As far as words go there is a huge difference between the UK and the USA. Hell there is a huge difference between regions of the UK and USA  when all is said and done. The recent splurge of news regarding the US election has brought us many stories pertinent to the USA and some pertinent to us all. This week Mitt Romney's son Tagg and his public outburst set us wondering about names and how the Elite view the World.

Mitt Romney's family history has links to Scotland and Germany. His was a privileged background. It is probably fair to say that he has never lived in the real World. Opponents of Barack Obama are quick to accuse the President of many things but at least he has a grasp of what makes us all tick. If like Romney you live in a Mormon community from birth and are surrounded by wealth the real world is just a bad story. Becoming an intern in your father's Governors' office says it all. His wife is from the same privileged background. Now that lifestyle does not exclude people from the human race but few of these Elite want to get their hands dirty. They prefer espousing on how WE should cut back and settle for second best. Still I digress. It was names and Mitt's son Tagg that brought about today's op-ed.

What sort of name is Mitt? For that matter what sort of name is Tagg? In the UK names are weird and in some cases wonderful these days. We wondered if Mitt was short for something and also why Willard Mitt Romney had opted against using his proper name, that is Willard. Surely in such an important race as the 2012 Presidential election Willard or Will would have been more appropriate?

Of course we know that there are more importat issues than names. However such things can believe it or not win or lose elections. Perhaps Mitt and his team thought Willard was too staid and Mitt would make him sound more "of the people" It is clear that he has never been that.

Apparently Romney was given the name Mitt after a relative called Milton. Why was he not called Milton then? Still to each his own. So what about his son called Tagg? This Brit is starting to think that the Romney's are reminiscent of an old children's favourite in the UK, Rag, Tag and Bobtail! Tagg in Romney's case is apparently short for Taggart. The family as a unit are Mitt, Tagg, Ben, Matt, Craig, Ann, and Josh.

Tagg has been in the news this week following the second presidential debate between his Dad and Barack Obama. It seems that the fact that the President came out on top of that debate ratlled Tagg. Well it would if it were your Dad I guess. Presumably the Obama girls felt the same when in the first debate the President took a civilised route and Mitt eat him alive. We assume that they have more class than Tagg though as they did not come out fighting.

During the deabte Obama questioned Romney's statements. Of course the implication was that Mitt was not telling the truth. Surely that is what all debates do? Romney did the same with Obama's words.

Talking on a US radio station following this Tadd said of his feelings,"You want to jump out of your seat, and you want to rush down to the debate stage and take a swing at him.” “But you know you can’t do that, because — well, first, because there’s a lot of Secret Servce between you and him — but also because this is just the nature of the process. They're going to try to do everything they can do to make my dad into something he's not." "

Says a lot doesn't it? Says ignorance, stupidity, ill thought out words and a lack of class. It shows that money does not breed style. nor substance.It shows a true lack of respect for President Obama and the role of US President. Tagg is happy then to have Obama portrayed as everything from a devil to a monster but not his Dad. Grow up springs to mind.

Perhaps the Romneys resemble that childhood favourite more than we first thought. Tagg and Mitt certainly seem to belong in the playground of school, and not just because of their silly names.

In January 2012 we reported on the US attempt to extradite UK citizen Richard O'Dwyer to the USA. Richard was one of many British citizens wanted by the US authorities yet in most people's eyes he and others were not criminals. Any justice that they needed to face should have been possible in the UK. The extradition of UK citizens such as Richard and pensioner Christopher Tappin end up looking purely vindictive.

Richards's alleged "crime" was creating and operating a website. TV Shack offered links to sites where users could download movies and the like. He did not force visitors to the site, to follow the link nor recommend that they do so. He offered a go between service.

At the time of his arrest his actions were not illegal in the UK. That loophole has since been closed. However that is another reason his extradition to face US justice is nonsense. In our earlier report we wrote, "" under the so-called dual criminality rule, since he has not been charged for an offence in the UK, the US has no right to extradite him". The UK should respect this rule instead of simply handing Richard to the US,over like a lamb to the slaughter."  Six months later that still stands.

Yesterday it was made public that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had begun an online petition in the hope that Richard's extradition will be stopped. It is coped here with the necessary link which we hope you will follow and sign:

Stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer to the USA

Hi,

I am writing to you to stop the extradition of British citizen, Richard O'Dwyer to the USA.

I’m concerned about this case because O'Dwyer is not a US citizen, his site (TVShack.net) was not hosted there, and most of his users were not from the US. I don’t understand why America is trying to prosecute a UK citizen for an alleged crime which took place on UK soil. If there was a crime it should be investigated and tried here in the UK, not in the US.

