Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal posted a great piece comparing (or rather, contrasting) President Barack Obama’s words and record on human rights. From President Obama’s recent decision to cancel an appearance at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall to his extending money-laden olive branches to Sudan and Burma, the candidate of hope and change is summing up to be depressingly less than foreign democracy advocates anticipated.
Remember the White House’s timidity during the riots and retaliations in Iran earlier this year? There were people agitating for freedom while an American president worried what world opinion would think. Apparently, President Obama made the “right” decision, since his version of “engagement” garnered him a Nobel Peace Prize. It’s too bad that – so far – he’s more interested in securing peace with governments than peace for the people they allegedly serve.
The Obama Administration’s highly-publicized campaign to punish and silence Fox News may have broader implications than just the broadcast media. So too might the “Fairness Doctrine” that it favors. Namely, as noted by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R – Tennessee), they portend ominous censorship possibilities if government control over the Internet becomes a reality via so-called Net “Neutrality.”
By targeting Fox News, the Obama Administration has abandoned any pretense of governmental content neutrality. It has thereby commenced an attempt to censor those whom it disfavors, and elevate those whom it favors. The same is true of the “Fairness Doctrine,” which conveniently targets those media sources most likely to engage in criticism of Obama and the liberal agenda more generally. Should Net “Neutrality” become a reality, that censorship could be spread to the Internet as well by introducing regulatory control over Internet delivery options. Does any reasonable person believe that they would stop there? It may sound far-fetched to suggest that the White House would stoop to Internet censorship, but who would have thought that it would so openly and explicitly target a single media outlet, the only one that exposed such things as the ACORN undercover videos?
We’re not just talking about a slippery slope here. With this White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress, we’re talking about a greased slope.
The Baucus Bill, passed by the Senate Finance Committee last week, has been written and filed… all 1,502 pages of it. The public posting of the bill is, of course, after the Committee passed it without reading it. After the absolute certainty that it isn’t going to be the bill on which the entire Senate votes.
You can read it here, but we wouldn’t recommend wasting your time. Harry Reid and other members of “the most open and transparent Congress in history” are presently working behind closed doors with senior aides of “the most open and transparent Administration in history” to draft yet another version of ObamaCare that will ultimately be considered by the full Senate. News reports indicate that a floor debate on the new, secret “reform” legislation could begin as early as next week. But that all depends on whether the White House and Senate negotiators are able to buy off the docs and finish their other back-room wheelings and dealings by week’s end.
Didn’t President Obama promise to air all health care reform negotiations on C-SPAN?
For all you policy junkies out there who just can’t resist, we must warn you that reading the Baucus Bill can cause severe anxiety, eye strain, sudden spikes in blood pressure, heart palpitations and chronic disgust in your government. If you decide to proceed, it’s best you read it online rather than printing it off and carrying it over to that comfy Lazy Boy. It’s still unclear whether hernia operations will be included on the final list of government-approved procedures covered by what is likely to be your new government-approved insurance plan.
New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava is the Republican candidate in a special election for New York’s 23rd district congressional seat. She was hand-picked by party bosses, although many conservatives believe she is too liberal and prefer Doug Hoffman, who is running on the New York Conservative Party line.
So, last night, Scozzafava was at a speaking engagement, following which Weekly Standard editor John McCormack tried to ask her some questions about her positions. That didn’t go well, to say the least. Someone on Scozzafava’s staff called the cops on McCormack. Read the whole story here.
Would McCormack’s infraction be categorized as “Questioning a thin-skinned political hack under the influence of conservatism?”
“President Barack Obama has not yet determined whether he will make a decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan before the November 7 election runoff, a US official [White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs] said Tuesday.” — AFP
“The United States cannot wait for problems surrounding the legitimacy of the Afghan government to be resolved before making a decision on troops, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said.” — Reuters
By now, we’ve all heard the news. Rush Limbaugh was part of an investment group bidding to obtain ownership of the St. Louis Rams. Judging by the Rams’ current 0-6 record and their 1-15 mark last year, a change in ownership to just about anyone will help the struggling franchise. It’s difficult to do worse than winless.
Instead, the NFL and the Mainstream Media demonized Limbaugh with charges of racism and scuttled his ownership bid. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell even stated, “I’ve said many times before, we’re all held to a higher standard here and I think divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about.”
Of course, judging by the NFL’s own player rap sheet, one would be hard-pressed to find that “higher standard” in player conduct. In 2009 alone, there have been dozens of players arrested and convicted on charges that ranged from DUI murder to running a drug ring across state lines.
