Is this Right Wing gossip? Much of the MSM thinks so. If untrue, we are thinking the National Enquirer is in big big trouble.

Vera Baker

The National Enquirer, responsible for the expose' on the John Edwards affair, is now telling us of an ongoing affair between Barack Obama and Vera Baker, pictured in this post.

Here's the hyperlinked headline:

NATIONAL ENQUIRER CLAIMS OBAMA CHEATING SCANDAL...

Before you click on it, understand that when you get to the site, the page will shut down with explanation.

There are links on Yahoo dealing with the issue that have been taken down, as well.

On April 11, it was reported that Obama disappeared without the White Press corp. Turns out , there was no Secret Service, either. permalink.

Here is a related story from the American Thinker - hardly a back room rag:


American Thinker: Barack Obama's Missing Girlfriends
by Jack Cashill

The blogosphere abhors a vacuum. So when the mainstream media (MSM) leave holes in a given narrative -- in this case, the biography of the president -- bloggers individually, incrementally, and indefatigably strive to fill in the blanks -- sometimes successfully, sometimes less so.

In his comprehensive, 600-plus-page biography of Barack Obama titled The Bridge, New Yorker editor David Remnick lays down the baseline of what the mainstream media know about the president -- or at least what they want us to know.

Where Remnick falls oddly silent -- not even to scold the blogosphere, which he does often -- is on the question of Obama's love life. This would not be particularly noteworthy save that Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father is in large part a racial coming-of-age story.

In Obama's all-consuming search for identity, and in Remnick's effort to document that search, Obama's romantic life should surely have featured. Whether he dated white women or black women -- and what he might have learned from either -- matters

*********

Obama Leaves Press Behind For A Soccer Game That Never Happened ...

Apr 13, 2010 ... Obama Leaves Press Behind For A Soccer Game That Never Happened? ... confirm if the Secret Service even accompanied Obama on his adventure. ...
the-raw-deal.com/.../obama-leaves-press-behind-for-a-soccer-game-that-never-happened/ - Cached

We went to this site and, strangely, it no longer exists! Gee. We wonder what happened.

*********

Obama Leaves WH Without Press, Breaking Protocol

The FOX Nation - 11th Apr 2010

1

Washington — President Barack Obama quietly breached years of protocol on Saturday morning by leaving the White House without the Press with him. About two hours before reporters were supposed to be in position to leave with the president, Obama left the grounds of the White House. Members of the Press were told he was attending one of his daughter's soccer games in northwest Washington, D.C. The White House Press Corps traditionally travels with the president anywhere he...

Editor's notes: turns out there was no soccer game. . . . . . . . ever. -- jds

**********

Whatsup with Tiger? Reuters reports:

By Julian Linden

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina, April 30 (Reuters) - Another side of Tiger Woods was unveiled to the golfing world on Friday. And just like the last time, it was shocking to see.

The private life of the world's richest sportsman had already been laid bare by the sordid revelations of his extra-marital affairs. Now his golf game is facing examination.

It is too early to say what, if any, effect his personal troubles will have on his game but Woods ensured those questions would be asked after a rare inept performance at the Quail Hollow championship on Friday.

Woods missed the cut for only the sixth time in his professional career after rounds of 74 and 79. That alone should be no real cause for concern but it was the manner of his early exit that was most alarming.

By his own incredible standards, this was a train crash the golfing world never expected to see. Woods looked like a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders but insisted the distractions in his private life were not to blame.

********

Editor's notes: understand that Woods has reportedly confessed to more than 100 different "affairs." The one that supposedly sent his wife packing (during the Masters) was an affair with an 18 year old neighbor. We will say one thing: if Tiger's golf problems are not related to his marital problems, he really does not love his wife. We are betting that he does care for his wife and kids, hence , the probs on the course. -- jds

.

Did you know that 46 State legislatures work only part time? That the Texas' legislature meets for 140 days every other year !!!!

Rocker Ted Nugent writes a tribute for Sarah Palin , chosen as one of 100 "Most Influential People" by Time magazine.

The 2010 TIME 100
By TED NUGENT

If Sarah Palin played a loud, grinding instrument, she would be in my band. The independent patriotic spirit, attitude and soul of our forefathers are alive and well in Sarah. In the way she lives, what she says and how she dedicates herself to make America better in these interesting times, she represents the good, while exposing the bad and ugly. She embraces the critical duty of we the people by participating in this glorious experiment in self-government. The tsunami of support proves that Sarah, 46, represents what many Americans know to be common and sensible. Her rugged individualism, self-reliance and a herculean work ethic resonate now more than ever in a country spinning away from these basics that made the U.S.A. the last best place. We who are driven to be assets to our families, communities and our beloved country connect with the principles that Sarah Palin embodies. We know that bureaucrats and, even more, Fedzilla, are not the solution; they are the problem. I'd be proud to share a moose-barbecue campfire with the Palin family anytime, so long as I can shoot the moose.

Nugent is an author, activist and rock-'n'-roll legend

A tribute to Glenn Beck written by none other than Sarah Palin. Very well worded.

Illustration by Joe Ciardiello for Time

by Sarah Palin (who said Palin can't write or isn't right?) Palin and Beck were two of Time's 100 most influential people.

Who'd have thought a history buff with a quirky sense of humor and a chalkboard could make for such riveting television? Glenn's like the high school government teacher so many wish they'd had, charting and connecting ideas with chalk-dusted fingers — kicking it old school — instead of becoming just another talking-heads show host. Self-taught, he's become America's professor of common sense, sharing earnestly sought knowledge with an audience hungry for truth. Glenn, 46, tackles topics other news shows would regard as arcane. Consider his desire to teach Americans about the history of the progressive movement: he's doing to progressive what Ronald Reagan did to liberal — explaining that it's a damaged brand.

His love of the Founding Fathers inspires others to learn and respect our nation's history. Best of all, Glenn delights in driving the self-proclaimed powers-that-be crazy. (The whole country awaits the red phone ringing!) Even his critics (whom he annihilates in ratings) have to admire his amazing ability to galvanize everyday Americans to better themselves and peacefully engage their government. Though he sometimes dismisses himself as an aw-shucks guy or just a "rodeo clown," he's really an inspiring patriot who was once at the bottom but now makes a much needed difference from the very, very top.

