I tried to warn you a few weeks ago, but my liberal readers squealed, in their usual shrill and unreasoned voices: “That’s not what’s about to happen!”
(Read what I said and the various disparaging comments about what I said HERE.)
Turns out I was right, as I usually am.
If the Senate passes the so-called “Internet ‘kill-switch’” bill, already approved by committee, President BO will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for four months at a time without Congressional oversight.
The original language of the bill sought to make the President’s power permanent, but public outcry limited it to four months.
Those honest folks we call Senators argue that President BO already has the power to do so when there is a “state or threat of war.” That’s under the Communications Act, by which he may “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication.”
What those honorable men and women don’t want you to catch on to is that they are now trying to explicitly grant that power to control the Internet specifically.
They say it’s for national security reasons.
All despots always claim that their suppression of the people’s rights are for the security of the nation.
On Sunday, Joe Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic China’s policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.
CNN’s Candy Crowley was told by Lieberman, “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,”
So there you have it. The door is being opened to allow the government complete control of the Internet.
Senator JonKyl (R-AZ) met with President BO and tells us:
I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us . . . and we had a discussion about this. . . . Here's what the president said:
"The problem is," he said, "if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform."
In other words, they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.
Now, I explained, "You and I, Mr. President, have an obligation to secure the border. That's an obligation. It also has potentially positive benefits. You don't have to have comprehensive reform to secure the border, but you have to secure the border to get comprehensive reform." I said, "You'd be surprised. Maybe you don't think that there would be any more incentive for comprehensive reform. But I'm not so sure that that's true." In any event, it doesn't matter. We're supposed to secure the border.
But that's why it isn't being done. They frankly don't want to do it. They want to get something in return for doing their duty.
There is absolutely nothing you could say to convince me that President BO is the most rotten, devious, stinking politician who has ever held the oval office.
This is the entire text of an article written on The American Spectator's Washington Prowler page.
It's all about how President BO's administration is planning an effort to censor and alter the use of the Internet, especially blogging.
Whether your are liberal or conservative, you cannot possibly think this infringement on freedom of speech by the government (specifically prohibited by the Constitution) is a good thing.
Engulfing the Internet By The Prowler on 6.17.10 @ 6:10AM
Despite opposition by a House of Representatives majority and a bipartisan group of Senators, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday is expected to proceed with plans to impose federal government regulation of the Internet, which would essentially treat broadband networks -- and the companies that invested more than $200 billion in private capital to deploy them -- as utilities.
The commission's chairman, Julius Genachowski, and his staff have insisted that imposing federal regulations originally written in the 1930s for the telephone is the only way the Obama Administration can gain the "kind of oversight and control that we need," says an FCC staffer with ties to another Democrat commissioner. "Look at the Gulf oil spill, that's what happens when we let corporations just do their own thing without any accountability. We can't allow that to happen with the Internet. We won't allow it."
The vote to continue the review and comment process at the FCC is expected to be a party-line vote, with the two Republican commissioners voting against the proposed regulatory scheme.
Under the Obama Administration's plan, the FCC would be able to enforce so-called "net neutrality" rules, allowing the federal government to set how broadband and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) manage the networks. By bringing broadband and the Internet under FCC regulatory oversight, the FCC would also be able to impose policies related to speech or online business models.
"The American public really has no idea how devastating these policies are going to have on free speech and the Internet," says a Republican Senate staffer. "If they are able to impose these regulations, they would be able to impose a host of different regulations that would limit free speech online and essentially give the left the upper hand. First the auto industry, then health care and the financial services industry, now this."
According to an article in USA Today President Obama says the Gulf oil disaster "echoes 9/11" because it will change the nation's psyche for years to come, according to an interview with POLITICO, a news outlet.
"In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11," the president said Friday in the Oval Office interview. "I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come."
While I understand that the oil spill is terrible, and I understand that the thrust of President BO's remarks had to do with some of the emotional reactions of 9/11 compared to that spill, I suggest that the two are so far apart in their meaning that the comparison is infantile, at best.
Let's compare them.
In 9/11 people were killed. In the oil rig explosion people were killed. Same thing, right?
Let's see: 11 people equals almost 3,000 people...do I have that right?
The unnecessary death of 11 people is awful...terrible...gut-wrenchingly sad.
But compared to the unnecessary death of 3,000?
OK, OK, let's look at it another way.
In 9/11, terrorists from another country deliberately flew two passenger planes into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon, with a third unsuccessful in its attempt to hit, presumably, the White House.
