Bitch About Obama

After Obama’s Department of Homeland Security’s direct assault on our constitutional rights, namely our freedom of speech, a Lousiana man was detained in early May simply for having a bumper sticker on his car. It seems you have the constitutional right to wear a swastika, burn the flag, make movies and images about killing or decapitating the president (only if he is a Republican, of course), or display any other expression of left-wing or anti-Semitic extremism; however, you apparently now you do not have the right to express your support of the very constitutional rights that allow such nonsense!

The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me!” underneath it. Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights. By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights. The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty. Those threats included-and include-illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law. [Source]

More from WorldNetDaily:

A Louisiana driver was stopped and detained for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on his vehicle and warned by a police officer about the “subversive” message it sent, according to the driver’s relative.

The situation developed in the small town of Ball, La., where a receptionist at the police department told WND she knew nothing about the traffic stop, during which the “suspect” was investigated for “extremist” activities, the relative said.

A man identifying himself as a police officer from Ball called WND later to report that the town’s records of traffic stops did not include this situation. He suggested it might have involved one of several other agencies that work in the area.

It followed by only a few weeks the release of a Department of Homeland Security report, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, which prompted outrage from legislators and a campaign calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The report, which cites individuals who sport certain bumper stickers on their vehicles as suspect, was delivered to tens of thousands of local law enforcement officers across the nation.

WND is withholding the driver’s name and the relative’s name at their request.

However, the situation was described on the American Vision blog.

According to the relative, it happened this way: Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through the town, which has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by ticketing speeders. He was pulled over by police officers who told him “he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car.”

Are you ready for a second Declaration of Independence? Sign the petition promoting true freedom once again!

“They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes,” she told WND.

Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.

The company that sells the bumper sticker is The Patriot Depot, where Chief Operating Officer Jay Taylor told WND the woman had told his staff about the situation while ordering more bumper stickers.

“It’s rather shocking,” he said. “We supposedly have freedom of speech in our country.

Proclaim to everyone: “Don’t tread on me!” Get your own Gadsden Flag here!

“We joke around every now and then how our spouses will come to visit us in jail,” he continued, citing his products that say, “The Audacity of Nope,” “Taxed Enough Already,” “Born Free, Taxed to Death,” “Bring Home Our Troops: Send the Democrats” and “I’ll Keep my Guns and Money, You Keep the ‘Change’.”

“We hope people realize this is serious,” he said.

American Vision noted the “background check” that was done on the driver.

“Why? [He] had purchased and displayed a conservative ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ bumper sticker.””

The commentator wrote, “The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan ‘Don’t Tread on Me!’ underneath it. Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights. By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights. The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty. Those threats included-and include-illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law.”

American Vision continued: “The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as ‘militia’-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as ‘extremists.’”

“‘Liberals’ and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty ‘extremists’ since at least the 1964 election,” the Vision America statement said. “Small town police misled by phony left wing ‘reports’ are bad enough. Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse.”

WND reported earlier on the DHS report, which advised about the “extremism” that could be expected from returning veterans, those who support homeschooling and oppose abortion, post certain bumper stickers on their vehicles and other factors.

The DHS not only issued that report, but also an earlier memo defining dozens of groups, members of animal rights organizations, black separatists, tax protesters and others as “threats.”

That item, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” reportedly was rescinded almost immediately, but Benjamin Sarlin of The Daily Beast recently obtained and published online a copy of the unclassified memo, dated March 26, 2009.

It defines the “tax resistance movement” – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified.”

It states that tax protesters “have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals.”

Apparently, the DHS analyzes the “threat” level of Internet news websites like WorldNetDaily, for the lexicon defines “alternative media” as “a term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.”

By JONAH GOLDBERG May 30, 2009 –IT’S a lovely thing when the conventional wisdom proves to be so spectacularly wrong.

The entire Democratic Party, not to mention the media establishment, simply took as a given that suave, charming, effulgent, numinous President Obama would mop the floor with grumpy, truculent, sardonic former Vice President Dick Cheney. Yet, on almost every issue he has championed since leaving office, Cheney has won the debate or at least put the White House on the defensive.

From the closing of Gitmo and the placement of terrorists in domestic prisons to the release of the torture memos and the aborted release of prisoner-abuse photos, he holds the higher ground politically or in the polls or both.

