The Latest Czar to Regulate Far More than Cars

TSUNAMI MEDIA ALERT

May 29, 2009 The Latest Czar to Regulate Far More than Cars www.WAMAction.org

A long-forecast and dreaded announcement came this morning from the head of the "Change" Administration himself.

The astonishing sequence of end-runs, by the "Change" Adminisitration - around traditional and critical structures which

preserve the U.S. Constitution- and its balance of powers - seems about to take its greatest toll to date. The protections provided

by the 3 American branches of government have continued to erode via Obama's unprecedented installation of "Czars" - i,e, politically hand-picked individuals who are given enormous powers over free enterprise - and whom report directly to the Chief Excutive himself. This newly invented system for expanding Executive branch authority, among its other dangers, eliminates the need for Congressional approval or involvement with these power-packed new authority figures. It also short circuits Capitol

Hill oversight of the activities which they undertake.

Obama has made public today his plan to take control of the Internet - directly from the White House - on behalf of preserving

"cyber-security." This strategy to expand his authority to encroach further on Americans right to privacy - with warrantless supervision of online activity - has been in the works since the Inauguration. The timing of its current announcement holds notable coincidence to the Chief Executive's recent decline in public opinion polls (along with the downhill slide of popularity among his key Congressional leadership (Pelosi, Reid and Dodd.)

Former Democratic activists who worked against Obama's nomination are among those most aware of the alarm bells this current

move to suppress opposition sets off. His online primary campaign, which generated maximum impact via use of high tech applications-is recalled by many for its brutality and vicious conduct against web opponents in 2008. Several reported personal threats while many more indicated repeated disruption of their blogs and large-scale attacks on their forums. Throughout the campaign season, an online army of campaign-paid web thugs were hired for these intrusions, as reported and verified by FOX News. Intimidation, verbal threats, gutter language and even obscene images were the order of the day.

Those in the know, then are acutely aware, then, that the "threats to security" listed by this Head of State in his televised speech today ironically coincide with tactics similar to some his own campaign used to get elected. An Obama small-dollar-on-line donor even reported receiving a phone call on his unlisted cell phone to remind him of a "Meet Up" in his own neighborhood - this despite the fact that the donor had not supplied the campaign with either his cell number nor his physical address! At least one Nigerian husband and wife both confessed last year to using their executive positions with international tech corporations to obtain personal records of U.S. citizens for use in harassment by the "Change" campaign.

In the meantime, while specifics of the new leader's rationale remain to be seen, it's already foreshadowed they will be as far-reaching as possible. Obama's sweeping statements about the urgent need to protect everything from banking records, to online purchases to information exchange. Rumors have indicated that the NSA is also disturbed that this new report-to-President only position would also circumvent this agency's normal role in cyber-watching. Further evidence of the long-term planning of this eradication of online privacy plan lies in the fact that Senators Rockfeller and Snowe introduced a bill in Congress on April 1st to give the White House these cyber-space powers.

One could ask: How does the rest of Congress feel about turning over their responsibility and authority to the Executive Branch?

Also, if the right to online privacy is allowed follow the path of warrantless phone wire-tapping what does Big Brother have in mindnext? And lest we wonder who might be put on the Cyber Czar's Watch List, just remember the recent Homeland Security Warningthat "right wing extremists" (ie any citizens identified as"Change administration opponents) are now a grave threat. Even a child could connect quickly connect the dots between that recent DHS Alert and the press conference on cyber-security threats today! it's not hard to guage whose "security" seems to feel most threatened. The only question that remains is how much more terror - against free enterprise and freedom of speech - will We the People permit the "Change" Administration to undertake?!

For quick valuable information on other current events, come to Wake Up America Movement at: http://WAMAction.org/NewsRoom.html

Sotomayor Nomination

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated to succeed Justice Souter on the Supreme Court bench. Already the quotes are flying. Newsmax has embeded video of the arrogant statement about appeals courts making policy. Viewers can hear and see her telling "potential law clerks":

"court of appeals is where policy is made." "And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it ...".

Policy is made by the President, law is made by the Congress and interpreted by the courts. The quoted statement displays both arrogance and an attitude of judicial activism, both of which should militate against this nomination to the Supreme Court.

