Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) plans to introduce strong belt buckle legislation to prevent a “takeover” of the Internet as we know it by the weak and corrupt United Nations or even another less friendly government regime. Speaking at Google’s office in Washington, the possible presidential contender said he will introduce legislation to codify U.S. support of an open Internet as other countries attempt to control its growth.
“Since the Web is worldwideand since it has proven such an effective catalyst for pro-democratic revolutionit has become a battleground that many fight to control,” he said. Rubio pointed to 42 countries that limit the Internet within their borders and “now wish to take this further by exerting control over the way the Internet is governed and regulated internationally.”
“Many governments are lobbying for regulatory control by the United Nations or a governmental regime,” he said, and “opposing this takeover and preserving Internet freedom must be a top national priority.”
In a wide-ranging speech that touched on a broad array of economic topics, Rubio called for “new policies that encourage bold innovation.” He vowed to introduce legislation to reallocate federal government spectrum to the airwave-hungry wireless companies, who are looking to appeal to subscribers increasingly relying on their smartphone and other mobile devices. More broadly, Rubio called for an end to government involvement that impedes innovation and growth.
The U.S. can spend another century leading innovation, “but achieving this will require us to replace the antiquated policies and institutions of the last century with ones built for this new era,” he said. Rubio called for an overhaul to the tax system that would allow U.S. companies to avoid paying domestic taxes on revenue made and taxed abroad, and to take immediate deductions for investments. The Florida Senator is working on legislation with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would make those changes.
Premise: Obama administration is a troop of gangsters, needs to be investigated to the hilt, and held accountable just like every other administration that has come before. The Obama administration is not entitled to its own dictatorship in the United States of America, no matter who he thinks he is.
Charmer #1: If you can't see that both sides of this political circus act are corrupt and no matter which side gets into the Oval Office at any given time we will get the same result because we allowed the elite bankers to hijack the country via the federal reserve bank of which they are major shareholders.
Charmer #2: I can see one side refused to participate in a program forcing everyone in the nation to eventually change insurance plans, enumerating everyone under the same system, thus ruining healthcare and one-sixth of the US economy; I can see that one side sent guns into Mexico illegally and 300 people were killed including an American border patrol agent; I can see that one side used the IRS illegally to stymie conservative political organizations; I can see that one side lied about a tape being the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, and has refused to allow survivors to testify before Congress; I can see that one side spent $800,000,000,000 that was earmarked for shovel ready projects (infrastructure) and is now calling for $400,000,000,000 for infrastructure because they used to the $800 billion to bankroll Obama-friendly green energy companies that failed rather than spend it on traditional infrastructure; and I can see one side gave organizations billions of that money to support Obamacare so it would pass the Congress with one side's votes. The more I look at both sides the more I see corruption in this administration that the other side had nothing to do with. Since you claim to be sitting at the head of the class, can you see a problem with the people in office now? If so let's deal with it first rather than give them a pass since they are the problem at the moment.
AS DISGRACED CIA DIRECTOR and former commanding officer of the entire US Afghanistan nation-building boondoggle, DAVID PETREAUS, was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi crisis next week, the vultures have begun circling. Now it appears he’s bowed out of the picture, and will not testify although there is nothing preventing him from doing so. Director Petraeus resigned Friday after admitting marital infidelity. There is surely much more to this resignation saga than this decorated military man making bouncy boo boo with his fawning sexy young autobiographer.
Some vain religious actor in Florida is not the threat. The American policy of trusting Islamic players has always presented a clear and present danger to American lives, and thus these men of valor must always be cautious.
