FloydBrown.com

Internet Freedom Challenged by Obama FCC

Inga — Fri, 21 May 2010 21:41:30 +0000

House Minority Leader John Boehner recently accused the Obama Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of pursuing a “government takeover of the Internet.”

Specifically, Boehner said that the FCC is engaging in an action that “amounts to a government takeover of the Internet, and yet another government takeover of a large portion of the private sector by the Obama administration.”

The scheme amounts to an online “Fairness Doctrine” but it goes under another equally benign name: “network neutrality.”

Can you imagine what would happen if we were required under penalty of law to “balance” all the information on the Internet? Well that’s exactly what Barack Obama wants.

Recently, the effort suffered a major setback when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals put up a road block to the plan. Fox News’ Phil Kerpen reported: “That effort suffered a major setback when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals emphatically smacked down the FCC’s regulatory proposals in Comcast v. FCC.”

But Obama’s not going to let the court get in his way. He’s going to “go nuclear” and defy the courts.

Kerpen continued: “President Obama and his close friend and FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, however, refuse to back down. Instead they’re escalating to the regulatory equivalent of a nuclear attack on the free-market Internet: Chairman Genachowski will announce today his intention to reclassify broadband Internet as an old-fashioned telephone system as a pretext for pervasive regulatory control.”

The key phrase in Kerpen’s report is “pretext for pervasive regulatory control.” That means, once they have their foot in the door — once they have control — Obama and the FCC will go about instituting their own version of the “Fairness Doctrine” on the Internet.

According Contributing Editor Neil Stevens of RedState.com: “If the FCC is allowed to put the Internet in the U.S. under those powers, then the Obama administration will have total power to tax internet users, regulate content on internet servers, and even institute price controls on internet services.”

Of course, Obama and the FCC don’t really have the authority to do what they are setting out to do, but they don’t really care. The authority over regulation actually rests with Congress, but that means that Congress must act and exert its authority to stop this plan.

Obama’s FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski may be the man who will attempt to implement this plan to take over the internet but there’s more to this story. One of the shadow organizations that is joined-at-the-hip to Genachowski and is driving this plan is a Marxist-run organization ironically called Free Press.

FOX News’ Glenn Beck has already alerted his viewers to the plot saying: “Free Press has [had] three confirmed meetings now with Obama’s FCC to work on new Internet regulations…. The FCC chairman, not to be confused with the diversity ‘czar’ – this is the chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski – chose Free Press spokeswoman, Jen Howard, to be his press secretary.”

In another venue, Beck said: “The FCC is being inundated by a special interest group ironically named Free Press, whose goal it is to limit America’s free press and freedom of speech. This special interest group also claims that it’s due to special interest groups that it has become necessary for them to intervene on our behalf.”

Seton Motley, contributing editor of Newsbusters.org, has also addressed what is going on behind the scenes: “The groundwork for government information totalitarianism – favored by people like Hugo Chavez-loving FCC ‘Diversity Czar’ Mark Lloyd and Marxist ‘media reform’-outfit Free Press founder Robert McChesney – is being laid in the (p)lan being crafted by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.”

And just in case you may still doubt the motives of the folks creating this plan, consider these four past statements by the man-behind-the-curtain, Free Press’ founder Robert McChesney:

1. “Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.”

2. “There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”

3. “We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimalize it and perhaps even eliminate it.”

4. “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

Wow, no need to do more than quote their own statements.

Obama: Trust Only Me, America

Inga — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:54:58 +0000

Always the smooth operator, Obama is urging the American people to tune out other voices and listen only to the sound of their dear leader’s voice. He bemoans the growth of new media during his commencement address at Hampton University in Virginia: “You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter…With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation…All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

It is less than slightly ironic to hear our Blackberry-toting president proclaim he is unable to operate modern technology, but the content of his new media criticism is downright chilling. Obama’s political career has been built on a narrative that he and his close associates carefully crafted. The only biographical information we know about the president comes from his two autobiographies, both of which contain large embellishments and historical inaccuracies. These inaccuracies were virtually censored in the formerly dominant old media. Only the new media have dared to challenge Obama’s narrative.

