Type the keywords “Internet censorship” into Google News and you will immediately understand to what degree the world wide web is under assault from attempts by governments globally to regulate and stifle free speech. From Australia to Belarus, from Turkey to Vietnam, from Pakistan to Egypt, from Afghanistan to Iran, huge chunks of the Internet are going dark as the Chinese model of Internet regulation is adopted worldwide.

But why should Americans concern themselves with countries halfway across the globe adopting Chinese-style net censorship? Because under Senator Joe Lieberman’s 197-page Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, the United States would formally mimic China’s “great firewall” of web censorship.

When Lieberman himself attempted to debunk claims that the bill provides Obama, and any following President for that matter, with a figurative ‘kill switch’ to disable certain parts of the Internet, he explained that the government was merely seeking to emulate powers over the Internet already enjoyed by the Communist Chinese.

Firstly, despite Lieberman’s spin, the text of the bill clearly gives Obama the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight.

Secondly, and even more alarmingly, Lieberman’s acknowledgement that the United States is seeking to emulate China’s policies on Internet control confirm that the entire cybersecurity agenda is primarily concerned with silencing political opposition to the state, since this factor completely dominates the Chinese model which Lieberman openly invokes as the ultimate goal of cybersecurity.

China’s vice-like grip over its Internet systems has very little to do with “cybersecurity” and everything to do with silencing all dissent against the state.

Chinese Internet censorship is imposed via a centralized government blacklist of any websites that contain criticism of the state, porn, or any other content deemed unsuitable by the authorities. Every time you attempt to visit a website, you are re-routed through the government firewall, often making for long delays and crippling speeds.

China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse and atrocities. During the anti-government riots which occurred in July 2009, the Chinese government completely shut down the Internet across the entire northwestern region of Xinjiang for days. In several regions, the authoritiescompletely cut off the Internet for nearly a year, with many areas only now slowly starting to come back online. Major news and discussion portals used by the Muslim Uighurs in the area remain blocked. Similarly, Internet access in parts of Tibet is routinely restricted as part of government efforts to pre-empt and neutralize unrest.

Major websites like Twitter, Google and You Tube have also been shut down either temporarily or permanently by Chinese authorities.

News websites in China now require users to register their true identities in order to leave comments. This abolition of anonymity is used to chill free speech in that it prevents the user from engaging in criticism of the state for fear that they would be tracked down by authorities.

Chinese authorities are now going further than merely maintaining a “blacklist” of banned websites by instituting a “whitelist” of allowed websites, a move that “could potentially place much of the Internet off-limits to Chinese readers”. Websites not pre-registered with the government would be completely blocked to all Internet users, meaning “millions of completely innocuous sites” would be banned. This equates to requiring government approval to set up a website, which would obviously not be granted if the person or organization making the application has a history of or is likely to engage in dissent against the state.

President Obama himself has criticized Chinese Internet censorship as a hindrance to the free flow of information and allowing citizens to hold their governments accountable, and yet Lieberman wants to hand Obama similar powers.

The model Lieberman has identified as the goal of cybersecurity is centered around keeping people oppressed by eliminating any means of widespread dissent and preventing people from organizing politically. It has nothing to do with providing security against foreign hackers and terrorists and everything to do with strangling free speech critical of the state.

However, this is not merely a war on free speech, it’s a war on Internet anonymity. Even if the government shuts down portions of the web, new networks are guaranteed to pop up to take their place. Indeed, as people who have attempted to downplay concerns about the ‘kill switch’ have rightly pointed out, Obama could already attempt to shut down the Internet using the Communications Act, the PCNAA legislation merely codifies this power formally into law.

The real threat posed by the wider cybersecurity agenda is the implementation of an individual identity system for all Internet users. This is what was proposed by Obama’s cybersecurity co-ordinator Howard Schmidt in a paper compiled with the aid of the National Security Council.

The strategy revolves around, “The creation of a system for identity management that would allow citizens to use additional authentication techniques, such as physical tokens or modules on mobile phones, to verify who they are before buying things online or accessing such sensitive information as health or banking records,” reports the FInancial Times.

Only with this government-issued “token” will Internet users be allowed to “able to move from website to website,” a system not too far removed from what China proposed and rejected for being too authoritarian.

