Tag Archives: Obama Administration

The Obama Administration Continues To Play Favorites With Unions

We are all well aware that the Obama administration is beholden to the unions like SEIU and the UAW who gave millions to then Senator Obama during his campaign for the White House. However, what many may not know, or have forgotten is the fact that Barack Obama signed three executive orders that would make it easier to favor unions and unionized companies.

Here is the synopsis of the three pro-union executive orders signed early in 2009:

The first executive order requires employers with federal contracts above $100,000 in value to post a notice in the workplace informing their employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including the right to join a union. This order also repeals Executive Order 13201, issued by President Bush in 2001, that required federal contractors and subcontractors to post so-called “Beck notices.” Such notices, named after the Supreme Court’s decision in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) informed employees covered under the NLRA that they could not be required to join a union or maintain union membership in order to retain their jobs and that employees who are subject to a union security clause and choose not to be union members may object to the purposes for which mandatory union dues are used.

The second order applies to federal contractors who provide services to government buildings. While there are several exemptions, under this new executive order, when a federal agency changes contractors, the new contractor will be required to offer jobs to the non-supervisory employees of its predecessor. This order is designed to try to ensure that when a unionized contractor is replaced, its successor will be obliged under existing labor laws to bargain with the original contractor’s labor union.

The third order prevents federal contractors from being reimbursed in federal funds for money spent to oppose (or support) union organizing efforts among their employees, which could violate first amendment rights if ever challenged in a court of law due to government interference and a company’s freedom of speech.

That’s why the latest news coming from the Obama administration is very disconcerting since they are planning on supporting proposals that will favor unions and unionized companies bidding on federal contracts, which will only increase the size of the government, the amount of bureaucracy, and the cost of contracts.  However, it’s not anything we don’t already know since Obama’s philosophy seems more like “Go big, or go… you know something? just go big because you won’t have a home by the time our administration is through.”

Here’s more information regarding the proposal via the Daily Caller:

The proposals, collectively known as “High Road Contracting Policy,” were first reported earlier this month. The basic elements of the policy would give preference to companies bidding on federal contracts that pay their hourly workers a “living wage” and provide health insurance, employer-funded pension plans and paid sick days.

Following the report Republicans slammed the proposal, with Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma referring to it as “backdoor card check.” Other critics, led by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, worry the new rules would increase the cost of government contracting by as much as 20 percent, or more than $100 billion annually, while further slowing the procurement process.

Proponents of the proposals, including the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute, argue government contracting should be used as a vehicle for expanding the middle class and many of the workers that would be impacted by the changes end up costing the government more through public assistance programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. David Madland of CAP also pointed to studies on the state and local level that show no cost increase following the implementation of similar policies.

However, the White House did admit that contracting costs would increase if this proposal went through.  Pardon me if I’m a little skeptical and a little tired of unions being used as the end-all-be-all of the middle class.  Most of the middle class are professional workers or even blue collared workers who don’t belong to unions.  Take for example my father – he’s a mechanic but doesn’t belong to the UAW, much like many of his co-workers.  Does he make a ton of money? No, he’s just simply middle class and thus it is completely disingenuous for anybody to equate unions with the middle class at all times.  It seems as if the current crop of bureaucrats would love nothing more than for the true middle class to be unionized and therefore controlled and dependent upon the federal government.

And lest we forget some of the eye-opening clips of Obama speaking with organizations like SEIU:

{My favorite part is Obama telling SEIU that they should want a leader who can tell the truth… Interesting that he’s now been caught in many lies, most recently ACORN}

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under ACORN, Big Labor, Constitution, Corruption, Economy, Hypocrisy, Obama, Obama Administration, Progressivism, Unions

North Korea; Smuggling Arms & Banning Foreigners Wins Pen Pals; UPDATE LIVE STREAMING VIDEO OF SMUGGLED ARMS

On Sunday, December 13th, The Guardian of the UK reported that North Korea was caught smuggling arms through an underground weapons trade network.  The weapons that were discovered in an aircraft’s manifest, which was supposed to deliver ‘oil-drilling equipment.’  The weapons that were found were not nuclear of nature or seemed to be products that could create a bomb but this is still incredibly significant – any black-marketed arms being sold between countries acting as an underground arms trade network is incredibly disconcerting and worrisome.  The plane that was discovered and searched in Thailand was found to be carrying items such as: rocket-propelled grenades, missile and rocket launchers, missile tubes, surface-to-air missile launchers, spares and other heavy equipment.

