Video: Powerful tool against Demo-thugs ~ By Phil Elmore

In today's column, Phil discusses how the Democrats and their media lapdogs don't feel that what Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) did was any big deal. The blatant assault had been caught on video, which you can see just below:

June 14, 2010 - Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk

Video provided by StageRightShow

Not only was what Etheridge did a case of assault on the "students," it was also an attempted assault on the First Amendement! As Phil mentions, Liberals would nothing better than taking away the ability of people to expose cases like Etheridge's assault by making it illegal. In fact, in three states, it is now illegal to video tape police officers while they are on duty! That kind of law seems to be a clear violation of the First Amendment as long as the person taking the video is not interfering with the police officers' official duties! Just sayin'...

The only way to combat Democratic violence is through exposing it. Wireless phone cameras and video sharing online have given citizens great power. The technology to transmit truth is under assault from those whom it reveals, however. Authorities increasingly are responding to video of abuses of power by criminalizing the recording of law-enforcement officers in public.

Over and over again, Democrats sneer at the rule of law while using it to rule you. They smear and marginalize all those who oppose them as "potentially" violent domestic terrorists, while their acts of aggression and oppression go unpunished. The liberals will not be satisfied until your ability to expose their perfidy has been made illegal. They will not stop unless they are voted out of power – or until their totalitarian control is complete.

By Phil Elmore

Posted: June 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Earlier this month, news, "infotainment" and video sites suddenly were saturated with damning video of Democrat Bob Etheridge attacking a college student who attempted to interview him on a public street. Slurring his words as if brain-addled or drunk, the brutish Etheridge grabs the arm and neck of the student before him, ignoring repeated pleas to stop. "Who are you? Who are you?" he moans like Frankenstein's monster, mumbling that he has a "right" to know the identities of anyone who presumes to question his imperial authority.

Predictably, the menagerie of Democrats, liberals and leftist fellow travelers in the media defended, dismissed or insincerely and weakly condemned Etheridge's behavior in that order, because Democrats are always presumed by other Democrats to be above the laws governing what a BP executive might term the "small people."

The best example was the New York Times, whose staff immediately dove to cover a member of their ideological team. The Times resurrected a years-old incident and claimed, essentially, that "everybody does it." Assaulting a member of the media is no big deal, to the libs. Why, just ask Martha Coakely, who blithely watched one of her "aides" repeatedly rough up a reporter – yet another citizen whose only crime was neglecting to lower his gaze and drop his camera in the august presence of a Democrat politician.

"So, who were the young men hassled by Bob Etheridge?" demanded David Weigel of the Washington Post. After tepidly proclaiming that Etheridge's assault was "disgraceful," Weigel speculates that, well, gosh, we just can't know whether legal charges will be filed against Etheridge, because we can't confirm that those dastardly interviewers were indeed "students" (quotations added by Weigel). "Politicians can expect journalists or political operatives, some armed with cameras, to occasionally lie in wait for them outside fundraisers," Weigel admits. "But it's something else to ask the people with the cameras who they are and get nonanswers about 'students' and 'projects.'" One wonders if Weigel had similar comments to make when Michael Moore made a name for himself using precisely these types of "gotcha" tactics, often dissembling about his purpose in conducting his interviews.

Meanwhile, Alexandra Petri, at the Washington Post, went so far as to declare Etheridge's clear act of criminal assault "old news" while joking about it. "Members of Congress have been assaulting people for over a hundred years," she wrote, before unconvincingly and limply denouncing Etheridge's completely unjustified physical violence as "immature behavior" we ought not encourage. After all, she points out, college students like the ones who dared, impudently and without subtlety, to question a Great and Mighty Democrat politician, can be, in Petri's words, "annoying," and thus she doesn't "lack sympathy for Etheridge."

I mean, come on – somebody possibly linked to those people who exposed ACORN's criminal behavior dared to put a camera in the man's face. Wouldn't you respond immediately with fisticuffs? The stampede to defend Etheridge by impugning all of Congress from the inception of our government was reminiscent of the rush to defend Bill Clinton during his impeachment. After Clinton wagged his righteously indignant finger for the media while lying to hundreds of millions of people, liberal media hacks flooded their publications with puff pieces on the cultural benefits and pervasiveness of lying.

The thuggery of Democrats will only get worse. No less a political figure than Barack Hussein Obama has, after all, made invocations of physical violence his rhetorical stock in trade. Confronted with dissenters? Argue violently with them by getting "in their face," the president urges. As lib shock troops wave billy clubs at polling places and get away with it, as union backbreakers intimidate, beat and mutilate any who dare to oppose Obama's agenda, the Democrats continue to support "gun control" because disarming you makes it easier for them to beat and murder you when you disagree with them.