So in this sense, the cybersecurity agenda will ensure a world wide web even more draconian than the Chinese model, where the threat of the government identifying individuals, now that anonymity is removed, who engage in “hate speech” critical of the government and revoking their license to use the Internet, will inevitably chill free speech from the very outset.

To trust the federal government with the power to regulate free speech by means of a licensing system for the Internet and not expect the state to abuse such power is the height of stupidity.Cass Sunstein, Obama’s information czar, openly wrote in a 2008 paper of his desire to combat “conspiracy theories” (ie any information communicated primarily through the Internet which represents a threat to the image of the state) by empowering the government to tax or even ban outright opinions of which it disapproves. This is what cybersecurity is all about, eliminating the voices of the oppressed as big government seeks to quicken its takeover of America with the aid of silent obedience.

The cybersecurity assault on the Internet is also dovetailed with an attack from a slightly different angle. Numerous private networks, from transport hubs, to libraries, to universities, to federal government agencies have installed filters that censor political websites which engage in the “hate speech” of dissenting against the state. Since the entire Internet consists of a fusion of privately-owned networks controlled by corporations such as Verizon, AT&T and Qwest, how long before such filters are standardized?

Lieberman’s kill switch bill and the broader cybersecurity agenda has little to do with over hyped threats from foreign hackers and terrorists and everything to do with placing a muzzle on the last outpost of true free speech – the Internet. The state wants to turn the world wide web into a clone of cable television, a sterile medium controlled almost entirely by mega corporations and regulated by FCC bureaucracy and red tape. Your political blog, no matter how many millions of readers it has the potential to attract, has no place in this newly regulated Internet police state.

Tale action – call your Senator and demand that they vote against Lieberman’s Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or kiss your right to unrestricted, unregulated, and anonymous free speech on the Internet goodbye. The bill has already been approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and is now awaiting a vote by the full Senate.

Find your Senator from the list here or call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Tell your Senator’s office that you will vote them out of office if he/she votes in favor of PCNAA.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is fond of saying, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Well, the Obama Administration certainly has not let the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig crisis go to waste, using it as a smokescreen to silently assault and further diminish American citizens’ personal freedom.

While the nation has its eyes and ears focused on the blame game ping-pong match between President Obama and BP top brass, President Obama on Thursday, June 10, quietly announced a new Executive Order establishing the “National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.”

Claiming the “authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,” President Obama has truly gone off the deep end this time in his most atrocious attempt to date to control every aspect of Americans’ lives.

According to the Executive Order that details the President’s “National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy,” the Council will be charged with carrying out ” lifestyle behavior modification” among American citizens that do not exhibit “healthy behavior.”

The President’s desired lifestyle behavior modifications detailed in Sec. 6 (c) focus on:

• smoking cessation;
• proper nutrition;
• appropriate exercise;
• mental health;
• behavioral health;
• sedentary behavior (see Sec. 3 [c]);
• substance-use disorder; and
• domestic violence screenings.

Making matters even worse, if that is even possible at this point, President Obama will create an “Advisory Group” composed of experts hand-picked from the public health field and various other areas of expertise “outside the Federal Government.”

Let’s consider who the President has sought advice and mentoring from in the past:

• Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who the Anti-Defamation League calls a “Messenger of Intolerance,” and
• Bill Ayers, leader of the 1960′s domestic terrorist group ”Weatherman” that was “responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.”

Now, President Obama is going to seek medical advisors who will be charged with modifying lifestyles and behaviors of those citizens he deems unhealthy? “Paging Dr. Kevorkian! You’re wanted in the White House STAT by President Obama!”

Whether you are a child, a parent, a worker, or retired, the President’s approximately 25-member “Advisory Group” will soon be present in every aspect of Americans’ lives, as the Executive Order prescribes in Sec. 4 (b). Specifically, our new so-called lifestyle behavior modification advisors will be actively carrying out the President’s orders in:

• worksite health promotion;
• community services, including community health centers;
• preventive medicine;
• health coaching;
• public health education;
• geriatrics; and
• rehabilitation medicine.

President Obama’s sweeping plan to enforce “lifestyle behavior modification” is chock full of open-ended target areas, especially when it comes to issues of “mental” and “behavioral” health, “proper nutrition,” “sedentary behavior,” and “appropriate exercise.” The President’s Executive Order is a blatant and forceful attempt to adjust the way Americans young and old think, behave, eat, drink and whatever else free will used to entitle our nation’s citizens to enjoy as prescribed by the Founding Fathers.

