This boy, though only 10, is well, amazing. He outshines millions of adults in this country, that’s for sure. The article makes that point clear:

Will Phillips isn’t like other boys his age.

For one thing, he’s smart. Scary smart. A student in the West Fork School District in Washington County, he skipped a grade this year, going directly from the third to the fifth. When his family goes for a drive, discussions are much more apt to be about Teddy Roosevelt and terraforming Mars than they are about Spongebob Squarepants and what’s playing on Radio Disney.

It was during one of those drives that the discussion turned to the pledge of allegiance and what it means. Laura Phillips is Will’s mother. “Yes, my son is 10,” she said. “But he’s probably more aware of the meaning of the pledge than a lot of adults. He’s not just doing it rote recitation. We raised him to be aware of what’s right, what’s wrong, and what’s fair.”

Will’s family has a number of gay friends. In recent years, Laura Phillips said, they’ve been trying to be a straight ally to the gay community, going to the pride parades and standing up for the rights of their gay and lesbian neighbors. They’ve been especially dismayed by the effort to take away the rights of homosexuals – the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Given that, Will immediately saw a problem with the pledge of allegiance.

“I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer,” Will said. “I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.”

Out of the mouths of babes – or a child, in this case. Preach it, Will.

I love how deliberate this child is in his considerations. Again, would that many adults were capable of such rational thought:

After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will’s mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day. Each day, the substitute got a little more cross with him. On Thursday, it finally came to a head. The teacher, Will said, told him that she knew his mother and grandmother, and they would want him to stand and say the pledge.

“She got a lot more angry and raised her voice and brought my mom and my grandma up,” Will said. “I was fuming and was too furious to really pay attention to what she was saying. After a few minutes, I said, ‘With all due respect, ma’am, you can go jump off a bridge.’ ”

Ahahahahahahaha. I love that, “with all due respect…” It seems he had been showing her more respect than she was showing him. This was the quintessential “teachable moment,” and this teacher wildly missed the mark.

Well, you know what happened next, as will happen when a child backtalks a teacher (at least in Arkansas):

Will was sent to the office, where he was given an assignment to look up information about the flag and what it represents. Meanwhile, the principal called his mother.

“She said we have to talk about Will, because he told a sub to jump off a bridge,” Laura Phillips said. “My first response was: Why? He’s not just going to say this because he doesn’t want to do his math work.”

Eventually, Phillips said, the principal told her that the altercation was over Will’s refusal to stand for the pledge of allegiance, and admitted that it was Will’s right not to stand. Given that, Laura Phillips asked the principal when they could expect an apology from the teacher. “She said, ‘Well I don’t think that’s necessary at this point,’ ” Phillips said.

And why not? In this case, this teacher was wrong, as the principal acknowledged. The issue was one of justice and liberty, again, a great teaching moment for these children. The discussion could have been quite enlightening, but no:

After Phillips put a post on the instant-blogging site twitter.com about the incident, several of her friends got angry and alerted the news media. Meanwhile, Will Phillips still refuses to stand during the pledge of allegiance. Though many of his friends at school have told him they support his decision, those who don’t have been unkind, and louder.

“They [the kids who don't support him] are much more crazy, and out of control and vocal about it than supporters are.”

Given that his protest is over the rights of gays and lesbians, the taunts have taken a predictable bent. “In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they’ve been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me gay,” he said. “It’s always the same people, walking up and calling me a gaywad.”

Unfortunately, we we could see that coming, especially from Fifth graders, and other school age children who routinely say, “Oh, that’s so gay.” What am I talking, some teachers do it, too (unfortunately). Still, this young man has some backbone:

Even so, Will said that he can’t foresee anything in the near future that will make him stand for the pledge. To help him deal with the peer pressure, his parents have printed off posts in his support on blogs and websites. “We’ve told him that people here might not support you, but we’ve shown him there are people all over that support you,” Phillips said. “It’s really frustrating to him that people are being so immature.”

At the end of our interview, I ask young Will a question that might be a civics test nightmare for your average 10-year-old. Will’s answer, though, is good enough — simple enough, true enough — to give me a little rush of goose pimples. What does being an American mean?

“Freedom of speech,” Will says, without even stopping to think. “The freedom to disagree. That’s what I think pretty much being an American represents.”

Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson smiles.

Okay who wants Will to run for president in 35 years??? Yeah, me too.

No doubt Thomas Jefferson IS smiling at this wonderful young boy, and I am thankful for parents like the Phillips. We could sure use more like them. We DEFINITELY could use more young people like Will. What a thoughtful, grounded, boy he is. I hope for his sake, for our sake, he will be able to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance before he goes off to college…

Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush – absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already – THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…

But wait, it gets worse. The White House, through Health and Human Services, isn’t just telling them to STF up, they are THREATENING Humana and these insurance companies in general:

The government might take enforcement action against insurers that have tried to mobilize opposition to the legislation by sending their enrollees “misleading and confusing” messages, a senior official of the Department of Health and Human Services said in a memo Monday.

The mailings in question urge enrollees to contact their congressional representatives and protest the legislation, the memo said.

A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main lobbying group, issued a statement Tuesday criticizing what he described as the government’s “gag order.”

“Seniors have a right to know how the current reform proposals will affect the coverage they currently like and rely on,” AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said.

Now, all of us who said that Obama was simply going to take Chicago Politics national, raise your hand. Yep – we were all right. Honestly, though, I’d rather be wrong on this, but that ship has sailed. In essence, the White House is saying, “If we don’t like what you’re saying, we’ll come after you.” Nice. Really nice. And we thought Bush was bad. (Remember that? When we were so upset about his “propaganda” through the media? At least he wasn’t threatening private companies who didn’t agree with his proposed policies. Never thought I’d be defending Bush. See what Obama has done to me?!?!)

But I digress.

