Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Islam 101

In an attempt to polish Islam's image, muslim activists usually quote verses from the Koran that were written in the early days of the Islamic movement, while Mohammed lived in Mecca. Those passages make Islam appear loving and harmless because they call for love, peace and patience. Such is a deception. The activists fail to tell gullible people that such verses, though still in the Koran, were nullified, abrogated, rendered void by later passages that incite killing, decapitations, maiming, terrorism and religious intolerance. The latter verses were penned while Mohammed’s headquarters was based in Medina.


When speaking with people of Christianized/Western societies, muslim activists deliberately hide a major Islamic doctrine called "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (the Abrogator and the Abrogated). This simply means that in situations wherein verses contradict one another, the early verses are overridden by the latter verses. The chronological timing in which a verse was written determines its authority to establish policies within Islam. Non-muslims cannot afford to be ignorant about the full implications of the Abrogator and the Abrogated Doctrine (al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh). When Islamic spokesmen say that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Koran does not support such things as human rights infractions, gender bias and terrorism, they are lying. This means that the Western politicians and liberal journalists, who continually spout that Islam is a noble religion of peace, are in reality propagating a deception that they have been deceived into parroting.

This presents problems for na├»ve people who are not familiar with Islam and the Koran. They don’t know that the surahs/chapters of the Koran are not arranged in chorological order in regard to the timing in which they were written. Therefore, an activist who is out to deceive them can turn to various places throughout the Koran and read verses that sound peaceful, tolerant, reasonable and loving. The impression is that the entire Koran promotes peace, love, equality and tolerance for all. That is far from the truth. Most muslims fully understand that the few Koranic verses that seemingly promote equality, peace and justice are more often than not overridden/nullified by later verses that validate such things as terrorism and legalistic restrictions on routine human and women’s rights.

Monday, June 27, 2011

As 2012 Approaches, We Still Don't Know What Obama Stands For

By Liz Peek

President Obama has finally agreed to weigh in on the debt ceiling talks. High time too. Much of the time, the Obama presidency drifts in the breeze, with all the gravitas of an inflated beach ball. Mr. Obama has not deigned to touch down on the fiscal crisis confronting our country, the immigration imbroglio, entitlements reform, gay marriage or the states’ crackdown on excessive public service union demands. His opinions on many topics, as he has said regarding gay marriage, “are evolving.”

Why are we surprised? As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama held the slimmest of dossiers; not only did he have but a brief public service career –he left few tracks in the sand. As a state senator he studiously avoided voting on issues that might alienate supporters; he ran for president as a blank slate, and that vagueness worked out very well indeed.

Today it is not working. On many fronts we still don’t know what Mr. Obama stands for. That’s significant, because the Obama political team has made a rare political error. By ginning up his presidential campaign unusually early in his tenure, Americans now see everything he does through the political prism. That makes us suspicious.

For instance, the recent decision to pull troops out of Afghanistan does not hew to a philosophically coherent foreign policy. Instead it seems a response to polls and a good campaign move. The war is no longer popular. It is expensive and most of us don’t really understand what the objectives are. Moreover, we are rightly incensed that the president of a profoundly corrupt country claiming the lives of many of our best young people describes us as “occupiers.” How dare he?

Nonetheless, President Obama’s decision to pull troops out of Afghanistan at the worst possible time – in the middle of next year’s fighting season -- allows little time for the surge he authorized a mere year ago to succeed. That seems, tactically, a poor idea. That the commanders who championed the surge early on have unanimously criticized the move is disheartening.

Releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve appears to be another political gesture. Clearly the biggest obstacle to Mr. Obama’s reelection is unemployment, and a tepid recovery. Since the country has lost faith in the benefits of stimulus programs, and is increasingly alarmed about our $14 trillion national debt, another round of government spending is a non-starter. And since the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates near zero through increasingly controversial quantitative easing programs, monetary policy options are limited.

The hope is that pouring 30 million barrels of oil into the marketplace (60 million worldwide including the release from foreign stockpiles) will dampen oil prices and put a little extra money in the country’s purse, cheering consumers and igniting economic growth.