Obama laments the role cable news plays in the political discourse because they dare discuss issues he doesn’t want covered. This would be an interesting academic topic, were it not for attempts by his underlings to restrict the flow of information on the Internet and over the airwaves. While he demonizes blogs, talk radio and cable news, his czars and his recent Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, are perfectly comfortable with the idea of the U.S. government restricting free speech.

Free-flowing information is a vital part of any free society. If the public is unable to get information unfiltered by the government they will never hear a fair and open debate.

Obama wants to withhold conflicting versions of the public narrative from the American people, and the old-line media are willingly going along with Obama’s desires. Were it not for alternative sources of media such as blogs, talk radio and cable news, Obama and his radical friends wouldn’t have to defend their agenda. That’s why team Obama is seeking to restrict these alternative forms of media. Obama’s recent attack on new media is part of a strategic assault on free speech.

Susan Crawford, Obama’s former Internet czar, has been pushing tirelessly for so-called “net neutrality,” which if made into law will transform the Internet and ultimately give the government power to regulate content. Despite its high-sounding name, “net neutrality” is nothing but another government regulation that will inevitably have unintended consequences that could reach into every individual’s home connection. Proponents of neutrality should be more concerned with government intrusion than with any limitations imposed by the marketplace. As Timothy B. Lee of the Cato Institute has stated, the regulation inherent in “net neutrality” is not needed because “network owners are likely to find deviations from the end-to-end principle unprofitable.”

Efforts to regulate the Internet, coupled with the efforts of FCC Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd to silence talk radio, constitute two grave threats to free speech and access to independent ideas. Lloyd believes the most effective method for controlling talk radio is through local and racially diverse media ownership requirements which could effectively force ownership changes at many conservative talk and Christian radio stations.

The final part of this triple threat to speech is Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Kagan, in one of her few public statements on any issue, stated in the University of Chicago Law Review: “If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action — which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate — then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse.” So in Kagan’s view the government can determine what the ideal level and content of free speech and public debate is, and it can regulate or block anything above that level. Under this view Obama’s own administration could determine that there is too much criticism of him and regulate the offending media outlets.

Obama’s assault on free speech is threatening the very core of our Republic. If the government can silence its critics, the American people may never know the truth. Blogs, talk radio, and cable are an integral part of our democracy. Patriotic Americans must stand up and defend the right to consume and disseminate unfiltered information.

Obama and Media Hyperventilate Over Immigration Law

Inga — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:44:08 +0000

Obama, the media, liberal elites — and even some Republicans — have rushed to decry Arizona’s immigration enforcement law with shocking hyperbole. This bill is constitutional and it addresses a pressing issue at the state level because the federal government has shirked responsibility for years. While the critics would have you believe enforcing America’s immigration law is the second coming of fascism, the Arizona law properly emphasizes enforcement in a manner that upholds the Constitution and basic principles of human decency.

Nevertheless, Eugene Robinson, the Washington Post columnist, denounced the law by saying, “Arizona’s draconian new immigration law is an abomination — racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust.” The infamous race baiter Rev. Al Sharpton is promising to come to Arizona to march in opposition to the law. President Obama decried the law as “misguided” and “poorly conceived.” Obama even falsely claimed that a Hispanic family eating ice cream could be forced to provide their papers just because they had dark skin. CBS News used fascist references to attack the law.

These critics completely miss the mark. If these critics had read the law, they would know that it primarily focuses on enforcing existing federal law at the state level. The section that has been misconstrued the most reads, “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.” While some like Obama interpret this provision as allowing police officers to round up Hispanic individuals and ask for their papers, it is anything but. The initial contact must be lawful. And the law was carefully written to preclude racial discrimination. Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status.

In order to clarify the non-discriminatory nature of the statute, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order requiring training to “provide clear guidance to law enforcement officials regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and shall make clear that an individual’s race, color or national origin alone cannot be ground for reasonable suspicion to believe any law has been violated.”