Palin, a former governor of Alaska, was the Republican candidate for Vice President in 2008

.

Some thoughts on Arizonia, third-world demonstrations, and American Exceptionalism.

<<<<<<<<.The looters and loafers of this country have gone to that great State.

Third-Worlders have shut down discourse and are attempting to change law by way of riot and destructive civil unrest. If that is the rule of the land, most of us need to increase our personal arsenals.

And where is Obama in all this? Shouldn't he be taking charge of the situation? Should there not be an explanation that "unpopular law is dealt with in the courts, not in the streets?" Of course - so why is there nothing but silence from this stranger in our White House? Obviously, he is not the leader so many had hoped. His silence is both irresponsible and dangerous.

His presidential legacy? He watched while the Middle East burned. He watched while South America burned. And now, "he watched while Arizona burned." You do know that Obama does not believe in American Exceptionalism and appears to be doing his best to see to it that America cannot make that claim? There is a change coming that we can all believe in. The due date for that change is November 2, 2010.

Since we brought it up; since Obama opposes it, here are some timely comments about American Exceptionalism from Red State:

Permanence, Change, and American Exceptionalism

Posted by Aaron Gardner (Profile)

Monday, March 29th at 6:00PM EDT

Today I was reading an article [make sure to read the whole thing] from National Review’s print edition written by Richard Lowry & Ramesh Ponnuru. In this article Ponnoru and Lowry do well in explaining the roots of American exceptionalism, and how the same has become a part of the core of our culture.

Here is the definition of American exceptionalism distilled to a single paragraph.

The late Seymour Martin Lipset defined it as liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics. The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.

After their brief history, the National Review duo then pivot their focus to the Obama administration’s agenda and it’s discomfort with American exceptionalism.

As is pointed out, this feeling of discomfort is mutual …

The popular revolt against Obama’s policies is a sign that Americans are not prepared to go gentle into that good night. Other factors are of course in play — most important, the weak economy — but the public is saying “No” to a rush to social democracy.

Although the conservatives, libertarians, and independents who oppose Obama’s health-care initiative may not put it in quite these terms, they sense that his project will not just increase insurance premiums but undermine what they cherish about America. Those Americans who want to keep our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay think it necessary to protect our security — but they also worry, more profoundly, that our leaders are too apologetic to serve our interests. Americans may want change, even fundamental change, but most of them would rather change our institutions than our national character.

We are engaged in a battle of permanence versus change, in which the object of conquest is nothing less than our national character, the idea of American exceptionalism.

Russell Kirk lays out, in more verbose form than Buckley’s “Standing Athwart History Yelling Stop”, the role of the conservative in this battle.

The intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Surely, if we do not take up this battle and challenge this cult of Progress, we will, as Lowry and Ponnoru note, be less.

It is madness to consider President Obama a foreigner. But it is blindness to ignore that American exceptionalism has homegrown enemies — people who misunderstand the sources of American greatness or think them outdated. If they succeed, we will be less free, less innovative, less rich, less self-governing, and less secure. We will be less.

Aaron B. Gardner

Hutaree Militia may be innocent of criminal activity.

(Left) Members of the Hutaree Militia group under indictment. Maybe the judge is thinking they broke no laws.

DETROIT (AP) - A federal judge challenged prosecutors Wednesday to show that nine members of a Michigan militia accused of plotting war against the government had done more than just talk and should remain locked up.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts heard nearly 10 hours of testimony and arguments over two days. She did not make a decision about whether the nine will remain in custody, saying only that a ruling would come soon.

The members of a southern Michigan group called Hutaree have been in custody for a month. An indictment accuses them of weapons violations and a rare crime: conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the government by first killing police officers.

Prosecutors say the public would be at risk if the nine are released. But defense lawyers claim the government has overreached with a criminal case based mostly on hateful speech.

An undercover agent infiltrated the group and secretly made recordings that have been played in court. While there is talk about killing police, it's not specific. In one conversation, there are many people talking over each other and laughing.

Roberts pressed that point more than once as Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet argued in favor of keeping the nine in jail. The judge suggested she didn't hear or read in the transcripts any indication that violence was imminent.

"Mere presence where a crime may be planned is not a crime. ... How does this add up to seditious conspiracy?" Roberts said.

Waterstreet said the government is not required to show all its evidence at this early stage of the case. He referred to the words of militia leader David Stone, 44, of Clayton, Mich., who was recorded by the undercover agent while they drove to Kentucky earlier this year.

"It's now time to strike and take our nation back so that we may be free again from tyranny. Time is up," Waterstreet said, quoting a transcript.

Later, putting the transcript aside, the prosecutor said: "The theme is the brotherhood is the enemy - all law enforcement."

Defense lawyers urged the judge to look at each defendant individually. Although all are charged with conspiracy, they were not always together during critical meetings cited by the government.

"'What if' is not the standard. ... None of these words are an instruction to anyone to commit a crime," said Stone's attorney, William Swor, as held up a stack of transcripts.

Arthur Weiss, a lawyer for Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind., said disgust with the government as recorded by the undercover agent is similar to what's said daily by radio and TV talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

"Millions of people" are talking about "taking our country back," Weiss said.

The judge also heard from relatives of some of the defendants who pledged to be responsible for them if they were released from jail.

We have problems with Obama's word, "I think at some point you have made enough money."

Obama rejects decorum when it comes to presidential conduct. We follow suit. Let's not forget the Bush joker image. We remind our readership that this picture was created by a liberal artist out of L.A.

We borrowed the following text form here. It briefly alludes to the problematic issue inherent to all democracies - the violation of property rights by the larger and poorer community. You do know that we are not a democracy. We are a republic of states. Such is a very important difference. You will often hear "democracy" and socialism mentioned in the same breath. You will never hear "republic" and socialism tied together in a positive way. Why are we, as citizens of the United States of America, entitled to home ownership and the possession of accumulated wealth? Because property rights are a key factor in a free society. In the case of this country, such is guaranteed by the Constitution. -- jds

Here are those comments:

Given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, the classic political philosophers held that government based on majority rule would lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. Thus Aristotle warned in The Politics, for example: "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city."

The Founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle's concern. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." James Madison and others held that the "first object of government" was to protect the rights of property. Numerous provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were incorporated to protect the property rights of citizens from the power of the government.