Remember when all of Obama’s supporters kept touting his legal expertise particularly in terms of the Constitution during the campaign? And I kept saying, “the better to tear it to shreds.” Sure seems to me that’s exactly what he is trying to do with the First Amendment:

Proposed health reform legislation would sharply reduce funding for Medicare Advantage plans, and the insurance industry has been battling to prevent that from happening. The bill unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would directly cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by an estimated $123 billion over 10 years, and it would indirectly reduce funding for those plans by another $15.6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The big insurer Humana triggered the HHS crackdown with a letter to Medicare enrollees claiming that health reform proposals could hurt “millions of seniors and disabled individuals” who “could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage plans so valuable.” The letter was sent in envelopes marked “important information about your Medicare Advantage plan — open today!”

HHS wrote to Humana last week instructing it to stop the mailings, and it wrote to all Medicare Advantage plans Monday, saying “such communications are potentially contrary to . . . federal law.” The government regulates communications between the health plans and their members.

Baucus had urged HHS to crack down on the mailings. (Emphasis mine.)

“It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors,” he said in a Monday news release. “The health care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits under the Medicare program — and seniors need to know that,” he said.

The AHIP spokesman countered that if the proposed cuts are enacted, “seniors will face premium increases, reduced benefits, and, in some parts of the country, will lose access to their Medicare Advantage plan altogether.”

Humana spokesman Tom Noland said beneficiaries “deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums.”

Peter Johnson provided a VERY good overview of the issue in the video below:

Here’s the question this just begs to be asked: If this plan is so great, why is it unable to withstand any real scrutiny without threats of retaliation for stating what is in it? That, to me, is a big, huge red flag that someone is lying here, and it does not seem to be Humana.

Oh, and since I’m on the topic of the Health Care Bill, here is a HUGE issue that may be facing us if this plan, as it is, goes through:

Holy toledo. So, a gag order to insurance companies for telling the truth, and another possible truth we’re not hearing enough about – there likely will not be enough doctors to care for us under this new plan. Yep, no more First Amendment, and not enough doctors willing to provide care under this plan.

Well,that’s just jake.

No need to take my word for it. Watch this short video (from a traffic camera) to get an idea of just how many people were there (and again, thanks to Logistics Monster, who was THERE, for this video link):

The thing that bugged me about the MSM reporting is that they consistently copied each other – oh, no wait – it just LOOKED that way (check out their opening lines in the articles above and you’ll see what I mean). No, it is that they consistently claimed the marchers were all Conservatives. Apparently, this was their way to dismiss the real anger and frustration people have toward this Congress, whose approval rating is LOW, something else these writers could have looked up easily, and this President, whose ratings continue to decline. They just write them off as some right-wing whackos (1.5 million or so of them), and pay no attention to their actual concerns.

And they have plenty of them. You know, concerns like the fact that the US Government now owning 61% of GM (hey, anyone want to buy a Cadillac?); or that the Obama Administration is adding $3 MILLION to the National Debt EVERY MINUTE; or maybe it’s the 32 czars – oops, make that 31 czars (see ya, Van) Obama is appointing left and right; or the Health Care Bill; or I could go on and on and on. These aren’t just Conservative concerns – these are AMERICAN concerns. But they won’t report it that way, because it doesn’t suit the meme they have created. Had they bothered to talk to some more people on the ground, they would have found out they were Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, all coming together to protest the out of control spending of this Congress and this Administration. To put it in perspective, we are $1 TRILLION more in debt since Obama took office. $ONE TRILLION. Once again, that’s not just an issue for Conservatives. That is an issue for ALL Americans.

Here are some photos of signs at the march – they came via Barbara Espinosa who sent them to Pajamas Media at THIS site. You can see more there:

This video from – of all places – MSNBC – is a fairly good synopsis (though they still couldn’t refrain from painting this as a wholly conservative movement – until the very, very end, when the reporter actually spoke the truth). I saw it at Michelle Malkin’s site while looking for an awesome photo I saw last night, which I have not been able to find again. The sign said, “We Are Not Wee Weed Up: We are PISSED!” If I find it, I’ll add it. Here’s the video:

This is but a snapshot of the day. There is so, so much more to the events of the day, the numbers of people, the calls for accountability in our government.

For those people who aren’t upset about the added $Trillion to our deficit, the takeover of GM, the unvetted czars, the $Trillion Health Care Plan, etc., etc., those people who are downplaying the size of this march, who blow it off as just some group of conservatives going off half cocked, my question is, Why the hell are you NOT upset at what our government is doing??? Bill Clinton downsized our government tremendously, Bush increased it, and now Obama is bankrupting it. Why AREN’T they upset??

White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase

See?? Doesn’t that make everything make more sense? It sure does for me…

But what isn’t a joke is this recent revelation: “Bill Would Give President Emergency Control Of Internet” (h/t to Mary Ellen, aka, Nunly, for this). Yep, you read that right – Obama wants to be able to control the “internets” when he deems it necessary. Oh, I WISH this was an Onion piece too, but no:

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

Isn’t this just such a comfort to you? Yeah, me, too:

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (”Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity (sic) perspective.”

Uh huh. Um, does it bother anyone else – besides us, that is – that Obama is the biggest micromanager on the face of the planet, especially since he is the most inexperienced leader on the face of the planet? Hey, I’m just asking here…

One last thing:

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shutdown or takeover of the Internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.

Unfortunately, I’m still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I’ll let you know if and when I get a response.

Oh, yippee!! Doesn’t the thought of Obama taking over the internet make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?? I know it does me. I just hope it doesn’t happen when he has one of his mood swings…

Yesterday I was appalled to watch the Speaker of the House comment on Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ assertion that the anger at these town halls over health care reform is “manufactured”. The reporter asked, “Do you think there is legitimate grassroots opposition going on out there?”

Nancy Pelosi made the following statement:

“I think they’re Astroturf…you be the judge. They are carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.”

