Give the Man a Cigar, Oops… Wrong President!
ByGive the Man a Cigar, Oops… Wrong President!
I will give credit when it is due. Today President Obama, initially through his talking puppet Gibbs, gave indication of another reversal to previous statements. This time it concerns the “torture” of terrorists/detainees/enemy combatants and release of pictures. Prior to his leaving for Arizona, he took the pulpit himself and espoused:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/13/white-house-obama-release-photos-detainee-abuse/
I hope this is the beginning of that “Change you can believe in” but since the message, itself, is a redo http://www.agkyra.com/?p=208 I am lukewarm to the idea.
I just see the monumental outrage of the Patriotic American People finally being heard. It is continuing to culminate through various Tea Party events, edging higher to the National Fourth of July Tea Party events and making way for the 912 March. We can’t forget the Tea Party 2.0 being held tomorrow night at May 14th, 2009 at 8:30PM EDT on the website http://thegopcomeback.com/freedom
Something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI
The American People are tired of the games and demand true answers to real questions.
No related posts.
By clicking the tip jar to the right to the right you can help to keep this site alive.
Bobbie…why do you find it necessary to disrespect our President?
Wow, I never had an Internet Stalker before. Prosecutable! news_across, with your negative 71 reputation, why don't you pick yourself up, and build your own website, blog, etc.?
Well Bobbi I have never heard of internet stalking…I guess that means someone posting comments that you don't like…highly unprosecutable…especially in the Nation I live in…but hey good luck with that.
Also, you ask why I dont build my own website. The answer is so simple…I have no desire to do so. The World certainly needs bloggers…and it needs readers too. I prefer to be the latter.
Bobbie…
…first off let me say how proud I am to have the opportunity to be the first (and probably the only) comment regarding your blog.
You sure are disrespectful to our President.
State Electronic Harassment or "Cyberstalking" Laws
Law enforcement agencies estimate that electronic communications are a factor in from 20 percent to 40 percent of all stalking cases. Forty-six states now have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within stalking or harassment laws. State laws that do not include specific references to electronic communication may still apply to those who threaten or harass others online, but specific language may make the laws easier to enforce. Two reports from the U.S. Department of Justice provide detailed information on cyberstalking: Stalking and Domestic Violence: Report to Congress and Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry. Other related NCSL resources: Enacted Cyberbullying Legislation.
Last update: March 12, 2009
STATE
CITE
Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-11-8
Alaska
Alaska Stat. §§ 11.41.260, 11.41.270 , § 11.61.120
Arizona
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921
Arkansas
Ark. Code §§ 5-41-108, 5-27-306
California
Cal. Civil Code § 1708.7 Cal. Penal Code §§ 422, 646.9, 653m
Colorado
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-111
Connecticut
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-182b, § 53a-183
Delaware
Del. Code tit. 11 § 1311
Florida
Fla. Stat. § 817.568, § 784.048
Georgia
Georgia Code § 16-5-90
Hawaii
Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 711-1106
Idaho Idaho Statutes §§ 18-7905, 18-7906
Illinois
720 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 5/12-7.5, 135/1-2, 135/1-3, 135/2
Indiana
Ind. Code § 35-45-2-2
Iowa
Iowa Code § 708.7
Kansas
Kan. Stat. § 21-3438
Louisiana
La. Rev. Stat. § 14:40.2, La. Rev. Stat. § 14:40.3
Maine
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17A § 210-A
Maryland
Md. Code tit. 3 § 3-805
Massachusetts
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265 § 43, 43A
Michigan
Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.411h, 750.411i, 750.411s
Minnesota
Minn. Stat. § 609.749
Mississippi
Miss. Code § 97-29-45, § 97-45-15
Missouri
Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 565.225, 565.090
Montana
Mont. Code Ann. §§ 45-8-213, 45-5-220
Nevada
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.575
New Hampshire
N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:4
New York
New York Penal Law § 240.30
North Carolina
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-196, 14-196.3
North Dakota
N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-17-07
Ohio
Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2903.211 2913.01(Y), 2917.21(A)
Oklahoma
Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1173
Oregon
Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 163.730-.732, 166.065
Pennsylvania
Pa. Cons. Stat. tit. 18 § 2709, 2709.1
Rhode Island
R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-52-4.2, § 11-52-4.3
South Carolina
S.C. Code §§ 16-3-1700(B), -1700(C), -1700(F)
South Dakota
S.D. Cod. Laws § 22-19A-1, 49-31-31
Tennessee
Tenn. Code §§ 39-17-308, 39-17-315
Texas
Tx. Penal Code § 42.07
Utah
Utah Code § 76-5-106.5
Vermont
13 V.S.A. §§ 1027, 1061, 1062, 1063
Virginia
Va. Code §§ 18.2-60 18.2-152.7:1
Washington
Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.46.020, 9A.46.110, 9.61.260, 10.14.020
West Virginia
W. Va. Code §61-3C-14a
Wisconsin
Wis. Stat. § 947.0125
Wyoming
Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-506
You might want to check your state, I know mine.
