Wednesday, October 23, 2013

INTERPOL Chief..."An Armed Citizenry May Be Necessary!"

Leah Barkoukis
Recommend this article 

After 67 people were killed in last month’s terrorist attack at the Westgate mall in Kenya, it looks like the international community could be engaging in a gun control debate of its own.

In an interview with ABC News, INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald Noble suggested that arming civilians could be an answer to protecting open societies.

 "Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."

Discussing the “evolution of terrorism” with reporters at a news conference, Noble said terrorists are shifting their focus from targets like the Pentagon, to places that have little to no security, such as malls or movie theaters.

 Citing a recent call for al Qaeda "brothers to strike soft targets, to do it in small groups," Noble said law enforcement is now facing a daunting task. […]

In the interview with ABC News, Noble was more blunt and directed his comments to his home country.

"Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?" Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed."

Indeed. With the exception of the attack on Gabby Giffords in Tucson in 2011, the common theme among mass shootings in America is that they occur in gun-free zones. And the same is true of the Kenya mall attack. The country has extremely restrictive gun laws and “carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is prohibited,” according to GunPolicy.org.

Recommend this article 

Leah Barkoukis

Leah Barkoukis

Leah Barkoukis is the Assistant Editor at Townhall.com/Townhall Magazine.
« Previous1234Next »
45caliber Wrote:1 hour ago (3:35 PM)
Governments are not concerned about the safety of small groups of citizens. Even a couple of hundred people is a small group to them. On the other hand, they are quite concerned about their citizens being armed and a threat to those in government. So you can bet the governments (all of them) will come down on the side of banning all guns from civilian hands. After all, it is quite doubtful that any of them would ever be attacked by crmiinals so why should they worry? Besides, if they do get into danger, they can always have government guards (soldiers) escort them.
Moman2 Wrote:3 hours ago (1:32 PM)
These terrorists don't care about the people they kill. These people don't care about their own people. These people will someday threaten our safety in the United States. These people have access to full-auto weapons and car loads of ammunition and all kinds destructive munitions. The Drug Cartels have these weapons now in this country. If we can't defend ourselves against these terrorists,who will? Refuse To Be A Victim.
LonePine Wrote:3 hours ago (12:49 PM)
I well recall hearing about the "Sandy Hook" shooting, and just recently watched the Kenya shopping mall massacre. The first, FIRST thing to cross my thoughts was, "Why, oh WHY, could those maniacs, (any dispute they were maniacs?) not have been met with return force by armed adults who accepted their responsibility to protect their neighbors against aggressive maniacs" ? A socialist looks upon a firearm as a mechanism to be used to impose their will upon others, and not as an instrument of defense. Keep y'er powder dry.
pzellschmidt Wrote:4 hours ago (12:36 PM)
'With the exception of the attack on Gabby Giffords…' She was shot at her Democrat rally. By definition, it was a gun free zone.
None1257 Wrote:4 hours ago (12:23 PM)
The relevant question is do you want to be the duck or the hunter trying to shoot the duck?
DWinch Wrote:3 hours ago (1:06 PM)
10 out of 10 duck hunters agree, when the ducks start shooting back, it's time to take up fishing!
Egonm206 Wrote:4 hours ago (12:03 PM)
Well finally some Europeans are beginning to see the light. The Nairobi massacre wouldn't have achieved to extensive carnage had there been citizens with concealed carry permits and it wouldn't have lasted but minutes instead of days and most probably far less casualties.
Even our "crazy" mass murderers are never so "crazy" as to attack a known place which is NOT a "Gun Free" zone, such as a police station, and NRA convention or a target range.
LonePine Wrote:3 hours ago (12:54 PM)
Exactly. The number of maniacs who chose to take out their personal frustrations by performing a mass-murder, will PLUMMET when it is a commonly known fact that any given "mass" of people shoot Back !
edicarlo Wrote:5 hours ago (10:50 AM)
The writing on the wall: "Eliminate all soft targets. Keep everyone under strict and intrusive surveillance at all times." No freedom for anyone. My understanding of the 2nd Amendment suggests that The People have the right to defend themselves against THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. Remember, the Americans had just gone through the bloody battle to throw out the British - that was the greatest use of a well-regulated militia in the lifetimes of the framers of the Constitution. The memories were still clear.
IddiKlu Wrote:6 hours ago (10:33 AM)
Now if just our politicians could start thinking in that direction, we could make our public places a lot safer. But do they have the brains for that? Past experience makes me doubt that... Let's replace them with some that do!
DWinch Wrote:6 hours ago (10:46 AM)
Politicians have no concern with public safety, only their own.
Tyrants want their subjects unarmed!
CompCon Wrote:6 hours ago (10:20 AM)
There's no doubt of it. An armed society is a polite society.
William6382 Wrote:6 hours ago (10:20 AM)
Does Interpol not know that by definition a "soft target" is one that does NOT have security.