If you are feeling stressed-out, sad, confused, hungry, thirsty, bored, or tired, do you honestly trust President Obama and his “Advisory Group” to act in your best interests?

In light of numbing revelations over the last several days concerning fraudulent statements on Barack Obama’s resume, this piece of information curiously comes to light.  The White House has instructed the ‘mainstream media’ not to report what they may discover.

The White House directive was issued as part of a deal struck between the Office of the President and reporters of the mainstream media.

In exchange for being given unprecedented access to Barack Obama, reporters would promise not to report ‘certain matters’ they may discover while covering the President.

From Steve Clemons at The Washington Note:

What I have learned after discussions over the last several days with several journalists who either have regular access to the White House or are part of the White House press corps is that there is a growing sense that access is traded for positive stories — or perhaps worse, an agreement that things learned will not be reported in the near term.

What, exactly, is meant by ‘things learned?’  What information could a journalist uncover while having close access to the President that would be deemed so damaging, embarrassing, or even worse, that the White House is exhibiting a near-paranoia in making sure such information is not reported?

And more importantly, why would any true journalist who is worth his/her salt agree to such a scheme?

Clemons believes that part of the reason is that some reporters who cover the White House want to write books about Obama.

A ‘sell-out’ to the dreaded Capitalism on the part of liberals?  Say it ain’t so.

The agreement between the White House and reporters is mutually beneficial.  The White House gets what it wants.  Any information that it considers to be negative or damaging to Obama will not be reported.  The reporters also get what they want–unprecedented access to the President of the United States, which will help their careers and eventually earn them millions in book royalties.

In the meantime, what are the citizens not being told about Barack Obama?

At least some of that unreported information can be found here and here.

There is more, however.

Questions are swirling as to how Barack Obama was admitted to Harvard Law School and hired as a temporary instructor at the Chicago Law School.  The charge is that they were forced into it by someone or something outside the schools themselves.

These allegations involve the CIA.  And that raises even more troublesome questions concerning the background of Barack Obama.

Did the CIA use Barack Obama as an operative during the late 1970s and early 80s due to the fact that he knew the language of those in the middle of wars involving the USSR, as well as those engaged in terrorism against the United States, in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?  Did he discover something during those years that he is now holding over the heads of certain persons in the U.S. government?

And was his admission to Harvard and his hiring as a temporary instructor at the Chicago Law School the pay-off for his having served the CIA overseas?  Was it the CIA that forced Obama upon Harvard and Chicago?

Or is there yet another ‘sinister force’ behind all of these mysterious scenarios?

H/t to Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs.

President Obama’s recently passed health-care reform legislation includes a surprise for many Americans – a beefing up of a U.S. Public Health Service reserve force and expectations that it respond on short notice to “routine public health and emergency response missions,” even involuntarily.

According to Section 5210 of HR 3590, titled “Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps,” the force must be ready for “involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises.”

The health-care legislation adds millions of dollars for recruitment and amends Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204), passed July 1, 1944, during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency. The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is one of the seven uniformed services in the U.S. However, Obama’s changes more than double the wording of the Section 203 and dub individuals who are currently classified as officers in the Reserve Corps commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

The following is the previous wording of the act as of 2004, before Democrats passed the health-care legislation:

The U.S. Public Health Service website describes its commissioned corps as “an elite team of more than 6,000 full-time, well-trained, highly qualified public health professionals dedicated to delivering the nation’s public health promotion and disease prevention programs and advancing public health science.”

According to its mission page, officers of the commissioned corps may:

• Provide essential public health and health care services to underserved and disadvantaged populations
• Prevent and control injury and the spread of disease
• Ensure that the nation’s food supply, drinking water, drugs, medical devices and environment are safe
• Conduct and support cutting-edge research for the prevention, treatment and elimination of disease, health disparities and injury
• Work with other nations and international agencies to address global health challenges
• Provide urgently needed public health and clinical expertise in response to large-scale local, regional and national public health emergencies and disasters

Members are trained to respond to public health situations and national emergency events, such as natural disasters, disease outbreaks and terrorist attacks.

