Categories
Archives
Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

You have just met the enemy……any more questions where Obama stands? Valerie Jarrett is his most trusted adviser in the White House!

Screen_shot_2015-01-31_at_4.06.16_PM

Obama’s Soros-backed internet grab is underway

George-Soros-SC
The mystery surrounding the Obama Administration’s “Net Neutrality” rules is giving way to panic, even on the Left.

The Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has refused, on the eve of the rules change, to even speak to Congress, which suddenly has a lot of questions.

Questions are understandable, since even Silicon Valley advocates of Net Neutrality seem incapable of explaining what it is and why we need it.

Gives the little guy a break, regulates the Internet, increases competition, raises taxes, slows down data speed, lines the pockets of Facebook and other big companies … take your pick. Nobody seems to know for sure because the FCC isn’t talking about the contents of its 300-plus pages of orders and rules changes.

This is another one of Emperor Obama’s end runs around Congress, and it may be one the Left is ultimately happy with, though many of them are recoiling in terror right now.

That’s because at the heart of Net Neutrality is a huge power grab by an Administration hungry to control all information in the United States.

It’s not enough that the NSA already absorbs most of the data sent in the United States, or that the Obama Administration has tremendous control over the flow of news through its White House press agency/Media Matters complex, or that the fawning media will do what Obama says up to and including remove already-published stories from websites.

What Obama and his handlers want is to be able to have total control over which stories are covered and not covered in the media.

At least, that’s the concern of critics who remember the government’s spying on journalists’ computers and phone records, along with harassment of conservatives by the IRS.

That’s also the hope of some high-profile Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, who must be drooling at the possibility of being president with control over the entire Internet.

It’s one of the favorite tactics of would-be dictators throughout history: Get ahold of the information sources in a country and you can control what’s said about you, your inner cabal, your government, your enemies. He who controls the information controls the people.

Never fear. I’m sure Obama only has the best intentions, and his minions are only keeping the rules quiet so that America can enjoy its surprise.

You know you have to pass these things to know what’s in them. Like Obamacare. Look how well that’s working out.

This package of rules is doubly interesting because Wheeler has apparently made some last-minute changes at the request of Google and some other special-interest groups, but he has no time to talk to Congress.

This Net Neutrality business has been a struggle for years. Almost since Obama got in office. A coincidence, I’m sure.

Some of the groups advocating heavily for the regs have managed to get people jobs on the White House staff, according to the Washington Examiner. Lucky happenstance.

Those same groups have received $196 million from George Soros in recent years, the Examiner reported. A fluke.

There is nothing to fear. I mean, the rules have the word “Neutrality” in the title.

What’s there to worry about?

Rep. Granger urges Obama to send arms owed to Egypt

granger022415-800x500

WASHINGTON (TNS) — Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) is pushing the White House to release weapons systems, especially F-16 fighter jets, to Egypt as well as aid to Jordan and the Iraqi Kurds, as the region warily eyes the military intentions of the Islamic State.

In a letter to President Barack Obama last week, Granger, chairwoman of a key funding subcommittee, sharply criticized the administration for failing to provide arms that have been withheld from Egypt since 2013.

“As Egypt, Jordan and the Kurds retaliate and defend themselves against ISIL’s heinous acts,” Granger wrote, using one of the common acronyms for the Islamic State, “U.S. security assistance is being held or delayed by bureaucratic processes and ill-advised policy decisions by your administration.”

She pointed out that Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi retaliated against the Islamic State with F-16 strikes after the militants beheaded 21 Coptic Christians in neighboring Libya.

“However, it is more of the same F-16s that your administration continues to prevent from being delivered to Egypt,” said Granger.

The U.S. withheld arms to Egypt, including 20 F-16 fighter jets, 20 Harpoon missiles and 125 M1A1 battle tank kits, in 2013 after the military overthrew the elected leadership. The Pentagon is paying the F-16 builders, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Corp., of Fort Worth, Texas, to store the aircraft there. Granger represents Fort Worth.

“We cannot, and need not, do this alone,” Granger said of the fight against the Islamic State, in her letter to the president. “We have partners willing and eager to fight with us, to be the ‘pointy end of the spear.’”

