Brett Kimberlin and the Justice of Google

On November 19, 1989, the people of Prague, in the former state of Czechoslovakia, gathered to commemorate a massacre of Czech students by Nazi Germany fifty years earlier. By the end of the day, the gathering turned into a demonstration against a ruling  Communist government that had begun massacring Czechs and Slovaks from virtually the moment the Nazis were booted out. By December 29, 1989, without a shot fired, the protesters had driven out their Communist masters, electing poet, playwright, and political prisoner Vaclav Havel as interim President. This peaceful revolt by a peaceful people against their Stalinist puppet government became known as the “Velvet Revolution”.

On November 30, 2004, convicted terrorist bomber, drug dealer, and perjurer Brett Kimberlin formed a Maryland corporation for the purpose of soliciting tax-exempt donations from the public and charitable foundations, to promote an alleged “network of more than 100 progressive organizations reaching millions of people demanding progressive change through our various campaigns”. Campaigns such as offering bounties for the head of the Chamber of Commerce, the impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice, and proof that John Kerry actually won the 2004 presidential election.

This corporation was also known as the Velvet Revolution, or “VelvetRevolution.US, Inc.” according to its corporate filings.

My name is Brett. My interests include botany, chemistry, and impersonating federal officers. I am studying to become a great lawyer. Won’t you donate to my charity?

Kimberlin, convicted of a 1978 series of bombings in Speedway, Indiana, is a product of a different time: the day of “radical chic”, of the celebrity terrorist, when murderers like Ilich Ramirez-Sanchez (“Carlos the Jackal”) were featured on the cover of Paris Match! Where today our government might reward a serial bomber like Kimberlin with a drone strike or a vacation in lovely Florence Colorado, Kimberlin served a scant 20 years in relative comfort, during which time he was able to collaborate on a biography with Mark Singer of The New Yorker. Singer would go on to describe Kimberlin as a “top-flight con man” when he realized that Kimberlin had lied about selling marijuana to the hapless Dan Quayle.

Please complete this sentence:  If Brett Kimberlin is a top-flight con man, that makes Garry Trudeau a top-flight …….. ?

As a child of the Disco Terrorist era, Brett Kimberlin seeks fame wherever he can get it. Most recently, Kimberlin has amplified his notoriety by filing a series of increasingly bizarre lawsuits and requests for injunction, such as the suit against blogger Seth Allen in which Kimberlin claimed Allen had damaged Kimberlin’s reputation as a terrorist bomber. Or consider the “peace order” that Kimberlin obtained against Aaron Worthing for writing that Kimberlin tried to frame Worthing for the crime of touching Kimberlin’s iPad. Each and every one of Kimberlin’s suits is an assault on free speech.

Not content to see its poster child, Brett Kimberlin, enjoying all of the fame, Kimberlin’s corporation Velvet Revolution, through its attorney Kevin Zeese, has gotten into the act by threatening to sue Ali Akbar of the National Blogger’s Club for inspiring “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day”. A claim that turned out to be utter fish-dung.

We believe it is a farce and a disgrace that Brett Kimberlin seeks to cloak his nefarious acts under the name “Velvet Revolution”, a name which in the rest of the world stands for courage and dignity in the face of terror.

Brett Kimberlin stole the Velvet Revolution. We’re stealing it back.

If one searches for the Velvet Revolution on Google, the first result is a rather uninformative Wikipedia article. We have no quarrel with Wikipedia, or not much of one anyway.

The second result and most of its successors lead to Brett Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution, a badly designed, garish website where Kimberlin seeks to separate you from your hard-earned money through sale of a bad dvd about peace love, and hippies, and to peddle his half-baked conspiracy theories.

This is unacceptable.

The second result of a Google search for “Velvet Revolution” leads to Brett Kimberlin. This is unacceptable.

Brett Kimberlin, and his associate Brad Friedman, do not own the name “Velvet Revolution”. They do not, and cannot, claim trademark or copyright protection in the term, because in the realm of politics, where Kimberlin and Friedman seek to meddle, the term “Velvet Revolution” is more generic than “Jell-O”.