As stated in the health-care legislation, “The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.”

The Democrats’ legislation recently added the following text to Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act:

‘(b) Assimilating Reserve Corp Officers Into the Regular Corps- Effective on the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

‘(c) Purpose and Use of Ready Research-

‘(2) USES- The Ready Reserve Corps shall–

‘(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;

‘(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;

‘(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and

‘(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 799B) to improve access to health services.

‘(d) Funding- For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for recruitment and training and $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for the Ready Reserve Corps.’

Commissioned officers of the ready reserve corps are appointed by the president, and commissioned officers of the regular corps are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Robert Book, a senior research fellow in health economics at the Heritage Foundation, said the service has been around some time but is not well known.

In the past, its responsibilities have included work related to the National Institutes of Health, the Indian health service and providing physicians for Coast Guard operations, he said.

As first reported by WND during his campaign, Obama called for a “civilian national security force” July 2, 2008, in Colorado Springs, Colo.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

WND also reported in January when a Rand Corporation report proposed the federal government create a rapid deployment “Stabilization Police Force” that would be tasked with “shaping an environment before a conflict” and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or national emergency.

The blogosphere is buzzing with speculation about the amendment. Some comments include:

• This cannot be publicized enough!
• Remember before the election when Obama said we need to have a civil defense corps as well funded and as well armed as the armed services?
• Is it Hitler and the Brown Shirts all over again? It is time for all who love our freedom to stand up and be counted.
• Perhaps ACORN with a different name?
• What about FEMA. Does this mean FEMA is to be disbanded?
• I guess this is how they’ll keep all the doctors from quitting the profession and becoming window washers.
• Amazing isn’t it, they can’t afford to secure our borders, but we can afford this nonsense – dangerous nonsense.
• Let’s all sign up. It will be much easier to take the country back if we do it from within.

Americans have grown used to Congress claiming the right to regulate and control everything they do. But by what right can Congress force Americans to purchase health insurance?

This question is at the root of lawsuits filed by 14 states challenging Obamacare’s requirement that those without health insurance must obtain it or face fines of $2,085 per household or 2.5 percent of income – whichever is greater.

Defenders of the new law point to the constitutional provision empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Commerce Clause to extend well beyond what a common-sense reading would support. In the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, the high court ruled that farmer Roscoe Filburn could not grow wheat in excess of limits set by the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act. It did not matter that the wheat was grown on his own land for his own use – in this case feeding his chickens. According to the court, “control of total supply … depends upon the control of individual supply.” If enough farmers like Filburn grew their own chicken feed, they would not buy it, and this would have an impact on commerce nationwide. The Congress that can regulate Roscoe Filburn’s chicken feed can regulate anything.

Still, Congress never claimed it could force people to take up farming or any other vocation. This is the radical interpretation of the Commerce Clause embedded in the health care bill. It is not a power to regulate commercial activity, but to compel it.

The change is unprecedented. All previous Commerce Clause cases have dealt with regulating pre-existing activity, but if someone is not buying health insurance, there is no commerce to regulate. The clause has never been used to compel private citizens not engaged in commerce to spend money on a government-mandated program. This is a new, extreme and potentially dangerous interpretation.

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law defends the individual mandate on the grounds that the Commerce Clause “includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the area of economic activities, ‘substantial effect’ can be found based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the country.”

This is a significantly flawed view as applied to the individual mandate because almost everything people do or choose not to do has a “substantial effect” on commerce. It would by extension give Congress the power to regulate all human activity or inactivity. Professor Chemerinsky’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause represents a significant threat to human freedom because it gives Congress essentially unlimited power. The Constitution is an instrument created to limit the power of government, not a vehicle to justify its infinite reach. Thus, any line of argument that grants limitless powers under the Constitution is inherently wrong. Any laws justified by such claims are, by the same reasoning, abhorrent to the Constitution and must be overturned.

The states fighting Obamacare in court are concerned with more than just health care. At stake are two fundamental views of the nature of the Constitution. In one, government power is limited. It enables and supports human liberty, serves as a referee to keep the game fair and punishes criminals who break the law. In the other view, government is a coercive mechanism that aims at perfecting a social vision in which personal freedom takes a back seat to the utopian plan where the ends justify the means.

