Now that the Republicans will control the House of Representatives, we finally will have some serious discussions within the government regarding the issue of Muslim radicalization and terrorism. Representative Peter King (R-NY), the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has vowed this to be the case.
For too long, the Obama Administration including Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano as well as Congressional Democrats have gone to great lengths and recklessly denied any possible connection between Islam and terrorism. This is an absurdity that defies logic but also places our nation at greater risk.
Finally, we can expect a rational assessment and some concrete suggestions that may afford us more protection and preparedness.
Incoming House Homeland Security Chair Plans Hearings on Muslim Radicalization
Wes Barrett Dec. 20, 2010
Representative Peter King (R-NY) says he'll call for hearings into the radicalization of Muslim Americans when he takes over as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security in the new congressional term.
In an interview on FOX's "America Live," King said "We have to break through this politically correct nonsense which keeps us from debating and discussing what I think is one of the most vitally important issues in this country. We are under siege by Muslim terrorists and yet there are Muslim leaders in this country who do not cooperate with law enforcement."
And he also notes a rise in terrorist recruitment in the United States saying, "We have the reality that Al-Qaida is trying to recruit Muslim-Americans, and yet we have people in the Muslim community who refuse to face up to this."
King cites foiled terror plots to bomb Times Square and the New York Subway, the 2009 Fort Hood shootings, and arrests of who he calls "homegrown Muslim terrorists" in Texas, Chicago, Virginia, New Jersey, San Diego and Portland, Oregon as examples of the type of radicalization on which the hearings would focus.
But some Muslim groups have said such hearings would be an anti-Muslim witch hunt and lead to an era of McCarthy-type hearings.
"Rep. King has dedicated years of his career peddling extremist rhetoric and baseless claims concerning the Muslim community and its leadership," said Faiza Ali, community affairs director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations .
"Instead of promoting counterproductive strategies that risk alienating partners within the community, Rep. King would better serve our nation if he actually engaged mainstream American Muslim leaders and organizations on issues related to national security."
But the congressman says he'll use the hearings to drill deeper into the divisive issue and points out that Muslims themselves are most susceptible to being victims of terrorism. "The immediate victims are Muslims themselves, whose sons and daughters could end up being killed as suicide bombers," he said.
Print This Post
The FCC is a supererogatory federal agency that is a constant threat to our rights including as a dangerous political weapon of the left, an impediment to a free market place and innovations, and a waste of taxpayer money. It wantonly issues regulations such as the recently approved net neutrality law even though it doesn’t truly have the legal authority, a problem made worse by the fact that the commissioners are political appointees and not elected officials. In fact, the “president” has used this agency as a way to bypass Congress and attempt to implement ideologically radical policies.
We can protect our rights, save billions of dollars, reduce the size of the government and its debt by terminating this agency run amok.
Kill Off The FCC
Investor’s Business Daily 12/23/2010
Regulatory State: Two days after the FCC voted to take over the Internet, it stands in the way of an agreement between private companies. This is an agency that should be targeted for elimination.
On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality, a regulatory framework that has been sold as a means of keeping the Web fair and open. In truth, the rules give government the authority to tell Internet service providers how to organize the traffic that flows over their infrastructure.
That's enough meddling in private affairs for one week for any federal agency. But the FCC wasn't finished.
Chairman Julius Genachowski, who pushed net neutrality despite a court ruling and bipartisan opposition in Congress, set conditions Thursday on Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal. He wants Comcast to distribute content in a way that he approves of and lets competitors access Comcast's platform.
It's almost amusing that these conditions are being applied in the name of the "public interest."
Genachowski's proposal isn't binding. He still has to present his ideas to the other four commissioners and a vote must be taken. But neither one man nor one group should have the power to marshal private companies' business operations.
Private media companies are not government-owned utilities.
Regulators such as Genachowski say they are merely trying to keep competition healthy and protect consumers.
