Wednesday, January 9, 2013


This Is How a Secret Gun Provision Made its Way Into Obamacare Legislation
By: Billy Hallowell/ The Blaze

Obamacare Legislation Includes Secret Gun Rights Provision | Harry Reid, Affordable Care Act

There’s a widely-unknown provision in the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) — legislative wording that is capturing attention in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Pushed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a newly-noticed regulation that was placed deep within the bill back in 2010, among other things, bans doctors from documenting patients’ answers to questions that focus upon guns.

The Washington Post first reported on Dec. 30 about the presence of this controversial wording. Under a section with the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights,” the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law. The Post called the inclusion, “a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.”

As the outlet also noted, it was in the final stretch of the debate over Obama’s health care legislation that the NRA successfully pushed to insert this language. Below, see the portions of the Affordable Care Act that include mentions of firearms and the parameters through which doctors must operate in questioning patients (read the entire health care bill here):

Obamacare Legislation Includes Secret Gun Rights Provision | Harry Reid, Affordable Care Act
Obamacare Legislation Includes Secret Gun Rights Provision | Harry Reid, Affordable Care Act

On Tuesday, CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta spoke on-air with “Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer. The two discussed how the gun provision made its way into health care legislation, while also explaining portions of the text for viewers.

Gupta noted that the initiative to have the wording included during the contentious health care debate was rooted in the NRA’s stance that patients should not be penalized or discriminated against for owning firearms. As can be seen from the above portion of the legislation, while doctors are not banned from asking about guns, they are forbidden from documenting the information and using it for research purposes.

Watch Gupta explain the additive language:

In addition to gun-owner information and how it must be handled by doctors, the text also notes that the law cannot be used to keep and maintain records of individuals’ firearm possession, nor can it be used to track ammunition. Additionally, the language deals with the price of health care coverage, noting that cost cannot be impacted by the possession or ownership of guns, the Post also reported.

Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, the presence of this provision has gained some press, with select politicians and medical groups taking a stand against it. Advocates are worried that research and medical care could suffer as a result of the wording; some are even pushing the Obama administration to consider changes to the text in light of recent events and an impending battle over new gun control legislation.

The Post has more about the ongoing battle between the NRA and physicians and advocates who stand opposed to the language inserted into the Affordable Care legislation:
NRA officials say they requested the provision out of concern that insurance companies could use such data to raise premiums on gun owners. The measure’s supporters in the Senate say they did not intend to interfere with the work of doctors or researchers.
But physician groups and researchers see the provision as part of a decades-long strategy by the gun lobby to choke off federal support for studies of firearms violence.
The research restrictions began in the 1990s, when the NRA urged Congress to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division that studied gun violence. In 1996, Congress sharply limited the agency’s ability to fund that type of research.
Obamacare Legislation Includes Secret Gun Rights Provision | Harry Reid, Affordable Care Act
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi take part in a joint Senate and House session to count of the Electoral College votes for the 2012 presidential election at the Capitol Hill in Washington on January 4, 2013. US President Barack Obama was officially declared the winner of 2012 presidential election after the counting session– a quaint formality, perhaps, but constitutionally required. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Just as interesting as the debate over the provision, itself, is the notion that it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), an NRA-supporter, who added the wording to the bill back in 2010. While a spokesperson for Reid told the Post that the leader never spoke with the NRA about the wording and that he did not believe that “it changed gun laws in any way,” that hasn’t stopped critics from wondering why Reid so staunchly supported the measure.

The language was purportedly added to stem off criticism from the NRA that could have railroaded, delayed or prevented the controversial health care bill from passing. Also, the wording was placed deep within the bill in an effort to convince people not to embrace so-called conspiracy theories about Obamacare — mainly that the legislation would be used to keep and maintain a massive gun-ownership database. Once the langage was added, the NRA reportedly remained neutral regarding passage of the law.

While Reid has been a gun rights advocate for quite some time, the politician may be having a change of heart in the wake of recent shootings and controversy surrounding this language. An adviser who spoke off-the-record, recently told CNN that the senator is “in a different place than he was in 2010″ when it comes to firearms.

NOT good...NOT good at all...