Trying to energize the recovery is a worthy ambition, but dampening already-sinking oil prices through this quick-fix appears a desperate measure. We have only accessed our emergency stockpiles of oil on two previous occasions – during the 1991 Iraq war and after Hurricane Katrina, when supplies were actually threatened. Where is the emergency today? In the war rooms of Obama’s political campaign.

The Obama administration’s approach is both typical and flawed. Manipulating markets is not the path to restoring confidence. In fact, it is just such intrusions into the business of America that has alarmed investors and employers and arguably dulled the animal spirits needed to bring this country back to life.

President Obama’s response to nearly problem confronting the country has been to go after our corporations. Health care costs rising too fast? Stomp on pharmaceutical and insurance profits. Oil prices too high? Threaten to cut investment incentives for producers. States restive about illegal immigrants? Throw the compliance burden on employers. Environmentalists unhappy about progress? Loose the EPA on utilities and energy producers. Labor unions losing ground? Set the NLRB on Boeing.

The list goes on and on. Rarely a day goes by that President Obama and his team doesn’t skewer another U.S. industry. This does not unleash animal spirits. Quite the contrary.

Data tracked by the National Federation of Independent Businesses show confidence among small business owners at “recession-level” and sinking for the past three months. Rasmussen reported a few days ago that investor confidence had sunk to its lowest level in nearly two years. The index stands at 75, compared to a high in 2004, for instance, of 150. Similarly, the Rasmussen consumer index, at 71, compares to a high earlier this year of 93 and 127 in 2004.

The downturn in sentiment reflects various factors, including higher oil prices and the ongoing turmoil in Europe, but it is also stems from deep uneasiness about how our country is being managed.

Americans are discouraged that our elected leaders seem so unable to solve our biggest problems – our spiraling debt, soaring health care costs, our sagging infrastructure and our dismal public education system.

Certainly, President Obama is not responsible for all of our ills, nor can he be expected to resolve them. However, he can and should be tagged with holding back the natural energies of this country – the ambitions and boldness of our entrepreneurs and employers – who must lead us forward.

Liz Peek is a financial columnist who writes for The Fiscal Times. For more visit LizPeek.com.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Obama's Release of Oil Reserves Just Makes Our Energy Problems Worse, Not Better

By Sen. John Barrasso

When President Obama said that America hopes to be Brazil’s best energy customer, Americans shook their head in confusion.

Apparently, the White House didn’t understand or care about their concern.

The administration repeated the exact same mistake this week when it irresponsibly released 30 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

On Thursday, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu explained that this SPR release was “intended to complement the production increases recently announced by a number of major oil producing countries. “ He went on to say that “the United States welcomes those commitments and encourages other countries to follow suit.”

With all due respect, when will America step up and follow suit?

Instead of needlessly tapping into our emergency oil supplies and encouraging other countries to produce more energy, this administration needs to take a hard look in the mirror.

The president has handcuffed American energy developers and made our dependence on foreign energy worse.

First, our Strategic Reserve was created as a safeguard against national security emergencies and severe supply disruptions. President Obama just treated the SPR like it’s his Strategic Political Reserve. While all Americans want gas prices to be lower, tapping the SPR isn’t the answer. The only severe supply disruption today is this administration’s self-imposed shutdown of American energy.

The White House’s claim that the unrest in Libya is the main motivation for their decision doesn’t make sense. After all, Libya ranks 18th in oil production – it’s not exactly Saudi Arabia. While the conflict in Libya has reduced supply into the market, it hasn’t been a “severe” disruption. Rather than tapping the SPR, this highlights the need to develop American energy and stop blocking energy from Canada.

Less than a year ago, this administration said that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has sufficient spare capacity to make up for any loss in American oil production resulting from its new rules that discourage American energy production.

While the president gives occasional speeches about his commitment to all of the above American energy production, he has built a record of opposing it time and time again.

The president has blocked offshore oil and gas production and made it more difficult to produce energy onshore.

