Obama spies, freedom dies ~ By Roger Hedgecock

Roger Hedgecock is trying to find out why there's no outrage from the left regarding Obama's abuse of power and the Constitution's 4th Amendment rights. As we know, the liberals' favorite talking points prior to Barack Obama's inauguration was how George W. Bush was violating our rights with the Patriot act and the water-boarding of several terrorists. But now? Roger writes:

But now that Obama has made a virtual American KGB out of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the CDC, such spying and tracking is becoming standard operating procedure. Where is the liberal angst and outrage? All you hear is crickets chirping.

Obama spies, freedom dies

ROGER HEDGECOCK

By Roger Hedgecock

December 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Liberals screamed like mashed cats when George Bush championed the Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, predicting that precious constitutional protections would be routinely violated by the Bush government.

It turns out liberals were right. But not about George Bush. He used the Patriot Act to monitor communications and transactions of suspected terrorists – particularly when the terrorist was, say, calling Pakistan.

Liberal fears that this power would be abused and turned on ordinary American citizens has turned out to be right – in the Obama administration.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised a domestic security force equal in funding and force to the Pentagon. This is one promise he is keeping.

The 67,000 strong Transportation Security Administration has morphed into taking nude pictures and/or engaging in full genital groping of airline passengers in the name of safety.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Me, a 'domestic extremist'? So be it! ~ By Patrice Lewis

Patrice writes about the reality of the newest TSA security procedures, and the fact that DHS now says that anyone who objects is being labeled as a domestic terrorist.

According to an article by Doug Hagmann at the Canada Free Press, an internal memo with the DHS "officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as 'domestic extremists.'"

Me, a 'domestic extremist'? So be it!

Patrice Lewis

By Patrice Lewis

November 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

This erosion of our constitutional rights spans multiple administrations, though unquestionably it has accelerated under Obama. But these "security" features go beyond keeping terrorists off airplanes. By labeling the uncooperative as "extremists," the DHS is separating the wheat from the chaff in the eyes of the government. The "wheat" (the compliant sheeple) are allowed to go about their business. The "chaff" (we who object) are duly noted and recorded and/or investigated and fined. It is not outside the realm of possibility that we "extremists" will hear a knock on our door some time in the future. Or does that make me sound paranoid?

The TSA strategy is only the first test. I foresee a lot more "wheat and chaff" tactics in the future. And I'm not the only one drawing parallels between what was once a beautiful country steeped in liberty to the paranoid disaster that befell Germany nearly 80 years ago.

I, for one, am proud to be "chaff." And by urging others to join me, I am putting myself squarely in the camp of "domestic extremist."

So be it.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RELATED STORIES:
DHS & TSA: Making a list, checking it twice ~ By Doug Hagmann
“Gate Rape” of America ~ By Dough Hagmann

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

'Controversial opinions' make for bad TSA employees ~ By Brad O'Leary

Brad O'Leary contemplates on the new TSA internet use policy that was instituted back on July 1, 2010, and quickly revised less than a week later. This commentary, combined with Phil Elmore's column (see in the RELATED STORIES list below), leads me to one certain conclusion: The Democrats will attempt to silence their critics, however they can, in order to stay in power. We should all be aware by now that the Obama power structure, pretty much a blueprint of the tactics used in Chicago-style politics, is based on silencing any critics, or at the very least, attempting to discredit them (as Obama learned in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals.").

But the last thing the Obama minions would want to happen is rebellion against what the administration is attempting to do, as Brad points out very well. They can't have the government employees accessing information that may lead them to question what they are being told to do (and I probably just made this blog banned on most government-run websites!).

I know, some of my readers will probably say that I'm just beating a dead horse, being that the less-than-one-week-old TSA policy has already been rescinded. But as I pointed out in my intro to Elmore's column, we have to stay vigilant whenever we encounter a government attempt to control information. Just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
Democrats' petty tyrannies ~ By Phil Elmore
Big Sis blowing off ban on 'controversial opinion'

Upon taking office, President Obama famously promised that his would be the most "transparent" administration in history. Here's yet another opportunity for him to make good on this promise. He should simply make public a list of all the websites TSA blocked its employees from viewing.

Wise readers won't hold their breath waiting for this list to materialize.

By Brad O'Leary

Posted: July 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It's true that many private companies and federal agencies block employee access to websites deemed either inappropriate or unnecessary for conducting business. Such policies often make sense, as the Internet, for all its time-saving capabilities, can also be a huge temptation and time-waster.

So, what to make of the recent news that employees at the Transportation Security Administration were blocked, as of July 1, from accessing any websites that fall into the following categories: "Chat/messaging; Criminal activity; Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content; Gaming; and Controversial opinion."