Whatever else might be said about him, President Obama operates on a different philosophy of government from that of the Founders. As Michelle Malkin observes, he spoke the most revealing and clarifying 10 words of his administration this week: "I think at some point you have made enough money."

The Founders thought that at some point the government had enough power. Obama, however, is a devout believer in unlimited government. The common denominator among so-called health care reform and financial regulatory reform as well as Obama's other big proposals is the augmented power they confer on the government in general and the executive branch in particular.

Alluding to other elements of Obama's Quincy speech earlier this week, Michelle [Malkin] observes that we have a president who presumes to know when you have earned "enough," who believes that only those who provide what he deems "good" products and services should "keep on making it," and who has determined that the role of American entrepreneurs is not to pursue their own self-interest, but to fulfill their "core" responsibility as dutiful growers of the collective economy. Michelle concludes: "That famous mock-up poster of Obama as the creepy socialist Joker never seemed more apt."

. . . . . . Federal employees now are paid much more money then their counterparts in private industry. Is Obama willing to acknowledge that they earn "enough" and should forgo future pay increases? Obama himself earned more than $5 million last year. Is that "enough"? George Soros has made countless millions from currency manipulations that many regard as little better than extortion. Does he have "enough"? I suspect that "enough" will prove to be a standard that is both highly flexible and intimately related to political influence.

News In Review

Schwarzenegger backs ObamaCare...
In spite of the fact that Caleefornia cannot afford the billion dollar cost

Slow federal response threatens to turn oil spill into Obama's 'Katrina'...
This makes as much sense as blaming local response failures on George Bush during Katrina

Spain jobless rate tops 20%, adds to debt worries...
For every green job in Spain, they lost 2.5 private sector jobs nation wide

UPDATE: Immigrants plan Saturday marches for reform...
Who can blame them. We ALL want reform but they are wanting amnesty, no ?!

Major League Baseball Pressured to Pull All-Star Game from Phoenix...
Let's not forget that 70% of America supports Arizonia. Best to rethink this move.

PAPER: 72-YEAR-OLD granny having affair with her own GRANDSON; Pair to have BABY!
She adopted out her daughter. Daughter died. Grandson found Grandma and of course they fell in love. Someone in this story
has only one tooth.

Beijing limits home-buyers to one new apartment...
We keep telling you that only Commi/Socialists do this kind of thing. Anybody listening?

Dems spark alarm with call for national ID card...
Good timing!! Arizonian illegals are screaming, "Don't card me Bro" and the Dems come up with this ?!!

Obama takes immigration reform off agenda
He promised to solve this problem in the first year of his administration. What is he going to promise come the next campaign ??

Goldman may face Justice Department review
Fannie and Freddie caused the mortgage crisis. Why go after Goldman Sachs. Anyone out there in Lala Land think that hundreds of other firms weren't doing the same thing ??!!

EXCLUSIVE: U.N. Elects Iran to Commission on Women's Rights
Another reason for continuing with the U.N. Kadafy [a terrorist] was on the human rights commission, as well.

Union legacy costs have to go or public unions need to disband. Period.

Editor's notes: it turns out that government unions are the bane of a free society. All this business about redistributive wealth only applies to public (government) unions. The only jobs Obama has "created or saved" -- all 600,000 of them -- have been public union jobs. Remember his promise that 95% of his new jobs program would be private sector jobs? Just another broken promise bordering on an outright lie.

What is not mentioned in Heritage's review of public unions' push for ever increasing taxation (public unions are paid out of tax revenues) is that in California, public union legacy programs are 500 billion dollars in unfunded liabilities. What is unsustainable besides the spending of the current Administration are the legacy costs of the public unions. Public unions have become the enemy of a free people. --- jds

********

Heritage reports:

Representing government employees has turned unions into determined supporters of tax increases and more government spending. Higher taxes mean the government can hire more workers and pay higher wages. As a result, public-sector unions have become a potent force lobbying for higher taxes and against spending reductions across America:

• Arizona . The Arizona Education Association (AEA) successfully lobbied against a repeal of a $250 million a year statewide property tax.[16] The AEA helpfully identified another $2.1 billion in tax increases for the legislature to pass to forestall spending reductions.[17]
• California . The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent $1 million on a television ad campaign pressing for higher oil, gas, and liquor taxes instead of spending reductions.[18]
• Illinois . The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 funded the “Fair Budget Illinois” campaign in 2009. The campaign ran television and radio ads pushing for tax increases instead of spending reductions to close the state’s deficit.[19]
• Maine . Mainers rejected a ballot initiative in November 2009 that would have prevented government spending from growing faster than the combined rate of inflation and population growth and require the government to return excess revenues as tax rebates. The Maine Municipal Association, the SEIU, the Teamsters, and the Maine Education Association collectively spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign against the initiative, and it ultimately lost by a wide margin.[20]
• Minnesota . AFSCME Council 5 unsuccessfully lobbied state legislators to override Governor Tim Pawlenty’s veto of a $1 billion tax increase in the spring of 2009. Two Democrats joined all the Republicans in the state House to uphold the veto. In response AFSCME endorsed a primary challenger to one of the Democrats.[21] AFSCME is now lobbying state legislators to raise taxes by $3.8 billion.[22]
• New Jersey . Democratic State Senator Stephen Sweeney, now the president of the New Jersey Senate, opposed a 1 percent increase in the state sales tax in 2006. In response, the Communication Workers of America sent giant inflatable rats and protestors in hot dog costumes reading “Sweeney the Weenie” outside the former labor leader’s office.[23] The tax increase ultimately passed.
• Oregon . Public employee unions in Oregon provided 90 percent of the $4 million spent advocating two ballot initiatives to raise personal income and business taxes by $733 million.[24] The unions want the tax increases to prevent cuts in the gold-plated medical benefits for state workers.[25]
• Washington State. The Washington state legislature has resisted calls from unions to raise taxes. In response, labor unions are threatening to withhold donations and fund primary campaigns against the Democrats who will not vote for tax hikes.

The Supreme Court unwittingly put the Marxist Dems in great disadvantage for the coming midterm elections - as if they didn't have enough trouble.

There he is, our friendly demagog, Charles Schumer. This is the guy who pronounced the death of family values and a strong foreign policy with the election of Obama - Schumer was bragging.

