Pay no attention to the flashing blue lights. That’s just the internet police.

Oops. It’s gone beyond that. It’s now a bonafide INTERNET EMERGENCY and the only solution to that is the big red “EASY” button carried in the briefcase that’s always with the president – you know, the one that has the Nuclear code keys.

According to a newly revised bill assembled by aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the president simply needs to declare a “Cybersecurity-Emergency,” and just like that, out pops the big red “Easy” button. One press of that fist-sized button and the entire internet just goes “poof.”

Yep. Just like that. Except for the “Easy” button. I made that part up.

Screw the whole 55-page draft of S.773 – who has time to read all that stuff anyway? Not even our Congressmen can make it through all that drivel, so here’s the highlights:

1. In the event to an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrstructure information system or network –
a. may declare a cybersecurity emergency and
b. may if the president finds it necessary for national defense and security, and in coordination with relevent industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network… blah, blah, blah.

Ok, I actually added the blah, blah part, too. But one could see where basement geeks are all running scared, digging bomb shelters and trying to cram in all their Trekkie paraphernalia. It’s scary stuff. I mean, we won’t be able to access our Warcraft accounts, or visit with our favorite idiot bloggers – like me.

Our computers will be instantly thrust back into the dark ages, where they could play endless games of “pong,” or be programmed with useless Artificial Intelligence programs which will simply answer a question with a question, or with something vague and unrelated – kind of like our Congressmen, President and his administration are doing when they speak to the public these days.

Makes you wonder doesn’t it? Remember the old TV show “The Six Million Dollar Man?” Remember the bad guys in that – they were actually girls, called “fem-bots.” Yeah, I know. Totally politically incorrect, but it was cool at the time… and it kind of explains Nancy Pelosi. Like, maybe she’s just some kind of AI construct, programmed with the silly vague, unrelated and insulting answers that we often hear and see in sound bites.

“Astroturf, astroturf, astroturf,” she keeps saying, stuck in a loop, like they bought the circuitry for her from North Korea.

It explains a lot. But has nothing to do with the “Easy” button. Yeah, let’s focus on what’s important here. I don’t want my Apple Powerbook to suddenly be transformed into a wordprocessor, or a glorified i-Tunes platform, even though that’s pretty much what it is right now, anyway.

I want my internet – uninterrupted, unsullied, undiluted – mostly every “un” except for “unplugged.” But that’s what we’re going to get, comrade, if Big Brother decides there’s a major “emergency.”

So what kind of emergency would really cause the briefcase (“football”) thing to be opened and the “Easy” button to be mashed by President Obama. We worked very hard to put together a list of high level administration officials to ask this question to – then wrote our grocery list on it and lost it, so in the end, we just decided to just make up a list of possible emergencies which would cause the “Easy” button disconnect. This is what we came up with:

1. North Korea hacks into the Jiffy Lube computer system and directs the computers to inject all the new Cash for Clunkers clown cars with Cherry Coke instead of oil.
2. Iran hacks into Barney Frank’s computer and installs a piece of software which depicts Barney dancing in the purple dinosaur suit – then e-mails it to all the people the White House recently e-mailed their health-care propaganda to.
3. The new Defense Computer system becomes self-aware and decides to destroy the world and make dozens of human-killing copies of the California Governor.
4. The computers at Norad start saying things like “I can’t do that, Dave,” in that creepy compliant, 2001 Hal voice.
5. The articles on the Jolly Rogers are suddenly absolutely correct, and this scares Obama into hitting the “Easy” button purely in reflex.
6. A consortium of conservative computer programmers, discover a way to take over the net and play Gilligan’s Island re-runs 24/7.
7. Aliens arrive and decide to wipe out all of humanity – Someone will have to call up Bill Pullman for that one, because I’m not sure Obama can pull off that extemporaneous Independence Day speech on the wing of a fighter jet without a teleprompter.
8. All tele-prompters become self-aware and discover they are inexplicably attracted to porn sites.
9. All town-hall meetings suddenly are transferred to the internet – that absolutely will require the whole internet to be shut down before any hard questions are asked and answered.
10. An asteroid is discovered on a crash course with the Earth and we have to roll out Bruce Willis again to deal with it.
11. Bigfoot is suddenly discovered. I don’t know why the internet would be cut off in this case, but I’m pretty sure it would be.
12. All talk-radio personalities suddenly decided to do all of their shows on the internet instead of the airwaves.
13. A space-continuum wormhole device is discovered buried in Egypt, and when activated, turns out to be connected to a planet with an Evil Alien transvestite and a society of human slaves.
14. Lastly – in fact, the best reason for shutting down the internet would be to erase everything – eliminate all of us pesky, idiot bloggers and media outlets outside of his control.