Arizona Police Association board member Ken Crane said the new law prohibits officers from targeting people based on race, national origin and other identifying factors. Every rookie officer is trained extensively at the police academy on how to judge probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Crane said whatever training is developed should reinforce long-standing police standards. “It’s basic police work that’s never changed,” he said. “We’re not reinventing the wheel here.” Not only does the law prohibit discrimination, the governor is going out of her way to institute new training for officers so they can enforce it properly.

One of the most absurd reactions to the law was from the government of Mexico, which issued a travel warning regarding Arizona. “There is an adverse political environment for migrant communities and all Mexican visitors,” Mexico’s ministry said. This is quite ironic given that the Mexican government has much more stringent immigration standards than the U.S. and they will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.”

These hyperbolic critics ignore what is happening in Arizona. Currently, more than 500,000 illegal aliens live in Arizona. Arizona rancher Rob Krentz was recently gunned down on his own land, presumably by a drug runner. President Obama ignored the calls of Sen. John McCain and other Arizona lawmakers to dispatch the National Guard. Our borders are wide open and criminals are flooding through while the U.S. government continues to dither and turn a blind eye. It is no surprise that the new law has a 70 percent approval rating amongst Arizonans according to Rasmussen, and Gov. Brewster saw her popularity rise by 15 percent after the bill was signed into law.

Americans want our immigration laws to be enforced. We want to live in an open and free society without fear of our government or fear of criminals. This law strikes an important balance between defending precious personal liberties and enforcing our immigration law. The law’s critics should be honest and admit that they currently ignore enforcing immigration law because they want to change it. They support a demographic realignment of the USA through immigration that most Americans oppose.

Judge Says National Day of Prayer is Wrong

Inga — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:12:01 +0000

Benjamin Franklin once implored his fellow founders to pray: “In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered…”
This moving call to prayer from Benjamin Franklin might also be helpful in America’s current time of economic suffering and unending wars. Franklin continued: “And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ … I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service.”
Prayer became an important custom that is practice in public venues still today. But prayer is under assault like never before in our history. U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb, in a twisted ruling, recently declared that the government proclaiming a National Day of Prayer violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This judicial activist is attempting to reinterpret the Constitution and rewrite nearly 250 years of American history.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” For most of our nation’s history, this clause was understood to prohibit the official establishment of a specific church. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution many of the colonies had official religions. The First Amendment precluded the federal government from interfering with that relationship or establishing an official church at the national level.
The founders were certainly not intent on establishing a secular government, as modern day leftists would have you believe. The Declaration of Independence states that governments exist to protect rights “endowed by our Creator.” The same Congress that ratified the Constitution supported President Washington in his 1789 Thanksgiving proclamation that stated, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
That very same year Congress also ratified the Northwest Ordinance. Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance reads, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” The first Congress was interested in encouraging education because it promoted knowledge, morality and religion. Activist judges seeking to rewrite our history would have us believe that the Constitution prohibits the government from promoting both morality and religion. This ruling would have shocked the men who wrote the Constitution.
President Abraham Lincoln issued the following proclamation of a national day of prayer: “It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness. Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer.”
In 1952 Congress passed and Harry Truman codified a national day of prayer and fasting that has been recognized annually to this day.
While secularists reject prayer as a cornerstone of our great nation, we urge Christians everywhere to stand and intercede. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” John Adams wisely noted. As America has ignored God she has lost her way. If there was ever a time when we as Americans needed to stand and repent for our sins and turn to the Almighty, this is it.

Barack Obama's Cowardly Foreign Policy

admin — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:55:19 +0000

Liberal critics derided President Bush for engaging in cowboy diplomacy, or “going alone.” Those same critics neglect to notice that Obama is employing a more dubious strategy than Bush. Obama has pursued a confused and aimless foreign policy based on the idea that he can personally sway foreign heads of state with his charisma. Unfortunately for our nation his “follow me because I’m charismatic” policy has proven to be devastatingly ineffective. Obama alienates our friends and appears cowardly by appeasing our enemies.

Obama was elected promising to improve the standing of America in the world; he has failed miserably. In September, Obama agreed to Russian demands and abandoned the Eastern European missile shield. This alienated allies Poland and the Czech Republic, who had risked much to participate in the shield, only to see Obama turn his back on them. This move signaled other countries that America does not stick by her agreements. Obama showed he will abandon America’s friends when it is politically expedient.