How dare she? I have heard of bullying tactics but this is beyond the pale. She is cherrypicking a couple of extreme protesters, if indeed they exist, in order to deride the whole as an angry mob. My husband and I were Democrats for thirty years and we have questions and concerns about this overhaul as well. Here’s a hot flash, Ms. Pelosi, my Dad was used as slave labor by people who wore swastikas so I don’t appreciate being grouped in with them.

Average citizens who daily watch our leadership trade places in the clown car have a reason to be worried. Until Ms. Pelosi and every other elitist in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is willing to be subject to the exact same health care plan, and use it on their own mother, their children and themselves, they have no business sticking it to the rest of us. “Okay for thee but not for me” is not going to cut it.

There is no doubt that both sides “astroturf.” President Obama’s svengali, David Axelrod, is known for this behavior. There will always be groups left or right who will try to bank on to a legitimate protest for their own ends. Yet I have no doubt that the majority of these protesters are legitimate. We are talking about a 1,000 page monstrosity that no one can explain.

Pelosi is talking about overhauling one sixth of our nation’s economy when they have just laid an egg with the stimulus package and $60 billion dollar car bailouts.

Last year I watched the DNC insult anyone who did not buy the “cool” candidate they chose to put on their spaghetti jar. Their bullying tactics drove me away. As brilliant WaPo columnist Marie Cocco put it, their “deafening silence” on what looked to be the media lynching of Hillary Clinton didn’t help either.

People get mad when you question them for one of two reasons. Either they don’t have the answer and don’t want be made to look bad, or they know they are trying to pull a fast one and don’t want you to get a peek behind the curtain. Which is it? If the policy cannot be explained coherently and simply, that means they don’t have it working yet. Pardon my dust, but I thought the ultimate goal was to craft a policy that is better than what we have now.

I do not appreciate being bullied or blown off. People are angry and they are scared. Unemployment is in double digits in my state. My Congressman has been ensconced in his position for 25 years. He runs unopposed so I assure you, he isn’t bothering to have a town hall meeting on health care otherwise I’d be there shouting, too.

We pay their salaries. I do not wish to be told to shut up and sit down by the likes of Ms. Pelosi, who sees fit to negatively classify the opposition because she does not feel like being countermanded.

I can appreciate the President wishes to put forth an ambitious agenda, but this White House is tone deaf. We have moved beyond ego here. I am not concerned with someone racking up “accomplishments” just so they can say they did. We have severe problems in our economy and trying to do all this at once without first making sure you’ve got the right formula is like trying to paint a house in a hurricane.

Nancy Pelosi needs to apologize to the American people for the disrespect she has shown them. We are dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and we have every right to have all our questions answered.

We can do without the name calling and disrespect from our elected representatives. That is not the way to earn anyone’s trust.

But all women, in my humble opinion. That is what David Letterman did with his sexist comments regarding Governor Palin and her daughter (and it doesn’t matter if he meant the OLDER one – not that much difference between 14 and 18, ya know). Here is Conservative pundit Andrea Tantaros discussing this issue with Megyn Kelly on America’s Newsroom Tuesday morning (and the clip includes Letterman’s apology, hence why it is not linked above):

Tantaros was taking off on a post she wrote on this very issue, Attacking Conservative Women. Even though she is a Conservative, she makes a lot of good points. And I say this as someone who actively fought for Equal Rights for Women, who ran in the Seneca Falls to Houston Run way back when, carrying the torch, who helped found a chapter of NOW. Because this was what was NOT part of all of that work – that it was only for liberal women. No, we were fighting for ALL women, and that is why these kinds of comments are so offensive, whether they are about Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, Hillary Clinton, or Chelsea Clinton: because they are WRONG:

A growing trend seems to be emerging. From Perez Hilton to Playboy’s “Conservative Women Hate List” to David Letterman’s lewd comments about Sarah Palin, it appears that attacking women – specifically conservative women – is not only all the rage, but oddly, acceptable.

The more acceptable it becomes to express violent, crass language against women in the public arena the more you can expect our country to fray at the seams.

I’m not talking about attacks from bottom feeder leftist blogs either. Notable mainstream brands like the Miss USA Organization, “The Late Show” and Playboy magazine have all lost their sense of humor and their sense of decency by allowing conservative women to become a punching bag — and a punch line — for the left. Forgoing all boundaries, a party that once used to claim to own the violence against women issue has embraced it and let their politics run them when it comes to the issue of misogyny.

On its face, this isn’t even a political issue. It’s a women’s issue –- a human issue that transcends politics (emphasis mine). But why, when it comes to the most serious and sensitive attacks against women the National Organization for Women spokeswoman warrants a missing person’s report?

That’s EXACTLY it – this is a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. This kind of language would never be tolerated if it was directed at any other group (okay, maybe at “The Gays,” as Kathy Griffin calls us, but that’s it), and it sure shouldn’t be tolerated against the largest minority in the world.

Tantaros continues:

Carrie Prejean was called the most offensive four and five letter words by Miss USA judge Perez Hilton’s after she expressed her traditional views on gay marriage. Was he scolded by one of the organization’s owners, Donald Trump? Hardly. Trump actually expressed willingness to allow Hilton to judge at next year’s competition.

And that’s just the beginning. Playboy magazine published a vile, incendiary list of conservative women it would like to engage in hate sex with, and it was only after public outcry that it pulled the article. Its response was watered down, to say the least. Where was that writer’s editor? (And that editor’s mind, moreover?) It doesn’t take an expert to know that the first stage of violence is thinking about it, then expressing it, then actually doing it.

Again, about Prejean, she said NOTHING that OBAMA and BIDEN hadn’t already said. Yet, Obama got voted in (more or less), and Prejean was put on trial – for saying the same, exact thing.

And the Playboy piece was despicable.

As was this:

David Letterman made a disgusting joke about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s underage daughter and he didn’t stop there. He continued to make an off color joke about the Governor’s appearance making many want to invoke slaps but not against their knees.