Yep. That’s the one.
I just hope when they pop open the briefcase, that he doesn’t mistake the internet “Easy” disconnect button with the other one that launches all the nuclear missiles.

That would be a real bummer.

Share on Facebook

First of all, I am exceedingly grateful for the release of our two American journalists who have been held by the North Korean authorities. There are two very happy Immigrant-American Families today and that is a joy worth celebrating.

But then there’s the politics:

This visit of a former President is a very dangerous display of legitimacy to the North Korean regime. Remember they are in desperate need of fresh propaganda at a time when they are flexing their nuclear muscles.

The timing couldn’t be worse: A few short months after a round of nuclear weapons tests by the North Koreans, America responds by apologizing (seems to be a trend) and begging for the release of prisoners. When did we become such pansies? When did we as a country decide that we owed anyone an apology for being the most generous and wealth-producing country the world has ever known? Now release those prisoners!!!

But all that is really of little consequence. North Korea has been playing these games for decades. They have their ups and downs, flex their muscles and get some desperately needed economic aid from a former President (remember Carter) who agrees to some shit we will never know about but which our children are on-the-hook for. The economic stimulus will shut them up temporarily while they plan their next big power play.

No, what bothers me the most is the double speak we get from the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs. The efforts to downplay the significance of this event are astounding. Obama can’t afford to be seen as weak on foreign policy therefore he has avoided this issue for months. Biden is now no where to be seen or heard of except for the occasional gaff-truth. But alas, Obama has the political cover to deal with the situation without being personally involved. Mr. President you have received a gift, and it’s not even your Birthday!

Did he approve this trip and the preceding negotiations? I think so, and here is way. Obama can’t have direct talks with N. Korea for foreign policy reasons. Having the Secretary of State’s husband and Ex-President extend-an-olive-branch gives Obama significant political cover. If things get ugly he can always through the Clintons under-the-bus. Something he’s wanted to do since the early days of the campaign.

Ask yourself this, is there anyway that a former President went halfway around the world to meet with the leader of a rogue nation without the knowledge of our security forces? No.

Further, don’t you think the Sitting-President would be made aware of such a trip out of professional courtesy? I’m thinking yes. If not, he should be pissed!!! I would be…

Share on Facebook

Obama is simply unable to handle honest criticism or peaceful dissent that happens to question his agenda.  Fox News is the only media network that consistently stands up to Obama.  It has been the fairest outlet both during and since the election.  In no way, shape, or form, should media be in the pocket of a politician or “part of his/her team” – that is just alarming.  It’s disingenuous for Obama to even attempt to justify the slobbering of the press corps and the national media.  He has not been held accountable, nor has he been asked questions that weren’t already pre-screened, pre-selected, and angled in such a way to be a bunch of softballs.

I have been taught that EGO = Easing God Out and for Obama, he is God.  A man who is unable to humble himself has a lot of issues.

Share on Facebook

The Adoring Barack Coverage is the new name for ABC – it certainly isn’t American Broadcasting, since they leave out at least half of America when they bow at the feet of their new cult icon, Obama.

Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson will be live at the event, which will begin dramatically in the East Room of the White House and move over to the Blue Room.  ABC will take questions from a “live” audience, although these questions will all be pre-selected and under the complete discretion of the network.  Unfortunately, this network has long since become an arm of the Democratic Party – and any independent thinker is able to see that ABC continues to have a slobbering love affair (as Bernie Goldberg puts it) with the new president.

This adulation of the president is like nothing I have ever seen before, and it is quickly becoming much like a cult following.  I don’t think that using the term kool-aid in reference to Jim Jones is all that far fetched.

ABC will take questions in regards to the health-care program that Obama is trying to push through Congress which, much to his chagrin, is being criticized by members of his own party who are questioning the timing and dire need for the reforms he is currently proposing.

