Obama attacks Internet free speech; Radical Kagan - no judicial experience; Medal for not fighting?

1) Barack Obama’s Frightening Attack on Internet Free Speech Obama: “And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — (laughter) – information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.” …No the message is much more nefarious than that. The President was complaining about the quick disbursement of information through media that he cannot yet control especially the internet. Each one of those technologies enables the user to connect to the internet in its own way. But fear not, his administration is working hard to control this medium, allowing him to control the way his progressive message is relayed to the public. As Congresswoman Michele Bachamnn told Sean Hannity: “So whether they’re attacking conservative talk radio, or conservative TV or whether it’s Internet sites, I mean, let’s face it, what’s the Obama administration doing? They’re advocating net neutrality which is essentially censorship of the Internet. This is the Obama administration advocating censorship of the Internet. Why? They want to silence the voices that are opposing them. Despite the fact that they continue to have much of the mainstream media still providing cover for all of these dramatic efforts that the Obama administration is taking. So they’re very specifically and pointedly going after voices that they see are effectively telling the truth about what the Obama administration is trying to do.” In January of this year, Glenn Greenwald at Salon noted Barack Obama’s new head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein had a very chilling plan for the net: Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. See: http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/05/11/barack-obambas-frightening-attack-on-internet-free-speech/ 1a) Glenn Beck: Obama's fairness doctrine -- net neutrality …PRESIDENT OBAMA: Meanwhile you are coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads and XBOX's and PlayStations, none of which I know how to work, information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. PAT: Emancipation? GLENN…Know that our government, our DOJ under…Holder, is arguing in the courts that you have no reasonable right of expectation of privacy in your e mail, privacy of location if you have a cell phone because they can triangulate you. Without a warrant they want to be able to read your e mail. Without a warrant (emphasis mine). This is the same group of people that today or over the weekend…Holder came out and said that he wants the Miranda rights also to go away for, you know, if you are involved in terrorism. Excuse me? If you are an American citizen? I don't think so. So Cass Sunstein is overseeing policies relating to privacy and information. He said that the government needs to employ teams of covert agents and pseudo — I'm quoting — independent advocates to cognitively infiltrate online groups and websites as well as other activist groups which advocate views that Sunstein deems, quote, as false conspiracy theories about the government, end quote. …May I quote (from Saul Alinsky): Lest we forget, at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical, from all of our legends mythology and history, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom. That radical was Lucifer, end quote. Saul Alinsky. I'm sorry. We're looking to the devil. We're looking to Lucifer as an example of at least he got his! We're looking and using as an example something that now under the Obama administration the Department of Education is telling students to read this book. In it Saul Alinsky holds out as an example of, hey, let's not forget the first radical was Lucifer! Wow. I said it about an hour ago. I've been reading a lot over and over and over again the Moses story. There's a lot to be learned there. The take away today for me is the simple step that Moses was told to do, put a snake on a stick and said, you want to live? Just look at the snake. People didn't do it for a myriad of reasons, one of which it was just too easy. What was the lesson? Please, dear God, don't dismiss it. The lesson was look to God to live. We are entering unbelievable times. Look to God to live (emphasis mine). See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/40456/ 2) Senate demands one-time audit of the Fed Senators demanded on Tuesday to be let in on what they called the most secretive, powerful federal agency in existence, voting overwhelmingly to force the Federal Reserve to undergo an audit of the loans and deals it made during the financial turmoil of the past several years. The 96-0 vote reflects the growing distrust of government -- fueled by both right-wing and left-wing activists who say they are challenging the Washington balance of power. It also showed the overwhelming frustration senators feel at having been stonewalled by Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke on key questions about the secretive activities. "The average American is beginning to wonder what goes on behind closed doors with the Fed," said Sen. Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent who sponsored the so-called "audit the Fed" amendment, which passed as part of the ongoing debate on the Senate's financial regulation bill. Mr. Sanders said he first introduced a proposal forcing the Fed to disclose its activities after Mr. Bernanke last year refused at a Senate Budget Committee hearing to answer questions. …The House already has passed a broader proposal granting the comptroller general power to audit the Federal Reserve, which would mean more continuous scrutiny. Senators rejected going that far, voting 62-37 against that proposal on Tuesday. The two versions will have to be squared in an eventual House-Senate conference, but Mr. Sanders, who also backed the broader proposal, said even if Congress agrees only to the one-time audit, once voters get a look at the Fed's activities, he expects a growing call for more oversight. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/11/senate-demands-one-time-fed-audit/ 3) Kagan’s Past To Come “Out Of The Closet”? CBS News reported that President Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will be the ”first openly gay justice,” pleasing much of Obama’s liberal base. But after complaints by an anonymous White House staffer that parts of the report were not public, the CBS reporter updated the post to say “I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted — odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles.” The CBS report has now been pulled, after The Washington Post repeated the CBS report, and the White House denials, but criticized CBS policy, saying “most major news organizations have policies against ‘outing’ gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties.” The sudden media blackout on the ‘taboo topic’ is ironic, since Kagan’s private sex life already has, and will directly impact her public Supreme Court decisions. Regardless, The Daily Caller confirms Kagan’s policy record reflects extremist sexual views in matters of law: “Kagan’s boldest foray into public life was, as dean of Harvard Law School, throwing the military off campus over its ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy on gay soldiers. Kagan called the policy, implemented by her former boss President Bill Clinton, ‘a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.’ She pursued the matter all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices unanimously slapped down her arguments, forcing Harvard to allow the military to return…. The Wall Street Journal reports Kagan has worked in elite legal and policy jobs but has never served as a judge!!!!! (emphasis mine), which an administration official confirmed Sunday. …LifeNews.com now reports Kagan is an ardent pro-abortion advocate who, at 50, would leave a pro-abortion legacy for Obama on the Supreme Court for decades to come. She would confirm the suspicion of many political observers that Obama decided to go with a radical left-wing nominee while Democrats control the Senate with a huge advantage that is expected to deteriorate after the November elections.“treated pro-life activists like violent criminals, creating a task force in the Department of Justice and a grand jury to investigate peaceful pro-lifers. This raises serious concerns that she shares the hostile view that religious beliefs are a form of ‘hate,’” Wright said. See: http://www.therepublicantemple.com/2010/05/10/kagans-past-to-come-out-of-the-closet/ 3a) Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech' (CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech. Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.” In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor. In doing so, Kagan constructed a complex framework that can be used by the Court to determine whether or not Congress has restricted First Amendment freedoms with improper intent. She defined improper intent as prohibiting or restricting speech merely because Congress or a public majority dislikes either the message or the messenger, or because the message or messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities. …Instead, the Supreme Court should focus on whether a speaker’s message is harming the public, argued Kagan in her article. While Kagan does not offer an exhaustive definition of ‘harm,’ she does offer examples of speech that may be regulated, such as incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening or “fighting” words. …Kagan wrote. “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.” WOW. So much gobbledygook to justify violation of the First Amendment. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65720 4) Side Effects: Get Ready to Lose Your Doctor Remember the White House’s insistence that, under Obamacare, you keep your insurance plan if you like it? We didn’t believe it then. Turns out we were right. CNN reports that AT&T, Verizon, John Deere and others may well drop the health care coverage they now offer their employees. Obamacare makes it much cheaper for these companies to dump their workers into the government-controlled health exchanges and pay a penalty for NOT insuring them. From CNN: "Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill’s critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government. That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama’s statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them." See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/10/side-effects-get-ready-to-lose-your-doctor 4a) Health overhaul law potentially costs $115B more WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday. If Congress approves all the additional spending called for in the legislation, it would push the ten-year cost of the overhaul above $1 trillion (emphasis mine) — an unofficial limit the Obama administration set early on. The Congressional Budget Office said the added spending includes $10 billion to $20 billion in administrative costs to federal agencies carrying out the law, as well as $34 billion for community health centers and $39 billion for Indian health care. The costs were not reflected in earlier estimates by the budget office, although Republican lawmakers strenuously argued that they should have been. Part of the reason is technical: the additional spending is not mandatory, leaving Congress with discretion to provide the funds in follow-on legislation — or not. See: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0wB-o7OjZq7Bh5k_D542BO8fq_wD9FKR7V80 5) No-More-Bailouts Bill Springs a Leak: Fannie and Freddie Ask for More Supporters of Sen. Chris Dodd’s financial regulation bill say it will end financial bailouts. In fact, the Senate — anxious to reassure Americans on that fact — even added an amendment last week with a stated purpose “[t]o prohibit taxpayers from ever having to bail out the financial sector.” But someone forgot to tell the folks across town at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Freddie last week announced it had lost $8 billion in the first quarter of the year, and would be asking for another $10.6 in taxpayer help. And today, its twin Fannie announced a $11.5 billion loss, and asked for a further $8.4 billion in aid from taxpayers. That’s in addition to the nearly $145 billion in aid to Fannie and Freddie have already received. So did the two government-sponsored enterprises slip this bailout in under the wire before Congress stopped them? Not quite. In fact, the plan does nothing to reform either Fannie or Freddie. That apparently is not a priority. Sen. Mark Warner, in fact, said that a plan for reform of these out-of-control firms will have to wait until next year. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/10/no-more-bailouts-bill-springs-a-leak-fannie-and-freddie-ask-for-more 5a) Republican senators pressing to end federal control of Fannie, Freddie As the Senate resumed debate Monday on legislation to overhaul financial regulation, leading Republican lawmakers are pushing an amendment that would wind down the government-controlled (emphasis mine) mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The proposal by Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) calls for the government to end its control of the companies within two years. Under the amendment, Fannie and Freddie would have to reduce the size of their mortgage portfolios and begin paying state and local sales taxes. Congressional aides say the amendment is unlikely to pass. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051002850.html 6) Democrats poised to move measures with high price tags Congress faces a crush of votes on big-ticket items before the Memorial Day recess, setting up a debate on deficits less than six months before the November elections. Democratic leaders are looking in the next three weeks to send President Barack Obama a slew of measures that cost more than $200 billion, including a multiyear extension of unemployment benefits, an extension of expiring tax provisions and Medicare doctor payments totaling $180 billion and a $33 billion Afghanistan war supplemental bill. Because most of those costs won’t be paid for, Republicans plan to use those bills and the Democrats’ budget blueprint to highlight massive deficits ahead of the congressional midterm election. Republicans have recently been pointing to Greece’s dismal fiscal situation as a warning, claiming that the U.S. will be headed for a similar fate unless the deficits are curtailed. “Washington Democrats’ out-of-control spending spree is scaring the hell out of the American people,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). “It has to stop.” See: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/97089-democrats-poised-to-move-measures-with-high-price-tags 7) Obama administration looks into modifying Miranda law in the age of terrorism The Obama administration is considering changes to the laws requiring police to inform suspects of their rights, potentially pursuing an expansion of the "public safety exception" that allows officers to delay issuing Miranda warnings, officials said Sunday. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his first appearances on Sunday morning news shows as a cabinet secretary, said the Justice Department is examining "whether or not we have the necessary flexibility" to deal with terrorist suspects such as the Pakistani-born U.S. citizen who tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square last weekend. "We're now dealing with international terrorism," Holder said on ABC's "This Week." "And if we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing in a public safety context with this new threat, I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception." So, it doesn’t harm public safety to treat enemy combatants as citizens - and try them in the very city they were successful at blowing up - but to withhold Miranda rights from US CITIZENS (as this man is), that secures public safety. What’s black is white; what’s white is black. This is completely upside down and backwards. This leaves the door open for say, Tea Party protesters, to be denied due process and the presumption of innocence because of the “public safety exception”. Mark Kirk had a better idea on Don Wade and Roma (WLS) this week: try them for treason. That way, US citizens will be treated as citizens and granted their constitutional right to a trial by a jury of peers, etc. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/09/AR2010050902062.html 8) Highland Park basketball team trip to Arizona scrapped Reveling in its first conference championship in 26 years, the Highland Park High School girls varsity basketball team has been selling cookies for months to raise funds for a tournament in Arizona. But those hoop dreams were dashed when players learned they couldn't go because of that state's new crackdown on illegal immigrants. Safety concerns partly fueled the decision, but the trip also "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values," said District 113 Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson. That explanation, though, smacks of political protest to parents upset by the decision. The news, which was broken to the team Monday by coach Jolie Bechtel, comes as critics of Arizona's controversial law call on professional athletes and others to boycott the state. UNBELIEVABLE! …District 113 Superintendent George Fornero declined comment, saying it "wasn't just my decision." He referred calls to Hebson. Hebson said Arizona is off-limits because of uncertainty about how the new law will be enforced. Signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer last month, it makes it a crime to be in the country illegally and requires police to check suspects for immigration paperwork. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE POLICE TO CHECK SUSPECTS FOR PAPERWORK UNLESS THEY ARE STOPPED FOR A CRIME!!! See: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-12/news/ct-met-arizona-trip-canceled-20100512_1_basketball-court-brewer-last-month-immigration-paperwork More on this: George Fomero is lying. A parent of a Hightland Park student who was on WLS today said Fomero is the one who made the decision. The mayor said the same thing: …the mayor of Highland Park goes on the big 89 WLS Chicago, Don Wade and Roma, his name is Michael Belsky, Roma said, "Have you spoken with the assistant superintendent, Sue Hebson? Because she apparently is the one who made the decision, am I correct?" BELSKY: The school superintendent and the school board make these sorts of decisions. And, you know, one thing I want to just make clear and I think Rush Limbaugh has -- has kind of released the firestorm of e-mails on me, but in Illinois the school board is separately elected from the city counsel and so this has not been a city matter at all. …Roma then said, "They have student trips to China and we're seeing in the news last night that nine people died in a school attack in China. So I think there are lots of places where there is far more danger than Arizona, even if they competed in Chicago city itself, there are areas of Chicago that would be far more dangerous than going to an Arizona basketball tournament." BELSKY: You know, I mean I guess that -- again, it's their judgment and if they feel, you know, there's -- they go to areas in those countries where they are safe, and they perceive any sort of danger in Arizona, then that's -- that's their call. Bill’s comment: The courageous mayor of Highland Park is standing up for lawlessness while hiding behind the skirts of a girl’s basketball team. Right on, my dear husband! See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051310/content/01125106.guest.html 9) Medal for 'courageous restraint' plan get mixed review from troops A proposal to grant medals for "courageous restraint" to troops in Afghanistan who avoid deadly force at a risk to themselves has generated concern among U.S. soldiers and experts who worry it could embolden enemy fighters and confuse friendly forces. Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis, a spokesman for Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, said that no final decision has been made on the award, which is the brainchild of British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter. "The idea is being reviewed at Headquarters ISAF," Sholtis said. "The idea is consistent with our approach. Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians...That restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions." However, professor Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former senior legal adviser to the Green Berets and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, said "It's an absolutely outrageous proposal to our fighting men. "The implication of this award is that we do not engage in war fighting that is appropriate," Addicott said. "They're sending a chilling message to our troops that we are not complying with the law of armed conflict. It's a propaganda victory for our enemies." Another unbelievable OUTRAGE from our useless, pathetic, cowardly administration!! How much longer are we going to allow ivy league pacifists who hate this country to play commander-in-chief??!! Yes, let's just invite the illegals over the borders, while overseas we remind the enemy that all they have to do is dress like civilians and they can mow us down. God help us all. (Thanks Kim for comment, with an edit or two from me). See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Medal-for-_courageous-restraint_-plan-get-mixed-review-from-troops-93007014.html 10) The Very Real Short-Range Missile Threat Obama is Ignoring …The system allows a weak nation to strike the land and sea targets of a superior force by placing cruise missiles into any type of 40 foot container. The video uses a ship, truck and train as examples of potential launching platforms. This means that once this weapon is sold, any of these transportation vehicles have to be seen as missile pads. …These vehicles can cross borders, making it more difficult to identify the perpetrator of an attack and impossible to predict where an attack might come from. The missiles might from a shipping vessel off the coast or a truck that crossed via the Mexican border. With a range of 220 kilometers, or about 136 miles, they can either be fired from a safe distance from the border or the distance can be minimized by getting close to the target by being hidden. This game-changing new threat is not new to conservatives, but the Obama administration has chosen to completely ignore it thus leaving our nation vulnerable to attack. …The most obvious option is to place short-range missiles and launchers on cargo vessels off the U.S. coast. And what could the U.S. possibly deploy to protect against such a weapon? The Airborne Laser. Problem is, since the Obama administration decided to ignore the threat from short-range missiles like the Club K, President Obama decided to kill the program. Heritage fellow James Carafano explains the consequences: “If Iran has one missile and nuclear weapon, it might have two. It could detonate one over New York in a low-altitude air burst that would kill up to a half-million and cripple Manhattan forever. Iran could fire a second at high altitude over the mid-Atlantic states, creating an electro-magnetic pulse that would take down a large portion of the national grid and plunge Washington, D.C., into permanent darkness. America would be crippled in a flash, with no obvious enemy at which to shoot back. An ABL could help neutralize this threat, and others. Advancing the technology alone will give the U.S. a dramatic advantage over potential adversaries. But if the administration has its way, we’ll see the ABL in the Smithsonian, rather than defending our coasts.” See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/11/video-the-very-real-short-range-missile-threat-obama-is-ignoring