Many liberals who take it on faith that Cheney represents all that is evil, cruel and unhip about the Republican Party, not to mention carbon-based life forms, are loath to give him even an ounce of credit for his success. That Obama is backpedaling or off balance on so many fronts, they say, is at best circumstantial evidence that Cheney is having any effect. Well, you know, Thoreau was right: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” The trout in Obama’s milk is the trout fisherman from Casper, Wyo.

There are profound lessons to be learned here. An easy one is that the policies of President George W. Bush that Democrats relentlessly demonized were hardly as extreme, politically or morally, as they alleged. If Bush’s anti-terror policies were half as bad as Obama & Co. claimed, the American people and Congress would reject them wholesale and Cheney’s arguments would sound like the ravings of a madman. That hasn’t happened.

But the more important lesson, at least for conservatives and Republicans, is that arguments matter. If personalities and politics alone drove the issues, then, of course, flannel Cheney would lose against silky Obama. But it turns out that substance is a good counterpunch to style.

That’s worth remembering as the GOP figures out how to deal with Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Conservatives think she’s wrong on the merits, and even though they will almost surely fail to block her confirmation, there’s no reason for them to be ashamed of their stance. If liberals want to call conservatives racist or sexist for opposing the first Hispanic female nominee to the court, conservatives should patiently explain that they wouldn’t want to insult her with the soft bigotry of low expectations. After all, if Sotomayor were a rich white male with exactly the same views and philosophies, you can be sure conservatives would oppose her just as vigorously.

But the lesson runs deeper than that battle.

Conventional wisdom also tells us that the GOP needs to become more inclusive. On this score, the conventional wisdom is right, if by “inclusive” you mean getting more people to join the party and vote Republican. But many people mean something else by “inclusive.” They think the GOP needs to become the Pepsi to the Democrats’ Coca-Cola, indistinguishable save for small matters of taste and marketing.

The conventional wisdom holds that conservatism is in trouble because the GOP is in trouble. But the two aren’t one and the same. The GOP’s conservative principles aren’t necessarily the main reason for its unpopularity. Arguably, Republicans’ failure to adhere to their principles when in power hurt them more. A recent Pew Research Center report finds that 37 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, while only 19 percent describe themselves as liberal. Conservative principles are still competitive, even after eight years of Bush, a staggering recession and the most popular Democratic president in nearly a half-century. A majority of respondents say that the “federal government controls too much of our daily lives” and that “government regulation of business usually does more harm than good.”

Obviously, the GOP is not in an enviable position. But conservatives have been in worse shape countless times before. What they’ve always done is argue their way forward.

Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich each mounted conservative victories by making arguments for their cause.

The cliche is that politics is about “addition” and that the GOP needs to add more Hispanics or gays or women to its coalition, as if such descriptors define people more than their individual aspirations.

Republicans will never win that fight. Nor should they try to out bean-count the Democrats. Persuasion should trump the pandering of “addition.” Conservatives must argue why they are right, not endlessly apologize for their alleged wrongs.

The surest way to lose that argument is by failing to even try to make it. If anything, conservatives owe Cheney gratitude for demonstrating that.

JonahsColumn@aol.com

Pat Buchanan
Friday, May 29, 2009

When you think about it, Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court — in Barack Obama’s America.

Like Obama, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, she thinks “Latina women,” because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about, that appellate courts are “where policy is made” in the United States.

To those who believe the depiction of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal judicial activist, hearken to her own words. Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia told her audience, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.” Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot. Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member. Indeed, she sees this as her mission. Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: “(The) court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.” She and the audience joined in the laughter. Who were they laughing at? Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators. In Barack Obama’s America, that is so yesterday. Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits. Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam. He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant. A problem immediately arose. Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic. Can’t have that. So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests — to produce greater diversity. In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class. Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white. What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down? She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court. Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.” Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes — a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster — Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice. The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama’s America. Not a single male was in the final four. And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a “two-fer.” Affirmative action start to finish. Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them “notable” for “lack of depth.” Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench. The lady is a lightweight. What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do? Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Lay out the lady’s record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in. Patrick Buchanan is the author of the new book “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Friday, May 29, 2009

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi is losing the credibility battle, but that’s not all she stands to lose — her speakership is on the line.

