Monday, November 29, 2010

Administration Cracks Down on Internet, but Can't Stop Wikileaks

Ever since before he was voted into office, Barack Obama had repeatedly expressed his desire to censor Fox News, right-wing talk shows and conservative bloggers.

Since the election, probably encouraged by the Prez's blase attitude toward the First Amendment, numerous members of Congress and the administration have expressed their own desires to eliminate any communication outlet that doesn't toe the line. Most recently, Sen. Rockefeller expressed his wish to have the FCC shut down Fox and MSNBC.

In this atmosphere of contempt for free speech, the Homeland Security Department's ICE division began last week seizing websites engaged in selling knockoffs or otherwise infringing on copyright.

Protecting copyright sounds good, right? Except that the websites were all seized without warning, without any chance to correct any problems, and apparently without any avenue for appeal. Guilty until proven innocent?

Just to compound the dastardliness of the move, the legislation that would actually authorize ICE to do this is still in congressional committee, awaiting passage. Perhaps, emboldened by the Slaughter Rule invented during the health care debate, the administration does not feel constrained by procedure or the written law?

Then there's the FCC, which is considering putting "Net Neutrality" on its December agenda for adoption. Net Neutrality means the FCC would give itself the authority to regulate the Internet, specifically whether Internet providers can give faster download speeds to people willing to pay more. At the very least, "evening out" the speeds and bandwidths offered to all customers would result in information blockages for those who need faster speeds, not to mention lost jobs and probably closed businesses. Plus, the biggest problem is it would give the FCC a foothold on the Internet, from which it would be free to monitor and eventually control non-business communications and probably the content of websites.

Now consider the problem of Wikileaks, the website that has released reams of classified information intended to damage the United States and expose many of its intelligence operatives. This website has caused actual damage, yet the administration dawdles. The founder of Wikileaks is in Australia, so we are led to believe that is a major diplomatic problem. But the Australians are allies, and Navy SEALs are practiced at getting into other countries and removing troublemakers. How hard really would it be to shut down Wikileaks in a matter of minutes? And yet, it remains open.

(As an aside, the lack of furor over the exposure of real undercover intelligence agents casts the whole Valerie Plame affair in a different light. Plame was the "undercover" agent whose name was listed in Who's-Who yet caused a years-long stir over her alleged "exposure" by columnist Robert Novak.)

It raises a question, which we ask at the risk of having it dismissed as yet another sign of the paranoia the Left prefers to paint us conservatives with: Who is protecting Wikileaks? And is the administration possibly allowing the site to stay online for its own purposes?

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

'Mystery Contrail' or Chinese Warning?

Raise your hand if you bought into the Obama administration's dismissal of a peculiar column of smoke over the ocean west of Los Angeles earlier this month as an optical illusion caused by an airplane contrail.

OK, all you saps in the media put your hands down.

The rest of America probably figured something was up, even if they couldn't figure what.

Now comes confirmation. The G2 Bulletin, a newsletter that follows U.S. intelligence information, has reported that two government military experts on missiles have concluded that the smoke trail was most likely from a Chinese missile launched from a submarine lurking off the coast of Los Angeles.

It's not a big surprise. Images of the "contrail" show it plainly was anything but.

Contrails are vapor trails caused by airplanes plowing through the high atmosphere. As such, they appear as thin, wispy lines of cloud. Usually, there are two of them, as they tend to form at airplanes' wing tips.

Images recorded by KCBS, however, clearly show large, billowing puffs of smoke typical of a missile's exhaust.

What is more surprising is the administration's non-response. At the time, Obama was on his tour of China and other Asian countries.

Retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Jim Cash believes the order to downplay the warning shot came from the president himself.

"There is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general in minutes, and passed to the president immediately," he said in WorldNet Daily.

Most alarming is that our defenses apparently were incapable of detecting the launch.

Journalist Wayne Madsen, a former naval officer, said in WND that Pentagon officials are working "overtime with the media and on the Internet to cover up the latest debacle. However, even some reporters who cover the Pentagon full-time are beginning to question the Pentagon's version of events ... over the skies west of Los Angeles."

Monday, November 22, 2010

Feds' Plead, 'Let Us Invade Your Privacy'

John Pistole, the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, is making the rounds today to stave off an anticipated Thanksgiving travel disaster.

Not a terrorist attack, just the loss of his job.

Former FBI Deputy Director Pistole, the fall guy for Janet Napolitano's "Grope 'N' Go" policy at U.S. airports is begging the American people not to join in an Internet movement to refuse the body scans during holiday travel. The scans, which only take a few seconds, are much faster (not to mention easier to store in a computer for later perusal by bored TSA agents) than the full-body patdowns, which take at least a few minutes to be really satisfying.

Airport officials are keeping a close eye on the TSA's performance this week because it only takes a couple of people to really screw things up during the busiest travel time of the year.