Petreaus lost this writer's respect when he complained that the Florida pastor Terry Jones was endangering American lives with his threats to burn a Qu'ran. That whine was petty and unbecoming of an American officer, particularly the top soldier in charge. Soldiers in Afghanistan live in a state of fear. By definition their lives are alwas at risk, and in severe danger. Natives who have been befriended, paid handsomely, turn on these soldiers with deadly force whenever the chance presents itself. Sure. They can honestly mimic greedy or needy humans first, but they are Islamic tribalists second, and that's all there is. Islam speaks to their core. Kafirs with their strange ways do not, except when it is to their immediate advantage. Some vain religious actor in Florida is not the threat. The American policy of trusting Islamic players has always presented a clear and present danger to American lives, and thus these men of valor must always be cautious. Grow up, I said of the General when I heard that ridiculous remark of his. Now it seems the great man has more than cowardly emotions, but stirs beneath the uniform as well.
The whole lot of simmering Obama scandals must see the light of day as they come to a boil. Fast and Furious. Benghazi. Oh, despair! This radical administration must be forced to fall upon its own sword, if America stands any chance of survival. But that presumes the Republican House finally grows a pair, and fights tooth and nail for the US Constitution and the rule of law...
On May 2, 2011, official history contends SEAL Team 6 infiltrated a terrorist compound in Pakistan and killed Al-Queda leader Osama bin Laden. Okay. So good, so far.
All across this divided nation, Americans cheered the news that one of the world's largest mass murderers had been brought to justice. Unfortunately, there's a tragedy in this story, as there seems to be with most of Obama's plotlinesand it's being ignored by Congress. In the weeks leading up to bin Laden's death, Pakistani Doctor Shakil Afridi risked his life to provide us with the information that directly helped SEAL Team 6 find and kill Osama bin Laden.
Dr. Afridi should be rewardedor at the very leastcongratulated for his efforts. But he's been imprisoned, brutally tortured and charged with treason by Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). It's an outrage that Pakistan is holding Dr. Afridi for the crime of helping America.
And it's an outrage the United States continues to send over $2 BILLION in taxpayer money to Pakistan each year. We must get this jizya stopped
To hear that AG Eric Holder might be on his way out is good news, if only a rumor at this stage of the big shuffle apparently under way. Out with the bad journalism of the leftist media and in with the sunshine and the light...
Tar and feather the scoundrels, liars of a feather!
Istumbled across this spot-on post by an insightful reader of The Federalist. Hat tip to Cylar.
It's sharply phrased and succinct, so I have chosen to republish it right here, a timely rehash of what we consider the one and only rather obvious interpretation of the personal protection against one's own rogue government as well as other proximity-tested threats to his person, family, property or state.
We suggest this moment in history is especially crucial, for even as we pen this silent outrage against us, the reckless, scheming United Nations and Madame Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, both entities now firmly entrenched in the long range Obama administration strategy of neutralizing America for Pan-Marxist Islamic purposes, continue their assault against our sovereign rights as free democratic republican Americans with their so-called Small Arms Treaty set for signing later this month which calls for the confiscation of all small arms in America (worse case). This is a treaty we the people cannot let stand.
It has always struck me as a bit funny that while nine of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are clearly intended to protect the rights of individuals against government overreach, we still have some (too many, actually) who insist that the 2nd Amendment was inserted so as to confer a right on government itself.
(Sarcasm on.) Because, you know, conferring a collective right on a “militia” (rather than individual citizens) is entirely consistent with the right of free speech (1st), the right against unreasonable search (4th), the right against self-incrimination (5th), and the stipulation that the federal government is prohibited from doing anything NOT expressly authorized by the Constitution (10th). I’m sure Madison and the others paused in the middle of scribbling down these individual rights, and said, “Hang on. We need to make sure everyone understands the police and the army have the right to carry weapons. Just to clear up any confusion.” (Sarcasm off.)
Also, I hate to break this to the gun-grabbers, but “the militia” isn’t a government organization like the National Guard. It’s the whole citizenry, specifically able-bodied males 17 and older. Secondly, “well regulated” means disciplined and trained. It doesn’t mean “covered with lots of laws.”