“We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used,” Pelosi emphatically told the American people on April 23. Three weeks later when that statement unraveled, Pelosi’s behavior became bizarre, insisting her congressional colleagues, the director of the CIA and government personnel are all lying.while only she is telling the truth. “They mislead us all the time,” she said referring to the CIA. However with that statement, she tightened the noose on her own career.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich described Pelosi’s actions as “despicable” and “dishonest”, calling for her to step aside from Congress. “I think she has lied to the House, and.I think this is a big deal. I don’t think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters.”

Gingrich went on to say: “She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior… This is really, really dangerous, and it is going to get a lot of people killed, if we don’t call a halt to it.”

CIA records show Pelosi and Congressman Porter Goss, along with the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, were briefed in September of 2002 on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (including waterboarding). The CIA’s version is verified by Goss, who later became the head of the CIA from 2004-2006. Goss writes in The Washington Post, “Since leaving my post as CIA director..I have remained largely silent on the public state. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage.”

Pelosi then admitted that she was briefed by an aide in 2003. This is an abrupt change from her previous statements about water boarding, but she still alleges the CIA was lying about the September 2002 briefing.

Increasingly, Pelosi is caught in a web of deceit of her own spinning. Current CIA Director Leon Panetta’s statements also confirm what she knew, and when she knew it. “As the agency indicated previously in response to congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing the enhanced techniques that had been employed.”

Why is this discussion significant? George W. Bush and his people did what their hearts and heads told them was essential to protect American lives in 2002. Aggressive interrogation was absolutely essential to getting information that would keep Americans from being slaughtered by mass murderers like Zubaydah and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who was also water boarded with good results.) The Democrats’ storyline says the Bush administration was secretly practicing “torture” by water boarding, without any congressional oversight or approval. Liberal Democrats are portraying the Bush administration as rogue war criminals, while their party bears no responsibility, and had no knowledge of what was going on. But as the old expression goes, “Facts to liberals are like crosses to vampires.”

Rather than addressing the issue and apologizing for lying about our intelligence professionals, Pelosi is hoping the public will forgot about the whole controversy and it will fade into the night. Yet that is not likely.

Pelosi is quickly becoming a political liability. Her approval rating stands at 39 percent, well below her party’s congressional approval rating of 51 percent. Pelosi has weathered political scandals in the past, but this time her luck may have run out.

If Obama and Democrats in Congress don’t force her to vacate her post, they are being incredibly hypocritical. They will be standing by a woman in leadership who passively supported enhanced interrogation techniques, “torture” — and then lied about it — while blasting a former president who was truthful about his support for water boarding.

Bush, Cheney and the CIA protected American lives. Pelosi has attempted to undermine the credibility of those who kept us safe, in order to save her own job and status. Furthermore, her behavior flies directly in the face of Obama’s promise of a new era of integrity in politics, and he shouldn’t stand by her while she lies. Pelosi needs to step down, or the Obama administration and their allies in the House should end Pelosi’s disgraceful political career.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

During a speech today on “cybersecurity,” Obama told a whopper. He said the government’s effort to protect us from cyber bad guys “will not include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans.”

Is it possible Obama has never heard of Mark Klein, the retired AT&T communications technician who said years ago that the company shunted all Internet traffic — including traffic from peering links connecting to other Internet backbone providers — to semantic traffic analyzers, installed in a secret room inside the AT&T central office on Folsom Street in San Francisco? There are similar rooms in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, all sucking up internet data.

Whistleblower Mark Klein

Klein explained that the multinational corporation is doing this at the behest of the NSA. It is “vacuum-cleaner surveillance” approach that grabs everything. “Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of [the Bush] administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA’s spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA’s charter or with FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act],” said Klein in 2006.

After the NSA showed up in 2002 at AT&T’s Folsom Street facility, Klein began connecting the dots. “You might recall there was a big blowup in the news about the Total Information Awareness [TIA] program, led by Adm. [John] Poindexter, which caused the big upsetness in Congress, because what Poindexter was proposing to do was draw in databases from everywhere — and this was in The New York Times — draw in Internet data, bank records, travel records, everything into one big conglomeration which could be searchable by the government so they could find out everything about what anybody’s doing at any time of day,” Klein told PBS. “And all this would be done without any warrants. This is how it was presented by Poindexter himself in The New York Times, and that caused a great upset, brouhaha, in Congress.”

On January 16, 2003, Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to suspend the activity of the Total Information Awareness program pending a Congressional review of privacy issues involved. In February 2003, Congress passed legislation suspending activities of the IAO (Information Awareness Office) pending a Congressional report of the office’s activities.