Unless someone is holding something back, the BP Gulf oil rig exploded through some malfunction and/or incompetence.
Same thing...right?
Let's see deliberate attack by foreigners equals accidental explosion on foreign oil rig?
No, no, no...that won't work. Let's try again.
In 9/11 two privately owned buildings that cost $900 million dollars to build. The Gulf oil rigs - state-of-the-art that they were - cost about $500 million dollars.
In fifth grade math we learned that $900 million equals $500 million, right?
Must be New Math.
Look, I tried. I really tried.
But try as I might, I cannot come up with a fair comparison of the two terrible events.
Fortunately, we have a beloved leader whose wisdom is far greater than mine.
He has no trouble making the comparison.
See, his massive pre-presidential experience did not prepare him for real world events. He was used to dealing with EVERYTHING on a philosophical and/or theoretical level. It never occured to him that as President he would have to actually know what concrete steps to take in a real emergency.
Don't go all slimy on me, now. I am not saying, implying or suggesting that the BPoil spill is anything less than tragic or that it is somehow not important.
I'm just suggesting that on ANY level...ANY LEVEL AT ALL, it bears absolutely, positively no similarity to the events of 9/11...NONE.
And to make the comparison is, as President BO is about just about everything, infantile.
(Thanks to Debra for the inspiration for this post.)
Prophets often prophesied without ever seeing the fruition of their prophecies.
So it was with the Platters.
How could they possibly have known that their once popular song was predicting the rise to power of a man who has absolutely no idea what he is doing?
Now, I want to make it clear that I do not blame President BO for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In my opinion, that would be a really big stretch.
It is even more of a stretch to blame it on George Bush.
The spill is not even the result of lack of regulation of the off-shore oil industry (as is being floated by some real dummies).
The spill is the direct result of negligence on the part of British Petroleum (BP), whose job it was to ensure that their equipment was in order.
No amount of regulation would have prevented the spill.
Imagine a rule that said: OK, people, you can't ignore when things aren't quite right.
Guess what. It already exists. But BP ignored it anyway.
See, what so many liberals don't understand is that you don't prevent mishaps by making them illegal.
In some places, certain guns are illegal, but somehow people continue to get killed by those very types of guns.
"Can't be!" you yell, "We've made them illegal!"
Well, can be. And is.
The issue is no longer who is to blame, the issue is how is this mess going to get cleaned up?
Enter stage left: President BO.
"I take full responsibility for the clean-up."
DON'T DO THAT...IT'S NOT YOUR JOB!!
"I'll hold BP responsible and make 'em pay every dime of the clean-up."
WELL GOODIE TWO-SHOES FOR YOU. THAT'S WHO DID IT...THAT'S WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE.
Why didn't you know that BEFORE you said that YOU would take the responsibility?
Three, soon to be four, trips to the Gulf later, and the spill still isn't cleaned up!
President BO seems to know that he should do SOMETHING, but he just can't figure out what that is.
May I make a suggestion? OK, well, I'm going to anyway.
DECLARE THE GULF OF MEXICO COASTLINE A NATIONAL DISASTER AREA...NOW!
That should have been the very first thing done.
Declaring it "of national significance," as Janet Napolitano did, is an absolutely useless gesture and accomplished nothing.
MOBILIZE EVERY BOAT, EVERY SHIP, EVERY BOOM, EVERY SCIENTIST AND EVERY EXPERIENCED PERSON IN THE US TO GET DOWN THERE AND GET TO WORK!
So far, the Coast Guard is the only effective entity that has been called up. Well they should have been. But they're not equipped for this.
LOOSEN THE REGULATIONS THAT PREVENT US FROM ALLOWING NON-AMERICAN TANKERS INTO THE AREA TO HELP.
What? You didn't know there was such a regulation?
That's because you believe we are an under-regulated nation.
The major stumbling block is a protectionist piece of legislation called the Jones Act which requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens. But in an emergency this law can be temporarily waived as DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff did after Katrina.
President BO continues to do what he does best: lecture; posture; threaten; and talk, talk, talk.
And still, NOTHING has gotten done.
Oh...he's also good at pretending.
ADDENDUM: Thanks toSocial Sensefor reminding me of this example of Presdent BO's shallow meaninglessness:
"I was down there a month ago, before most of these talkin’ heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standin’ in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.” — Barack Obama
Fact is, he treats EVERYTHING as though it were a college sophomore seminar...EVERYTHING.
