Case in point. You make the best slave for them because you accept all this willingly. That's what they want and need to accomplish their goals. And with people like yourself going along they are doing it.

Ya know after seeing and hearing eveything going on in this world...just maybe a New World Order isn't as bad as most think it is.Then again what form of government would lead it?Maybe the western hemisphere should start it up and see where it goes from there.

Ya know after seeing and hearing eveything going on in this world...just maybe a New World Order isn't as bad as most think it is.Then again what form of government would lead it?Maybe the western hemisphere should start it up and see where it goes from there.

This is why income tax stayed with us. Not because stupid congressmen wanted us to fork over our hard earned dollars to them to satisfy their selfish greedy needs. That too, sure, but most of the income tax money is spent on other things.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The income tax money goes right to the debt, Ronald Reagan even said that. It isn't spent on anything else.

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Slams SOPA
December 29, 2011

A few days before the election circus in the US will start with the Iowa’s caucus, presidential candidate Ron Paul made a comment on the pending SOPA bill

“They want to take over the Internet,” he said.

“Can you imagine how much we’re going to be curtailed in the spreading of out information if we lose the Internet?”

Paul says that while SOPA is claimed to stop piracy, it’s mostly going to invade the privacy of citizens and restrict their freedom.

Ron Paul currently leads the majority of Iowa polls.

http://bcove.me/kfxlc497

___________________________________________________________________

Romney, Perry, Gingrich, and their "leader" Hussein love it. What they hate is freedom of speech. They can't handle it.

Why is Ron Paul the only candidate who speaks out against this?

November 15, 2011
An open letter to the House of Representatives:
We write to express our concerns about H.R. 3261, the so-called Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). A
very similar bill is pending in the Senate under the name PROTECT-IP Act. In July, more than 100 law
professors focused on intellectual property law wrote to express our concerns with that Act; we attach a
copy of that letter below.
While there are some differences between SOPA and PROTECT-IP, nothing in SOPA makes any effort
to address the serious constitutional, innovation, and foreign policy concerns that we expressed in that
letter. Indeed, in many respects SOPA is even worse than PROTECT-IP. Among other infirmities, it would:
 Redefine the standard for copyright infringement on the Internet, changing the definition of
inducement in a way that would not only conflict with Supreme Court precedent but would make
YouTube, Google, and numerous other web sites liable for copyright infringement.
 Allow the government to block Internet access to any web site that “facilitated” copyright or
trademark infringement – a term that the Department of Justice currently interprets to require
nothing more than having a link on a web page to another site that turns out to be infringing.
 Allow any private copyright or trademark owner to interfere with the ability of web sites to host
advertising or charge purchases to credit cards, putting enormous obstacles in the path of electronic
commerce.
Most significantly, it would do all of the above while violating our core tenets of due process. By failing to
guarantee the challenged web sites notice or an opportunity to be heard in court before their sites are shut
down, SOPA represents the most ill-advised and destructive intellectual property legislation in recent
memory.
In sum, SOPA is a dangerous bill. It threatens the most vibrant sector of our economy – Internet
commerce. It is directly at odds with the United States’ foreign policy of Internet openness, a fact that
repressive regimes will seize upon to justify their censorship of the Internet. And it violates the First
Amendment.
We hope you will review the attached letter, signed by many of the most prominent law professors
in the country, and register your concerns about SOPA.
Very truly yours,
Professor Mark A. Lemley
Stanford Law School
Professor David S. Levine
Elon University School of Law
Professor David Post
Temple University School of LawProfessors’ Letter in Opposition to “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic
Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011”
(PROTECT-IP Act of 2011, S. 968)
July 5, 2011
To Members of the United States Congress:
The undersigned are 110 professors from 31 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico who teach and write about intellectual property, Internet law, innovation,
and the First Amendment. We strongly urge the members of Congress to reject the
PROTECT-IP Act (the “Act”). Although the problems the Act attempts to address –
online copyright and trademark infringement – are serious ones presenting new and
difficult enforcement challenges, the approach taken in the Act has grave constitutional
infirmities, potentially dangerous consequences for the stability and security of the
Internet's addressing system, and will undermine United States foreign policy and
strong support of free expression on the Internet around the world.
The Act would allow the government to break the Internet addressing system. It
requires Internet service providers, and operators of Internet name servers, to refuse to
recognize Internet domains that a court considers “dedicated to infringing activities.”
But rather than wait until a Web site is actually judged infringing before imposing the
equivalent of an Internet death penalty, the Act would allow courts to order any
Internet service provider to stop recognizing the site even on a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction issued the same day the complaint is filed. Courts
could issue such an order even if the owner of that domain name was never given
notice that a case against it had been filed at all.
The Act goes still further. It requires credit card providers, advertisers, and
search engines to refuse to deal with the owners of such sites. For example, search engines are required to “(i) remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with
the domain name set forth in the court order; or (ii) not serve a hypertext link to such
Internet site.” In the case of credit card companies and advertisers, they must stop
doing business not only with sites the government has chosen to sue but any site that a
private copyright or trademark owner claims is predominantly infringing. Giving this
enormous new power not just to the government but to any copyright and trademark
owner would not only disrupt the operations of the allegedly infringing web site
without a final judgment of wrongdoing, but would make it extraordinarily difficult for
advertisers and credit card companies to do business on the Internet.
Remarkably, the bill applies to domain names outside the United States, even if
they are registered not in the .com but, say, the .uk or .fr domains. It even applies to
sites that have no connection with the United States at all, so long as they allegedly
“harm holders” of US intellectual property rights.
The proposed Act has three major problems that require its rejection:
1. Suppressing speech without notice and a proper hearing: The Supreme
Court has made it abundantly clear that governmental action to suppress speech taken
prior to “a prompt final judicial decision . . . in an adversary proceeding” that the speech is
unlawful is a presumptively unconstitutional “prior restraint,”
1
the “most serious and