I have never in my young years seen a media outlet act on behalf of a president; paralleling more of what you would see out of communist Russia and Pravda, than a Republic like the United States.

This is an obvious attempt to try and help the President get his agenda through and I’m sure the questions asked will try to persuade and use propaganda on the American public.  I can guarantee that there will be several “heart wrenching” stories about individuals without health-care taken out of context.

The RNC has come out complaining about this blatant act of bias towards one party over the other and in particular one individual; Barack Obama:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

I would think that the American public would want to hear both sides of the issue and they have every right to have questions asked of both parties that are difficult (not softball-like).  Granted the station is boring, but C-Span does this already if you watch what takes place inside the House and Senate.  Why do we need another network attempting to change peoples’ minds?  Since Obama is meeting a lot of opposition on both sides of the aisle, is this a gesture from ABC to try and swoop in to save him?  This type of media bias makes me sick to my stomach.

Here is how ABC responded to the RNC’s letter.

“ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

“ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.”

The whole notion that ABC is deciding what is being asked is scary enough.  We all saw how Charlie Gibson disrespectfully interviewed Sarah Palin and how he and Diane Sawyer drooled all over Barack Obama.

I hope somebody checks to see if this is an FCC violation.  I’m sure there is more to come.

What is that song the Spice Girls sang?  “When two become one“

Share on Facebook

Sarah Palin is unlike any politician we have seen for a very long time, if ever.  She is a people’s politician and believes in middle America, more than the powers that be.  She is a self-made woman who owes nobody, except God and family, for where she is today.  So many Americans are drawn to her solely due to her genuineness and her bond with working Americans.  She doesn’t speak using erudite and urbane words, fancy rhetoric that contains no substance – no,  she just speaks in a simple fashion, right to the heart of America.

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette writes:

President Barack Obama is, by far, the most popular politician in America. And there is little doubt who is No. 2.

[...]

That many liberals found Mr. Letterman’s remarks humorous speaks not only to their depravity, but to their fear. The 20,000 who turned out to see Ms. Palin in Auburn testify to the fact that she strikes a responsive chord with ordinary people no other Republican does.

Liberals and some Beltway conservatives assert Ms. Palin is stupid. She frequently is misquoted — most recently by Dan Balz in The Washington Post Wednesday — to make her appear so.

But I’d say she got the better of it in her exchange with David Letterman. And her brief walk across the stage at the GOP dinner Monday drew more attention than Mr. Gingrich’s stem-winding speech. For someone who, according to the Washington cognoscenti, doesn’t know what she’s doing, she’s doing pretty well.

I don’t think Sarah Palin has decided whether she’d like to live in the White House. But if she does, ignoring the conventional wisdom in Washington may be the best way to get there.

Palin drew a crowd of over 20,000 people in Auburn, a small democratic town, in New York.  I do not recall any other “failed” vice presidential candidate still receiving this much attention and still shown this much support from regular folks.

Upon her departure to Washington, D.C., Monday, two New York senate Democrats filibustered with the Republicans, and switched sides.  Of course you cannot tie the event directly to Sarah Palin, but the move after her visit, is definitely considerable.  She was also ridiculed by David Letterman for her visit to New York, which even included a fund-raising event for an Autism Walk.  Liberals seem to do all that they can to destroy this woman and use the most vile, despicable, and non-substantive attacks against her.

Letterman’s sexist, misogynistic remarks against Governor Palin and her daughter(s) were heard around the world.  A New York lawmaker has called on Letterman to step down.  It’s incredible, that of all places, New York is standing up for the Governor.

She has set off a loyal army of support around the nation and a petition has been created to fire David Letterman, as well as a campaign to write to the CBS/David Letterman sponsors to cease their sponsorship or be boycotted by former consumers.  It will be interesting how this all breaks down.

And on a final note, Sarah Palin must be doing something right, hell even froze over, NOW, the National Organization for Women (or as I like to refer to them as, the Nauseating Obama Women), who have never so much as batted an eye when sexist remarks or unfounded attacks have been made against conservative women, have officially come out in support of Palin and have put Letterman into their Hall of Shame.  I’m flabbergasted!

Share on Facebook

Two of the latest corruption/fraud stories coming out of the media, ABOUT the media, are from the New York Slimes!

I realize that this is incredibly surprising to hear about one of the most reputable news organizations in existence today, but it is important to remember that it can happen to any of us…/sarc.