To anyone brave enough to risk the airports this weekend, I say go for it. Refuse to be microwaved and photographed naked by the scanners, then protest the patdown. Don't do anything illegal, just exercise your First Amendment right to protest--the louder the better.

Remember just a few years ago, when the liberals were perpetually screaming about President Bush allegedly invading privacy and taking away people's rights because of things like wire tapping terrorist cell phones?

Well, America, here we have a real wanna-be tyrant in President Obama and his henchmen, Napolitano and Pistole, and they are actually violating our rights.

This is REAL.

Our ancestors rebelled against a tyrant king who raised taxes, took our property and denied us representation. We are now facing a tyrant king, elected by our own vote, who is every minute chipping away at individuals' right to be unmolested by government without just cause.

The government, of course, sells this gross attack on our privacy and right to travel as being for our "safety." Some people, sadly, fall for this line of doublespeak.

More than 200 years ago, Benjamin Franklin said, "Those willing to sacrifice their basic rights in the name of security deserve neither rights nor security."

Why would Americans stand by while women and children are publicly raped by a rogue agency deliberately trying to force people into the scanner, where they are photographed naked? Anyone who does so is nothing more than a sheep, which is what Obama really wants--a nation full of docile, weak sheep who can be led to accept anything, no matter how outrageous or repugnant.

So, are you a sheep or an American?

Friday, November 19, 2010

Liberal Terrorism: Bristol Palin Target of White Powder Scare

The story of Bristol Palin's success on "Dancing With the Stars" has everything American audiences used to cheer. A young single mother working as a secretary gets tapped by a major television show to enter a dance competition against professional entertainers.

Despite the odds, no dance experience and the hurtful jibes of her detractors and some of her competitors, she remains dignified and classy, and makes it to the finals.

But to the Left, it's a different story. It's the tale of the hated, talentless daughter of a despised foe backed by an evil conspiracy to take the coveted trophy from someone more deserving.

At least, that's what the Left and all its hordes of commentators are saying.

But there is yet another story about the Left and Bristol Palin, and it's full of truths the Left can't admit because it would reveal the utter moral and emotional bankruptcy of America's "progressives."

That's the story in which assorted liberal celebretards like Margaret Cho and Brandi feel they can phone it in and still have a chance at winning because they're entitled, but then drip bile when America votes them out.

It's the story in which "Dancing With the Stars" producers thought they'd poke some fun at the Palin family (such as by cutting to Sarah Palin while the audience booed the scores for one dancing couple), only to be stunned that a bright, humble, hard-working, conservative young woman could win the hearts of Americans in this age of cynicism.

It's also the story where Left-wing bloggers make up lies about Bristol and her family, feed them to the idiot children of the media such as TMZ and hope they get picked up by major news outlets.

In this story, young Bristol is the embodiment of everything the Left hates: a young, hard-working woman who decided to give her baby a chance at life rather than go to the abortion mill; who speaks against the Left's obsession with sexually objectifying teens and offers a hard-learned and passionate message about abstinence; who learns from her mistakes; who respects and loves her family; who believes in real American values like patriotism and faith.

In this story, America's love affair with Bristol Palin drives the Left so insane that one man felt compelled to shoot his television before threatening his wife and standing off against SWAT. (Good thing those anti-gun laws worked, huh?)

This is the story where the Left feels so driven to stop Bristol Palin that at least one home-grown terrorist tried to scare her out of the competition by sending her an envelope of white powder at the studio where the show is taped. (Thankfully, it was only talcum powder.)

And this is the tale of how the Left-wing media, probably embarrassed at its con-freres' actions, cover up that the scare package delivered to CBS was addressed to Bristol Palin. (MSNBC only mentioned Bristol was the target at the very end of its story, and the Associated Press didn't say she was the target at all, even though the fact was announced by the studio.)

Yes, this story is shaping up to have everything I've come to love about the Left: petulance, whininess, narcissism, and of course, bullying and the threat of violence against anyone not on their Facebook friend list.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

The Case of the Mystery Missile

If you haven't heard by now, an ICBM-size  missile was launched off the coast of Southern California on Monday evening.

The problem is, no one in the U.S. military seems to know who launched it.

The rocket's trail was filmed by a KCBS news copter, about 50 miles west of Los Angeles. NORAD and NORTHCOM officials told Fox News there was no threat to national security.

However, Pentagon Spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said the launch did not appear to be a scheduled one, and he could not confirm whose rocket it was or where it went.

Just to up the DefCon a notch, the Pentagon apparently is using the KCBS footage to try to figure out what happened, because apparently neither NORAD nor NORTHCOM, which are supposed to protect us from such things, were able to detect the missile independently.

Some news sources have suggested this was a "show of strength" while President Obama is traveling with his circus troupe in Asia.