1
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58-60 (U.S. 1965) (statute requiring theater owner to receive a
license before exhibiting allegedly obscene film was unconstitutional because the statute did not
“assure a prompt final judicial decision” that the film was obscene); see also Bantam Books v. Sullivan,
372 U.S. 58 (1962) (State Commission’s letters suggesting removal of books already in circulation is a
“prior administrative restraint” and unconstitutional because there was no procedure for “an almost
immediate judicial determination of the validity of the restraint”); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana,
489 U.S. 46, 51-63 (1989) (procedure allowing courts to order pre-trial seizure of allegedly obscene films
based upon a finding of probable cause was an unconstitutional prior restraint; publications “may not be
taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of [unlawful speech] after an
adversary hearing.”). See also Center For Democracy & Technology v. Pappert, 337 F. Supp. 2d 606, 651
(E.D. Pa. 2004) (statute blocking access to particular domain names and IP addresses an unconstitutional
prior restraint).the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,”
2 permissible only in the
narrowest range of circumstances. The Constitution “require[s] a court, before material
is completely removed from circulation, . . . to make a final determination that material is
[unlawful] after an adversary hearing.”
3

The Act fails this Constitutional test. It authorizes courts to take websites “out of
circulation” – to make them unreachable by and invisible to Internet users in the United
States and abroad -- immediately upon application by the Attorney General after an ex
parte hearing. No provision is made for any review of a judge’s ex parte determination,
let alone for a “prompt and final judicial determination, after an adversary proceeding,”
that the website in question contains unlawful material. This falls far short of what the
Constitution requires before speech can be eliminated from public circulation.
4
2. Breaking the Internet’s infrastructure: If the government uses the power to
demand that individual Internet service providers make individual, country-specific
decisions about who can find what on the Internet, the interconnection principle at the