Here’s the Dirty Dozen: The NFL’s “Higher Standard”
Minnesota Vikings cornerback Cedric Griffin pleaded guilty to drunk driving.
Denver Broncos rookie tight end Richard Quinn was arrested on harassment and domestic violence charges.
San Diego Chargers star linebacker Shawne Merriman was arrested and accused of choking and restraining reality TV star Tila Tequila.
Baltimore Ravens rookie linebacker Tony Fein was arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer at a restaurant.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers cornerback Aqib Talib was arrested and charged with battery and resisting arrest.
A federal judge sentenced former NFL player Travis Henry to three years in prison for financing a drug ring.
Two New Orleans Saints players were charged with obscenity, disturbing the peace and lewd conduct for allegedly being drunk, urinating in public and exposing themselves.
Oakland Raiders tackle Cornell Green was arrested and charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon in Tampa, FL, after beating the mother of his two children with an aluminum mop handle.
Buffalo Bills running back Marshawn Lynch was charged with 3 gun-related crimes.
Pittsburgh Steelers tight end Jonathan Dekker was arrested and charged with obstruction of justice.
For more info visit NFL Crimes NewsBlog. Unfortunately, there is plenty of content to populate the site.
The problem is that the Controlled Substances Act has prohibited marijuana as a matter of federal law since the 1970s. And in 2005, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Raich clarified that this federal power supercedes the states’ ability to legalize pot for medicinal purposes. Yet despite the fact that there has been no change in federal law, the Justice Department is now essentially allowing the states to nullify the statute by telegraphing that DOJ won’t bring prosecutions.
In fairness, you can make a good case that the medical marijuana laws really are an instance of federal excess (Clarence Thomas does it very well in his Gonzales dissent). But that’s an argument about what should be, not what is. And in a nation of laws, that’s not enough.
How’s this for unadulterated, sanctimonious chutzpah: “Top Obama Aides Upbraid Wall Street.”
So announces a Washington Post headline, discussing the harsh criticisms leveled by Obama Administration officials against Wall Street firms. But consider this: if Wall Street executives ran their firms and kept their books the same way that the federal government does, they would be in jail until their dying days. Or consider how Obama and his apologists promised that if his “stimulus” plan was passed, unemployment would top out at 8%. Well, it’s now at 9.8% and rising. If a Wall Street CEO made similarly fatuous promises to unwary consumers, the resulting onslaught of class action lawsuits would descend faster than a Swiss avalanche.
Yet there was David Axelrod on ABC’s This Week, labeling Wall Street behavior “offensive” and admonishing them that “they ought to think through what they are doing.” Perhaps, but nobody should take that advice more than officials of an administration that is taking an already-dangerous fiscal situation and making it positively deadly. Too bad there are no righteous trial lawyers who can do anything about them.
Talk about mixed messages. Yesterday, top White House advisor David Axelrod warned Goldman Sachs for having the audacity to link pay for performance during a recession. The end-of-year compensation is apparently “offensive” in a time of recession. Moreover, Wall Street needs to “stand down” its opposition to further regulation of the financial industry because the government needs to “move forward” on “reforms.”
Today, President Barack Obama announces a “shift” in policy towards the government of Sudan. In the past, the President described Omar al-Bashir’s administration as genocidal. Now, in an effort to ransom better treatment for the millions terrorized by al-Bashir’s partisans, Obama offers “incentives” (i.e. money) hoping it will spur a change of behavior.
How curious. On the one hand, the Obama foreign policy team thinks money is a better motivator than economic coercion or military force. On the other hand, the Obama domestic policy team thinks coercive regulatory policies and voluntary denial of bonuses are better ways to incentivize performance than offering big pay-days to top flight financial talent. Hmmm…
One searches for the critical distinction to make sense of these seemingly contradictory approaches. Could the best explanation be that with Sudan the White House determines the who, what, when, where, and why of using money as an incentive, while in the case of Goldman Sachs someone other than the government is making the decisions? If you could pick only one instance to use money as an enticement, should it be for the people that systematically rape, maim, and murder their neighbors?
Larry Summers, Director of President Obama’s National Economic Council, has been a loyal ally to the administration and proponent of current health care reform proposals floating around Congress.
Summers has backed ObamaCare despite the many troubling provisions contained in House and Senate legislation, namely the individual health care mandate and the government-run public option.
Apparently, the economic views of Dr. Summers have changed in the current partisan environment. When he was an academic and cared more about economic externalities than political favoritism, he penned this paper critiquing individual mandates and government-run plans.
