Tagged: Obama

BREAKING: Obama Wants Bloggers to Register with FEDS

Copyright 2011-3011 By Chase Kyla Hunter, Updated Daily:

This just in: It will be a cold cold day in hell before I ever do that. WILL NOT happen. Just an fyi. – Chase

Links: Obama Wants Bloggers to Register with FEDs

Obama Wants A National ID Card for Internet Commentary

Feds to 4 States: “Drop it or We’ll Sue”

The damning Dispatch Cited:

EDITORIAL: Obama’s Internet passport…Administration wants national ID card for online commentary


The Washington Times

6:28 p.m., Thursday, January 13, 2011

MugshotCommerce Secretary Gary Locke says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Service office, which will study and report on global warming, will help federal agencies and businesses prepare for and cope with global changes. (Associated Press)

Federalized security screening at airports has been such a success that President Obama wants to apply the same government “expertise” to the realm of online commerce and commentary. The White House cybersecurity adviser joined Commerce Secretary Gary Locke on Jan. 7 to announce what amounts to a national ID card for the Internet.

Their plan is straightforward. Instead of logging onto Facebook or one’s bank using separate passwords established with each individual company or website, the White House will take the lead in developing what it calls an “identity ecosystem” that will centralize personal information and credentials. This government-approved system would issue a smart card or similar device that would confirm an individual’s identity when making online credit-card purchases, accessing electronic health care records, posting “anonymous” blog entries or even logging onto one’s own home computer, according to administration documents.

Officials insist this would be a voluntary program and deliver significant benefits to the public. Mr. Locke explained last week that “robust identity solutions can substantially enhance the trustworthiness of online transactions. They can not only improve security, but, if done properly, can enhance privacy as well.”

Put another way, Mr. Locke is saying, “Trust us, we’re from the government, and we’re here to help.” Congress, the technology industry and the public need to run as far away as they can from this purported assistance. The government is no more capable of securing information than it is of protecting airports. Just look at the WikiLeaks case, in which a disaffected private was able to grab hundreds of thousands of classified documents from U.S. Army computers. Agencies ranging from the Los Alamos National Laboratory to the Department of Veterans Affairs have proved equally incapable of dealing with personal data.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), for example, lost a hard drive crammed with material about the Clinton White House and its employees. The same agency sent a hard drive containing the Social Security numbers of about 75 million veterans to a private contractor for “recycling” without bothering to delete the personal information. To this day, the agency is unable to determine what happened to the device. “While each case of data breach, loss or undue risk of loss represents a unique stanza, the chorus of the song remains the same,” Paul Brachfeld, NARA’s inspector general, said in a 2009 congressional hearing. “Internal control weaknesses, lapses and exercises of questionable judgment tied to other incidents I have spoken of today regularly leave me and my staff frustrated and bewildered.”

There’s little reason to think Mr. Brachfeld’s frustration will ever be eased. Civil-service employees, who can’t be fired, have little reason to be careful with sensitive medical records, or even nuclear secrets. A careless attitude pervades federal agencies, rendering the government particularly unsuited to the task of directing an identity-assurance program. Like most ideas dreamed up around a multiagency boardroom table, this one will never accomplish its stated goal.

Centralizing access to personal information only makes it easier for the bad guys because it means they only need to steal one key to unlock a vast wealth of financial and personal information. It’s likely that the real motivation for this is to ensure the feds always have backdoor access into what people are doing in the online realm. Congress should take steps to ensure this Big Brother scheme is deleted.”

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

[ Time Travel – Archived Report ] Sarah Palin Weather Report: The Horse Race Has Changed: Can Sarah Still Win?

Updated January 20th 2011, Copyright 11.28.2010 By Chase Kyla Hunter, All Rights Reserved.

To read more essays I’ve written about Sarah Palin, click here.


What a difference one month and a lunatic massacre makes. About one month ago I wrote this essay below which reflected on a December 2010 poll on Sarah Palin’s chances in 2012.