2
Nebraska Press ***'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976).
3
CDT v. Pappert, 337 F.Supp.2d, at 657 (emphasis added).
4
The Act would also suppress vast amounts of protected speech containing no infringing content
whatsoever, and is unconstitutional on that ground as well. The current architecture of the Internet
permits large numbers of independent individual websites to operate under a single domain name by
the use of unique sub-domains; indeed, many web hosting services operate hundreds or thousands of
websites under a single domain name (e.g., www.aol.com, www.terra.es, www.blogspot.com). By
requiring suppression of all sub-domains associated with a single offending domain name, the Act
“burns down the house to roast the pig,” ACLU v. Reno, 521 U.S. 844, 882 (1997), failing the
fundamental requirement imposed by the First Amendment that it implement the “least restrictive
means of advancing a compelling state interest.” ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240, 251 (3d Cir. 2003)
(quoting Sable Commun. v. FCC, 492 U.S. at 126 (emphasis added)); cf. O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 377 (even the
lower “intermediate scrutiny” standard requires that any “incidental restriction on First Amendment
freedoms . . . be no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest”); see also CDT v Pappert,
337 F.Supp.2d, at 649 (domain name blocking *“DNS filtering”+ resulted in unconstitutional
“overblocking” of protected speech whenever “the method is used to block a web site on an online
community or a Web Hosting Service, or a web host that hosts web sites as sub-pages under a single
domain name,” and noting that one service provider “blocked hundreds of thousands of web sites
unrelated to” the targeted unlawful conduct); see also id., at 640 (statute resulted in blocking fewer
than 400 websites containing unlawful child pornography but in excess of one million websites without
any unlawful material). very heart of the Internet is at risk. The Internet’s Domain Name System (“DNS”) is a
foundational building block upon which the Internet has been built and on which its
continued functioning critically depends. The Act will have potentially catastrophic
consequences for the stability and security of the DNS. By authorizing courts to order
the removal or replacement of database entries from domain name servers and domain
name registries, the Act undermines the principle of domain name universality – that all
domain name servers, wherever they may be located on the network, will return the
same answer when queried with respect to the Internet address of any specific domain
name – on which countless numbers of Internet applications, at present, are based.
Even more troubling, the Act will critically subvert efforts currently underway – and
strongly supported by the U.S. government – to build more robust security protections
into the DNS protocols; in the words of a number of leading technology experts, several
of whom have been intimately involved in the creation and continued evolution of the
DNS for decades:
The DNS is central to the operation, usability, and scalability of the Internet;
almost every other protocol relies on DNS resolution to operate correctly. It is
among a handful of protocols that that are the core upon which the Internet is
built. . . . Mandated DNS filtering [as authorized by the Act] would be minimally
effective and would present technical challenges that could frustrate important
security initiatives. Additionally, it would promote development of techniques
and software that circumvent use of the DNS. These actions would threaten the
DNS’s ability to provide universal naming, a primary source of the Internet’s
value as a single, unified, global communications network. . . . PROTECT IP’s
DNS filtering will be evaded through trivial and often automated changes
through easily accessible and installed software plugins. Given this strong
potential for evasion, the long-term benefits of using mandated DNS filtering to
combat infringement seem modest at best.
5


5
Crocker, et al., “Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the
PROTECT IP Bill,” available at http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-WhitepaperFinal.pdf. The authors describe in detail how implementation of the Act’s mandatory DNS filtering
scheme will conflict with and undermine development of the “DNS Security Extensions,” a “critical set of Moreover, the practical effect of the Act would be to kill innovation by new
technology companies in the media space. Anyone who starts such a company is at risk
of having their source of customers and revenue – indeed, their website itself --
disappear at a moment’s notice. The Act’s draconian obligations foisted on Internet
service providers, financial services firms, advertisers, and search engines, which will
have to consult an ever-growing list of prohibited sites they are not allowed to connect
to or do business with, will further hamper the Internet’s operations and effectiveness.
3. Undermining United States’ leadership in supporting and defending free
speech and the free exchange of information on the Internet: The Act represents a
retreat from the United States’ strong support of freedom of expression and the free
exchange of information and ideas on the Internet. At a time when many foreign
governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet
communications,
6
the Act would incorporate into U.S. law – for the first time – a