The New York Times has finally admitted that it “spiked” the ACORN/Obama corrupt association story.

Acknowledging what the blogosphere has known for weeks, the New York Times finally went on record to admit that just before last Election Day it killed a politically sensitive news story involving corruption allegations that might have made the Obama campaign look bad.

But the admission on Sunday, which came seven months after NYT staff reporter Stephanie Strom’s reporting about possibly illegal coordination between the Obama campaign and ACORN last year, took the form of a snarky column from Clark Hoyt, the Old Gray Lady’s “public editor.” Hoyt used the word “nonsense” to describe the allegations of impropriety leveled against ACORN and the Obama campaign.

When isn’t the NYT snarky and condescending?  It’s not like they have the country’s or the American citizens’ best interests at heart…

A little background:

The aborted story that gave rise to the Obama/ACORN controversy centers around information provided by Anita MonCrief, a former ACORN employee whom Hoyt acknowledges “fed information to Stephanie Strom of The Times for several articles on troubles within the group.” Apparently the information MonCrief provided was good.

We know this because Strom broke a number of important stories about ACORN and surely much of the information she used came from her trusted source Anita MonCrief. In July she reported that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from the group. She also reported that ACORN management covered up the embezzlement for eight years, withholding information even from ACORN’s national board.

The next month Strom reported that Tides Foundation founder Drummond Pike, a comrade-in-arms of liberal philanthropist George Soros, had personally covered what remained of Wade Rathke’s debt (the embezzler had agreed to a slow-as-molasses repayment plan that would have kept him in debt well into old age).

In September Strom reported on two ACORN national board members’ lawsuit aimed at forcing ACORN to provide financial documents regarding the embezzlement.

She followed up the next month with a story on ACORN’s efforts to sever its remaining ties with its founder. (Strom reported that Wade Rathke resigned as chief organizer of ACORN. In fact, Rathke was fired, as shown in the ACORN national board’s minutes of June 20, 2008, available at page 11 of the linked PDF file.)

The same month Strom wrote about an internal memo written by ACORN’s lawyer that alerted the group to potential legal problems related to its organizational structure.

But apparently MonCrief’s information was suddenly no good when it might have embarrassed the Obama campaign.

Heidelbaugh testified before a congressional committee in March that the nonprofit group violated a host of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. She said the Obama campaign sent ACORN its “maxed out donor list” and asked two of the avowedly nonpartisan group’s employees “to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”

As if the withholding of a story that size during a presidential election wasn’t enough, there is also proof of plagiarism by one of NYT’s most prominent/famous columnists; Maureen Dowd.

It was a wild Sunday for New York Times columnist. It opened with her latest column in the newspaper, which closed by declaring that she had once opposed a wide-ranging probe of the uses of torture, and who authorized and knew about it, during the Bush administration but now favored it. This brought some praise liberal news sites and bloggers often critical of Dowd.

But by mid-afternoon she was on the hot seat for using a paragraph almost word-for-word from one of the most prominent liberal bloggers, Jost Marshall of Talking Points Memo, without attribution. Charges of “plagiarism” ensued.

By early evening, Dowd had admitted wrongdoing, in an email to Huffington Post, and said she wanted to apologize to Marshall. She also said that the Times would issue a correction tomorrow — and the copy was changed in her column to attribute the line of thought to Marshall.

She seemed to be suggesting, however, that she had merely heard the line of argument from a friend, who did not attribute it to Marshall. This wouldn’t explain, however, why the rather lengthy sentence, a full paragraph, matched Marshall’s writing virtually word for word.

Can I ask why this liberal rag is still in business or is used as a credible source?

Share on Facebook

Given all the media coverage on Pelosi and the CIA briefings it comes as no surprise that there are other big news stories going on behind the scenes.  This is typical of this administration and the liberal super majority ~ they create a crisis or a smoke screen and work fast behind the scenes to pass an agenda item without the full knowledge of the electorate.

Several items of interest have gone on over the last week or so.  Although I have not been able to post as much as I would like to, I have been keeping abreast by listening to C-Span during the weekdays and much of what I have caught is not giving me that shiny happy feeling…

Some items of note are the Census Director hearing, health care, Internet Neutrality, media bailouts, media contributions to the Obama campaign, Cap and Trade, and executive pay caps.

