe, he isn’t exaggerating.

The Wrong Medicine
And SOPA is not the only attempt to pass controversial legislation designed, at least, ostensibly at defending intellectual property and copyright rights. There’s also the PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (S.968) , sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat from Vermont. That bill was designed to establish:

a system for taking down websites that the Justice Department determines to be "dedicated to infringing activities." The DoJ or the copyright owner would be able to commence a legal action against the alleged infringer and the DoJ would be allowed to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. In some cases, action could be taken to block sites without first allowing the alleged infringer to defend themselves in court.

This bill is actually a second attempt by Leahy. Last year he and and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) sponsored S. 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) which was to create a blacklist of Internet domain names which the Attorney General can add to with a court order. Internet service providers, financial transaction providers, and online ad vendors (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the list. 

It should also be added that, according to the OpenGlobe.org. Leahy is recorded as having received a combined $772,250 in campaign donations from special interests supporting SOPA. Additionally Republican Rep. Howard Berman from California's 28th District was one of the co-sponsors of SOPA. He received campaign contributions worth $303,550 from groups that supported SOPA, significantly more than any other Representative. He was also the recipient of $376,600 in donations with groups in connection with PROTECT IP. Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia was a big winner with $462,292 in special interest contributions. The money is certainly flowing in from both sides of the debate. (For a breakdown of the money trail click here and here) 

Not everybody is convinced. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) said of last year’s COICA:

“It seems to me that online copyright infringement is a legitimate problem.,But it seems to me that COICA as written is the wrong medicine. Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb when what you really need is a precision-guided missile.”

All of these proposals are fraught with problems. Problems with enforcement, possible problems with abuse by overzealous copyright lawyers and a poor understanding by politicians of the consequences and the effects that such a bill would produce. We have, for example, already witnessed how certain law firms are misusing the definition of copyrighted material in order to suppress undesirable information from becoming public. Under SOPA, blogs, like PoliticalGates, would be easily subjected to government closure, simply at the request of an unseen lawyer commissioned by unspecified multi-national corporate entity. 

The recent Citigroup memos are but one small instance of copyright laws being used to effectively threaten and intimidate. With SOPA, this kind of thing could become routine with very little opportunity for recourse.

Threats As A Tool 

The Citigroup memo case is by no means an isolated incident. In another case, Gary S. Friedlander, Vice President & Division General Counsel for Trans Union LLC, the third largest credit bureau in the United States, threatened to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement against a website, Public Intelligence. The documents in question originated from Trans Union Credit Report Training Guide, which the company claimed were highly confidential and therefore copyrighted. 

Friedlander threatened “Trans Union can file a lawsuit against you seeking among other things: preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, money damages, and attorneys’ fees”. Mr. Friedlander also demands that we “immediately destroy any and all copies of Trans Union copyrighted material in your possession and/or control”. The documents- which had been published elsewhere in various locations- revealed how TransUnion allegedly sold private credit information to one or more marketing companies- for which the company had settled a class-action lawsuit for $75 million. 

As the writers of Public Intelligence point out, this kind of thing, the copyright infringement threat, has become a common ploy

In fact, despite the more than fifteen threats and takedown notices we have received from governments, corporations, law enforcement and transnational military alliances, no document has ever been removed from this site. This is because the central focus of this site is to function as a secure repository of information in the public interest. We have no intention of harming TransUnion or of infringing on their copyrights. We simply posted freely available documents to help inform ourselves and others of the information contained in credit reports and collected by credit reporting companies. We feel we have a right to this. It is, after all, our information from which TransUnion makes its living. Our social security numbers, our houses, our cars, our family members and children are all the collective subjects of TransUnion’s credit reports.

(It is highly ironic that a company that easily sold the personal information of private individuals would have such illegitimate demand for its own privacy.)

Another noteworthy case involved Diebold, a $2 billion company that makes most of its money by manufacturing ATM machines but is more famous for its voting machines. Armed with copyright protection laws of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Diebold issued cease-and-desist letters to more than a dozen people who posted documents or links to documents that Diebold claims were stolen from its servers. The internal staff e-mails reveal Diebold knew about security flaws in its computerized voting machines but sold the devices to several states, including California, Maryland and Georgia. In a twist, two Swarthmore College students and an ISP filed a suit against the company in court for alleged abuse of copyright protections. According to the source:

"Copyright law must not become a tool of censorship," Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) legal director Cindy Cohn said in a statement following the one-hour hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose, California. "In this case," Cohn said, "Diebold used phony copyright claims to silence public debate about voting, the very foundation of our democratic process."

The verdict comes from Wikipedia:

United States District Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that the plaintiffs' publishing of the e-mails was clearly a fair use, and that Diebold had misrepresented its copyright controls over the work, putting them in violation of section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and leaving them liable for court costs and damages. This was the first time 512(f) had been enforced in court, and set a precedent.

For every case like this, there are a countless of numbers of cases that never reach the courts. The threat of legal action- whether legitimate or not- is more than enough. It is clear that the risk to copyright infringement must be secondary to the public’s right to know. As we have seen, when it comes to abusing the spirit of copyright protective, abuse of the laws presently on the books is rampant. Sadly SOPA and PIPA simply allow greater misuse and  will ultimately further damage freedom of the press privileges and hinder the free access to information.

Interestingly these bills, according to the experts, won't take down foreign sites or even prevent them from being accessed by the technically skilled. It would, however limit access to most Americans. And because of the potential for legal action, .it could, in turn, have a chilling effect on innovation What is and what is not a copyright violation has increasingly become a matter of opinion and few would want to risk crossing the line. Especially if that line is blurred and dictated by corporations and high powered legal firms with enough financial resources to ruin an individual and drive a smaller Web-based company into quick bankruptcy. It simply be easier to relocate outside of the US and forgo the risk.

Disastrous For the Internet

In the impossible pursue of absolute control over digital property, the solution is far worse than the cure. Moreover, this new “Great Wall” is exactly the thing that President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warned other nations like China and Iran about. For example, speaking about the freedom afforded by the free Internet, he told an audience of young Chinese in Shanghai back on 16 November 2009.

"I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.They can begin to think for themselves."

"These freedoms of expression, and worship, of access to information and political participation - we believe they are universal rights. They should be available to all people, including ethnic and religious minorities, whether they are in the United States, China or any nation."

Clinton for her part recently speaking at an Internet conference in The Hague, told her audience:

More government control will further constrict what people in repressive environments can do online. It would also be disastrous for the internet as a whole, because it would reduce the dynamism of the internet for everyone.

Passage of a bill like SOPA or the Protect IP (or whatever next year’s version might be) is ill-conceived, unconstitutional and simply a waste of time. On a darker note, these bills are the first uncertain step down a slippery slope of Internet censorship, a web in which corporate America will control exactly what Americans can and cannot access on the net.

In the end the question comes down to this: Do we really have to choose between a free and open Internet or an Internet that is severely limited by flexible definitions of what constitutes violations, an Internet content continually inspected by prosecutors hired by multi-billion dollar corporations? 

As Congressman Polis remarked:

Everyone agrees that we should do something. But we don't want a so-called solution that's worse than the problem. And this doesn't address the problem. I hope that we can declare this bill dead soon so we can actually do something, working with the valid stakeholders to ensure that intellectual property is better respected.