When word got out that the Supreme had made a decison in favor of Citizens United, this editor was all smiles. The Obama Administration had spent an entire year demonizing Wall Street while protecting its own in Fannie and Freddie. In late fall, of last year, Bloomberg Financial took a survey of Wall Street executives and CEO's. They found that 77 % of those surveyed believed that Obama was actually anti-business. No problem for Obama until "Citizens United." The Citizens United Supreme Court decision found that corporate political speech was protected speech, under the Constitution.

After 12 months of blatant class warfare, a grand Marxist strategy, those who had been demonized were told that they could now fight back. And Obama got angry. In his State of the Union address, the classless Obama attacked the Supreme Court to their face, in front of God and everybody. Charlie Schumer made it clear that the Democrat congress would address this "injustice" and correct the problem. It was obvious that the Dems had to do something and do it fast or the wrath of the corporate world was about to be unleashed against them. Its called payback.

That legislative "solution" is now being drafted and the effects of this new law, should it become law, is not nearly what the Dems need it to be.

Politico gives us this information: "While most Democrats, including Obama, decried the Citizens United ruling as giving unprecedented power to corporations, in particular, to influence elections, most Republican and conservative leaders largely celebrated it as a victory for the First Amendment.

The GOP-allied U.S. Chamber of Commerce — which filed a brief in the case supporting Citizens United and has announced plans to for its largest and most aggressive election campaign in its history targeting congressional Democrats — attacked the legislation Thursday as “nothing more than a brazen attempt to tilt the playing field in favor of the incumbent party in this fall’s elections, silence constitutionally protected speech, and abridge First Amendment rights.”

Noting that Van Hollen heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Schumer recently ran the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue has pointed out that Democrats are expected to endure substantial losses in the midterm elections and said “nothing in this ill-conceived and one-sided piece of legislation would change that. We will fight any and all attempts to muzzle and or demonize independent voices from the election discussion.” end of text.

That is the opinion of the targets of this law. But those who support it are unhappy, as well. While the bill's author, Chuckie Schumer admits that the purpose of the bill is to limit campaign spending by those who would seek his party's defeat, he could not write a bill that is so specific as to limit his enemies without limiting all fit similar legal definitions. The environmentalists, as a result, are complaining that the bill will cut funding for their pet projects as well. Even the Marxist guided Service Employees International Union expressed displeasure for the bill. Few are happy and many think the bill to be poorly written. Midknight Review believes the bill will do little to change the outcome of the midterms and, even, the 2012 presidential election. --- jds

There is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court will find ObamaCare unconstitutional. Here is why and it is a good argument.

Professor Barnett, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, believes the Government's change of strategy in preparing a courtroom defense is indicative of a perceived weakness in their position -- from their point of view. We give you his article, written for the Wall Street Journal. Understand that the Administration is prepared to leave off their claim of interstate commerce which was their original theory giving them the authority to force all citizens to buy a product, namely and in this case, health insurance. Apparently the Administration sees a problem in that claim. Professor Barnett explains:

A"tell" in poker is a subtle but detectable change in a player's behavior or demeanor that reveals clues about the player's assessment of his hand. Something similar has happened with regard to the insurance mandate at the core of last month's health reform legislation. Congress justified its authority to enact the mandate on the grounds that it is a regulation of commerce. But as this justification came under heavy constitutional fire, the mandate's defenders changed the argument—now claiming constitutional authority under Congress's power to tax.

This switch in constitutional theories is a tell: Defenders of the bill lack confidence in their commerce power theory. The switch also comes too late. When the mandate's constitutionality comes up for review as part of the state attorneys general lawsuit, the Supreme Court will not consider the penalty enforcing the mandate to be a tax because, in the provision that actually defines and imposes the mandate and penalty, Congress did not call it a tax and did not treat it as a tax.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) includes what it calls an "individual responsibility requirement" that all persons buy health insurance from a private company. Congress justified this mandate under its power to regulate commerce among the several states: "The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section," the law says, ". . . is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2)." Paragraph (2) then begins: "The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased."

In this way, the statute speciously tries to convert inactivity into the "activity" of making a "decision." By this reasoning, your "decision" not to take a job, not to sell your house, or not to buy a Chevrolet is an "activity that is commercial and economic in nature" that can be mandated by Congress.

It is true that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause broadly enough to reach wholly intrastate economic "activity" that substantially affects interstate commerce. But the Court has never upheld a requirement that individuals who are doing nothing must engage in economic activity by entering into a contractual relationship with a private company. Such a claim of power is literally unprecedented.

Since this Commerce Clause language was first proposed in the Senate last December, Democratic legislators and law professors alike breezily dismissed any constitutional objections as preposterous. After the bill was enacted, critics branded lawsuits by state attorneys general challenging the insurance mandate as frivolous. Yet, unable to produce a single example of Congress using its commerce power this way, the defenders of the personal mandate began to shift grounds.

On March 21, the same day the House approved the Senate version of the legislation, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation released a 157-page "technical explanation" of the bill. The word "commerce" appeared nowhere. Instead, the personal mandate is dubbed an "Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage." But while the enacted bill does impose excise taxes on "high cost," employer-sponsored insurance plans and "indoor tanning services," the statute never describes the regulatory "penalty" it imposes for violating the mandate as an "excise tax." It is expressly called a "penalty."

This shift won't work. The Supreme Court will not allow staffers and lawyers to change the statutory cards that Congress already dealt when it adopted the Senate language.

In the 1920s, when Congress wanted to prohibit activity that was then deemed to be solely within the police power of states, it tried to penalize the activity using its tax power. In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922) the Supreme Court struck down such a penalty saying, "there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment."

Although the Court has never repudiated this principle, the Court now interprets the commerce power far more broadly. Thus Congress may regulate or prohibit intrastate economic activity directly without invoking its taxation power. Yet precisely because a mandate to engage in economic activity has never been upheld by the Court, the tax power is once again being used to escape constitutional limits on Congress's regulatory power.

Supporters of the mandate cite U.S. v. Kahriger (1953), where the Court upheld a punitive tax on gambling by saying that "[u]nless there are provisions extraneous to any tax need, courts are without authority to limit the exercise of the taxing power." Yet the Court in Kahriger also cited Bailey with approval. The key to understanding Kahriger is the proposition the Court there rejected: "it is said that Congress, under the pretense of exercising its power to tax has attempted to penalize illegal intrastate gambling through the regulatory features of the Act" (emphasis added).