The 2nd Amendment was clear from the word go, and two SCOTUS rulings have made it even more clear that it applies to individual citizens. Why there is still controversy on this point is a mystery to me.
But try explaining this to some gun grabber, and he’ll produce a strawman like, “So, this means I have the right to mount artillery on my pickup, then?” instead of arguing the point maturely and rationally.
If the framers had meant to say the “states” or the “state militias” in order to convey a collective right then they most assuredly would have, for these men were not lazy thinkers and writers. As pointed out in many a discussion of the topic, the writers used the words “the people” when reconciling this right of the people, first and foremost, just as they did in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments, which have consistently been understood to convey rights to individuals, not the people collectively. The concerns of Madison, Jefferson et al are easily reconciled since the militia clause is explanatory, not limiting. In fact, the majority of SCOTUS said the same thing when they struck down the Chicago gun ban two years ago.
ALMOST FULLY GROUNDED AGAIN AFTER ALL the zetetic excitement yesterday, I say we take a more serious and sober look at what transpired yesterday, and then again, this morning as Chief Justice John Roberts read for the majority, and we boomeranged all around the Internet seeking solace in our hour of disenchantment. Of all that I have read and seen in video, TV, and slapshot Internet reporting, here is a most convincing snippet from commentator Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard. Cost seems to put the onus on the current administration to act quickly in this snatch and grab of power and policy if they want to salvage the so-called Affordable Health Care Act because a not so shabby portion of it is unconstitutional, and a greater part is vigorously disliked by the citizenry, despite its many wonderful features that heal the sick and raise the dead, or so you would be led to believe by its proponents:
[I]f you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.
First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.
Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.
Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.
Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn't think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.
If Obama loses in November, that is...
We have gotten into a bit of editorial trouble on Facebook this morning by reposting what turned out to be one of those overwrought but probably closer to the mark than the original bill's hidden intent has tried to hide, so we will just have to watch for the fall out over the next several months, but chances are Obama and his buddies in Congress are too busy running for re-election to spend too much time on an old toxic bill like this one, but will quietly work behind the scenes implementing all the necessary changes to the health care industry it deems choice and tasty while leaving the iffy parts of the bill to gather dust and excuses. Fundraising and speechifying, yep, he'll be there. And let this health bill interfere with his golf outings? God forbid. We have an absentee president, although I am sure I'm not the first one to notice this.
Dear Citizen, and I include ALL my Leftist friends who I saw celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. Have you even READ the damn thing? Shame on each and every one of you, and if you did, and are still supporting this pernicious bill to stand as the Law of the Land, I guess I have just inherited have a full-blown “enemies list” already built into my own Internet empire, so to speak. I have checked with Scopes on a few on these items, and yes, there is some right wing extrapolation to meet the challenge of left wing sneakiness. All sides will cry foul, but it's worth a perusal. This health bill is just plain awful, if not thoroughly evil, and surprise, surprise, my little darlings, explain to me (AS IF I DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW) why sharia-spirited Muslims and Congress are exempt...
If you have read all 2700 pages of THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT (for reasons of subversion I shall no longer refer to this document as Obamacare), I would not be jumping the shark to surmise that each of you are aware of the following conditions, and now a willing slave in chains and in spirit to Federal government in all its myriad of forms:
Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process).
Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None
Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN).
Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans).
Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens.
Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll.
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
PLUS: OBAMA'S DARING MARK OF THE BEAST
There's a jarring, startling thing in the Obamacare Bill that 95% of Americans won't like.
The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable." Then on page 1004 it describes what the term "data" means in paragraph 1, section B:
14 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in
15 formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see...
Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a "implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information." The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."
This sort of device would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option. With the reform of the private insurance companies, who charge outrageous rates, many people will switch their coverage to a more affordable insurance plan. This means the number of people who choose the public option will increase. This also means the number of people chipped will be plentiful as well. The adults who choose to have a chip implanted are the lucky (yes, lucky) ones in this case.