A lethal cargo of rocket launchers, grenades and other weapons seized in Thailand at the weekend may be just a glimpse of what US and UN investigators say is a global North Korean illegal arms smuggling network used to finance its proscribed nuclear weapons programme.

Authorities in Bangkok said today it was unclear where the plane carrying the 35-tonnes of arms, an Ilyushin IL-76 registered in Georgia, was heading. But suspicion immediately fell on Iran, the destination of a previous illegal weapons shipment impounded in the United Arab Emirates in July. Panitan Wattanayagorn, a Thai government spokesman, said the plane had initially planned to refuel in Sri Lanka. For unknown reasons, the crew asked to make an emergency landing in Bangkok on Friday. Sri Lanka denied any knowledge of the arms shipment. There was also speculation in Bangkok that it was destined for Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Thai officials, who detained four crewmen from Kazakhstan and one from Belarus, said they acted on tip-offs from US and other unnamed intelligence agencies that the plane was carrying North Korean-made weapons in contravention of a UN security council ban on arms exports. The ban was strengthened in June, after North Korea’s isolated regime test-fired ballistic missiles and detonated a nuclear bomb.

The same types of countries who many have suspected of being in ‘cahoots’ for some time, have finally shown that they are in fact engaged in an arms trading network with the final destination possibly being Iran.  North Korea just wants to stay afloat and make money, estimated to be nearly $1B via this type of arms trading, while Iran has other sinister reasons for being the Point of Destination (POD).

The Japanese have also been investigating this very precarious case of illicit arms trade.  What were the main findings of this investigation? (h/t from Freeper AmericaninTokyo with good analysis)

1. The Japanese TV crew got in close during interrogation of the foreign crew of this aircraft. The Japanese zeroed in, using telephoto lenses, on the Thai police confession sheets that the men were apparently been given to sign (that they were trafficking in weapons).

2. The crew zoomed in on the attached BILL OF LADING issued for the cargo in question.

3. The BILL OF LADING was issued by AIR KORYO the national flag carrier for North Korea (and used in the past for espionage and smuggling).

4. The crews then went over to the Air Koryo sales office in Bangkok and burst into the door, confronting a North Korean local employee, showing him video of what they had taken. He got nervous, angry, showed them the door and only said “this must be a fake document. That is not ours”.

5. Meanwhile, the crew said they were heading for Ukraine with the massive cargo of weaponry. However, the Japanese TV crew was at it again, they got a close look at the Bill of Lading with the destination, filmed it, and re-aired it. It was clearly handwritten in English on the sheet “MEHRABAD AIRPORT” (Teheran),فرودگاه مهرآباد (IATA Code: THR) is an airport that serves Teheran, Iran. This airport is close to the city center of Teheran and is not used widely for commercial international arrivals and departures, and is also shared by the Iranian military.

6. Japanese crews called Iran in Farsi and grilled personnel of Mehrabad Airport but they also denied that such an aircraft was heading or scheduled to head to their airport, and seemed perturbed by the call.

7) The same Japanese TV network’s female reporter stationed to NYC on the same day “ambushed” the senior North Korean chief to the United Nations as he got out of his limousine going into the DPRK Office. She chased after him and said “North Korea was involved in the weapons shipment, and it is violation of UN sanctions, isn’t that correct?”. The North Korean diplomat ignored her completely, looked VERY pissed off, and stormed inside a building without saying a thing.

8) The Japanese crew not only called the airport in Iran to get details, they got ahold of the stipulated RECIPIENT in Iran at the airport on the Air Way Bill who was supposed to receive the weapons. They had his telephone number and called him directly, talking and grilling him in Farsi. He denied everything but you could tell of his shock and anger.

Summary of cargo at this time:

Multiple rocket launchers – two mobile units – and two dozen 240 mm unguided rockets. The total value of weapons found in 145 large boxes that weigh nearly 40 tons all up was estimated at around Baht 600 million.No nuclear munitions or weapons of mass destruction were found on board.