In other words, the Court in Kahriger declined to look behind Congress's assertion that it was exercising its tax power to see whether a measure was really a regulatory penalty. As the Court said in Sonzinsky v. U.S. (1937), "[i]nquiry into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts." But this principle cuts both ways. Neither will the Court look behind Congress's inadequate assertion of its commerce power to speculate as to whether a measure was "really" a tax. The Court will read the cards as Congress dealt them.

Congress simply did not enact the personal insurance mandate pursuant to its tax powers. To the contrary, the statute expressly says the mandate "regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature." It never mentions the tax power and none of its eight findings mention raising any revenue with the penalty.

Moreover, while inserting the mandate into the Internal Revenue Code, Congress then expressly severed the penalty from the normal enforcement mechanisms of the tax code. The failure to pay the penalty "shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Nor shall the IRS "file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section," or "levy on any such property with respect to such failure."

In short, the "penalty" is explicitly justified as a penalty to enforce a regulation of economic activity and not as a tax. There is no authority for the Court to recharacterize a regulation as a tax when doing so is contrary to the express and actual regulatory purpose of Congress.

So defenders of the mandate are making yet another unprecedented claim. Never before has the Court looked behind Congress's unconstitutional assertion of its commerce power to see if a measure could have been justified as a tax. For that matter, never before has a "tax" penalty been used to mandate, rather than discourage or prohibit, economic activity.

Are there now five justices willing to expand the commerce and tax powers of Congress where they have never gone before? Will the Court empower Congress to mandate any activity on the theory that a "decision" not to act somehow affects interstate commerce? Will the Court accept that Congress has the power to mandate any activity so long as it is included in the Internal Revenue Code and the IRS does the enforcing?

Yes, the smart money is always on the Court upholding an act of Congress. But given the hand Congress is now holding, I would not bet the farm.

.

We have the clowns at MediaMatters and Think Progress versus the truth at Media-ite. Is Beck on his way out or not ???

Read the following understanding that it comes from Media Matters and that realization really matters. Never forget that if you are reading something written by a Marxist Lib, you are listening to or reading from the mind of one who believes that the ends always justify the means. -- jds

Who can forget the March day that will live in cable news infamy, when Beck invited embattled Democratic Congressman Eric Massa onto his show, for an entire hour, to blow the whistle on Democratic Party corruption? Or so Beck thought. Instead, Massa went on and on about tickle fights, and Beck became a laughing stock -- the butt of endless Geraldo-opens-Al-Capone's-vault jokes.

Prior to the Massa Moment, Glenn Beck was averaging 2.6 million viewers each week, and the show was still flying high. And in the short term, the wildly hyped Massa episode produced ratings gold, generating 3.4 million viewers that night, thank you very much. Long-term though, the effects have proven to be disastrous.

As I noted two weeks ago, Glenn Beck's ratings are down this spring. Now it's clear those declines Meddfaccelerating and there are no signs of a rebound. So what does that mean for Beck, Fox News, and the Tea Party movement? MediaMatters

Wow. Sounds bad for good old Glenn Beck. Right ? What could possibly be said to make these words sound "ok" ? We admit that the basic numbers are correct. Yes. Midknight Review admits to this. But what is missing? Well, maybe a few questions about the other news programs. . . . . . THATS what's missing. The losers at Think Progress and Media Matters fully support Keith Olbermann and that moron is down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28% since this same time last year. Glenn is down 30% since January BUT only 4% since this time last April. Campell Brown over at CNN ? Never heard of her !!?? Well, she is down 39% since a year ago, April. Hannity is down 17% and Rachel Maddow, who has no audience anyway, is down 8 % over the course of the past year.

Look, if we measured high tide and , two hours later, started crying because low tide was so much lower than high tide -- well, if we did that , we would be nuts. Apples for apples, dude !!! Glenn is down since January. Ok. Fine ! So how is he doing versus a year ago? Down a little but not bad. How is he doing compared to the competition? Actually better than most and considerably better than the folks at the Liberal Land Networks, MSNBC and CNN. You can check out our numbers at Media-ite .

While a lot of big name advertisers have refused to air advertisement on Beck's show, it is not because they do not want to. Not at all. It is because Media Matters has helped to organize a massive boycott of, primarily, SEIU union folks, 2.4 million strong but influencing some 12 million folks when you count family and friends. THAT'S why there is a boycott. The advertisers have been threatened by union thugs . Hey !! They don't want trouble, so they stay away from Beck. That's how that works. But Beck's show makes money and his commercial breaks are actually twice as long, time slot for time slot, than the competition at the same time of day. Understand that CNN is in serious financial trouble -- no advertisers !!! And MSNBC does not do news late at night and over the weekends beginning with Friday nights. Its just a parttime news channel. Don't forget that the liberal Air America went broke and never ran a profit. No profit for Al Gore's CURRENT TV, either.

Media Matters claims that "no bounce is in sight" for Glenn. Wanna bet !! The summer is nearly here. Folks will be water skiing and shoting wild game and doing . . . . . . . stuff. But , as we approach the midterm elections, Becks numbers will be back with a vengeance. text by Midknight Review.
.

How is the war in Afghanistan really going? A report from Stratford

Editor's notes: understand that Stratford is the most popular geo-intelligence entity in the world, used by all major media (including ABC, cBS, NBC, CNN, the NY Times, even Bill O'Reilly and, now, Midknight Review). We pay for this service and are permitted by Stratford in passing on this information. Here is their Afghan report --- jds:

*******

Earlier this week, the Pentagon delivered to the U.S. Congress a congressionally mandated report on the status of the war in Afghanistan. The report acknowledges the Taliban perceive 2009 as their most successful year of operations to date and believe they will be able to sustain their efforts in 2010.

Part of this public report to Congress is about expectations management, especially as the outcome of the new American strategy is still in question. As we noted in our weekly update on the status of the war, the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is struggling to consolidate gains in Marjah and win the population over.

While the ISAF has undeniably made gains against the Taliban, this Pentagon report is a reminder of the tenacity of the insurgency and stands in stark contrast to the ambitious goals and short timetables the United States has set for itself.