After the explosion in the Gulf over a year ago, the administration shut down permitting for nearly a year. While the administration finally began issuing offshore permits again, it’s at a much slower rate. The results are troubling. Oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is estimated to drop 20 percent in 2012 from 2010 levels.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuses to issue permits for offshore energy exploration in Alaska. This alone could provide an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. Companies have invested billions of dollars and spent more than 5 years trying to develop these American energy resources. I have cosponsored legislation to fix the EPA’s flawed process for issuing offshore permits.

The administration has aggressively opposed exploration for oil and natural gas on federal lands in the West. In 2009, one of the administration’s first energy-related actions was to cancel 77 existing oil and gas leases in Utah. It has built on its anti-energy stance by throwing up additional regulatory hurdles to onshore production.

The White House has also stifled energy innovation in America – specifically on oil shale development. According to conservative estimates, the U.S. has 800 billion recoverable barrels of oil from oil shale in portions of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. The administration undercut this valuable resource by pulling back the commercial leasing rules that are crucial for this valuable resource coming to market.

I recently introduced the American Energy and Western Jobs Act. It cuts through the additional layers of red-tape on oil and gas exploration and finalizes the commercial leasing rules for oil shale. The bill will provide companies the opportunity and certainty they need to produce American energy on federal lands.

Each day, we witness more examples of how this administration is making our energy problems worse.

Instead of championing foreign oil and using our emergency supplies, the White House needs to take steps to support American energy development.

Republican John Barrasso represents Wyoming in the U.S. Senate. He serves in the Senates as a member of both the Energy and Environment Committees.

Friday, June 17, 2011

U.N. Approves Iran's Disaster Center Proposal Which Some Fear Could Boost its Ballistic Capabilities

By George Russell

Even as the United Nations tries to use sanctions to block Iran’s developing nuclear weapons program, one of the U.N.’s own organizations has quietly green-lighted the Islamic Republic’s proposal to build a “disaster information management center” that could, some experts fear, advance its ballistic capability.

The decision puts the U.N. seal of approval on a controversial project that the United States has, until now, successfully blocked since Iran first proposed it in 2006.

As if to underscore its victory, Iran this week announced that it had launched its own observation satellite, Rassad-1, which will remain in orbit for the next two months.

The decision to approve the Iran proposal was taken without a vote on May 25 by the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the self-described “regional development arm of the United Nations for the Asia-Pacific region.”

Establishment of the center was not mentioned in the ESCAP press release after the meeting where the vote was taken. The release said only that the commission “adopted a set of resolutions on issues ranging from bridging wide development and infrastructure gaps within the region, to cooperation for energy security and disaster preparedness.”

While little-known in the U.S., ESCAP is a major player in Asian development. Its membership includes 62 nations, among them China, India, Pakistan, Russia and North Korea, and its mandate covers a huge swath of territory, from Turkey across the Pacific. There are a sprinkling of Western nations and their Commonwealth allies on the ESCAP roster, including France, the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the U.S.

“This is a very clever move by Iran,” said Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security advisor in the George W. Bush Administration, who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. “It’s outrageous that a country that has been denounced repeatedly by the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency should be rewarded in this fashion.”

Abrams was responding to an inquiry from Fox News, which learned of the unannounced ESCAP decision

“We are trying to make them into a pariah state, and this sends the opposite message,”Abrams said. “ It will require lots of visits to Iran by other governments. And there are always concerns that some aspect of this will help their military or intelligence agencies.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, a Fox News contributor, when informed of the development, said he found the decision “unbelievable. This puts Iran in a very high profile. What technology Iran will get as a result I don’t know, but it would give their people more experience with satellite imagery. It’s like being involved with peaceful nuclear power: just having your people involved gives you more experience that can be turned to non-peaceful uses.”

In New York, a spokesman for U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon told Fox News that “our records indicate that there was no advance notice to the Security Council Sanctions Committee regarding the creation of the center (nor an ex post facto endorsement thereof), and there were no notifications or requests for exemption regarding the provision of any items to the center.”

The U.N. endorsement of Iran’s disaster center was a diplomatic defeat for the Obama Administration, which strenuously opposed the proposal at the commission’s forum in Bangkok. The U.S. has managed to block several previous attempts by Iran to establish the facility on its territory.