It does not matter what potential targets you prioritize to protect with rigorous security, there will remain soft targets that will achieve a terrorist's objective. 

If a military installation has restricted entry, target the school or day care center where the soldiers take their kids. If the Pentagon is secure, target the Pentagon metro station. 

Would you be more terrorized by an attack on Joint Base Andrews, or by a suicide/homicide bomber at your annual church picnic?
45caliber Wrote:1 hour ago (3:40 PM)
William: 

I can't see myself terrorized by terrorists any place. Instead, if I actually thought I'd ever meet any of them I'd be taking steps to insure that I can shoot back.
William6382 Wrote:11 minutes ago (4:36 PM)
I'm a Maryland resident so I can't be too specific about my own self defense posture. 

My point is that, as a nation, we would probably be a lot less concerned about our vulnerability to terrorism if the targets were the types of places that we typically protect. 

When those targets become too risky or too difficult to attack, there are plenty of places that the government not only does not protect, it proudly declares them to be gun free zones. 


Rodney47 Wrote:6 hours ago (9:51 AM)
What this is, more than anything, is the British government showing their fear of the terrorists getting too close to those who have ruled (not governed) England for the last 50 years. While they refused their subjects the right to protect themselves and their property, they now find it neccessary to instill a feeling of citizenship in the general public so that they can be made good little soldiers to protect the aristocracy. What better way to do that then to return their 'privledge' of owning weapons? God save the queen!! Protect the egg sack at all costs!!
jriggs958 Wrote:6 hours ago (10:17 AM)
It's just a matter of time before it happens in the US. The liberal communist in the US still resist arming teachers.
rwright Wrote:1 hour ago (3:21 PM)
Britain is governed by a parliamentary democracy. She is not "ruled" by anyone, She also has one of the lowest homicide rates in the free world. Why change a civilized country, which has been a democracy for a thousand tears, into an armed mob?
Rick676 Wrote:7 hours ago (9:41 AM)
Human nature never changes, although situations constantly change. At the founding, ordinary people were threatened with hostile armies, hostile natives, and violent criminals. With law enforcement being hours to days away, it was assumed that each person was responsible for his own safety. We have forgotten this tradition, even though the face of the threats have changed, the nature of them have not. We still are under threat from violent criminals, hostile armies (terrorists), and hostile natives (OWS, New Black Panthers, KKK). We need today as much as we ever have to be able to defend ourselves. Police can do nothing until the crime has been committed, and I prefer not to be the victim before action can be taken.
jriggs958 Wrote:6 hours ago (10:14 AM)
Good comment. Organized crime and gangs have access to any weapon's they want. In areas of the US the law abiding citizen is at the mercy of the criminal element.
Dr_Zinj Wrote:8 hours ago (8:34 AM)
This is one of the dirty secrets that the gun banners and tin pot dictators of the world refuse to acknowledge. Every honest policeman in the world will tell you the same thing that INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald Noble said. When ordinary citizens have the right to keep and bear arms; the threat of violence is reduced and the response to attacks that do occur is immediate.