Obama further caved to Russia by signing a nuclear agreement that could have been written by Putin himself. Obama gave the Russians everything they wanted without negotiating any significant benefits in return. The Russians agreed to a downsizing in their nuclear arsenal, but that downsizing was going to occur anyway. On all the important issues, including tactical nuclear weapons, missile defense, and verification Obama made serious blunders.

With this treaty as a backdrop Obama called a nuclear summit. Two of our closest allies skipped the event. Then Obama earned complaints from the foreign press because the whole event was essentially held in secret. Aside from agreeing on certain platitudes, the summit accomplished nothing.

In an attempt to further appease Putin, Obama refused to meet with Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia. This is embarrassing given that Georgia, as one of our most loyal allies, has contributed the most troops per capita in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, Obama met individually with the leaders of Ukraine, Turkey and Armenia, all nations friendly with Moscow. This is just another example of Obama seemingly punishing allies and rewarding enemies.

Neither Gordon Brown nor Benjamin Netanyahu attended the nuclear summit. According to Nile Gardiner of the London Telegraph, Obama treats both these allies with “sneering contempt.” Obama offended the British out of a sheer lack of manners; remember the DVD set and the iPod for the Queen? His administration also sided against Great Britain in the dispute over the Falkland Islands. The British worry Obama has abandoned the longstanding “special relationship” between the U.S. and the U.K.

Obama offended Netanyahu by spitefully seeking to bully the prime minister, according to Israeli sources. At their most recent meeting in D.C., Obama presented Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands. When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Obama stated he was going to have dinner with his family and wheeled around and left the room. This sort of rudeness is unprecedented when directed towards a close ally.

After the contentious meeting, the U.S. announced that Obama may outline his own roadmap to peace in the Middle East which would require that Israel cease building settlements in Eastern Jerusalem. Talk about going alone; Obama unilaterally is demanding new internal housing policies in another sovereign nation.

The Obama and Bush administrations are essentially polar opposites with dramatically different results. Bush believed that it is better to be feared than loved. Obama is pursuing a policy based on the idea that he would rather be loved. The results have been abysmal. The crowning achievement of Bush’s foreign policy, besides keeping us safe for eight years, was when Moammar Gadhafi abandoned his nuclear ambitions and agreed to open his country to inspectors after we had invaded Iraq to enforce years of U.N. resolutions. Progress was achieved through strength.

What has Obama achieved? China has refused to make concessions regarding its monetary policy, or move to put pressure on Iran. Ahmadinejad continues mocking Obama and the international community by pushing forward with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Obama has yet to get any new commitments for new troops in Afghanistan. Obama’s position of negotiating through weakness is damaging the credibility of our once great nation.

Obama off the Deep End

admin — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:49:19 +0000

A recent analysis by Roger Simon of PJTV Media maintains that Obama is showing signs of mental illness. A wide variety of commentators have observed that Obama displays severe narcissism. Obama is conceited, and he is demonstrating a serious disassociation from reality.

A recent case in point was Obama’s bizarre and meandering 17-minute, 2,500-word answer to the simple question about how he could justify raising taxes for ObamaCare during a recession when citizens are already overtaxed. Obama’s wildly inappropriate answer left the audience stunned and led commentator Charles Krauthammer to mockingly say, “I don’t know why you are so surprised. It’s only nine times the length of the Gettysburg address, and after all Lincoln was answering an easier question, the higher purpose of the union and the soldiers who fell in battle.” This lapse of delusion occurred in front of a friendly audience. Overall, Barack Obama seems to be slipping into a slightly more delusional state these days.

On Monday, following his embarrassing answer on Saturday, Obama stopped by the Washington Nationals home opener to loft an effeminate toss toward home plate constituting the ceremonial first pitch. After this display, Obama was mucking it up in the press booth talking about his love of the Chicago White Sox. The announcers asked Obama which players he supported growing up a White Sox fan. After hemming and hawing for about 30 seconds, Obama responded that he grew up in Hawaii and was actually an A’s fan. Again, he avoided mentioning any players by name. Obama seems to believe that he can say whatever he wants, and not reap the consequences or be forced to defend his empty assertions. Obama behaves in a manner so disconnected from reality that he is shocked when someone has the audacity to question him. Obama acts like his word is infallible.