The lawsuits arising from the government health care takeover will help to clarify these issues. They will force the government to justify its actions in terms that will be acceptable not only to the courts, but also by the people. Whether or not the states prevail, it is doubtful that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress will be able to satisfy the public that their rights and liberties, not to mention health and pocketbooks, have to be sacrificed in pursuit of this particular vision of paradise.

From Jewish World Review:

The Reality of ObamaCare

First: Congratulations to President Obama and the Democratic leadership. You won dirty against bipartisan opposition from both Congress and the majority of Americans. You’ve definitely polarized the country even more, and quite possibly bankrupted us, too. But hey, you won. Bubbly for everyone.

Simply, you have nationalized health care by proxy. Insurance companies are now heavily regulated government contractors. Way to get big business out of Washington and our lives! These giant corporations will clear a small, government-approved profit on top of their government-approved fees. Then, when health care costs rise — and they will — Democrats will insist, yet again, that the profit motive is to blame, and out from this ObamaCare Trojan horse will pour another army of liberals demanding a more honest version of single-payer.

The Obama administration has turned the insurance industry into the Blackwater of socialized medicine.

That’s always what Obama had in mind. During the now-legendary health care summit, Obama, who loves to talk about “risk pools,” “competition,” “consumer choice” and the like, let it slip that he actually doesn’t believe in insurance as commonly understood. The notion that Americans should buy the health care “equivalent of Acme Insurance that I had for my car” seemed preposterous to him. “I’m buying that to protect me from some catastrophic situation,” he explained. “Otherwise, I’m just paying out of pocket. I don’t go to the doctor. I don’t get preventive care. There are a whole bunch of things I just do without. But if I get hit by a truck, maybe I don’t go bankrupt.” Apparently, people are just too stupid to go to the doctor — or maintain their homes — if they have to pay much of anything out of pocket.

The endgame was to get the young and healthy to buy more expensive insurance than they need or want. “Expanding the risk pool” and “spreading out the risk” by mandating — i.e., forcing — young people to buy insurance is just market-based spin for socialist ends. A risk pool is an actuarial device where a lot of people pay a small sum to cover themselves against a “rainy day” problem that will affect only a few people. Such “peace of mind” health insurance is gone. What we have now is health assurance. With health assurance, there are no “risk pools” really, only payment plans.

Under the new law, all the exits from the system are blocked. You can’t opt out or buy cheap, high-deductible Acme Car-type insurance, even if that’s what you need. Ultimately, even that coercion won’t be enough to make the whole thing work because the “cost curve” will not be bending.

Profit-hungry insurance companies were never the problem. (According to American Enterprise Institute economist Andrew Biggs, industry profit margins are around 3 percent, and the entire industry recorded profits of just $13 billion last year, close to a rounding error in Medicare fraud estimates.) Rather, health care costs have been skyrocketing because consumers treat health insurance like an expense account. Putting almost everyone into one “risk pool” doesn’t change that dynamic; it universalizes it. And eventually, the only way to cut costs will be to ration care.

In September, Obama got into a semantic argument with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who noted that requiring all Americans to pay premiums for a government-guaranteed service sounds an awful lot like a tax. “No. That’s not true, George,” Obama said. “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is … that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you.”

Stephanopoulos invoked a dictionary definition of a tax: “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.” Obama laughed off the idea that a dictionary might outrank him as the final arbiter of a word’s meaning: “George, the fact that you looked up … the definition of tax increase indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”

OK, put aside your dictionaries. The legislation allocates $10 billion to pay for 16,500 IRS agents who will collect and enforce mandatory “premiums.” Does that sound like the private sector at work to you?

The Obama administration announced on Tuesday it has reserved 3,000 free tickets to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for students in D.C.-area public and charter schools, but not for children who attend private or parochial schools.

Why exclude children in private and parochial schools, asked the father of a parochial school student at Tuesday’s press conference where U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty announced the ticket giveaway.

“These tickets are from the White House to public schools, and we’re appreciative, but there may be other things unrelated to this press conference,” Fenty responded. “That’s a great question.”

The 3,000 reserved tickets will be distributed to students at 11 public schools in D.C. and a few others in Virginia and Maryland. Children at private or parochial schools in the Washington metropolitan area may attend the April 5 event, but only if they are among the people who registered for an online lottery system, by which the remaining free tickets — an estimated 27,000 — will be distributed.