Palin is apparently more popular than Letterman. Thanks to growing pressure from viewers Letterman offered — not one — but two — mea culpas. But where was CBS from the start? It was only after the public got involved that the comedian began to react with some seeming sincerity.

For the record, Palin should never appear on his show. Protests calling for his resignation should continue with a larger message to the general population and television executives everywhere: distasteful behavior against females will not be tolerated.

The only reason for Palin to ever appear on Letterman’s show is to demonstrate that she takes the high road, and is a MUCH bigger person than he is. I used to watch Letterman’s show, by the way, before he took every opportunity to trash Clinton – both of them (I mean, really – it has been a long damn time since the Monica Lewinsky issue, and Letterman STILL takes digs at Bill over it – there isn’t ANYTHING else going on in the world about which he could joke? That’s just lazy. And in very poor taste.)

Here’s the kicker:

The United States, a champion for women’s rights throughout the world, will have a tough time wagging it’s finger at countries that are less than progressive in their attitudes toward women and crimes against women all over the world when we tolerate hate speak at the expense of the American female, for a few laughs or fame, no less.

The First Amendment protects free speech but there is no reason that we, as citizens and consumers, should buy it. When it comes to those who want to disrespect any woman, we can take it to their bottom line and not only speak out, but also boycott their business.

Violence against women is wrong, no matter what party affiliation, not to mention it’s just not funny. The more acceptable it becomes to express violent, crass language against women in the public arena the more you can expect our country to fray at the seams.

Amen, Sister Tantaros. We may differ politically, but on this issue, I am standing right with you. We have seen the open season that was declared on women last year, we have felt the effects of it, and we still are. But it is UNACCEPTABLE to decent people. And we are decent people.

As is Dan K. Thomasson, who wrote a very good piece on this issue, “Letterman’s Remarks Symbolic of National Coarseness.” Now I realize this might date me some, you know, that I expect some level of decorum and decency and all, but so be it. (I’m also a Southerner, so what do you want from me already? That was supposed to be funny, just so you know.) I think Mr. Thomasson has it right in this post, and highlights that it isn’t just women who are upset by this level of discourse:

One doesn’t have to be a fan of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family to be offended by David Letterman’s utterly tasteless, senseless remarks about her trip to New York City. Somewhere in there may be a clue as to why NBC picked Jay Leno instead of Letterman to replace Johnny Carson on the “Tonight Show” all those years ago.

Letterman told his television audience that Palin, her husband and daughter had attended a New York Yankees game where the daughter had been “knocked up” during the seventh-inning pause by Yankee star Alex Rodriguez. He also insulted every hard-working airline crewmember outside the cockpit by describing Palin’s own appearance as a “slutty flight attendant look.”

Let me note here that as the father of one daughter and the grandfather of four young ladies, three of them teenagers, and the father-in-law of a former longtime flight attendant who missed being on one of the ill-fated 9/11 planes by one day, I was particularly outraged by these mindless remarks.

To her credit, Palin ignored the assault on her own person, realizing her political ambitions have made her fair game. But what parent, even one who understands that in this country politicians can expect rough treatment, would not be angered by the gratuitous off-color assault on her teenage daughter? The Palin daughter at the game was 14-year-old Willow. Palin called the remark “sexually perverted,” which seems an apt description for one who apparently thinks the suggested rape of a child or a teenage pregnancy are laughing matters.

Letterman said he would never say that about a 14-year-old. Well, that would indicate at least he knows the consequences attached to an assault, verbal or otherwise, on an underage girl. He said he was referring to Bristol, the 18-year-old who is an unwed mother but who was not at the game — an obvious cop out. But either way, of course, he was out of line. Just because this former TV weatherman hails from the Indiana farm country (as do I) doesn’t mean he should be bombarding us with pig dung in the guise of barnyard “humor” that most Hoosiers on either side of the political aisle would consider unfunny.

Like I said, I don’t think it is any funnier if it is about an 18 yr old, either. What a pathetic excuse that is, and in no way minimizes the inappropriateness of that “joke.” And extra credit if you figure out how old Obama’s mother was when she had HIM.

Thomasson continues:

Furthermore, this smutty dialog is not fit for national television. Aren’t we getting a bit tired of those who feel somehow their lofty positions give them immunity from the social restraints and standards of good taste and decency that govern most civilized Americans? It is safe to say that had Letterman’s remarks been made with any sort of racial overtone, his job would be on the line. There really is no reason for it not to be now if one subscribes to the notion that a baseless suggestion of immorality about any one no matter their color should bear some consequences, First Amendment guarantees notwithstanding.

Letterman’s remarks may have been written for him, but the responsibility is still his. He has complete control of his own material. It is puzzling that after all these years, he has not learned the difference between fair comment and satire and vicious disparagement. What may be more troublesome in all this is that it furthers the incivility of today’s politics, that its nastiness moves us just that much closer to the hate line at the expense of innocent bystanders — in this case children.

Liking or disliking Gov. Palin has nothing to do with this. Those who find her politically unsettling should be as appalled as those who are her biggest supporters. Her daughter’s pregnancy and decision to keep the baby does not make her a legitimate target for scurrilous public bathroom scribbles from morons. Mothers all over the world should be offended. It may be too late for a Letterman apology, but it isn’t for CBS officials to issue a strong disassociation with his remarks. After all, he violated most of the unwritten but understood rules that have protected minor family members from such unfair attacks. They have fired people for less. What this whole matter says about our direction is downright disgusting.

Yes, it does say a lot about our direction, and it sure as hell is disgusting. We saw a whole lot of that kind of behavior throughout the Primary and Election campaigns, too. It has all been well documented here before, the shirts, the actions, the horrible comments by the MSM, Obama’s supporters, and the enabling by the DNC of the sexism or coarse discourse.

