RL July 15 15

Iran Think

• 'Do not forget them': Americans held in Iran not part of nuke deal | Fox News
• Buck Sexton Highlights Exactly How Obama Has ‘Boxed the Israelis In’ With Iranian Nuclear Agreement
• Bolton: Deal with Iran ‘an American Munich’
• The Democrats' Strategy: Insist the Deal Doesn't Restrict Inspections | National Review Online
• Obama’s Jihadist Stimulus Package David French 1.1kShares
• Obama’s Nuke Deal Makes Israel The Enemy And Iran Our Ally
• Levin: Iran Deal ‘Planted the Seeds’ ‘For World War III,’ ‘This Is Munich’

Executive

• Jeh Johnson's Reaction to Steinle Family Question, 'Who?' Not Sure if Admin Has Contacted - Breitbart
• After commutations, Obama seeks broader justice changes | Fox News
• Obama’s silence on Kathryn Steinle killing is deafening - The Washington Post

Foreign

• Varoufakis: Greek Deal Is "Coup", Turns Greece Into "Vassal" State, And Deals "Decisive Blow" To European Project
• IMF Rips Pandora's Box To Shreds, Demands Greek Debt Relief "Far Beyond What Europe Has Been Willing To Consider"
• » ‘1984’ Comes To Europe – The End Of Freedom Of Speech In Spain Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
• Snoopers' charter set to return to law as Theresa May suggests Conservative majority could lead to huge increase in surveillance powers - News - Gadgets and Tech - The Independent
• Canada on brink of full-blown recession - Business Insider
• German Police Unable to Manage Volume of Refugees Arriving From Mediterranean
• The Tragic History of China's Secret Labor Camps - Reason.com
• Chinese Corporation Seeks Intellectual Property in US Buyout

Freedom of

• New proposal would strike at web’s anonymity | TheHill
• Freedom Or The Slaughterhouse? The American Police State From A To Z
• Why Is Facebook Censoring News About Planned Parenthood’s Organ Trafficking?

Immigration

• Mark Levin : Numbers You Hear on Immigration Are a Lie
• 127 Unaccompanied Alien Children Caught At Mexican Border Per Day In June
• Rupert Murdoch Pushes Misinformation in Support of Illegal Immigrants
• Martin O’Malley Swerves to Obama’s Left: Promises Amnesty for All, Unlimited Immigration
• Non-Detained Criminal Immigrant Population Up 28 Percent Since 2012

The Fall

• Truth Is An Existential Threat To The US Government
• How the IRS, FBI and Justice Department Are Agents of Modern American Tyranny
• Don’t Think Voter Fraud Happens? Here Are 5 Cases From 2015 That Will Make You Think Again
• The 'Fundamental Transformation' of America's Neighborhoods
• The Four Horsemen of a Looming Apocalypse Victor Davis Hanson 

BtF: The Left, Iran, Ferguson Effect, The Mess, Think, and TheOthers

War Ends, War Spending Goes On

I have not directly looked at how the accounting was done in the 2010 budget. It looks as if the Iraq war spending was added to the budget just to claim the savings. Technically it is savings, you are no longer spending the money but is very misleading. It was borrowed money to begin with. It does not mean you have more to spend. Savings is jusst shy of newsspeak, call it Obama speak.

Ace of Spades

'So here's how he comes up with $1.6 trillion of his $2 trillion in "cuts:" He takes the 2008, peak-of-the-surge cost of the Iraq War as our permanent Iraq War spending baseline. He extends that out ten years -- including goosing it down the line for inflation.

Then he notes that he's ending a war which was actually pretty much ended by our troops (and the Iraqis, too) by defeating Al Qaeda and ending the insurgency.

Then he says,"Hey, man, look -- every year I'm going to be saving money on those Iraq War costs! Count it as a 'cut'!"'

I find the rest of it entertaining, being on blogger I won't repeat.

The Never-ending Surge

"This is, even by Washington standards, unusually dishonest. And coming from the administration of Barack Obama, who promised us “honest” accounting and made a big show of how much integrity and candor he would bring to his governing, this is astonishing."

You take last years subtract what your not going to spend and then add what else you want to spend. That is the way it is always talked about in this manner. So what does this mean for all the spending next year? If we spend like we did this year next year then they "held the line on spending". This is exactly what is argued about the stimulus package, only they are talking about the war ending not the need for stimulus ending.

Fairness Doctrine Passed in the Stimulus for The Internet.

Update: From American Spectator via Gateway Pundit

"Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."'

No Right wing hack here, much more a Libertarian. The progressives have only to say go and it is done. We are going to get gotten by strings. Administrative regulation. Net neutrality was slipped in to the stimulus bill. It has been up for debate before. It is some what confusing and went no where.

Hold Off On Net Neutrality

"Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender's willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customer"

When It was talked about I was confused. I didn't come down either way. Didn't look into it at the time. It may be that some priority need to be set a side but should stay relatively neutral. That would be the case if I didn't think that they were up to something very very bad.

Ace Of Spades and a hat tip.