Points to remember about the attack on Gabby Giffords in Tucson in 2011. The crowd around Giffords was dense enough that the people who had CCW permits were not able to identify the shooter, and wisely held their own fire. This is normal when citizens are responding; and statistics show that bystanders are more likely to be shot by police responders than by citizen responders.
dashersdad Wrote:8 hours ago (8:21 AM)
Uh, hey chief. Where you been? What do you mean "now"? Regular everyday folks have needed to armed since, well, like forever. As long as somebody wants to be "the boss" over you against your will and desire, you need to armed. Or cower in the corner whimpering if you prefer.
Truseeker Wrote:8 hours ago (8:08 AM)
Ask why all over the world how politicians eventually become tyrants.They banned guns first ! Sometimes the whole government becomes tyrannical ,which happens as soon as the citizens swallow the kool-aid known as "socialized medicine". The democrat party has been infiltrated by likes of Soros and Soros does have what Karl Marx had ,which is the strong inherent desire to control others and have his way or the highway. This is mark of the lineage of a desert dweller. It is all about controlling the masses and turning them into flock of sheep while Soros and his likes become the shepherds. They either play god or communist ,both the same: all about controlling the masses and turning them into zombies,also ,known as liberals. Behind every liberal there is a controller whose lineage can be traced to the desert of the Middle East.
Happy Jake Wrote:9 hours ago (6:53 AM)
Interesting. Someone with no ties to the NRA supporting the right to keep AND BEAR arms. I doubt the Secretary General of INTERPOL has a Mossy Oak (R) camo, mesh backed ball cap with "NRA" embroidered on the front. In fact, I expect he's just a guy who recognizes that people intent on committing a major crime (like mass murder) don't really give a flying rat's rump about misdemeanors or class E felonies like carrying a gun into a movie theater, and that it's better for the law abiding to own weapons than not to, because the lawless, by definition, don't care about the law.
ThasicAlambra Wrote:12 hours ago (4:35 AM)
So all those terrorist were breaking the law as they toted those guns around killing people in Kenya?!? I bet if they knew that they would never have attacked that mall!
DWinch Wrote:7 hours ago (9:35 AM)
Right! I have yet to see a piece of paper stop a bullet!
Rodney47 Wrote:7 hours ago (9:39 AM)
Exactly, It's been my experience that even the added friction of the sharpie used to draw the 1" bullseye has minimum effect on velocity.
Harold15 Wrote:12 hours ago (4:15 AM)
An armed citizenry is more necessary than it ever was. We have a government who consider it's own citizens to be terrorists and the real terrorists as its friends. We police departments who abuse their authority and kill unarmed citizens for little or no reason. Obama both condones and encourages violence of black people against whites. I'd say that being armed these days is even more of a necessity than it ever was.
rwingflyer Wrote:17 hours ago (11:10 PM)
Well, duh!! An armed citizenry is necessary because (1) we can't depend on our own government to defend us against our enemies (which don't seem to be the same as the regime's enemies), and (2) we need to defend ourselves against domestic enemies as well. If the chief had read our constitution, and the Federalist Papers, he would understand the concept.
« Previous1234Next »

Obamacare disaster: Health insurances cancelling policies of hundreds of thousands!



by Dr. Eowyn

In 2009 when he was selling his radical healthcare plan to the American people, the POS promised that if we like our present health plans and doctors, we could keep them even after Obamacare became law. He lied.

Read more of this post

One Citizen Speaking...



OBAMA INCENTIVIZED AFGHAN MILITARY DEFECTORS WITH FLAWED FOREIGN POLICY

Posted: 22 Oct 2013 03:24 PM PDT

What can you expect when President Obama announces that the United States military will be leaving the region and abandoning any allies we might have had …

Afghan special forces commander defects with guns to insurgents

An Afghan army special forces commander has defected to an insurgent group allied with the Taliban in a Humvee truck packed with his team's guns and high-tech equipment, officials in the eastern Kunar province said on Sunday. Monsif Khan, who raided the supplies of his 20-man team in Kunar's capital Asadabad over the Eid al-Adha religious holiday, is the first special forces commander to switch sides, joining the Hezb-e-Islami organisation. "He sent some of his comrades on leave and paid others to go out sightseeing, and then escaped with up to 30 guns, night-vision goggles, binoculars and a Humvee," said Shuja ul-Mulkh Jalala, the governor of Kunar.  Source: Afghan special forces commander defects with guns to insurgents | Reuters

What would you do?

Looking down the road and seeing an overwhelming armed and hostile that is going to kill you as retribution for any lives you may have taken while representing the reigning government? You have neither the wealth or means to escape the country with your booty as so many high-ranking officials plan – and there is no upside? Your government in an American-supported corrupt kleptocracy that will protect by doing a deal with their enemies.

And, all because President Barack Obama aided and abetted our enemies and disadvantaged our allies by providing actionable intelligence – the withdrawal date and drawdown schedule – to satisfy his domestic political agenda.

I wonder if he even thought about what will happen as the American leave the country – possibly being ambushed and plagued by IEDs as they leave?

But then again, that’s Obama. Corrupt, incompetent, and disdainful of the military.