I find it very interesting that North Korea also announced that it would be banning foreigners from their country until February.  This announcement was made before the media began reporting on the illegal trading network.  North Korea exclaims that it is banning people from entering the country due to paranoia that there will be a mass exodus of the middle class due to reforms occurring in their currency system (sound familiar?):

North Korea reportedly plans to ban foreigners from the country from Sunday until early February, apparently to allow unrest caused by this month’s shock currency reform to die down.

Ju Sang-song, the minister of People’s Security, is in China, according to the North’s Korean Central News Agency, though it gave no reason for his visit. The trip by the North’s top internal security official may aim to seek cooperation from Beijing in preventing a mass exodus of North Korean middle class citizens angry over the devaluation of their savings.

One source in China said that Pyongyang would bar foreigners from entering the country temporarily at the end or beginning of a year, when customs officials along the border with China are on leave for year-end holidays, but banning them until February is “quite uncommon.”

Experts say this could herald a visit by Kim Jong-il to China, since the paranoid North Korean leader likes to ensure maximum security along the route of his special armored train. Chinese President Hu Jintao invited Kim to visit at a “convenient” time when he met Choi Tae-bok, the chairman of the North’s Supreme People’s Assembly, in October. Kim has visited China four times, and twice (in 2001 and 2006) they fell in January.

It would seem to me that there is much more for Kim Jong-il to be concerned about now that the latest scandal has broken through to the surface.

So what does a dictator, who instigates missile launches, participates in illegal arms trading, and treats his DVD collection better than his people get? A letter from our one and only president, Barack Obama.  That’s right, the ‘oh-so’ intelligent, Harvard elitist, with tons minimal amounts of foreign policy experience wrote Kim Jong-il a letter.  This is reminiscent of Carter’s letter to Khomeini – even George Bush and Bill Clinton took their time when writing to ‘Lil’ Kim, which was done after negotiations concluded, not before, or just for the heck of it. 

President Obama has written a personal letter to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il that was delivered by the administration’s special envoy for North Korea during a visit to Pyongyang last week.

The existence of the letter has been closely held, with the administration insisting to its partners in disarmament talks with North Korea that it not be publicly discussed. State Department and White House officials confirmed this week that envoy Stephen W. Bosworth delivered a letter from Obama for Kim, but they declined to describe its contents.

“We do not comment on private diplomatic correspondence,” said White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer.

Wait a second, wasn’t this president supposed to be the most transparent president ever? Seems like the only thing transparent is his need to align himself with dictators and enemies… I’m sure Kim Jong loves pen-pals.  It’s now up to us to guess what he wrote to Mr. il; here it goes:

Dear ‘Lil’ Kim,

I loved your role in Team America, I felt that you really had a grasp on how to control and intimidate people.  My favorite line from that movie was “You’re Breakin’ My Barrs’ Hans Brix.”  Who knows, maybe that will be me once I concede all power to the UN and act as the next Neville Chamberlain. 

But in all honesty Kimmy, I’m jealous of the fact that you can command so much power and everybody worships you, if only I could settle down these nasty tea party protesters.  How does one obtain 150% approval ratings by the way? Mine is already below 50%.  I’m thinking I need some help – you don’t happen to have a little red book that lays out your strategy, do you?

Also, any pointers on controlling the media? I thought I was doing a fairly decent job, but every once and a while, they ask me a real pesky question that I have trouble answering – and don’t get me started on Fox.

Let’s you, me, Fidel, Hugo, Ahmadenijad, & Putin get together real soon for a ‘beer summit.’ The last one I held was a huge success.

Happy Holidays & a Merry Kwanzikadanmas.

Love,

Bammy

Update: NNN News of Japan has recently released live streaming video of the illegal arms found in Thailand being carried by a North Korean aircraft, headed for Iran.

Live stream can be seen here.  (Thanks again to the great investigative work by FreeRepublic.com)

3 Comments

Filed under National Security, Obama, Obama Administration, Terrorism

Holder the Hypocrite; Geneva Convention? What Geneva Convention?

Hypocrite, Eric Holder, in 2002, says the Gitmo terrorists aren’t covered under the Geneva Convention.  What article in the Geneva Convention you ask? Well, it’s Article IV and it goes a little something like this:

Click here for the Eyeblast video

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:  

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.  

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government [not a deity] or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. 

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: 

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. 