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM = CHIP
Children who are "born in the United States who at the time of birth are not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage" will be qualified and placed into the CHIP or Children's Health Insurance Program (what a convenient name). Children conceived by parents who are already covered under the public option will more than likely be implanted with a chip by the consent of the parent. Eventually everyone will be implanted with a chip. And with the price and coverage of the public option being so competitive with the private companies, the private company may not survive.
By Michael Filozof: The Origins of Leftist Racial OrthodoxyIF "diversity" is good, why do liberals congregate in lily-white enclaves like Vermont (the whitest state in the Union, according to the Census) and Marin County, California? White liberals hector others incessantly about the need for "diversity," but most have no interest in living in neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks. The ideal society in the liberal mind always seems to be a Scandinavian socialist one (which is to say that liberals strive to make the U.S. more like some of the most uniformly white nations in the world).
The liberal enforcers of racial correctness are quick to decry the evils of racism, yet they are quite willing to practice it themselves in the form of affirmative actionand they are strangely silent when blacks engage in "hate crimes" against whites. Conservatives have been increasingly willing to point out these and other hypocrisies of our racial orthodoxy, but they invariably fail to understand its true origins.
What drives our contemporary racial orthodoxy? Many conservatives mistakenly believe that liberals obsessed by race are afflicted with "white guilt." Not so. The truth about racial matters in the U.S. is this: racial issues are not actually about race. In the hands of the progressive left, race is a tool used by powerful whites against other whites; specifically, race is a weapon used by liberals to bludgeon conservatives and delegitimize conservative, patriotic values.
But it has not always been so.
Prior to World War II, progressives and leftistslike Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sangerviewed blacks as inferior human scum who should be eliminated through eugenic hygiene. But after World War II, "progressive" thinking about race underwent an astonishing metamorphosis. The American left forged a strategic alliance with blacks, using race to attack the core values of an American society they had now come to despise as the ultimate evil.
The dominant theme of the literature of the postwar erawhich 76 million Baby Boomers absorbed as the first generation to attend college en massewas the moral equivalence between the United States and the totalitarian regimes it had just fought.
In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, the founder of the modern American feminist movement, wrote that the American suburb was a "comfortable concentration camp" for women. (Friedan, a Jew, wrote this in 1963, less than 20 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.)
In The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger's protagonist Holden Caulfield (narrating the story from an asylum after having been driven insane by the "phoniness" of American life) says of his brother D.B., a World War II veteran, "I really think he hated the Army worse than the war ... [h]e said the Army was practically as full of bastards as the Nazis were."
In Kurt Vonnegut's semi-autobiographical novel Slaughterhouse-Five, the real enemy is not Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, but the American military, the American officer corps, and American society. Vonnegut's character Billy Pilgrim is a WWII vet who survives the bombing of Dresden as a POW; after the war, he becomes a respected citizen and a financial success. Pilgrim absorbs conservative American values right down to the "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper sticker on his carand goes insane, just as his fictionalized son patriotically heads off to Vietnam.
In the early 1960s at Edinburgh, Mailer along with Mary McCarthy began the process of legitimizing Burroughs. Mailer opened the back door and let Burroughs in. Literally. One of Burroughs’ most ardent supporters for admission to the Academy of Arts and Letters was Mailer. This recognition was very important to Burroughs, and he wore his Academy pin proudly. From what I can gather, Burroughs was grateful for Mailer’s support. Jed Birmingham
But the author who provided the direct link between left-wing America-hatred and race was Norman Mailer, also a disillusioned WWII veteran. In his 1957 essay "The White Negro," Mailer equated the atomic bomb with the concentration camp and urged whites to identify with black social outcasts as a means to escape the "totalitarian tissues of American society." The "hipster" should encourage the "psychopath" within himself and "absorb the existentialist synapses of the Negro." The white "hipster" would follow psychopathology-as-liberation "along the road of the homosexual, the orgiast, the drug-addict, the rapist, the robber and the murderer..."