He is the most inept, amateurish, sophomoric, incompetent president since or before Jimmy Carter.
He is Barack Obama, and he has no idea what he is doing.
He is supposed to be highly intelligent.
Although we don't have any actual evidence of it, he is reportedly a graduate of Harvard Law School.
He is supposed to be a Constitutional scholar, although he was actually only a Constitutional lecturer and obviously neither knows nor respects the Constitution.
He is supposed to have skills as an organizer, although his "skills " associated him with one of the most corrupt, vile, horrible organizations in history: ACORN, known now to have been involved in voter fraud, assisting with prostitution and other nefarious deeds.
He is supposed to be an American citizen, although he refuses to do the one simple thing that would lay the discussion to rest: produce his original birth certificate.
Now he is "in charge" of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
He said so, himself.
In fact, he has said a lot.
He has done almost nothing.
Evidence:
On May 27: He said that he “accepts responsibility” for directing the clean-up of the oil spill. It was that same day that his daughter is supposed to have asked him:“Did you get it plugged, Daddy?”
What was the end result of his accepting responsibility for directing the clean-up?
Nothing.
The press, even the Mainstream Press began to notice that President BO did not seem very passionate about the whole oil spill thing, so on May 29 Obama told us it is "as enraging as it is heartbreaking" that this "natural disaster" has occurred.
What was the result of his "outrage?"
Nothing.
It was on June 1 that Obama introduced a national commission to examine the causes of the spill. (We already knew the cause. Something on the rig broke and an explosion ensued.)
What has been the effect of the commission?
Nothing.
On June2 Obama decided that he should tap into public outrage over the spill and press Congress to scrap billions in oil company tax breaks and pass legislation to help the nation kick a dangerous "fossil fuel addiction." (Never mind that anything that would take its place is 50 or 60 years off into the future...think of it: battery powered 747s! I can hardly wait!)
The result?
Nothing.
June 3, The president says in an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" that BP has felt his anger — although he says "venting and yelling at people" won't solve the problem.
Ah! Now that BP feels his anger, something will get done that would otherwise have not gotten done, like capping the oil flow (which BP had already set about doing).
The result of his statement?
Nothing.
June 4: Obama rips into BP, asserting, "I don't want them nickel-and-diming people down here."
Result?
Nothing.
June7: his administration will "make sure" that BP fully compensates Gulf Coast individuals and businesses harmed by the spill. (So far only a pittance of money has been distributed to help those affected)
Result?
Nothing.
On June 8: Obama says in an interview on NBC's "Today" show that his talks with Gulf fishermen and oil spill experts are not an academic exercise. They're "so I know whose ass to kick." And "He wouldn't be working for me after any of those statements..."
And with that remark he proved his unpresidentiality.
Other presidents have been feisty, but few have been openly vulgar and unpresidentialpublicly. With this, President BO has identified himself with teeny-boppers, rappers and nere-do-wells, just as I have said about him from the beginning.
Well , now the public has "seen his anger," which seems, by the way, very superficial and self aggrandising.
The result?
Nothing.
Here's the bottom line: President BO is all talk, all lecture, all huff-'n-puff and altogether ineffective.
Few people know that there is more to our National Anthem than the familiar (to some) first stanza.
For years, as a church music director, I had the congregations I led sing the first and last stanzas on the 4th of July.
The young America was at war in 1812 when Francis Scott Key penned the words to the song. Its words mean so much more than we often realize.
Those who don't know its history proclaim that it is "just a war song."
Such abject ignorance!
They also think the words, "In God We Trust," were somehow made up during the Eisenhower administration and added to our Pledge of Allegiance at that time.
The concept of trusting in God is an idea that has been with us since the very beginning.
No, "The Star Spangled Banner" is a song whose words accurately reflect the beliefs and attitudes of those who, by the rules of war and numbers, should have been annihilated that night. Here are the lyrics in their entirety:
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep, Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes, What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep, As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam, In full glory reflected now shines in the stream: 'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, A home and a country should leave us no more! Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave: And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved home and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Somebody needs to give Tavis Smiley a course on what constitutes Christianity.
A Christian, by definition, is one who has a personal relationship with God through Christs by having confessed with his/her mouth that Jesus IS Lord and believed in his/her heart that God has raised Him from the dead, and who claims the promise of John 3:16.
Christianity is not a default religion; ie: "I am not Muslim; I am not Hindi; I am not Jewish; I am not a follower of Eastern Religions, therefore I must be a Christian.