Obama ends post-9/11 restrictions on Saudis entering U.S.

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

19.jpgWhat could possibly go wrong?

Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. But not to worry. The Saudis have completely eradicated the beliefs and assumptions that led to those attacks, haven't they? After all, they were motivated by a twisted and hijacked version of Islam that is nowhere found on earth today, especially in Saudi Arabia, right?

"Obama administration ends post-9/11 restrictions on Saudis entering U.S.," from the World Tribune, January 6 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):
ABU DHABI — The United States, a decade after Al Qaida strikes in New York and Washington, has opened its doors to Saudi nationals. 
Diplomats said the administration of President Barack Obama has removed most restrictions on the entry of Saudis to the United States. They said the percentage of visa approvals for Saudis has reached unprecedented levels.
“The United States aims to raise the number of visas that it issues annually, particularly to Saudi nationals, who represent an important group,” Joseph Hood, U.S. consul-general in the Saudi city of Dhahran, said.
Hood cited economic reasons for the easing of restrictions on Saudis. He said Saudi businessmen and students have been allowed to enter the United States in record numbers, with a 60 percent increase since 2010.
“They form a large segment of travelers to the United States, while they also represent an important economic factor,” Hood said. “In addition, Saudi Arabia also sends a large number of students to the United States, and the number of Saudi students in the United States rivals those from India.”
The U.S. consulate in Dhahran reported issuing 100 visas per day to Saudis. In 2012, the total number of visas reached 21,000, nearly 30 percent of which went to Saudi students or their relatives. About 15,000 Americans were reported to be based in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province.
The administration decision came amid a series of incidents in which Saudis were implicated in criminal and security offenses. In February 2011, a Saudi student was arrested on charges of plotting to bomb the home of former President George Bush in Texas. Diplomats said more than 70,000 Saudis were registered as studying in the United States.
Earlier this month, a sergeant in the Royal Saudi Air Force was arrested on charges of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in Las Vegas. Mazen Alotaibi was identified as a member of a U.S. training program of Saudi military personnel at the Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland near San Antonio, Texas....

A Petty Decision by Obama

By: Jonah Goldberg / Townhall Columnist
A Petty Decision by Obama

It's official. President Obama has named former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as his nominee for secretary of defense. Hence, we may be in store for the worst defense secretary nomination fight since George H.W. Bush's failed appointment of Sen. John Tower (R-Texas) more than 20 years ago.

The interesting question is, why? Why waste the political capital? Why pass over more qualified candidates who would sail through confirmation, including Michele Flournoy -- who'd be the first female defense secretary?

The most ridiculous answer is among the mainstream media's favorites: bipartisanship. According to Politico, the choice "appeals to Obama's bipartisan spirit." The Washington Post, in a front-page news story, says that "Hagel's successful nomination would add a well-known Republican to the president's second-term Cabinet at a time when he is looking to better bridge the partisan divide, particularly after a bitter election campaign."

What is particularly bizarre about this talking point is that it often appears in articles that go on to talk about how tough and grueling the nomination battle will be thanks to strong Republican opposition. So which is it?

Is it a bridge across the partisan divide? Or is it an "in-your-face" nomination (South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham's words) aimed at eliciting a fight with Republicans?

At least from the perspective of nearly everyone on the right, it's the latter. Whether it's payback for the scuttled non-nomination of Susan Rice to be secretary of state or whether it's simply of a piece with Obama's efforts to divide and conquer the GOP that were on display throughout the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, the consensus in much of conservative Washington is that Obama is making this nomination at least in part out of spite.

Indeed, that's one major reason Hagel has so many unlikely friends these days. Hagel -- never overburdened with too heavy a reputation for insight, knowledge or humility -- is loathed, with ample justification, by many foreign-policy hawks, Israel supporters and neocons (those are overlapping but hardly synonymous groups, by the way). He is arguably the most prominent opponent of sanctions on bad actors in the Middle East.

He's heaped scorn on those who'd take a hard line with Iran. His geopolitical acumen is of the sort that fails to shine even in the comment sections on blogs. The Iraq war, for example, was according to Hagel a war for oil.