Critical to exposing the violent, reprehensible conduct of Bob Etheridge was the presence of a video camera. Were the video not now viral, it would be a lying Democrat's word against those of his critics (who, after all, can't be trusted, because we don't know for a fact that they're "students") in the court of popular culture opinion. The video evidence changes that and puts bullies like Etheridge, not to mention countless other Democrat thugs, on the defensive.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Guns save lives ~ By John Stossel

John Stossel used to go along with his mainstream media colleagues, he now admits, that guns were evil. But that has changed. (He didn't happen to say when his opinion changed, though. Was it before or after he left ABC to go work for Fox Business News?) He now believes that guns reduce crime because criminals do not know when their victim may be packing heat. And of course, we realize, he now has it right. Keep in mind that many of the mass shootings, like at Virginia Tech, are in gun-free zones. That should tell the anti-gun people something, wouldn't you think? Just sayin'...

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. District politicians then loosened the law but still have so many restrictions that there are no gun shops in the city and just 800 people have received permits. Nevertheless, contrary to the mayor's prediction, robbery and other violent crime are down.

Because Heller applied only to Washington, that case was not the big one. McDonald v. Chicago is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on that next week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago forbids it.

If the Supremes say McDonald has that right, then restrictive gun laws will fall throughout America.

By John Stossel

Posted: June 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

You know what the mainstream media think about guns and our freedom to carry them.

Pierre Thomas of ABC: "When someone gets angry or when they snap, they are going to be able to have access to weapons."

Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "I wonder if in a free society violence is always going to be a part of it if guns are available."

Keith Olbermann, who usually can't be topped for absurdity: "Organizations like the NRA ... are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country."

"Trying to?" Well, I admit that I bought that nonsense for years. Living in Manhattan, working at ABC, everyone agreed that guns are evil. And that the NRA is evil. (Now that the NRA has agreed to a sleazy deal with congressional Democrats on political speech censorship, maybe some of its leaders are evil, but that's for another column.)

Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means – hold onto your seat – less crime.

How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year? Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.

This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly.

But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives.

Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a man began shooting diners with his handgun, even stopping to reload. Suzanna's parents were two of the 23 people killed. (Twenty more were wounded.)

Suzanna owned a handgun, but because Texas law at the time did not permit her to carry it with her, she left it in her car. She's confident that she could have stopped the shooting spree if she had her gun. (Texas has since changed its law.)

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

News detoxification time! ~ By Herman Cain

Herman has a great idea, but it isn't anything I could do! The withdrawal would be more than I could endure. And besides, I would have to have an intervention session. And I know how that would go. It would have to be done by some liberal. It would probably go like something from "The Exorcist" and a liberal would get thrown out of a window. Just sayin'...

There is one thing Congress should do before it takes an extended vacation, and that is to make the current tax rates permanent. It would provide some much-needed certainty about taxes, which would cause businesses to start growing their businesses again. Yes, we would then see some real job growth instead of imaginary and saved jobs.

If voters could persuade Congress to kill the cap-and-trade bill and make the tax rates permanent while I am on vacation from America's problems, my return would be like waking up to a wonderful dream.

If not, I will be returning to the same national nightmare we are in right now.

By Herman Cain

Posted: June 21, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I know you are not going to believe this commentary, but try.

I am not going to read, watch or listen to any news stories about what is going on in this country for the next seven days. The only exception would be if I overhear someone mention that there has been another national or natural disaster. Otherwise, nada! Nor am I doing any of my radio shows.

I am taking a vacation from the problems of America.

For one week:

• I will not hear another toothless Obama speech.

• I will not hear another liberal try and defend the president's mishandling of the crisis in the Gulf, mishandling of the economy and national security.

• I will not hear or read another analysis of Obama's leadership deficiencies, and there are many such analysis including mine.

• I will not hear about another spending proposal by the Democrats to stimulate the economy, even though the first spending binge did not work.

• I will not hear another warning about the unsustainable spending by the president and Congress, which they continue to ignore.

• I will not hear about another tax proposal introduced in Congress to prevent further damage to a stalled economy, only to be rejected by the Democrats.

• I will not hear about yet another grenade discovered in the health-care-deform legislation, which raises taxes and impedes our choices and our liberties.

• I will not have to endure more congressional bashing of British Petroleum for pure political theater, which has produced absolutely no benefit to solving the problem.

• I will not have to endure more deceptive stories about an economic recovery, the ups and downs of the stock market or the economic pain of the 15 million unemployed people who are suffering because of presidential, administration and congressional incompetence.

The last time I did a national-news detoxification was in 2004, and when I came back I had decided to run for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, because I could no longer sit on the sidelines and watch what was happening to this country even then without trying to do what I could do. We owe it to our grandchildren.

Although I finished an impressive second place in that Republican primary race in 2004, I have been defending the pursuit of happiness ever since through commentaries, speeches, radio and TV. Who knows what moment of insanity about public office I might have this time after my news detoxification? I'm just saying.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The tea party does care about immigration issue ~ By Tom Tancredo

It's amazing. We find out from Tom's column that certain Tea Party Movement leaders seem(ed) to think that illegal immigration and border security wasn't a part of the grass-roots issues! What are (were) they thinking? Some of them are now rethinking that strategy. My favorite part of the column was when Tom wrote, "In retrospect, it is amazing that the organizers and promoters of citizen protests against big government and beltway boondoggles thought they could exclude this issue from a genuine grass-roots movement."