-- steve

STUMBLING ACROSS THE TRUTH: CARTOONIST EQUATES NAZIS, CONFEDERACY, AND REDSKINS -- BUT MISSED THE REAL POINT

Posted: 22 Oct 2013 06:33 PM PDT

Editorial cartoonists are a rare breed, able to capture an entire subject and range of emotions in a single panel carton. In this case, cartoonist Tom Stiglich fell just one panel short of brilliant. By equating the Nazi symbol, the Confederate flag with the Washington Redskin’s logo, he produced a provocative piece under the title of “Archaic Symbols of Pride and Heritage.”

The original cartoon as published in the Thursday, October 17, 2013 edition of the New York Daily News …

e2013-206

This is what USA Today had to say about the process …

New York Daily News cartoon compares Redskins to Nazis -- They are both ‘archaic symbols’ according to the cartoonist.

If the Redskins name debate hadn’t already devolved into sheer and utter foolishness, this New York Daily News cartoon will help speed that process.   In terms of shock value, cartoonist Tom Stiglich hit a home run. He also has his finger on the tenor of these partisan times, when the opportunity to have a reasoned, nuanced discussion about the merits and faults of the Redskins name has long passed. It’s not enough to say you disagree with the Redskins name any more. Now you have to storm Redskins Park with pitchforks or, in this case, compare the team to Hitler. Source: New York Daily News cartoon compares Redskins to Nazis | For The Win

What is wrong with this cartoon …

On the left side of the panel, you have a symbol loathed by most of mankind and representing pure, unspeakable horror that cost millions of lives. In the middle, you gave a symbol that represents America's struggle for state's rights, but has been wrongly co-opted by those who are pushing a racial agenda. And, on the right side of the panel, you have a corporate logo of a sports team that was adopted in a  not so far distant time where different political and social processes were in play.

Now, that symbol has been co-opted by the grievance industry to manufacture media attention and profits to pursue their self-serving agendas. Not so coincidently, pushed by progressive socialist democrats and mostly white progressive talking heads, rather than those who have a right to pursue a grievance, the native Americans. 

The first two symbols represent great losses of American lives and a fundament shift in the American psyche, the third symbol is the symbol of a sports team and the silliness of those self-serving hucksters, charlatans, and race-baiters who would exploit it to pursue their own political agenda.  

But the elemental truth of the cartoon can be preserved by another juxtaposition … 

triflag

Bottom line …

The cartoon says it all – three of the most destructive forces in America’s history, two of which cost American lives and represented a true shift in political thinking. President Obama and his cadre of radical progressive socialist democrats and RINO (Republicans In Name Only) represent the same fundamental shift. The potential loss of millions of lives through Obamacare and the corrupt, incompetent central planning of a dysfunctional government that has no coherent or cohesive foreign or domestic policies other than to destroy America and attempt a re-build on the European socialist model.

Both cartoons speak for themselves and carry a message. Tom Stiglich’s message of politically correct silliness and mine – a dire warning of the clear and present danger that Obama and his coalition of radical progressive socialist democrats and RINOs presents to America.

-- steve

P.S. And now a little example of progressive hypocrisy … Blacks routinely use the n-word, but how can Kanye West justify selling Confederate Flag merchandise at his Yeezus concerts?

kw

ARE YOU WILLING TO SPEND DOLLARS CHASING PENNIES AT DEALDASH AND OTHER PENNY AUCTION SITES?

Posted: 19 Oct 2013 10:08 PM PDT

A neighbor asked me what I thought of a site called DealDash.com where it is possible, at least theoretically, to obtain branded merchandise for ridiculously low prices …

And look what I found …

dd-2

Some lucky bidder managed to get a great tablet for under $10.00 and an $800.00 gift card for only $62.12. You can’t beat those deals. But, if you made 200 bids to grab that card, the chances are that you actually paid between $60.00 and $120 for the right to purchase the Amazon gift card (exclusive of other charges and fees that may apply) for $62.12.

 sd

But the real question is how often can an ordinary person grab these deals? Assuming, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, that DealDash is not a scam, and the laws of the universe are not suspended on this site, what is the likelihood of successful bidding. Because there are no published statistics that would allow me to rationally analyze this proposition based on hard data, I simply looked to the Deal Dash people for the answer.  