Oh, and Dave? It’s not the PERCEPTION of what you said. It is WHAT YOU SAID. Just to be clear. We didn’t misunderstand you. We heard you loud and clear. And we didn’t like what we heard. Because what we heard, what you SAID, was offensive to women, and children. Enough of the deflection masquarading as an apology. We heard what you said, Dave, and it was offensive.

Maybe the third time is the charm – maybe Letterman can make a REAL apology without pushing it off on his listeners, or claiming he was mixed up, or whatever BS he comes up with next.

And maybe, just maybe, women will start to turn him off, and others of his ilk, who demean, belittle,castigate, and sexualize us, and our children. Now THAT might be a message clearly understood by everyone, Dave included.

That being said, there is no doubt that Private William Long, the Army soldier gunned down outside an Army Recruiting Center (along with Private Quinton I. Ezeagwula, who was wounded), was killed for political and religious reasons by a convert to Islam, who studied jihad in Yemen. To deny that, to gloss over that reality because President Obama was getting ready to go give a speech in Egypt to the Muslim community (and you know that is why), is yet another example of the failure of the Fourth Estate to do its job, instead of acting as the PR arm of Obama’s Administration. It is revisionist history, to be sure, but one that has consequences, not just in Little Rock, AR, but also for those serving our country who expect, no, who are ENTITLED to, better treatment by their country. It dishonors them, their service, us, and this dishonor is being perpetrated by their Commander in Chief. It is reprehensible.

And so, with the caveat above, here is a link to a post from Atlas Shrugs regarding an event at a Remembrance Rally for the fallen Pvt. Long. One of the points made at the other post was the lack of coverage of this event compared to the protesters at Dr. Tiller’s funeral. At least that seemed to garner some national media attention.

I hasten to say, though, I think it is inappropriate for protesters to be at ANYone’s funeral, whether it be Dr. Tiller’s by Operation Rescue-type people, or at Pvt. Long’s by those who think the US is “The Great Satan,” or whatever. Some of you may know that Fred Phelps’ gang, um, I mean, “church,” often stages protests at the funerals of military personnel (you know, supporting a country that supports LGBT people), and at the funerals of gay people (like Matthew Shepard, for example). If you have not seen any comments made by this group, this should give you an idea:

“The first sin was being a part of this military. If this young man had a clue and any fear of God, he would have run, and not walked, from this military,” said protester Shirley Phelps-Roper. “Who would serve a nation that is godless and has flipped off, defiantly defied, defiantly flipped off, the Lord their God?”

And this:

One protester had an American flag tied to his belt that draped to the ground. He was holding a sign that read, “Thank God For IEDs,” which are explosive devices used by insurgents to blow up military convoys.

It only goes down hill from there.

Ironically, there are often veterans there to counter the Phelps’ people, but they know that this is a free country, which means they have to listen to this crap and not lash out in kind.

Oops – sorry for the digression. The point (I’m getting there!) is two-fold: first, the lack of coverage relating to this violent attack by someone who has a HISTORY of violence and “fun with guns” (ahem), who attacked members of our military motivated by religion and politics continues to upset me. There should be more outrage about this, if you ask me, and more concern, especially since Muhammad seems to have larger connections. Maybe the FBI should have been keeping a closer eye on him.

Second, protesting at a memorial remembrance, or anything like that, is inappropriate, in my opinion that is. People are grieving the loss of their loved ones, and especially when they have been taken by violent means, to then have to deal with protesters is just cruel. I am ALL for free speech, a right sacred to us in a democracy, one in which I engage in regularly, and through protests. It is a right that the veterans mentioned as being why they tolerate the hateful comments made at funerals of soldiers by the Phelps “church.” It is why the videographer at the Rally said over and over, “Can you do this in Saudi Arabia?” (as in, can a woman stand on a street in Saudi Arabia and say whatever she wants? I kinda doubt it.).

But I also believe there is a time and place for such protests, and at someone’s funeral, or even their memorial rally, flies in the face of decency and decorum. That concept seems to be sorely lacking these days, but it wouldn’t hurt to get back to it, and I hope we do. Any ol’ day now…

Note: Wings Under America was a response to Homeland Security’s Right Wing Extremism Alert discussed by Susan here and here.

If you really want to get the feel of a Klan rally you should don a sheet and sneak into one. Otherwise you are just guessing about what the tenor there really is. That is why, when I was researching information from the Left Wing Extremist Advisory (see note under photo), I knew that I could not really get that total left-wing feeling just by reading a banal review of The Anarchist’s Cookbook on Amazon. I went underground. I slipped into some true black screen anarchy web sites and wandered through the darkness. After I found the quotes I needed I took a long shower and returned to my scribbling.   What I learned later was downright scary. And it was not the freaky words from the left-loon anarchists that spooked me. Let’s go back to the Klan rally. I’ll take you with me on this journey.

Let’s say that, a few days before that research project, you went to the Post Office. While you were there you stepped on one of the itty-bitty, near invisible, tacks spread across the floor and one stuck in your shoe. As soon as you entered the big open field, surrounded by trees with a nice fire in the middle, (that’s where they always hold them in Hollywood) Klan rally the GPS transmitter in your shoe sends a signal back to home boy security alerting the obatron monitors that you have entered into the coordinates of a known risky bunch of stylishly impaired choir boys.

The wake-up call. A few days later you go to city hall to pay your water bill and the girl behind the counter asks you to wait a minute. A federal marshal comes out and asks you to state your business. You toss down the check for the bill and head back home. Behind you is a state trooper. You get in the house and hear an odd clicking when you pick up the phone. Twenty minutes later a man comes to the door and says he is there to pick up your sheets for cleaning.

