antipolitico

GO F$$% Yourself you communist

I wonder how many people will read this, before it is deleted and I am banned from this forum. It is obvious that the moderator Charles Anthony does not permit criticism of the Stephen Harper administration as he objected to a well thought out and tasteful posting that linked to an original blog that is critical of the Canadian government's new bankruptcy laws. The sole objection was based on the fact that his imperial majesty Charles Anthony the moderator of this website felt his ego was damaged, because this was not the only site on which my comments appeared. Since my blog is not a magazine and simply offers me an opportunity to express my views more thoroughly, whereas forums often limit one to a certain number of characters, I can only assume that Charles the very freedom of speech that you profess to support by maintaining a site for political forums, is only really a cover up for your desire to also participate in heavy handed censorship. Not one of the other forums or websites, of which there were maybe five, objected and all of them were located in the United States or the U.K. It is interesting that last week, a posting to a FaceBook page in operated by an individual in Alberta out of Calgary which was designed to protest Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue parliament, also deleted my post and one can only assume that was because I was also critical of the Liberal and NDP parties. Aside from politics, I am a well published journalist both in print and online and I have been published in several countries,without incident. I therefore can only conclude that in fact freedom of speech is not alive and well in Canada, or at least in Alberta, but then it never was under the reign of terror when Ralph Klein was the premier and should we really forget so easily that the buffoon that is Ed Stelmach is the same man who after he became premier wanted to sell tickets for people to come and meet him, so he could pay for his campaign expenses? Charles Anthony, the moderator of this site, have a good week, but please do us all a favor and come clean as to your own political beliefs in an open letter and do not pretend that you support freedom of speech, when censorship is at the forefront of your agenda. Oh and Charles, yes there are other websites and forums which will print this posting, so expect to see it online soon.

The greater issue here is whether or not allowing unlimited corporate support for political campaigns actually does infringe upon freedom of speech. If I remember correctly, at one particular juncture in Obama's presidential campaign or his leadership campaign for the Democrats, his team effectively bought up all the television and radio advertising spots available before his opposition could. If we consider that indeed money does often hold the hammer, unfortunately, then we must also concede that those who are more significantly financially empowered will dominate in such a manner and control traditional media that it does in fact limit freedom of speech. We also however learned during the presidential campaign and since that viral marketing through online social networks can if utilized effectively level the playing field.

Anyone who does not understand the spin doctoring that takes place in the world of politics, would not concern themselves with this matter. Is it ethical if it is taking place. No. Is it misleading? Yes. Does it make much of a difference in a country that has a population 12 times greater than Canada's. The answer is you would have to write one heck of a lot of letters before it did and by then his term in office would likely be over.

Unfortunately Alex Jones, undoes a lot of his good investigative work, by reacting and publishing a lot of material for which no due diligence has been conducted. Alex Jones and infowars.com often approach information that comes their way by trying to reinterpret it within the context of their own views and opinions. I do not believe they do this deliberately, but rather like a parent might somewhat biased about their own child. The article that appeared has numerous and obvious holes in it and does not offer much in the way of substance.