The December 28th 2010 WSJ poll showed Sarah Palin beating Barack Obama by a nose in 2012. The Obama White House media, popularly known as “MSNBC” has refuted this poll, claiming instead that Obama led Palin by a whopping 22% in December 2010. Lies, Lies, lies. Anymore one must read at least a dozen news stories then divide the opinions by 12 to get something that might possibly resemble the truth. I call this “media discernment math.”

Then came Loughner in the first week of 2011, right after the dead birds omen. Then came the left wing accusatory media melee which stooped so low as to associate Loughner’s motivations for the shooting with right wing political rhetoric, the kind of talk I have been hearing all my life since the advent of talk radio in the 1980s, the kind of speech that often comes from Fox News, and from Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Savage in today’s TV media: nothing more or less than political talk that we hear every day, and nothing different than the conservative talk radio speeches and opinions voiced daily since the mid 1980s.

Then came the out all public fist fight between the left and the right in America, hair flying, right in the middle of the agony and mourning for what lunatic Jared Loughner had done in Arizona. And finally, then came the bizarre Obama led “Memorial Service” with a completely inappropriate lead-off speech by a rambling Native American, an Arizona local, who talked about himself mostly. His eulogy had the air of being more appropriate as the welcome speech for a summer Pow Wow than any grieving commentary for 6 massacred murder victims. [ Put that egg down. I am Cherokee, I’m a public speaker, and I know a “self involved rant” when I hear one ].

Here are some new polls, articles showing the Sarah Palin Weather Report:

Palin Poll Numbers Get Even Worse [ Huff Post, to be expected ]

Huckabee, Palin Lead Pack for 2012, But Are They Even Running?

Palin Putting Out Feelers for 2012 Presidential Bid

POLL: Majority Says Palin Not Liable for Gifford’s Shooting, But Disliked Her Response

“Post Loughner” Palin Bashing Reaches New High, Unfavorable Rating Follows

Quote Daily Caller:

“Palin’s national favorability rating is at an anemic 35 percent, against 58 percent who disapprove of the possible GOP presidential candidate. In a match-up against Barack Obama, she trails the president by 17 points. “That’s the largest deficit we’ve found for her since May of 2009,” notes PPP’s Tom Jensen. “She started last week with an opportunity to make some head way. She ended it perhaps further away from the Presidency than she’s been since the day before John McCain picked her as his running mate.”

RE: Sarah Palins’ popularity: On December 28th of 2010 I wrote:

As the Sarah Palin haters rage on, foaming and ranting their fear and hatred of the woman’s basic fundamental goodness all over the web, the Wall Street Journal produced a Poll, imagining the 2012 presidential election were held today. The current results, which of course can change, and allowing for the usual 3% margin of error, put the proverbial 2012 presidential race between Obama and Palin practically neck and neck, with the Mama Grizzly inching out the Mack Daddy Long Legs by a spine shivering slim margin of about 4.5%.

In the current poll tally from about 9,400 voters Palin wins currently by 51.3% to 48.7% over Obama.

That fact should have the Palin haters gnashing their teeth and hurling their ipads and smartphones to the floor in rage. Poor far left techno-babies. That’s just enough of a worrisome win to be utterly undone by the possibility of sheer political human evil, should the vote fraud factor kick in, and we all find that the new Orwellian electronic voting machines get tinkered with again, mail in ballots don’t get counted, and all the other potential crookedness and crime that might possibly take place, in fact does take place in 2012.

This upcoming election in 2012 would be the horse race to end all races, politically speaking, if Sarah does choose to run. I would not put anything past the DNC in 2012 to keep the White House, what with it’s very public political bruised ego on display for all to see right now.

It’s enough to make a Palin supporter really wonder which way the wind will begin to blow politically for both Obama and Palin between now and next summer, when the election campaign machines  begin gearing up for  November 2012.