security updates” for the DNS under development (with the strong support of both the U.S. government
and private industry) since the mid-1990s.
6
Secretary of State Clinton, in her “Remarks on Internet Freedom” delivered earlier this year, put it this
way:
In the last year, we’ve seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and
Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular
social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and
activists were detained. . . . As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are
working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already
condemned these tactics.
[T]he new iconic infrastructure of our age is the Internet. Instead of division, it stands for
connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping
up in place of visible walls. . . . Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent
their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names,
and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in
non-violent political speech. . . . With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new
information curtain is descending across much of the world. principle more closely associated with those repressive regimes: a right to insist on the
removal of content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated
or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law. China, for example, has
(justly) been criticized for blocking free access to the Internet with its Great Firewall.
But even China doesn't demand that search engines outside China refuse to index or
link to other Web sites outside China. The Act does just that.
The United States has been the world’s leader, not just in word but in deed, in
codifying these principles of speech and exchange of information. Requiring Internet
service providers, website operators, search engine providers, credit card companies
and other financial intermediaries, and Internet advertisers to block access to websites
because of their content would constitute a dramatic retreat from the United States’
long-standing policy, implemented in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
section 512 of the Copyright Act, and elsewhere, of allowing Internet intermediaries to
focus on empowering communications by and among users, free from the need to
monitor, supervise, or play any other gatekeeping or policing role with respect to those
communications. These laws represent the hallmark of United States leadership in
defending speech and their protections are significantly responsible for making the
Internet into the revolutionary communications medium that it is today. They reflect a
policy that has not only helped make the United States the world leader in a wide range
of Internet-related industries, but it has also enabled the Internet's uniquely
decentralized structure to serve as a global platform for innovation, speech,
collaboration, civic engagement, and economic growth. The Act would undermine that
leadership and dramatically diminish the Internet’s capability to be a functioning
communications medium. In conclusion, passage of the Act will compromise our
ability to defend the principle of the single global Internet – the Internet that looks the
same to, and allows free and unfettered communication between, users located in
Boston and Bucharest, free of locally-imposed censorship regimes. As such, it may
represent the biggest threat to the Internet in its history.
While copyright infringement on the Internet is a very real problem, copyright
owners already have an ample array of tools at their disposal to deal with the problem.
We shouldn’t add the power to break the Internet to that list.
Signed,
7
Professor John R. Allison
McCombs School of Business
University of Texas at Austin
Professor Brook K. Baker
Northeastern University School of Law
Professor Derek E. Bambauer
Brooklyn Law School
Professor Margreth Barrett
Hastings College of Law
University of California-San Francisco
Professor Mark Bartholomew
University at Buffalo Law School
Professor Ann M. Bartow
Pace Law School
Professor Marsha Baum
University of New Mexico School of Law
Professor Yochai Benkler
Harvard Law School