U.S. forces have been on the offensive in the southern part of the country for about a year now. Preparations for the June offensive in Kandahar already are under way — for both the Taliban and the ISAF — and the surge is in the final stages of ramping up before it reaches full strength around the end of August. Yet the assessment of this report indicates the Taliban have not yet been set back significantly and are still robust — a challenge that must be addressed if the United States is to see the progress it desires by the time troops are scheduled to begin withdrawing in summer 2011.

We have outlined the Taliban’s overarching strategy, but this report gives a clear assessment of the movement’s current capabilities on a tactical level. The following are excerpts taken directly from the unclassified version of the report:

Insurgent Strengths:

• The speed and decisiveness of insurgent information operations and media campaigns remain not only the insurgents’ main effort but also their most significant strengths.
• Organizational capabilities and operational reach are qualitatively and geographically expanding.
• The ability to intimidate through targeted killings and threats in order to force acquiescence to their will.
• The strength and ability of shadow governance to discredit the authority and legitimacy of the Afghan government is increasing.
• IED use is increasing in numbers and complexity; IEDs are as much a tactic and process as they are a weapon.
• Insurgents’ tactics, techniques, and procedures for conducting complex attacks are increasing in sophistication and strategic effect.

Insurgent Weaknesses and Vulnerabilities:

• The insurgency includes multiple locally-based tribal networks, as well as layered command structures, which at times can make decentralized execution difficult.
• Persistent fissures among insurgent leadership persist at the local levels.
• The insurgency is dependent on many marginalized / threatened segments of the Pashtun population.
• The insurgency is over-reliant on external support.
• Insurgent violence against civilians and respected figures can be counterproductive.

.

The AFL-CIO wants to be the only financial donors in town and plan to demonstrate by the thousands, Friday.

The Dems hope to round up 10,000 AFL-CIO demonstrators for a rally on Friday in D.C. They will be protesting the recent Supreme Court decision agreeing that corporate political speech is constitutionally protected speech. The Marxist Liberal, Charlie Schumer, yesterday, announced legislative efforts to change the effects of this decision. He called for transparency and claims his legislation will provide that transparency, while, of course, tying the hands of the corporations.

What he does not mention is the fact that Obama received millions from the various unions, all of it under reported, if reported at all. In fact, more than half of the 800 million dollars collected by Obama, has been hidden from view, Obama refusing to release the names of those who gave that amount of money. By contrast, McCain revealed all of his donor list.

And what is the real problem? Well, our answer begins with a review of a recent Bloomberg poll showing that 77% of corporate heads believe Obama to be anti-business !! He has spent 17 months demonizing Wall Street, trying to create enough class envy to keep his Socialist Democrat Party in power. He has spent 17 months "calling out" the business community and now, with this Supreme Court decision, that same class of Demons can spend money to defeat his party in the coming elections !! No wonder Obama is angry.

He was hoping the Unions would be the only corporate influence funding the approaching elections. Hopefully, there are enough votes in the Senate to stop the Schumer legislation. But even if the Marxist Schumer is able to pass through his legislative will, we doubt it will be comprehensive enough to make much of a difference.

Currently, Wall Street is giving more to the GOP than the Dems for the first time since 2004 -- six years ago. Bad news for the Dems. Good news for a free market America - greed and all. -- jds.

You may not believe this headline BUT -- Arizona is winning the popularity battle being waged by Marxist Dems against protecting its citizens

Editor's notes: In every recent in-State poll, the folks in Arizona support the recently passed enforcement bill effecting illegal immigration into that State to the tune of 68% . Sharpton and his looters and loafers are traveling to the state in protest. The major media continues to misstate the bill's provision and the Marxists at MSNBC persist in their lies against the bill. And now, recent polls (including Rasmussen) show that 70% of out-of-state Americans agree with the Arizona law.

Just four days ago, the Dems changed course in the Senate, and dropped efforts on climate change to take on immigration. As of today, the immigration effort has been taken off the front burner and shelved !! What happened? Public opinion happened. And truth in reporting. The American voter is finding out that the Arizona bill profoundly forbids profiling, that Mexicans will not and cannot be pulled over and searched simply because they look like Mexicans. It is obvious to this editor that Democrat internal polls show a "no win" circumstance for the Dems if they proceed with immigration "amnesty" legislation.

On an anecdotal level, this editor once dated a Mexican girl. She looked the part with a strong Aztec influence while her full blood sister (same mom and dad) looked as white as a baby sitter in the middle of Montana. A trip to Mexico, if you survive, will present you with a huge Mexican population that looks wholly European, reflecting their Spanish heritage. How is "racial profiling" possible when a huge part of the Mexican population looks European ????

Understand that the Democrat Party is desperate to find an issue that will turn the tide in their favor come November 2nd. They were told that public opinion would turn in their favor as soon as the healthcare bill passed. Exactly the opposite happened and the bad news concerning this reform bill keeps coming. They sacrificed hard work on the economy and serious jobs legislation to pass the healthcare monster and, now, they are about to pay the price for that decision. --- jds

Obama's voting opponents are patiently waiting for November and their chance to get even with this dem-a-god.

Editor's notes: We have taken to posting a weekly review of Obama's Rasmussen polling numbers. What is significant, in our opinion, is the fact that absolutely nothing he says or does changes his low numbers. It seems as though opinions of Obama are "set in stone." While he was hoping that voters would settle down and forget the intensity of their opposition to his spending mania, it turns out that nothing of the kind is happening.

The leveling off of public opinion indicates that the public has made its decision and is patiently waiting for November 2. Here are the polling numbers for the past 7 days:

Date	Presidential Approval Index		Strongly Approve	Strongly Disapprove	Total Approve	Total Disapprove
4/29/2010	-11		30%	41%	47%	52%
4/28/2010	-10		31%	41%	47%	52%
4/27/2010	-12		30%	42%	47%	52%
4/26/2010	-12		29%	41%	47%	52%
4/25/2010	-13		29%	42%	45%	54%
4/24/2010	-9		31%	40%	47%	52%
4/23/2010	-8		32%	40%	47%	52%

GOP wins the day and forces the removal of a $50 billion slush fund from the current reform bill in the Senate.