But their efforts inhibit competition and obstruct innovation.
Cell phones, for instance, were delayed by the FCC for a decade. The cost of this hang-up to the economy, according to the National Economic Research Associates, was $85 billion.
Like generals fighting the last war, regulators make rules based on the way businesses operated yesterday. As they try to keep up with market dynamics, they inflict uncertainty into business decisions and put a boot on the neck of progress. When not held back by regulators, though, companies freely create new technologies and business models that increase competition.
What role, then, is there for regulators, especially those at the FCC, which oversees one of the most dynamic industries in the world? With the intense competition in telecommunications that has benefited consumers and led to wide commercial successes, there's no need for a government referee in this sector.
There's nothing the FCC does that can't be eliminated, streamlined or handed over to another agency or department that has a legitimate function. (Ed Morrissey of hotair.com suggests broadcast licenses "could be handled by the Commerce Department, or by a greatly reduced FCC with binding limitations on jurisdiction." The point is, the FCC as now constituted doesn't have to do it.)
The FCC has been around for a while — it was established by the Communications Act of 1934. So it won't be abolished overnight. But its elimination is a worthy goal.
Republicans, who at one time had a shutdown agenda, will control the House beginning in January. They should make the call and get the process started.
Print This Post
The following scathing editorial relating the irrelevancy and ineptitude of Obama and the global consequences is among the most thorough, well written and cogent ones that we have ever seen. It lucidly and insightfully relates his leadership void, diaphanous projection of strength, character weakness, passivity and reckless accommodation of blatant enemies to potentially apocalyptic international events, the engendering of violence and emboldening of our enemies as well as the loss of respect and international influence of the U.S.
Among key comments, he notes that:
In less than two years, the White House has gone from being the center of world leadership to being irrelevant, from protecting world freedom to serving as a global party planning committee.
…the growing aggressiveness of China, North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda can all be attributed to the global consensus that no one is at home in the White House.And if no one is at home in the White House, then that’s a perfect time to slap the big boy around the yard. China is doing it economically, the rest are doing it militarily.
America’s enemies do not fear him. Only our allies do.
For those who haven’t fully contemplated the deleterious global impact of Obama’s abominable “presidency”, this is a must read.
Obama Has Lost The World
Daniel Greenfield 12/27/2010
After the 2010 elections, it’s not exactly news that Obama has lost America. But in a less public referendum, he also lost the world. Obama’s cocktail party tour of the world’s capitals may look impressive on a map, but is irrelevant on a policy level. In less than two years, the White House has gone from being the center of world leadership to being irrelevant, from protecting world freedom to serving as a global party planning committee.
Even the Bush Administration’s harshest critics could never have credibly claimed that George W. Bush was irrelevant. He might have been hated, pilloried and shouted about– but he couldn’t be ignored. However Obama can be safely ignored. Invited to parties, given the chance to show off his cosmopolitan sophisticated by reciting one or two words in the local lingo, read off a teleprompter, along with some cant about the need for everyone to pull together and make the world a better place, and then dismissed for the rest of the evening.
As a world leader, he makes a passable party guest. He has a broad smile, brings along his own gifts and is famous in the way that celebrities, rather than prime ministers and presidents are famous. On an invitation list, he is more Bono than Sarkozy, Leonardo DiCaprio not Putin. You don’t invite him to talk turkey, not even on Thanksgiving. He’s just one of those famous people with a passing interest in politics who gets good media attention, but who has nothing worthwhile to say.
The only countries who take Obama seriously, are the ones who have to. The leaders of Great Britain, Israel and Japan– who have tied their countries to an enduring alliance with America based on mutual interests and values, only to discover that the latest fellow to sit behind the Oval Office desk no longer shares those values and couldn’t give less of a damn about American interests. It’s no wonder that European leaders ignore him as much as possible. Or that Netanyahu visited America, while Obama was abroad. Or that Japanese politics have become dangerously unstable.