And Hagel's views on Israel are, to be generous, hard to reconcile with those of the man who successfully campaigned for president just a couple of months ago as a staunch friend of that country. Even if Hagel's gaffe about the perfidious influence of the domestic "Jewish lobby" was accidental, his coolness to Israel is hard to dispute. For instance, when Palestinian suicide bombers were tearing the country apart in 2002, Hagel insisted in an op-ed article that this was the time for Israel to "take steps to show its commitment to peace."

For some, the thinking seems to be that if the Hagel nomination is a thumb in the eye of the neocon crowd, it must be worth it. David Greenberg writes in the New Republic that many "liberals are bending over backward to praise Hagel, in effect saying they would prefer an archconservative male mediocrity to a liberal female rising star." Why? Because punishing Hagel's enemies is worth a potentially lousy defense secretary.

This spirit results in some really batty arguments for Hagel's confirmation. For instance, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen writes that the "chief" reason Hagel should be confirmed is that doing so "will provoke a serious debate on what constitutes real friendship toward Israel." Even if you agree with Cohen's barmy views of geopolitical "friendship," Hagel's got real problems if this is the best case for his nomination.

The Defense Department faces imminent cuts, Chinese and Russian nationalism are ascendant, the Middle East is becoming even more destabilized and theocratic, and we're still at war in Afghanistan, but Hagel's chief qualification is that he'll be a great conversation starter? Wow.

The coming nomination fight will undoubtedly focus on the strength of the case against Hagel. But the real indictment of Obama's pick is the weakness of the case for Hagel -- and the pettiness of the pick in the first place.

It’s Not “Game Over”— It’s Time for the GOP to Counterattack

It’s Not “Game Over”— It’s Time for the GOP to Counterattack
The current state of the GOP brings to mind the surviving Marines in Aliens, with no shortage of demoralized hacks lamenting their inability to resist by channeling Private Hudson: “Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events but we just got our a**** kicked, pal!”

So what? So we took a hit on the Fiscal Cliff. Stand up, brush off and get back into the fight. This is no time for self-pity, no time for weakness. Every combat leader knows that when you take a hit, you regroup, reorganize, and prepare to counterattack. The defense is but a temporary, transitory period that serves just one single purpose – to prepare your forces to resume the offensive.

We don’t need wimpy handwringers trying to excuse Republican fecklessness by repeating stupid clich├ęs like “Elections have consequences.” Maybe I missed something, but everyone in this new Congress won the last election – and the House kept its majority. If President 50.6% has a mandate, so does every single GOP member. And that mandate wasn’t to tuck-up into the fetal position and sob.

Here’s another consequence that the election had – now that the tax cuts have expired, Obama can’t do anything unless we say “Yes.” From here on in, if he wins it’s because we let him win. So don’t.

This guy has a glass jaw. He had tax increases by default on everyone, yet he had to walk away with a $450,000 ceiling instead of the $250,000 definition of “millionaire” he’d been selling to the low-information types who make up his base. Oh, and this week these same slack-jaws opened up their pay envelopes and found out that The One failed to get the payroll tax cut extended. Moreover, the AMT is fixed and the estate tax is improved somewhat. The GOP may have lost, but contrary to the cheerleading by the government-controlled mainstream media, so did progressive President Pyrrhus.

Obama has the initiative today, but hand this guy a couple defeats and he’ll go right back to ground hoping 2014 will bring him a liberal majority again.

The GOP needs to clearly understand its objective, because right now they are acting as if this is politics as usual, just with a particularly liberal president. Wrong. Obama is a dedicated progressive ideologue who wants to permanently change this country for the worse and he intends to clear his path to doing so by ruthlessly destroying all opposition. That means you, GOPers.

He isn’t playing a game; he’s fighting a war, and it better dawn on the GOP that Obama doesn’t want to just shift the needle a bit. He wants us defeated, disarmed and docile so he can turn us into the progressive, extra-Constitutional Utopia his faculty-lounge buddies have been fantasizing about for the last century.

Obama and his minions are serious about defeating us, so we need to be serious about defeating them. Let’s banish cheesy talk about “Working together for the good of the country.” The only thing that is good for this country right now is defeating Obama’s leftist agenda, fully, completely and in detail. You can’t work with him, you can’t compromise with him, you can’t convince him. He’s a progressive Terminator and the Constitution is Sarah Connor.