Are the so-called "leaders" of Tea Party movement organizations really on our side? For any of them to NOT consider the issues of border security and illegal immigration and amnesty is beyond comprehension. All they had to do is look back to the time from 2004 to 2007 and see how the Bush amnesty plan went down in flames. And, they had to know that it was because of a grass-roots uprising, where millions of people flooded the Congressional phone lines, mail boxes, and fax machines with protests against the amnesty plan.

Any of the so-called tea party leadership better start getting it right, or get out of our way! Just sayin'...

Local tea-party activists from California to Florida and from Idaho to Massachusetts now see the immigration issue the same way 71 percent of Arizona citizens see it – as a matter of national security, public safety and fiscal necessity. They want their legislators to enact Arizona-style laws in their own states, and they join 88 percent of Americans in saying they want more border security.

Self-proclaimed tea-party leaders in Washington, D.C., who want to deny or obstruct this new tea-party consensus do so at their peril.

By Tom Tancredo

Posted: June 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Local tea-party groups from Orlando to Phoenix and San Diego to Nashville have rallied to support Arizona's new immigration law.

Over the past 15 months since the beginning of the tea-party movement, there has been an organized effort to keep the immigration issue off the tea-party agenda. That effort has failed. Score round one a victory for grass-roots democracy.

The effort to keep immigration off the tea-party agenda has not been any kind of conspiracy; in fact, it has been quite open and unapologetic. For example, the national Tea Party Patriots, which is affiliated with Richard Armey's Washington, D.C.-based Freedom Works organization, has been vocal and systematic in excluding immigration-related concerns from its "Contract from America." Touted as a grass-roots poll of tea-party members, the poll from its inception has barred any attempt to add immigration concerns to the poll's menu of issues. Thus, the lack of any reference to border security or immigration enforcement in the final "Contract" comes as no surprise. Fortunately, the real world intervened, and real patriots found their voice.

In April, Arizona lawmakers passed and Gov. Jan Brewer signed a new immigration-enforcement law, S.B. 1070, and the open-borders libertarians who had worked so hard to control the tea-party agenda woke up to a new world.

When you stop to think about it, this reawakening of citizen concern over border security should not have come as a surprise. The lessons of the failed 2004-2007 push for amnesty legislation were clear. From the moment in January 2004 when President Bush launched his amnesty proposals, to the defeat of the Senate amnesty bill in the summer of 2007, the opposition to amnesty came from grass-roots conservatives and ordinary Americans, not from the Republican establishment. In retrospect, it is amazing that the organizers and promoters of citizen protests against big government and beltway boondoggles thought they could exclude this issue from a genuine grass-roots movement.

There have been two distinct groups within the tea-party leadership attempting to keep immigration off the tea-party agenda. One group is amenable to reason and has in fact become accommodated to the issue. Those are individuals who oppose amnesty but believe that the tea-party movement must stick to economic issues of low taxes and limited government if it is to be successful in changing the direction of government. That's a reasonable viewpoint, and reasonable people can disagree over how important the immigration issue is compared to other issues.

The second group of tea-party leaders who have fought the inclusion of immigration in the tea-party agenda are open-borders libertarians who support amnesty. They are folks found at Freedom Works, the Club for Growth and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. They have opposed allowing immigration onto the tea-party agenda because they understand very well that grass-roots conservatives and tea-party patriots oppose amnesty by a margin of at least 80-20.

Thus, from the beginning of the tea-party movement, the authentic voices of grass-roots tea-party activists were ruled "out of order" by leaders who wanted to control the agenda. What changed that was not some coup at the top. What changed the agenda was the lightening bolt out of Arizona at the end of April, the enactment of S.B. 1070. Arizona stood up and said, "Basta! Enough!"

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet

And yet another story about the Net "Kill Switch" which I am including as it gives another perspective about this situation. (See RELATED STORIES at the bottom of this page following the story.) There are also some links to information that wasn't provided in the two previous stories that I've posted this weekend. But, to be starkly up front with you, what really drew me to this column is the following graphic!

Barry at the Net "Kill Switch"

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.

Government would have “absolute power"
to seize control of the world wide web
under Lieberman legislation

By Paul Joseph Watson

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”

The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.

Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence. (Emphasis my own)

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

READ FULL STORY at PrisonPlanet.com

RELATED STORIES:
Should president have Net 'kill switch'? ~ By Joseph Farah
Is Obama getting Web 'kill switch'?

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

Gandalf Goes to the World Cup

With the Gulf of Mexico quickly becoming an oil bath, I think it's time to lighten things up a little today.

And speaking of Oilbamagate, why haven't they figured out how to plug the hole yet? For heaven's sakes, why haven't they tried filling the hole with ABC gum? Even Obama's kids knew that! And all this to interrupt yacht races and... oh, yeah, Obama's golf game with Joe Biden. Hmmm....