Buried in the DealDash “Terms of Use” is this explanatory caution …

By registering and using DealDash you understand that you are likely to spend more money than you may receive in merchandise valueMost customers using the site gain less in merchandise value measured in monetary value compared to the amount of money spent bidding to win auctions. Do not buy bids or spend money on the site if you cannot afford to lose the money. DealDash is constantly attempting to maintain fairness and balance in its auctions therefore some new users or users who have lost auctions may receive special promotions, access to special auctions and/or free bids through site features. This is designed to maintain fair practice and helps balance and create a great auction experience for all users.

DealDash is convinced that the entertainment value of participating in its auctions is valued and that paying a premium price for this entertainment value compared to shopping at the lowest priced retailer is fair. We do however strive to give as much merchandise value back to our users as we possibly can while maintaining healthy gross margins. Most customers will not win auctions and you are on average unlikely to save money using the Site. We recommend that you take advantage of the Buy it Now option as it will return all of your lost bids when used. Most customers who use the Buy it Now remain loyal to the Site far longer than those that do not. By using the Service you understand and agree to this statement.  <Source>

Investigating further …

As I understand the process, you purchase bids. Each bid cent can cost you up to 60-cents. So, if you see that the $800 Amazon gift card was purchased for $62.12, that means thee were likely 6212 penny bids; costing the bidders say 30-cents. Doing the math means 6,212 x .30 = $1,863.60. Leaving $1063.60 after purchasing the Amazon gift card at full price – a great profit after paying for site operation and management overhead. So while one lucky individual makes out like a bandit – for at least this one transaction – there are 6,211 losers who should be wiser after the experience. But hope springs eternal in the realm of human nature and some people are prone to gamble, even if the recognize that the odds are stacked against them. You might be better off playing in Vegas than on a deal site. 

There is also the liklihood that some of the name brand merchandise was purchased at significant discounts, are manufacturer's closeouts of end-of-the model or end-of-the season discounted merchanise; thus increasing the profit margin for the site's owner.

What does the Federal Trade Commission have to say?

How does a penny auction work?

In a penny auction, the site owner posts items and you pay to bid for them. Unlike a traditional auction, where only the winner pays, penny auctions require you to pay before – and as – you bid, win or lose.

You may have to pay a fee just to register for the site, and sometimes, it’s substantial. Then,you have to buy a "bid package." For example, you may "buy" 100 bids for $50. Additional bids cost more money, often between 50 cents and a dollar per bid.

The price of auction items usually starts at zero, and each bid bumps the price of the item up a penny. Each bid also adds time – from 10 seconds to 2 minutes – to a countdown clock. The goal is to be the high bidder when the clock runs out. But because the clock resets with each bid, the auction process can be unpredictable and take time to complete.

What does "winning" mean?

Winning the auction doesn't mean you've won the auction item: It means you've won the right to buy the item at the final price. For example, your $50 winning bid for a camera might seem like a bargain, but if you placed 200 bids that cost $1 each, your cost will actually be $250 – plus shipping and handling, and possibly a transaction fee.

If you lose an auction, chances are you've lost your money. If you placed 199 bids on that camera, for example, you'd be out $199. Some penny auction sites have a "Buy-It-Now" feature that lets losing bidders buy the item at retail price and apply the amount they spent on bids as a discount. So, you might not lose your investment in the bids you purchased, but you wouldn't save any money off the retail price, either. Source:http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0037-online-penny-auctions

 

Apparently, it is as legal as the penny arcade where you toss your money at those dishes. And, with the same effect.

Bottom line …

When you purchase a deal package to bid … chances are you are already a loser and you should consider that money lost forever!

Unless you believe playing on the DealDash site is more fun that visiting the mall – and you might be extraordinarily lucky – the probability (most customers over bid) of getting a deal are relatively small, especially since previous losers and newbies might receive preferential treatment. I wouldn’t do it because it appears to be a waste of my time to spend dollars chasing pennies – or in this case spending pennies to chase the chance at dollars.

But what really made me curious, is why isn’t this game play regulated as gambling? At least to me, where people lose their bid if they don’t win the product, it appears to me to be a prima facie scam and a waste of time, money, and effort.

-- steve

Borderland Beat...


Link to Borderland Beat

After a Temporary Ban Facebook Allows Decapitation Videos to be Posted

Posted: 22 Oct 2013 08:23 AM PDT

Borderland Beat posted by A.J. BB Forum

 
 
By Leo Kelion of BBC
Facebook is allowing videos showing people being decapitated to be posted and shared on its site once again. 
The social network had introduced a temporary ban in May following complaints that the clips could cause long-term psychological damage. 

