I have stood down trying to let the President elect work this nations problems out.But he seems to not worry about it.He has sunk his press in to the Amerikan people to device them. We have a Socialist front on its way to national health care,and a speaker of the house that is going to push it.there is a treaty being ready to be signed buy the U.S. to follow world wide gun laws.The Amerikan Constitution is now nothing more then a page that is going to be torn away from American history.We are a nation that was forged in freedom now we are nation that is scared to defend are freedoms.
I have served my country boldly and with pride.But now for the first time in my life iam ashamed to say iam an American .We where a nation of freedom a country that held its grounds when we had our backs to the corner, a NATION that fought.Now with the press telling us every move we should make we are sheep.Do not be scared. are for fathers where not.The Red White and Blue has taken a big noise dive in to fear ... fear of being a nation ,fear of being what was a Nation that believed in freedom
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Question Amerika
1776 we started out as a free nation,2009 we have become are worst enemy .The press led a war against a President that defended are nation against islamic attacks and spoke out against rouge nations. Now we have a coward leading are nation that is scared of the people that put him in to office.This man would rather apologize for are sovereignty then defend it.He apologizes for are freedoms that where defended in blood buy are military and granted to ALL buy are constitution .Amerika has laid down as another nation of sheep,Stalin did it, Hitler did it and now Mr.Obama,is leading us in to that direction.I know most of Amerika is to young to remember the Rev.Jim Jones and "Jones Town" or what was done buy Mr.Castro in Cuba. Our freedom of speech is in great jeopardy along with are right to bear arms,.Both of these given rights that are necessary for a free nation to remain free.We have people now making statements that if you appose the president you are a racist,Well america, if you steep in to the political ring you are a target for scrutiny ,and race is not the issue its your job performance.This currant political environment is buy far the worst of times that this country has seen since the American "Civil War".The age and race group that put Mr.Obama in to office was white Americans form 18 to 35 years of age,but now its a race issue against him, if you speak out against him.Well its not its speaking out against the people that want to wadl "The Constitution" up in to a ball and throw it away or the people that think it is a living breathing document.We are all Americans,we are NOT European Americans ,African Americans or Spanish Americans we are AMERICANS red white and blue, mutts of the world that did not have a chance divided. But together we are a Nation and not a "CHANGE"
Monday, September 21, 2009
Obama Putting BOOT down on internet
Obama Plans Internet Grab: FCC to Embrace 'Net Neutrality'
Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:16 PM
By: John O. Edwards Article Font Size
Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomenon in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has raged in Washington over the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would regulate the new medium.
Until, now the Internet has been largely self-regulated, and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.
But that could change dramatically soon if the Obama administration has its way.
During the weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development: The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls "Net Neutrality."
Obama's new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals, according to those reports.
On the face of it, Net Neutrality appears to be a popular and fair proposal.
Genachowski will "propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks," according to the Associated Press.
The FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks," according to the AP.
But critics contend that the proposals are nothing more than a backdoor way for the FCC to tighten federal control over the Internet by beginning with the regulation of Internet service providers.
The battle lines over Net Neutrality have formed along partisan and ideological lines, with some exceptions.
During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would embrace Net Neutrality — a cause championed by Google and other Silicon Valley companies that don't want large Internet service providers denying or controlling their access to Internet users.
But Republicans have largely opposed Net Neutrality, suggesting self regulation has worked well.
The previous FCC chairman, Bush appointee Kevin Martin opposed Net Neutrality. He suggested it was not needed.
Conservatives see Net Neutrality as a power grab that will benefit big Internet players such as Amazon and Google while stifling smaller competitors.
The libertarian CATO Institute, in a 2004 policy analysis concluded: "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net Neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Democrats in Congress have pushed for such controls in the past without success. In 2006 House Democrats offered an amendment to make Net Neutrality law, but the motion failed.
At the time Republicans warned of efforts to control the Internet.
"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said during the 2006 House debate over the issue. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it . . . I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:16 PM
By: John O. Edwards Article Font Size
Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomenon in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has raged in Washington over the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would regulate the new medium.
Until, now the Internet has been largely self-regulated, and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.
But that could change dramatically soon if the Obama administration has its way.
During the weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development: The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls "Net Neutrality."
Obama's new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals, according to those reports.
On the face of it, Net Neutrality appears to be a popular and fair proposal.
Genachowski will "propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks," according to the Associated Press.
The FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks," according to the AP.