Editor's notes: Over the past week, there has been a battle in the Senate that has centered itself around a specific proposition in the finance reform bill currently being considered by Congress. That proposition was a $50 billion fund that Republicans feared could be used as a "bail-out" fund. While the Marxist Media (i.e. MSNBC) was reporting the conflict as a "stalling tactic" intended to protect the "fat cat friends of the GOP," the truth of the matter was quite different. In the end, the GOP legislators won the day and the $50 billion allocation was removed from the bill yesterday. In return, the GOP Senators voted to move the bill onto the Senate floor for further debate.

Hats off to the Senate GOP who stood their ground to a person. Yes !! Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (R- Senators from Maine) were part of the effort to cut this fund from the bill. Good for them. In fact, it has gone without much mention but these two ladies have proven to be friends of the larger GOP Senate caucus as fiscal conservatives have fought for commonsense solutions to some of the financial issues plaguing this nation. They also held their ground in the fight against healthcare, objecting to the partisan "drop dead and go to hell" legislative process of Obama and Company with regard to healthcare ----- jds.

All The President's Men - As radical a collection of advisors as has ever been assembled by a sitting President.

Editor's notes: This is an ongoing project. We will re-post with a more comprehensive version in short order. Most of these positions are appointees of Mr. Obama, are considered as "staff," and cannot be help responsible by Congress since they are, technically, Obama's staff and have access to "executive privilege." Many of these folks - but certainly not all -- are nothing less than "end runs" around Congressional vetting. We have included the Secretary of Education, an appointee of Congress, because of that persons radical roots. It is not the number of "czars" that is the important factor in the creation of this list. Rather, it is the over-whelming radical bent of so many identified as connected to Obama that is the matter of most importance in this posting. The list may not be complete. Certainly our descriptive commentary is not. Again, this is a work in progress -- jds

1. Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) Czar: Richard Holbrooke
US Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan
Established: 2009

Well, maybe a liberal, but not a flaming radical. Holbrooke is one of the two most qualified members of the czar/council of leaders. (Volker would be the second).

2. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley
Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy Official title: Director of The Office of National Aids Policy and Senior Advisor on Disability Policy.
Established: 2003 underBush 43

Crowley has credits that qualify him for this position. He is an openly gay activist.

3. Autism Czar: Alison Singer (this is our best guess. Surprisingly - her name is mentioned as is the position and then . . . . . . nothing in the print media about either the position or the person).
Federal ASD Coordinator
Established: 2009

4. Auto Recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery
Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers
Established: 2009

5. Behavioral Science Czar: Not appointed yet.
Director of Social and Behavioral Research
Established: 2009

6. Bailout Czar: Herbert Allison Jr.
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability
Established: 2009

7. Border Czar: Alan Bersin (Former US attorney)
Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs, US Department of Homeland Security
Established: 2002 under Bush 43

This person is "hired" by HHS and not vetted by Congress. In this case, we believe he reports directly to Obama.

8. Car Czar: Ron Bloom
Head of the Obama Administration’s Auto Task Force
Established: 2009

This is an academic having no experience in the auto industry. He is a big labor, big union activist and has been appointed, apparently, because of his ties to big labor. Understand that the nearly 80 billion dollars given to Chrysler and GM. At least 70% of those funds went to buy stock and, in so doing, rescue the auto union's legacy programs.

9. Climate Change Czar: Todd Stern
Special Envoy for Climate Change
Established: 2009

Stern helped negotiate the Kyoto and Buenos Aires climate pacts, global measures to limit carbon emissions that ultimately failed because of Bush's opposition to same -- he is a believer in global warming junk science

10. Copyright Czar: Victoria A. Espinel Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Established: 2009

11. Counterterrorism Czar: John Brennan
Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security
Established: 2004 under Bush 43

Brennan is seen as soft on terrorism by comparison to the Bush policy. He has proven himself more than willing to mix the war on terror with the political perversions of the Obama Administration. He talks tough but is doing the nation no favors when it comes to the war on terror.

12. Cybersecurity Czar: Howard Schmidt Director of the White House Office of Cybersecurity Established: 2009

13. Disinformation Czar: Linda Douglass
Communications Director, Office of Health Reform
Established: 2009

14. Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal
White House Advisor On Violence Against Women
Established: 2009.

Rosenthal is a radical feminist who believes that all women are victims and all men are predators. She is inclined to treat stranger rape and domestic violence with the same broad brush.

15. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Established: 1982 under Reagan

16. Economic Czar: Larry Summers
Director of the National Economic Council
Established: 2009

17. Economic Czar II: Paul Volcker
Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Established: 2009

18. Education Czar: Arne Duncan
Secretary of Education
Established: 1981

A radicalized education reformer. His decision to forfeit scholarships to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, forcing the 216 minority students (most of them Black students) to enroll in lower preforming schools as a result. link

19. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner
Assistant to the President, White House Office of Energy and Climate Change
Established: 2009

20. Food Safety Czar: Michael Taylor
Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner for Food Safety
Established: 2009

21. Government Performance Czar: Jeffrey Zients
Chief Performance Officer
Established: 2009

22. Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis
Great Lakes Czar
Established: 2009

23. Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones (quite in Sept of '09 but never left White House and has not been replaced by anyone leaving us to believe that he remains "Green Czar" but without public recognition combining his work with CAP with continued counsel to Obama [?] see link).
Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in the White House
Established: 2009

24. Guantanomo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried
US Department of State Special Envoy for Guantanomo Closure
Established: 2009.

25. Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
Director of the White House Office of Health Reform
Established: 2009

26. Infotech Czar: Vivek Kundra
Chief Information Officer of the United States
Established: 2009

27. National Security Council Staff Czar: Gary Samore
Established: 2009

28. Latin-American Czar: Arturo Valenzuela
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Established: 1944

29. Mideast Peace Czar: George Mitchell
Established: 2009

30. Mideast Policy Czar: Dennis Ross
Special Advisor for Iran, the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia
Established: 2009

31. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation
Established: 2009

32. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein
Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Established: 1980 under Reagan

July 17, 2009 Obama's Regulatory Czar seeking to regulate opinions on the internet; Islamic supremacists holding meeting: "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam"; Barack Obama using behavioral science to formulate policy

Have you read Cass Sunstein's book, The Second Bill of Rights? Apparently Obama has; Need something to do this weekend? Islamic supremisists are holding a meeting called "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam"; In a memo to Cass Sunstein's Office of Regulatory Affairs, Barack Obama establishes the use of behavioral science to formulate policy / PERMALINK

33. Religion Czar: Joshua Dubois
Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Established: 2001 under Bush 43

"In February 2010, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs delivered a report to the White House describing how America's aversion to religion was hampering U.S. foreign policy. "Uncompromising Western secularism" was threatening to communities where religion was closely tied to culture, and even fed religious extremism" .... apparently Dubois agrees and is working to correct the "problem." go to this link. Dubois is described as a "progressive minded Christian." In that description, we learn that Dubois is a social justice representative and one who believes that Big Government is part of God's plan for man -- seriously.