“The United States and our allies have fought hard to prevent the center,” a U.S. State Department spokesman told Fox News. “We did not and do not support this.”

The controversial facility is described in ESCAP records as a “regional center for information, communication and space technology-enabled disaster management In the Islamic Republic of Iran,” to be installed as a “subsidiary body” of ESCAP. Its aim, according to a detailed Iranian proposal supporting their plan, is to enhance early warning of impending calamities, and provide data collection and analysis for disaster recovery, among other things.

The Iranian document cites the country’s relatively low capability in sending and receiving satellite observation data, especially in disaster recovery situations, as a reason to support the institution, in order to fill “gaps” in regional coverage.

In response to questions from Fox News, ESCAP’s Executive Secretary, Noeleen Heyzer, declared that despite the references to space-satellite technology in the Commission’s documents, “the focus of the center is on disaster related information sharing and does not have a role with regard to space or satellite technology.”

A U.S. statement issued at the Bangkok meeting argued that the Iranian proposal “did not clearly articulate a vision for the center, define existing gaps the center would fill, identify the geographic focus of the center, explain how the center would work with existing bodies to avoid overlap and duplication of effort, or set out the human and technological resources needed to operate the center to fulfill its mission.”

The U.S. strategy of opposition at the meeting, was based on “legitimate management concerns,” in the State Department spokesman’s phrase, rather than concerns about Iran’s weapons intentions.

That said, the spokesman agreed that there were “other concerns” about the center, then added, “a lot of those, we can’t get into.”

When asked by Fox News about such issues as technology that might also be useful in Iran’s missile programs, or the possibility that the center could be used as a “cover” for other ballistic missile work that has been banned by the U.N. Security Council, the spokesman declared, “Those are all legitimate questions. But we can’t talk about them.”

One reason, perhaps, is that “disaster management” has become a major theme at many U.N. gatherings around the world, usually with U.S. backing, in part because of the role that climate change has been assigned in wreaking havoc with humanity. In Asia, the suffering has been particularly acute, due to typhoons and the ravages of earthquakes and massive tsunamis. The idea of notion of linked disaster preparedness centers, backed by sophisticated information from advanced satellite observation, is now a mainstay of humanitarian and development relief.

The spokesman in effect said the U.S. had been out-maneuvered by Iran at the Bangkok meeting, as Iranian diplomats “repackaged” their proposals so that they managed to “chip away” at the bloc opposing the idea. Among other things, the Iranians emphasized “gaps” in regional disaster management efforts and offered to pay the entire $50 million cost of the center for its first five years of operation.

The spokesman declined to identify which nations changed sides as a result of the Iranian diplomatic offensive.

In the end, however, the State Department itself stood aside as ESCAP made the decision, because “we do not want to stand in the way of the long tradition ESCAP has of adopting resolutions by consensus,” according to the statement issued at the meeting.

The U.S. instead declared that it “dissociated” itself from the decision. “Dissociation is a practice the United States employs to allow consensus to occur while ensuring the text is not binding domestically,” according to the statement.

Indeed, the State Department spokesman in Washington argued that the diplomatic defeat was actually a victory. He claimed that the U.S. had actually “prevented” creation of the center, because the resolution that allows Iran to “initiate the process for the establishment of the [center]” also calls for an “evaluation” by ESCAP of the need for the facility and the benefit of creating it as a “subsidiary body” of ESCAP—in 2013.

In reply to questions from Fox News, ESCAP’s Hayzer also emphasized that so far the center is not an official Commission “subsidiary body.”

Or, as the State Department spokesman put it, the center “does not exist at least for the next two years,” the spokesman said.

Iran doesn’t see it that way. A proposed timetable for establishment of the center, included in a 28-page technical report submitted by Iran at the meeting, calls for getting all the legal, administrative and regulatory arrangements for the center out of the way by February, 2012.

The Iranian timetable calls for construction, equipping, hiring staff, and everything else to be out of the way in time for the opening of the center in November, 2012—the time of the next U.S. Presidential election.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter @GeorgeRussell.