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. 

In summary, these terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention because they are not normal soldiers, conducting war by international rules and guidelines.  They are not regularly uniformed armed forces that abide by this Convention or any other treaties. These terror cells do not act on the behalf of a government, but rather as underground radical factions set up to terrorize other cultures and individuals.  If they were uniformed soldiers, I would agree that they should be treated in a manner that abides by the Convention, however that has not, nor was it ever, the case. 

A lot of thought and legal drafting went into the appropriateness of interrogation techniques used against Al-Qaeda and the terrorists at Gitmo who initiated the attacks on 9/11.  I fail to see where the means of interrogation were unjust and completely inhumane? Waterboarding did not take place for every single prisoner and for those who were waterboarded, they could only be waterboarded so many times, while our men and women serving get waterboarded more often.  Doctors are also required to stand by during a waterboarding session.  As far as bugs in a corner or sleep deprivation – well that just reminds me of college, so what’s the big deal? Did these terrorists consider the lives or feelings of anybody before they attacked innocent civilians? I will never understand how the liberal mind works – and maybe that’s a good thing.

Oh, and it would be nice for all the Bush bashers and the liberal elite media to at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of Holder and this administration…

Leave a comment

Filed under Double Standards, Hypocrisy, Media, National Security, Obama Administration, Terrorism

More Government Malfeasance in Walpin-Gate

Investigations are still ongoing for recently fired IG, Gerald Walpin.  He was fired earlier this year after aggressively investigating the suspected fraud and misuse of funds by an Obama ally, Kevin Johnson and AmeriCorps. 

More information continues to trickle out regarding this case; eventually slow drips can cause a flood.  Darrell Issa & Charles Grassley, 2 senior ranking republicans, have been digging into this matter; to find out whether the firing was valid or if was used to cover-up fraud of a political ally, which seems to be the more likely case. 

The new information coming to the surface involves the head of AmeriCorps and Michelle Obama’s top aide/chief of staff.  

According to Republican investigators, Alan Solomont, then the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, had denied meeting with Jackie Norris, at the time the First Lady’s chief of staff.  But recently-released White House visitor logs show that Solomont met with Norris on June 9 of this year (as well as on two earlier occasions). President Obama fired Walpin on June 10 after an intense dispute over Walpin’s aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps money by Obama political ally Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California. 

After being presented with the visitor logs, investigators say, Solomont explained that he met with Norris to discuss Corporation business but did not discuss the Walpin matter.  When pressed, Solomont said he might have made an offhand comment or a mention in passing, about the Walpin affair, but that he and Norris did not have a discussion about it.

Solomont’s explanations have left both Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Sen. Charles Grassley, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, frustrated and vowing to continue their investigation of the Walpin matter. In a letter to Solomont, sent Friday, Issa wrote that he has “serious questions about the veracity of your…testimony.”  In a statement Saturday, Grassley said he is “concerned about the accuracy and completeness of Mr. Solomont’s answers to questions.”

Ruh – Roh, Mr. Jetson!

Leave a comment

Filed under Corruption, Double Standards, Hypocrisy, Michelle Obama, Obama Administration

Cass Sunstein Is Certifiable; Absolutism, First Amendment New Deal & More Executive Power

Cass Sunstein is one of the scarier of Obama’s czars and the fact that he was confirmed by the Senate makes it 10x worse!  Sunstein may be a very nice man, but when it comes to ideology, theory, ideas, and his views on the constitution, it makes me want to pull my hair out and scream.  I’m not sure what it is about the world of academia and the absolute detachment from reality that many hold, but it’s time for America to get past the status  of holding ivy league degrees; the superficial, and vote for people with real world experience.  Teachers do live in the real world, but my question would be whether not they have actually worked in a job or a place where they have implemented these ideas first to see if they actually work and help people, not hurt.

Besides, Cass Sunstein’s idea of Internet regulation, whereby a panel or individual of some sort would decide what is inaccurate or false and ban content via their own opinion (more detail on this can be found in his book entitled On Rumors), he has also argued that animals should be able to have a lawyer and sue humans, and guns and hunting should be banned.  There is much more to Cass Sunstein and his regulatory ideas in Nudge, another book penned by the newly approved czar.