And then there is the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010. Why aren't more people talking about that threat to our freedom? Joe Lieberman wants to give President Oilbama the "Kill Twitter Switch!" Wait, I thought they already had that. Enough with the stupid whale already! And even worse, AG Eric Holder wants to use the Act to kill the Mafia Wars on Facebook before Costra Nostra takes over the country... (He obviously doesn't want to follow in J. Edgar Hoover's footsteps!)

Well, in the meantime, a new issue has risen in the news cycle. It seems that there is a rising threat of vuvuzela terrorism going on at the World Cup soccer tournament in South Africa. A friend of mine that lives in South Africa tells me that people keep thinking that they are hearing swarms of bees... That can't be good. And then there's the threat of a looming worldwide AIDS epidemic because of people blowing each others vuvuzela. Quick, somebody call WHO! Ban the vuvuzela now before this becomes another Illuminati NWO conspiracy theory! Never mind, Alex Jones has it covered...

And speaking of the vuvuzela... I had no idea what it was. It all started with my friend on twitter on Friday, when TXCupCake tweeted "If you don't follow these tweeps, I'll be forced to blow my vuvuzela at you!..." Huh?  Yep, I had to ask... I haven't been following the World Cup soccer thing, (ever!)... And I received the answer quickly from TXCupCake: "@johnny2k Let me warn you.... it's the most annoying (sic) noise in the world... (aside from Hilary Clinton's laugh) http://www.vuvuzela.fm/"

Now that we have all of the severely serious (or is that seriously severe?) stories out of the way, it's time for my Fathers' Day gift to lighten up your day, DAD! Now, this is what I call entertainment for my father (and even if he has no idea who Gandalf is, he shouldn't feel bad, because I don't have a clue, either!):

Gandalf Goes to the World Cup


June 18, 2010 — The fellowship of the vuvuzela! Middle Earth is preparing for the World Cup.

Video provided by PistolShrimps

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

Is Obama getting Web 'kill switch'?

Okay, now I am starting to get freaked out. It is getting difficult keeping all of these cyber-security agencies straight. Some are part of the Dept. of Defense, and some are part of Homeland Security within the National Security Agency (NSA). While I was reading this column, I noticed that the story's author, Michael Carl, didn't provide very many links. I surfed around in google.com, and added a few of the links myself where appropriate. This way, you can do some of your own surfing as you read this, and hopefully eliminate some confusion as to what is going on here.

I need to reiterate what I had written earlier this morning when posting Joseph Farah's column, "Should president have Net 'kill switch'?":

I have to agree with Joseph that it is doubtful that there would be any national security scenario that would provide a good "excuse" to hit the "kill switch." I guess Senator Joe Lieberman must not be aware of US-CERT (United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team) under Dept. of Homeland Security. I think they have the cyber-security threats under control, and there would be absolutely NO reason for anyone to need to hit the "Kill Switch" button. Well, not unless.... ummm... they wanted to cut off all communication so that people wouldn't be able to find out what is going on in a "national emergency." In other words, as Joseph talks about, it's a 1st Amendment issue ONLY.

And now, I'm not honestly so sure that the concern for the 1st Amendment is truly an issue. Under key elements of the legislation (See #5) in one of the articles I read, it says the following:

Creation of a responsible framework, developed in coordination with the private sector, for the President to authorize emergency measures to protect the nation’s most critical infrastructure if a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited. The President must notify Congress in advance before exercising these emergency powers. Any emergency measures imposed must be the least disruptive necessary to respond to the threat and will expire after 30 days unless the President extends them. The bill authorizes no new surveillance authorities and does not authorize the government to ‘take over’ private networks.

The "kill switch" - emergency measures, in other words - is apparently supposed to be limited in order to minimize disruption to the Net. So, maybe the uproar about this legislation being a threat to the 1st Amendment isn't completely warranted. However, the amount of money to pay for cyber-security and the additional growth of the government (Big Brother) is greatly concerning. And I must admit, there is always the possibility that at some point of time, all of these new cyber-security agencies could become a threat to our freedom at some point in time. Just sayin'...

The newly operational status of the Cyber Command also is driving concern about the federal government's interest in taking control of the Internet. CNET News reported last August concern over a federal takeover of the Internet was fueled by the introduction of a Senate bill that would give President Obama the authority to take command of the system – or prevent private computers from having access.

The fury over possible federal control of the Internet has not abated, according to a report by Federal News Radio's Tom Temin and Amy Morris.

Temin and Morris say the bill proposed by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Delaware Sen. Tom Carper would give the president authority to shut down the Internet in the event of a cyber attack. The shutdown actions would be done through the Department of Homeland Security.

Plan cites security to ramp up government control over Internet

Posted: June 17, 2010 ~ 8:37 pm Eastern

By Michael Carl

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Congress is proposing a tighter grip by the government on the Internet, with a new "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010" that would, among other things, give the president a "kill switch" on the Web, critics charge.