Likewise, we do not own the name “Velvet Revolution”. No one owns the term. The Czechs and Slovaks who put their lives on the line in 1989 have a pretty strong moral claim, but they’re all in MittelEuropa. The Czechs and Slovaks have bigger problems than one terrorist moonbat making a mockery of a First Amendment that they don’t have anyway.

So we’re taking the name back, for them.

What are your demands?

Our needs are simple. We seek to drive Brett Kimberlin’s fake Velvet Revolution into third place, or lower, on a Google search for the term. We estimate that we can do this within six months. Eventually we’d like to knock Wikipedia out of the top spot, but all things in their time.

We seek to replace Brett Kimberlin’s fake Velvet Revolution with a fake Velvet Revolution of our own, a Velvet Revolution that tells the truth about Kimberlin and his henchmen, in order that past and potential donors to Kimberlin, such as George Soros, may be fully informed about who is cashing the checks.

Great. How do you propose to accomplish this?

Imagine Google, and its competitors Bing and Yahoo, in terms of politics.

Individual searches are like issues. The websites to which those searches lead are like constituencies. Large, highly trafficked websites, like Boing Boing, tend to be heard first where smaller, non-specialist websites are relegated to page 10, just as the bankers at J. P. Morgan get private White House audiences when ordinary citizens who want to meet the President have to pay $15.00 to enter a lottery and pray that Sarah Jessica Parker draws their names out of a hat.

But just as little people can gather to make their voices heard on important issues, a multitude of smaller websites can drown out the majors, through links. Eventually, whatever they’re linking to rises to the top of the search result.

In a just world, a terrorist like Kimberlin would be too ashamed to show his neckbearded, overbiting, felonious face on the street, much less associate it with a peaceful revolution against oppression. This is not a just world. But Google is just, and the association can be removed.

We’re asking you to link to this blog. On your own blog, on Facebook, on Twitter, on the web forum where you discuss taxidermy with your fellow taxidermists.

Wait, that’s … !

Yes, it is.

If you link to this post, this site rises to the top of a search for Velvet Revolution. If you add this site to your blogroll, this site rises even further. And Brett Kimberlin’s site falls.

And when the time comes for George Soros to write the annual check to Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution, maybe the due diligence lackey will enter the Great Man’s office, saying, “Mr. Soros, I think you ought to read this…”

Because we’re going to talk about Brett Kimberlin, as long as he keeps filing his frivolous lawsuits. Which by the look of things isn’t going to stop, until Kimberlin slips up and goes back to prison. Even then he won’t stop.

What are you getting out of this?

Nothing.

We will never advertise. We will never hold beg-a-thons. We will never create a tip jar. We will never ask for help with hosting or bandwidth fees. We will never create an account through Amazon where a portion of each sale goes to us. We’re not in this for money. No good blogger is. It’s not a money-making hobby.

We’re in it because we are offended, because we are committed anti-Communists, committed Czechophiles, and because we hate what Brett Kimberlin and his ilk are doing to this country.

Our only reward is the satisfaction of a job well done, and eventually, an enraged frivolous lawsuit from Brett Kimberlin or VelvetRevolution.US, Inc.

We recognize that this site will live or die, will rise or fall, on its own merits and the quality of its writing. We’re confident in ourselves, and we’re confident in you, our readers. All four of you.

Do it for the Czechs.

Compare and Contrast

Vaclav Havel was a leader of the 1989 Velvet Revolution. In 2012, Brett Kimberlin leads an organization that uses the name “Velvet Revolution.”

Shall we compare their approach to issues, to see if Kimberlin’s attempt to assume Havel’s mantle is apt?

Havel: “I have always appreciated when my own country has received justified criticism. I used to say the same under communism and indeed open, intellectual criticism contributed to highlight certain things that were wrong in this country and, at the time, Radio Free Europe, based in Munich, was the principal media to me. And when now, this kind of criticism is expressed, I would be the last person to be offended.”

