Gird Your Blogs

Under "Cybersecurity", Congress Will Be the Internet's Greatest Threat!

By Brad O'Leary

Gird your blogs, because if liberals in Congress get their way, President Obama will have sole discretionary authority to shut down the Internet or critical parts of the Internet should he feel his presidency is being tested. Worse, under the guise of cybersecurity, Obama will essentially be granted the power to destroy free speech on the web.

On April 1st of this year, Senators Rockefeller, Snowe, Bayh and Nelson introduced bills S. 773 and S.778, collectively called the Cybersecurity Act, which would give President Obama dictatorial power over the Internet during a time of national crisis or emergency.

All of the bills' sponsors voted for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited organizations and individuals from running advocacy ads against candidates 60 days in advance of a general election. Now it seems these same people have conjured up a gag order for the Internet.

According to the current drafts, under the Cyber Security Act of 2009 the President may "declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shut down of Internet traffic to and from any comprised federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network". He may also "order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security."

What constitutes "cybersecurity emergency" or "critical infrastructure information system or network" is left completely up to the President to define. We know that the Administration, according to Rahm Emanuel, never wants "a serious crisis to go to waste". We also know the Administration supports the regulation of free speech on the Internet.

President Obama's choice to lead the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is none other than Cass Sunstein, a radical Harvard law professor and supporter of the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. According to Sunstein, "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government."

Obama campaign fundraiser and FCC Chair nominee, Julius Genachowski, is a supporter of "Net neutrality", the first step in applying the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet.

"Net neutrality" proponents like Genachowski would have government decide what content Internet operators and network owners must provide. Incredibly, they claim this is to keep the Internet free and open to all, when in reality, their goal is to usher the heavy hands of federal regulators into the tent.

Stifling any venue where ideology competes with left-wing mainstream media has always been a goal of the left and Obama. Obama has just been more evasive in his means by supporting policies such as "net neutrality" and wobbling on the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to talk radio. Liberal members of Congress are now set on sending America on an unconstitutional b-line away from Uncle Sam and directly to Big Brother.

The Cybersecurity Act is also includes a provision where "The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecuirty threat and vulnerability information to the Federal Government and private sector owned (emphasis mine) critical infrastructure information systems and networks." Shelving all privacy laws including the requirement for warrants, the Secretary of Commerce "shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access." Senator Rockefeller made it clear in his statement what "relevant data" this act could include when he stated "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on."

While we have worried about cyber attacks from Russia and China, who would have thought the greatest threat would come from members of our own Congress.

This Brave Soldier Says It All

MJ Presnell
The Intelligence Report
April 20,2009

The sentiments of this fine brave soldier are the same sentiments we are hearing from other soldiers both deployed and those who have been deployed in the past.
We all remember how the democrats in congress and the senate did not support our men and women in uniform,Even Barack Hussien Obama while in the senate did not say or do one thing in support of ourn troops.
Now all of a sudden some have done a flip,while most others still do not praise our troops at all.
This administration and congress are nothing less than traitors to our men and women in time of war and to our constitution.

How Obama Actually Delayed Pirate Rescue

SEAL team deployment stalled 36 hours, hampered by limited rules of engagement
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Editor's note: The following is adapted from an exclusive report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter edited by the founder of WND. You can access the full report by subscribing to G2 Bulletin for $99 a year or $9.95 per month for credit card users.


WASHINGTON – While Barack Obama is basking in praise for his "decisive" handling of the Somali pirate attack on a merchant ship in the India Ocean, reliable military sources close to the scene are painting a much different picture of the incident – accusing the president of employing restrictive rules of engagement that actually hampered the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips and extended the drama at sea for days.

Multiple opportunities to free the captain of the Maersk Alabama from three young pirates were missed, these sources say – all because a Navy SEAL team was not immediately ordered to the scene and then forced to operate under strict, non-lethal rules of engagement.

They say the response duty office at the Pentagon was initially unwilling to grant an order to use lethal force to rescue Phillips. They also report the White House refused to authorize deployment of a Navy SEAL team to the location for 36 hours, despite the recommendation of the on-scene commander.

The White House also turned down two rescue plans offered up by the Seal commander on the scene and the captain of the USS Bainbridge.

The SEAL team operated under rules of engagement that required them to do nothing unless the hostage's life was in "imminent' danger.

In fact, when the USS Bainbridge dispatched a rigid-hull inflatable boat to bring supplies to the Maersk Alabama, it came under fire that could not be returned even though the SEAL team had the pirates in their sights.

Many hours before the fatal shots were fired, taking out the three young pirates, Phillips jumped into the Indian Ocean with the idea of giving the snipers a clear target. However, the SEAL team was still under orders not to shoot.