Officials with Judicial Watch, a government-watchdog group that investigates and prosecutes government misbehavior, said the plan simply is "keeping with the big-government script" of the Obama administration.

The organization said the bill would grant the federal government "absolute power" to shut down Internet activity and allow the president to take it over in the name of "national security."

The proposal essentially would require broadband providers, search engines and software firms to "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" within the Department of Homeland Security.

Punishment would await offenders.

Judicial Watch said the alarming plan would give the government the power to force private companies to participate in "information sharing" with the government and allow authorities to monitor the "security status" of private websites and others.

"Yet another new government agency (National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications) will be created to police the industry and any company that 'relies on' the Internet, the telephone system or any other component of the 'information infrastructure' will be subject to its command," the organization said.

"The new (National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications) will have no less than two deputy directors and liaison officers to the Defense, Justice and Commerce departments as well as the director of national intelligence."

Judicial Watch also said arming the president with an Internet "kill switch" easily could be misused to silence free speech "under the pretext of a national emergency." (emphasis added by me)

There already is an organization set up to manage such situations and it includes personnel from the National Security Agency, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and policymakers (politicians), according to a report from WND columnist Andrea Shea King.

The administration agency, dubbed CYBERCOM, is set up within the Department of Defense and reports it is both a defense and an offense in that it can engage in preemptive "strikes" intended to disrupt threats, she reported.

Big Brother in 1984

At a site called "Tech 1984 - Where Technology and Big Brother Collide," a commentator suggested: "Even though the primary purpose of CYBERCOM is to protect government and military networks, there is incredible pressure to extend that 'protection' to civilian and business networks as well. In fact, the second-highest official at the Pentagon, William Lynn III, deputy secretary of defense, recently announced that the Department of Defense might start a protective program for civilian networks. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated the same thing in June 2009."

The new legislative proposal comes at the same time the Federal Communications Commission still is attempting to act on a policy called "net neutrality." CNET Networks reported in April that a federal court ruled that the FCC could not act on net neutrality, but the court decision hasn't stopped the push for that agenda as the FCC is still attempting to regulate the Internet using federal rules used to control phone lines.

A government systems analyst who publishes the Tech 1984 site and prefers to use the pseudonym Winston, a name borrowed from Winston Smith from George Orwell's "1984," said the newly activated Cyber Command was proposed last year by Defense Secretary William Gates as a means to protect the military's vast Internet network from attacks by outside or hostile forces.

"Winston" is a confidential source with connections to the cybersecurity industry.

Director Maj. Gen. Steven Smith said in a statement posted on the Army's site that the new agency will be responsible for defending Army information networks from threats around the globe.

"The mission for (the Cyber Command) is to direct the operation and defense of all Army networks, and, on order, conduct full-spectrum operations in support of our combatant commanders and coalition partners," Smith said.

Smith said the new unit will use existing Army and Defense resources and bring together parts of the 9th Signal Command, the First Information Operations Command and the Intelligence and Security Command.

However, Winston, the analyst, believes the new move will be aimed at civilian computer networks. Winston bases his assessment on a recent statement made by Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn.

"The best-laid defenses on military networks will matter little unless our civilian critical infrastructure is also protected. Critical infrastructure will certainly be targeted in a military conflict," Lynn stated.

"The Department of Homeland Security appropriately has the lead to protect the dot-gov and dot-mil domains. The Defense Department plays an important supporting role in this mission, and has direct responsibility for securing defense-industry networks," Lynn added.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Should president have Net 'kill switch'? ~ By Joseph Farah

Mr. Obama has wasted no time implementing this destructive, invasive, oppressive worldview where the Internet is concerned. He is, after all, the man who previously sought the power of a collective "off" switch for the Web – in the form of a Senate bill that would give the White House "the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet."

~ Phil Elmore, February 4, 2010, in "Obama's totalitarian plans for the Net"

The above quote was provided to set the stage for Joseph's column. There shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that the man in the Oval Office along with his minions have a lot of reason to be able to disconnect the Internet. I have to agree with Joseph that it is doubtful that there would be any national security scenario that would provide a good "excuse" to hit the "kill switch." I guess Senator Joe Lieberman must not be aware of US-CERT (United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team) under Dept. of Homeland Security. I think they have the cyber-security threats under control, and there would be absolutely NO reason for anyone to need to hit the "Kill Switch" button.  Well, not unless.... ummm... they wanted to cut off all communication so that people wouldn't be able to find out what is going on in a "national emergency." In other words, as Joseph talks about, it's a 1st Amendment issue ONLY.  Just sayin'...

Is the answer to security risks shutting down the nation's No. 1 communications mechanism?

It would seem to me that in almost any national emergency I could envision, the Internet would be a vital resource for every American. Why would any president want it shut down?

I think what we really need is a "kill switch" for Washington's relentless power grabs.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: June 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I guess I'm just an old First Amendment dinosaur – like my friend Nat Hentoff.