On the enemy side, the growing aggressiveness of China, North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda can all be attributed to the global consensus that no one is at home in the White House.And if no one is at home in the White House, then that’s a perfect time to slap the big boy around the yard. China is doing it economically, the rest are doing it militarily. They’re all on board with Obama’s Post-American vision of the world. But unlike him and most liberals, they have a clear understanding of what that means. The America of some years back, which actually intimidated Libyan dictator Khaddafi into giving up his nuclear program, without lifting a hand against him is long gone. So is the Cedar Revolution. Syria and Iran are back in charge in Lebanon. And in Afghanistan, the Taliban are laughing at our soft power outreach efforts.
Obama’s soft power approach emphasizes the ‘soft’ and forgets the ‘power’. It neglects even Clinton era understandings about the role of America in the world, and reverts instead to a Carter era sense of guilt that bleeds into hostility toward American interests and allies. While the rest of the world puts their own interests first, they act like a cog in some imaginary global community, turning and turning toward the distant horizon of international brotherhood. While China, Russia and most of the world walk down their backs and up their jellyfish spines, laughing all the way. And America’s allies gird themselves and prepare for the worst.
From the first, this administration has curried favor with America’s enemies by betraying and humiliating its allies. But these hideous acts of moral cowardice have not won Obama the approval of America’s enemies. Only their contempt. And a Nobel Peace Prize from a committee of elderly left wing Swedes, awarded not for any accomplishment, but for the lack thereof. For being a man without a country, a leader without a spine and a representative of America who gives no thought for the interests of that country.
Now that the Koreas stand on the brink of war, Iran continues its drive toward a nuclear bomb, Al Qaeda is going global, Hezbollah is on the verge of taking Lebanon and Mexico is on the verge of imploding– the impact of America’s absence on the global stage is all too clear. The countless cocktail parties and toasts have not changed the world. All they’ve done is highlighted the transition of the White House from world leadership to global party guest. Trip after trip has ended in photo ops and policy failures. Instead Obama is stuck dumpster diving into the futile quest for a Palestinian state, not because such an entity will make the world any better, but because it will make him look good.
Obama has no mandate at home, and he has even less of one abroad. America’s enemies do not fear him. Only our allies do. Kim Jong Il does not sit up nights worrying what Obama will do. Because the consensus in North Korea, Iran and the rest of the world is that the sea will rise, the sun will set and Obama will do nothing. Except maybe write a strongly worded letter, offset by some quiet backchannel diplomacy from his coterie of international left wing stooges reassuring the offender that, “No, Barry really isn’t mad at you. He’s just concerned. Really, really concerned.”
Liberal pundits mock the rough and ready style of conservatives like Reagan, Bush or Palin in world affairs, but what they fail to realize is that the over-educated naivete, trendy cosmopolitanism and buzzword rich approach of a Kerry or Obama come off as laughably pathetic on the world stage. Republicans might be hated, but they can’t be ignored. Democrats on the other hand are catspaws and pawns, fools who are so sure of their cleverness and determined to embrace every culture in the way that only the graduates of Ivy League institutions can, that any Third World vendor could twirl them around his fingers.
World leaders are rarely liked, but effective ones are respected. And effective world leaders don’t lead with appeasement, don’t compromise before the other side has even made an offer and negotiate on behalf of their country, rather than some intangible global consensus. They understand that they represent a country, not a popularity contest. They don’t travel abroad to be adored or be greeted with parades and gifts, but to achieve tangible results on specific issues. To do otherwise is not to be a world leader, but a celebrity who happens to have picked up a big title along the way.