But critics contend that the proposals are nothing more than a backdoor way for the FCC to tighten federal control over the Internet by beginning with the regulation of Internet service providers.
The battle lines over Net Neutrality have formed along partisan and ideological lines, with some exceptions.
During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would embrace Net Neutrality — a cause championed by Google and other Silicon Valley companies that don't want large Internet service providers denying or controlling their access to Internet users.
But Republicans have largely opposed Net Neutrality, suggesting self regulation has worked well.
The previous FCC chairman, Bush appointee Kevin Martin opposed Net Neutrality. He suggested it was not needed.
Conservatives see Net Neutrality as a power grab that will benefit big Internet players such as Amazon and Google while stifling smaller competitors.
The libertarian CATO Institute, in a 2004 policy analysis concluded: "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net Neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Democrats in Congress have pushed for such controls in the past without success. In 2006 House Democrats offered an amendment to make Net Neutrality law, but the motion failed.
At the time Republicans warned of efforts to control the Internet.
"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said during the 2006 House debate over the issue. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it . . . I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Eventually this "society" of ours will simply collapse. When a civilization starts to protect their stupid and insane, and allow them to breed, or rise to power, then natural selection ceases. No more survival of the fittest. It becomes survival of the whatever. Everyone is special just because you are here. We have begun this, with the corruption of our child rearing methods and the outlawing of corporal punishment. Supposedly aimed at stopping abuse, this philosophy has actually spurned an entire generation of lazy, unaware weirdos, with absolutely no discipline. If we, as a specie and a country, do not wake up and pull our collective heads out of our asses, these trends will continue, and as our future generations become more and more dependant on video games and other such trifles of technology, and grow farther and farther from the real truths of existence, eventually they will all forget about true freedom, and the pain and blood spilled to gain that freedom, as long as they are kept comfortable and entertained.
--Andrew J. Hradsky
--Andrew J. Hradsky
Dont Feed The Bears!!!
September 17, 2009
Obama believes the bears won't kill him
Neil Braithwaite
Remember Timothy Treadwell, the bear enthusiast and environmentalist who lived for many seasons with the coastal grizzly bears in Alaska? And, remember what happened to Timothy and his girlfriend that fateful season in 2003 while they were living among the grizzlies? Sadly, those same grizzlies Timothy had grown to love and understand killed and partially ate both him and his girlfriend.
You see, while Timothy understood the danger involved with getting so close to a wild predator, he never really imagined those bears would kill him. Any rational thought of imminent danger Timothy may have had previously, was overruled by his obsession to live with the wild grizzlies year after year. Unfortunately for Timothy and his girlfriend, the grizzlies finally did what all predators do -- kill and eat.
With the Obama administration's latest cowering move to the Kremlin to abandon a missile defense plan for Europe, our new president continues his Treadwell-like behavior, on a foreign policy path with many predatory leaders who both articulate and pose an imminent threat to America. President Obama does perceive the danger to America in getting close to these murderous dictators, but like Timothy Treadwell, he refuses to allow sound reasoning to interfere with his overwhelming obsession to befriend them all.
But while Treadwell chose to endanger only himself and his girlfriend, President Obama is making a clear choice to endanger all of America with his reckless foreign policy.
Foreign leaders like Chavez, Ahmedinejad, Kim, Castro, and yes, even Putin, to name a few, are all predators just like the Alaskan grizzly. And all predators have habits and instincts that make them unpredictable, dangerous and eventually deadly.
Predators are also very patient and cunning when it comes to selecting their prey. They usually seek out the weak or injured so they can increase their chances of a successful kill. The predators President Obama is trying to befriend and get close to are being patient and cunning with him as well.
In less than ten months, President Obama's new policies have taken our country from being the world's strongest superpower to a weak and vulnerable nation being singled out as a prime target by these predators. Like the plight of Timothy Treadwell, it's only a matter of time for America before these predators do what they do -- kill and eat.
Neil Braithwaite is a Real Estate Broker and writer in Charlotte, NC. He writes political commentary and satire and is a regular contributor to PoliticalDerby.com.
Obama believes the bears won't kill him
Neil Braithwaite
Remember Timothy Treadwell, the bear enthusiast and environmentalist who lived for many seasons with the coastal grizzly bears in Alaska? And, remember what happened to Timothy and his girlfriend that fateful season in 2003 while they were living among the grizzlies? Sadly, those same grizzlies Timothy had grown to love and understand killed and partially ate both him and his girlfriend.