I seem to be the only person in the world truly alarmed by a new U.S. Senate bill (not one from the USSR, mind you, but from the U.S. Senate) that would give the president of the United States the authority to shut down the Internet in times of emergency.

Does that seem right to you?

As I understand it, the president already had absolute authority to direct the oil cleanup effort in the Gulf of Mexico under legislation approved by Congress. How's that working out for everyone?

Do you honestly trust this president of the United States or, for that matter, any president of the United States with that kind of censorship power?

For 230 years, the president didn't have the legislative power to pull the kill switch on the nation's newspapers or, later, the nation's radio airwaves, or, later still, the nation's television signals.

The Internet represents so much more than all of those media combined. It is quickly becoming the central communication resource for everyone. It will soon rival even the telephone for personal communications.

I'm trying to imagine the kind of emergency that would justify the president blinding and deafening 300 million Americans.

Can you figure out what that kind of emergency would look like?

Can you figure out how cutting off all communications would be a positive thing, a life-saving thing, a safety and security measure?

I sure can't.

But I can consult the congressional record to see what people like Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., had to say in justifying this draconian legislation.

He explained that these measures would allow the government "to preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people."

Huh?

OK, he elaborated: "For all its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies – cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

Of course, Lieberman has a lot of knowledge and experience in this area. You might remember, he ran on a presidential ticket with a guy who claimed to have invented the Internet.

I fully acknowledge the threats posed to our country from cyber-warfare. But the ramifications of the president being handed a "kill switch" to disable parts or potentially all of the Internet are far more grave than the threats posed by any enemies.

Terrorists and criminals have also used telephones in plotting their evil deeds. Yet I haven't heard anyone suggest the president have a "kill switch" for all telephone service.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The most dangerous president in history ~ By Henry Lamb

While Henry Lamb discusses Obama's dictatorial pattern, I'm reminded of Hugo Chavez, maybe one of the most narcissistic leaders in the world. But Hugo doesn't run a powerful country such as America, and that is the scariest part of this: Obama does. To top it all off, Henry had concluded this column with, "his vision for the rest of the world is even more frightening," and fortunately for us this morning, "That's for another day." I am not sure we need anything more to frighten us today. But actually, I think a good number of the readers at this blog probably have a very good understanding of where Obama wants to take the world. And Obama's vision for the world truly is frightening to think about. Just sayin'...

What's most dangerous about this man is his restructuring the government to be operated by a collection of appointed czars, who are not accountable to Congress, who can exercise powers not granted to the government to achieve nearly dictatorial authority over the citizens of the United States.

This is a limited look at only a few areas of domestic policy; his vision for the rest of the world is even more frightening. That's for another day.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: June 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Obama believes in the rule of law – his law. No other law is relevant. No other law matters. When Obama speaks, he expects the world to obey.

In his Tuesday night performance, he said, "I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business. …" "Inform him?" Where does Barack Hussein Obama get the authority to issue orders to the CEO of a private corporation? There is no such authority in the Constitution. There is no law that empowers the president to "inform" the CEO of any corporation how he will spend the corporation's money. Obama couldn't care less about the Constitution or the law.

There was no constitutional authority for him to essentially take over General Motors and Chrysler, or the banks. Obama couldn't care less about the law. When he speaks, he expects the world to obey.

There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to require American citizens to purchase health insurance or any other product or service. It doesn't matter. Obama spoke; his congressional majority of comrades obeyed.

In 18 months, the man has demonstrated that he cares nothing about the system of government created by our founders and enshrined in the Constitution. He has demonstrated that he fully intends to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America – as he promised in his campaign. Now we are beginning to get a picture of the nation he intends to build. The picture is frightening.

Virtually everything Obama has done since taking office has expanded both the size and power of the federal government. The federal government our founders constructed is a government limited to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. Those powers not enumerated are expressly reserved to the states and to the people.

Obama can't comprehend any limitations on his power. The moment Arizona enacted a law that empowered state law enforcement officers to check for citizenship, Obama bad-mouthed the state legislature and governor – without even reading the law. There have been arrogant presidents before, but none that can compare to the sickening self-centered narcissism that exudes from this man.

Obama's declaration that America must end its addiction to oil misses the point entirely. America is not addicted to oil at all; America is addicted to the lifestyle made possible by the most efficient, abundant energy source yet discovered. Americans would be delighted to move to any energy source that will provide the same or better lifestyle at less cost.

In a capitalist society such as America, government's role in the market is limited to providing a level playing field for the entrepreneurs who risk their own assets to provide a product or service in hopes of making a profit. Only in totalitarian systems are markets managed by government.

The reason the nation has not switched to solar, wind or other alternative energy sources has nothing to do with our addiction to oil; it has everything to do with cost and convenience.

