Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Senate Dems urge Obama to EO lockdown of Internet

Obama plans to issue cyber security regulations on American businesses before the election? This may stop Patriots from Communicating freely without intervention and propaganda from the Government Media. THE OMG GROUP...

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste"--Rahm Emanuel

First and foremost, my thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of those embassy employees who lost their lives in the riots in Libya. May God wrap His loving arms around all those effected by the violence in Libya.


Many watching the cyber security legislation believe that the President will use a 2003 Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 7 issued by former President Bush to make the rulemaking changes on America's business community in the name of "national security." In light of the death of our Ambassador in Libya last night, in part sparked by an Internet movie ridiculing the Islamic religion, President Obama could issue this new order within the next couple of weeks--before the Nov. election.

Several Democratic Senators are urging the President, in the name of national security, to do as much as he can to advance the goals of the Senate's Cyber security Act (S. 3414), which includes controversial private sector provisions. These private sector provisions are strong incentives for businesses to share internet information with the Federal government.

The Senate failed to advance the Senate Cyber security bill on Aug. 2, 2012. The action required 60 affirmative votes to move the bill forward in the Senate. The vote was 52 to 46. (Link to the vote:

Sens Feinstein (D-CA) and Rockefeller (D-WVA) sent letters to the President on Aug. 28 & Aug. 13 in which they urged him to act on cyber security provisions since the bill failed in the Senate. Part of the letter reads like this:

“I therefore urge you to issue an Executive Order, or take other appropriate action, to advance the cyber security of our Nation's critical infrastructure.”

Sen. Lieberman (I-CT), the main author of the Senate cyber security bill, also endorsed the idea of an executive order.

“If Congress cannot get its act together to protect our nation from the real, urgent, and growing threat of cyber attack, then the president must do everything he can by executive order,” the statement said.

Senator Collins (R-ME) has rejected the executive order idea, saying that it should not be used as a substitute for legislative action.

The Senate cyber security bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop strong voluntary cyber security standards for information sharing for all operators of “critical infrastructure,” such as power plants and water systems. Many in the business community fear that these standards would lead to cumbersome and burdensome government regulations on ALL American businesses.

Remember what the President did earlier this year---

The President ordered DHS to take steps that were almost identical to the proposed Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act (S. 3992), an immigration bill that had been defeated in the Senate.

Back in 2011, the White House unveiled a comprehensive cyber security proposal that was similar to the Senate's original cyber security bill. It called for DHS to be granted new strong rulemaking authority.

Remember the full quote of the then chief of staff to President Obama, it goes like this: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."--Rahm Emanuel

Stay tuned!

How unions became so powerful, Unions and Democrats an UNHOLY EVIL alliance,

How Public Unions Became So Powerful!  The Democratic Cash cow !!|


By 1970, nearly 20% of American workers were employed by government.

The Chicago teachers strike has put Democrats in a difficult position. Teacher unions are the most powerful constituency in the Democratic Party, but their interests are ever more clearly at odds with taxpayers and inner-city families. Chicago is reviving scenes from the last crisis of liberalism in the 1970s, when municipal unions drove many American cities to disorder and bankruptcy. Where did their power come from?


Before the 1950s, government-employee unions were almost inconceivable. When the Boston police unionized and went on strike in 1919, the ensuing chaos—rioting and looting—crippled the public-union idea. Massachusetts Gov. Calvin Coolidge became a national hero by breaking the strike, issuing the dictum: "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time." President Woodrow Wilson called the strike "an intolerable crime against civilization."

President Franklin D. Roosevelt also rejected government unionism. He told the head of the Federation of Federal Employees in 1937 that collective bargaining "cannot be transplanted into the public service. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer" because "the employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws."

FDR pointed out the obvious, that the government is sovereign. If an organization can compel the government to do something, then that organization will be the real sovereign. Thus the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act of 1935 gave private-sector unions the power to compel employers to bargain, but the act excluded government workers. It declared that federal and state and local governments were not "employers" under its terms.

Postwar prosperity and the great increase of public employment revived the public union idea. By 1970, nearly 20% of American workers worked for the government. (In 1900: 4%.) The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees led the effort to persuade a state to allow public-employee unionization, and Afscme prevailed in Wisconsin in 1958. New York City and other cities also permitted their workers to unionize.

President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order 50 years ago that broke the dam. The order did not permit federal employees to bargain over wages (these are still set by Congress), or to force workers to join a union or to strike (no state or city allowed that), but Kennedy's directive did lead to unionization of the federal workforce. And it gave great impetus to more liberal state and local laws. Government-union membership rose tenfold in the 1960s.