Hours later, frustrated by the missed opportunities to resolve the standoff, the commander of the Bainbridge and the captain of the Navy SEAL team determined they had operational authority to evaluate the risk to the hostage, and took out the pirates at the first opportunity – finally freeing Phillips.

The G2 Bulletin report was authored by Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, and a veteran newsman with extensive military sources developed over the last 30 years.

Scrubbed! CNN Yanking Tea Party 'Embarrassment'

By Drew Zahn© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Cable television news network
CNN has attempted to block a video on YouTube.com that shows "tea party" protesters in Chicago confronting the network's reporter Susan Roesgen over her allegedly biased and "not fair" coverage of the event.
Members of Founding Bloggers.com were on hand to videotape the crowd's response to Roesgen's report. The reporter is seen badgering protesters on air and describing the tea party as "anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network Fox."
Roesgen's report included arguments with the tea partiers, tossing out contrary positions and demanding her subjects justify their positions, as well as an antagonistic interview with a protester whose sign read, "Obama is a fascist."
Get the book that exposes the secret blueprint for ending free speech in America.
"That's not representative of most of the people out here," charged an unidentified woman after the CNN cameras were turned off. Confronting Roesgen, she added, "You are not talking to regular, mainstream people; you picked people to talk to. … We've watched what you've been doing here, and it's not fair."
The man Roesgen had been interviewing right before CNN's coverage stopped was also captured by the Founding Bloggers camera, saying, "We don't have any respect for CNN, because it doesn't respect us."
When the blog posted the video on YouTube – showing a portion of Roesgen's report, followed by its own footage – however, the clip was scrubbed and replaced with the message, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Cable News Network, Inc."
Founding Bloggers contends its use of the CNN footage falls under fair use guidelines, and it re-posted the film, which can be seen below. It also can be viewed at the website of KXMB-TV in Bismarck, N.D.
Editor's note: The following video includes an instance of strong profanity.


News of CNN squelching the video in a copyright claim, despite the majority of the video consisting of original Founding Bloggers material, quickly spread through the blogosphere.

"It is hard to avoid the inference that in this case," writes John H. Hinderaker of the PowerLine blog. "CNN was motivated not by a desire to protect its intellectual property but by a desire to avoid embarrassment caused by the unprofessional performance of its reporter."

"Obviously we hit a nerve with CNN because they forced YouTube to pull the video down, along with all of the comments people posted," Founding Bloggers responded. "We are in the process of consulting our Founding Bloggers legal team to decide if we are going to file a counter claim against CNN. We believe that we are well within our rights under fair use, but we are not attorneys so….we'll see."

Ben Sheffner of the blog Copyrights and Campaigns, however, is an attorney who has served as a copyright advisor to NBC Universal, Fox and the John McCain campaign.

"CNN does own copyright in its own news footage and, as a general matter, has the right to demand its removal from YouTube," Sheffner writes on his blog. "However, as to this particular video, I think Founding Bloggers has a very strong fair use defense. The purpose for Founding Bloggers' posting of the CNN footage is crystal clear: to comment on and criticize CNN's reporting on the 'Tea Party.' Such a use is right in the heartland of the fair use doctrine; the statute specifically mentions 'criticism, comment, [and] news reporting' as protected uses that are 'not an infringement of copyright.'"

Sheffner adds, "Many fair use cases are difficult, close calls – but, given the facts as I know them, this is an easy one. … I'm surprised CNN made this claim in the first place."

WND attempted to contact CNN for comment, but no one was available to speak during weekend hours.

Washington Post now fearful of Obama

Admin Options
Feature
Add Tags

Cancel
Delete Post David Broder is the first liberal main stream media type to recognize the danger that Obama presents to the well being of our citizens and the entire financial system. What is most significant is that this reporter is the dean of the liberal Washington Post press corp. Hopefully, others will awaken to the danger also. The media "made" this man and it would be ironic if they "unmade" him.David Broder, the "Dean" of liberal pundits presiding at the Washington Post itself, has caught on. Mr. Broder has the shakes over Obama's O-dacity. Good news! Here's one liberal who is in touch with reality, and he's scared out of his wits.Writes Mr. Broder, "The size of the gamble that President Obama is taking every day is simply staggering. What came through in his speech.... Tuesday night was a dramatic reminder of the unbelievable stakes he has placed on the table in his first month in office, putting at risk the future well-being of the country and the Democratic Party's control of Washington. I've come to believe that the Obama crowd is naive to the point of stupidity. They are very intelligent, mind you. They have more academic degrees than the faculty of Harvard. But intelligent people are often deeply naive, which makes them idiot savants.(There's a reason why that's a French term --- Moliere wrote a comedy about it four centuries ago.) These people have never accomplished anything but suckering the voters --- and each other. Their policy genius, David Axelrod, is a PR agent. That helped with the campaign, but it means nothing for good government. They seem to have no concept of the economy. They want to impose a cap-and-trade system on "carbon emissions," like oil and coal. That comes down to making Monopoly money and forcing energy-using corporations to pay for it. They have no concept of productive investment compared to a wild spending spree on feel-good ideas, or on kickbacks to their buddies in Chicago.After all the "community organizer" hoo-hah they still learned nothing from the welfare fiasco that was inflicted on Black families by LBJ's War on Poverty, and which ended up hurting them more than anything Bull Connor could have done --- by way of family breakdown, helpless dependency, drugs, and gang warfare. They've just abolished Bill Clinton's version of welfare reform, which was forced upon him by the Gingrich Congress, and which has ended up really helping people, not hurting them. Conclusion: These folks are arrogant and ignorant.Intelligent, yes, articulate, yes, and utterly persuasive to millions of suckers, yes. But reality has a harsh way with fools.David Broder is now spotting the looming steam locomotive chugging his way, and he is seeing a grave danger to "the Democratic Party's control of Washington."Too bad for the Democratic Party. But what worries me very much is that Obama is "putting at risk the future well-being of the country," as Broder writes. That means you and me and all the things we care about.And Obama is much too arrogant to change his mind. Watch for a bad train wreck down the road soon.