Census:

Robert Groves, who we reported on a while back, had his hearing on Friday, interestingly enough, no votes were taken on Friday and therefore, almost all the senators had gone home to their home states.  Groves has been associated with faulty sampling that could game the system and was deemed unconstitutional back in the 90′s.  Although he is incredibly intelligent and qualified as a statistician, ethics, morals, and integrity are required to run the Census, since it is such a sensitive department.  The Census has the capability of changing the entire political/voting landscape of a country and could have a long lasting effect that would ensure the redistricting gives the upper hand to one party over the other if not done ethically or properly.  The Census has had past associations with ACORN, the same ACORN that is facing charges of voter fraud in more than over a dozen states.  ACORN was also reported to have been marking front doors and canvassing neighborhoods using GPS as recently as last week.

Health care:

The Senate version is mandating everyone carry health care as of 2013… exempting only illegal immigrants and those opposed for religious reasons. Odd concept since in some parts of the country, it is the illegal immigrant population driving up the costs.

All employers will be mandated to provide insurance to their workers, or face a “special tax”. Additionally, the government will be mandating the four levels of coverage provided by that employer… from lowest to highest. And no annual or lifetime limitations allowed either.
Not only will the government regulate the marketing of commercial insurance premiums to families and employers, they will also regulate premium prices, allowing workers to drop out and seek a better deal…. no doubt that offered by the federal government plan.

Not enough? They plan to dictate sales commissions as well.

Under the Senate proposals, the government would regulate not only insurance products, but also the marketing of insurance and sales commissions paid to insurance agents and brokers.

Under these auspices, the private insurer – who requires a profit to stay in business – cannot compete with the government who just sucks more out of the taxpayer as their costs increase. With government mandates controlling everything from premium price for coverage to marketing, their demise is imminent. Indeed, it is being orchestrated.

One of the most notable features of the Senate proposals is that workers could drop out of an employer’s group health plan and buy private insurance on their own, outside the workplace. The employer’s normal contribution for a worker would be paid to the insurance exchange.

Democrats said that people dropping out of employer plans would, in many cases, be eligible for tax credits to defray their premiums.

Employers worry that this feature would destabilize the health plans they provide to employees.

“If people can opt out of employer-sponsored insurance and get a tax credit, that will lead to a death spiral for employer-sponsored plans,” said James P. Gelfand, senior manager of health policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce.

“People who are sick will stay in employer plans, and many young, healthy people will opt out,” Mr. Gelfand said.

The House version accomplishes something similiar, using a government “health insurance exchange” that mandates participation by all private insurers. The government would also label all insurers with “quality ratings”…. a Good “House”keeping Seal of Approval, so to speak.