You can certainly make the case that siphons of our hard-earned tax dollars shouldn't be frittering away the day instant-messaging friends, learning how to make bombs, viewing celebrity autopsy photos or playing Pac-Man … but what is "controversial opinion"? What falls into that category? The Drudge Report? Fox News? WorldNetDaily? Any website that dares question or publish criticism of the logic behind the Obama administration's policy decisions?

It's worth pointing out that pornography doesn't make the list of banned websites. This is perhaps due to sensitivity on the part of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, showing deference to the well-known favorite pastime of federal "workers."

Yesterday, TSA announced that it's backing off the plan to block "controversial opinion" sites, no doubt because of intense media scrutiny. But still, why did TSA venture down this road in the first place? Lacking a detailed explanation from Napolitano or anyone at TSA, we're left to speculate as to what "controversial opinion" websites they wanted to blacklist – and why.

In my book, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech," I chronicle episodes where President Obama displayed incredibly thin skin at the slightest criticism – such as when his campaign tried to bully Chicago radio station WGN in barring two authors, who were Obama critics, from receiving any airtime.

In her short tenure, Obama's hand-picked security chief has displayed a similar penchant for using power to silence critics – most notably when her Homeland Security Department released a report labeling gun owners, Christians and limited-government advocates "right-wing extremists" and "potential terrorists" who ought to be closely monitored.

And just a few weeks ago, Napolitano declared that the federal government needs the ability to monitor Americans' Internet communications to fight homegrown terrorism.

"We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances," she said. "At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable." Ben Franklin, arguably a deeper thinker than Napolitano, warned of just such a foolish trade-off.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Democrats' petty tyrannies ~ By Phil Elmore

Phil starts us out with a story about how his grandfather was denied a position with the government because he wasn't a Democrat. Now, to see where this is going, put that story with the remainder of his column, where the TSA was going to start blocking access to various websites, including sites containing "controversial opinion." Though TSA has backed off on that broad category of websites to block, their intent has shown through as to what they wanted to do. For what reasons would the TSA have tried to block websites with "controversial opinion?" Phil explains that the attempt to block access was the result of the "Democrats' approach to power" that has not changed. "Democrats still wish to dictate what opinions you may and may not hold, see and express." It is their way of holding on to power.

In a related column, Brad O'Leary also expounds on another reason why the TSA would try to block access of their employees to the websites with "controversial opinions," and is a further jolt to what we are facing:

So it shouldn't be shocking to anyone that Napolitano might want to shield her employees from any criticism of her, or the Obama administration itself, as a way of keeping TSA workers unflinchingly loyal to whatever blatantly unconstitutional mission they're asked to carry out. Joe the Bureaucrat is much more likely to comb through the e-mails of Mary the Christian or Harry the Gun Owner if he's shut off from reading any arguments as to why what he's doing is a violation of the Constitution.

Which ever way we look at it, though, Phil's emphasis on the mindset of the Democrats/Progressives now in power is still the main point. We must stay continuously alert, because we don't know where those in power will try next to limit our information or our free speech. We know what their intent is (to stay in power, forever if possible), and we know that their tactics will never be transparent because they won't make anything public if they can get away with it (and that almost always works when it comes to the mainstream media). Only the New Media being the watchdogs, and you and I staying vigilant by spreading the information when we find out about these things, will keep tyranny in check - at least for now. Just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
'Controversial opinions' make for bad TSA employees ~ By Brad O'Leary
Big Sis blowing off ban on 'controversial opinion'

Democrats' approach to power has not changed. Decades ago, the petty tyrannies resulting from Democrats holding political power denied my grandfather a good job despite his ability to do it – because his opinions were, in eyes of those who held the reins of power, "controversial." Today, Democrats still wish to dictate what opinions you may and may not hold, see and express.

By Phil Elmore

Posted: July 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

My grandfather was an accountant. Some of my earliest memories of visiting him as a child involve his adding machine, which sat on a shelf in the dining room of the home he lived in until the day he died. I would play with that fascinating old calculator sometimes for hours, watching the spool of paper record my random numbers under my grandparents' tolerant gaze. Among other knickknacks whose number and presence were a constant in his living room seemingly for decades, my grandfather kept a humorous gift given to him by his family: a little stuffed bureaucrat, whose balding, bespectacled form bore an eerie resemblance to my grandfather. The bureaucrat sat amidst a pile of stringy red crepe paper – "red tape," natch – forever twiddling his thumbs with a resigned expression on his painted, plush face.

My grandfather's house, in a small, peaceful town outside the state capital of New York, held a lot of memories. In that house, my grandfather raised three sons and a daughter. It was that same house whose walls had once sheltered my great grandmother, a woman of whom I have only the most fleeting of memories, whose ancient sewing-kit pocket knife is among my most prized possessions. It was in that house that my grandparents, who lived through and in many ways were defined by their experiences during the Great Depression and World War II, did their best to provide a life for the family they created.