Would someone again please tell me why we're still a memeber of the U.N. and why we pay them all the money we do AND give them prime real estate in Manhattan?

Monday, June 13, 2011

Tit for Tat

Now that the LameStreamMedia has finished combing through 24 thousand pages of Sarah Palin's emails, and finding nothing I may add, shouldn't they now be asking to read all the emails from Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid? The answer of course, should be, 'Yes' but we all know the chances of that happening are as sure as Genera Electric paying any taxes. Please, let me hear from all the liberal-loons out there who still try to maintain that the LameStreamMedia is fair and impartial. What a bunch of hypocrites. It's also so sad to see how absolutely paranoid the media are of Sarah Palin as a conservative woman, which only goes toward bolstering her appeal to the general public. If the media is telling everyone she's evil incarnate, all the more reason to believe she, and her platform, actually has merit.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

The Time To Act IS NOW!

We better start waking up in this country. Any idiot knows what the problem is, concerning jobs. There are scores of companies out there sitting on BILLIONS of dollars worth of capital, and they are too afraid to use it. Why? Because they are afraid of this inept, bumbling administration, and its track record of targeting business with taxes, regulation and mandates like Obama care, which businesses simply can't figure out what it will do to their bottom line.

Why would a business invest capital to grow their business when they might be the next target of the Oblunder administration? Why would they use money to expand and hire people when they see this administration spending money like it was going out of style, and when they run out, they just print more? Why would business move forward and try to grow when their profits are targeted by an administration who simply wants a larger tax base, so it can throw money at more socialistic entitlement programs that give no incentive to people to help themselves by seeking work, but which also solidifies this administration's power base, and also that of the Democrat Party?

What we need is to let business go about the business of making money, and get the government out of the way so they can do it. Stop attacking the people who provide jobs in this country. But more importantly, this country needs to get its people off the public dole. Not only do we have FAR more government workers than are needed, but we spend more money on entitlements than we have money for. This crapola about taxing wealthy people as the solution to our problems is a fallacy. First, name me one person who ever got a job from a poor person. And second, you could tax EVERYBODY at 100 % and it wouldn't solve our debt problems.

There are only three areas that matter when it comes to addressing the national debt: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If something isn't done to make cuts in these areas, this country is doomed. If you aren't willing to make cuts with a scalpel now, we will be forced to make cuts with a machete later, which will send this country down the drain. The first thing we need to do is totally scrap our current tax code. When the tax code is so convoluted that even the IRS can't explain or understand it, something is radically wrong.

We should enact the Fair Tax Act immediately. If you're not familiar with this, Google it. We should be insisting that Congress pass this before anything else. If we had changed over to this system, before the housing collapse, I'm a firm believer we wouldn't be in as dire shape as we are, and would have been back on track economically by now.

We are running out of time folks. There is a tipping point coming in this country that, after which, NOTHING we do will matter. We better do SOMETHING now, before we reach that point. The current administration has NO VIABLE PLAN to address what is happening to this country, except to tax more and keep spending.

The opposing party at least has come up with a plan, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan. Is it perfect? Maybe not, but it's a start. What has the Oblunder side said in response? They opposed it of course and scared people into thinking it would be our ruin, BUT DIDN'T OFFER ANY OTHER SOLUTION IN RESPONSE. This administration isn't trying to be part of the solution; in fact, they are a large part of the problem.

If you disagree with any of this, then you are saying you believe we are on the right course currently in this country and everything is going to be just hunky-dory. If so, you would be in the 30 percent minority who believe this. If you believe that our current path is a load of crapola, as I do, you then agree we must do something. If you believe the solution is to tax more and spend it on entitlements, you are simply living in la-la land, because it is a known, finite, matter of fact that we CAN’T - read my lips - CAN’T tax enough to sustain the rate at which we are giving it out. Even if you accounted for all the waste and fraud in the system, it STILL wouldn’t be enough. The ONLY solution is to CUT entitlements in a way that would let us pay down our debt. Yes, this will hurt a little, but it’s better than what is coming if we don’t. When we go belly up, like Greece, and Spain, and Ireland, and a few other examples, we will be forced to cut those entitlements out almost completely. WAKE UP AMERICA, the time to act IS NOW!