The Obama administration has said that it will not commit U.S. troops to fight the Islamic State.

Asked about Granger’s concerns, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday, “We’ve obviously worked through and, in some cases, are even still working through some of the differences that we have with that government. But there is an important counterterrorism relationship between the United States and Egypt, and we continue to believe that the interests of the United States are well served by continuing to have a strong counterterrorism relationship with them.”

He added that “we certainly welcome her interest in this issue” and said the administration was also supportive of “a strong security relationship” with Jordan and the Kurds.

Granger is the chairwoman of the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee that oversees funding for the State Department and foreign operations and is threatening to hold up funding unless the administration acts.

One defense expert thinks the pressure will work.

“Representative Granger is likely to get what she wants,” said Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based conservative think tank, “because the Obama administration has a renewed appreciation for the value of Egypt’s military. The Egyptians have demonstrated a willingness to get involved in fighting” the Islamic State.

–Maria Recio
McClatchy Washington Bureau

Obama power grab triggers 1st Amendment nightmare

By Greg Corombos

Obama_FCC
GREG COROMBOS
Fox News Channel senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate the Internet constitute a major infringement upon freedom of speech, but he believes the new plan will get struck down in court for lack of transparency.

The five members of the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, are scheduled to vote Thursday on a plan to advance Obama’s net neutrality agenda, which also allegedly calls for the Internet to be treated like a utility. Despite the major changes the plan could well involve, lawmakers and the media have been rather quiet about it.

“People don’t know the danger that is coming,” Napolitano said. “The danger that is coming is a gaggle of bureaucrats here – three Democrats and two Republicans, the Republicans will probably dissent – claiming they have the power to regulate the Internet.”

He said Congress has passed no statute authorizing new government controls on the Internet, and the First Amendment clearly states that neither Congress nor any government agency it created can make a law restricting the freedom of speech.

Napolitano admits the stated goal of net neutrality sounds innocuous when first presented, but he said the problem Obama and his allies really have is with the free market.

“They claim that the purpose of their regulation is to prevent the Internet from affording priority and faster service to certain preferred users,” he explained. “Would we all like to have fast service? Yes. Do we all know how to get fast service? Yes, we do. Might that cost us something? Yes, it might, but at the present time it is free from government regulation.”

However, the judge said the public goal of establishing Internet fairness will come at a very heavy price.

“If the government regulates the Internet and tells providers how fast they can move information, we will soon see the government regulating the cost of the Internet. We will eventually, just like with broadcast television, see the government regulating the content of the Internet,” said Napolitano, who described the chain reaction he believes the FCC proposal would trigger.

“Right now, the Internet is the freest marketplace of ideas and transfers of information that the world has ever known,” he said. “At least in the United States, it is utterly and totally – there are some minor exceptions – unregulated. Once these federal bureaucrats get their hands on it, give them a couple of years. It’ll look like broadcast television, a watered-down version of what we now have.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano:

Also at work, according to Napolitano, is the federal government’s unquenchable thirst for more and more power.

“Think about it,” he said. “You’re a commissioner on the FCC. You’re regulating telecoms and broadcast TV. Wouldn’t you like to regulate cable while you’re at it? Wouldn’t you like to regulate the Internet while you’re at it? It’s human nature when you have power to want to expand the power. That’s why we have a Constitution, to prevent these expansions of power.”

One of the greatest frustrations for those concerned about the FCC plan eroding speech rights is that the commissioners will not, and say they cannot, reveal any details of the package until after the vote on Thursday. Napolitano said that tactic is actually a double-edged sword. He said the downside of the secrecy is obvious.

“It’s bad because the government has an obligation under federal law, when any of its administrative agencies plan on changing their rules and expanding their power or modifying substantially the manner in which they regulate, to publish those rules for 30 days,” Napolitano said.

And because the FCC is not following the law, it gives opponents fertile ground for an appeal.

“The good part is, the failure to publish this will invalidate the rules once they’re challenged before a federal court. The government is shooting itself in the foot,” said Napolitano, who sees this turning into a replay of another fierce court battle involving the administration.