In March of last year Obama was on “60 Minutes” with Steve Kroft. Throughout the interview as Kroft questioned about the economic downturn and people losing their life savings, Obama just kept laughing. A one point CBS’s Kroft stopped him and asked, “Are you punch drunk?” How will the American people react to seeing their president laugh off their predicament? Obama’s inappropriate laughter clearly demonstrated he has lost touch with the pain that people are feeling.

Obama portrays himself as the larger-than-life figure towering above the political fray. At the summit when Obama was pushing his healthcare package through Congress, he attempted to act as if he were the chief arbiter of truth. With petty insults, he slapped down what the Republicans proposed and audaciously claimed his was a “bipartisan bill.” Obama distorts the truth with such frequency that one must start to question if Obama even realizes he is lying or is so disassociated from the truth that he believes what he says.

A further example of Obama’s delusions of grandeur occurred when he gave himself a “good solid B plus.” Believing that his presidency was an above average success when America is hurting is absurd. Obama went so far as to claim that he would give himself an “A” once healthcare was passed. Obama is not living in the same reality as the rest of us.

As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see.”

Obama sees himself as the greatest man to be president in all time. He truly believes it when he said “we are the ones we have been waiting for,” and “this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.” He believes that he can do anything he pleases and the people will love him for it. Obama plans to radically transform this country and go down in history as, in his mind, the greatest ever. Obama is clearly disconnected from reality.

Obama is, according to Newt Gingrich, “potentially the most dangerous (president), because he so completely misunderstands reality.” Gingrich was referring to Obama’s inept and weak stance on missile defense amongst other things. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Obama is an amateur; so much for wowing the world. Obama lives in an alternate universe where he treats our friends poorly and expects our enemies to change and become our friends. Here’s hoping that the voters help to connect this president back to reality in November.

Who in the White House Authorized a Bribe

admin — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:14:08 +0000

After watching Obama twist arms, beg, borrow and steal to pass ObamaCare, it may come as no surprise to some that Obama’s administration has offered federal jobs for political purposes to two Democratic candidates. What ought to catch people’s attention is that this action constitutes a federal crime.

Did Barack Obama or members of his administration directly violate federal law by offering federal jobs to Rep. Joe Sestak and former Colorado legislator Andrew Romanoff? The best way to answer these and a myriad of other ethical questions is for Congress to join Rep. Darrell Issa in calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate this corruption.

Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code states that “Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The Obama administration has been accused by two Democratic primary candidates, Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff, of offering them high profile jobs. The jobs allegedly offered included the Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development. In return for these favors the two would withdraw from their Senate challenges to Obama’s allies, Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado.

The Denver Post, hardly a right-wing newspaper, reported that “Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post. Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said.”

The White House subsequently denied the story and claimed that no job was offered. But with no investigation into this corruption, how will we know how deep the rabbit hole runs?

In February, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak launched a new charge of bribery by accusing the Obama White House of offering him the Secretary of the Navy job in exchange for his agreeing to abandon his race against Specter. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that this exchange occurred during a TV interview with Comcast anchor Larry Kane: “‘Was it secretary of the Navy?’ Kane asked. ‘No comment,’ Sestak said.’Was it [the job] high-ranking?’ Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would ‘never leave’ the Senate race for a deal.”

Sestak has later confirmed that yes, he was offered a job, but he has been unwilling to go into greater details. After stonewalling and avoiding the question for weeks, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that he talked to people in the White House about the claim and that, “I’m told whatever conversations have been had are not problematic.” He added that the incident is “in the past.”

We hate to rain on Mr. Gibbs’ parade, but the incident is hardly “in the past.” If the president of the United States or someone high up in his administration committed a felony the public deserves to know about it. Whoever committed that felony must be brought to justice. This administration is no stranger to corruption, as witnessed by the billions in sweet deals to purchase Congressional votes for ObamaCare.