Things soon got ugly. The Wagner Act had fomented labor militancy, notably sit-down strikes in 1937 that disrupted manufacturing and retarded the economy. But in the late 1960s and 1970s, federal and state union-promoting laws produced unprecedented strikes by teachers, garbage collectors, postal workers and others, even though every state prohibited strikes by public employees.

Striking Chicago public-school teachers on Monday.

Afscme began to arouse resentment from other union federations—especially the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union. Afscme's abrasive president, Jerry Wurf, became an easy target for his opponents. He was said to have advised Baltimore firefighters to "let Baltimore burn" if union demands were not met; Wurf was subsequently regarded as generally having a let-it-burn attitude.

In 1976 the Supreme Court derailed a movement to enact the National Public Employment Relations Law ("a Wagner Act for public employees," as supporters described it) led by Rep. William Clay of Missouri. The court held that Congress could not apply federal labor laws to state employees. The justices stated the obvious, that "the States as states stand on a quite different footing from an individual or a corporation."

By the end of the 1970s, the budgetary burdens imposed by public unions had helped revive conservative movements, leading to the elections of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. Undeterred, William Clay told the Professional Air Traffic Controllers at Patco's 1980 convention to "revise your political thinking. It should start with the premise that you have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests. It must be selfish and pragmatic." He told them to "learn the rules of the game," which were "that you don't put the interest of any other group ahead of your own. What's good for the federal employees must be interpreted as being good for the nation." The take-no-prisoners message helps explain why President Reagan fired and replaced the striking controllers, and why the public overwhelmingly supported him.

Historians tend to depict the Patco strike as a replay of the 1919 Boston police strike, with Reagan as the new Coolidge. But breaking the Patco strike had zero impact on public unionism. It may have cooled the willingness to strike, but unions continued to flourish. Public employment and government unionism have grown more than the population since 1980. The Patco replacements soon joined the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and carried on Patco's work.

Nor did the breaking of the strike "send a signal" to private employers to take a hard line against their unions, as some historians of the time have suggested. The factors responsible for private-union decline antedated the Patco strike and continued after it. Reagan ultimately may have even helped the public-employee union movement: By stoking the nation's economic revival in the 1980s, he made the costs of public unions begin to seem less onerous, and polls suggested that American worries about the matter declined.

Public unions do well in flush times like the 1950s and 1960s, but they suffer when taxpayers feel their true cost, as in the 1970s—and today.

Mr. Moreno, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is the author of "The American State from the Civil War to the New Deal," forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.

A version of this article appeared September 12, 2012, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: How Public Unions Became So Powerful.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was first sodomized and raped before he was killed..Obama has blood on his hands !! SCREW THIS ARAB SPRING SHIT!!

Libya ambassador Chris Stevens was sodomized and raped before he was killed: Islamic Beast/Al-Qaeda terrorist in Libya may have used riot over anti-Muslim movie as a diversion to pull off 9/11 anniversary attack.

It all starts with Obama's love affair with the MAD MUSLIM WORLD! ENOUGH THIS MUST END !!

U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens killed in a rocket attack during protests over an anti-Muslim film in Libya.

The Arabic language website known as Lebanon News ( has just reported the horrific claim that the heavily armed mob responsible for the murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, 52, actually raped him before he was killed.
The Google Translation of the report follows:
-"The U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before killing by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest against the film is offensive to the Prophet Muhammad"
-"The sources told AFP said that 'Ambassador was killed and representation of his body in a manner similar to what happened with Gaddafi, such as murder.'"
Ambassador Stevens was killed on Tuesday along with three other embassy staff as a group of terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate office in Benghazi, where Stevens was hold up.
The mob fired countless gunshots and rocket propelled grenades at the U.S. compound, eventually setting the consulate ablaze.
Also on Tuesday, a violent mob scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, replacing the U.S. flag with that of al Queda's.
Over his career, Stevens served two diplomatic tours in Libya, and was confirmed as ambassador to that country by the Senate in May.

President Obama denounced the wave of violence that swept through the Middle East and claimed the lives of four Americans in Libya  including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens. 

But Obama was not even at his own security briefings the week leading up to anniversary of the 9 11 attacks. What kind of a shit does that?