To be a proper American president on the world stage, means choosing to be respected, rather than liked. Obama always chooses to be liked, rather than respected. Because respect comes from accomplishment and character, while ‘liking’ is a function of appearance and image. Aiming to be ‘liked’ is playing to Obama’s strengths. But being liked is irrelevant outside of an afterschool special. World affairs is not a networking seminar, it is a negotiation between countries who have billions of dollars and millions of lives on the line. And Obama has no idea how to play that game. Like the kid who never fit in anywhere, he’s still trying to be liked. And he’s willing to sell out American interests and allies to get the cool UN kids to like him.
Unfortunately Obama’s irrelevance is also America’s irrelevance. A Republican House of Representatives cannot do what Obama should be doing. And any attempt to show strength gets shouted down by the liberal punditocracy as treason and undermining the White House. As if anyone, anywhere could undermine Obama internationally as much as he undermines himself. The same liberals who considered Ted Kennedy’s treasonous offer of cooperation with the Soviet Union or Kerry’s trip to Latin American Marxist terrorists to be acts of courage, damn Republicans who supported allies in Ecuador and Israel as traitors. And so Obama must have a free hand to do it all on his own. To do what Kennedy or Kerry could have only dreamed of.
Obama has lost the world. He has made the country that he claims to represent into a shadow of its former strength and glory. And his irrelevance endangers American lives. Not just those of soldiers in war zones, laboring under restrictive Rules of Engagement, written so as not to offend Muslims. Not just those of Americans at risk for domestic terrorism under an Attorney General who sympathizes with terrorists, more than with Americans. But to everyone living in a world where countries like North Korea and Iran feel free to do what they want, where our economic rivals such as Russia and China advance their interests and their espionage, and where terrorists across the Muslim world grow in boldness and number because they have no one left to fear anymore. In America and around the world– Barack Hussein Obama endangers us all.
Print This Post
The United States used to be the paragon of free enterprise, industriousness, ingenuity and productivity. We were the unchallenged, indisputable leader for a long time.
Then things changed. The government started to grow larger at an accelerated pace, became more intrusive, meddlesome and omnipotent.
It began to see itself as the solution or answer for all types of issues. Consequentially, it began spending more and more from new or ever increasing fees and taxes.
This, in a nutshell, takes us to where we are today: a bloated, wasteful, profligate and imperious government that is sucking out money from the private sector and from industrious, productive individuals on whom the economy depends.
Our corporate tax rates are the second highest in the world, soon to be number one.
Not a statistic to be proud of.
The federal government’s reckless and irresponsible spending addiction is wreaking havoc on our economy, industries and tax rates and is a prime cause of the extraordinarily high unemployment rate. Virtually everyone is needlessly experiencing the pain.
This situation MUST be reversed. Government must be downsized, spending radically slashed and taxes significantly decreased. People should keep more of what they earn.
Taxes are not the government’s money – it is money from hard working Americans which they have been forced to part with.
The liberal/Progressive destructive demagoguery and failed policies and ideologies of the Democratic Party and news media must be resolutely ignored.
For us to be more globally competitive economically, this also means that the corporate tax rates need to be drastically reduced.
Our Refusal To Cut Corporate Tax Rates Places U.S. Economic Leadership At Risk
Rep. Michele Bachman 12/22/2010
The United States has been a world leader in many of the best ways possible. Our devotion to freedom and our tireless ingenuity have kept America in the vanguard of the global community.
But unless we change our tax code, the U.S. is about to take the lead in a very unfortunate category. With Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan announcing that his nation will lower its corporate tax rate by 5% in 2011, the U.S. will have the unenviable distinction of holding the world's highest corporate tax rate. When state corporate taxes are added to the federal burden, our country's average corporate tax rate is almost 40%.
The Japanese prime minister told reporters, "By daring to go with a 5% reduction, we will spur companies to invest domestically, expand employment and raise wages. That will stimulate the domestic economy, support growth and shake off deflation."
The U.S. must remain competitive. As an industrialized nation and leader on the world stage, we must be out front in the race for jobs and a robust economy. It is time to sink or swim and, as a former federal tax attorney, I know that if we allow our businesses to face the highest existing corporate tax rate, we will certainly sink.
