konane's Blog

July 2, 2010 12:28 PM PDT

Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20009603-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

"The US senators pushing a controversial new bill that some fear would give President Barack Obama the powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet have rejected claims it would give Obama a net "kill switch".

The bill, titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, has been unanimously approved by the US Homeland Security committee and will be put to a vote on the Senate floor shortly.

Lobby groups and academics quickly rounded on the bill, which seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.

The critics said that, rather than combat terrorists, it would actually do them "the biggest favour ever" by terrorising the rest of the world, which is now heavily reliant on cyberspace.

Australian academics criticised the description in the bill's title of the internet as a US "national asset", saying any action would disrupt other countries as most of the critical internet infrastructure is located in the US.

This week, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors, including that it could limit free speech and free inquiry, Computerworld reported.

"We are concerned that the emergency actions that could be compelled could include shutting down or limiting internet communications," the letter reads.

But the architects of the plan, committee chairman Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins, have this week released a "Myth v. Reality" document that hits back at these criticisms.

They say the threat of a catastrophic cyber attack is real and not a matter of "if" but "when". Cyber crime was also costing the US economy billions of dollars annually and the bill would "modernise the government's ability to safeguard the nation's cyber networks from attack and will establish a public/private partnership to set national cyber security priorities".

The senators rejected the "kill switch" claim, arguing 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".

They said under the new bill the President would be far less likely to use the broad authority he already has under current law to take over communications. It would provide "a precise, targeted and focused way for the President to defend our most sensitive infrastructure".

Any action would be limited to 30-day increments and the President must use the "least disruptive means feasible" to respond to the threats. Action extended beyond 120 days would need Congressional approval.

The bill would not give the President the authority to take over the entire internet, target specific websites or conduct electronic surveillance.

"Only specific systems or assets whose disruption would cause a national or regional catastrophe would be subject to the bill's mandatory security requirements," the senators wrote."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/obama-internet-kill-switch-bill-approved-20100625-z8sf.html

June 30, 2010 Posted by Scott at 5:40 AM

"Andrew Breitbart is the Internet media entrepreneur and proprietor of Big Government, Big Hollywood, and Big Journalism. Breitbart and his team doggedly pursued the story behind the allegations of Reps. Andre Carson, John Lewis. Emanuel Cleaver and James Clyburn that Tea Party protesters abused black congressmen with racial epithets while demonstrating against Obamacare on Capitol Hill on March 20. The story was reported as fact by news organizations including Fox News and McClatchy News, but Breitbart called baloney and exposed it as a concoction of the congressmen who peddled it.

One can say this with something approaching metaphysical certainty because of the utter lack of evidence supporting it under circumstances where there would have been such evidence had it happened as alleged. The key to the case was Breitbart's offer of a $100,000 reward to anyone producing video of the epithets being shouted. There were no takers because it didn't happen.

One can reasonably conclude that the congressmen's story was a fabrication intended to defame the Tea Party movement and distract attention from the resistance to Obamacare. Not a single video corroborated it although many videos were shot that day, and despite Breitbart's offer of a $100,000 reward to anyone producing a video that corroborated it. No independent journalist or other eyewitness stepped forward to vouch for the congressmen's story.

Given the involvement of Rep. Clyburn in promoting the story, the fabrication extended to the ranks of the Democratic congressional leadership. It is a scandal that warranted the attention of the mainstream media, yet the story languished and died. Why might that be?

One wonders if the now famous off-the-record list-serv called "JournoList" established by Washington Post pundit Ezra Klein might have had something to do with the media's studied lack of interest in Breitbart's pursuit of the phantom n-word scandal. Probably not -- Journolist member and former Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel actually pursued the story and discredited it in his own way.

The media's studied lack of interest in Breitbart's expose may have arisen, not by conscious political calculation and argument, but (as John O'Sulilvan writes) by that curious blind but almost infallible instinct which seemingly enables liberals to see and promote their long-term aims collectively yet without any prior agreement -- an instinct that led Tom Bethell and Joe Sobran to invent the term "The Hive." Nevertheless, the question of collusion remains, at least in my mind.