"According to critics, while language in the FCC policy statement is about limiting (or filtering) porn, the way it's written could easily be expanded to limit or regulate opinion and gives the FCC fairly broad powers to do so. And as we all know, the FCC board consists of political appointees and the balance shifts whenever a new administration takes over that's of a different political party than the previous one. "

Beyond the Fairness Doctrine - Reason Online

"Now the bad news. There's a host of other broadcast regulations that Obama has not foresworn. In the worst-case scenario, they suggest a world where the FCC creates intrusive new rules by fiat, meddles more with the content of stations' programs, and uses the pending extensions of broadband access as an opportunity to put its paws on the Internet. At a time when cultural production has been exploding, fueled by increasingly diverse and participatory new media, we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership."

Hot Air

"The basic line of attack described in the quote, i.e. “localism,” is also familiar as a favored lefty strategy for sneaking in Fairness without calling it Fairness. The Center for American Progress hailed it in its 2007 report on how to “reform” talk radio and Boehner sent a letter to the FCC opposing it last year (scroll down to the last update)."

IDB - Fairness Down Your Throat

"A 21st century Fairness Doctrine, however, would have to extend beyond the airwaves to accomplish its purposes of government-regulated "balance" in the opinions available to the public.
After appearing at the Heritage Foundation in Washington earlier this month, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell gave a videotaped interview to the Media Research Center and warned that "whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called Fairness Doctrine, which won't be called that — it'll be called something else."
And McDowell asked: "So, will Web sites (and) bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views, rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?"
According to McDowell, "this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine." But McDowell believed it would be given a different name and "intertwined into the net neutrality debate."'

This is not exactly how it proposed that they would get the Fairness Doctrine in. As Usual they were much bolder than I thought. Reposting the video(for a third time?)



" the bigger concern should for them should be if you have government dictating content policy"

Obama controls the FCC, or will in a month or so. He just has to tell them that the Internet need to be more "fair" and its over. No law needs to be passed. No review. No discussion. It is done.
He won't do it right away. Obama can just wait till all the pieces are in place. Heath Care in place, unions in control, census done, nationalized banks, endless newspeak and so on. Better list here.

If Obama Wins, Damage Likely to Be Permanent

"Four years is more than enough time to inflict permanent damage on this country, given the large majorities the moonbat messiah is likely to have in both houses of Congress. The Wall Street Journal warns that if Dems get BHO in the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we will enter “a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy.”'

Are they moving us in a progressive direction because they think it works better and the rest is just to keep them in power. I don't like conspiracies. Most of the time I think they are complete crap. But what the hell is going on here?

Speak Not of Any Thing Vaguely Resembling the Truth

Exactly how are the policies of the Bush administration at fault for the economic crisis?

Did he push to have more people in homes? Yes and so did every administration for at least the past twenty years.

Fannie and Freddy became the problem under Bush. Their existence is the problem and Congress people of all stripes are to blame for that mess. Frankly Dems blocked the reforms from coming out of committee. We all know that just because your in the minority doesn't mean you don't have any power Mr. Franks.

Deregulation caused all this. Was it deregulation or pitifully oversight, CONgress? The revolving door of supposed economic magicians that us little people just don't understand.

Greedy Wall street? Their job is to make money for the share holder. Share holders? US? Should some of them be in jail? Yes. Should we destroy any drive to make money? NO.

So....
From Fox via Gateway Pundit

'"If there is somebody who is disgruntled, so be it. But we will have an overwhelming vote," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. She and more than a half-dozen other Democrats touted the bill and chided Republicans for pushing what they called the kind of failed policies that led to the economic crisis.'

I am waiting for Pelosi to break into song and dance at any moment. Gloating? You are, very unfortunately, one of the leaders of the free world and are acting this way? Let me know when she put her fingers in her ears, starts stomping her feet and humming to herself. Grow the hell up.

Children running the country we can save. The failed policies they seem to mean are the tax cuts. Pleeease explain to me what they have to do with the current crisis? How did the tax cuts lead to any of the problems that lead to this. They aren't the only reason for the deficit spending. If you say deficit spending then what the hell are we doing now? The truth. The government is at fault. Congress first and mainly Dems in my mind. We always get some spin from all side. However the collectivists in Washington are now about half a temper tantrum away Orwellian newspeak.

Oh and next commentator that says "we have to so something"(free market?,Hover?) or "no one knows what to do"(Great Depression. S&L, 1990's Japan) well I will just yell at them. I would threaten they with me sending them some books but I am not going to waste the time.

The Brainwashing of MoveOn's Baby Alex

MoveOn is one of those groups that makes it very hard to believe in free speech. People can't spend their day fact checking every ridiculous clam made. I read a study ( salt hear) that your mind believes every thing it hears until it is disproven. If a lie or half truth get to more people than the whole truth the lie is fact to the to some people. Maybe we should be more responsible with what we put out there. The hundred years nonsense is beating a herd of dead horses for anyone that pay any attention to the full statement of McCain and a little history.

There are any number of issues with this newspeak laden propaganda. Bill Kristol in Someone Else’s Alex covers most of it but it goes much deeper. This mother has said that I am going to brain wash my child. That is the only way she can keep him out, it is his choice when the time comes. And what is she going to brain wash him with, this absolute talking to them will always solve the problem, the military is obsolete, their views are always as valid as ours, and we haven't done that much good so we should just stop meddling. No Brainwashing. Teach them to read and do math, logic and its difference from emotion, point them to a library, and give them the facts and arguments on both sides and let them decide. No Brainwashing.