Brett Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution: “Please note that we are working closely with both state and federal law enforcement officials and have given them lists of all those who make inappropriate statements or contacts.”

Vaclav Havel: “We are convinced that this trial and harsh sentence meted out to a … prominent citizen of your country merely for thinking and speaking critically about various political and social issues was chiefly meant as a stern warning to others not to follow his path.”

Brett Kimberlin: “Mr. Walker has tweeted on Twitter about me in alarming and annoying ways over hundreds of times in the past week and urged others to attack me. He has generated hundreds of blog posts directly and indirectly based on false allegations that I framed him for an assault.”

Vaclav Havel:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.”

Brett Kimberlin, seeking and obtaining a court order to prevent a critic from writing about him:

KIMBERLIN: Yes, here’s his post, “How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime, and How You Can Help.” And he wrote this 30-page document that he put on his blog saying I framed him for an assault.

THE COURT: People honestly read this stuff?

KIMBERLIN: Huh. I–

WALKER: –I’m going to object to this [inaudible]–

THE COURT: –Just hold on, hold on, wait. You could have this thing going for three days. I intend to be finished here in 10 minutes. Go on. Now, people read this stuff, 54 pages. Don’t they have jobs?

KIMBERLIN: So — really.

THE COURT: What the heck’s going on out there in this world?

KIMBERLIN: So not — so on — last week, he got all these bloggers all over the country to create Let’s Blog about Brett Kimberlin Day, over 350 blogs blogged that I framed him. And that led to a number of, probably scores of death threats to me. They threatened my daughter, who is a preteen, my mother, they called on the phone and threatened SWAT teams–

Draw your own conclusions.

A Spectre Is Haunting Europe

After 165 years of failure and genocide, Europeans still can’t come up with a better alternative to State Capitalism than Communism.

One of the surprise bestsellers at the Madrid Book Fair, a major literary event currently underway in the capital has been a beautifully illustrated edition of the Communist Manifesto.

Published by a small outfit called Nórdica and illustrated by Fernando Vicente, the seminal work by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels appears to be thriving in the current crisis, as though readers not only wanted to understand what is going on in the world, but also to find out whether there are any alternatives out there.

There are indeed alternatives for Europe, alternatives that have the virtue of never having been tried outside a 19th century flirtation in England, such as laissez-faire capitalism.  A flirtation that, we’ll add, vaulted the United Kingdom above France as the richest country in Europe, and increased prosperity in British dominions around the globe until they crashed it with their disastrous flirtations with socialism in the 1950s.

Unfortunately, laissez-faire capitalism is hard work: not the sort of thing that’s in vogue at the Madrid Book Fair.

Still, Marx’s leftovers are being sold in a most attractive attractive package, we’re sure you’ll agree.

We considered alternative cover illustrations for our forthcoming edition of the Manifesto, but they were so dull and gray:

Ivan Burylov, sentenced to eight years in GULAG for writing the word “comedy” on an election ballot.

Or symmetrical;

Or creepy;

But this one was just right:

Keeping It In The Family

Before the Velvet Revolution — before the fall of the Soviet Union — people who stood up to the state in Russia and its puppet-states did not merely risk their own lives.  They risked the lives of their families as well.  This was official doctrine. Cynics might say it lingers in post-Soviet Russia. Its justification was clear to the totalitarian mindset: The State was The People, and standing up to The State meant defying The People, suggesting a taint unto the blood.

That could never happen in modern America, thank God.

Probably.

Angela Corey is the Florida special prosecutor in charge of the charges against George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Today, in the midst of the prosecution of George Zimmerman, prosecutors charged his wife with perjury for lying about what assets the family had available for bail.

