WH attacks worry moderate dems; how HC is tyranny; Net neutrality is fairness doctrine for internet

“To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the ‘right’ to ‘redistribute’ the wealth produced by others is claiming the ‘right’ to treat human beings as chattel.” - Ayn Rand “The simple fact is that human rights, and property rights go hand in hand. You cannot have one, without the other. Any governmental philosophy that violates the fundamental right to property is a threat to liberty, even if it’s intentions are noble.” (from http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/01/why-reject-socialism-private-property-and-economic-freedom-vs-economic-equality-part-2/) “…the moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” - John Adams "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Thomas Jefferson  Or, as a T.E.A. party protester put it: “Wealth is not immoral. Thievery is.” 1) White House attacks worry moderate Democrats A White House effort to undermine conservative critics is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill — and not just from Republicans.  “It’s a mistake,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania. “I think it’s beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”  Altmire was talking about the Obama administration’s efforts to undercut Fox News. But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.  “There’s no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies,” added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. “The Chamber isn’t an opponent.” POLITICO reported earlier this week on an all-fronts push by the White House to cut the legs out from under its toughest critics, whether it’s the Chamber, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News operation.  White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has defended the push, saying the administration made “a fundamental decision that we needed to be more aggressive in both protecting our position and in delineating our differences with those who were attacking us.” OK, Chairman Anita.  Congressional Republicans counterattacked Thursday. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the administration was “targeting those who don’t immediately fall in line” with “Chicago-style politics” aimed at “shutting the American people out and demonizing their opponents.”  Boehner’s No. 2, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) complained that the nation’s problems are growing while the White House “bickers with a cable news network.” See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28638.html 1a) Behind the War Between White House and Fox WASHINGTON — Late last month, the senior White House adviser David Axelrod and Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive of Fox News, met in an empty Palm steakhouse before it opened for the day, neutral ground secured for a secret tête-à-tête. Mr. Ailes, who had reached out to Mr. Axelrod to address rising tensions between the network and the White House, told him that Fox’s reporters were fair, if tough, and should be considered separate from the Fox commentators who were skewering President Obama nightly, according to people briefed on the meeting. Mr. Axelrod said it was the view of the White House that Fox News had blurred the line between news and anti-Obama advocacy.  What both men took to be the start of a frank but productive dialogue proved, in retrospect, more akin to the round of pre-Pearl Harbor peace talks between the United States and Japan. By the following weekend, officials at the White House had decided that if anything, it was time to take the relationship to an even more confrontational level. The spur: Executives at other news organizations, including The New York Times, had publicly said that their newsrooms had not been fast enough in following stories that Fox News, to the administration’s chagrin, had been heavily covering through the summer and early fall — namely, past statements and affiliations of the White House adviser Van Jones that ultimately led to his resignation and questions surrounding the community activist group Acorn. …In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.” …“This is a discussion that probably had to be had about their approach to things,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Our concern is other media not follow their lead.” See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?_r=1 2) When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?' (CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The arrogance of these people knows no bounds.  Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Are you kidding? In what world is healthcare interstate commerce? The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:    CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”   Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”   CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”   Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question." See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971 2a) When tyranny calls In explanation for her "yes" vote on the Max Baucus created health care bill, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe said: "Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls."  Senator Snowe is probably right. History is calling. What she has wrong is history's message. History is calling with the warning that tyranny is at our doorstep. The tyranny that threatens us is not the same brand as the violent police states of the 20th century. Tyranny in America will look more like the misguided utopianism that has taken England from being the greatest, freest nation on earth to the frail remains of a world power it is today. …If health care passes, it will not represent the beginning of the end -- the beginning took place long ago. But it may signal the end of the beginning, the end of the period in which liberty has its chance to beat back statism. American freedom has been bent, and bent, and bent for nearly 100 hundred years. Like post World War II socialization of England, health care may prove to be America's breaking point. History is calling. Who will hear her? See: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/when_tyranny_calls.html 2b) Congress Warms to Public Option, Weighs Compromise Proposals After raucous town hall meetings appeared to discourage moderate lawmakers from pursuing a government-run health insurance plan, both chambers of Congress are starting to warm to the idea once more.  A compromise is emerging in the Senate on a government-run health insurance plan that would give states an opportunity to either opt out of or opt into the program.  …In the Senate, Democratic sources say Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and many key Democrats prefer a plan that would allow individual states to drop out of the program. Reid was testing support for that idea and for another alternative, which would hold government-sponsored insurance coverage in reserve and "trigger" it only if private companies weren't providing enough affordable alternatives in given states.  …Sens. Nelson and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., both former governors, along with Lincoln, have expressed a great deal of concern toward the "opt out" option, the one favored by Reid and many other Democrats.  Nelson wanted to know how difficult it would be for states to opt out, fearing that those who want a more robust public option would virtually lock states into the plans.  See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/congress-warms-public-option-weighs-compromise-proposals/ 2c) In Massachusetts, Obama won't promote state's health-care plan President Obama will travel Friday to Massachusetts, one of only two states to implement a universal health-care program similar to his ambitions for the entire country. But he does not plan to use the trip to make his case for far-reaching reform; he will tout clean energy and raise money for the Democratic governor.  The president's critics say his reluctance to spotlight the Massachusetts model is real-world evidence that his vision would not work on a national scale. High costs have forced the state to trim benefits for legal immigrants and prompted one safety-net hospital to sue over a $38 million shortfall. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204684.html 3) Freddie Mac’s Secrecy Pacts Face Court Test WASHINGTON — One year after the government took over and bailed out Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage finance company, federal regulators are blocking former employees from revealing information to investors who are suing the company for fraud, lawyers for shareholders say. The Treasury has propped up Freddie Mac with more than $50 billion in taxpayer money since the company nearly collapsed more than a year ago, and officials warn that the company will probably need additional billions in the months ahead. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/business/23mortgage.html?ref=todayspaper Remember from yesterday?  Elsewhere, Freddie Mac is giving its chief financial officer compensation worth as much as $5.5 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. The government-controlled mortgage finance company doesn’t have to follow the executive compensation rules because it is being paid outside the TARP (emphasis mine).  Why is that?  All of which somehow reminds us that Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, got $250,000 from a very limited stint at Freddie Mac at the very time they were cooking their books so badly. Will he give any of that money back? Still, we would say that it serves these bank CEOs right for taking the money in the first place. Except that many of them were forced into doing so by the government. Nevertheless, just imagine how well the war against the terrorists would go if Mr. Obama would be as tough on the Taliban and Al Qaeda as he is on law abiding American executives. See: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-to-slash-bank-ceos-pay-90 4) Why Reject Socialism?: Private Property, and Economic Freedom vs. Economic Equality (part 2) Let’s now take a look at Socialism as an economic philosophy. 19th century philosopher Ayn Rand had some strong words to further define socialism and its nature as an economic and governmental theory: “Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” - From The New Intellectual In order to fully understand Rand’s view – we need to clearly define ‘private property.’ In plain terms, Private property is essentially the results (or wages) of an individual’s personal labor. Furthermore, an individual’s labor is basically the sum of a person’s mind, since all that we do creatively and productively is the result of our own mind making free choices to take actions. Therefore, the crucial question each person must ask is, “Does a free individual have the right to the product of their own mind?” Take a moment to internalize this question, because it is simply too easy to think of ‘individuals’ as numbers. Do you have the right to the product of your mind? In my view, if you truly believe in personal human liberty – you must answer this question: Yes. This is where a proper view of taxes becomes important. Part of the problem in America today is that people don’t really view taxes for what they truly are: unpaid labor for the state. Most people are so used to paying their taxes (many times not even seeing them, as they are deducted automatically) that this reality is blurred. You and I pay a certain percentage of our annual wages in tax. What this really means is that we spend that percentage (if you are middle-class, that’s about 30%) of our year working directly for the state and not ourselves or our families. Furthermore – you and I don’t really get to decide what happens with the labor we do for the state. Socialism seeks to make all people economically equal through the idea of fairness. In other words, socialism seeks to share the wealth, or create a state of ‘shared prosperity‘ as this is seen to be more fair and compassionate. During the recent campaign, President Barack Obama, then candidate Obama made the remark, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.” Of course, most people (including conservatives) view sharing with those who are less fortunate, as a positive thing. However, it is important to remember we are talking about a governmental philosophy, not personal kindness and charity. Under socialism, in order to create fairness or shared prosperity, this requires taking the labor of some, and giving it to others. This is, as Rand said, the denial of individual property, and ultimately the control of the product of an individual’s labor (emphasis mine). See: http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/01/why-reject-socialism-private-property-and-economic-freedom-vs-economic-equality-part-2/ 5) Blackburn: Net neutrality is 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet' Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) spoke against net neutrality regulations today at an event put on by the Safe Internet Alliance. Representing the songwriters, singers, actors, producers and other entertainers in Memphis and Nashville, she said the creative community does not want the federal government to interfere with how they are able to get content to consumers via the Internet.  "Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet," she said. The creators "fully understand what the Fairness Doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio. What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP. They do not want a czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet. "They do not want a czar to determine what speeds will be available....We are watching the FCC very closely as it relates to that issue." See: http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/63875-blackburn-net-neutrality-is-qfairness-doctrine-for-the-internetq 5a) FCC votes to begin crafting `net neutrality' rules WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal regulators took an important step Thursday toward prohibiting broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain kinds of Internet traffic.  Despite the concerns of telecommunications companies and the agency's two Republicans, the Federal Communications Commission voted to begin writing so-called "network neutrality" regulations. Proponents say the rules would prevent phone and cable companies from abusing their control over the market for broadband access.  FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said regulations are needed to ensure that broadband subscribers can access all legal Web sites and services, including Internet calling applications and video sites that compete with the broadband companies' core businesses. Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell said he remains unconvinced that broadband providers are engaging in widespread anticompetitive behavior that requires government intervention.  "I do not share the majority's view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks, nor do I believe that the government is the best tool to fix it," he said. See: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BG8MT00&show_article=1 6) State launches boycott of 'unconstitutional' federal laws Urges 49 others to join in combating government's 'abuse of authority' Tennessee is urging 49 other states to come together and create a "joint working group between the states" to combat unconstitutional federal legislation and assert state rights.  Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed HJR 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution on June 23. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the resolution created a committee to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and seek repeal of imposed mandates.  State Rep. Susan Lynn recently wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, inviting them to join the group and warning that the role of the federal government has been "blurred, bent and breached."  "The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay," Lynn wrote. "Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113606 7) Sunstein urges: Abolish marriage  Adviser compares institution to country club membership The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory czar.  Sunstein proposed that the concept of marriage should become privatized, with the state only granting civil union contracts to couples wishing to enter into an agreement.  Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference.  "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," wrote Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler in their 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113802