More information about Sunstein is slowly but surely beginning to trickle out as time passes.  Cass Sunstein is a proponent of absolutism which really is a sick, twisted theory of “no liberty without dependency”:

You owe your life — and everything else — to the sovereign. The rights of subjects are not natural rights, but merely grants from the sovereign. There is no right even to complain about the actions of the sovereign, except insofar as the sovereign allows the subject to complain. These are the principles of unlimited, arbitrary, and absolute power, the principles of such rulers as Louis XIV. Intellectuals have assiduously promoted them; think of Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes.

A new intellectual champion of absolutism has now emerged. Mild-mannered University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein has been advancing the radical notion that all rights — including rights usually held to be “against” the state, such as the right to freedom of speech and the right not to be arbitrarily imprisoned or tortured — are grants from the state. In a book co-authored with Stephen Holmes, The Cost of Rights, he argued that “all legal rights are, or aspire to be, welfare rights,” that is, positive grants from the state. There is no difference in kind between the right not to be tortured and the right to taxpayer-subsidized dental care.
In his new book, The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein seeks to give constitutional status to welfare rights. The title comes from Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address, in which he proclaimed that “necessitous men are not free men” and proposed a “second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all.” Among the rights FDR proposed were the rights to “a useful and remunerative job,” “a decent home,” “adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,” “adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment,” and “a good education.”

To further understand the radical nature of Sunstein’s theories, it’s imperative that we also take a look at his proposed First Amendment New Deal which would act as a new Fairness Doctrine, following the same lines of his Internet regulation ideas.

President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a “First Amendment New Deal,” a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Until now, Sunstein’s radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution,” received no news media attention and scant scrutiny.

In the book – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the “fairness doctrine,” the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was “equitable and balanced.”

Sunstein introduces what he terms his “First Amendment New Deal” to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

It appears that Sunstein and Lloyd are two peas in a pod.  Both of these men believe that commercial broadcasting companies should fund strictly public broadcasting.  He also proposes more “democratic” means of control like “compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

Believe it or not, that’s not the worst to come out of Sunstein’s mouth or from his pen lately.  Sunstein actually believes that Obama and those working as part of his administration should interpret federal laws, not the federal courts.

“There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein.

This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein’s 2006 Yale Law School paper, “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws.

See why I’m pulling my hair out and screaming? This is sheer insanity and the man still argues that this is all constitutional!

2 Comments

Filed under Big Brother, Constitution, Czars, Establishment, Fairness Doctrine, FCC, Media, Net Neutrality, Obama Administration, Progressivism, Radicals, Sunstein

King Obama To Head The UN Security Council; He’s Also Scrapping The Missile Shield

When you are an egomaniac, promote yourself.  I learned several years ago that EGO was just an acronym for Easing God Out.  There is no room for faith, spirituality, or another higher power when you believe you are God.  I believe Barack Obama is an egomaniacal narcissist, unfortunately.  His latest power grab comes not in domestic policy but foreign.  He plans on appointing himself the head of the United Nations Security Council, where he also set the agenda for Thursday, September 24.

The council, which next meets Sept. 24, deals with a host of global challenges, including nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The Obama administration hopes to use the month-long appointment to emphasize a departure from the Bush administration’s strategy of pursuing its own unilateral policies through the council.. 

The head of the council is usually assigned to a delegate or the UN Ambassador, not the president of the United States. Many are arguing that this is unprecedented and unconstitutional, however, it technically is only the former and not the latter.

There are valid arguments against heading up such a council, such as, how would this not be a conflict of interest, or cause a divided loyalty issue?  Will Obama side with America or with the UN?  This could also stretch him too thin.  Has anyone seen a manager or supervisor who couldn’t delegate work?  Usually the team and the manager struggle to reach their objectives.  At this juncture in America’s history, there is too much that needs to be focused on, rather than Obama’s apparent goal to run the world.

Photobucket  

The narcissism is just so incredibly absurd that I can only imagine a larger drop in his approval rating once more of the public catches wind of this.  Could you imagine the outcry if Bush did something like this?

Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. The president didn’t just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2 at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: “The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.”