Issues of racism & sexism may be less directly related to the appointment, but they do reflect upon judicial temperament. The New York Times has an interesting quote and links to an article with more details. At U.C. Berkeley, in '01, Judge Sotomayor said this.

"While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

The issues of race & gender identity politics is clearly raised. So much for judicial objectivity.

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging."

The link above is to the fourth of five pages containing the transcript of the lecture. There is plenty of significant detail bearing on this issue; I encourage you to read it.

In the context of a law scholar's quote, attributed to Justice O'Conor (doubted by Sotomayor), she expresses disagreement with a statement that a wise old man and a wise old woman would come to the same conclusion. This quote comes from the fifth page of the transcript.

"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

With that, Judge Sotomayor threw objectivity out the window and took a firm stand on the race & gender platforms. The last two paragraphs give us a great deal to contemplate, including this.

"I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

At the bottom of each page of the transcript, there is a menu linking to the other pages so that the two links I have furnished above give you access to the entire transcript. I encourage you to read it before advising your Senators how to vote on this nomination.

The ABA Journal has information about two of Sotomayor's important cases. If you have the motivation and patience to delve into her decisions, visit SCOTUS Blog.

Interrogation and Torture: False Equivalence

Jim has commented on Obamination: National Insecurity.

If waterboarding is not torture than why did we treat those who did it to our troops as war criminals in WWII? All your reasoning is in fact anti-law and anti-American. I suggest you re-consider your stand on this.

The "waterboarding" performed by convicted Japanese took two forms. One form was similar to that used by the CIA, but had two significant differences. The Japanese continued the treatment until their victim had a belly full of water, then they beat him or stomped his belly. Did the CIA fill Khalid Sheikh Mohammad with water? Did they beat him? Did they stomp him?

The second form involved tieing the victim to a ladder, with his throat up against a rung and his head hanging below the ladder. In that position he was dunked in a tub of water, submerged until he passed out. The victim was then revived and immersed again.

My source for that information is a post at Investor's Hub. In this Times Online article, linked in that forum post, a British officer who survived the water torture describes his experience. If you would like to know more about the torture performed by the Japanese who were convicted and hung, summon up all your intestinal fortitude and click this link.

Critical elements of the Japanese torture are missing from the CIA waterboarding, which was carried out with medical supervision and monitoring and did not involve saturation, beating or other physical injuries.

Jim is comparing interrogation to torture, ignoring the details which differentiate the two practices. It is obvious that he is ignorantly or maliciously repeating enemy propaganda. The moralistic tone of his comment leads me to conclude that he acts out of malice, not ignorance.

Memorial Day, Honoring A Debt We Cannot Repay

More Than A Day Off, or a Day for Picnics and Bar-B-Ques

When I entered the cemetery I removed my hat out of respect and honor. The flags were waving in the slight breeze, each one placed on the edge of the plaque of the grave of each fallen hero. The resting place of my grandfather is at the Riverside National Cemetery in Southern California, a location of many graves of brave men and women who gave voluntarily for liberty, and the American Way. Line after line of simple grave makers mark the final resting places of the brave. The graves are alone, yet among their brothers and sisters in arms.

Standing over his grave marker, it brought back the memories of my visit to the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia near Washington DC, my visit to the tomb of the unknown soldier, and the rows and rows of crosses and grave markers I observed there.

My memories also harkened back to the first time I stepped into the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. As with Riverside National, I removed my cap as I stepped upon that sacred ground. I read the names in silence, tears welling up in my eyes. The dead called to me, asking me not to weep, for they gave their lives willingly, so that others might live, and live with the promise of freedom.

There were those at the USS Arizona Memorial that were less respectful, leaving their caps on, talking loudly, letting their children run around the solemn place. It made me desire to shout out, "Hey, show some respect!" But I didn't. Perhaps they didn't understand. Maybe they didn't know the price for freedom that veterans like myself have experienced. Perhaps they didn't view the fallen as brothers and sisters, and as heroes that gave the ultimate sacrifice so that our liberty might live.

My grandfather fought in World War II, and though he survived the war to live a long life, many of his fellow soldiers did not. Many of his friends and fellow troops lie in foreign lands. Many lie in graves, much like my grandfather's, in National Cemeteries across America. All of these heroes are owed a debt of unspeakable gratitude by Americans, and Memorial Day is that opportunity to do so.