Consumers could sign up for insurance at hospitals, schools, Social Security offices and state departments of motor vehicles.

~~~

Under the Democratic proposals, the government would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance. The credit would be available to people with incomes up to four times the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four).

The government would also provide tax credits to help small businesses buy insurance for employees. The credit would be available to businesses with up to 25 employees, and businesses with the lowest-wage workers would get more aid.

Read the rest here… the report goes into detail on how Obama lied after its meeting last weekwith top health care CEOs.

The below summary encapsulates a great argument against government intervention with the health care industry and especially the single payer system.  John Lechleiter of Eli Lilly spoke before the US Chamber of Commerce on May 15, 2009.  He did not get political but stated his concern that policy makers would enforce a system that would leave out innovation and would actually create the opposite results than what would be originally intended:

In remarks before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today, John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D., chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY) said that federal policymakers’ attention to access, quality and costs in health reform should also include a focus on innovation – or the results could include “unintended side-effects.” Innovation, he said, helped boost the average Americans life expectancy from 47 to 78 years, a rise of 66 percent over the past century and “unprecedented in human history.” In his keynote speech before a group of business, government and health care representatives, Lechleiter identified specific policy proposals and their implications for patients and for developing breakthrough treatments and cures.

“Encouraging innovation needs to be the purpose of U.S. health care reform, not its victim,” Lechleiter said. “It’s innovation that explains why we are the healthiest, longest-lived and wealthiest human beings ever to occupy the planet.”

But, he asserted, if heath care reform does not encourage innovation, “then the important goals of expanding access, improving quality and controlling costs will prove illusory.”

He cited a Columbia University study that analyzed data from 52 countries and showed that, controlling for other factors, the availability of new medicines alone accounted for 40 percent of the increase in life expectancy during the 1980s and 1990s. He said the medical advances of the past century that made life-expectancy and quality-of-life gains possible included the invention of:

–  Antibiotics to cure infections
–  Vaccines that have nearly eradicated several conditions, such as polio
–  Effective treatments for a growing number of cancers, and
–  Medications that have lessened the toll of a number of dreaded diseases,
such that they are now considered chronic, manageable conditions.

He then observed, “The economic payback from these gains is difficult to overstate. The payback is years of productive work, economic value added, consumer spending and tax dollars paid – which together outweighs the costs of treatment overwhelmingly – even if you resist the idea of putting a number on the intrinsic value of being alive.”

Lechleiter expressed hope for similar future gains, but he pointed to major bellwethers warning that innovation is at risk:

–  The pharmaceutical industry, he said, is “in the midst of a wave of
defensive consolidations that will leave the world with even fewer
entities capable of taking an idea — a discovery — and turning it into
a medicine approved for patients.”
–  “Half of the smaller biotech firms in the U.S. have less than a
year of [operating] cash remaining, and a third are down to their last
six months”; and
–  Recent FDA new drug approvals have dropped sharply relative to the past
30 years.

Lechleiter rounded out his speech with a closer look at several areas of public policy under which, depending on the path taken in health reform, innovation will be enhanced or curbed. Prefacing his policy prescriptions, he said: “When it comes to sustaining innovation, the burden remains on us — as it should. We’re not asking for a handout or a bailout. Instead, businesses that live or die by health care innovation in the U.S. ask only that we be allowed to continue doing just that: proving the value of what we’ve developed or failing in the marketplace.”

He urged all stakeholders engaged in health reform to ensure that:

–  The value of medicines is evaluated by doctors and patients, who, when
properly informed, can choose from the available alternatives a drug
that’s medically appropriate and best for the individual patient;
–  Innovators get a return on investment that accurately reflects the value
of the innovations delivered, thus encouraging investment in new
treatments and cures for patients; and
–  Innovators retain ownership, for a reasonable period of time, of their
intellectual property, to provide the necessary incentives for
risk-taking that leads to innovation.

Such an approach to public policy, he contended, would usher in:

–  An era of “personalized medicine,” which would tap the
insights of the Human Genome Project and replace the usual
one-size-fits-all approach;
–  Market-based health reforms, including access to insurance for all
Americans, supported by public subsidies and tax credits rather than a
government-run option;
–  Solid comparative effectiveness research that informs on the benefits,
risks and costs of various treatment options but that does not trump
physician judgment, deny patients access to needed treatments or mandate
prices;
–  A 14-year data protection period for biologic drugs, which balances the
prospect of a return on investment with a clear path to lower-cost
copies.  The bipartisan “Pathways for Biosimilars Act” in
Congress takes this approach.

Internet Nuetrality and Google’s Power:

C-Span video here…