Obama even tried to influence Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson, who voted against the initial health bill, by appointing his brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. While this corruption is ill fitting for the White House, these incidents pale in comparison to the most recent allegations. The offering of a federal job in order to affect an election constitutes a direct violation of federal law and must be investigated.

Fortunately for those of us who still believe in the rule of law, Rep. Darell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has called for a special prosecutor to probe these allegations. Congressman Issa is confident that a special prosecutor will be appointed. “What you have is a credible allegation by a member of Congress of a felony,” Issa told Fox News. “It is a felony to offer somebody a federal job in order to get them to affect an election.”

We are watching our very system of government corrupted before our very eyes. We encourage all Americans who still believe in our Constitution and the rule of law to join us and Rep. Issa in calling for a special prosecutor to investigate these crimes of the Obama administration.

The Fight Against ObamaCare Continues

admin — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:31:09 +0000

With benefits as notorious as Viagra for pedophiles and rapists, we watched in horror as the American way of life was fundamentally changed by Democratic members of the House of Representatives and Senate. Obama and Pelosi twisted arms and bribed members of Congress into supporting their massive new entitlement program. A feeling of defeat and despair began to creep in as ObamaCare became the law. At their huge celebration party at the White House, in words unfitting a vice-president, Joe Biden exuberantly proclaimed, “This is a big F***ing deal.”

Repeal is a laudable goal we should work towards, but the political reality dictates that is highly improbable. Even Ronald Reagan was unable to repeal the Department of Education that he had pledged to abolish. Once a new government entitlement and layers of bureaucracy are created, it is nearly impossible to roll back.

But don’t give up now. While prospects are bleak, there is reason for hope.

The attorneys general of 14 different states have signed onto a lawsuit challenging certain portions of ObamaCare as being unconstitutional. While these lawsuits will not repeal the whole law, they will eliminate the most egregious portions of the bill.

It is comforting to know that at least 14 elected representatives take their oaths of office seriously and are willing to stand up to preserve and defend the Constitution.

The lawsuit asserts a few major breaches of constitutional limitations by the federal government. The first is that under the enumerated powers of the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to require its citizens to purchase a product. Some liberals might claim that the government already requires you to purchase auto insurance. This comparison is faulty for two reasons: first of all, driving a car is a privilege, not a requirement. A citizen may choose not to drive a car and, therefore, not have insurance. The second reason this comparison falls flat is that auto insurance mandates are not passed by the federal government, but by the states. Our Constitution enshrines an oft-maligned principle known as federalism.

The lawsuit states, “The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying healthcare coverage. By imposing such a mandate, the Act exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”

The second unconstitutional provision of ObamaCare is the tax penalty required under the act. This tax that must be paid by uninsured citizens is a capitation, or a direct tax, which is prohibited by Article 1, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution.

The third reason the act is unconstitutional is that it mandates that states add people to their Medicaid rolls, and forces the states to pay the costs out-of-pocket. Florida estimates they will see a 50 percent increase in Medicaid enrollment. This unfunded mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

The new act changes the dynamic of Medicaid from a state-federal partnership, to a top-down federal program where the discretion of the states is removed.

The only response from Obama’s administration has been from Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform. She said the president isn’t “concerned” about the potential legal challenges. Congress has the “inherent authority” to mandate coverage under the commerce clause that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, she told Bloomberg Television.

While the success of this lawsuit may seem unlikely, this is not the first time an ambitious president has run afoul of the Constitution. The Supreme Court overturned some of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s more radical and unconstitutional schemes during the Great Depression. This led to his attempts to pack the Supreme Court.

Our hope is that the Supreme Court will defend the Constitution. They will hear the joint case from these courageous attorneys general, or one of the cases forthcoming from private citizens, and fulfill the proper role of interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

If the courts will not stand and uphold the Constitution, who will?

Sen. Reid Caught Red-Handed

admin — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:09:58 +0000

Looks can be deceiving.

When pundits talk about leaders waltzing America into a future of European-style socialism, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi get most of the attention. But their work wouldn’t be successful without the devoted support of the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, D-Nev. While long appearing to be a trusted public servant, Reid is anything but. He has begged, bribed and bullied Obama’s left-leaning agenda through the traditionally more conservative U.S. Senate. Reid’s biggest victory to date is the passage of ObamaCare late last year in the Senate.