With the recent war against the Islamic Jihad, and the continuing service of our fine military personnel, yet another generation of those who have proudly served and died in the service of our country is owed our thank you, and deserves our prayers.

Some ask how we can repay this debt, and show our gratitude.

One way to thank these fallen is to pause on Memorial Day to remember their sacrifice, and to thank them with our prayers for paying the cost of our freedoms. After all, our liberty has been bought and paid for with the blood of these brave heroes.

1.2 Million Americans have given their lives for our freedoms across more than two centuries and in more than a dozen wars and armed conflicts.

At the cemetery a small American flag is planted in the ground next to each grave's plaque. May they stand tall, and wave reverently.

Never forget. Keep the faith. Remember those fallen in service to the country, and to preserve the liberty of you and I.

Obamanation: National Insecurity

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY COMMENCEMENT

Two excerpts from that commencement address stand out below the rest; I quote them here.

In a culture where so many chase the outward markers of success that can so often lead us astray -- the titles and status, the materialism and money, the fame and popularity -- these Americans have embraced the virtues that we need most right now: self-discipline over self-interest; work over comfort; and character over celebrity.

Sometimes a con man, in his conceit, will effectively confess his crimes to his victims, firm in the belief that they are too dull to fully comprehend what he is saying. I view that first quote as a prime example of that hubris. President Obama expected that the graduates were too excited and we were too lazy to plumb the depth of his words. The following outline may help you to observe how those words apply to the man who spoke them.

• outward markers of success
• titles and status
• Senator
• President
• materialism and money
• Presidential salary
• book royalties
• expensive Chicago real estate
• fame and popularity
• character over celebrity

Yesterday I visited the National Archives and the halls that holds our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and our Bill of Rights. I went there because, as our national debate on how to deal with the security challenge that we face proceeds, we must remember this enduring truth: The values and ideals in those documents are not simply words written into aging parchment, they are the bedrock of our liberty and our security. We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to; not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe and keep us true to who we are.

What principle is more fundamental to this nation than individual liberty? What safeguards it more than strict limits on the power of governments? Have we so soon forgotten his egregious remarks about the Constitution's charter of "negative rights" which supposedly prevent the federal government from doing what it should for us?

Because when America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries, and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops. So as Americans, we reject the false choice between our security and our ideals. We can and we must and we will protect both.

That last quote packs broad meaning into a few words. Lets take a closer look.

• when America strays from our values

It is clear, from the context, that that phrase is a reference to water boarding. The value alluded to is justice. Our system of justice seeks to determine fact and law by investigation, inquiry and reasoned debate. It assumes innocence until guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Torture may be an interrogation technique, but it is also a punishment; we don't punish the innocent. This points to two deadly assumptions.

1. Waterboarding is torture.
2. Enemy combatants are innocent.

Both of those assumptions are obviously false. While waterboarding inflicts fear, if done properly it neither causes undue pain nor inflicts permanent injury. It is not equivalent to drills, knives, pliers or hot irons. Anyone who graduates from a terrorist training camp and carries a weapon on the battlefield is not innocent. Khalid Sheik Mohammad planned the abomination of 9-11-01. Not being a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien, he has no Miranda rights. He has no right to the presumption of innocence. He is action was not a misdemeanor, it was an attack carried out as part of a war.

• it alienates us from our allies

Those who are alienated are not and were not our allies, they were fair weather friends. Our weakness; our failure to seek and obtain clear victories in Korea & Vietnam emboldened our enemies and distanced broke the links with our allies.

• it energizes our adversaries

The photos of prisoner abuse and stories of 'torture' are grist for propaganda mills, but they are not the cause of enmity. The act of resisting Islamic aggressions supplies all the energizing they need.

• it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops

Our security is endangered by failure to recognize, identify & accurately classify the enemy. The lives of our troops are endangered by sending them to invade where we should have sent tactical nuclear missiles. Wisdom dictates swift, total destruction of wasp nests, not poking them with sticks.

• false choice between our security and our ideals

Real Americans reject it; President Obama, a self proclaimed 'citizen of the world', embraces and nurtures it, exploiting it for political gain at the expense of our national security.

To witness the difference between a demagogue and a statesman, read the transcript of former Vice President Richard B. Cheney's remarks to the American Enterprise Institute.