“This is the very same thing it did when it attempted to implement President Obama’s changes in immigration law, and they were enjoined from doing so last Monday by a federal judge in Texas, who said, ‘You didn’t publish these rules for 30 days, which gives the public the opportunity to comment and, more importantly, Congress the opportunity to modify the rules,”he said.

Napolitano said the biggest asset for net neutrality supporters right now is the disinterest of the American people. He said if that changes, the whole debate will change.

“This proposal by the president (these are the president’s appointees on the FCC) actually has the support of the leadership of both political parties, big-government Republicans and big-government Democrats,” he said. “But some of them will have great pause for reconsideration if there is a great national debate on this.”

He said fierce debate is exactly what the Democrat majority of commissioners is trying to avoid through its secretive tactics.

“That’s the reason why the three Democrats on the FCC want to force it through,” he said, “so there will be no great national debate, because a great national debate will result in the undoing of this.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/obama-power-grab-triggers-1st-amendment-nightmare/#7KBSv1EyREK3J3OP.99

HOMELAND STUPIDITY CHIEF: My Job Is To “Give Voice To The Plight Of Muslims”

by Tim Brown
My goodness! When are Americans going to have enough of the federal government advancing the religion of pieces? “Homeland Security” Secretary Jeh Johnson sides with Barack Obama about not getting at the root of the terrorism taking place in the world today, Islam. In fact, recently, Johnson said that it was part of the administration’s job to “give voice to the plight of Muslims.”

“We in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face,” he said. “And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face; the fact that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and the Islamic faith is one about peace and brotherhood.”

They will trip all over themselves and fall flat on their faces to call any terrorism “Islamic.” They will do anything to promote Muhammad’s religion and political ideology over and against Christian values.

In simple taqiyya style, Johnson claims not only is it the job of the government to give voice to the plight of Muslims, but then promote Islam as a religion of peace and brotherhood.

Quite simply, this is nauseating to hear, but not unexpected. First, we’ve covered in several places that Islam, at its core, is not peaceful (unless you submit to it). Its history is filled with violence. In fact, I recently wrote about our own history and just how Islam is woven into the fabric of our history in the Barbary Wars.

When one starts pointing out the issues of Islam, the ridicule always comes out saying that someone is “xenophobic” or “Islamophobic,” even “racist,” as though Islam is a race. While many Middle Eastern people are automatically assumed to be Muslim, that is not always the case. Take for instance, the Christians that have been slaughtered like cattle by those that embrace Muhammad’s death cult.

image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Jeh-Johnson-300×187.jpg

Jeh JohnsonSecretary Johnson, like all of Obama’s appointees is a corrupt man. This guy, according to the Homeland Security website, “oversaw the development of the legal aspects of many of our nation’s counterterrorism policies, spearheaded reforms to the military commissions system at Guantanamo Bay in 2009.”

Reforms like spending your tax dollars to make Islamic jihadists more comfortable. Even though he was not in the current position, one might wonder what part Johnson has played in the release of several jihadists, including the illegal swap of five top Taliban leaders for American deserter Bowe Bergdahl.

It is because of Johnson that we recently heard the ridiculous claim that “right-wing extremists” are more of a threat to America than their buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood and its various front groups, who are operating with impunity in our borders and visiting our White House.

Many don’t remember, but Johnson was behind the wicked scheme to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2010, which allowed open sodomy in the military that dropped the morale of our men and women in uniform and also led to an all-time high of sodomite rapes.

Neither Johnson nor the administration nor the federal government’s job is to “give voice to the plight of Muslims.” The federal government is charged with a few things in our Constitution. In the branch Johnson participates in, his agency isn’t even authorized to be in existence, much less given a voice!

America, this administration does not love America. They hate it with a passion, which is why they want to “fundamentally transform” it. Why would you transform that which you claim to love? With all of his moral faults, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani was right about that statement, but for those of us who have been paying attention, we’ve known it since before his first term in office.