The US firm confirmed it now believed its users should be free to watch and condemn such videos. It added it was, however, considering adding warnings. 

One suicide prevention charity condemned the move. 

"It only takes seconds of exposure to such graphic material to leave a permanent trace - particularly in a young person's mind," said Dr Arthur Cassidy, a former psychologist who runs a branch of the Yellow Ribbon Program in Northern Ireland. 

"The more graphic and colorful the material is, the more psychologically destructive it becomes." 

Two of the firm's official safety advisors have also criticized the decision. 

Facebook allows anyone aged 13 and above to be a member. 

Its terms and conditions now state that it will remove photos or videos that "glorify violence" in addition to other banned material, including a woman's "fully exposed breast". 

New rules

The BBC was alerted to Facebook's change in policy by a reader who said the firm was refusing to remove a page showing a clip of a masked man killing a woman, which is believed to have been filmed in Mexico. 

It was posted last week under the title, Challenge: Anybody can watch this video? 

"Remove this video too many young innocent minds out there shouldn't see this!!!" wrote one user in the comments section below. 

"This is absolutely horrible, distasteful and needs to be removed... there are too many young minds that can see this. I'm 23 and I'm very disturbed after seeing a couple of seconds of it," wrote another. 

The social network later confirmed it was allowing such material to be posted again. 

"Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences, particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events," said a spokeswoman. 

"People are sharing this video on Facebook to condemn it. If the video were being celebrated, or the actions in it encouraged, our approach would be different. 

"However, since some people object to graphic video of this nature, we are working to give people additional control over the content they see. This may include warning them in advance that the image they are about to see contains graphic content." 

The firm also disabled the adverts for third-party products that had been appearing alongside the video. 


Advisors concerned

Facebook originally pulled decapitation videos after the Family Online Safety Institute - a member of its Safety Advisory Board - complained that they "crossed a line". 

The charity's leader Stephen Balkam told the BBC he was surprised by the latest development.
"I would have expected a heads-up on this," he said. 

"I went to have a look at the video and there's no warning label nor is there any condemnatory context. It's just sort of up there and the first image you are presented with is a woman's head being held by a guy. 

"I'm very unhappy that these have gone back up and that they have gone up without any warning. First thing tomorrow morning I intend to raise this with Facebook." 

Another of the board members, London-based Childnet International, said it also had concerns. 

"Such content should be taken down," said its chief executive Will Gardner. 

"There is a need to raise issues happening around the world, there is that argument, but some content is horrific. 

"We would want to see steps to try and protect people from coming across such content. I'll tell Facebook what our view is, absolutely." 


'Profoundly shocking'

Decapitation videos are available elsewhere on the net - including on Google's YouTube - but critics have raised concern that Facebook's news feeds and other sharing functions mean it is particularly adept at spreading such material. 

"I have seen some of these videos - they are profoundly shocking," said John Carr, who sits on the executive board of the UK government's Council on Child Internet Safety. 

"Facebook has taken leave of its senses. Those videos will fuel countless nightmares among the young and the sensitive." 

The idea of Facebook issuing a blanket ban had, however, concerned some freedom-of-speech campaigners who had suggested it was the responsibility of parents - not the company - to protect children on the internet. 

However, the French digital rights group La Quadrature du Net said it was still concerned that Facebook was reserving the right to take down the videos if it took issue with the way they were presented. 

"It shows how much Facebook is in power to decide whatever will or will not be expressed through its network," said the organisation's co-founder Jeremie Zimmermann. 

"It plays a profoundly anti-democratic role when it makes any such choice, whatever the limits are and whatever the good reasons it uses to make the decision. Only a judicial authority should be able to restrict fundamental freedoms according to the rule of law." 

WELCOME TO HELL, BOB: Beckel, ‘White House Called Me After I Criticized ObamaCare’


Democratic operative and FOX News contributor Bob Beckel told Bill Hemmer today that he got a call from the White House after he suggested implementation for Obamacare should be delayed 6 months.

“The other day on The Five I called for a delay for the implementation of this for five months or six months to a year. And I got a call from somebody at the White House who absolutely bludgeoned me over it…

Read more: thegatewaypundit.com

 

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/10/welcome-hell-bob-beckel-white-house-called-criticized-obamacare/#LOzEdJJ8fZQcEvGh.99

Featured Post

by Jm Moran 2025-11-12T13:45:57.000Z from Facebook via IFTTT from Facebook via IFTTT