Itty-Bitty Invisible Radio Tacks. That’s what the techies at Google have given to the White House. If you visit their website a software program operated from Google servers places a tracking device onto the hard drive of your computer. Since we all know that George Orwell was a prophet we must believe that “they” know the web address of every miscreant on the planet. As soon as you visit the anarchist site the itty-bitty invisible tracking device in your computer could send an alert to Washington, cc’d to Chicago, of course. You have just been tagged.

The common name for the IBIRTs (Itty-Bitty Invisible Radio Tacks) is a cookie. That may sound innocent. Cookies are used to help your computer remember your passwords and to help a website recognize you on your return visits. But not all cookies are alike. Some are the type of evil, nasty, spy vs spy information gobblers that even Larry Johnson’s former bosses would put a chain on.

But, isn’t our government, using such technology on an unsuspecting public, against the law? Well, it depends on who is ruling what the definition of isn’t is.

Bill Clinton signed into law a bill that forbade federal agencies from secretly collecting information from your browsing habits. Under George W. Bush the law was further defined and strengthened.

The use of cookies on agency sites is sharply restricted by guidelines set at the end of the Clinton administration, by the E-Government Act of 2002 and by regulations issued by the Bush administration in 2003. “‘Cookies’ should not be used at Federal Web sites… unless, in addition to clear and conspicuous notice, the following conditions are met: a compelling need to gather the data on the site; appropriate and publicly disclosed privacy safeguards for handling of information derived from ‘cookies’; and personal approval by the head of the agency,” according to a memo issued in June 2000 by Jacob J. Lew, then director of the Office of Management and Budget.

So, why are the IBIRTs back? Let’s pull back the sheets.

“The Executive Office of the President is not an agency and is therefore exempt from the law.”

Can we expect more of the same from the little Kenyan Who Could?

You can assume you know, or at least have an idea, what the White House is getting out of this technology partnership, but what’s in it for Google?

The Googles have already sent a sales team to DC to sell to members of congress a gold plated promise that if they advertise with Google in their next campaign that Google can guarantee that their ads will appear in the browser windows of only those people whose browsing habits match the profile of the type of voter who is interested in federal government and who have interests, determined by what other websites they visit, that would make them be classified as someone who would vote for or donate to the legislator.

You can expect this information farming/netting from a political campaign or a commercial web site. Yahoo and Goolge both know where you have been and display ads on your screen accordingly. The feds have rules that bar the use of government assets for political campaigning. But how long will that last?

“There are indications that the administration wants to revise some of these laws, particularly with respect to the Internet, and we’re waiting to see if we can play a role,” said Peter Greenberger, a former regional campaign manager for Al Gore’s presidential bid who now heads Google’s Elections and Issues Advocacy team. “The real question that people are trying to answer is what can the White House do now that they’re the White House as opposed to a [political] campaign.”

Snip

“There would be issues providing some services to an elected official that is not provided to somebody else,” such as a political opponent. But, he added, “in some cases, you know, incumbency is a powerful thing.” [He actually said that? - EMc]

Google is also working with federal officials to map out government data so that Google’s most valuable property, the Google search page, can better direct citizens to sought-after government information. Any increased traffic through the Google Web page to federal sites gives the company a greater opportunity to sell advertising to government and commercial customers, said Greenberger. “It would be great if HUD’s site had a little ad saying, ‘Are you eligible for the mortgage bailout? Fill out this ad,’” Greenberger said in February, using the Department of Housing and Urban Development as an example.

Yes. But how “great” would it be if the ad said “You visited a divorce advice site yesterday and today you were reading a review of the Vagina Monologues. We can refer you to a Health and Human Services counselor to talk to you about your men-hating derangement,” and the person actually seeing the ad on your home computer was your husband?

I, for one, do not think this would be any more “great” than having my sheet pulled off, revealing my reporter’s notepad and pencil illuminated by the glow of a burning cross. “Oh, Brother. Where am I?”

The National Journal brought in some pros to research this information and you really should take the time to read the resulting article.

Just don’t visit any federal sites, especially the White House, before you go off to one of those Despicable. Shameful, Misleading and … anti-progressive websites.

I wouldn’t want you infected by an IBIRT.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Admittedly, I am one of those who always despised Rush Limbaugh, but actually never really listened to him. So, I decided to give him a listen. Rush just did a sit down with Hannity, covering his thoughts on the new administration, Democrats, and Rebublicans.

Part One: Thoughts about Obama, and the media coverage.

“I’m a thinker.”
“He plays both sides.”
“He’s not going to close Gitmo, or end Iraq in 16 months.”
“If his agenda is a far left, collectivism, socialist agenda, I want him to fail.”

Part Two: Drive by media, and Obama’s agenda

Do you think a socialist agenda by Obama would be a success or failure? Agree or disagree with Rush that Obama embracing Reaganesque policies would be a success. What, if anything, could Obama do, that would make his Presidency a success? Failure?

“Media covered up for Obama, his deficiencies.”
“We are being told we have to hope he succeeds because he is black, his father is black.”

Part Three: Republican party, and their mistakes

“You put people into groups, and then you victimize them.”
“What made this country great, is that all people are created equal.”
“Republicans want to be accepted by people that hate them.”
“Does anyone with half a brain believe that Obama went to dinner with conservatives to have his mind changed?”
“He wants them afraid to criticize him. He didn’t care for a minute to have his mind changed.”

Part Four: The next four years

“He’s, the democrats, are going to overreach. He’s going to face a whole new set of realities once he is in office.”
“If the media wants to prop someone up, they will.”
“It’s two sets of rules.” – dems and repubs

I gotta say, I might have to tune in to Rush a little more often. He echos some sentiments shared here, and he also gave me some new things to think about.

He seems to be pretty tough on both liberals and conservatives. However, I think, the older I get, the more conservative I become. I found myself agreeing with some of his comments that I normally wouldn’t.

What say you? Any feedback from any particular part of this interview? Anything you agree or disagree with?

I can understand now why Obama is telling Republicans to turn off Rush, though. And I must say, I hope they don’t.