I recently introduced the End Tax Uncertainty Act of 2010 to effectively ease the tax burden on America's families, individuals and businesses. One of the key provisions in my bill would cut the federal corporate tax rate to 25%. I plan to put that reduction back on the agenda when the 112th Congress reconvenes in January.
The Center for Data Analysis predicts that lowering the corporate tax rate to 25% will increase the number of jobs annually by 581,000 on average from 2011 to 2020. Our GDP will rise by an average of $132 billion, and a typical family of four will see its after-tax annual income rise by almost $2,500.
I have heard from families across the Minnesota district that I serve who would greatly benefit from more job opportunities, not to mention an extra two grand in their pocket each year. In our battered economy, we need to see these positive benefits occur right away.
Minnesota is privileged to boast 21 Fortune 500 companies within its borders. It would be devastating if any of these companies relocated overseas. I hate to imagine the far-reaching and harmful effects that would have on communities. But the fact is that our corporate tax rate is putting an unnecessary burden on the nation's private sector, not to mention costs that are passed along to consumers.
I believe in the American Dream, but many Americans aren't so sure it still exists. The national unemployment rate is at a heartbreaking 9.8%. It has been at or above 9.4% for 19 consecutive months. That's why now is the time for our federal government to do more to give certainty to corporations.
By lowering the corporate tax rate, Congress can take an important step in restoring confidence for the job creators that make up our country's business community.
As a foster mom of 23, and biological mother of five, my strongest desire is to see America succeed for future generations. The era of bailouts, takeovers and failed "stimulus" spending must not continue into the future. Congress can put a stop to it immediately in January.
Then we can work to bring down our $13.8 trillion national debt, much of which is owned by China and Japan, and take on the enormous problem of unfunded liabilities. When you account for benefits promised by the United Sates government and adjust for inflation, those unfunded liabilities soar past $100 trillion.
The United States should not fall behind other nations. Instead, it is our time to lead. Let's focus on cutting taxes, growing our economy and leading in technology, education and industry. If we reverse course from the agenda Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama have put us on, then our nation can truly succeed well into the future.
• Bachmann represents Minnesota's 6th congressional district and is a member of the House Financial Services Committee.
Print This Post
Their Number 2 Guy
Print This Post
We briefly covered the FCC’s “Net Neutrality” legislation, an unwarranted and ill advised and probably illegal maneuver that won’t stand up to Congressional scrutiny (or legal challenges).
Michelle Malkin, in her editorial below, discusses what would be a predictable and anticipated sequela if this legislation is allowed to remain in force.
A claim by the Left that internet access is an entitlement; that it is another civil right.
Internet Access Is Not a 'Civil Right'
Michelle Malkin 12/22/2010
When bureaucrats talk about increasing our "access" to x, y or z, what they're really talking about is increasing exponentially their control over our lives. As it is with the government health care takeover, so it is with the newly approved government plan to "increase" Internet "access." Call it Webcare.
By a vote of 3-2, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday adopted a controversial scheme to ensure "net neutrality" by turning unaccountable Democratic appointees into meddling online traffic cops. The panel will devise convoluted rules governing Internet service providers, bandwidth use, content, prices and even disclosure details on Internet speeds. The "neutrality" is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment toward wireless broadband networks. Moreover, the FCC's scheme is widely opposed by Congress -- and has already been rejected once in the courts. Demonized industry critics have warned that the regulations will stifle innovation and result in less access, not more.
Sound familiar? The parallels with health care are striking. The architects of Obamacare promised to provide Americans more access to health insurance -- and cast their agenda as a fundamental universal entitlement.
In fact, it was a pretext for creating a gargantuan federal bureaucracy with the power to tax, redistribute and regulate the private health insurance market to death -- and replace it with a centrally planned government system overseen by politically driven code enforcers dictating everything from annual coverage limits to administrative expenditures to the makeup of the medical workforce. The costly, onerous and selectively applied law has resulted in less access, not more.