You have to beat him, and that means counterattacking to seize the initiative by getting on the scoreboard with some wins and restoring our team’s morale.

Obama’s getting cocky – this guy always believes his own hype and his prissy press cheerleaders aren’t doing him any favors telling him he’s mastered the opposition. Unless we let him, he’s mastered nothing. In his overconfidence he’s over-extending himself, and that means opportunities.

It looks like he’s going to nominate Chuck Hagel for SecDef. Even Chuck Schumer is having trouble swallowing that. Republicans, time to get out the long knives and get to work – and make sure you let the world know that besides Hagel’s terrible policies you’re doing it on behalf of the Jews and gays he detests. Filibuster him if you need to – if Harry Reid wants to eliminate the filibuster he can do it on behalf of an anti-Semitic homophobe who thinks we’re too mean to Hamas.

Obama loses even if he “wins,” squandering capital and forcing his Democrat pals into terrible votes they’ll be hearing about at re-election time. And GOP senators, we don’t need to hear about deference toward one of your own. Hagel sold out the GOP when he supported Obama. Nor do we need to hear any sanctimonious crap about deference to the president in nominations – if you still think this is business as usual, you’re either a fool or in a coma.

Obama is now talking about taxing the successful even more by eliminating deductions. Hand him another big goose egg. He got his tax increases – you need to be out of the revenue increase business. How about the House pass a payroll tax cut, paid for by slashing corporate welfare to Obama’s Hollywood buddies and his green energy scam cronies?

Spending cuts? Obama doesn’t get a say. Sequestration is going to happen unless the GOP agrees to change it. That’s a $1.2 trillion cut. Let it happen, and let Secretary Hagel deal with the defense cuts. Obama loses again unless you save him.

And guns – talk about a golden opportunity to defeat Obama while also helping set the stage for a Democrat wipe-out in 2014! Obama and his progressive pals are giddy with the idea that Newtown will let them jam through a whole slew of Second Amendment-trashing measures before everyone starts thinking again. If Obama’s actually foolish enough to proceed – and I am not sure he is – he’s setting himself up for a huge loss.

GOP, remember Napoleon’s admonition to never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Let Obama try and force the red state Democrat senators to come out against guns. Let the Democrats tear themselves up while we watch and gobble popcorn.

Heck, we should egg them on – like by trying to force a Senate vote on, say, a provision which reaffirms the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for the protection of their families and communities and directs that all federal law shall be interpreted toward preserving and protecting that right. Let’s see how all those Democrats paying lip service to the Second Amendment feel about voting on that.

And if some bill finally limps out of the Senate, hopefully without a single GOP vote, Speaker Boehner should mimic Harry Reid’s fiscal cliff antics and just let it die. No debate. No discussion. No vote. Obama’s dream of disarming his opponents, paid for with the careers of several sitting Democrat senators, will die in the hopper.

It will be a thing of beauty.

Remember, this is an existential crisis for our country. Now is not the time to “govern;” it’s the time to defeat Obama and his radical left-wing agenda. No, you can’t say that out loud – simpering wimps will shudder and fret. Just do it, even as you talk about working together and compromising and hugging and all that goo-goo baloney.

Republican, quit shouting, “Game over, man! Game over!” Counterattack, seize the initiative, and start winning again. Play for keeps. Stop channeling Hudson and start channeling Ripley. It’s time to figuratively nuke the site from orbit – it’s the only way to be sure.
Reich: Castro Brothers Will Control Venezuela After Chavez
By Jim Meyers and John Bachman 
/ Newsmax

Former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Otto Reich tells Newsmax that whoever replaces ailing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is “not going to be good for the United States” — which has seen its influence in Latin America drop to an all-time low under President Obama.

Reich also asserts that Cuba’s Castro brothers have been running Venezuela through “puppet” Chavez in recent years, and Cuban control of the country is likely to continue following Chavez’s death.