Consumer Advocates Call For Geithner’s Resignation

Turbo Tax TimFollowing the AIG bonuses debacle, two prominent consumer advocates have called on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to resign.
Harvey Rosenfield and Jim Donahue have written to President Obama to express their lack of confidence in Geithner’s ability to grapple with the ongoing financial crisis due to his previous association with Wall Street while chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and an author of the first round of bailouts.
They believe the Treasury Department was aware of the controversial bonuses and retention payments but failed to act until after AIG paid some $180 million worth of them.
"It is clear that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner cannot provide the requisite independence that is required in an environment in which financial institutions and other businesses are demanding trillions of dollars of taxpayer money," the letter to the President states. "With respect, we urge you to ask for his resignation."
Recently, WallStreetWatch.org issued a report identifying policy decisions by the federal government that led to the current financial meltdown and how those policies were dictated by Wall Street through $5 billion in campaign donations and lobbying fees between 1998 and 2008.
It states that many of these firms are now receiving American taxpayer dollars.

Harry Reid: Justice Roberts lied to Congress..Look Who Is Calling Who A Liar!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. lied to Congress during his confirmation hearings by pretending to be open-minded about his judicial philosophy.
"We got into a little jam with Roberts. Roberts didn't tell us the truth. At least [Justice Samuel A.] Alito told us who he was," Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, said, comparing President Bush's two successful Supreme Court nominees.
"We're stuck with those two young men," Mr. Reid said, though he said they hope to try to balance out the judiciary overall by "having some moderates in the federal court system as time goes on."
The Senate's top Democrat also vowed never to use the so-called nuclear option to change the rules to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees. Republicans under then-Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, were poised to employ the tactic in 2004 but were headed off by a bipartisan deal.
"The nuclear option is only one of the things the Republicans in power at that time did or tried to do to ruin our country," Mr. Reid said. "There is no way that I would be part of using the nuclear option. I want every Republican to hear that."
Mr. Reid joined fellow Democrats in voting to filibuster the nomination of Justice Alito, and on final passage voted against confirming both Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. The chief justice did not face a Democratic filibuster.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, a Tennessee Republican who shepherded the chief justice's nomination through the Senate, said Mr. Reid's charge was off base.
"Senator Reid has compiled quite a catalog of mean and irrational statements about various people," Mr. Thompson said.
"The chief justice was very forthright in explaining that he would not tell the senators how he was going to vote but that he would follow the law and the intent of the framers. He's done exactly that, and that, of course, is anathema to Harry Reid."
Liberal critics have said that the chief justice's claim of being open on issues of law during his confirmation hearings have been proven wrong by his penchant for siding with conservatives on high court decisions.
President Obama has already moved to try to temper the heat surrounding judicial nominations, making sure he had the support of both Indiana senators — one Democrat and one Republican — before nominating someone from their state to a federal appeals court.
Fielding questions from reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Mr. Reid said he hopes the major bills the Senate has worked on so far this year have shown there's a benefit to Republicans helping out.
"When we do things, there's credit to go around all the way," he said.
He also dismissed reports of divisions among Democrats on the major issues in the budget, saying flatly "there's no split." He said that would be proved next week when they vote on the budget.
Mr. Reid was coy when asked whether he would try to push for major health care changes under the budget reconciliation process, which would mean it could without having to face a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
"That remains to be seen," he said.
Mr. Reid was elected to the Senate in 1986 and has been Democrats' leader since 2005, when he took over for then-Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his bid for re-election.
Mr. Reid could face his own tough challenge next year, and he said he's preparing for a difficult race similar to the 1998 election in which he barely beat his Republican challenger, John Ensign. Mr. Ensign went on to win Nevada's other Senate seat in 2000.
Like Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reid leads a caucus that is more liberal than his own stances and voting record were before he became leader, and that could be a liability. But Mr. Reid said he's learned to have a good fundraising operation.
"I've been fortunate to raise quite a bit of money. I think I raised $2 million last quarter, so I'll be okay," he said.