Protect Yourselves, Ladies, There are Lots of Weiners Out There!

By Annemarie McAvoy

There are lessons to be learned from the actions of Anthony Weiner for all the women out there.

It would seem that those who aspire to political office have a propensity for getting involved with sexual activity that lands them on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

Weiner has lots of company. John Edwards, former presidential candidate, is facing felony charges for using campaign funds to hide a love child from the media -- and from his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth Edwards.

Arnold Schwarzenegger managed to conceal HIS love child for 14 years from the public, employing his lover, the child’s mother, in his household for all those years right under his wife Maria Shriver’s nose.

Then, of course, there’s also the man known as “Client #9,” former New York Governor Elliott Spitzer, whose sexual preferences with prostitutes were the subject of many media reports and who was ultimately forced out of office.

Finally, there was former President Bill Clinton, who ironically enough, performed the marriage ceremony for Rep. Anthony Weiner and his wife. Is there anyone who does not remember what he was doing with the cigar in the Oval Office?

It seems men who seek higher office or hold a high political office think they are entitled to do whatever they want.

People overlook their flaws and transgressions because they are powerful. They are often very charming too, which is why they have such success in politics.

These men are coddled by their staffs, and adored by their supporters. Many are media darlings too. Politicians get lulled into feeling that they are invincible, and believe that they have a right to do things regular folks would not even be allowed to consider.

The real victims of these men are the women they are involved with, especially the significant others and wives. The public shame and embarrassment of being linked to men who are found to have done unspeakable acts can be almost unbearable.

No matter how you feel about the Anthony Weiner saga, it is a shame that his wife is now being pulled into this sordid story, after less than a year of marriage.

So what can the women out there do to protect themselves from these predators? Do your homework! A little bit of leg-work can go a long way.

The Internet is an amazing tool to check out who we are getting involved with before we get hurt. For example, a quick Google search of a prominent lawyer aspiring to high political office shows an arrest for stalking a former girlfriend. That is a red flag that should not be ignored, and can be found out by a few minutes at a computer.

A quick look at someone’s cell phone, which often has both text messages and Facebook access on them, can be a treasure trove of information.

I’m sure Weiner’s wife is wishing she had been checking his texts before she married him.

Also, investigative firms can conduct background checks on people, and can do actual surveillance. Laptops can be reviewed by forensic experts at investigative firms to see if they are being used for any illicit purposes.

Remember though that whoever you are with they can be cheating, lying, and/or engaging in unsavory activities like Weiner did. Such actions are not limited to the ruling class, so to speak.

So be aware, ask questions, and try your best to find out what the object of your affection is doing when you are not watching him. Otherwise, you too could get burned the way Weiner’s wife has been.

And for the men out there, a little background work on the ladies you are involved with can go a long way to protect you too!

After all, scandalous behavior is not always limited to men.

Annemarie McAvoy is a former federal prosecutor. She currently is a consultant and teaches Counter-Terrorism, Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing at Fordham Law School in New York City.

Saturday, June 4, 2011

Group Says E-mails Link FCC to Liberal Group on "Net Neutrality"

by Peter Doocy

The FCC appears to have coordinated its public message regarding 'net neutrality' with Free Press, a left wing non-profit organization seeking to reform the media, according to e-mails released Thursday.

Supporters of 'net neutrality', like Free Press, think equal access to the internet is a "civil right" and that service providers should be prohibited from charging certain prices for certain speeds. When providers have this kind of control, they say, customers in weaker coverage areas get stuck with weaker service. Opponents of 'net neutrality' say that if service is regulated in this way then content will soon be regulated as well.

In April 2010, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC did not have any authority to regulate the internet in this way, however the government agency voted to move forward with its 'net neutrality' program in December, just a few months later.

On its website, the Federal Communications Commission lists among its goals: "promoting competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services and facilities," something impossible under 'net neutrality' rules.