Here’s the link:


“I burst just like a supernova.” Obama’s Credibility At Stake in 2010

I thought this was a noteworthy tome for Christmas Eve 2009, below by Daniel Henninger. We have all heard the phrase “What goes up, must come down.”  With even more outrageous new allegations of fraud against Obama’s one year old presidency now barreling in on him, i.e Reverend James Manning alleging that Obama  never even actually attended Columbia University, the fast moving locomotive of daring, truthful and fearless citizen journalist reporting is now running over the credibility of Obama’s leadership with freight train destructive power. Witnessing all this, it’s no wonder the White House is making not so secret preparations for coming civil unrest and martial law.

Chase Hunter

DECEMBER 24, 2009, 12:06 A.M. ET

Is Obama a star for the ages, or is he fading fast?


Columnist's name

In February 2007, Barack Obama announced he would stand for the presidency of the United States in 2008. One year into that far-from-inevitable presidency, no figure has ever so thoroughly pulled toward himself the nation’s political energy.

He’s a star alright. One of his most eager admirers, Bruce Springsteen, sang at the dawn of his own emergence years back:

“I burst just like a supernova.”

But here’s NASA’s definition of a supernova: It’s a stellar explosion, an incredibly luminous star, able to outshine a whole galaxy . . . before gradually fading from view.

So one may ask after the first year of Obama: Is he a star for the ages, or is he fading fast?

Has any president so engulfed American politics? He is everywhere. He is the first real king of all media. He makes himself the constant conversation, the national siren song. No one can stop listening to him, even if it kills them to hear it.

Daniel Henninger discusses President Obama’s star power.


Nobody says “Barack Obama” anymore. He’s just “Obama.” He is the champ of one-name celebrities. Bono, Beyoncé, Sting, Madonna, Moby, LeBron, Ronaldo, even Oprah—no one’s close. Obama. Oh-BAHH-ma. Ohhhhhbama.

The politician formerly known as Barack Obama swept into office on a wave of goodwill. After the election his support grew, giving him a bigger win than the 52.9% to 45.7% voting result.

The election itself was part fairy tale, part fight of the century. The incredible primary battle between the rookie from Illinois and Team Clinton was a mesmerizing, six-month thriller.

It is true that his approval rating has fallen fast, though keep in mind that high unemployment brought Ronald Reagan a disapproval rating of 54% in early 1983. Still it remains impossible to view Obama as just another pol. No previous politician or president has sustained such a huge public presence. The Obama machine has hard-wired itself to the 24/7 media machine.

People started to think Obama was speaking to them every day. Why not? He has the best voice in politics since Reagan’s, and Obama hasn’t acted professionally a day in his life.

Associated PressBarack Obama delivers his acceptance speech in Denver.



The whole Obama thing, starting with the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, followed immediately by the book “Dreams from My Father,” was built around a persona, an aura. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote that Obama told him early in his Senate career: “Harry, I have a gift.”

This column has referred previously to a January 2007 New York Times article about Obama at Harvard Law School. It has the best description I have seen of the “gift.” This was 1988 to 1991, one of the most politicized periods in the law school’s history, with divisive fights over ideas such as critical race theory. In the article Prof. Charles Ogletree recalled how the young Obama spoke to a public gathering on one particularly contentious issue, and both sides thought he was endorsing their argument: “Everyone was nodding. Oh, he agrees with me.”

That is the “gift.” What is not clear as we approach the second year of Mr. Obama’s term is whether the gift can produce magic for a presidency.

The American presidency isn’t like anything else in life. What was magic at Harvard or wowed independents in 2008 isn’t necessarily what works in the Oval Office or in a room with Vladimir Putin or Wen Jiabao, who are quite beyond the experience of political awe.