However, Reid is the only member of this Washington power troika at risk of losing his job in November.

He recently hit a new low in Nevada polls. In a January survey taken by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, 52 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Senator Reid; 33 percent had a favorable view; and another 15 percent said they were neutral. These are terrible numbers for such a long serving official.

This is why Reid’s defeat has become a passion for conservatives nationwide.

Floyd was in Las Vegas this week to release ads he created for the Republican Majority Campaign PAC. The ad condemns Reid’s involvement with casino giant MGM Mirage and their partner, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the supreme ruler of the Arab Gulf emirate of Dubai.

Read More: – By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Cagle Cartoons

Obama's Wild Ride

admin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:33:28 +0000

Mr. Obama’s term in office is like Disney’s Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride. His reckless policies and actions cause destruction to whatever he touches. He needs to be stopped.

Obama and his special-interest allies, especially his lap-dog media, are doing everything they can to keep government growing and eroding our rights. If ordinary people like us don’t stand up and continue the rebellion, Washington will soon forget the discontent in the hinterlands.

Recently on MSNBC, Dylan Ratigan assailed Mark Williams of the Tea Party Express. In the midst of Rattigan’s angry rant about the supposed anger, racism and anti-Semitism in the Tea Party movement, the MSNBC host revealed who actually has the anger problem. Williams calmly explained that Tea Parties have nothing to do with racism; Rattigan responded by shouting him down and cutting Williams’ microphone.

The Tea Party movement ignited a blaze; now the political left is doing their best to disparage the movement. Reportedly, even Bill Clinton is personally attacking the leaders of the Tea Party movement. Anyone who watches cable television knows that the left is marshalling their forces.

The problem for these media allies of Obama lies in their refusal to accept the simple truth that Americans actually believe in the U.S. Constitution. They constantly push stories about organizations aligned with their viewpoint. The Washington Post and The New York Times, for example, have devoted intensive coverage to an online group named the Coffee Party. This group, run by a former Obama staffer, is nothing other than an attempt by leftists to counteract the Tea Parties. Their coverage neglected to mention anything about the Obama connection.

The media paint Tea Partiers as radical, but average Americans see through this bias. A recent survey by the Sam Adams Alliance vindicated Tea Party leaders and showed that these Americans are not radicals, they are just individuals who are becoming politically active, many for the first time. Their motivation is a feeling that government is spinning out of control.

The Tea Party movement must not falter in the face of these attacks. It is time to advance, not compromise.

The groundwork is set for a massive return to fiscal responsibility and government that abides within its constitutional framework. Fiscal conservatives have won in New Jersey, Virginia, and even in Massachusetts. Voters have overwhelmingly rejected government takeover of the healthcare system and the bailout culture in Washington, D.C. This is a rare opportunity for “we the people” to take back our government.

Anti-Washington, D.C. sentiment is at an all time high, as the recent primary election in Texas illustrates. Texans overwhelmingly supported Gov. Rick Perry based on his campaign against Washington, D.C. and federal encroachment. Voters are so opposed to the back-room deals and political chicanery that even President Obama is now trying to cast himself as the outsider.

In reality, Obama is one of the prime culprits. From his close relationships with lobbyists, his attempts to bribe certain Democrats not to run primary campaigns, his firing of independent investigators, his penchant for pork-laden projects to curry votes, and finally, his recently appointing a Congressman’s brother to the federal bench in a blatant attempt to buy a vote, Obama has shown that he epitomizes what is wrong with Washington.

This year could usher in a new era of responsible and constitutional governance. We need to elect people who will truly make a change in Washington. And then we need to stay involved and hold elected officials accountable for promises made.

Reagan needed a Carter, Gingrich needed a Clinton, and the Tea Party has Obama. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for freedom-loving individuals to restore our government to its constitutional limitations.

If we had predicted that a year after Obama was elected a Republican would be elected in Massachusetts, you would have called us crazy. This is our time. It is time for Obama’s wild, destructive ride to end. What are you going to do between now and November to win back our government?