For several years of my adult life, my grandfather did my taxes. It was one of those reminders of the career he had held, from which he had retired but whose discipline he never forgot, that helped define him as a person. Twenty years ago, it was my grandfather's influence that prompted me to get a Bachelor's degree in Accounting. I don't honestly know what he thought about the fact that I ended up a writer rather than a CPA, but I know he was proud of me. While my grandparents were blessed with a large family, grandchildren and great grandchildren, I hold the distinction of being their first grandchild. I treasure the memory of who my grandparents were, and always I am aware of how hard they worked, both when I was alive and during the sometimes difficult years long before I existed.

My grandfather was other things before he was an accountant. He once ran a grocery store, for example, and some of my father's childhood memories are of that store. One of the things my grandfather never was, however, was an employee of the United States Postal Service.

Because he was a Republican.

The tale was first told to me by my father, who remembers it bitterly to this day. The family story goes like this: My grandfather – whose stoic attitude and quiet dedication to his family were surpassed only by his capacity to work, and work hard, to support that family – took a civil-service exam in an attempt to better his financial position by taking a job with the Post Office. He scored higher than any of the other applicants, but he did not get the job. The Powers that Were, at the time, were Democrats, and my grandfather was, in my father's words, "in the wrong political party." The Democratic political machine was not about to grant a coveted government job to a Republican, and so it simply didn't. I don't remember how old I was when my father first told me that story, but I do remember how disgusted he sounded when he related it.

Last week, the news broke that the Transportation Security Administration was planning to implement a policy in which it would prevent its employees from accessing any websites containing "controversial opinions." According to CBS News, the TSA intended, without explanation, to block any and all pages arbitrarily deemed "inappropriate for government access" as of the first of this month. No explanation for the move was offered, nor was there any description of the mechanism through which a website's "controversial opinions" would be evaluated. The implication was clear: Any statement of opinion with which those in charge at the TSA disagreed would be deemed verboten.

Had the policy stood, we would no doubt have been treated to subsequent horror stories about the blocking of conservative news and opinion sites like WorldNetDaily and Drudge, while equivalent liberal sites would probably have escaped contraindication. Such hypocrisy is ever the stock in trade of Democrats, liberals and their left-wing fellow travelers, who abhor free speech and are doing everything in their power to exert control over and censor the Internet.

While an employer does have the legitimate authority to censor the Internet access it provides to employees, the TSA's move exceeded this authority in its vague attempt to render political opinion illegitimate. The legions of Americans who reacted with strong outrage to the TSA's transparently Orwellian policy understood what the TSA hoped they would not: When those in power are allowed to dictate the rules without regard or respect for individual rights and constitutionally protected freedoms (such as the right to free speech), tyranny results.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Obama national-security policy: Hope their bombs don't work ~ By Ann Coulter

Ann "applauds" Obama's great national security plan of hoping the terrorists' bombs keep fizzling.

And speaking of a "highly trained federal force," who's working at the INS these days? Who on earth made the decision to allow Shahzad the unparalleled privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen in April 2009?

Our "Europeans Need Not Apply" immigration policies were absurd enough before 9/11. But after 19 foreign-born Muslims, legally admitted to the U.S., murdered 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington in a single day, couldn't we tighten up our admission policies toward people from countries still performing stonings and clitorectomies?

The NYPD can't be everyplace.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: May 05, 2010 ~ 5:16 pm Eastern

© 2010

It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word "terrorism." (And not to refer to tea-party activists!)

This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to "jump to conclusions" after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and began shooting up Fort Hood.

After last weekend, now Obama is even threatening to pronounce it "Pack-i-stan" instead of "Pahk-i-stahn." We know Obama is taking terrorism seriously because he took a break from his "Hope, Change & Chuckles" tour on the comedy circuit to denounce terrorists.

In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that – contrary to the terrorists' wishes – Americans "will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated."

First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that "not intimidated" look Obama wants America to adopt.

"Intimidated"? How about "absolutely terrified"?

Second, it would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president's entire national security strategy didn't depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger's crotch.

But after the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!

If only Dr. Hasan's gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign-policy success for Obama.

The administration's fingers-crossed strategy is a follow-up to Obama's earlier and less successful "Let's Make Them Love Us!" plan.

In the past year, Obama has repeatedly apologized to Muslims for America's "mistakes."

He has apologized to Iran for President Eisenhower's taking out loon Mohammad Mossadegh, before Mossadegh turned a comparatively civilized country into a Third World hellhole. You know, like the Ayatollah has.

He has apologized to the entire Muslim world for the French and English colonizing them – i.e. building them flush toilets.