That lottery is now closed, however. “All entries will have an equal chance of being selected if your application was submitted by Sunday, February 28,” the White House Web site says. Lottery results were announced on March 4.

Robert Brannum’s 17-year-old son Nicholas attends St. John’s College High School, a Catholic school in the District. Brannum told CNSNews.com he believes the 3,000 tickets reserved for public school students should be available to all students.

“The White House is a public building,” Brannum said. “The tickets are essentially being paid for with public dollars. So it should be open to everyone, not just going to select categories of students.”

Brannum said he not only supports D.C. public schools, he attended and taught at those schools. But, he added, “There are students in the District of Columbia who attend private schools, parochial schools, or even (are) home schooled, and their parents pay taxes and they should be able to participate in some of the benefits of being citizens of the District of Columbia.”

Mayor Fenty and D.C. Public School Chancellor Michelle Rhee accepted the 3,000 tickets in an Easter basket from Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Children from the city’s J.O. Wilson Elementary School cheered and jumped up and down when they were asked if they wanted to go to the Easter Egg Roll at the White House.

There’s no guarantee that the children at the press conference will get tickets, however. Rhee said it was up to each of the public schools chosen by the Obama administration to decide which students will get the reserved tickets.

The Obama administration has been criticized for failing to support programs to help low-income and minority children attend some of D.C.’s top private and parochial schools, including the Sidwell Friends School where the Malia and Sasha Obama attend classes.

Early in his administration, President Barack Obama called for an end  to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which since 2004 has provided vouchers for thousands of low-income and minority children to attend private schools. Following widespread protest, Obama said the program would be funded to allow those children already enrolled in the program to graduate from the school of their choice, but that no funding would be provided to bring new children into the program.

On March 16, the Senate voted down a measure that would have reauthorized funding for the program.

The Easter Egg Roll dates back to 1878 when President Rutherford B. Hayes held the event after Congress banned egg rolling on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol building.

The theme of this year’s event is “Ready, Set, Go,” and the White House says it will “promote health and wellness.”

“All of the activities will encourage children to lead healthy and active lives and follow the First Lady’s ‘Let’s Move!’ initiative, a national campaign to combat childhood obesity,” the White House said.

The event will feature live music, sports courts, storytelling, egg rolling – and cooking stations.

This one sentence tells you all you need to know about Obama.

Speaking to Katie Couric on Feb. 7, Obama said:

“I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care, and didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.”

Unfortunately???? Damn Democracy! Obama sees it as “unfortunate” that in a Democracy we have to do “a lot of negotiation with a lot of different people”, ie: Congress.

How much EASIER would it be if we didn’t have those pesky branches of government. If only King, oh excuse me, I mean Pres. Obama could just give (force on us) us an “elegant (whatever that means), academically approved” health care legislation.

Good grief.

via George Will

Former “Saturday Night Live” star Victoria Jackson has released a YouTube video that is on the verge of going viral that warns the American public, “There’s a communist living in the White House.”

The video, which already has collected tens of thousands of views:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWi182CMJY8

Her song begins:

It seems these days I’m in a haze
And I can’t concentrate on things.
Can’t eat or sleep, feel incomplete
Feel kind of scared and creepy.
I look over my shoulder lots
And shudder when I watch TV.
I bite my nails and cuticles
And watch my words very carefully.
I bite my lip a lot and fidget with the buttons on my blouse
Why? Because there’s a communist living in the White House

She explains no one but Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and “Huckabee” as well as “those sweet people who drink tea” understand.

“Evidence?” she wonders. “Where do you want me to start?”

She cites the socialist leanings of President Obama’s grandparents, communist leanings of his mother, the Marxist professors he had in college and  his own links to the teachings of Saul Alinsky while related news clips – some from WND – flash on the screen.

“He told Joe the Plumber, ‘Spread the wealth,’ which is a direct quote from the Communist Manifesto,” she continues. Then in office, Obama appointed Van Jones and took over the banking and car industries.

“How much more proof do you want?”