Reich was appointed ambassador to the South American nation during the Ronald Reagan administration and served from 1986 to 1989. He has also served as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, and was a foreign policy adviser to John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Chavez is hospitalized in Cuba after he had surgery for cancer. His government announced earlier today that he will not be present at his swearing in for his next presidential term on Thursday, Jan. 10.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Tuesday, Reich was asked what is likely to happen if Chavez is not in Venezuela by Thursday.

“According to Venezuelan constitutional lawyers, if Chavez is not in Venezuela by Thursday to be sworn in, he cannot be sworn in,” Reich says.

“However, what the ruling party is trying to do is simply violate the constitution by sending a delegation from the Supreme Court to Havana to swear in Chavez in his hospital room where he is either dead or dying or perhaps in very good health, nobody knows.

“Or alternatively, another faction of the government is saying that Chavez does not have to be sworn in because he’s already the president, so he’ll just continue being the president. Either way it’s a violation of the constitution and it’s indicative of the lack of respect that the Chavez government has had for the people and the laws of Venezuela ever since he came into power 14 years ago.”

Story continues below the video.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/reich-castro-control-venezuela/2013/01/08/id/470568?s=al&promo_code=11BC4-1

Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro and National Assembly President Diosdado Cabello are running the country in Chavez’s absence and are the leading candidates to replace Chavez after his death.

The two men “are a distinction with a lack of difference,” Reich observes. “Maduro is not a very charismatic leader, neither is Cabello.

“Maduro came up through the ranks of the labor movement. He is far left, as they all are. But honestly he appears to be the selected candidate of choice of Fidel and Raul Castro in Cuba.

“The Castro brothers — and I know this is going to be hard for Americans to believe — have been running Venezuela through Hugo Chavez for the last several years. They make all the important decisions. Chavez is basically just a puppet. He talks and talks but the main decisions are made by the Castros in Havana.

“There are 60,000 Cubans inside Venezuela running all the strategic communication, the intelligence networks, involved in the military down to the platoon level, and so Maduro is the candidate of the continuation of the Cuban control of Venezuela.

“Cabello is also a leftist. He is the nationalist, a leftist nationalist. Maduro is a leftist pro-Cuban. So whichever one comes to power in Venezuela is not going to be good for the United States.”

But the opposition to Chavez and his cronies “is not very strong,” Reich maintains.

“They’re not well financed. They have lost several elections, but there are a lot of questions about whether those elections were legitimate or not. Hugo Chavez always at the last minute has this magic surge in votes and he ends up winning.

“But whether or not the opposition has been able to garner enough votes, the fact is that the rules of the elections have been unfair. They have not been fair once in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez came to power.”

With leftist governments in Venezuela and several other nations in Latin America, the United States has lost much of its influence in the region, Reich adds.

“The U.S. certainly does not have the influence that we’ve had in the past and the reason we’ve had influence in the past is because we were dealing primarily with democratic parties. I’m talking the last 25 years.

“I’d say the U.S. influence is at an all-time low, but it’s also because the U.S. is not utilizing its influences. The influence, the potential influence is there, but the Obama administration has elected not to use it — certainly not to use it in the interest of the United States’ strategic betterment in the region.

“The United States under the Obama administration has reached out to all these leftists. They have slapped our hand away and [the administration has] ignored the Democratic governments in the region like Colombia, like Chile, like Peru. We’ve had very few initiatives of any significance with those countries.

“But at the same time we have told all these leftist governments to work with them. We’re not recognizing that these are not left-of-center governments, kind of European socialists for example, but these are Marxist governments. These are governments where the leaders having come to power begin to dismantle the democratic institutions, beginning with the electoral process and the judiciary, then the freedom of the press.

“They try to control all the civil institutions like labor unions. And they’ve undermined businesses. Pretty soon they end up, for example, like [Evo] Morales in Bolivia and [Rafael] Correa in Ecuador or [Daniel] Ortega in Nicaragua. They take control of the country.”

In his exclusive Newsmax interview, Reich also accuses Argentina of “saber-rattling” by renewing its claim to the Falkland Islands.
Op-ed:
FaceBook censorship continues...and is getting worse...much worse 
By: Diane Sori 

As many of you know by now conservative bloggers (both bloggers 'of name' and grassroots bloggers like me), online reporters, and conservative posters, have been harassed by FaceBook for about a week now and it's getting worse...much worse.