The aspect of the “Obama” phenomenon that disconcerts me most is the sense that Barack Obama himself is at times oblivious of where it has taken him. The first time was his acceptance speech last year in Denver, in which he promised to solve, well, pretty much everything. Grandiosity is de rigueur on that occasion, but this was its antic cousin, grandiloquence.

This week brought a more troubling incident. Harry Reid’s Senate had just secured its 60th vote for Mr. Obama’s health-care reform. Whatever one’s view, its trillion-dollar-plus cost is an agreed given. Days earlier the public saw Congress vote to raise the debt ceiling by almost $290 billion to make room for the needs of the $800 billion stimulus bill, the unprecedented $3.5 trillion budget, and the House’s approval Dec. 16 of a new $154 billion jobs bill. Amid this President Obama said Monday: “We can’t continue to spend . . . as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money.”

From the Wizard of Oz to Tiger Woods, the greatest danger to grand men is feet of clay. There are varieties of clay. For the politician known as Obama it is that if he is shown to be a cynic, he is finished. “Monopoly money” was an everyone-agrees-with-me remark. But to everyone, it was simply fantastic.

The American people took a flyer on Barack Obama. If they conclude Obama is just the name of another lesser god, his fall could come as fast as his rise.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

Ominous New Local Police Powers Discussed RE: Swine Flu “Pandemic”

Signal flag which when flown in harbor means s...

Image via Wikipedia

A “pandemic response bill” currently making its way through one state legislature would allow authorities to forcefully quarantine citizens in the event of a health emergency, compel health providers to vaccinate citizens, authorize forceful entry into private dwellings and destruction of citizen property and impose fines on citizens for noncompliance.

Read the latest now on WND.com.

Cops jump on swine-flu power: Shots heard ’round the world

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ben Smith on Obama: “He’s Not Meeting the Basic Standard of Manhood”

Who’s afraid of Barack Obama?

By BEN SMITH | 9/13/09 7:02 AM EDT

President Obama points at someone.

President Obama seems to lack one item
that most presidents find helpful to have
in their White House tool box: Fear.
Photo: AP

The new president spent his first months in office coasting on love and popularity. In his health care speech to Congress Wednesday, he rallied after a rough summer with a new round of tough talk.

But with the moment of truth fast approaching on Capitol Hill for the signature item on his domestic policy, Obama seems to lack one item that most presidents find helpful to have in their White House tool box: Fear.

On the left and on the right, interest groups and members of Congress have been eagerly enjoying the rewards—publicity, negotiating leverage—of challenging the president or dissenting from his policies.

That’s usually a practice presidents try to discourage—especially among members of their own party—by making it clear that the long-term penalty will be greater than any short-term gains.

But the practice has been encouraged by this president’s own intellectual and political style—a preference for negotiation, combined with a disinclination toward drawing bright lines about his own bottom line.

In the speech this week, Obama rallied Democrats by saying he would not tolerate GOP distortions of his health care ideas, but also signaled unmistakably that liberals in the end will probably need to join him in caving over their hopes for a “public option” health insurance plan. Even the legendary Rahm Emanuel, cast early on as the White House enforcer, has taken a slightly more statesmanlike portfolio, with no obvious deputy hit man to step in.

It’s got some people in both parties wondering whether there really is a steel fist inside Obama’s velvet glove.

Democrats in Congress told POLITICO they’ve been surprised that there seem to be no obvious consequences for sharp criticism of the White House. Cheerleaders on the left are beginning to urge him, in the words of Maureen Dowd, to be “more Rocky, less Spocky.”

“One of the few areas of agreement on the right and left is that both sides want to see more strength of leadership from him,” notes Dan Gerstein, a Democratic political consultant. “There has to be respect – and fear.”

“His problem has been almost from the beginning that while Democrats on the Hill appreciate him, they’re occasionally inspired by him, they’re not all that impressed with him,” said Bush political advisor Karl Rove. “They appreciate his diffident attitude, but I’m not sure it’s one that inspires either fear or respect.”