Free Press, meanwhile, openly advocates for 'net neutrality' on its website, and describes internet service providers this way: "They want to become the internet's gatekeepers, deciding which sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all-based on who pays them the most." Furthermore, the group has released statements to the press in 2011 with titles like: "Congress Should Improve, Not Dismantle, Net Neutrality Rules," "Boehner's Attack on Net Neutrality Not Based in Reality" and "Free Press Action Fund: Vote to Eliminate Net Neutrality a 'Dangerous Overreach."

E-mails obtained by conservative nonprofit group Judicial Watch highlight the communications between the government and Free Press, which is funded in part by billionaire George Soros.

One message from Free Press to the FCC dated November 2, 2010 is a request for the FCC Commissioner's chief of staff to ask his boss to write an op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal ahead of a November 16 hearing about internet access. "It's a great way to get the word out and to spark conversations in advance of the event," Free Press Associate Outreach Director Misty Perez Truedson wrote to the FCC's John Giusti. Giusti complied, responding one week later, "We're working on the op ed."

Another document obtained by Judicial Watch via its Freedom of Information Act request includes the summary of a phone conversation between FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and former Free Press President John Silver. "Silver emphasized that a strong net neutrality rule is critical to preserving the internet as a vibrant forum for speech, commerce, innovation, and cultural expression," the summary from this November 28, 2010 conversation reads, in part. A few days later, the FCC voted to continue it's 'net neutrality' program, despite the federal appeals court ruling.

Along with these documents Judicial Watch released a statement explaining its concern with everything it found. "The American people should be deeply troubled by the fact that the Obama administration, on issue after issue, seems to be run by shadowy leftist organizations," said President Tom Fitton. "Our government is supposed to be 'of the people, by the people, and for the people', not 'of the Left, by the Left, and for the Left."

A call to the FCC's Office of Media Relations was not immediately returned on Friday.

This is scary folks. It demonstrates the kind of socialistic agenda progressive, liberal-loons, like Soros and Obama have in store for this country. Remember, Nazis were socialists too. 
-BF

Friday, June 3, 2011

Anthony Weiner's Troubles Offer Case Study On What Not to Do When You're Caught with Your Pants Down

By Andrea Tantaros

It’s the story that just won’t go away.

After almost a week, nagging questions still remain over whether or not New York Congressman Anthony Weiner sent an obscene picture of himself to a young college female via Twitter, or if he is the victim in what is turning out to be one of the most bizarre political scandals this country has ever witnessed.

The fact that journalists are still writing about this Congressman turned clown show can be directly linked back to Weiner himself, who, from day one has majorly mismanaged the saga.

From changing his story on whether or not it was a hack or a prank, to his sketchy behavior if it, in fact, was a hack job to the combative media exchanges, "Weinergate" has become a clear case study on what not to do when you’re caught with your pants down.

Let’s review.

While many of us were chowing down on our Oscar Meyer wieners at Memorial Day weekend barbeques, a soft-core pornographic picture was sent via Weiner’s twitter account to his almost 50,000 followers but he didn’t call the police or FBI.

The tweet gets retweeted before getting taken down and what follows is Weiner’s claim that he “cannot say with certitude that the picture isn’t him.”

Oh-kaay.

While jokes and puns galore ensue, the mainstream media picks up on the fact that if Weiner isn’t guilty, he certainly is acting like it. As they challenge him with more questions he continues to deflect calling the incident a “prank.”

On Tuesday he said that he was “not going to allow this to be what I talk about all week,” only to find himself a day later sitting down for one on one interviews with all the major news networks.

By Thursday morning Weiner insisted that he is not answering any more questions about the incident. But when did he actually start answering any questions?

The general rule of thumb when there is a scandal is to get all the information you have out early so that nothing is left behind. John Edwards failed at this when he didn’t tell us that he had a love child whose baby mama he was paying.

Another important rule to follow is to never lie to or try to lawyer the press. Plainly put: don’t parse words or pretend you’re in appellate court by mincing words, toying with definitions or deliberately picking words that appear as if you are trying to avoid a criminal investigation (Hence, his emphasis on “prank” not “hack”). If that isn’t him in the picture, he would have stated that it wasn’t him outright and out of the gate.