The factual allegations against Ms. Zimmerman reported in the media, if true, suggest financial skullduggery that may constitute perjury. But charges against one spouse are powerful leverage against the other spouse. It’s reasonable to ask: how often do prosecutors charge perjury in Florida? How often do they charge it based on false statements seeking bail, or otherwise related to preliminary issues? How quickly do they typically charge such crimes — is it typical for the charges to occur so quickly after the hearing in question? How often do prosecutors charge perjury while the underlying action is still ongoing? What role did the special prosecutor charging George Zimmerman have in directing the prosecution of his wife?

George Zimmerman may have murdered a teenager. Angela Corey may have lied under oath. But we should ask these questions — ask whether the second prosecution is brought to leverage the first — because the power of the state is more dangerous than a brigade of Zimmermans, whatever they did.

Recommended Reading: Smug Triumphalism

When the urge takes us, we will recommend books on the topics this site covers.  For our inaugural post, I’d like to recommend five.

The definitive book on 1989, the year of the Velvet Revolution, has not yet been written (at least not in English), but Stephen Kotkin’s Uncivil Society: 1989 and the Implosion of the Communist Establishment, comes pretty close. The uprisings in Prague and Bratislava are not covered, but the remarkably non-violent popular movement in East German Leipzig is, as is the deeply weird Polish overthrow. Not to be missed is Kotkin’s description of the fall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, deservedly shot by his former underlings. Your humble scribe witnessed 1989 from the relative gloom of Leningrad, where even the liberals had deeply mixed feelings about the loss of empire, but he can say that Kotkin captures the sleazy corruption of latter day communism accurately. As a bonus, the Amazon page for this book, linked above, contains a delightfully negative review by embittered communist R. L. Huff, who denounces Kotkin’s “smug triumphalism” even as he praises the Chinese communists for Tiananmen Square.

Boris Pasternak won the Nobel, but for my money the preeminent Soviet novelist is Vasily Grossman, whose Life and Fate far surpasses Doctor Zhivago as the 20th century’s best Russian novel. While hardly sympathetic to Stalin, Life and Fate, long banned in the Soviet Union, explains well to unbelieving westerners how the Red Tsar managed to command the loyalty of so many ordinary Russians who had every reason to turn on the state at the outset of the Nazi invasion. An epic war novel, Life and Fate is a conscious answer to Tolstoy’s War and Peace, and doesn’t suffer by the comparison.

Like Vasily Grossman, Artyom Borovik made his name as a war correspondent, in a decidedly less glorious struggle, the Soviet Afghan invasion. Borovik’s remembrance of his days in Afghanistan, The Hidden War, is written from a soldier’s point of view and well portrays the reality of a war that could not be won. As the body bags pile up, with no end to the war in sight, the reader can sense the Soviet Union’s impending collapse. Perhaps America would have been better served if the authors of our present Afghan misadventure had read Borovik rather than Kipling.

Homage to Catalonia is George Orwell’s account of his years in the Spanish Civil War, first as a reporter, then as a soldier. Orwell’s most important work will always be 1984, but Homage is his triumph, and Spain was the fire that burned all impurities out the man, transforming him from a socialist muckety-muck into a being of pure gold. If you’re going to read one book on this list…

Finally, Thomas Sowell is known to most as a guy with a column in small-town newspapers or on Townhall.com, the one who prints collections of “Random Thoughts” that boil down to, “Get off my lawn, kid.” That’s Sowell’s secret identity. The real Thomas Sowell, that web-slinging Thomas Sowell, is to be found Sowell’s longer form work, where Sowell transforms from a cranky old man into a distinguished scholar of law and economics. And that Thomas Sowell is best found in Knowledge and Decisions, a book length essay on hubris. That man is forced to make decisions based on limited knowledge is a given. That all too often those who make the most important decisions seem least aware of such limitations is the tragedy that forms our world.

morality of revolution (part 1)

At what point does it become morally legitimate to start shooting the employees of one’s government? This is a question a bunch of notorious rural know-nothing anti-government extremists once debated…in Philadelphia in 1774. What answers did they come up with? We know… because they documented their answers. Let’s take a moment to review their answers.

now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Shorter version: a group people can opt out of their government that purports to rule them – by force of arms – as long as the government is a tyranny and the people who take up arms can document this fact.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

Rule of thumb #1: if there are clear problems that could be solved by better laws, and the government refuses to pass these laws, the government may be a tyrrany.