Undaunted promoters of Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's "open Internet" plan to expand regulatory authority over the Internet have couched their online power grab in the rhetoric of civil rights. On Monday, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: "Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right ... (though) not many people have talked about it that way." Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.
"Broadband is becoming a basic necessity," civil rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and Number Three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every "nappy-headed child" in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, "deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is."
Calling them "nappy-headed" is a rather questionable way of boosting their pride, but never mind that.
Face it: A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields to provide useful cover for not so noble political goals.
The "net neutrality" mob -- funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and nonprofits -- has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda in its crusade for "media justice." Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic "rights." Media justice is the redistribution of free speech and other First Amendment rights.
The meetings of the universal broadband set are littered with Marxist-tinged rants about "disenfranchisement" and "empowerment."
They've targeted conservative opponents on talk radio, cable TV and the Internet as purveyors of "hate" who need to be managed or censored. Democratic FCC panelists have dutifully echoed their concerns about concentration of corporate media power.
As the Ford Foundation-funded Media Justice Fund, which lobbied for universal broadband, put it: This is a movement "grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies."
For progressives who cloak their ambitions in the mantle of "fairness," it's all about control. It's always about control.
Print This Post
Despite the shift in momentum to the Republican Party following the mid-term elections, many Senate Republicans appear not to have received the message which is not a good thing for America. Instead of firmly adhering to and relentlessly fighting for mainstream Republican principles and using their renewed position of power, many have become docile, submissive and weak - acquiescing to Obama and Democrat designed liberal legislation that is the antithesis of Republican ideologies.
The START Treaty with Russia is such an example.
Such capitulation must STOP!
Print This Post
The federal government just can't resist imposing its might and regulation on virtually anything that exists in the private sector or our private lives. It's most recent victim is the internet.
Though the FCC's Net Neutrality legislation has not been fully divulged, we know by countless past examples that government meddling or control IS NOT a good thing. With it will ultimately come an infringement of our rights and freedoms or at least the threats of it.
And then there is that well known phenomenon of the law of unintended consequences where the ultimate outcome is always worse with unanticipated results than is nothing were done at all.
Fortunately, this all may be moot as this federal agency does not appear to have the authority to impose such legislation. The Republican controlled House of Representatives is gearing up to quash this edict.
Print This Post
The FCC’s naked power grab with its “Net Neutrality” legislation is reflective of the arrogance, disdain for legalities and the ideology of a Big Brother government that Obama and many liberal/Progressive Congressional Democrats have. There was little practical need for government intervention here.
If it is allowed to remain in effect the probability of which is close to zero, the consequences will likely be the stifling and politicizing of an industry which will hurt most parties in the end.
DeMint vows to reverse FCC's 'Internet takeover'
Mark Tapscott Dec 21 2010
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, says Federal Communications Commission should be renamed the "Fabricating a Crisis Commission," following a vote by the panel's three Democrats to approve proposed rules that amount to a hostile takeover of the Internet by a government agency acting illegally.
The proposal - misleadingly described by proponents as an attempt to insure "net neutrality" by guaranteeing equal access to the Internet - was introduced a year ago by Julius Genachowski, President Obama's appointee as FCC chairman.
A federal court has ruled that the commission has no authority to regulate the Internet, and a bipartisan group of senators and representives warned Genechowski not to attempt to impose a regulatory regime on the Internet earlier this year.
The move's legality was even questioned by FCC Commissioner Michael Copp, one of the Democrats who voted today with Genachowski, saying he considered voting against the proposal because it lacks a sufficiently defensible legal basis to survive a court challenge promised by major Internet Service Providers like Verizon, Microsoft, and AT & T.
But legal challenges by industry are likely to be much less of a problem for the Genachowski-led takeover than efforts in Congress to stop the FCC in its tracks.