Pelosi’s Approval Rating Takes Major Hit

By: David A. Patten
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s popularity has fallen to a new low for the year, with 60 percent of likely voters now viewing her unfavorably according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Friday.
Even worse news for the California Democrat: A whopping 42 percent characterize her job performance as “very unfavorable.”
The trend looks bad for Pelosi as well. Just two weeks ago, 53 percent of those surveyed viewed Pelosi somewhat or very unfavorably, and her “very unfavorable” rating was 36 percent. A 7 point favorability decline in two weeks suggests Pelosi’s popularity is in a serious tailspin.
Despite this week’s rally on Wall Street, pundits say Democrats are taking it on the chin over the bad economy and the fallout over AIG bonuses.
“Congress is feeling voter anger over executive bonuses paid by AIG after it received a massive taxpayer bailout,” the Rasmussen organization reports in its analysis of the results.
Several other findings suggest voters’ patience with Democrats’ handling of the economy could be wearing thin:
# Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is also suffering from weak poll numbers. Of the 1,000 likely voters Rasmussen polled March 24 and 25, some 45 percent rated Reid unfavorably, compared to 23 percent who gave him a favorable assessment.
# Even among Democrats, the popularity of both Reid and Pelosi is sinking. A growing number of Democrats are now critical of their performance.
# In the past two weeks, Pelosi’s favorability among Democrats has dropped from 65 percent to 57 percent.
# Reid’s favorable rating among Democrats has also taken a serious dip, from 51 percent two weeks ago to 43 percent in the survey released Friday.
# One issue plaguing Democrats, Rasmussen says, is that two-thirds of Americans now believe Obama is likely to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 a year.
# Democrats have shown recent weakness relative to Republicans in generic-ballot surveys of voters’ partisan leanings.
Other Rasmussen survey results suggest Republicans should temper any temptation to wallow in schadenfreude over Democrats’ recent miscues, however.
Although the popularity of Democratic leaders has been falling sharply, the favorability ratings of GOP leaders has remained flat.
Approval numbers for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner have remained basically unchanged – perhaps indicating voters remain unconvinced that Republicans’ proposals on how to fix the economy are any better.

Wonder if Congress will be passing any unconstitutional bills of attainder to confiscate Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel's ill-gotten wealth:

Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.
One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel — now chief of staff to President Barack Obama — who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.
As gatekeeper to Obama, Emanuel now plays a critical role in addressing the nation's mortgage woes and fulfilling the administration's pledge to impose responsibility on the financial world.
Emanuel's Freddie Mac involvement has been a prominent point on his political résumé, and his healthy payday from the firm has been no secret either. What is less known, however, is how little he apparently did for his money and how he benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation's current economic mess. …
He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.
The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.
On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.
The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.
During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
"Political muscle" describes what Emanuel provided in exchange for his ride on the gravy train.
Financial disclosure statements that are required of U.S. House members show Emanuel made at least $320,000 from his time at Freddie Mac. Two years after leaving the firm, Emanuel reported an additional sale of Freddie Mac stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000. … One of Emanuel's fellow directors at Freddie Mac was Neil Hartigan, the former Illinois attorney general. Hartigan said Emanuel's primary contribution was explaining to others on the board how to play the levers of power.
He was respected on the board for his understanding of "the dynamics of the legislative process and the executive branch at senior levels," Hartigan recalled. …
Another focus of Freddie during Emanuel's day — and one that played to his skill set — was a stepped-up effort to combat [Republican] congressional demands for more regulation.
Dead Fish's Freddie connection continued after he left to join the Leviathan as a congresscrook.
Federal campaign records show that Emanuel received $25,000 from donors with ties to Freddie Mac in the 2002 campaign cycle, more than twice the amount collected that election by any other candidate for the U.S. House or Senate.
Emanuel joined the House in January 2003 and was named to the Financial Services Committee, where he also sat on the subcommittee that directly oversaw Freddie Mac. A few months later, Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel was forced out, and the committee and subcommittee launched hearings to sort out the mess, spanning more than a year. Emanuel skipped every hearing, congressional records indicate.
As for the Obamination administration's loudly promised "transparency"…
The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director.
But not to worry:
Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for Emanuel, said there was no conflict between his stint at Freddie Mac and Obama's vow to restore confidence in financial institutions and the executives who run them.
Let's not single out Dead Fish. He was hardly the only Democrat in Congress to help create the Freddie/Fannie fiasco that is snowballing into a depression. He's not even the only one who went on to the White House.