Examples I would cite: persistent and institutional police brutality; persist-ant and institutional police perjury; mortgage laws aimed at buying off certain voting demographics to the benefit of legislators while creating a disaster for the taxpayers; pension and social security systems that enrich the politically connected few while leaving the younger generations to pay.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Rule of thumb #2: if there is ample land, and productive people in the world who wish to populate the land and contribute to the American enterprise, and the government refuses them entry, the government may be a tyrrany.

Examples I would cite: The fact that the federal government purports to own around 50% or more of the land in California, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and Alaska, the 1920 National Origins Formula which slowed down immigration, and the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act, which left-wing wikipedians helpfully explain ass-cover thusly:

This all changed with passage of the Hart-Celler Act in 1965, a by-product of the civil rights revolution and a jewel in the crown of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. The measure had not been intended to stimulate immigration from Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere in the developing world. Rather, by doing away with the racially based quota system, its authors had expected that immigrants would come from the “traditional” sending societies such as Italy, Greece, and Poland,

The result of a Great Society program was – shockingly! – that educated Westerners and First World Asians who can contribute to building a country for the 21st century were discouraged from immigration and our immigration flows were steered towards lower-education groups that make up reliable customers for welfare benefits and in turn make up reliable voting blocks for Progressive politicians.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

Rule of thumb #3: if the government is too vast, the government may be a tyrrany, and the people may be entitled to kill their “leaders”.

Example I would cite: four million federal government employees, 20 million state government employees, 26% of Americans on Medicaid, 15% on foodstamps, 8% on WIC (welfare), 4% on housing assistance, our Imperial Capitol has the lowest unemployment, the highest wealth, and the best real estate market of any area in the entire nation. the federal regulations created by unelected bureaucrats alone is 34,000 pages long and weighs more and 340 lbs.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

Rule of thumb #4: if the government keeps a standing army, the government may be a tyrrany, and the people may be entitled to kill their “leaders”.

Example I would cite:

We have had a standing army of more than a million men since the end of World War II. We have troops in more than 150 countries. We have been almost continuously at war for over a century.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

Rule of thumb #5a: if the chief executive launches wars with out the consent of the elected representatives of the people, the government may be a tyrrany, and the people may be entitled to kill their “leaders”.

rule of thumb #5b: if elected representatives of the people do not protest illegal wars or impeach the executive, the government may be a tyrrany, and the people may be entitled to kill their “leaders”.

Example I would cite: Our Commanders in chief launch new wars in Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia and other countries without even consulting with Congress.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

rule of thumb #6: if government enforces foreign laws, the government may be a tyrrany, and the people may be entitled to kill their “leaders”.

Examples I would cite: the ongoing debate in our Supreme Court over using foreign laws, our government raiding guitar manufacturers for violations of foreign laws that foreign sovereigns do not believe were violated.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

rule of thumb #7: if government cuts off trade or passes illegitimate taxes, the government may be a tyrrany, and the people may be entitled to kill their “leaders”.

Examples I would cite: tariffs on all sorts of goods that politically connected people produce at prices far over world standard prices. Sugar. Low quality labor.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

rule of thumb #8: if government enforces laws without trials, the government may be a tyrrany, and the people may be entitled to kill their “leaders”.

Examples I would cite: Police routinely refuse to accept complaints against other officers and threaten to arrest people for doing so, government routinely levies regulatory penalties without recourse of courts.

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

Rule of thumb #9: if government kills conspires to torture or kill its own citizens, the government may be a tyrrany, and the people may be entitled to kill their “leaders”.

Examples I would cite: A Canadian passing through JFK airport when he was seized and deported – not to Canada – but to allies in Syria for the purpose of torturing fake confessions out of him. He was tortured for a year. Or President Obama’s asserted right to convene death panels and use robots to kill American citizens.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

Rule of thumb #10: if government unilaterally abolishes long-held rights, the government may be a tyrrany, and the people may be entitled to kill their “leaders”.