Obama has decided that cost is irrelevant. He wants to wean America from oil and bond the nation to exotic alternatives, regardless of the cost. When Obama speaks, he expects people to obey. He is ready to artificially and unnecessarily increase the cost of carbon fuels in the form of taxes and fees, in order to fund subsidies for wind and solar energy sources. It doesn't matter to Obama that the environmental disaster that will be created by the solar farms and wind farms is much greater than the Gulf oil spill.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Is tea-party violence in the air? ~ By Joseph Farah

This column by Joseph Farah tonight reminded me of something that I had experienced back in the early 1980's, and the parallels are amazing. I hope you will excuse me for indulging in a little reminiscence for a moment, but it will tie together what the tea party movement is going through, as Joseph wrote.

Back in 1980, I joined Amway as a distributor. Jimmy Carter was still President. Once I attended my first Amway rally, I was hooked. I couldn't get enough of it, and so I bought hundreds of tapes and positive thinking books, and attended many more rallies, many very far from home. What excited me was all the people that believed in Free Enterprise and FREEDOM. What amazed me was how many people there were that thought just like me.

But the real parallel comes here: We had our detractors, just as does the Tea Party Movement. And guess who the detractors were? The liberal press, college professors, government officials, and union labor. They had the same fear of the AMWAY movement as they now have of us tea partiers! Imagine that! Just as Joseph wrote, Amway distributors, like tea partiers, were only "asking for government to get off their backs." The government wanted to regulate us out of existence if they possibly could. They (liberals) didn't like Amway distributors because we weren't asking for handouts. We didn't want anything to do with government programs. We were just people that wanted Freedom and the opportunity to be financially independent, on our own, without their assistance.

In a way, I think the Amway distributor army was the genesis of Tea Party movement. Who knows, but I would guess that a lot of those of us that were (or are) in Amway may have been some of the first to rally around the Tea Party Movement. We just want freedom for all who will listen. Just sayin'...

The horror of it all! That the tea-party movement would attempt to persuade people they are right without coercion and without attempting to seize power is perhaps the scariest part of all to people like Bernstein and most of the media and political elite in this country.

Yet, it is exactly what is so appealing about the tea-party movement to me.

Here's what I see when I attend tea-party gatherings, as I will again July 15 in Las Vegas: I see love of one's country. I see responsibility. I see commitment to the Constitution. I see the most potent grass-roots political movement to arise in America in my lifetime. And I see hope.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: June 18, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

To read some of the hyperventilating opinion about the tea-party movement, you would almost certainly have to conclude that its brief history has been littered with at least small acts of random violence.

College professors who have encouraged students to riot, throw stones, barricade themselves in university buildings and disrespect police and military authorities decry the "fierce anger," "seething anger" and "rage" of the tea-party movement. Media people who observe the leftist demonstrations du jour degenerate into chaos and real violence without remotely approaching condemnation are aghast and instilled with fear by the peaceful singing and chanting at the tea-party rallies.

It's not just a matter of predicting that a wave of revolutionary violence is coming from the tea-party constituency, it is an assumption in quarters that have heretofore coddled, encouraged, overlooked, dismissed, enabled and excused such excesses when committed by supporters of "good causes."

"To date, the Tea Party has committed only the minor, almost atmospheric violences of propagating falsehoods, calumny and the disruption of the occasions for political speech – the last already to great and distorting effect," writes philosophy professor J.M. Bernstein in The New York Times. "But if their nihilistic rage is deprived of interrupting political meetings as an outlet, where might it now go? With such rage driving the Tea Party, might we anticipate this atmospheric violence becoming actual violence, becoming what Hegel called, referring to the original Jacobins' fantasy of total freedom, 'a fury of destruction'? There is indeed something not just disturbing, but frightening, in the anger of the Tea Party."

I'm not afraid of the tea party.

Are you?

I'm more afraid of my government and the way it is exceeding all legal constraints on its authority.

In fact, I'm certain that the tea party – a spontaneous, grass-roots uprising of hard-working, law-abiding Americans calling out their elected leaders and the bureaucratic army they employ on their excesses and abuses – is the answer to our country's crisis.

Thus, in America today, we have a political polarization not seen in this country since the 1960s – one so deep and wide and pronounced that those on either side can't even understand what the other is saying. They are not speaking the same language. They might as well be from different planets.

That's how I feel when I hear people denounce the tea-party movement as a group of angry, bitter troglodytes who don't even know what they want.

Listen to the ravings of Bernstein, again: "In truth, there is nothing that the Tea Party movement wants; terrifyingly, it wants nothing."

In a sense, he's right. The tea-party movement, more than anything, is a movement of people who want to be left alone, who wish to be self-governing individuals in a land of limited government, just as the founders promised.

They're not asking for a bigger piece of the pie. They're not asking for handouts. They're not asking for special rights based on the color of their skin or their bedroom practices. They're asking for government to get off their backs.