I was reminded today of these great words, spoken by a true journalist:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.” ~Edward R. Murrow

“No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.” ~Edward R. Murrow

“A Nation Of Sheep Will Beget A Government Of Wolves” ~Edward R. Murrow

There are new findings out from the Civic Literacy Report, and they are not good. In fact, they are disturbing. This is a follow-up survey by one done to test civic knowledge of college students conducted over two years. The best result – the BEST result – was 54.2% on basic civics and self-governance. How do I say this? Oh, here it is – that’s PATHETIC. So, the American Civic Literacy Organization decided to survey adults, and elected officials. Check out some of these findings based on 33 questions asked:

The results reveal that Americans are alarmingly uninformed about our Constitution, the basic functions of our government, the key texts of our national history, and economic principles.

* Less than half can name all three branches of the government.
* Only 21% know that the phrase “government of the people, by the people, for the people” comes from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
* Although Congress has voted twice in the last eight years to approve foreign wars, only 53% know that the power to declare war belongs to Congress. Almost 40% incorrectly believe it belongs to the president.
* Only 55% know that Congress shares authority over U.S. foreign policy with the president. Almost a quarter incorrectly believe Congress shares this power with the United Nations.
* Only 27% know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States.
* Less than one in five know that the phrase “a wall of separation” between church and state comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Almost half incorrectly believe it can be found in the Constitution.

Americans from all age groups, income brackets, and political ideologies fail the test of civic literacy.

* Americans age 25 to 34 score an average of 46% on the exam; Americans age 65 and over score 46%.
* Americans earning an annual income between $30,000 and $50,000 score an average of 46%; Americans earning over $100,000 score 55%.
* Liberals score an average of 49%; conservatives score 48%.
* Americans who go to church once a week score an average of 48%; Americans who never go to church score 50%.

I know – holy crap, right? This sure does explain a lot to me, though, about how/why certain people do not see glaring violations of the Constitution even when it is shoved in their faces. They just do not know.

Wanna guess who it is in part responsible for the “dumbing down of America”? Did you guess the television? Then you would be right:

In order to help isolate the impact a college degree has on civic literacy, ISI examined additional factors that might add to or subtract from an individual’s civic knowledge. The survey results were put through a regression analysis to determine whether various behaviors in a respondent’s life had a unique, statistically significant impact on his or her civic knowledge.

The multiple-regression analysis indicated that a person’s test score drops in proportion to the time he or she spends using certain types of passive electronic media. Talking on the phone, watching owned or rented movies, and even monitoring TV news broadcasts and documentaries diminishes a respondent’s civic literacy.

Actively seeking knowledge through print media and high-quality conversations has the opposite effect. Reading about history and current events in books, magazines, and newspapers—and talking about these subjects with family and friends—increases a respondent’s civic literacy.

In fact, an American who lacks a college degree but has initiative and desire—and who does not spend too much time watching TV and talking on the phone—can acquire more civic knowledge than a couch potato with a college degree.

So there’s at least some hope if people can tear themselves away from CNN and MSNBC and pick up a newspaper and discuss it, they might actually learn something about this country.

Okay, as promised, wait, just WAIT until you see how our elected officials, those who swear to uphold the Constitution fared in basic civics. I’d put down that mug (or glass) if I were you:

The elected officeholders come from the ranks of Democrats (40%), Republicans (31%), Independents (21%), and those who say they belong to no party or indicate no affiliation (8%). None were asked to specify what office they held, so the proportion in which they held local, state, or federal positions is unknown.

Not all officeholders do poorly, of course. Some elected officials rank among the highest scorers. But the failure rate on the test among those who have won public office is higher (74%) than among those who have not (71%). Officeholders scored lower on all sub-themes of the test: political history, cultural institutions, foreign relations, and market economy.

In each of the following areas, for example, officeholders do more poorly than non-officeholders:

* Seventy-nine percent of those who have been elected to government office do not know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the U.S.
* Thirty percent do not know that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence.
* Twenty-seven percent cannot name even one right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.
* Forty-three percent do not know what the Electoral College does. One in five thinks it either “trains those aspiring for higher political office” or “was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates.”
* Fifty-four percent do not know the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Thirty-nine percent think that power belongs to the president, and 10% think it belongs to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
* Only 32% can properly define the free enterprise system, and only 41% can identify business profit as “revenue minus expenses.”

On some questions, Americans who have held elected office do better than Americans who have not. They are a little more likely, for example, to recognize the language of the Gettysburg Address (23% to 21%) and to know that the question of whether slavery should be allowed to expand into new territories was the main issue in the Lincoln–Douglas debates (25% to 20%).

Officeholders and non-officeholders find it equally difficult to identify the three branches of government. Only 49% of each group can name the legislative, executive, and judicial.

Well, that sure explains a lot, doesn’t it? No wonder we find ourselves screaming at the tv watching our lawmakers say the stupidest things that CLEARLY bear no relation to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. But for ANYONE in this country – ANYONE – to not know we have three separate branches of government is – wow – staggering. How can any American NOT KNOW THAT???? Clearly, they did not see this enough while growing up:

So, will people be upset of Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t stay on in his current position? For less than half of the nation who don’t even know the three branches of government, I’d say the percentage of people who wouldn’t even know anything had changed would be at least A GAZILLION percent. Sad. Really, really sad. This is exactly how we end up with people like Obama as the President Elect. People know so little about the government in general, how in the WORLD can we expect them to understand something like caucus fraud?? Wow. Just freakin’ wow. Go check out the site and see some of the other findings. I bet you’ll be be blown away, too. And I bet Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

It’s clear to many Democrats that a radical clique has taken control of the Party. Democratic ideals once held to be sacrosanct, including freedom of speech, one person one vote, and an intolerance of sexism have been violently pushed aside for the benefit of Obama. The media drumbeat for Obama is incessant; the media has even stopped pretending to be neutral. We’re seeing the country through Alice’s Looking Glass now and everything is upside-down and backwards. In an effort to save our Party and country, many Democrats are actively working to defeat Obama.

In 1980, the last Japanese soldier of World War Two, Captain Fumio Nakahira, was discovered on Mt. Halcon, Mindoro Island, Philippines. During the previous 35 years, Captain Nakahira had survived alone, serving his Emperor and believing that the War had not yet ended. (This was 15 years after the Gilligan’s Island episode).

Captain Nakahira comes to mind when I think about the thousands of disaffected and disillusioned Democrats across the country who will not be voting for Obama. If Obama is elected despite our efforts to defeat him, it will codify for a generation the Chicago corruption, race-baiting, and misogyny practiced by Obama and his minions; tactics which caused many of to leave the Party. And Obama’s race-baiting, misogynistic thugs will say: Good riddance!

Camping out on our own private Mt. Halcons, many thousands of men and women will remain committed to the causes which brought us to the Democratic Party in the first place. We won’t stop being concerned about sexism, race relations, economic opportunity, and national security.

It’s now dawning on Republicans and independents that a creeping totalitarianism is sweeping the country. Obama’s Truth Squads use the power of the state to stifle free expression, McCain supporters are jeered in public, and Obama’s shock troops — in a form of hate speech so ugly that it can only be described as a pogrom against women — wear clothing which declares that the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is a “cunt.” Sexual terrorism is the new form of Left-wing Kristallnacht.

Where did this come from?

The ecstatic mania of Obama’s supporters comes from many places, and I don’t pretend to understand all of the sources. Many who support Obama are low-information liberals, do-good progressives, proud African Americans, and fed-up independents. I can’t blame these groups; the Bush Administration has been a disaster. There is, however, a core group of Obama supporters who believe that the Senator from Illinois will bring revolutionary change. And their desire for the revolution is all-consuming and any tactic is considered fair game: caucus fraud, sexism, race-baiting, voter intimidation, online smear campaigns, sexual terrorism, and voter fraud. Anything to win.

I hold Obama accountable for the tone of this campaign and the actions of his supporters. From “hoodwink and bamboozled” to his “lipstick on a pig,” Obama’s sexist double-speak and race-baiting innuendos have unleashed something very ugly into the ether. Obama has given his supporters the tacit encouragement to cross lines of acceptable discourse in order to destroy his political opponents. In the Obama world, Bill Clinton is a racist, Hillary is a bitch, Sarah Palin is a cunt, and John McCain is erratic and senile. I fully expect that an Obama Administration, like all recent Administrations, will continue in campaign mode and I expect these tactics to continue. This was the reason, to borrow a phrase, that we sought to fumigate our Party.

Like many of you, I won’t have anything to do with Obama or his party. Obama’s tactics go against the reason I was a Democrat and no pleas and no threats will force me to give up my principles. Above my computer I have postcards with the images of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy; my Hillary poster is in the corner and remains unframed.

Car displaying McCain sticker vandalized

Saturday, October 18, 2008

CLEARWATER (Bay News 9) — A Clearwater man’s vehicle that displayed a bumper sticker supporting John McCain has been defaced in what appears to be a hate crime, authorities say.

According to authorities, 41-year-old Frank Armstrong’s 2006 Lexus LS 430 was parked on the 1400 block of Gulf Boulevard when someone or a group of people scratched the letters “KKK” into the paint and burned a U.S. Flag on the vehicle.

Authorities say those involved also used cigarettes to burn several areas of the car and apparently urinated on the car. …

Armstrong’s vehicle displayed a bumper sticker supporting the McCain campaign and another that was anti-Barack Obama leading investigators to believe the crime was racially or politically motivated.

No witnesses or surveillance video have been found.

Now Obama has unleashed his fury at Chicago’s biggest AM radio station owned by the Chicago Tribune for allowing a conservative writer and researcher Stanley Kurtz of the National Review to appear on a talk show to discuss his findings on the Ayers-Obama collaboration. [UPDATE: LISTEN to the MP3 of the WGN interview.]

Kurtz may be a conservative. His political views may be obnoxious. But his research is conclusive, factual and inarguable. Ayers and Obama have had a long relationship with Ayers playing the mentor and Obama as protege. And Obama has lied and lied and lied.

Kurtz’s work, unlike Jerome Corsi’s, is not a smear. It is factual.

Why is Obama reacting with such nervousness and such disproportionate anger? Because the truth is so damaging. You can’t hang with an unrepentant terrorist and then want to get elected as commander-in-chief to lead a global war on terror. The average voter won’t swallow that nonsense.

Will the mainstream media report the facts as Kurtz has done? Will it finally do the objective reporting it failed to do throughout the primary campaign? Will the media be upset at Obama’s effort at news suppression and censorship? Will the media discuss Obama’s assault on the First Amendment?

As Americans, we expect certain liberties and rights that were granted us by our forefathers, who wrote documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “We the people” expect that these fundamental rights will always be protected. However, in the current Democratic Presidential Primary, this has not been the case. We believe that the The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn’t happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for “dinners,” etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.

The preview, all 33 minutes of it, is compelling. In essence, it is a visual companion to the work of Dr. Lynette Long at Caucus Fraud and Peniel Cronin on Primaries and Caucuses (which will appear at NQ shortly). In short, it is disturbing not just how this happened, but THAT it happened in our country.

I invite you to watch the preview to this documentary, about which the authors said this:

This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America. We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned the actions of what we feel are Obama campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced.”

This documentary contains powerful, important information. I urge you to spread the word however you are able. Now is the time.

To view, CLICK HERE.

My deepest thanks to all of those at “We Will Not Be Silenced” for your commitment to democracy, to the rights of Americans, all Americans, to vote. Thank you for your courage and integrity in getting this critical information out. And thank you for bringing the voices of these Americans out for us all to witness