Examples I would cite: The attempted court packing by FDR that intimidated justices into bowing to executive will and turning the nation into a rule of man not a rule of law, thus leading directly to the court-ordered end to the Common Law right to contract.

I know I’m a bit extreme, but this act court packing alone was the most momentous thing that has ever happened to the United States, far more momentous than, say, the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

The expansive beyond all sanity reading of the commerce clause of the US Constitution that has given the federal government entirely unprecedented powers and stolen from both individuals and state governments huge swaths of authority.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

Rule of thumb #11: if government destroys or steals vast amounts of wealth, the government may be a tyrrany, and the people may be entitled to kill their “leaders”.

Examples I would cite: The US imprisons a higher percentage of its population than any other western nation and 86% of federal prisoners are in for victimless crimes.

The US government puts the value of a human life at around $7 million. The ISS, to name merely one small boon-doggle among many, cost 150 billion dollars…which is to say that the complete lifetime values of 21,428 people were destroyed in the course of building one small glittering folly. If we assume that merely 1/3 of the US government budget is wasteful or stupid (a very low number, I suggest), then 33% of $3.796 trillion is $1,252,680,000,000 in wasted money…which is the equivalent of 178,954 human lives of value being snuffed out. Not for the total government budget…just for the conservative estimate of the 1/3 that’s wasted. If that’s not “plundering our seas, ravaging our Coasts, burning our towns, and destroying the lives of our people” I don’t know what is.

Conclusion: on 11 out of 11 metrics, the US federal government is a murderous evil tyranny. Not according to me, mind you, but according to the standards set by John Hancock, Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery, Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott, William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark, Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross, George Read, Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean, Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn, Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., John Jacob, Arthur Middleton, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, and George Walton.

If they were alive today, I suspect that they would give one last warning, then start shooting the mother-fucking bastards.

Now, let it be clear. I am not saying that we should rise up against our overlords.

I’m not saying it, because I’m a loyal citizen of the Empire.

…and also because I don’t want to be disappeared in the middle of the night and flown to Syria, to be tortured for a year then executed by drone.

You Wouldn’t Give Syria A Seat On The Human Rights Commission: Why Would You Give It A Seat On The Internet Commission?

Poor, provincial Declan McCullough believes that the latest backroom manuevers to allow the United Nations to control the internet are symptomatic of a problem … for the internet. If only it was just the internet.

The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations.

The European proposal, offered for debate at a December meeting of a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents.

To its credit, the Obama administration is fighting the proposal, but not nearly hard enough.  To their shame, but no one’s surprise, European Union bureaucrats in Brussels and their constituent capitals believe it’s a really great idea to make the internet an international utility supervised by the U.N., and by extension the E.U., whose members have 27 votes at the United Nations. China and Russia, naturally, think it would be just swell to allow them, and their satellites like Syria and Iran, to tax Google for each incoming data package, a tax that would allow them to force Google right out of the developing world.  When Twitter has to pay Iran a rial for each tweet by Iranian activists protesting the next rigged election, Twitter will shut off service to Iran.

Which is the point. “Oh we allow full and free internet access in Tyrannistan: It’s just that those greedy capitalists at Google won’t pay their taxes.”

The problem isn’t the I.T.U. It’s the United Nations, a body where Syria has the same privileges as Sweden, where Libya chaired the Human Rights Council within the past decade.  Oh sure, the Europeans would cry and complain about it, and the fat guy behind the coffee counter at Whole Foods would bitch, but the fat guy behind the coffee counter at Whole Foods bitches about everything. Soon enough we’d have a replacement: a club of democracies and candidate democracies, where membership would be conditioned on good behavior.

It might not have as much cachet as a United Nations that includes Belarus, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe, but it wouldn’t grant the gangsters who rule those countries the figleaf of legitimacy as they shut their subjects out of free access to information.

Thanks to Overlawyered for the tip.