He promised to shut down Guantanamo. And he ordered the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in the same courthouse that tried Martha Stewart.

There was also Obama's 90-degree-bow tour of the East and Middle East. For his next visit, he plans to roll on his back and have his belly scratched like Fido.

Despite favorable reviews in the New York Times, none of this put an end to Islamic terrorism.

So now, I gather, our only strategy is to hope the terrorists' bombs keep fizzling.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

How offended are you? ~ By Barbara Simpson

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Barbara Simpson Posted: January 04, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 I've had it. I'm offended and want my government to know it. I'm tired of being treated like a criminal. You can put me on the "being offended" bandwagon. Why not? It happens all the time and seems to work. If a person is ticked off by something, doesn't like something, disagrees with something or just doesn't like the look of something, all they have to say is they're "offended!" I don't want to undress in airports. I don't want to walk in stocking feet on dirty floors where thousands of feet have walked. I don't want strangers patting and touching my body. I don't want my personal items pawed through. I don't want to be exposed to machines that invade my privacy and could have health consequences! I'm tired of being treated like a criminal by my own government in my own country. I'm offended! It's the magic word to get action from weak-kneed bureaucrats and politicians and generally anyone "in charge" of some aspect of government, institutions, businesses, schools, churches, social organizations and unfortunately, even the military. Their knee-jerk reaction to any claim of alleged offense is institutional collapse. It's the result of pervasive political correctness, multi-culturalism, diversity and, quite frankly, blatant gutlessness by anyone with a title. The legitimacy of the complaint doesn't matter and, generally, no one cares. Just say it and that "something" has to stop, be changed, be derided, ridiculed or just ignored. My message to Washington is that I'm offended because every time I travel by air, you and all your transportation security people treat me like a terrorist. I am not a terrorist, never have been, never will be. There's no evidence linking me to any such activities, and I have no record of any such inclinations. There is no question of my loyalty to my country and our Constitution. I do not fit any terrorist profile. Oops. That's the problem! You and the TSA are too politically correct (read that "chicken") to profile passengers in your legitimate concern about terrorism on airliners. As a result, you treat everyone like a terrorist. READ FULL STORY >

Eyewitnesses: 2 arrested in Christmas flight terror

From WorldNetDaily

'How stupid do you think the American public is?' By Chelsea Schilling Posted: December 31, 2009 ~ 11:20 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily Several passengers aboard the Christmas Day flight to Detroit where a Nigerian man attempted to blow up the airplane say a second passenger was arrested after the foiled terrorist attack – and they suggested other men may have played roles as well. Kurt Haskell of Newport, Mich., and his wife, Lori, claim they were aboard Flight 253 as they returned from a safari in Uganda, seated only a few rows behind suspected attacker Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a man who admitted to affiliation with the terrorist group al-Qaida. Haskell presented a boarding pass to Michigan Live to show that he had been a passenger on the plane. Kurt and Lori Haskell, both U.S. attorneys with Haskell Law Firm in Taylor, Mich., told the newspaper that prior to the flight they were seated on the floor near the boarding gate in Amsterdam when Abdulmutallab approached the gate with another "Indian man" who was dressed in an expensive suit. Kurt Haskell told Michigan Live the unidentified man in the suit approached ticket agents and asked them if Abdulmutallab could board without a passport, and he tried to convince them Abdulmutallab was a Sudanese refugee. "The guy said, 'He's from Sudan and we do this all the time,'" Haskell told the newspaper. But Dutch security officials claim Abdulmutallab was carrying a valid Nigerian passport and U.S. visa, according to CBS News. Charlie Keepman of Oconomowoc, Wis., told the Detroit News that his daughter, Ricki, saw yet another man videotaping the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, including the episode when Abdulmutallab purportedly attempted to set off explosive chemicals in his underwear. Following the foiled terrorist attack, Haskell said passengers were corralled into a small, evacuated luggage claim area of an airport terminal. Then, he says, bomb-sniffing dogs were brought in. "During this time period, all of the passengers had their carry-on bags with them," he wrote in a posting on MLive.com. "When the bomb sniffing dogs arrived, one dog found something in a carry-on bag of a 30-ish Indian man." Haskell explained that the second "Indian" man was not the same well-dressed person who assisted Abdulmutallab in boarding the flight. He said this man wore orange clothing. "The man in orange, who stood some 20ft away from me the entire time until he was taken away, was immediately taken away to be searched and interrogated in a nearby room," Haskell explained. "At this time, he was not handcuffed. When he emerged from the room, he was then handcuffed and taken away." Immediately after the questioning, Haskell said an FBI agent approached the remaining passengers and, referring to the man in orange, said, "You all are being moved to another area because this area is not safe. I am sure many of you saw what just happened and are smart enough to read between the lines and figure it out." READ FULL STORY >