Jackson, a native of Miami, Fla., has been an outspoken opponent of Obama, and has participated in tea parties, including one in Pasadena, Calif., last July where she flayed the president’s policies:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAxAGDF2doc

On the YouTube page, the opinions about Obama included, “He sure as heck is NOT a moderate nor believes in our Constitution” to “When you rattle things off as you have it’s a wonder that some people can remain in denial … oh wait, I watched the Obama supporter videos on YouTube … nevermind, some will never get a clue.”

Said others:

• Sing it, sister!
• Are enough of us paying attention?
• Kudos to Victoria Jackson!
• absolutely brilliant, victoria! in your endearingly sweet, goofy, entertaining way you are spreading the word that we are in deep trouble. after years of fighting and dying to defeat communism, we’ve voted the fox into the chicken coop!
• There’s more to this lady than just the ‘cute.’ Preach it, Victoria!

Jackson was on “Saturday Night Live” from 1986 until about 1992 after she got a break in an appearance on “The Tonight Show” with Johnny Carson – reciting poetry while doing a handstand.

A pair of studies analyzing U.S. jobs and the effects of President Obama’s American Reinvestment and Recovery Act suggest the so-called “stimulus” bill has boosted partisan interests far more than employment figures.

White House projections in February claimed the $789 billion in spending would “create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years” and that over 90 percent of those jobs would be in the private sector.

One year into the two-year projections, however, the studies show that not only has the money failed thus far to deliver on either of those promises, but it also has been doled out disproportionately to districts with Democrat representation.

The first study, conducted by the Republicans of the House Ways and Means Committee, compares the White House’s projections to actual U.S. Department of Labor statistics on a state-by-state basis.

The numbers show that 49 of the 50 states have actually lost jobs since the stimulus was passed in February, and that the only state to gain jobs, North Dakota, still has more than halfway to go to meet White House projections.

And while calculating how many jobs the stimulus package has “saved” is highly contentious (the administration estimates it has created 640,000 jobs), the Republicans compare the promised 3.5 million jobs the stimulus package was supposed to boost to the net 2.6 million jobs the U.S. has lost since the ARRA was passed.

“President Obama said, ‘We’ve seen a significant turnaround in the economy overall since the beginning of the year.’ Vice President Biden said, of the 2009 stimulus law, ‘It has created jobs,’” the House Republicans point out in a statement. “Outside of the White House, though, real Americans find it difficult to … see any significant turnaround or real job creation. Instead, they see only millions more jobs eliminated and millions more unemployed American workers.”

The second study, conducted by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, reviewed the distribution of the $157 billion in stimulus dollars already doled out and found results that further bring up questions as to how and why the money is being spent.

The university study discovered first that there was “no statistical correlation” between the amount of money a district received and its unemployment rate.

The study did discover, however, a correlation between the amount of money spent and the political party representing the district in Congress.

“You would think, right, that if the administration believes in its theory that government money can create jobs, they would spend a lot of money in districts that have high unemployment,” study co-author Veronique de Rugy told Fox News.

Instead, the study found:

• There has been no correlation between unemployment or income and the level of stimulus fund allocation
• In fact, more funding has gone to higher-income areas than lower-income areas
• Democratic congressional districts have received 1.89 times more money than GOP districts, receiving on average $439 million, compared to Republican districts receiving on average $232 million
• In total, Democratic districts have received 73.47 percent of the total stimulus funds awarded.

“During the appropriations process, you’re not surprised to see the Democrats are getting more money, but in this case a lot of the money we’re looking at is going through [the Department of Housing and Urban Development], or Department of Education, Department of Transportation, etc., and they’re following a formula,” de Rugy told the Washington Examiner. “But the correlation exists, and not only does it exist – when you look at how much money we’re talking about, it’s a pretty big deal.”

Furthermore, the study revealed, rather than the White House’s pledge of distributing 90 percent of the funds to the private sector, thus far nearly $88 billion has been spent in the public sector, to only $69 billion in the private, which works out to roughly 44 percent.

The Mercatus study can be read in full on the Center’s website, while the House Committee on Ways and Means Republicans’ report is summarized in the chart below:

During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u6cKd3WCIU

[Watch full interview here]

Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it’s also important to not be “so punitive” that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.

“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren’t subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance.  That’s — that’s basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by,” Mr. Obama said, “penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”

The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.

Read more from Jake Tapper’s interview with President Obama HERE.

From Politico.com:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”

The note was a follow-up to Ensign’s questioning at the markup.