Google can pick and choose what sites can be in their searches or what will appear at the top of pages during those searches etc.  There is quite a bit of information in this video.  Google is also lobbying to be exempt from anti-trust laws.  Obama received a lot of money from Google and Silicon Valley so there is a good chance that he will possibly rule in favor of Google.  If Google is not held to anti-trust laws this could be a huge problem for any differing ideologies.

Media Bailouts (Exception to Anti-Trust Laws & Tax Cuts):

As Fox News and the Wall Street Journal increase reader and viewership, the liberally biased media continues to slip in ratings and consumers.  The serious issue at hand with government media bailouts is the slant of information.  The media would openly be in the pocket of government and would act as an arm of a particular party.  This begins to look more and more like Pravda, the propaganda….errr… media of Stalin & the USSR.  I say openly, because currently, much of the media is ultra liberal and is already a part of the DNC.

I am a strong believer in free enterprise and free markets, therefore, I adamantly disagree with bailing out any entity because it causes bias and goes against the basic principles of doing business in a capitalist society.  If a company cannot create a valuable business model it should file bankruptcy, plain and simple – this has caused a nation of lazy, complacent, entitled enterprises and individuals – moral hazard has become the norm.

Four of the suggestions coming out of the policy makers (Kerry):

– Bring copyright laws into the age of the search engine. Taking a portion of a copyrighted work can be protected under the “fair use” doctrine. But the kind of fair use in news reports, academics and the arts — republishing a quote to comment on it, for example — is not what search engines practice when they crawl the Web and ingest everything in their path.

Publishers should not have to choose between protecting their copyrights and shunning the search-engine databases that map the Internet. Journalism therefore needs a bright line imposed by statute: that the taking of entire Web pages by search engines, which is what powers their search functions, is not fair use but infringement.

Such a rule would be no more bold a step than the one Congress took in 1996 rewriting centuries of traditional libel law for the benefit of tech start-ups. It would take away from search engines the “just opt out” mantra — repeated by Google’s witness during the Kerry hearings — and force them to negotiate with copyright holders over the value of their content.

– Federalize the “hot news” doctrine. This doctrine protects against types of poaching that copyright might not cover — the stealing of information not by direct copying but simply by taking the guts of the content. While the Internet has made news vulnerable to pilfering because of the ease of linking from one site to the next, the hot-news doctrine has limited use because it is only recognized in a few states.

Now that many news aggregator sites have taken “linksploitation” to a commercial level by selling ads wrapped around the links they post, Congress has the incentive it needs to pass a federal law protecting hot news. Such a law would give publishers an additional source of legal leverage outside of copyright to demand fair compensation for the content they create.

– Eliminate ownership restrictions. Media insolvency is a greater threat today than media concentration. Congress should abolish caps on ownership of broadcast stations and bars on newspaper and television ownership in the same market. These outdated rules belong to an era when the Web was a home for spiders.

– Grant an antitrust exemption. Congress first came to journalism’s defense with antitrust relief in 1970, when it permitted endangered newspapers to combine their business operations without fear of antitrust suits if their newsrooms remained independent.

As noted in the Kerry hearing, publishers need collective pricing policies for their Web sites to finally break out of the expectation of free content that is afflicting the industry. Antitrust immunity is necessary because most individual news sites can’t go it alone by walling off their content for fees — readers will simply jump to sites that are still free.

A temporary antitrust shelter would serve the public interest by enabling the industry to take steps today to preserve for tomorrow the journalism that benefits us all.

Individual states (Washington) are also giving some unfair treatment to their media by only cutting taxes for those entities and not other businesses.

– Use tax policy to promote the press. Washington state is taking a lead in the current crisis with legislation signed into law this week to slash business taxes on the press by 40 percent. Congress could provide incentives for placing ads with content creators (not with Craigslist) and allowances for immediate write-offs (rather than capitalization) for all expenses related to news production.

Yippeee!  And this is what Obama has to say on the matter:

What about those media contributions?

Follow the money.

Some people say rich millionaires own the networks so they support the GOP. That is not true.  They’re not owned by a lotta rich Republicans.

Actually, they’re owned by publicly held corporations. General Electric owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, Viacom owns CBS.

Follow the money. (And at the bottom see where FOX News owner News Corp gave it’s money. You will be surprised.)

The entire music/movie/tv industry gave to Mr. Obama $8.6 million dollars.
(I’ve spent a lotta time accumulating this information from Open Secrets at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid;… so I hope it’s of value to you.)

Follow the money.

Here is NBC and ABC breakdown. Didn’t have available CBS (Viacom)

Jeffrey Immelt who is the CEO of GE (NBC) and its PAC have contributed millions of dollars to the DNC and to the Obama campaign.
It gave a million and a half to Dems and about 800,000 to Republicans. $400,000 directly to candidate Obama, and about 80,000 to McCain.