Andrew Breitbart has no such question. He thinks that the case for media collusion is overwhelming, and I tend to credit his instincts. Breitbart has stepped forward with another offer of a $100,000 reward to prove up his case. Breitibart explains:

I've had $100,000 burning in my pocket for the last three months and I'd really like to spend it on a worthy cause. So how about this: in the interests of journalistic transparency, and to offer the American public a unique insight in the workings of the Democrat-Media Complex, I'm offering $100,000 for the full "JournoList" archive, source fully protected. Now there's an offer somebody can't refuse.

Yes, the mainstream media that came together to play up the false allegations that the "N-Word" was hurled 15 times by Tea Party participants at the Congressional Black Caucus outside the Capitol the day before the "Obamacare" vote, is the same MSM that colluded to make sure the American public accepted the smear, and refused to show the exculpatory videos that disproved the incendiary charges of Tea Party racism.

Ezra Klein's "JournoList 400" is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because - to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails -- he wasn't liberal enough.

You will want to read the whole thing. I want only to add that I think Breitbart that there may be a good idea for another site here: Big $100K."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026646.php

July 1, 2010 Posted by Paul at 7:44 PM

"Lindsey Graham reportedly says in a forthcoming profile in the New York Times that the Tea Party movement is "unsustainable" and will "die out" because it lacks vision. What Graham means, of course, is that the movement doesn't share his centrist vision. (Graham has felt the wrath of the movement in South Carolina where, for example, he was censured by the Lexington County Republican Party for supporting climate change legislation).

Graham also states, according to Politico, that the GOP has shifted so far to the right that Ronald Reagan would have trouble getting elected in today's party. This is a ridiculous claim. The Republican party's most recent nominee for president, Graham's pal, John McCain, is well to the left of Reagan as, of course, is Graham. McCain also looks to be on the brink of beating off a challenge from the right in conservative Arizona.

Graham is obviously preening for the New York Times. What else is new?

I don't know whether the Tea Party movement will die out. But I sure hope it hangs on long enough to take down Lindsey Graham.

JOHN adds: I love the phrase "climate change legislation." Anyone who thinks we can legislate a change in the climate is, in my view, a fool. Which sums up Lindsey Graham pretty well."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026657.php

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/government-stopping-charities-from-feeding-the-homeless/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_electric_bill_fraud

June 30, 2010
"Obama's Big Oil Spill Bungle
By Dick Morris

"It’s one thing to say that Obama’s administration showed ineptitude and mismanagement in its handling of the Gulf oil spill. It is quite another to grasp the situation up close, as I did during a recent visit to Alabama.

According to state disaster relief officials, Alabama conceived a plan — early on — to erect huge booms offshore to shield the approximately 200 miles of the state’s coastline from oil. Rather than install the relatively light and shallow booms in use elsewhere, the state (with assistance from the Coast Guard) canvassed the world and located enough huge, heavy booms — some weighing tons and seven meters high — to guard their coast.

But … no sooner were the booms in place than the Coast Guard, perhaps under pressure from the public comments of James Carville, uprooted them and moved them to guard the Louisiana coastline instead.

So Alabama decided on a backup plan. It would buy snare booms to catch the oil as it began to wash up on the beaches.

But … the Fish and Wildlife Administration vetoed the plan, saying it would endanger sea turtles that nest on the beaches.

So Alabama — ever resourceful — decided to hire 400 workers to patrol the beaches in person, scooping up oil that had washed ashore.

But … OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) refused to allow them to work more than 20 minutes out of every hour and required an hourlong break after 40 minutes of work, so the cleanup proceeded at a very slow pace.

The short answer is that every agency — each with its own particular bureaucratic agenda — was able to veto each aspect of any plan to fight the spill, with the unintended consequence that nothing stopped the oil from destroying hundreds of miles of wetlands, habitats, beaches, fisheries and recreational facilities.

Where was the president? Why did he not intervene in these and countless other bureaucratic controversies to force a focus on the oil, not on the turtles and other incidental concerns?

According to Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, the administration’s “lack of ability has become transparent” in its handling of the oil spill. He notes that one stellar exception has been Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, without whom, he says, nothing whatever would have gotten done.

Eventually, the state stopped listening to federal agencies and just has gone ahead and given funds directly to the local folks fighting the spill rather than paying attention to the directives of the Unified Command. Apparently, there is a world of difference between the competence of the Coast Guard and the superb and efficient regular Navy and military.