You see, while Timothy understood the danger involved with getting so close to a wild predator, he never really imagined those bears would kill him. Any rational thought of imminent danger Timothy may have had previously, was overruled by his obsession to live with the wild grizzlies year after year. Unfortunately for Timothy and his girlfriend, the grizzlies finally did what all predators do -- kill and eat.
With the Obama administration's latest cowering move to the Kremlin to abandon a missile defense plan for Europe, our new president continues his Treadwell-like behavior, on a foreign policy path with many predatory leaders who both articulate and pose an imminent threat to America. President Obama does perceive the danger to America in getting close to these murderous dictators, but like Timothy Treadwell, he refuses to allow sound reasoning to interfere with his overwhelming obsession to befriend them all.
But while Treadwell chose to endanger only himself and his girlfriend, President Obama is making a clear choice to endanger all of America with his reckless foreign policy.
Foreign leaders like Chavez, Ahmedinejad, Kim, Castro, and yes, even Putin, to name a few, are all predators just like the Alaskan grizzly. And all predators have habits and instincts that make them unpredictable, dangerous and eventually deadly.
Predators are also very patient and cunning when it comes to selecting their prey. They usually seek out the weak or injured so they can increase their chances of a successful kill. The predators President Obama is trying to befriend and get close to are being patient and cunning with him as well.
In less than ten months, President Obama's new policies have taken our country from being the world's strongest superpower to a weak and vulnerable nation being singled out as a prime target by these predators. Like the plight of Timothy Treadwell, it's only a matter of time for America before these predators do what they do -- kill and eat.
Neil Braithwaite is a Real Estate Broker and writer in Charlotte, NC. He writes political commentary and satire and is a regular contributor to PoliticalDerby.com.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Freedom Gone?? Thought Police??
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Freedom Of Speach ,,,Gone??
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.
Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.
"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.
Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.
Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to "social media" and to public comments "received by the president or immediate staff."
RELATED STORIES:
• Obama seeks Patriot Act extensions
• EXCLUSIVE: Wilson: Carter's racism claims a distraction
• U.S. envoys hesitate to report bad news
Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be "unprecedented" and "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration."
An Obama campaign document on technology pledged that, as president, Mr. Obama "will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy."
In a June 5, 2008, article in PC Magazine, Mr. Obama said, "The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. We need sensible safeguards that protect privacy in this dynamic new world."
The National Legal and Policy Center, a government ethics watchdog, said archiving the sites would have a "chilling effect" on Web site users who might wish to leave comments critical of the administration.
Ken Boehm, a lawyer and chairman of the center, also disputed that the presidential records law applies, because the comments are pasted onto a third-party Web page and not official correspondence with the president.
"If the White House has nothing to hide, why is this cloaked in secrecy? Why won't they make the dollar amount this is going to cost public?" Mr. Boehm asked. "I don't think there is an expectation that this is being captured by the government and saved."
But Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, called the proposal "a positive development because it demonstrates a commitment from the Obama administration to meet its obligations under the Presidential Records Act."
"Additionally, I am encouraged to see the administration recognizing that it must find a way to handle the ever-expanding amount of data generated electronically. I hope the rest of the executive branch will learn from the president's leadership on this issue," Ms. McDermott said.
Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, called for congressional oversight of the practice of collecting data.
"Given the administration's disappointing secrecy in other contexts, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee encourages Congress to conduct oversight to ensure compliance with the law, maximize transparency and protect individual privacy," Mr. Buttar said.
According to the law, the term "presidential records" means documentary materials "created or received by the president, his immediate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the president, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."
"It includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the president or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President," the law says.
David Almacy, who served as President George W. Bush's Internet director, said the Bush administration did not use the then-fledgling social-networking sites in the same manner as the Obama White House, except to upload presidential speeches onto iTunes. The White House, however, did archive comments posted to its official Web site.
The proposal issued Aug. 21 calls for a contractor to "crawl and archive" social-networking Web sites where the White House maintains an official presence on seven networks: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo and Slideshare.
The collection will include the comments, tags, graphics, audio and video posted by users who don't work for the White House.
The White House has more than 333,000 fans on Facebook, and posts updates several times a day that draw hundreds of thousands of comments, both positive and negative. The White House has more than 1 million followers on Twitter and more than 87,000 subscribers on YouTube, where more than 400 videos of the president and White House briefings are posted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