Here is an excerpt:
Note that a payroll tax on employers directed at financing health insurance benefits publicly would have the same employment displacement effects [translation: people lose their jobs] as a mandated health insurance program…. If policymakers fail to recognize the costs of mandated benefits because they do not appear in the government budget, then mandated benefit programs could lead to excessive spending on social programs. There is no sense in which benefits become “free” just because the government mandates that employers offer them to workers. As with value-added taxes, it can plausibly be argued that mandated benefits fuel the growth of government.”
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotormayor’s nomination was so controlled that the White House even approved her clothes, she told Yalies when she appeared at her 30th Yale Law School reunion on Saturday.”
To be even relatively safe from vicious attack, virtually all current writing on public affairs must begin with caveats (such as “I am not a racist” or “I really do want peace on earth but…”)
Okay, then, here’s our caveat for this one. We absolutely love crime reporting. With particularly intriguing cases, we’ve been known to live for it. Crime reporting is part of the grand tradition of American journalism and even grander stories. The number of truly great reporters who started on the graveyard police shift is staggering.
But…(you knew there was one coming), we were considerably taken aback when New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt revealed yesterday that the paper had nine reporters covering the murder of Yale graduate student Annie Le. Nine reporters from one paper on one tragic but non-extraordinary murder?
Remember when part of the Times’ excuse for not originally covering the ACORN scandal was that the paper was overextended covering wars and famines and the natural disaster that is Congress? Maybe a few of the crime guys and gals could be reassigned. Just saying.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the push for so-called “net neutrality” is heating up in corporate boardrooms, as Internet giants Facebook, Twitter, Digg and Amazon penned a letter to FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Chairman Julius Genachowki this week in support of his plan for stifling government regulation of private high-speed wireline and wireless networks.
The FCC is scheduled to release details of its net neutrality rules on Thursday. However, the period for public comment is still open. Or, you can call the Congressional switchboard (202-224-3121) to air your views against government regulation of the Internet with your elected officials.
The Center for Individual Freedom opposes so-called “net neutrality” because it would introduce stifling government regulations onto what is now a free and open Internet. More here and here.
Thank goodness that Senator Judd Gregg (R – NH) called the Obama Administration out on its habit of scapegoating its fiscal irresponsibility on former President Bush.
Whenever confronted with questions about their alarming fiscal trajectory, which will quickly double and then triple America’s cumulative national debt, Obama Administration officials invariably seem to rationalize it as an inheritance from the Bush Administration. Never mind, of course, that then-Senator Obama voted for such things as last fall’s questionable bailout proposal. And granted, the Bush Administration was far from perfect in its frequent fiscal misbehavior. But the simple fact is that Obama’s budgetary agenda is like “Bush on steroids,” as one observer noted.
And appearing on CNN’s State of the Union yesterday, Senator Gregg refreshingly pointed out that Obama’s fiscal insanity is in a category of its own. Addressing Obama’s deficit projections, Sen. Gregg said, “you can’t blame that on George Bush,” because each of the next ten years will witness deficits exceeding $1 trillion. He also noted that the nation’s debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) will skyrocket from 40% to “banana republic” levels of 80%.
Who knows how much longer the mainstream media will allow Obama’s apologists to repeat this canard, but we owe Senator Gregg our gratitude for eviscerating it in vivid terms.
CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses transparency, or the lack thereof, in the nation’s capital and what you can do to hold our political leaders accountable. Click here for more information about CFIF. Click here for more videos from CFIF.
In the famous Beatles song “Revolution,” which mocked irrational 1960s radicals, John Lennon sang, “but if you go carryin’ pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.” Well, anyone other than the Obama Administration, that is.
In this video from Fox News’s Glenn Beck, leading Obama Administration spokeswoman Anita Dunn explicitly identifies murderous Chinese dictator Mao Tse-Tung as one of her two guiding philosophical beacons during a speech. And she doesn’t stop there – she expounds by quoting him and recounting his campaigns at some length. And to think… One year ago, Obama’s apologists dismissed the Reverend Jeremiah Wright association as an aberration and mere Republican bogeyman. But now, we see the truth is that people like Ms. Dunn, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Van Jones represent Obama’s ideological core, not some fringe set of associations. So when you’re tempted to think to yourself that one of Obama’s agenda items can’t really be as bad as critics portray, the reality is in fact probably even worse.
CFIF Freedom Line Blog RSS Feed
CFIF on Twitter
CFIF on YouTube