That terrifies Bernstein and his ilk. Why? Because it means these people can't be bought off so easily.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The Great Pretender ~ By Robert Ringer

It is always more fun putting these blogs together when there is a relevant video to include, especially one that is entertaining. This one here was the perfect fit for Robert's column:

The Platters - The Great Pretender

Video provided by bintangtheater1

Of course, as fun as it is to entertain you for a few moments, I don't want the above video to distract you from what Robert was saying in this column. I noticed that Robert was mentioning Huckabee's show last week, where "He paraded out one guest after another – entrepreneurs, inventors, engineers and chemists – to present remarkable solutions for cleaning up the oil in the Gulf." And yet, Obama did nothing. It reminded me of what I wrote regarding Erik Rush's column last night, "It's the sabotage, stupid!" I wrote:

It's probably just me, but it's almost as if the Obama administration allowed the oil rig disaster and resulting spill to get as bad as it is so that there would be a much bigger crisis that they wouldn't let go to waste.

And this column by Robert Ringer seems to be even more support for my suspicions. Just sayin'...

Obama has been following FDR's dictatorial playbook to the T. In his 1937 inaugural address, at a time when unemployment was still rising (15 percent on Inauguration Day), FDR bodaciously said, "Our progress out of the Depression is obvious."

Sound familiar? It should. With the economy on the verge of total collapse, The Great Pretender continues to look his teleprompters in the eye and tell Americans how he's saved the country from a depression and that "the worst is now behind us." He always sounds so darn convincing when he says these things, but I hear through the White House grapevine that on at least one occasion after slinging this kind of B.S., he was overheard singing to himself in the Oval Office:

Oh yes, I'm the great pretender,
Pretending that I'm doing well.
My need is such, I pretend too much,
I'm lonely but no one can tell.

Lacking a really great crisis, The Great Pretender, hopefully, is going to feel a lot lonelier starting next January.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: June 18, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The Marxmeister in the White House now says he takes full responsibility for ending the oil mess in the Gulf. He also says he wants to "know whose a-- to kick," that he "can't suck it up with a straw," and … well, you know … the ongoing narcissistic spiel – "I, me, my … blah, blah, blah" – day after day, week after week, ad nauseam.

Watching his recent performances on the Gulf oil disaster made me think about a monster hit The Platters had in the '50s called "The Great Pretender." Little did they know that the champion Great Pretender wouldn't even be born until 1961 – probably in Kenya … but, then, no one is really sure about that because no one is allowed to see his birth certificate.

Everyone but 1) those on the far left, 2) Bill O'Reilly and 3) the loons (O'Reilly's word) who have yet to return from lunch realizes that The Great Pretender has had a Marxist agenda since even before his pot-smoking days at Columbia. Names like Wright, Ayers, Lloyd, Dunn, Sunstein, Holdren and Jones (both Jeff and Van) are well-known to those who have taken the trouble to learn about The Great Pretender's agenda.

As ever more people come to realize that the country has been hijacked by this angry young Marxist, many would argue that a better title for him might be The Great Reactor. Obama listens to the news – especially Fox News – then reacts to his critics by saying or doing whatever they accuse him of not saying or doing, or by changing his tune regarding something he's said or done that offends too many people. Sort of humorous to watch – if the fate of an entire country were not at stake, that is.

Perhaps I'm getting soft with age, but I almost feel sorry for The Great Pretender. His flipping and flopping and spinning and twisting and contradictions have become downright embarrassing. He's Abbott and Costello and Laurel and Hardy all rolled into one. I admit it – I'm truly embarrassed for him.

Now, of all people, Mike Huckabee – continuing his swift turnabout in an effort to make voters forget about his slobbering interview of Michelle Obama (who, he tried to convince us, wakes up every morning frantically worrying about childhood obesity) – has succeeded in making The Great Pretender look like an incompetent, arrogant boob.

Hopefully, you saw The Huckster's show last weekend. He paraded out one guest after another – entrepreneurs, inventors, engineers and chemists – to present remarkable solutions for cleaning up the oil in the Gulf. It truly was amazing to watch the simplicity of the methods presented, as contrasted with The Great Pretender's spending his time talking about kicking a--, wagging his finger at everyone and bending over and picking up a lonely tar ball on the beach in his daily photo-ops.

Was the oil spill really just an accident? Probably. BP America Chairman and President Lamar McKay recently said that it was caused by "a failed piece of equipment." I'll buy that, at least for now. But it doesn't matter. Rahm never said that you have to create a crisis. He already knew there are crises popping up all the time. All he said was that you should never allow a good one to go to waste.

In the case of the BP oil accident, it was a slam-dunk. More to the point, it was like unlocking the door to the EPA's cage. Obviously – surprise, surprise – offshore drilling is now out of the question, right?

So it puts a few hundred thousand people out of work (ripple effect) … so what? The progressive must do what he must do to protect "the people," even if it means taking away their jobs and giving them higher gas prices to boot. What in the world would we do without government to protect us?

So, yes, the BP crisis will not be wasted if it results in an end to offshore drilling. Nevertheless, I think The Great Pretender is going to have to come up with another crisis – or two – before November to pull off a number of miracles for the Demagogic Party.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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