NOT by the day but now by the hour.

Where once we could post our blog entries unhindered to as many sites as we chose to post on, starting a few days ago we began getting warnings to STOP after only a few posts or face being banned for x-number of days...banned to twiddle our thumbs in the infamous FB jail.

Now after posting just a few times and getting the warning (some after just one or two postings or sharings), a new wrench has been thrown into the mix...now I, and other bloggers, online reporters, and regular posters, can only write direct posts and comments to FB pages and sites...we can NO longer copy and paste articles or share links....NO copy and paste or sharing anything...NO Newsmax, NO Townhall...NO WND...NO Examiner...NO Blaze...NO Daily Caller...NO Jihad Watch...NO Bare Naked Islam...NO ANYTHING.

And what do ALL these sites have in common...ALL are conservative sites...all are anti-Obama, anti-islam, and pro-America sites...ALL tell the truth about this traitorous, Second Amendment hating, economy destroying administration...and ALL are what FB considers right-wing extremist sites. 

And this comes directly on top of Sunday night's development involving a petition that was on the FB White House site addressing this very issue of FB censorship. This petition was pulled down with an explanation saying it violated the site policy...which we all know is pure BS as Obama has FB in his pocket...just like the msm is in his pocket...and FB will do whatever he bids them to do...and know that Obama forbids any criticism of his narcissistic self.

In this case the White House took down a petition that violated NO policy, incited NO violence, did NOT call for the overthrow of the government, included NO hate speech or vulgarities...had NO pornographic photos attached to it...NO anything that violated any legitimate policy, whether it be FBs, on whose network this site appears, or the White House site itself.  This is a prime example of censorship (a direct violation of our First Amendment right to free speech)...and 'selective' censorship at that, because this petition was pulled for the simple reason it criticized the 'almighty' FB, an arm of the Obama generated control of the media, for its recent censoring of conservative bloggers, online reporters, and posters, especially those, like me, who are highly vocal and critical of this president and his administration.

And lets NOT forget the Obama wanted, FB sanctioned liberal trolls who peruse conservative blogs and sites and report directly to FB those bloggers, online reporters, and posters as spammers...and spamming does violate FB policy. The only thing is...NO ONE is spamming as we bloggers, online reporters, and posters have permission from site admen to post our blog entries, articles, and comments on their sites...so absolutely NO spamming is involved.

But then FB also says we are being banned because we are annoying people or that we are posting inappropriate material or that we are posting hate speech or that...the list goes on and on. And of course there is NO credence to any of this...it's just targeted harassment by the FB team of those critical to the Obama agenda.

And here's the kicker...NO Obama supporting blogger, reporter, or poster has been warned, banned, or blocked...NONE...it's just we conservatives that are the target of such oh so special FB treatment...treatment that is getting more annoying with each passing hour as just a short while ago an article about this current Facebook censorship was posted on a conservative news site and then Tweeted to its followers. Then lo and behold the article poster, who happened to be one of the site editors, was thrown in the Twitter Gulag...Twitters version of FB jail for 24 hours! 

Shut down and silenced just for sharing a FB critical article on her own site.
 
So now we know that ALL sites, pages, groups, and timelines...ALL...are being monitored by the FB team of geeks and Obamaites to tag anyone criticizing FB or this administration, and then punishment is adjudicated whether warranted or NOT.  FB has become the pro-Obama biased judge, jury, and sentencer of each and every conservative who uses this network.

There is something so very inherently wrong with this...so very anti-American...so very anti-First Amendment...and I don't want to hear that FB can do this as they are NO longer a private entity but a publicly traded company with their privacy settings becoming publicAnd as a now public company, FB does NOT have the right to violate our constitutional given right to free speech, as long as that speech holds true to the intent of the First Amendment.

So FB needs to STOP this nonsense...this selective harassment and selective enforcement...this dictator-like running of an open to the public network...because we bloggers, online reporters, and posters are NOT going to just sit back and allow this to continue unchecked as we will fight back against those who try and pervert our right to free speech.

And FB can take that to the bank...in more ways than one.