Raise your hand if that explanation makes you feel better.

They Say They Want a Revolution

All it takes is a little slap to the face to make the left start panicking and plotting revenge.

Just in time for post-election celebrations on the right, ultraliberal cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall has published his book, "The Anti-American Manifesto," in which he advocates a violent revolution to change this country into a Socialist dream state.

In an interview that could only take place (one hopes) on MSNBC, talking head Dylan Ratigan coddled the would-be Guevara with the softest of questions and abundant nods of agreement.

"Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution? The answer obviously is yes," said Ratigan in introducing his guest. "The only question is how to do it?"

(And the libs wonder why more people watch Fox.)

Some voices on the right have also floated the idea of revolution. So what makes them any better than the benighted left?

The answer, if you don't already know, is freedom. The American Revolution established a country where the inherent rights of mankind would be protected and nurtured. It wasn't perfect, and the people had to grow into the some of the nobler concepts of the Founding Fathers, such as equality before the law. But America was the first country founded around the idea that rights come from God, not from government.

Socialism puts up with none of that. Oh, Socialists are good at talking about equality and rights and yada-yada, but at the end of the day, Socialism is about stealing from people who have been successful, buying off the poor with peanuts and channeling all wealth to "the state," which is to say, the newly anointed Socialist leadership.

Socialism is about impoverishing the masses, violently crushing dissent and keeping careful control over people's inherent creativity and industry. It is, in short, tyranny.

Somewhere deep in its heart, America understands this. The calls of radicals like Rall for a Socialist revolution are just proof that the left is getting desperate.

Monday, November 8, 2010

MSNBC Shows How Much Journalistic Ethics Mean

Some conservative pundits were celebrating over the weekend at the apparent firing of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC for giving political donations to several Democrats. Among them was Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, which is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, a Marxist group that openly seeks a one-world government, as reported by World Net Daily and ignored by the rest of the media.

Liberals, of course, were aghast that one of their leading talking heads could be deposed over such a minor thing as ethics.

MSNBC has rules that are supposed to prevent political contributions from its journalists without prior approval of NBC's president. Something about public trust.

MSNBC show host Rachel Maddow used the incident to crow about MSNBC's supposed moral superiority over Fox News.

"Let this incident lay to rest forever the facile, never-true-anyway, bullpucky, lazy conflation of Fox News and what the rest of us do for a living,"Maddow said. "I know everybody likes to say, 'Oh, that's cable news. It's all the same.' Fox News and MSNBC, mirror images of each other."

Fox, of course, is the liberal devil because it is not only conservative, but it gets at least twice the viewership of second-place MSNBC.

Libs will tell you that Fox hosts are even worse than Olbermann, using their shows to drum up support for conservative candidates and causes, etc. The key difference--that's obvious to anyone honest--is that Fox hosts are open about their political activities, and the network actually has probably the most politically diverse staff of any news outlet, despite its lineup of conservative stars. Look at the recent hiring of Juan Williams, who proved not liberal enough for PBS.

Also, no Fox hosts have been caught contributing to the co-chair of a group linked to Marxists, who want to destroy America.

(For those who went to public school, a brief lesson: America equals freedom. Marxism equals tyranny. Freedom good. Tyranny bad.)

Anyway, the libs needn't have worried. Olbermann will be back on his show spinning the news leftward by Tuesday after his firing turned into merely a long weekend.

Turns out that ethics ... eh ... not such a big deal at MSNBC.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

California: State of Confusion

It's the morning after in California, and the state's voters have once again proven that logic has no home on the Left Coast.

While most of the rest of the country made a necessary turn to the right in an effort to stop President Obama from remaking the country in his own image, California embraced its standard slate of left-wing know-nothings while voting down initiatives that would increase economic activity and passing measures sure to result in higher taxes and fewer jobs.

The same affliction evidently spread as far as Nevada, where the voters returned Obama's sock puppet Harry Reid to the Senate.

So what would compel voters in two states with among the highest unemployment rates in the country to endorse the party that has practically promised to make things worse?

It's a clear example of the failure of public education. Our schools long ago gave up teaching American culture, values and history, much less critical thinking skills.

It doesn't take much intellectual prowess to realize that Keynesian policies don't work and never have worked. They failed in the Great Depression, they failed under Carter, they are failing under Obama, they have been failing for decades in California.

And why would they work? The fundamental principle of Keynesian economics is that government must spend to "stimulate" the economy in hard times. The problem is with the unspoken part of that theory, wherein the money comes from the pockets of the very people who are supposed to be stimulated. The more the government stimulates, the poorer the taxpayers get.


Yet the legend persists of how Keynesian notions have saved not only us but other countries in times of duress. Without any real knowledge of history, a substantial body of voters continues to believe the lie.

And those who don't know their history are doomed to vote Democrat.