Democrats, on Capitol Hill or the White House, aren’t likely to be swayed by taunting from the likes of Rove.

But it is true that as the health care debate reaches its denouement, Obama is almost certainly going to be pressuring liberals in his own party to accept less than they once expected, and conservative Democrats to spend more than they want.

When this moment comes, Obama will likely need find the power of reason is more effective when backed by a demonstrated willingness to crack heads.

“One of the things you lose the ability to do when you step back from the legislative process is to jump in there and be beefy when things don’t go the way you want,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who has criticized the White House’s plans from the left at no apparent political cost.

The decision to let Congress lead the way to health care reform was a strategic one, driven by the failures of the Clinton Administration. Come the fall, if Obama eventually signs major legislation, it may look like a brilliant one.

But the diffidence is also closely linked with Obama’s personality and his governing style: In private debates, advisors say, he likes to hear and restate arguments; he more rarely shows his own cards.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27057.html#ixzz0R2eLUGa5
And he has yet to take a tough stand, or pick a difficult fight, on many of the major policy issues of the day. He continues to search for a Goldilocks solution in Afghanistan – not too hot, not too cold, and projected nothing more than caution when Iranians took to the streets. He has allowed disfavored proposals from allies – like the Employee Free Choice Act – to die of their own accord, professing support all the while.

The question is where this personal and strategic blurriness turns into a more dangerous political sense of weakness, a dangerous perception for American presidents George H.W. Bush learned when Newsweek labeled him a “wimp” on its front page. His son labored to avoid that mistake, his obsessions about projecting strength sometimes coming off as swagger.

When Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) was reduced to abject, groveling apologies for bellowing “You lie!” at Obama during his address to a joint session of Congress, it wasn’t just an opportunity for Democrats to cast Republicans as less than constructive; it was also a reminder of presidential stature and power.

But Wilson, within 24 hours, had come back around to his own defense, and he’s a rare Republican to have paid any price for attacking the president. After early internal debates over whether accommodation would be more effective than confrontation, congressional Republicans have clearly decided that they have little to lose from a fight.

One Republican consultant, Nelson Warfield, traced that realization to the passage of energy legislation through the House over near-unified Republican opposition.

“After the uniform stand against cap and tax [as Republicans deride the bill], there was no price to be paid,” he said.

“There hasn’t been any cost for opposing him – in fact there’s been a premium ,” he added.

Barack Obama -- Virgin“He’s not meeting the basic standard of manhood,” taunted Rick Wilson, a Republican consultant whose clients include the National Republican Trust, which ran some of the earliest, most scathing anti-Obama ads.

Partisan jibes are, of course, nothing new. But Obama’s capacity to inspire fear on his own side of the aisle also remains in doubt. The House Progressive Caucus and members of its Blue Dog minority have taken steady shots at his health care views and his management of the issue without any obvious bruises to show for it, and many take his hands-off stance as a kind of license.

Obama has been accused of weakness before. In the summer and fall of 2007, he found himself reassuring even his own backers that he could face Hillary Clinton. In the summer and fall of 2008, he beat back Senator John McCain’s attempt to cast him as effete.

The Democratic consultant Paul Begala, who is close to the White House, noted that the President gives two kinds of speeches: “Olympian and even-handed ones” like talks on race and on Islam and the West; and tougher stemwinders, like his direct assault on Hillary Clinton at Iowa’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner in 2007 and his speech at last year’s Democratic National Convention.

“Given how screwed up Washington is and how deep the partisan poison runs, it’s for the most part a good thing that he’s coolly analytical and a consensus builder,” said Gerstein, the Democratic consultant. “But what we’ve seen in his first nine months in office is that there are times when that is not just the wrong approach – it’s counterproductive, because it allows people to get off the hook, or take advantage of you – as opposed to a more LBJ-style kick ass, take names way of wielding power.”

Back to top

Enhanced by Zemanta