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/15513/secretary-homeland-security-says-job-give-voice-plight-muslims/#pBHUUgkPQFYeELP4.99

The Islamic ‘Ghosts on the Roof’

lk-450x296
Seventy years ago, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin met at Yalta to lay the foundations of the post-World War II world order. Less than one month after their historic meeting, TIME magazine on March 5, 1945, published an unsigned article entitled “Ghosts on the Roof.” The article was written by Whittaker Chambers, then TIME’s foreign news editor and formerly a member of a Washington, D.C.-based Soviet espionage ring. Chambers broke with communism in the late 1930s and in doing so remarked to his wife that they were joining the “losing side” in the great world struggle between communism and the West.

Chambers’ repeated efforts during the late 1930s and early 1940s to alert the State Department and the FBI to communist penetration of our government and the existence and activities of the espionage ring fell on deaf ears, so he used his position at TIME to attempt to warn the American public about the true nature of communism and the goals of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

The Yalta Conference, which took place during February 4-11, 1945, was immediately heralded as foreshadowing a peaceful postwar world order. Chambers, having been in the belly of the beast, knew better. He showed “Ghosts on the Roof” to T.S. Matthews, TIME’s associate executive editor, but doubted that TIME would publish it. According to Chambers’ biographer Sam Tanenhaus, Matthews showed it to TIME’s owner Henry Luce who called it “a forceful piece of journalism” but was otherwise non-committal on publishing it. Other TIME staffers urged Matthews not to publish the piece fearing that it would poison relations between the wartime allies. With some hesitation, and characterizing it as a “political fairy tale,” Matthews decided to publish it.

Chambers’ story has the ghosts of the murdered Russian Tsar Nicholas II and his family descend on the roof of the Livadia Palace, their former estate and the site where the “big three” allied war leaders negotiated the fate of the world. Clio, the Muse of History, greets them and discusses with Nicholas and Alexandra what just occurred there. Nicholas, the Tsarina remarks, is fascinated by Stalin. “What statesmanship! What vision! What power!,” says Nicholas. “We have known nothing like this since my ancestor, Peter the Great, broke a window into Europe by overrunning the Baltic states in the 18th century. Stalin has made Russia great again.”

“It all began with the German-Russian partition of Poland,” Chambers has Alexandra say, reminding readers that the Second World War was started by Hitler and Stalin. “Stalin,” says the Tsar, “is magnificent. Greater than Rurik, greater than Peter! . . . Stalin embodies the international social revolution . . . the mighty new device of power politics which he has developed for blowing up other countries from within.” The Royal couple then lists the countries conquered by Stalin—Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Poland—and those soon to be conquered because of Western appeasement. The Tsarina marvels at Stalin’s ability to persuade Churchill and Roosevelt solve the issues of Central and Eastern Europe to Stalin’s liking in a friendly fashion, remarking that “even peace may be only a tactic of struggle.”

At the end of the tale, the Muse of History foresees the consequences of Yalta as “more wars, more revolutions, greater proscriptions, bloodshed and human misery.” If you can foresee such troubles, the Tsarina asks Clio, why don’t you prevent them. The Muse of History replies that she must leave something for her sister Melpomene, the Muse of Tragedy, to do.

Readers reacted negatively to the piece. TIME’s Moscow correspondent lost his access to Kremlin officials. Chambers, some said, was zealously trying to destroy U.S.-Soviet collaboration that was so essential to world peace. TIME’s own editors noted in a subsequent issue that they did not believe that U.S.-Soviet relations were doomed to failure.

History vindicated Whittaker Chambers. His courageous efforts to reveal the truth about communism and Stalin’s intentions are not unlike the current efforts by writers—several associated with this journal—to alert the United States and the world to the true nature and goals of Islamic jihadists.

In Chambers’ time, the West was confronted by a murderous, expansionist secular totalitarian ideology whose leaders sought a communist world empire. Today, the West is confronted by a murderous, expansionist religion-based totalitarian ideology whose leaders seek a world caliphate where all must submit to Allah or be eradicated.

Chambers’ warnings were largely ignored by Western leaders whose willful blindness to the true nature of communism sealed the fate of millions behind the iron curtain in Europe, in China, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and elsewhere.

Today, perhaps the ghosts of Mehemed II and Sulieman the Magnificent are looking down and smiling as Western leaders fecklessly attempt to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs and search for “root causes” of ISIS terror and aggression. The Muse of History would understand, and her sister Melpomene, unfortunately, still has work to do.

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !