Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4-Months Under New Emergency Powers – (S.3480)

This should scare the Hell out of you!!  This is what they do in countries like Iran, Cuba, Venezuela etc etc.  Wake-up America. All they need to do is create a crisis, turn off the Internet, and steal the election(s)

Barack Hussein Obama is now one step closer to seizing control of the Internet, which is a far bigger prize than the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, if the the Obama Regime gains this power, then they'll be able to follow suit with Talk Radio, and then have the same sort of iron-fisted control of media networks the Communist Chinese have. Just imagine an America where the Internet, which was invented here, were nothing more than a propaganda tool for the Obama regime!? Sadly, that became much more likely yesterday.

The so-called "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act," which was approved by a U.S. Senate Committee this week, is nothing more than a "kill switch" for opposing viewpoints on the Internet. It paves the way for the nightmare scenarios which are currently just conspiracy theories to most. But if they have total control of the Internet, and they got it legally (in the eyes of most Americans, and let's face it, we are growing, but we aren't even close to a majority yet), via an act of Congress (however unconstitutionally, and yes, I realize this sort of executive power grab is absolutely, inherently unconstitutional), the Obama Regime (and the puppet masters behind it) will have the same sort of power that Woodrow Wilson had, but none of his relative restraint.

Without the Internet to express our views, and to communicate, network, and collaborate, we instantly become many fractured local movements, only as large as we have time to make phone calls and have money to send out snail mail (paper letters). It would mean that the Obama regime has all of the technology that was enabled by freedom and property rights, and the forces of freedom would be blown back into the pre-Internet era. Talk about a paradigm shift!
WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS! Here's the excerpt from TechWorld:

Obama Internet kill switch plan approved by US Senate
President could get power to turn off Internet
By Grant Gross - Published: 11:02 GMT, 25 June 10

‘Kill switch’ bill approved, moves to Senate floor

President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor.

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.

Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed in the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor.

In response to widespread criticism of the bill, language was added that would force the government to seek congressional approval to extend emergency measures beyond 120 days. Still, this would hand Obama the authority to shut down the Internet on a whim without Congressional oversight or approval for a period of no less than four months.

The Senators pushing the bill rejected the claim that the bill was a ‘kill switch’ for the Internet, not by denying that Obama would be given the authority to shut down the Internet as part of this legislation, but by arguing that he already had the power to do so.

They argued “That the President already had authority under the Communications Act to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” when there is a “state or threat of war”, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.

Fears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic China’s policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley.

While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet.

As we have illustrated, fears surrounding cybersecurity have been hyped to mask the real agenda behind the bill, which is to strangle the runaway growth of alternative and independent media outlets which are exposing government atrocities, cover-ups and cronyism like never before.

Indeed, China uses similar rhetoric about the need to maintain “security” and combating cyber warfare by regulating the web, when in reality their entire program is focused around silencing anyone who criticizes the state.

The real agenda behind government control of the Internet has always been to strangle and suffocate independent media outlets who are now competing with and even displacing establishment press organs, with websites like the Drudge Report now attracting more traffic than many large newspapers combined. As part of this war against independent media, the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, June 25, 2010

--------------

Kill Switch Would Kill The Internet

It’s always a comforting feeling when the fascists tell you to relax. And that’s what Senator Joe Leiberman (I-Conn.) told everyone to do Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley.

Crowley asked about the Kill Switch bill Leiberman co-sponsors with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) that would allow the President to shut down the Internet in a time of emergency.

The President will never take over the Internet, Leiberman—with a warm smile—assured the audience. The government shouldn’t take over the internet. The president would only do that in catastrophic times. Not going to do it every day. It’s only for national security. Relax.

“Right now China—the government—can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war. We need to have the ability to do that, too,” Leiberman said.

Of course, in China the government runs over its people with tanks. It drags them off to prisons without trial for practicing Christianity or saying something government doesn’t like, where they disappear forever—probably with a bullet in the brain. I wonder if Lieberman thinks our government should have those abilities as well.

China also censors the Internet—every day—to stifle the free flow of information… because it can.

The worry for Leiberman and his fascist buddies—the elected elitists who march to the orders of the New World Order—is not what would happen to America if some outside entity launched a cyber attack on the United States.

The worry is that the Internet has opened up a treasure trove of information and an ability to share ideas with freedom-loving people all over the world. No longer is the main stream media the sole purveyor of information.

So that information can no longer be controlled. More and more people are learning the truth about government and the secret machinations that go one behind the scenes. They are learning about the corporatists that pull the strings. They are learning about the Bilderbergers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission. They are waking up.

CFR member and Bilderberger Zbigniew Brzezinski recently lamented that people are becoming more aware of what’s going on in the world than ever before, and this awareness is harming their agenda.

So the U.S. government is gearing up for a crackdown on the information flow—or at least to have that ability when needed. Ignorant people, after all, are easier to control.

You may remember the protests in Iran a few months ago. The government there shut down the press. There was a complete information blackout throughout traditional media.

But we saw the atrocities that were taking place there—the shootings, the beatings, the imprisonments of the opposition—because of Facebook and Twitter. Despite the government’s best efforts to control the information coming out of Iran, the world knew the truth because of the Internet.

And protestors were able to organize large crowds in central locations and avoid the state police forces because they were able to communicate via the internet after other communications were shut down.

Not ready to think your government might be no better that Iran’s? Then surely you’ll consider that such a bill allowing control of the Internet would be used to monitor your Internet usage so it can be taxed… so web sites opposing the Big Government’s message can be better monitored and shut down.

The Federal Trade Commission recently proposed a plan—called a Drudge Tax—to tax websites and electronic devices in order to bail out failing newspapers—the propaganda rags of the ruling class. And since that didn’t fly with the masses the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) now says it wants to control prices and set rules for what traffic Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must carry.

Censor the Internet? That would never happen here, would it Senator Leiberman?

No, he smiles and chuckles at the foolishness of the little people. Relax. National security and all.

BY BOB LIVINGSTON (Back to Basics) ON JUNE 24TH, 2010

Think Amateur  (Ham)Radio is Dying Out???

Think Amateur Radio is dying out???
On June 18 there were already 16,937 new people that had become licensed (US) hams in 2010.  That's 600 more than became hams in ALL of 2005. (It's also 3,000 new people ahead of this point last year - and last year was a record-setter!)

If you meet with media people or the public (During Field Day) - drop THAT in their fact collector J Allen G. Pitts,  W1AGP ARRL Media & Public Relations Manager

Ti-Michelle Connelly, NJ6T  -  nj6t@mac.com

ARRL - The National Association of Amateur Radio

The First Amendment Does Not Apply to News that Irks Obama

NASA reports that galaxies are speeding away from earth at
90,000 miles a second. What do you suppose they know that we don't?

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATOR EVERY DAY ABOUT THIS!

U.S. Government on Twitter

Congressman Cantor said earlier this week that the DISCLOSE Act is a Blatant Attempt To Sway the November Election…  If that is the case this the act could be the final death nail in stealing that election as well as what is left of our freedoms.   Wake-up America! When do we say this is enough? 

I watched half of the John Adams mini-series tonight and found tears running down my face through most of it… like you do when you attend a memorial service.  Please make sure you rent or buy it and sit down and watch it with your kids or grandkids (explaining things between the 7-episodes) on or before the 4th of July.  I kept thinking what would they have said and done… you can bet not just sit here and let it happen!!

Related: 

Obama to Kill the Internet, like dictator and Banana Republics

New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down the Internet

Cyber Insecurity…

GB: 5.26.2010 – FrankenDodd Reforming Bill

Video:  Mark Levin Explains How the Disclose Act (H.R. 5157)  Threatens the First Amendment

Kagan: Markets and Morals

There’s an old joke about a Transylvanian cookbook. The recipe for an omelet starts off with this: “First, steal two eggs.” If that note really appeared in some country’s cookbook, don’t look for constitutional government or a free market system to arise there anytime soon. That’s because democracy is not something you can just plant, like shaking seeds out of an envelope.

Americans were blessed to have extensive experience of self-government when we made our bid for independence in the 1770s. And Americans at that time–all the most thoughtful ones at least–recognized the profound contradiction that human bondage represented. It was difficult to assert on the one hand that all government “derives its just powers from the consent of the governed” while holding millions of human beings as slaves. Amid many blessings, slavery was held to be a curse. It took another eighty years and fratricidal Civil War before those contradictions were resolved.

A free market can do many things efficiently and justly, but the free market is perverted when it treats humans as objects. Thus, almost all people recognize that slavery and international sex trafficking are wrong. Our laws protect artistic expression, but we demand strict enforcement of laws against child pornography. Such illicit trade cannot be honored as a part of legitimate commerce.

We already know something of the unusual ideas of human rights and commerce held by U.S. Solicitor General, Elena Kagan. Kagan has been nominated by President Obama to succeed the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Kagan also served in the Clinton White House, where she left an extensive paper trail of documented opinions.

Most interesting, perhaps, is Kagan’s support for cloning human beings. Clinton Library documents show that she opposed any effort by Congress to prevent human beings from being cloned specifically to create embryos that would be experimented upon, then killed. Gallup recently reported that 88% of Americans oppose cloning human beings. Kagan does not.

We also know, from her record as Solicitor General in the Obama administration, that there are circumstances in which Elena Kagan would vote to ban political books. President Obama famously attacked the Supreme Court–while its members sat robed before him–during his first State of the Union Address last January. He attacked the Court for its ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The President said, incorrectly, that that ruling permitted corporations to contribute directly to political campaigns and would allow foreigners to come in and influence our elections.

What the Citizens United case did say was that unions and companies, and non-profit associations, do not lose their First Amendment rights to speak on public issues just because an election is less than sixty days away. In fact, the Supreme Court found, during election campaigns was the very time when political communication among citizens was most important.

At issue was a film produced by Citizens United that attacked the public record of Hillary Clinton. The McCain-Feingold law says that such communications are unlawful contributions.

Kagan was asked if, instead of making a movie, Citizens United had published a book criticizing Hillary Clinton and it hit the stands less than sixty days before an election? Could the government ban that book? Yes, she said, representing the Obama administration. Ed Whelan, writing for National Review Online, pointed to the bizarre consequences of Kagan’s reasoning:

As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, the theory of the First Amendment advocated by Kagan on behalf of the Obama administration “would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are.”

Here we can clearly see that the kind of disregard for human rights Kagan denied in her advocacy of cloning human beings extends to property rights and to suppression of free speech. All our Bill of Rights guarantees–including freedom of speech and assembly–can only be safe in a constitutional order that respects human life. We must stand for free markets, but those free markets themselves are supported by respect for those inalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator. When those rights are denied by government, destructive forces are unleashed against free markets as well.

Markets and Morals

by Ken Blackwell

 

What a Sack of Sacrosanct

In The New York Times' profile on the family of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, her aunt was quoted as saying: "There was thinking, always thinking" at the family's dinner table. "Nothing was sacrosanct."

Really? Nothing was sacrosanct? Because in my experience, on a scale of 1-to-infinity, the range of acceptable opinion among New York liberals goes from 1-to-1.001.

How would the following remarks fare at a dinner table on the Upper West Side where "nothing was sacrosanct": Hey, maybe that Joe McCarthy was onto something. What would prayer in the schools really hurt? How do we know gays are born that way? Is it possible that union demands have gone too far? Does it make sense to have three recycling bins in these microscopic Manhattan apartments? Say, has anyone read Charles Murray's latest book? READ MORE…

by  Ann Coulter

-------------

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman

Liberty Counsel

On the brink of her Senate hearings, we now have

a substantial body of evidence that Elena Kagan's

political activism has caused her to cross the

boundaries of good judgment on several occasions.

It would be a great mistake to allow her a seat

on the Supreme Court. Please see my urgent

message below. - Mat

Critical new information has been released by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the senior Republican on the Senate's Judiciary Committee, exposing yet another example of the truly radical nature of Elena Kagan's political views.

As Dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan made

no protest concerning very large donations to

Harvard from Islamic sources interested in

promoting Shariah Law - while at the same

time denying the U.S. military access to the

campus!

Kagan prohibited military recruiting on the law school campus, saying that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy was "a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order."

Kagan's position was later unanimously rejected by the U.S.

Supreme Court. But the story gets much worse...

At the same time she was banning military recruiters from campus, Harvard University accepted $20 million from a member of the Saudi Royal family to establish a center for 'Islamic Studies' and Shariah law.

Kagan banned the military and distorted the law because she views the world through the lens of her own ideological activism and promotion of homosexuality, but then welcomed Islamic studies to promote Shariah law at Harvard!

++Kagan's bias for international law is very dangerous.

According to Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, Dean Kagan "personally officiated in 2003 over the establishment of an 'Islamic Finance Project' at the law school. The project's purpose was to promote what is better known as 'Shariah-Compliant Finance'

(SCF) by enlisting in its service some of the nation's most promising law students."

Why is this significant? Because SCF has its roots in something called "The Muslim Brotherhood," whose stated General Strategic Goal in North America is...

"...a grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying

the Western civilization from within and

'sabotaging' its miserable house by their

hands and the hands of the believers so that

it is eliminated and God's religion is made

victorious over all other religions."

Elena Kagan must be held accountable for acquiescing to (if not outright supporting) the goals of radical Muslims while denying our military recruiters access to students.

Kagan has shown that she cannot be objective.

++Countdown to Kagan's Senate confirmation hearings.

Next Monday, the full Senate begins the confirmation hearings on Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. I want to release an unprecedented barrage of faxes to stop her on the Senate BEGINNING MONDAY!

Our urgent message: "OPPOSE THE CONFIRMATION OF ELENA KAGAN!"

I'm asking every member of the Liberty Counsel team to press hard on targeted Senators with this call to action.

Your faxes will be scheduled to be delivered with thousands of other citizens' faxes as part of this massive FAX BARRAGE.

Go here to schedule your targeted faxes:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=29103&CID=312&RID=23710767

If you prefer, we always encourage you to send your own faxes. We have provided all the information you need to reach Senators here:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=29104&CID=312&RID=23710767

Elena Kagan could potentially serve on the

Court for 30 to 40 years. And her "blank slate"

of judicial qualifications and "stealth"

record compel us to resist her confirmation

to avoid dangerous surprises after she is seated.

Along the same line, several Senators are complaining because it appears that 1,600 pieces of vital information from Kagan's time in the Clinton Administration are being withheld for "confidentiality" reasons! Like Barack Obama before her, large parts of her past are being hidden from view.

Senator Sessions has even warned that many Senators may boycott the hearings over this "stealth" treatment. We must not give Elena Kagan a free pass to the High Court!

Go here to schedule your faxes:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=29105&CID=312&RID=23710767

++Kagan's opinions are outside those of mainstream America.

The United States Supreme Court overturned Ms. Kagan's misguided resistance of military recruitment by a 9-0 vote, clearly demonstrating that her views are well outside the mainstream of American legal thinking.

Kagan's expressed bias toward homosexuality will affect her legal positions on the entire range of family, marriage, and homosexual "rights" issues she is likely to rule upon if confirmed.

The Senate confirmation hearings begin next Monday, yet more and more troubling information about Elena Kagan seems to surface on a daily basis. Last month, shortly after President Obama announced Kagan as his nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, we informed the Liberty Counsel team of her unacceptable views on abortion, judicial activism, socialism, and many other key topics.

Those concerns, of course, come in addition to her utter lack of judicial experience. Americans just don't know enough about how this "stealth" nominee would perform on the High Court.

++Free "White Paper" exposing Kagan's activist philosophy.

To help you see the full scope of Kagan's activist beliefs, Liberty Counsel has produced a White Paper exposing her writings, her policies and ideologies. Go here to download your free copy of this insightful analysis:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=29106&CID=312&RID=23710767

It is vitally important for every concerned citizen to have this resource because Kagan and the Obama team are hard at work obscuring her true record and persuading so-called "moderates" in the Senate to support her.

++Schedule your faxes now!

I believe the next SEVEN DAYS could be absolutely crucial in this battle to have Elena Kagan's real record and beliefs brought forth before Senators begin voting.

I want to flood the Senate with an unprecedented barrage of faxes every day next week - beginning Monday morning.

Please go here right now to take part in our

FAX BARRAGE that will begin as soon as Senators

open their offices Monday morning:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=29107&CID=312&RID=23710767

Timothy, please join Liberty Counsel and many thousands of your fellow concerned citizens in preventing Elena Kagan from being seated on the Supreme Court of the United States!

Please, increase your personal impact on this vital issue by taking advantage of our FAX BARRAGE and tell your Senators and other key Senators to oppose the Elena Kagan nomination!

We have provided sample letters for you - all you have to do is click on this link to get your faxes into our FAX BARRAGE of the United States Senate. Also click here for your FREE seven-page White Paper on Elena Kagan:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=29108&CID=312&RID=23710767

Thank you and God bless you!

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman

Liberty Counsel

P.S. Elena Kagan's radical ideologies are finally being exposed.

The Supreme Court bench requires Justices who have a keen understanding of the law and an ability to interpret the law without invoking their personal political viewpoints and prejudices.

Together, we must stop the confirmation of Elena Kagan before her candidacy gains momentum! Go here to access the free White Paper and to schedule your targeted faxes to the Senate:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=29109&CID=312&RID=23710767

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Liberty Counsel, with offices in Florida, Virginia and Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family.

Liberty Counsel . PO Box 540774 . Orlando, FL 32854 .800-671-1776

-------

Bork: Kagan Not Qualified for Supreme Court

"For some reason, the President is always excited about having a 'first,' and this would be the first court with three women judges on it," Bork said... Read More

Elisabeth Meinecke

Opening statements were made by Senators today at Kagan’s confirmation hearing, which included several comments about the importance of a Supreme Court Justice’s defense of the US Constitution (not their ideological opinions) and that need for Justices to rule in favor of the letter and intent of the Constitution and thereby winning the support of the ‘large majority’ of the American People… two important items that virtually never happen with liberal judges.  Kagan interned for   two of the most liberal judges… ever to sit on the bench and wrote their arguments.  There are too many questions about many of Kagans’ opinions both on the job and personally to appoint another liberal judge to the US Supreme Court who will be there for what could seem forever.  Sotomayor is showing us her liberal leanings in her votes and Kagan will be no different… yet the Senate, including the GOP seem to have convinced themselves that short of a major scandal, a president should get his choice.  Really??  Funny how that isn’t the case when the left skewered Bork and Thomas… who was finally appointed.

Video:  Kagan said she loved the Bork Hearings.  Let’s make sure she get the same

Video:  Clarence Thomas Hearings: Biden Questions Thomas 1

Videos for Videos of Bork hearings

Videos for Thomas hearings

Today’s headlines:  Little Drama Expected at Kagan Hearings‎.  Really?  Shame on the Senate!  Shame on the GOP and shame on us!  Contact your Senator today to vote no on Kagan!  She is not U.S. Constitution user friendly!!

Senators from your State.

U.S. Government on Twitter

Pat Condell on Ground Zero Mosque

 

Video – No Mosque at Ground Zero

Stop the Stealth Jihad!! "Is it possible to be astonished, but not surprised?"

Pat Condell articulates everything that's wrong about the mosque at Ground Zero.

Sign the Petition Against the Mosque Here:
http://tool.donation-net.net/public/ACT4A/entrance/enter.cfm?dn=1097&source=2013&id=26713&commid=28503900&CFID=8463747&CFTOKEN=18978461

Watch this video and learn what's really going on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDs-hC...

The 9/11 mosque
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

A mosque at Ground Zero equals victory
http://www.hudsonny.org/2010/05/mosqu...

Why Cordoba?
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/...

Ground Zero imam: "I don't believe in religious dialogue."
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-z...

One of the Cordoba Initiative's "Muslim leaders of tomorrow"
http://revuse.wetpaint.com/page/Musli...

Ground Zero mosque team lacking funds amid bookkeeping chaos
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ma...

9/11 Sacrilege
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/31/91...

A sneak preview of the Ground Zero mega-mosquehttp://www.americanthinker.com/2010/0...

How to stop the Ground Zero mega-mosque
http://europenews.dk/en/node/32600

Overtolerance could pave the way for sharia in America
http://www.libertiesalliance.org/2010...

Saudi billionaire boasts of manipulating Fox news coverage
http://www.aim.org/press-release/saud...

Fox refuses to carry VoteVets energy independence ad
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05...

Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0511/kaga...

US administration afraid to call things by their name
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/ind...

Brennan's lesson on jihad
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/01/br...

Interview with the man who led the campaign against the London Olympic mosque
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=111...

PETITION AGAINST SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN
http://onelawforallpetition.com/onelaw/onela300.php?nr=40155035

PETITION AGAINST SHARIA LAW IN THE UNITED STATES
http://www.petitiononline.com/gty65nde/petition.html

BOOK OF VIDEO TRANSCRIPTS NOW AVAILABLE
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback...

You can download an audio version of this video at
http://patcondell.libsyn.com/

“In the Year of Our Lord” Censored Because Muslim Student Petitioned

A Sad Day

The flap about General Stanley McChrystal's "resignation" was nobody's finest hour. But there are some painful lessons in all this that go beyond any of the individuals involved-- the general, the president or any of the officials at the Pentagon or the State Department.

What is far more important than all these individuals put together are the lives of the tens of thousands of Americans fighting in Afghanistan. What is even more important is the national security of this country.

t is certainly not politic for a general or his staff to express their contempt for civilian authorities publicly. But what is far more important-- from the standpoint of national security-- is whether what those authorities have done deserves contempt.

My hope is that General McChrystal will write a book about his experiences in Afghanistan-- and in Washington. The public needs to know what is really going on, and they are not likely to get that information from politicians.

This is, after all, an administration that waited for months last year before acting on General McChrystal's urgent request for 40,000 more troops, which he warned would be necessary to prevent the failure of the mission in Afghanistan. He got 30,000 eventually-- and a public statement by President Obama about when he wants to start withdrawing American troops from that country.

In no previous period of history has an American president announced a timetable for pulling out troops. They may have had a timetable in mind, but none of these presidents was irresponsible enough to tell the world-- including our enemies-- when our troops would be leaving.

Such information encourages our enemies, who know that they need only wait us out before they can take over, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere. At the same time, it undermines our allies, who know that relying on the United States is dangerous in the long run, and that they had better make the best deal they can get with our enemies.

But the worst aspect of the national security policy of this administration is its clear intention to do nothing that has any realistic chance of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. This may be the most grossly irresponsible policy in all of history, because it can leave this generation-- and future generations-- of Americans at the mercy of terrorists who have no mercy and who cannot be deterred, as the Soviet Union was deterred.

All the current political theater about "international sanctions" is unlikely to make the slightest difference to Iran. Nor is the administration itself likely to expect it to. What then is its purpose? To fool the American people into thinking that they are doing something serious when all that they are doing is putting on a charade by lining up countries to agree to actions that they all know will not have any real effect.

There is another aspect to General McChrystal's "resignation."

Everyone seems to be agreed that Stanley McChrystal has been a soldier's soldier-- someone who knows what to do on a battlefield and is not afraid to put himself in danger to do it.

Do we need more generals like this or do we need political generals who know how to cultivate Washington politicians, in order to advance their own careers?

Some people see a parallel between McChrystal's "resignation" and President Harry Truman's firing of General Douglas MacArthur. No two situations are ever exactly the same, but some of the parallels are striking.

MacArthur was proud not only of his military victories but also of the fact that he won those victories with lower casualty rates among his troops than other generals had. But General MacArthur too was not always discreet in what he said, and also had reasons to have contempt for politicians, going all the way back to FDR, who cut the army's budget in the 1930s, while Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were building up huge military machines that would kill many an American before it was all over.

If we are creating an environment where only political generals can survive, what will that mean for America's ability to win military victories without massive casualty rates? Or to win military victories at all?

Thomas Sowell

A Sad Day

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of  The Housing Boom and Bust and Intellectuals and Society

Geraldo Rivera

Rolling Stone writer did 'terrible thing'

Byron York

Gen. McChrystal's real offense

 

Pundit Class, Not McChrystal, Exercised 'Bad Judgment'
By John R. Guardiano, American Spectator

President Obama agrees with me: General McChrystal is not guilty of insubordination. "Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully" [emphasis added], Obama said Wednesday.

     But what about "bad judgment"? Were General McChrystal and his staff guilty of saying and doing things that, although technically permissible, nonetheless reflected poorly upon them and the U.S. military?

    I don't think so. It seems to me that the political and pundit class have overreacted to remarks that are rather tame and innocuous.

    Yes, I said tame and innocuous. We keep hearing about the general's "reprehensible" and "inappropriate" comments. But what, exactly, did the general say that is "reprehensible" and "inappropriate"? Can anyone really cite a specific incriminating remark? I don't think so.  READ MORE…

Perhaps there was a bigger agenda??

-->  McChrystal out, Bilderberg Petraeus In  <--

WATCH: Media Praise Obama's 'Brilliant' Handling of McChrystal Controversy

The only part that was brilliant was how pathetically brilliant the lame stream media’s continuing Obama worship is!!

A Slobbering Love Affair continues…

Is General Petraeus Being Betrayed?  -  An Op-Ed

In the past couple of days, the media has been in a feeding frenzy over remarks made by General McChrystal’s aides and maybe a comment he, himself made to a definitely known left wing magazine reporter. The question a lot of “talking heads” is, WHY? There has been speculation of whether it was poor judgment, not only about the comments, but in granting the interview. Well, I’m not a “talking head” but I’ll add my two cents to the speculation and the possible outcome.

To begin with, just as everyone else has said, General McChrystal is far from being dumb. He did not achieve the rank of general on good looks. There may have been some politics, but from what I’ve read and heard, that was not the case. He achieved his rank on skill, knowledge, devotion to duty and most importantly devotion to his men. So, why did he allow an interview with Rolling Stone and become “friendly” with the “reporter”? My personal feelings is that he was looking for away to get out of a no-win situation and at the same time send a message to the American public and more importantly the President. Maybe, the general has realized that with the rules of engagement (ROE), which prevented him giving adequate support for his men, whether Marines or soldiers, involved in combat. Maybe it was the idea of giving a medal for NOT shooting. Maybe it was the idea that there is a time line for withdrawal. Again, I do not claim to know what was in the general’s mind, maybe some day General Mc McChrystal will let the world know just what he was thinking.

I can just guess or imagine that there are some out there that are saying, “Why didn’t he just resign?” Can anyone with the sense God gave them realize the effect on the troops, if Gen. McChrystal were to resign, particularly in the middle of the war and particularly with a major offense coming up.  As one who has spent time in the military and in a combat area, it would be devastating to morale. The men and women in the field would look at each other, and wonder, “What does he (McChrystal) know that we don’t?”  “Is this worth it, when even our commanding general is calling it quits?” Believe me, having been in a similar situation where you look at what is going on in the U.S. and being a professional, as our military are, you continue to do your job, but it begins to wear on you. Morale is as important as the beans and bullets needed to fight. So, maybe, just maybe Gen.

McChrystal planned and executed it with the military precision that a general officer is trained to do in an unwinnable situation. Unwinnable because maybe he was just tired of seeing young men and women going to their deaths because of the current ROE coupled with the timeline for withdrawal, was a little too much for this general to continue fighting, particularly when you have a Clown in Chief (CIC) like Barrack Hussein Obama.

To give one an idea of how detached some of these talking heading are from the way the military operates, was Bill O’Reilly last evening. O’Reilly in a number of discussions kept saying that until Gen. Petraeus gets confirmed, it will be turmoil over in the combat zone. Well, Mr. O’Reilly, I hate to break this to someone who claims to be so smart. The functioning of a military unit does not depend on any one person. There is always a subordinate who is briefed, trained and can step into the leadership role. This does not only hold true at the top, but down to the 4 man fire team. If the leader is killed, or taken out for some other reason, the next senior man will take over the mission, complete it and afterwards will mourn the lost. Does this sound cold hearted to some of you reading this? Most likely, but though the lost is felt by all members of the unit, the discipline to get the job accomplished and victory attained will prevail. So, Mr. O’Reilly, turmoil will not happen, someone, and from I’ve read a British General has taken charge until General Petraeus reports for duty. Our fine military will continue to march without missing a step.

It is ironic, or maybe great minds do think alike, because as I’m writing this, Rush is discussing the past comments by the left about Gen. Petraeus. Isn’t it amazing how suddenly the left is now in love with Gen. Petraeus and his ability to take charge of the war? Even Bill Bennett, this morning, on his radio show, praised Gen. Petraeus, and stated how much he is liked by BOTH sides of the aisle. Does Mr. Bennett or anyone else remember the General Betrayus ad in the N.Y. Crimes? What about the comments made by then Senators Clinton and Obama. Frankly, I feel that Gen. Petraeus is being setup by Obama and the rest of his lap dog members of the press and congress. Common sense should tell the American people, that the CIC does not want to win in Afghanistan nor does he want to admit that he is causing America to “lose” another war. Instead of going into Afghanistan and unleashing total Hell to eliminate Al Queda and the Taliban that shelter them -- permanently and accepting all of the resultant collateral damage that the total hell would cause, then, come the hell home, leaving a failed state. Or we should plan to support the country for as long as it takes them to set up a fully functioning secular republic (i.e., maybe staying there for generations) as we did in Germany and Japan (1). However, I feel that Gen. Petraeus is entering into a situation where he may be being set up to fail. The left will continue to praise Gen. Petraeus until things start going wrong. When this begins to happen, watch the left and media start turning on him. Then come this time next year, when the pull out begins and we have a repeat of the fall of Saigon listen to what the left says about the General. Granted, Gen. Petraeus will do the best he can possibility do under the circumstances that the CIC has placed him in. However, unless Gen. Petraeus can change the ROE in order to allow our military to fight, get as many personnel and as much equipment he needs as soon as he asks, instead of waiting 4 month, and finally is able to fight the war as it should be fought, he will be set up to be blamed for any failure and of course, none of the blame will end up where it belongs, the white house. After all, Gen. Petraeus was the General assigned by President Bush to win in Iraq, which he did. Now, if things do not go well in Afghanistan, and we end up leaving next year without a clear cut victory, it will once again be Bush’s fault.

(1) A suggestion from a friend of mine

Semper Fi,
The Terrific Trio – Song of Truth

John Stossel: Guns Save Lives - British Want Their Guns and Freedoms Back

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.

While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.

That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.

Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims', success. So criminals don't attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.

Government may promise to protect us from criminals, but it cannot deliver on that promise. This was neatly summed up in book title a few years ago: "Dial 911 and Die." If you are the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility.

How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?

The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.

The press ignores the fact that often guns save lives.

It's what happened in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns and restrained the shooter until police arrested him.

Likewise, law professor Glen Reynolds writes, "Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In (last) February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun".

It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don't usually report crimes that don't happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his life.

"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20". "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."

Source:  Townahall 

John Stossel's Biography

Award-winning news correspondent John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News "20/20." Eight million to 10 million people watch his program weekly. Often, John Stossel ends "20/20" with a TV column called "Give Me a Break," which challenges conventional wisdom.

John Stossel's prime-time specials on myths, parenting issues, sex and trends in pop culture rate among the top news programs and have earned him uncommon praise: "The most consistently thought-provoking TV reporter of our time," said The Dallas Morning News. The Orlando Sentinel said John Stossel "has the gift for entertaining while saying something profound."

John Stossel of the Fox Business Network tells it like it is on Fox News Channel. He defends the 2nd Amendment like most of us would, but this could be useful in helping your friends, relatives, neighbors, co-workers, church congregation members, etc. see the light!

Here it is:

Video -  Stossel:  “Americans have the right to to Carry”

“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”-Thomas Jefferson

The British Want Their Guns Back

Video:  British Want Their Guns Back

Wake up America before this is us!!

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

How and When Did Communism Become Cool?

Video:  How and When Did Communism Become Cool (4:38 mins)

 

How Did Communism Become Cool?

FNC - By Glenn Beck

Who thought this statue of Stalin was a good idea?

I want to talk to you about communism, but I have to tell you, that sounds like a joke. Three years ago I didn't even think it was around; I would have mocked someone like me. But don't fall into that trap. Open your mind and your ears — the country is in trouble.

The best thing to ever happen to communists was the red scare and Joseph McCarthy. We had beaten communism, soundly discrediting it in every sense. People viewed communists as traitors who wanted to destroy America. They crept back into unions — especially teachers' unions — that coupled with colleges, you now had a situation where communists were starting to be the ones writing and teaching history.

Our children have grown up not knowing what communism is. They didn't have to go through the emergency attack drills at school. They didn't grow up hearing about the gulags. They haven't seen the horror show of millions of mass murders and starving people at the hands of brutal communist dictators.

So now it's cool to be a communist. T-shirts of Che Guevara are one of the most popular t-shirts around. Che was a racist and mass murderer, yet we have schools banning kids from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. If we're going to ban shirts, how about the one with the communist killer on it? It's not offensive because no one looks at the history of what they did.

How else can you explain everything going on today that happens with little or no outrage? Things like the statue of Stalin going up in Virginia? How does that idea not cross someone — anyone's — desk who said, "This may not be a good idea"? It happens because no one knows who these communists really were anymore. It's just cool.

Cameron Diaz illustrated this mindset when she visited Peru to do a TV project on Peru and its culture. While touring the country, she carried a purse emblazoned with a red star and the words "Serve the People" printed in Chinese. That was Chairman Mao's slogan. It was a Maoist insurgency in the 1980s and '90s that killed 70,000 people in Peru. Not to mention the tens of millions of people Mao killed in China. It's not so cool when you know history, is it Cameron? But they don't know.

You've got communist teachers in California calling for revolution. The Houston branch of Communist Party USA — a group that's called for the nationalization of BP — is reaching out to young people through Facebook. And their favorite movie is Michael Moore's "Capitalism, a Love Story."

Cindy Sheehan in New Orleans talked about challenging capitalism:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CINDY SHEEHAN, ACTIVIST: Any meaningful discussion of this disaster must challenge the system and structure of capitalism. If we had socialism, where the companies were nationalized and the democratic control of the workers, the clean-up — maybe they would have had an acoustic device on the blowout preventer. Maybe they would have spent an extra half a million dollars to prevent this disaster and we wouldn't have to be here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Or, Cindy, maybe like every other socialist or communist country in the history of mankind, we'd already be bankrupt and living in gulags. One of the two — I'll side with history.

It's obvious we aren't paying attention to history any more when the Communist Party had their annual convention broadcast on C-SPAN. Think about that: Half a century ago we were rooting out communists as traitors to the country; now we're dutifully listening to them on C-SPAN.

How did we get here? We were warned, but we didn't listen. Former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson warned about what was coming in a 1966 speech where he talked about a meeting he once had with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev:

(END AUDIO CLIP)

FORMER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE EZRA TAFT BENSON: As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren would live under freedom, he arrogantly declared in substance: "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you'll finally wake up and find that you already have communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."

(END AUDIO CLIP)

He knew firsthand what was happening and documents now show that FDR had used the Department of Agriculture as his own communist recruiting station.

Henry Wallace was secretary; he was a progressive supported by the Communist Party USA. He never denounced any communist support he received. FDR and Wallace decided they needed to help farmers, who were in dire financial crisis. Their idea: Artificially raise prices. They slaughtered 6 million pigs, plowed up cotton fields and destroyed other crops. This in the middle of the worst depression we've ever had. Is it any wonder socialism and communism end up with people starving to death?

ADD moment: Hugo Chavez is seizing control of the food in Venezuela. And now there's 80,000 tons of rotting food in warehouses. But pay no attention to that, because communism is cool. This is why we need to know the history or else we're doomed to repeat it.

There's the stuff you need to know, on how we got here. But really where are we? Is what these people wanted to do a joke? Have they failed?

What did the Communist Party USA say they wanted to do in 1963? Here's a few that stand out:

No. 3: Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength

No. 15: Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States

No. 17: Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks

No. 18: Gain control of all student newspapers

No. 19: Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack

No. 20: Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions

No. 21: Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures

No. 27: Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion

No. 28: Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"

No. 29: Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis

No. 30: Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man"

No. 36: Infiltrate and gain control of more unions

No. 37: Infiltrate and gain control of big business

No. 40: Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

This was the to-do list for the communists in the 1960s. Compare that to the U.S. Constitution — which one are we following?

— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

June 24, 2010 Glenn Beck TV show

PART 1 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO (10:34 mins)

PART 2 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

PART 3 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

PART 4 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies

This book, based on original sources, proves that McCarthy was telling the truth and we were being had by the Progressives way back then.~

The Anatomy of a Smear (PDF)
How the Left is fighting to silence Glenn Beck

The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most (PDF)  - Free Download
Townhall names the country's most effective conservatives

Related:

The History of Unions in America and their Connections with Racism and Communism

The Un’s New Scams

American Progressivism - Egghead Review

Video:  No Rules for Radicals

God in Our Classrooms

Progressives In Congress

Political Correctness – The Revenge of Marxism

We Were Fools to think the fall of the Berlin Wall had killed off the far left. They’re Back… and attacking us from within

Live Free or Die (Introductory Video has been scrubbed but great article)

David Horowitz Exposes Leftist Agenda on the Glenn Beck Show

-----------

Michelle Obama stocked the White House Library with books
on socialism.  Rob Port visited the White House today and took this picture in the library. (The American Socialist Movement and The Socialist Party of America

Christie Video - Standing Up To Special Interests

When New Jersey's Republican Governor, Chris Christie, spoke with Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto, he said a great many things that made me want to cheer. I love hearing this guy. He's undoubtedly the most high-profile Republican conservative Governor, thanks to the fact that he simply tells it like it is, doesn't use politicianese to spin, he just talks straight. (He doesn’t need a teleprompter.)

This latest video from Fox News is another must-see; I just can't get enough of Chris Christie's video clips! Here it is":

Video: Cavuto Interview with NJ Governor Chris Christie

This video has gone viral and most people think we need 50 more of this guy… one as Governor in each of the other 49 states and one in the White House!

GOVERNORS FILE SUIT AGAINST FED. GOV

Date: Monday, June 21, 2010, 10:16 PM
Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them.  It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

Note: Can We even risk a Constitutional Convention (where the Constitution is opened for change) with all the sleezebags in office, especially the President?  Obama would love this to strike our Bill of Rights and God knows what all he would add! Congress and Senate would go right along with him.   Am I wrong to say this?

Bob Garrison

             For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered… in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

WHISTLEBLOWER ALERT: Dangers in the Gulf - Please Watch Video and Read

You know how nothing seemed to make sense regarding Obama’s government hindering every effort to clean up effort in the gulf?  Well things just got a whole lot worse... or BETTER for us, if we can get this info out to wake everyone up.

Please  watch… ALERT from an insider:  Here's what Kendra knows - from the INSIDE.

Kindra Armnesan – Quoted on PBS Newshour – Video

There's no doubt that all O's doing to prevent clean-up and spew the dangerous NALCO chemicals is absolutely deliberate.

Only Obama can authorize his EPA to allow those chemicals, to call for a study on the impact of sand on the coast, to have Admiral Thad Allen halted  Jindal's boats to check for lifevests, etc.  BP can't control Thad Allen, they can't direct the EPA or any other gov't agency, and they're a British company and they know those NALCO chemicals are banned in Britain, so they can't just spew those chems into our waters without our gov't approving it.

BP is undoubtedly helping Obama and Soros achieve his mission of creating a dead zone in the Gulf, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's O's mission, not BP's.  BP is a complicity facilitator of the Soros/Obama/Progressive plan.

Now just as O keeps his hands clean by saying Holder is in charge of whether KSM is tried in NY, whether the underwear bomber is mirandized, etc, etc,... we know that's not the case and it's O that calls the shots.  So if he's claiming his agencies are acting on their own, he's lying.  And let's not forget that O said he's in charge of the oil gusher.  He IS calling all the shots, and ensuring that states will be harmed as the oil reaches their shores, and the people will be harmed by the toxic chemicals.

Here's O's Secretary of Energy thanking BP for their donation to BIOFUEL RESEARCH.:

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu in 2007: BP is Going to Help Us Save the World:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Ui_4_cTE0

Join hands across the sand (June 26th)  No Beach Required) http://thespillsite.com/2010/06/join-hands-sand-saturday-june-26-beach-required/

Source:  Godlike Productions

Does 20-minutes of this really count for working on the problem and concern??

BP’s program:  “Ponies and Balloons Act”

“I saw ponies and balloons in the Navy....we didn't call it that, but the same thing...when the big wigs were coming we knew it. We called it a$$holes and elbows....all hands on deck...whatever you want to call it. it's the same thing. everyone responds and makes it look good, then go away. The first term, is because everyone has those... and they should all be moving to work. this is so wrong. They shouldn't leave until the work is done.”  - Comment: LoriAnn

Listen to what she says, “They are all in collaboration in a cover-up… a cover-up” that involves BP, George Soros, Obama, Brazil and Petrobrus and who knows who all else…  And she is not the only person who has said this or the information that is available on this… but they are doing their best to cover it all up and then they scrub any information  off the Internet (that the WH and Feds are fighting to control), by silencing anyone who speaks out, like the gal onboard the Deepwater Horizon rig sent the May Day after she realized nobody had… and was then reprimanded.

Louisiana Official Furious at Obama: 'They All Need to Rot in Hell for This':

Nungessesr furious with White House

Video:  They All Need to Rot in Hell for This 

Animal Lovers:  Speak up today and tell the attorneys general of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi to file charges of cruelty to animals against the BP executives who allowed this to happen and who, because of their negligence, continue to let it go on.  There are plenty of worthwhile causes for everyone!!

Kindra Arnesen @ the Gulf Emergency Summit
http://www.gulfemergencysummit.org/

Related Reaearch:

Video:  DeepWater Horizon Oil Rig Sabotage and Insurance Plan 67

Vide0:  Oil “Spill”  -  Conspiracy or Just Convenient?

Left Strangely Silent on Petrobras

Soros Ready to Profit from Oil Disaster

BP –>  Soros Connection –>  Obama Connection  -->  Crime Inc Continued

GB:  The Perfect Storm Ignited by an Archduke Ferdinand Moment… Is it the BP Spill?

Gulf Spill Info You Won’t See on Regular TV

Startling Revelations… More Going On in the Gulf of Mexico Than an Oil Spill

The key is to follow the money trail.

JoAnne Moretti, along with a team of investigators, delved into records which pointed to a paper trail connecting the major players in this disaster--BP, Deep Water Horizon, Halliburton, Citigroup, Goldman-Sachs, the U.S. Government, and a company called 'NALCO.'

A few recognizable names of individuals involved in the paper trail also surfaced--Warren Buffet, George Soros, John Holdren, Tony Rezko....and Barack Obama.

Investigation Reveals Possible Criminal Activity Connecting Obama to BP Oil Spill

Reasoning Behind Obama’s 9/11 and BP Spill Comparison and O’s Words vs. Actions

Knowledge, Preparedness and a Willingness to Fight is the Only Solution

BP Oil shares sell-off:  What did Goldman Sachs know and when did

Gulf Oil Gusher:  Danger of Tsunamis From Methane?

Gulf Coast Disaster, Is it ‘The Perfect Storm’?

Ruddy: The BP-Afghanistan Connection: Decisions by Deferral

Experts Say White House 'Misrepresented' Views to Justify Drilling Moratorium

Continues to Block Oil Cleanup Ships to Appease Unions

Huckabee Discuses BP Oil Spill

Lindsey Williams Talks with Alex Jones About Deadly Gases Leaking from BP Spill

The Truth Behind the BP Oil Crisis in Videos

The photos they DONT WANT YOU TO SEE:

Obama Drilling Ban Costs Thousands of Jobs

BREAKING NEWS: Judge blocks Gulf offshore drilling moratorium!