Now the greatest crisis of all looms on the horizon as hurricanes sweep into the Gulf. Should one hit offshore, it will destroy all the booms that have been placed to stop the oil from reaching shore. And there are no more booms anywhere in the world, according to Alabama disaster relief officials. “There is no more inventory of booms anywhere on earth,” one told me in despair.

The political impact of this incompetence has only just begun to be felt. While administration operatives are flying high after a week in which the president’s ratings rebounded to 49 percent, per Rasmussen, after his firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the oil is still gushing and the situation is about to worsen.

The obvious fact is that Obama has no executive experience, nor do any of his top advisers. Without a clear mandate from the top, needed efforts to salvage the situation are repeatedly stymied by well-meaning bureaucrats strictly following the letter of their agency policy and federal law. The result, ironically, of their determined efforts to protect the environment has been the greatest environmental disaster in history. But some turtles are OK!"

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/30/obamas_big_oil_spill_bungle_106149.html

June 30, 2010 4:00 A.M.

"Obama the Edsel
Focus groups indicate independents are souring on Obama quickly.
Jim Geraghty
Source National Review Online

"Earlier this month, Resurgent Republic — an independent public-opinion-research group headed by former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie — conducted focus groups in five key House districts, measuring how independent voters and, separately, self-identified tea-party members felt about the direction of the country.

Bad news for President Obama and congressional Democrats is common these days, but these results unveiled Tuesday are simply dismal. Asked to compare Obama to a car, one Iowan chose an Edsel: “Something that had a lot of hype, but failed to live up to expectations.” Another older man described Obama as “a wrecked Ferrari, something that looked great to many people, but was now ruined.”

“In August 2009, [our focus groups found] there was a wait-and-see attitude towards the president. That has changed,” summarized Gillespie. “There is not only growing concern about spending, debt and the direction of economy but creeping doubts about the president’s leadership abilities, which is probably a more troublesome concern to the White House and the president’s supporters.”

Independents said that the manner in which President Obama responded to the oil spill made them more apprehensive about what would happen should a terrorist attack or foreign-policy crisis occur. The Democrats’ traditional advantage with women reversed, at least in regard to this issue. Jan van Lohuizen, who conducted the focus group in Orlando, noted that after the oil spill, “independent women are more pessimistic about his leadership” in dealing with another crisis in the future. “Men were a little more optimistic. You heard them saying, ‘He’ll learn, the people around him will learn.’ If President Obama mishandles the next serious challenge, these views will be set in cement,” he added.

But the pollsters also noted a challenge for Republican candidates in this cycle among women; while the tea-party voters embraced the “checks and balances” argument — that Republicans needed greater numbers in Congress to prevent Democrat excesses — independent women seemed unenthusiastic, lamenting that as a formula for more tiresome partisan division. “Where tea-party voters say, ‘let’s have more Republican members to check Democrats,’ independent women in particular see it as just more infighting, more gridlock, more nasty negative politics and they say, ‘I am really not looking forward to that,’” van Lohuizen said.

He noted several results that surprised him. “Independents are now thinking about the same issues that Republicans are, and their thinking is virtually indistinguishable from Republicans,” he said. “Independents are really engaged, they are really paying attention. That is not normal; usually independents are a little tuned out.”

He said that changes in independents’ perceptions of Obama can largely be attributed to a pair of key events. The first was the health-care legislation, “not the content but the way it was adopted. It was backroom politics, smoke-filled rooms, deals.”

The second was the Gulf: “They really looked at him and drew a different conclusion. They don’t see managerial experience; they started seeing that he hasn’t really managed the crisis.” The focus groups in Florida and Arkansas seemed most focused on the president’s response to the spill.

All of the bad news for Democrats is not necessarily good news for Republicans.

Glen Bolger, who conducted the focus groups among self-identified tea-party voters in Des Moines, Iowa, said that the participants didn’t quite match the common perception.

“They were really more frustrated and disappointed than angry — no raised voices, no curse words,” Bolger said. “You kept hearing words like ‘downhill,’ ‘bankrupt,’ ‘falling apart.’ There was no optimism or hope for the future. They have no reason to believe things will get better. . . . On Obama, they described him as ‘all style, no substance.’ They gave him credit for being a good speaker and charismatic, but characterized him as not coming through and not delivering.”