"[W]hat makes [the "hip" ethic] radically different from Socratic moderation with its stern conservative respect for the experience of the past[,]" Mailer wrote, "is immoderation[.] ... [T]he nihilism of Hip proposes ... that every social restraint and category be removed[.]" (Emphasis mine.)
The White Negro is perhaps the most important work of literature in postwar America. It provided a blueprint for the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and in hindsight, it explains nearly all left-wing, anti-conservative behavior since. If blacks were social outcasts in American life, then the white enemies of traditional American values would align with them. An immoderate drunk like the late Sen. Edward Kennedywho was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, then killed a young girl he was presumably cheating on his wife with, and got away with itcould not possibly point the finger at blacks and tell them to be honest, chaste, and sober. He could, however, falsely accuse Judge Robert Bork of wanting blacks to "sit at segregated lunch counters" to deflect attention from his own behavior. And it worked. (Today, following the same "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy, leftists align themselves with Islamic terrorists and radicals, under whose rule they would never actually want to live.)
When white Americans finally began to see the justice of Martin Luther King's cause and the injustice of Jim Crow, leftists pushed harder and harder to include items under the rubric of "civil rights" that King, a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus, would never have approved of. "Civil rights" became a foot-in-the-door that leftists used to attack and destroy all "social restraints and categories" in American society.
Left-wing racial rhetoric about "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination" has been used to conceal a subterranean leftist agenda of anti-Americanism and anti-conservatism for over fifty years. Conservatives persist in stupidly taking this rhetoric at face value; hence, they always find themselves on the racial defensive.
Want to kill your unborn baby? That's a "civil right." Marry another man? "Civil right." Dress in drag and use a woman's bathroom? Another "civil right." (It is hardly a surprise that while King remains a revered figure on the left, his Christianity has been airbrushed from his legacy. He is almost always referred to as "Dr." King todayrather than "Rev." King, a Man of God.)
The anti-conservative alliance between the left and blacks as described by Mailer neatly explains why Tea Party whites who admire the likes of Herman Cain and Allen West are nonetheless tagged as "racists" by the left. It explains why Democratic Party leftists welcomed former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd into their fold while slandering former Sen. Trent Lott as a "racist." It explains why the Republican Party, founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party, routinely loses 95% or more of the black vote; it explains why the conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas is the most hated man in black Americahated more than the reprehensible O.J. Simpson.
It explains the virulent left-wing racial demagoguery surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting. Everyone knows that blacks are not being profiled and victimized by white "vigilantes," as the politically charged indictment against George Zimmerman alleged. But the shooting provided a perfect platform for white liberals like Michael Bloomberg and Charles Schumer to attack the traditional, conservative American institutions of gun ownership, the National Rifle Association, and the right of self-defense by smearing these things as "racist."
We accept the proposition that human relationships are simultaneously strong but fragile, that human notions of familiarity are natural but confining, that competitive divisions existing due to culture, class, and individuality are not insurmountable when the push and pull properties of each axis is properly cherished and protected according to natural forms. We insist that deep friendship and brotherly love exist among and across all the races and peoples, made possible most notably in the context of free men and free women behaving towards each other in a spirit of compassion and respect whenever the measurement and surety of common goals and individual interests is put to the test.
Diversity is a beautiful concept, one found in nature itself, but diversity cannot, or should not be coerced, or engulfed in political struggles for which its players are ill-equipped and ill-advised to condone, even though the eco-political whip and needle is often indeed the primary social thrust governments prepare to inject diversityof every kind and unkindinto the populations at large. Even then, every vector of cultural inertia should be allowed to insinuate its own organic passage into the social soup without the centralized authority of governmental quotas handicapping the game, a tactic which both complicates and falsifies the vaguely apotheosized experiment of diversity for its own sake.