When operating his site, Richard O'Dwyer was careful to always try and play by the rules: on the few occasions he received takedown notices, he complied. His site hosted links, like a search-engine does, not copyrighted content, and these were submitted by users. Both of these are protected in the USA.

Copyright is an important institution, serving a beneficial moral and economic purpose. But that does not mean that copyright can or should be unlimited. It does not mean that we should abandon time honored moral and legal principles to allow endless encroachments on our civil liberties in the interests of the moguls of Hollywood.

I’m aware that both parties in the coalition government criticised the unfair extradition treaty when in opposition, and more recently David Cameron and Theresa May have spoken of the need to review it.

But for Richard there’s no time for a lengthy review. The USA is pushing hard to extradite him now. So please, for Richard and his family stop this extradition.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

You can sign the petition here.

In the time it took to put this report together the petition increased from 40,000 signatures to 50,000. Good luck to Richard.

Tags: Extradition treaty with US, Richard O'Dwyer extradition, extradition from UK to US, Jimmy Wales petition, Wikipedia founder,TV shack creator, Stop Richard O'Dwyer extradition

In the West we like to flatter ourselves that we are free. We have Freedom of speech after all, don't we? Well it could be simply a coincidence but writing this particular post this blogger's screen froze at a crucial time. With that, all what she had written vanished. She is however not that paranoid nor that important to matter surely?

So back to square one and here we go again.

Whilst we still have our freedoms it is only in a limited form. Some would say that it is an illusion. That said whatever freedoms we currently enjoy must be protected. The alternative is unthinkable. It harps back to extremism and the Nazi Germany of more than half a century ago.

Western governments are trying to restrict our Internet freedoms under the excuse of preventing child pornography and controlling terrorism. Such criminals will of course find a way around any measures. It will be the ordinary person who will be restricted. It could also be the start of more to come. Each time we let a restriction go by we open the door to more.

Today's email appears to show that President Obama is on the wrong course. It appears to be one that will set him apart form the people he represents, and when all is said and done, he works for the people. The attached video made for interesting viewing but is it all that it seems? 

After all it is election year in the US and both the right and left are trying every trick in the book to undermine each other's election campaign. The fact is that some restrictions have been in place in the US for most of this century. George W Bush set the ball rolling, although there were some restrictions in place prior to his Presidency. 9/11 obviously changed lives forever.

According to Wikipedia, "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  

How that statement is interpreted in modern America will be debatable. First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones have been in operation for years. Canada like the US has No Protest Zones available when it suits. Some claim that this is good practice and protects others at events and the like. Others insist it is just one step closer to a Big Brother society.

Correspondence received claims that, "A new law makes it illegal to protest in Obama's presence. This means that, wherever Obama is, you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn't like. Sound like he's more like Hitler than Lincoln to you?"

In George W Bush's era new laws meant that protesters had to stay in designated areas.Supporters were of course allowed full and free access. Hmm. So much for free speech then. Those wearing T Shirts not approved were moved away. Hmm. In the US it also is reported that those who criticise any restrictions are viewed as would be terrorists by the Department for Homeland Security. Hmm. So much for free speech again.

Bush's restrictions were formulated by the Secret Services who have now formulated the latest amendments. Perhaps they want to protect the President, know of undisclosed threats or want to make sure Obama loses the election, who knows.

It does however appear that at least since the time or George W Bush events have been stage managed to portray unyielding support from the Party faithful. Perception is what it is all about I guess. Having supporters in the full public glare and dissidents put of sight, as in the case of George W, is reminiscent of extreme rulers, such as Hitler and Stalin..

The new law makes it illegal to protest anywhere that the Secret Service is present. Perhaps they rule the US and Democracy is just a fallacy?  With the recent news on sleaze and the Secret Service that has to be a worrying thought.


Opinions on this, as long as not offensive, are welcome. Presumably if Mitt Romney wins in November said law will remain cast in stone. Which leads one to wonder if in the USA democracy is dead and buried.

My email ended with a statement, which I truly believe, that is, Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

The problem is that the on the Internet things are not always what they seem. You decide.
RELEVANT QUOTES:
"You have the right to free speech. As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."—The Clash, Know Your Rights
"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country."—G. W. Bush
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”—Sinclair Lewis
"Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."—Ben Franklin
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."—Theodore Roosevelt
“Constant war for peace means a progressive loss of our freedom and rights to our own government here at home. War is the problem, not the solution!"
"Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex." — Frank Zappa
Tags: US secret service, homeland security, President Obama, US election, access, new law