7
All institutions are listed for identification purposes only.Professor Oren Bracha
University of Texas School of Law
Professor Annemarie Bridy
University of Idaho College of Law
Professor Dan L. Burk
University of California-Irvine School of Law
Professor Irene Calboli
Marquette University School of Law
Professor Adam Candeub
Michigan State University College of Law
Professor Michael Carrier
Rutgers Law School – Camden
Professor Michael W. Carroll
Washington College of Law
American University
Professor Brian W. Carver
School of Information
University of California-Berkeley
Professor Anupam Chander
University of California-Davis School of Law
Professor Andrew Chin
University of North Carolina School of Law
Professor Ralph D. Clifford
University of Massachusetts School of Law
Professor Julie E. Cohen
Georgetown University Law Center
Professor G. Marcus Cole
Stanford Law SchoolProfessor Kevin Collins
Washington University-St. Louis School of Law
Professor Danielle M. Conway
University of Hawai’i Richardson School of Law
Professor Dennis S. Corgill
St. Thomas University School of Law
Professor Christopher A. Cotropia
University of Richmond School of Law
Professor Thomas Cotter
University of Minnesota School of Law
Professor Julie Cromer Young
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Professor Ben Depoorter
Hastings College of Law
University of California – San Francisco
Professor Eric B. Easton
University of Baltimore School of Law
Anthony Falzone
Director, Fair Use Project
Stanford Law School
Professor Nita Farahany
Vanderbilt Law School
Professor Thomas G. Field, Jr.
University of New Hampshire School of Law
Professor Sean Flynn
Washington College of Law
American UniversityProfessor Brett M. Frischmann
Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
Professor Jeanne C. Fromer
Fordham Law School
Professor William T. Gallagher
Golden Gate University School of Law
Professor Laura N. Gasaway
University of North Carolina School of Law
Professor Deborah Gerhardt
University of North Carolina School of Law
Professor Llew Gibbons
University of Toledo College of Law
Professor Eric Goldman
Santa Clara University School of Law
Professor Marc Greenberg
Golden Gate University School of Law
Professor James Grimmelman
New York Law School
Professor Leah Chan Grinvald
St. Louis University School of Law
Professor Richard Gruner
John Marshall Law School
Professor Bronwyn H. Hall
Haas School of Business
University of California at BerkeleyProfessor Robert A. Heverly
Albany Law School
Union University
Professor Laura A. Heymann
Marshall-Wythe School of Law
College of William & Mary
Professor Herbert Hovenkamp
University of Iowa College of Law
Professor Dan Hunter
New York Law School
Professor David R. Johnson
New York Law School
Professor Faye E. Jones
Florida State University College of Law
Professor Amy Kapczynski
University of California-Berkeley Law School
Professor Dennis S. Karjala
Arizona State University College of Law
Professor Anne Klinefelter
University of North Carolina College of Law
Professor Mary LaFrance
William Boyd Law School
University of Nevada – Las Vegas
Professor Amy L. Landers
McGeorge Law School
University of the Pacific
Professor Mark Lemley
Stanford Law SchoolProfessor Lawrence Lessig
Harvard Law School
Professor David S. Levine
Elon University School of Law
Professor Yvette Joy Liebesman
St. Louis University School of Law
Professor Peter Linzer
University of Houston Law Center
Professor Lydia Pallas Loren
Lewis & Clark Law School
Professor Michael J. Madison
University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Professor Gregory P. Magarian
Washington University-St. Louis School of Law
Professor Phil Malone
Harvard Law School
Professor Christian E. Mammen
Hastings College of Law
University of California-San Francisco
Professor Jonathan Masur
University of Chicago Law School
Professor Andrea Matwyshyn
Wharton School of Business
University of Pennsylvania
Professor J. Thomas McCarthy
University of San Francisco School of Law
Professor William McGeveran
University of Minnesota Law SchoolProfessor Stephen McJohn
Suffolk University Law School
Professor Mark P. McKenna
Notre Dame Law School
Professor Hiram Melendez-Juarbe
University of Puerto Rico School of Law
Professor Viva Moffat
University of Denver College of Law
Professor Ira Nathenson
St. Thomas University School of Law
Professor Tyler T. Ochoa
Santa Clara University School of Law
Professor David S. Olson
Boston College Law School
Professor Barak Y. Orbach
University of Arizona College of Law
Professor Kristen Osenga
University of Richmond School of Law
Professor Frank Pasquale
Seton Hall Law School
Professor Aaron Perzanowski
Wayne State University Law School
Malla Pollack
Co-author, Callman on Trademarks, Unfair Competition, and Monopolies
Professor David G. Post
Temple University School of Law
Professor Connie Davis PowellBaylor University School of Law
Professor Margaret Jane Radin
University of Michigan Law School
Professor Glenn Reynolds
University of Tennessee Law School
Professor David A. Rice
Roger Williams University School of Law
Professor Neil Richards
Washington University-St. Louis School of Law
Professor Michael Risch
Villanova Law School
Professor Betsy Rosenblatt
Whittier Law School
Professor Matthew Sag
Loyola University-Chicago School of Law
Professor Pamela Samuelson
University of California-Berkeley Law School
Professor Sharon K. Sandeen
Hamline University School of Law
Professor Jason M. Schultz
UC Berkeley Law School
Professor Jeremy Sheff
St. John’s University School of Law
Professor Jessica Silbey
Suffolk University Law School
Professor Brenda M. Simon
Thomas Jefferson School of LawProfessor David E. Sorkin
John Marshall Law School
Professor Christopher Jon Sprigman
University of Virginia School of Law
Professor Katherine J. Strandburg
NYU Law School
Professor Madhavi Sunder
University of California-Davis School of Law
Professor Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown University Law Center
Professor Deborah Tussey
Oklahoma City University School of Law
Professor Barbara van Schewick
Stanford Law School
Professor Eugene Volokh
UCLA School of Law
Professor Sarah K. Wiant
William & Mary Law School
Professor Darryl C. Wilson
Stetson University College of Law
Professor Jane K. Winn
University of Washington School of Law
Professor Peter K. Yu
Drake University Law School
Professor Tim Zick
William & Mary Law