Gillespie said today’s tea-party voters were somewhat comparable to the H. Ross Perot voters who emerged as a bloc in the 1992 election. “They self-differentiate from Republicans,” he said. “If a former RNC chair sits in the National Press club and says, ‘They’re Republicans,’ that will [tick] them off. . . . We have to deliver. If we say we are going to cut spending, we have to deliver. . . . That’s why there are so many independents who are conservatives and tea-party types.” Emphasizing that elected Republicans have to establish that they keep their promises, Gillespie described the fights over spending waged by the two newest GOP governors, Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey, as “very important fights for the party moving forward.”

The five congressional districts in which Resurgent Republic held focus groups were won by either John McCain or George Bush and held by a Democratic member of Congress: Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District, represented by Leonard Boswell; Ohio’s 1st Congressional District, represented by Steve Dreihaus; New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District, represented by John Adler; Arkansas’s 2nd Congressional District, where Democrat Vic Snyder is retiring and Tim Griffin — who was Research Director at the RNC while Gillespie was chairman — is the GOP nominee; and Florida’s 24th Congressional District, represented by Democrat Suzanne Kosmas. Gillespie said that during the focus-group discussions, none of the participants mentioned their congressman as an exception to their low opinion of Washington."

— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot on NRO.

http://article.nationalreview.com/437345/obama-the-edsel/jim-geraghty

Excellent article, valid points for both in and out of the box thinking.

_________

"RAHN: Obama's fiscal fantasyland
Only true Keynesians still think we can spend our way to prosperity

By Richard W. Rahn
5:52 p.m., Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Source The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/29/obamas-fiscal-fantasyland/

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026603.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026649.php

Masseuse Claimed Former Vice President Subjected Her to 'Unwanted Sexual Touching' in 2006

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-gore-sex-abuse-case-reopened-portland/story?id=11059203

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/new_evidence_gore_sex_scandal_exclusive_interview_masseuse_/celebrity/68913

June 29, 2010 Posted by John at 12:48 PM

"These days, there is no more effective public servant than New Jersey's governor Chris Christie. In this CNBC video, he runs a victory lap following the New Jersey legislature's adoption of his austerity budget on a bipartisan basis. The budget closes a massive deficit by cutting spending by 9%, with no increased taxes. Every special interest group hated the budget, and some have threatened to sue. Governor Christie's response: "If they want to sue me, they can get in line."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026639.php

"After a couple of very quiet weeks, things became a bit hectic this week after our very own Director of Government Relations, Rosemary Jenks, learned of an Amnesty plan being discussed behind closed doors that includes the abuse of executive actions. The news was made public on Tuesday when Sen. Chuck Grassley drafted a letter signed by seven other Senators, asking the White House for answers.

So what exactly is being discussed behind closed doors by the Democratic Leadership?

Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can't secure enough votes in Congress to pass a mass Amnesty bill this year, the Obama Administration is thinking of using two executive actions to offer an Amnesty to the nation's estimated 11-18 million illegal aliens.

By using 'deferred action' or 'parole', the Administration is planning to provide the nation's illegal aliens with work permits and temporary legal status while Congress searches for votes on a mass Amnesty bill.

Both actions are intended to be used on a case-by-case basis and only for extenuating circumstances. Though both actions are legal, they certainly weren't intended to be used for more than 10 million illegal aliens at one time.

Read a full analysis of what the Administration plans to do in Roy's blog, and then listen to this radio interview with Rosemary for more details.

Since we learned of this 'sneaky amnesty plan', you've sent more than 200,000 faxes to the White House and your three Members of Congress. We've also posted two phone notes on your Action Board with talking points for calls to your Members of Congress and Pres. Obama. We've also started a new petition to the President, voicing opposition to this plan."

Thanks,
Chris Chmielenski
Website Content Manager

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/node/6946?jid=593160&lid=9&rid=3838&tid=1092954

June 24, 2010 Posted by John at 6:26 PM

"Today's Rasmussen Reports has two surveys that relate directly to the Tea Party movement. The first is in Nevada, where Sharron Angle leads Harry Reid by 48-41 among likely voters. Eight percent prefer "some other candidate;" those, presumably, are the ones who would like to get rid of Reid but have serious reservations about Ms. Angle. Attitudes may change, in either direction, as voters learn more about the Republican nominee, but for now, at least, fears that the Tea Party movement has generated a weak candidate look overblown.