That's clearly what DeMint has in mind, as he said in his statement released today following the FCC action:
“The Obama Administration has ignored evidence that this federal takeover will hang a millstone of regulatory and legal uncertainty around the neck of a vibrant sector of our economy.
"Proceeding on its own liberal whims rather than facts, this FCC has chosen to grant itself broad authority to limit how businesses can bring the internet to consumers in faster and more innovative ways.
“Americans loudly demanded a more limited federal government this November, but the Obama Administration has dedicated itself to expanding centralized government planning. Today, unelected bureaucrats rammed through an internet takeover, even after Congress and courts warned them not to.
“To keep the internet economy thriving, this decision must be reversed. Regulatory reform will be a top priority for Republicans in the next Congress, and I intend to prevent the FCC or any government agency from unilaterally burdening our recovering economy with baseless regulation.
"In order to provide the stability businesses need to grow, I will work with my fellow senators to see passage of my FCC Act, which would ensure that the FCC can only use its rulemaking powers where there is clear evidence of a harmful market failure, as well as the REINS Act, which would add the accountability of a Congressional vote before any government agency’s proposed major regulations may be finalized.”
If the FCC plan somehow manages to survive, it will almost certainly do for First Amendment liberties and the Internet what it did for them in regulating broadcast television and radio. Former CBS News president Fred Friendly's landmark book, "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment," describes in great detail how the Kennedy and Johnson administrations used the FCC to silence conservative critics.
Print This Post
Michelle Obama is innately greedy, egocentric, arrogant and disdainful individual whose sense of entitlement seems to have emanated out of her racist and intolerant philosophies which is manifestly evident in her comments. It is a noisome attitude which has been injected, encouraged and constantly nourished in the black community by demagogues such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for their selfish purposes of power and control over what they falsely claim as a monolithic group.
Teh "Emper-ass" Michelle's behavior is inexcusable, counterproductive and as disclosed in the incident below, wasteful.
Instead of waiting another day or two for Barack Obama and then flying together back to Hawaii, Michelle just had to begin her vacation sooner. The purported cost for this excursion as cited below was $63,000 but this number probably wildly underestimates the true costs given all that is involved (security, etc.). Such an action in the milieu of a deep and protracted recession screams high decibel disrespect at the millions of Americans who are unemployed and suffering as well as to the taxpayers who once again are forced to pay for her profligate, unwarranted costs and expenditures. This whole action is exacerbated by the entitlement attitude that she exudes.
Now if this was a one way trip for her, then it would have been tax dollars well spent!
FLOTUS chows at the taxpayers' trough
By Cheri Jacobus 12/23/10
First lady Michelle Obama didn't feel like waiting around cold, boring old Washington, D.C., for her husband and Congress to wrap up their work for the year. So she simply stuck the taxpayers with the $63,000 tab to start her Hawaiian vacation a bit early — just a few short months after the Spain vacation with her gal-pals that set us all back a pretty penny.
With her husband announcing a two-year pay freeze for federal employees as a way to save taxpayers a few precious dollars, it's jaw-dropping that Michelle Obama could be so relentlessly politically tone-deaf. And insensitive. And even a tad bit selfish, spoiled and thoughtless, perhaps? I tend to cringe when folks gratuitously slam the first lady simply because they don't like her husband's policies, but this latest antic on the part of Michelle Obama really takes the cake.
The FLOTUS spending our tax dollars on herself makes Nancy Reagan using private donations for expensive White House dinner china for entertaining heads of state on behalf of the nation seem like pretty small potatoes.
In the future, it would be advisable for Michelle Obama to either pay for her Paris Hilton-style globetrotting herself, or to fund it with private donations. Meanwhile, we can all spend a few minutes trying to calculate how many federal employees' pay raises it takes to pay for Mrs. Obama to get an extra day or two of fun in the sun in Hawaii.
Print This Post