34. ‘Safe Schools’ Czar: Kevin Jennings

Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools
Established: 2009

Homosexual founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. See article at Atlas Shrugs on this anti-religious bigot / PERMALINK

35. Science Czar: John Holdren
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy Established: 1976 under Ford

36. Stimulus Oversight Czar: Earl Devaney
Inspector General, US Department of the Interior
Established: 2009

37. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration
Special Envoy to Sudan
Established: 2009

38. TARP Czar: Elizabeth Warren
Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability, US Department of the Treasury
Established: 2009

39. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra
Federal Chief Technology Officer of the United States Established: 2009

40. Trade Czar: Ron Kirk
United States Trade Representative Established: 1962 under JFK

41. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion
Director of the White House Office of Urban Affairs Policy
Established: 2009

42. War Czar: Douglas Lute
Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan
Established: 2007 under Bush.

Lute was appointed to this position under George Bush. His primary function is the coordination of Afghan and Iraqi policy. He is no liberal - appears to be very qualified for this position.

43. Water Czar: David J. Hayes
Deputy Secretary of the Interior
Established: 2009

Hayes is a hard core global warming activists

44. Procurement Czar: Ashton Carter Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Established: 2009

A hardcore Lefty tied to the Ford Foundation but NOT a radicalized Marxist/ Socialist. He is certainly qualified and has been around for quite some time working in Clinton's Defense Department for several years.

45. Director of Communications: Anita Dunn Ms. Dunn, stepped down from this position at the end of November, '09, because of pressure brought to bear due to her pro-stance for the advice and counsel of Chairman Mao. Dan Pfeiffer, a 33 year old Liberal yes man and little more. He is a quite replacement for Anita Dunn and her predecessor, Ellen Moran who quit after just 100 days to become chief of staff in the Commerce Deppartment. Moran is, herself, a big labor, big union, abortion rights freak.

46. FCC head: Julius Genachowski He was part of the founding group of New Resource Bank, which specializes in serving the needs of green entrepreneurs and sustainable businesses, served on the Advisory Board of Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) and has been a long time supporter of the fairness doctrine, now called "net neutrality." That effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, over which the FCC has statutory jurisdiction, would have returned to the commission its power to regulate broadband providers after a federal court found current law stipulated otherwise.

Understand that Genachowski is where he is because of his implicit pledge to support Obama's anti-free political speech agenda.

47. Aid's Czar: Jeffery Crowley Crowley is an openly gay white man who appears to well qualified as a leader . He, of course, is a gay activist but who better to head up a department dedicated to the issues of aid's in America at all levels including prevention, research, funding, etc. Understand that Bush employed openly gay folk in similar job assignments.

We do not know much about Prof Rummel, but we like much of what we read in this post.

Some thoughts from Rudy (R.J.) Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science. What is most interesting are those words we have highlighted in green. We do not talk about "freedom" nearly enough. Understand that to the extent one is governed by laws and regulations, one is not free. Socialist States such as Nazi Germany, Communist China, or Marxist Russia are all testimonials to our premise. -- jds

It is true that democratic freedom is an engine of national and individual wealth and prosperity. Hardly known, however, is that freedom also saves millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence. Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity and violence. In short: to our realization that power impoverishes we must also add that power kills.

Through theoretical analysis, historical case studies, empirical data, and quantitative analyses, this web site shows that:

• Freedom is a basic human right recognized by the United Nations and international treaties, and is the heart of social justice.


• Freedom is an engine of economic and human development, and scientific and technological advancement.


• Freedom ameliorates the problem of mass poverty.


• Free people do not suffer from and never have had famines, and by theory, should not. Freedom is therefore a solution to hunger and famine.


• Free people have the least internal violence, turmoil, and political instability.


• Free people have virtually no government genocide and mass murder, and for good theoretical reasons. Freedom is therefore a solution to genocide and mass murder; the only practical means of making sure that "Never again"


• Free people do not make war on each other, and the greater the freedom within two nations, the less violence between them.


• Freedom is a method of nonviolence--the most peaceful nations are those whose people are free.
  

From the main stream Politico, we have a telling report of Obama versus the Press. He is doing himself in, even on this front !!

One of the enduring story lines of Barack Obama’s presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him.

“Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me,” Obama joked last year at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.

But even then, only four months into his presidency, the joke fell flat. Now, a year later, with another correspondents’ dinner Saturday night likely to generate the familiar criticism of the press’s cozy relationship with power, the reality is even more at odds with the public perception.

Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship — as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the past decade, reporters who cover the White House say.

Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors, and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:

— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost nonexistent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic e-mails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.

— Except toward a few reporters, press secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach — even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.

— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper — The New York Times — enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face time.

“They seem to want to close the book on the highly secretive years of the Bush administration. However, in their relationship with the press, I think they’re doing what they think succeeded in helping Obama get elected,” said The New Yorker’s George Packer.

“I don’t think they need to be nice to reporters, but the White House seems to imagine that releasing information is like a tap that can be turned on and off at their whim,” Packer said.

Much of the criticism is off the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.

“These are people who came in with every reporter giving them the benefit of the doubt,” said another reporter who regularly covers the White House. “They’ve lost all that goodwill.”

And this attitude, many believe, starts with the man at the top. Obama rarely lets a chance go by to make a critical or sarcastic comment about the press, its superficiality or its short-term mentality. He also hasn’t done a full-blown news conference for 10 months.

Editor's notes: click on the numbers below to read the full article. Understand that Obama is playing with fire, on this point. If he pulls a Nixon and triggers the anger of the accepting lame stream media, they can almost single-handedly bring him down - or, at least, that is their thinking. --jds

Pages

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• »

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36454.html#ixzz0mQ4JH4SY