SOPA Will Restrict Non-Infringing Online Content
o Attorney General Actions
Under SOPA, the Attorney General would identify an internet site that is „committing or
facilitating the commission‟ of an online copyright infringement.
2
Once established, the
Attorney General would have authority to serve the court order affirming the infringement upon
any internet service provider (ISP), search engine, payment network provider, or internet
advertising service. The ISP would be obliged to prevent access by its subscribers to the
infringing site. The search engine would be compelled to prevent the infringing site from „being
served as a direct hypertext link‟. The payment network provider would have to suspend
payment transactions involving the infringing site. The internet advertising service would be
barred from providing ads for the infringing site.
3
Such orders might be acceptable if they only
affected infringing content. But a site with infringing content almost always has a wealth of noninfringing content as well. By contemplating an order that effectively bars others from gaining
access to both infringing and non-infringing content, the proposed statute goes beyond
appropriate First Amendment free speech protections

I guess I would rather live safely with fewer luxuries than die refusing to negotiate with any,,,,



patriot act is how old now ,,ten years, I just havent seen evidence of the great loss of freedom its caused,,,,

Why is Ron Paul the only candidate who speaks out against this?

If you don't see the evidence, then I suggest that you read some of the writings of Madison and Franklin on this subject. There was a reason they wrote the Fourth Amendment. I, for one, am not someone who believes in watering down a Constitutional Amendment for the protection of a nation. If someone says its there to protect you, don't trust them by their words.

“An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.”
-Adolf Hitler, when announcing to Gestapo to the people

Does the above quote seem familiar to anything that is happening now? Losing our rights all to protect our security? No thank-you!

Piece by piece our rights are being taken away. I am saddened and frustrated that the sheeple refuse to see what is happening!!

What's next, drones hovering over our heads in every city? Everyone should read George Orwell's 1984. Fiction is becoming reality :(

Vote for Ron Paul or else!!

if they start suggesting we round people up based upon their ethnicity/race,,,,,Ill be sure to panic,,,


until then, nothing new today that wasnt here ten years ago,,,,and I choose not to live in the culture of fear that fuels the politicians careers,,,


I do fear our middle class will disappear though, if the current system is left to run unchecked,,,

Except before now, they didn't have the power to start "rounding people up." Now they do, with that new bill they just passed.