The second survey typifies Rasmussen's knack for asking interesting questions. He asked adults (not likely voters) whether the government is a threat to individual rights, or a protector of individual rights. By a 48-37 margin, Americans see the government more as a threat to their rights than as their guarantor.

Liberals view Tea Partiers as weirdos largely because they do not understand why Americans would see their government as a threat. To liberals, government represents all that is good about the human condition. (I might see it that way if, like so many liberals, I was living on government checks.) As the Rasmussen survey indicates, however, the idea that government represents a threat to our liberties is not a fancy of the lunatic fringe; rather, it is the view of a plurality of Americans. As it was, of course, the opinion of the founders."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026607.php

"An oil worker who survived the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion has claimed that the oil rig's safety equipment was leaking several weeks before it exploded, triggering the huge spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Tyrone Benton says that he spotted a leak on the rig's Blowout Preventer (BOP), the device that is meant to shut the well down if there is an accident. He told the BBC's Panorama programme that both BP and Transocean, who owned the rig, were informed of the leak, and the faulty part – a control pod – was switched off rather than being repaired.

"We saw a leak on the pod [and] we informed the company," Benton told the programme, which will be broadcast at 8.30pm tonight. "They have a control room where they could turn off that pod and turn on the other one, so that they don't have to stop production."

Benton added that he was unsure whether the leaking control pod had been turned back on again before a huge gas explosion ripped through the rig on 20 April, killing 11 workers.

The failure of the BOP was one key factor that led to the ongoing environmental disaster. The BOP is designed to clamp the well tightly shut, using cutting equipment to slice through the casing, but on 20 April it did not engage.

After the explosion, BP sent robot submarines down to the seabed to try to trigger the BOP, but failed. The company has already admitted to a Congressional committee that the robots discovered a leak in the BOP's hydraulic systems, which meant they could not generate enough force for its giant shears to cut through the pipe.

Last week, BP chief executive Tony Hayward repeatedly cited the BOP as a major cause of the disaster, saying it was "not as failsafe" as BP had been told.

Benton's revelations will pile even more pressure on BP, at a time when its minority party in the leaking well is refusing to pay its share of the costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation argues that BP was "grossly negligent" or guilty of "willful misconduct" in the way it drilled the Macondo prospect, which some workers described as a "nightmare well". Last week the Congressional committee accused BP of taking "risky" decisions to save time and money.

And in another development, BP has been accused of lying after internal documents showed that it has estimated that the leak could reach 100,000 barrels a day, much higher than its public forecasts.

$2bn and rising

The cost of the clean-up operation has now broken through the $2bn (£1.3bn) mark, BP told the City this morning. That is just a fraction of the total bill, though, with BP already committed to putting $20bn into an escrow account to cover compensation claims. That will not cap its liabilities, though, and there are suggestions that BP is now looking to raise $50bn.

The company has said it will sell off some of its assets. This has raised concerns in several countries, including Russia, where the TNK-BP joint venture generates around a quarter of BP's global production.

Hayward is to fly to Russia to assure the Kremlin that BP can survive the oil spill disaster, the Financial Times reported today.

BP's chief executive took the decision to meet Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in the next few weeks following a weekend board meeting, and after Medvedev warned that the catastrophe could lead to BP's "annihilation".

BP continues to insist that it will clean up the spill and pay "all legitimate claims", and rejected Anadarko's claims.

"These allegations will neither distract the company's focus on stopping the leak nor alter our commitment to restore the Gulf coast," said Hayward. "Other parties besides BP may be responsible for costs and liabilities arising from the oil spill, and we expect those parties to live up to their obligations."

Shares in BP fell by more than 3% this morning to 345p, making it the biggest faller on the FTSE 100. Swiss bank UBS warned shareholders that it did not expect the company to resume paying dividends until 2012. Last week it agreed to cancel payments for the rest of this year, but UBS believes that the cost of the Deepwater spill means a longer suspension is inevitable.

City sources believe that BP may have to sell its operations in the North Sea as part of its drive to cut spending and raise funds."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/21/bp-oil-spill-deepwater-horizon-leak