Barack Hussein Obama once promised the American people greater transparency and a less interventionist foreign policy. We have received neither.

If not for talk radio, the Wall Street Journal, the Heritage Foundation, the few real Conservatives in the mainstream media and Conservative bloggers Obama transparency would resemble Mississippi mud.

Iran’s fraudulent elections went on and the Obama administration told the world that America had no business interfering with elections in other nations even while protestors were murdered in the streets or arrested to be tortured by thugs.

Obama’s “Good Neighbor Policy” was the announcement last week that visa services for Hondurans are suspended indefinitely, and that some $135 million in bilateral aid might be cut.

Mary O’Grady Anastasia recaps Honduran events:

The Honduran military in June executed a Supreme Court arrest warrant against Mr. Zelaya for trying to hold a referendum on whether he should be able to run for a second term. Article 239 of the Honduran constitution states that any president who tries for a second term automatically loses the privilege of his office.

Obama and his ilk are playing hardball with the Honduran government for following their Democratic principles and Constitution while siding with Leftist Hugo Chávez and his followers from other Latin countries. 

Chávez went from being democratically elected the first time, in 1998, to making himself dictator for life. He did it by destroying his country’s institutional checks and balances. When Mr. Zelaya moved to do the same in Honduras, the nation followed its Constitution and removed him from office.

Obama was democratically elected, without a mandate, and is acting more like a ruler while ignoring the US Constitution. He has a Cabinet but is filling his administration with unelected “Czars” who are enacting policy without transparency.

Prominent Hondurans, including leading members of the business community, complain that a State Department official has been pressuring them to push the interim government to accept the return of Mr. Zelaya to power.

Ms. O’Grady Anastasia continues:

When I asked the State Department whether it was employing such dirty tricks a spokeswoman would only say the U.S. has been “encouraging all members of civil society to support the San Jose ‘accord’”—which calls for Mr. Zelaya to be restored to power. Perhaps something was lost in the translation but threats to use U.S. power against a small, poor nation hardly qualify as encouragement.

Elsewhere in the region there are reports that U.S. officials have been calling Latin governments to demand that they support the U.S. position. When I asked State whether that was true, a spokeswoman would not answer the question. She would only say that the U.S. is “cooperating with the [Organization of American States] and [Costa Rican President] Oscar Arias to support the San José accord.”

The Obama administration claims it is attempting to find a “resolution that best serves the Honduran people and their democratic aspirations.”  

Defending the Honduran Constitution and Democracy seems like an easy choice but arm twisting and siding with Marxist in Latin America is the transparency we get from Barack Hussein Obama. Indeed!

Healthcare is the “holy grail” to Leftist and their leader Barack Hussein Obama. It’s the perfect method to eventually take full control of the citizenry by dictating who get’s what medicine and professional medical care.

The agenda of the Marxist/Fascist hybrids is in some turmoil at present as the airwaves and this medium, the Internet, have freedom to present opinion and in many cases, facts about the plans Mr. Obama has for freedom and the United States Constitution.

If your a freedom loving person who enjoy’s choice to do what is your rights as a US citizen, or if you simply take for granted you natural freedom of choice then you should really start paying attention.

This website alone has hundreds of pages and thousands of words and backlinks to facts about Obama, Democrats and politicians of all stripes including the unelected staff employees who write bills and amendments to push through radical agenda’s the average citizen knows nothing about.

Suddenly you notice the price of gas has gone up, food seems more expensive with each visit to the grocer, your electric bill is rising and you start to realize something smells rotten and the stench is coming from Washington D.C. and state capitols around the country. Everything you purchase has a larger price tag attached to it. It’s the tip of the Marxist/Fascist iceberg of future government control and 1984!

A U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet back in April. The revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors.

CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board.

“It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity.

“We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished and worries Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

“As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says.

“It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.”

Declan McCullagh, a contributor to CNET,  sas he’s still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that he asked a colleague to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone last Wednesday. He’s still waiting for a response.

Keywords: Government control, spying, private citizens, private companies and ambiguous. Indeed!

Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-MA)

Lion of Liberalism and Liberal Ilk

I already covered in great detail Teddy Kennedy’s murder of Mary Jo Kopechne. Some would call it vehicular manslaughter and/or leaving the scene of an accident. I call it what is was because he could have saved Ms. Kopechne’s live and didn’t act.

In my post Joe C. left a comment reprinted below:

Good riddance to one of the most vile political figures of the last half century, Ted Kennedy. To lionize his “accomplishments” is a slap in the face to the ideals upon which this country was founded.