Yeah I checked mine…it says here American laws do not apply to Australia…its that damned "Australia is a Sovereign Nation" thing….
Oh also, you may want to check the precedents on the long list of laws you posted. You might be very interested in what you learn. Frankly Bobbie, that whole "free-speech" thing just kinda slides right over your head doesn't it.
But hey,…good luck with that Bobbie!!
btw Australia
Criminal Code Stalking Amendment Act 1999
What is unlawful Stalking: Chapter 33A-Unlawful Stalking, 359B(c)(ii)
359B. "Unlawful stalking" is conduct
1. intentionally directed at a person (the "stalked person"); and
2. engaged in on any 1 occasion if the conduct is protracted or on more than 1 occasion; and
3. consisting of 1 or more acts of the following, or a similar, type-
1. following, loitering near, watching or approaching a person;
2. contacting a person in any way, including, for example, by telephone, mail, fax, e-mail or through the use of any technology;
3. loitering near, watching, approaching or entering a place where a person lives, works or visits;
4. leaving offensive material where it will be found by, given to or brought to the attention of, a person;
5. giving offensive material to a person, directly or indirectly;
6. an intimidating, harassing or threatening act against a person, whether or not involving violence or a threat of violence;
7. an act of violence, or a threat of violence, against, or against property of, anyone, including the defendant; and
4. that-
1. would cause the stalked person apprehension or fear, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, of violence to, or against property of, the stalked person or another person; or
2. causes detriment, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, to the stalked person or another person.
Has been updated is enforceable thru IC3 Check it out!
Yeah come on down Bobbie
Bobbie this may surprise you…
…but…we have free speech in Australia too. In fact, the UN Declaration on Human Rights guarantees the free speech of all people. However, domestic law in Australia has a clear and lengthy history of regarding free speech as unimpeachable…as do we Americans. Frankly Bobbie, even if you flew all the way down here and ask the Crown to act on this complaint, once you told them its because I post political comments that you disagree with on a public forum they would, quite frankly, laugh your foreigner rear right out the door. Their response, after they finished laughing, would probably be something along the line of, "look mate…go on back to your hotel, see the sights of Sydney, have a good time, then go back to the USA."
But hey Bobbie if you want to spend about $5000.00 just to find out what free speech means in both the USA and Australia…have at it mate!! Be sure and see the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Opera House as well the Botanical Gardens just behind the Sydney Opera House…its a spectacular place…and don't forget to take a Harbour ferry to Manly beach!!
Personally I prefer the Gold Coast. But as long as you stay so misinformed and continually stalk me (notice the re-reference) IC3 has no bounds, comparable to Interpol for Internet, 2nd reference to looking up same. As you continually post you dig yourself in deeper with a massive pattern on this site as well as Glenn Becks'. You had been previously warned on your spamming on other articles. Your IP addy is already captured. Thank-you.
Well Bobbi…I do have the right to disagree with you and to state that disagreement publicly in this and any other public forum. After all Bobbi…you certainly don't mind making public statements of opinion. I guess in the end it is true that you don't seem to have much of an appreciation or even a basic understanding of free speech and free expression or the laws relating to them. Any way, I am looking forward to reading your next blog!
Yeah I checked mine…it says here American laws do not apply to Australia…that's interesting.
Oh also, you may want to check the precedents on the long list of laws you posted. You might be very interested in what you learn.
But hey,…good luck with that Bobbie!!
Now Bobbi…
…how many times have I read about you teabaggers ranting and raving about our Constitution, and now you think there is a legal mechanism to silence the Constitutional right to free speech? That is sad Bobbi. I can over look the fact that you clearly don't understand American, Australian, or International jurisprudence, but to blatantly attempt to intimidate me into silence in the hopes that I won't bring the counter arguments to your opinions and your loosely defined "ideals is going far beyond the pale. This kind of thinking is one of the reasons you conservatives lost not one but two massive elections in a row, and it is one of the reasons conservatives are in such disarray today with the likely prospect of loosing even more seats in the House and Senate in 2010 and 2012.