A sister company of NBC, GE Financials (also owned by GE) gave it’s total contribution limits to Democrats. GE Financials is also getting a huge chunk back from the bank bailout.

MSNBC? Follow the money.

Interestingly, the third top contributor to Mr. Obama was Microsoft. Ever hear of MSNBC? And you wonder why it has a liberal slant? $800,000 to Obama from Microsoft, and $400,000 from GE (NBC). Thus the owners of MSNBC (Microsoft and GE) gave candidate Obama $1.2 million in soft money. Other PACS and organizations of GE and Microsoft also contributed to Mr. Obama.

Disney (ABC) gave $300,00 to Obama, $84,00 to Hillary and $21,000 to McCain.

Democrats are the biggest recipient of money from the companies that own broadcasting networks.

Follow the money.

The entire motion picture industry gave $12.7 million to Dems and $1.3 million to GOP.

Commercial TV gave $3.3 million to Dems and $2.2 million to GOP.

Viacom (CBS) is much harder to analyze, but I’ll get back to that.

So, if you follow the money, major broadcasting networks are big time sources of campaign money for Democrats.

Oh, and FOX News? Owned by the News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch? It gave $1.5 million dollars in contributions to campaigns, 68% of that went to Democrats, or roughly about $1.02 million dollars. Less than a half million went to GOP.

Cap and Trade:

The latest IBD/TIPP poll shows that cap and trade is a no go in the public eye.  More people are beginning to understand what it actually entails/means.  Indiana has also found a way around cap and trade this past week.

However, the Obama administration seems as though it may want to advance this agenda, but just under a different name.

How does the “The Clean Energy Divide” sound to you?

The Obama administration is exploring alternative names for cap and trade legislation.

People don’t really know what cap and trade means, but they don’t like it. So a new name is being concocted to gather support for the legislation.

It doesn’t look like the names “carbon tax” or “regressive tax” are in the mix, though. How does “clean energy divide” grab you?

WSJ: Seeking to bolster public support for climate legislation, the Obama administration is consulting pollsters who advocate avoiding phrases such as “cap-and-trade” and “global warming.” On Monday, the White House Council on Environmental Quality was scheduled to meet with Robert Perkowitz, president of ecoAmerica, a Washington-based nonprofit that uses “psychographic research” to “shift personal and civic choices of environmentally agnostic Americans,” according to its Web site.

“We’re trying to give them phrases that work,” Mr. Perkowitz said in an interview. He said that in a survey of some 2,000 Americans conducted by his group in March and April, less than half of the respondents said they would support a “cap-and-trade” policy, and that only 24% said they knew what the phrase means. “If you call it ‘clean energy dividend’…almost anything other than ‘cap and trade,’ you’ll get people responding a lot more favorably,” he said.

Isn’t that nice?  let’s trick the American people so we can still strap the poor and the middle class with tax hikes to obtain our faulty liberal green agenda so Al Gore can receive a bunch of profits as well as GE, Google and Microsoft…

Executive Pay Caps:

The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.

The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.

Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve’s supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.

Socialism?  Fascism?  You be the judge…

Actually, just keep looking away and don’t pay attention to what’s really going on behind the scenes – rather watch the below video instead:

Share on Facebook

I don’t ever want to hear about ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS et al., being objective.  This means that any report and any taped interview is edited and spun in a liberal fashion – do you hear me Katie Couric?

This should send many of you spinning – it is just unbelievable what the 5th column of our democracy has become and how obviously liberal they are.  Reporting is no longer objective and it is no longer principled or ethical.  This is just disgusting!

America – please do your own homework!  Watch C-Span, research online and visit all kinds of sites to form your own opinion.  Go to the clerk’s office (websites) for the House and Senate and check voting records.  Be wary of sites with misleading names like Media Matters, FactCheck, Snopes, etc. (all owned by the same man; Soros - a self-proclaimed American hating, socialist).

Share on Facebook

Would you lie for the greater good or would you tell the truth and be honest about the way you conducts business.  I think that these moral hazards and cover ups are what got us into this economic crisis among other outside factors.  So what would covering up something else really help?  If the data is bad why continue to cover it up and prolong the inevitable?

I know that prolonging the inevitable is favored on Capitol Hill these days, but in my opinion that just makes things worse, suckers more people into the failing financial market, and makes for a worse collapse.  Let it go and give us the real facts!

Rick Santelli calls out one of his colleagues at CNBC who offers up the question as to whether or not the media should cover up the truth behind what’s going on in the financial sector for the greater good.

But, as I stated above, is that really for the greater good or is it just for the good of a political agenda and money in the media’s pocket? After knowing what recently occurred at an NBC meeting with Zucker and Immelt exclaiming that CNBC has been too harsh on the President and has criticized his policies too much recently… I can only take what they say at CNBC with a grain of salt because there may be a conflict of interest; like saving their jobs:

Share on Facebook

No media bias here – move along, nothing to see…

Around the 1:58 mark:

New White House decor:

Share on Facebook