The envoy was killed after gun-toting protesters stormed the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city.
The attack, and a related embassy-storming in Egypt, was seemingly sparked by fury over a low-budget film produced in California that some found offensive to Muslims, but federal sources told CNN that an  Al-Qaeda-affiliated group responsible for a previous armed assault on the consulate may have taken advantage of the demonstration to attack on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks of 2001.
“The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack,” Obama said Wednesday morning from the Rose Garden, joined by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Since our founding the U.S. is a nation that respects all faiths,” the president added. “There is no justification of this type of senseless violence. None.”



September 12, 2012

The Blasphemy of False Prophets

I was watching the "news" accounts of the ongoing Obama-fiasco in Libya and Egypt this morning, and I couldn't help but come to one headline/twitter friendly conclusion:
"Obama Apologized. American Ambassador Eulogized. First Amendment Marginalized."
Perhaps I should add a subsidiary clause to the phrase: maybe something like "Media Sanitized" in reference to the way they are scrambling to protect their precious president as he speaks softly and stumblingly slams his little stick in the Muslim Brotherhood's front door.
But I'm not writing this post to focus on media bias. Others do that, and they do it better than I do. I'm writing this post for a different reason.
I'm angry.

I'm angry at a hypocritical, feckless President who personally spikes the football over Bin Laden's death while his state department apologizes to Islamists for the exertion of similar First Amendment rights by other Americans who aren't lucky enough to be anointed god-kings.
I'm angry that a posturing, empty-suit of a president lectures Americans on "denigrating religious views" when he is on record as referring to Americans of faith as "bitter clingers", and when he has campaign surrogates attacking his opponent for being a Mormon.
I'm angry that our stroke-addled, possibly brain-damaged Vice President describes 9/11 as a "bittersweet" day, as our embassies are burning and Americans are being killed.
I'm angry over the fact that we spent blood and treasure in Obama's "Lead from Behind Libyan Adventure" only to see our Ambassador murdered and dragged thru the streets by the very people Obama placed in power.
I'm angry that we helped force an ally out in Egypt knowing he'd be replaced with an Al-Qaeda friendly government that enjoyed watching its minions take the first symbolic opportunity they had to burn our flag and replace it with Al-Qaeda's.
I'm angry that at a time when Al-Qaeda's flag flies over the Cairo embassy, the mis-administration prepares to forgive over $1 BILLION in Egyptian debt.
I'm angry that "Pimp With A Limp" gets to talk to the president, while Bibi Netanyahu, whose allied country faces a potential nuclear annihilation, gets to talk to the hand.
I'm angry that the gut instinct of this mis-Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.
I'm angry that the mis-Administration's paltry response to a region-wide attack on America, which is, incidentally, what this is, is to deploy 50 Marines to Libya and jet-off to a Vegas fundraiser while preparing a top-ten list for Letterman's show.
I'm angry that the cornerstone freedoms of speech and religious liberty enshrined in our Constitution are so routinely dismissed and mocked by this mis-Administration. 1st Amendment freedom of speech? "Not if it hurts feelings" we are told. Freedom of religion? "Not if it stands between our mis-Administration and giving Sandra Fluke a free abortion should she want one" we are hectored.
But with four Americans dead, our flag burning, and our embassies trashed, you know what really makes me angry?
Our president isn't.
Think about that fact.
Our president isn't. He read a bland and bloodless set of prepared remarks for 10 minutes, hid behind Hillary Clinton's ever-widening skirt, took no questions, and then thought the best thing he could do would be to hit the Vegas strip.
The truth is this: yesterday I read that the President's team came out swinging against the "2016:Obama's America" movie.
They didn't like the way the president was portrayed. So they attacked Dinesh D'souza and, for some reason, Tea Partiers.
Here is the language they used on
“It should say enough about D’Souza’s credibility that a movie catering to the Tea Party attacks someone for allegedly ‘anti-colonial’ views,” the entry reads. “His attempts to hide his lies behind pseudo-scholarly presentation and glossy production values cannot withstand basic scrutiny. The facts show that 2016: Obama’s America is nothing more than an insidious attempt to dishonestly smear the President by giving intellectual cover to the worst in subterranean conspiracy theories and false, partisan attacks.”
That's tougher than anything Obama said in response to the death of an American ambassador, his staff, or the attack on our embassy grounds.
Which I guess suggests a lesson of sorts. Like those who attacked our embassies and killed our personnel, Obama seems to get riled up by movies that make a point of smearing a self-proclaimed false-messianic prophet.
We can do better. We have to do better. I'm doing all I can to vent my anger into something constructive. I hope you'll join me.

(Feel free to follow me on Twitter if you like: @jackmcoldcuts).
digg this
posted by Jack M. at 04:05 PM