Christians are followers of Christ. No true follower of Christ would commit murder, else he/she would not be a follower of Christ. This includes, by the way, the favorite example of stupid people: the Crusaders. It is not possible that they were Christians.
If I call myself a luxury liner, that does not make me able to float. And if I call my self Christian and do not the things of Christ, I am nothing more than a liar or self-deceived.
The outrageous statement of Tavis Smiley is a perpetuation of a most unfortunate stereotype of his race, and he should be ashamed of himself.
What is this insatiable desire of liberals to somehow make the tenets of Radical Islam somehow excusable? Why do they insist that they are just like us?
Why would New Yorkers consider it proper to erect a Mosque at the very spot where Radical Islam committed an act of war against America, killing nearly 3,000 office workers and First Responders?
Are those of Tavis Smiley's ilk really that stupid?
Just when you thought it was safe to start expressing your right to free speech, Democrats in Congress are gearing up for a vote on a new piece of legislation to blatantly undermine the First Amendment.
Known as the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), this bill – written by the head of the Democrats’ congressional campaign committee – is their response to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
In short, the Supreme Court found that the government could not restrict the free speech rights of individuals or other entities wishing to participate in the political dialogue.
It is hard to see how establishing a level playing field for free speech – as our Founding Fathers did by making it a right under the Constitution and which the Supreme Court upheld – is a threat to our democracy.
Nevertheless, the White House and their allies on Capitol Hill see honest criticism as a threat to forcing their big government, liberal agenda through Congress. So, there is no time like the present – namely five months before an election – to start putting the muzzle on those individuals and organizations not sticking to the Democrats’ talking points.
Under the DISCLOSE Act, certain incorporated entities would be restricted in how they can exercise their free speech rights. There is an exemption for some in the media sphere like newspapers, TV news, and the like. However, there is one driving force in today’s public debate that is NOT exempt. Bloggers will not have the same exemption provided to other media sources. Never mind that the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Citizens United case stated, “Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment.”
For many bloggers to exercise their free speech rights, they would have to jump through the same onerous new hoops as many businesses, nonprofit groups, and even such threats to democracy as your local chamber of commerce. If this sounds like an absurd overreach by one party in power, I invite you to take a look at their government takeover of health care, taxpayer-funded bailouts, and general hostility to private sector economic growth.
The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have not racked up a stellar record of transparency and openness. For a White House that touted its willingness to engage critics openly in hopes of staving off greater partisan rancor, Obama’s team has endorsed backroom deal-making, special giveaways to garner support for their agenda, and a closed-door decision-making process that has the American people more fed up with Washington. Now, under their brand of leadership, they stand ready to stifle free speech via legislative fiat.
Democrats should not be allowed to give themselves carte blanche to shut down the ability of those in the blogosphere or elsewhere to participate in our nation’s collective dialogue. That flies in the face of our most sacred rights as American citizens.
I was born in Miami, Florida, the son of an Air Force officer, traveled the world, was saved at age 17, and have served the Lord since. That's me on the left and my lovely wife, Bonnie...the pretty one...on the right.
1. Absolutely no foul language (including the use of asterisks). If you are not man or woman enough to control your language, you are not welcome here...go somewhere else.
2. I am not looking for strings of commenters arguing with each other, so confine your comments to the topic at hand and address your comments to me, unless you can be exceptionally gracious and polite.
3. Since this is my blog, I am the sole arbiter of what can be placed on this blog. My decisions are final and without recourse. All anonymous comments, unsigned, will be deleted, as will ad hominem attacks against me or others.
4. Within the scope of those rules, you may feel free to have fun here (I sure will). Sarcasm, wit, half-wit, nit-wit, parody, satire, puns (especially puns), etc. are encouraged.
FOUR PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE TRUE CONSERVATISM:
1. Respect for The Constitution
2. Respect for Life
3. The Smallest Possible Government
4. Individual Responsibility
This blog is about my philosophy of government, which is a very conservative philosophy.
You are not required to agree with me (although you would be better off if you did).
I am biased toward conservatism, and make no apologies for that.
Freedom means not being controlled by the government, that being the very reason we declared our independence from Great Britain.
Government's job is not to provide things for people, but to provide the opportunity for people to persue the things they want via the vehicles of freedom and responsibility.
FAIR USE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
I tried to warn you a few weeks ago, but my liberal readers squealed, in their usual shrill and unreasoned voices: “That’s not what’s about to happen!”