Kennedy, as much as any politician, was responsible for the subjugation of Americans, and in particular minorities, under the iron jackboot of Progressivism. His legacy will be his utter lack of both shame and conscience when it came to the pursuit of its soft tyranny, all the while free riding on his family’s wealth and status.

He and his ilk are responsible for the welfare state and its oppressive regulatory structure that have brought us to the brink of economic and social ruin. He robbed generations of Americans of dignity and hope by purposely creating a desperate and dependent underclass for no other reason than to secure a reliable voting bloc. Unlike others, I believe that he would approve of the current exploitation of his death to forward his life’s work of destroying the most advanced health care system in the world. It is an ironic but fitting monument to his hypocrisy that he received in his last year of life the cutting edge benefits of the same system that he worked so tirelessly to deny others.

May God have mercy on his fetid soul.

Well Joe, GOD shouldn’t have mercy on a soul now dancing with the Devil. May he burn in hell! But we have more to dislike Teddy Kennedy for, he was an anti-American politician who was nothing like the media is attempting to portray him. They and his fellow political ilk all join in sharing today’s Moonbat award.

From Newsbuster’s:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit in segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of million of citizens.” — Sen. Edward Kennedy, floor of the U.S. Senate, 1987.

Teddy never got bitter; he never got personal; he was a model for us to follow during the Reagan years. Never got petty, never got personal. Here’s more from that same Senate floor speech.

Ted Kennedy seeking to destroy the career and life’s work of Robert Bork. But he never got personal. No, no, no, never got petty.

From Sweetness and Light:

[A repost of a S&L article from December 2006.]

This letter which details Senator Edward Kennedy’s offer to help the Soviet Union defeat Reagan’s efforts to build up the nuclear deterrent in Europe was unearthed by a Times of London reporter in the 1990s after the KGB files were opened.

It got little or no attention, however, until the publication of Paul Kengor’s book “The Crusader – Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

But even then the actual text of the letter (which is in the book’s appendix pp 317-320) has gotten short shrift. Here is a key portion of the letter:

TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

From Mark Alexandar at Patriot Post:

Kennedy has a very long legacy of legislative accomplishments, but not one of them is expressly authorized by our Constitution, that venerable old document he has repeatedly pledged by oath “to support and defend.”

Kennedy’s long Senate tenure was, in fact, defined by hypocrisy.

For example, consider that this fine Catholic boy’s advocacy for abortion and homosexuality was second to none.

In regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, consider his claim during the Clinton years: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” A few years later, with his cadre of traitorous leftists at his side, Kennedy claimed, “The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought.”

Who can forget Kennedy’s outrageous 2006 inquisition into the integrity of then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito? In 1987 when Ronald Reagan nominated Alito to be a U.S. District Attorney, Kennedy’s vote was among the Senate’s unanimous consent. And when Sam Alito was nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990, he again received Kennedy’s vote and unanimous consent from the Senate. But after impugning Alito’s character in his Supreme Court hearings, Kennedy blustered, “If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right.”

No agenda was more sacred to Kennedy than opposing Constitutional Constructionists in order to convert the Judiciary into what Thomas Jefferson called the “Despotic Branch” stacked with jurists who subscribe to the notion of a so-called “Living Constitution“.

But among über-leftists like Kennedy, there is perhaps no greater hypocrisy than the fact that they are among the wealthiest of Americans but pretend to be advocates for the poor. Of course, they never give up their opulent trappings and lifestyles while pontificating what is best for the masses. (I have written on the pathology associated with this hypocrisy under the label “Inheritance Welfare Liberalism“, or “rich guilt” if you will.)

And there is a long list of Kennedy legislation that has proven disastrous.

Second only to the looming disaster of his pet nationalized health care promotion, Kennedy led the charge for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, ending quotas based on national origin. He argued, “[O]ur cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. The ethnic mix of our country will not be upset. …[T]he bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area…”

How did that one turn out?

Yes, the wonderful drunk Teddy would attempt to help the KGB and enemy Russia against a US President from the opposition party. A President who won victory twice with amazing majority votes and astounding mandates from the citizens of the United States.We’ve called Teddy Kennedy a murderer, a drunk, a domestic cheat, womanizer, a bastard against those who opposed him and now, like the other Senator from Masschusetts, a traitor.This will be the last time we provide our “salute” to Teddy Kennedy. He may be buried at Arlington, a disgace in itself, but he will more than likely burn in hell.Yes Joe C., Good Riddance to the ilk some would call a “Lion”, Indeed!

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.