This seemingly innocuous language has two profoundly disturbing features. First, UN documents indicate that the Security Council is currently dealing with over 100 issues. While “non-proliferation” is mentioned, “disarmament” is not. Similarly, a UN Secretariat compilation “forecasting the Council’s program of work” for the month of September — based on prior activities and requests — lists non-proliferation specifically in relation to Iran and North Korea and does not list disarmament. But in light of Obama’s wishes, a tailor-made subheading will likely be adopted under the existing entry “maintenance of international peace and security.” The new item will insist on simultaneous consideration of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and make no mention of particular states.

[…] 

Second, Obama’s agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council’s plate — those that name Iran and North Korea. This stretches his “beer summit” technique to the global scale. Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract. The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: “Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”  

To add insult to injury and almost clear up this administration’s intentions, which resemble those of Carter’s, Obama has decided to scrap the missile shield project originally set to be constructed in Poland and the Czech Republic. 

The most “transparent” and humble president in our nation’s history also left the Senate out of this major foreign policy decision.

McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, told The Hill the White House never notified his committee and that he was unaware of the decision until he was notified Thursday morning. 

“It was an unfortunate decision, and it was made without consultation with the Czech Republic and the Polish government, and Congress was not briefed,” McCain said. “I think it sends a message to the Russians that could encourage them, and I think it sends a message to our friends and allies not to count on our commitments.”

I don’t think hail to the chief will cut it anymore – time to redo a version of “God Save The Queen” for King Obama.

5 Comments

Filed under Congress, Obama, Obama Administration, Progressivism

Internet Power Grabs and Information Control

There are more power grab attempts taking place right under our collective noses.  The only reason that some of us know about these bills and plans is due to the Internet and the investigative reporting by bloggers and online journalists.

CNET.com recently came across a bill that was drafted by Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia. This bill is significantly smaller than those that have been getting pummeled down our throats and rushed through congress in the recent months. The bill is only 55 pages long and some of the provisions in this draft make sense, but others raise serious concerns.

The section in question is the one which would give the president complete control of the Internet should a cybersecurity threat or emergency arise.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

This should raise red flags for everyone on both sides of the aisle. Not only could this be a hindrance on our freedom of speech via the Internet, but this gives the central government complete control of an important information gathering tool that has been predominantly unregulated, and has worked quite well for people of all ages to stay informed no matter what ideological side one may fall on.

If this bill were to pass and ultimately there was an instance where the President deemed it necessary to control the Internet, there is no telling, at what point, the control would stop.  There is also no telling who will have that very same control in the next 4 or 8 years when new presidential elections take place and the pendulum swings.

Who would decide what’s an emergency and what is not?  The current administration and cabinet positions are so heavily politicized, that it wouldn’t surprise me if a crisis was created just to stifle dissent on the Internet.

The government also has various agencies and even private companies that monitor the Internet and Cybersecurity so why would the President need to have that control all by his lonesome?  The answer is he doesn’t need that power and he shouldn’t have it!

The fairness doctrine will not come to pass because too many people in mainstream America know what the bill entails. The new fairness doctrine will come through bills like these being slipped through Congress, the Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, who believes in controlling the Internet or any other source of information that he deems untrue/disingenuous, or through the FCC Diversity ‘Czar’ Mark Lloyd.

If Mark Lloyd’s Prelude to a Farce and his beliefs about Hugo Chavez’s magnificent revolution, or Cass Sunstein’s book On Rumors, where he wants to regulate the Internet, is not enough to make a person cringe, then Obama’s new plan to harvest information from social networking sites should.

NLPC has uncovered a plan by the White House New Media operation to hire a technology vendor to conduct a massive, secret effort to harvest personal information on millions of Americans from social networking websites.

The information to be captured includes comments, tag lines, emails, audio, and video. The targeted sites include Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and others – any space where the White House “maintains a presence.”

In the course of investigating procurement by the White House New Media office, NLPC discovered a 51-page solicitation of bids that was filed on Friday, August 21, 2009. Filed as Solicitation # WHO-S-09-0003, it is postedat FedBizzOps.com. Click here to download a 51-page pdf of the solicitation.

So why is the Obama administration so interested in all of this control?  Why is there no outcry from the left?  The Patriot Act looks like child’s play compared to the expansion of government under Obama in only 7 months.

Leave a comment

Filed under Big Brother, Congress, Constitution, Czars, Democrats, Double Standards, Hypocrisy, Obama, Obama Administration, Progressivism