His hostile tone with the press doesn’t help. In an exchange with what should be considered a “friendly” media outlet, Weiner lashed out at CNN during a press conference and deflected any tough question as he typically does when talking about policy issues--rudely and sarcastically. Note to Weiner: don’t get your panties in a tangle.

The public may come to agree. His gross mishandling of the past days' events may have cost him a shot at his much rumored bid to replace New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. And there's more The Atlantic reports, “If Weiner stepped down from Congress, Republicans would have a realistic shot at putting [his district] in play.”

The best answer for Congressman Weiner would have been to admit it was him (if it was) and explain that he accidentally sent it to all of his followers when he meant to send the picture to his newlywed wife (Huma Abedin an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton), and call it a day.

Now it’s too late. His reputation has been damaged and his credibility has come crashing down.

The sooner he admits the real angle to this dangle—that the photo is or is not his wiener, the sooner he’ll get off the front pages of the New York tabloids and we can move on.

Until then, the only one responsible for this pickle is Weiner himself. That, I can say with certitude.

Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator. Follow her on Twitter @andreatantaros.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Barack Obama's decision to play golf on Memorial Day was disrespectful and hardly presidential.

By Nile Gardiner

Can you imagine David Cameron enjoying a round of golf on Remembrance Sunday? It would be inconceivable for the British Prime Minister to do so, and not just because of the usually dire weather at that time of the year. Above all, it would be viewed as an act of extremely bad taste on a day when the nation remembers and mourns her war dead. I can’t imagine the PM even considering it, and I’m sure his advisers would be horrified at the idea. And if the prime minister ever did play golf on such a sacrosanct day he would be given a massive drubbing by the British press, and it would never be repeated.

Contrast this with President Obama’s decision to play golf yesterday, Memorial Day, for the 70th time during his 28-month long presidency. For tens of millions of Americans, Memorial Day is a time for remembrance of the huge sacrifices made by servicemen and women on the battlefield. The president did pay his respects in the morning, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery, but later in the day traveled to Fort Belvoir to play golf. The story has not been reported so far in a single US newspaper, but was made public by veteran White House correspondent Keith Koffler on his blog. Here’s Koffler’s report:

The business of memorializing our war dead done, President Obama headed out to the Fort Belvoir golf course today, finding his way onto the links for the ninth weekend in a row.

Obama earlier today laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and met with families of those killed in battle. But he emerged from the day’s solemnity to go golfing for the 12th time this year and the 70th time of his presidency.

The decision to golf on Memorial Day invites comparison with President George W. Bush, who gave up the game early in his presidency and said he did it out of respect for the families of those killed in Iraq.

Does it matter if the president chooses to play golf on Memorial Day, and for the second time in his presidency (he did so as well in 2009)? I think it does, and it displays extraordinarily bad judgment, not only by Obama himself but also by his advisers. His chief of staff for example should have firmly cautioned against it. President Obama is not just any American but Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. The United States is currently engaged in a major war in Afghanistan with over 100,000 troops on the ground, and more than 1,500 have already laid down their lives for their country.

The least the president can do on Memorial Day is spend the whole day with veterans and servicemen’s families while acknowledging their sacrifice. As Koffler points out above, President George W. Bush stopped playing golf out of respect for the families of Iraq War dead. This demonstrated not only good judgment but humility and respect for the men and women who keep America safe. It is little wonder that, as Gallup reveals in a new poll, US military personnel and veterans give Barack Obama lower marks for his job performance than members of the general public. The president’s actions smack of poor taste, as well a lack of empathy and support for the US military, hardly the kind of leadership the White House should be projecting at a time of war.

I wasn't able to post this past weekend, due to computer issues. However, I'd like to thank all my fellow veterans, and active duty military, for their service, but more importantly, to remember those who have gone before us, in service to our country. We all know this usurper in the White House is a sham, and does not have our best interests at heart... unless, that is,  it somehow were to  improve his golf score.  -BF
 



Free Hit Counter

Copyright © 2009 - 2012 The Audacity of Logic