Congress acted after William Safire published an article in the New York Times claiming “[TIA] has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans” (see You Are a Suspect, November 14, 2002).

Of course, the program didn’t go away. Legislators included a classified annex to the Defense Appropriations Act that preserved funding for TIA’s component technologies, if they were transferred to other government agencies. TIA projects continued to be funded under classified annexes to Defense and Intelligence appropriation bills.

“Total Information Awareness — the all-seeing terrorist spotting algorithm-meets-the-mother-of-all-databases that was ostensibly de-funded by Congress in 2003, never actually died, and was largely rebuilt in secret by the NSA, according to the Wall Street Journal’s Siobhan Gorman,” Ryan Singel wrote for Wired on March 10, 2008. “There’s been no real debate in Congress or in the press about whether the government should be allowed to track every Americans phone calls, emails and web browsing.”

Jon Stokes, writing for Ars Technica, notes that TIA technology is nothing new. “TIA-like efforts are still going on” Stokes wrote in 2005, and “the government has been trying to use new technology, like database tech and voice recognition, for domestic surveillance for a long time. And when I say a long time, I mean well before the current administration came into office.” It really got a boost under Clinton in 1995 when the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) was passed. “CALEA mandated that the telcos aid wiretapping by installing remote wiretap ports onto their digital switches so that the switch traffic would be available for snooping by law enforcement.” In other words, Mark Klein had but scratched the surface.

Truman created the NSA in 1952, supposedly to serve as “America’s ears” abroad, but the agency has long served as a secret Stasi-like organization dedicated to snooping on Americans. The NSA, writes Siobhan Gorman for the Wall Street Journal, “and other intelligence agencies were found to be using their spy tools to monitor Americans for political purposes.”

The NSA’s predecessor, the Armed Forces Security Agency, launched Project SHAMROCK in 1945. It obtained copies of all telegraphic information exiting or entering the United States with the full cooperation of RCA, ITT and Western Union. A sister project known as Project MINARET involved the creation of “watch lists,” by each of the intelligence agencies and the FBI, of those accused of “subversive” domestic activities. The watch lists included such notables as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Jane Fonda, Joan Baez and Dr. Benjamin Spock, according to Patrick S. Poole, writing for Nexus Magazine in 1999. The FBI, the NSA, and other intelligence agencies were actively involved in creating the watch lists.

NSA has attempted to keep up on technology as the secretive agency continues to snoop on “subversives” and others the government considers miscreants. In February, trade publications reported the agency is offering “billions” to any firm able to offer reliable eavesdropping on Skype IM and voice traffic. Skype is particularity troublesome because it utilizes P2P networks, that is to say peer-top-peer (no central server owned and operated by a telecom required). The government and the corporate media may tell you they want to crack down on P2P — for instance, the vastly popular BitTorrent — because of copyright infringement, but a more practical reason is because the government has yet to figure out how to crack the file sharing protocol. Skype and BitTorrent account for a large amount of traffic on the internet.

If you think Obama will roll back the government’s massive and unconstitutional snoop program, think again. On April 3, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss one of the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s landmark lawsuits against illegal spying by the NSA. The DOJ demanded that the entire lawsuit be dismissed based on both the Bush administration’s claim that a “state secrets” privilege bars any lawsuits against the executive branch for illegal spying, as well as a novel “sovereign immunity” claim that the Patriot Act bars lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance (see the EFF press release, Obama Administration Embraces Bush Position on Warrantless Wiretapping and Secrecy).

In March, Obama’s coordinator for cybersecurity programs, Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur, quit because he opposed the role of the NSA in the so-called cybersecurity initiative. Beckstrom said “the threats to our democratic processes are significant if all top level government network security and monitoring are handled by” the NSA.

“Obama’s moves drew praise from key lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who vowed to work with the president to implement new security measures as needed,” CQPolitics reported shortly after his “cybersecurity” speech. “Obama said his cybersecurity adviser — who will be a member of both the National Security Staff and the National Economic Council staff — will head a new office within the White House.”

“We applaud President Obama for highlighting the extraordinarily serious issue of cybersecurity,” Sens. Johns D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.V., and Olympia J. Snowe , R-Maine, said in a joint statement. “No other president in American history has elevated this issue to that level and we think him for his leadership.”

No other president so far has had the power to shut down the internet. The Rockefeller-Snowe bill, S 778, would grant Obama dictatorial power declare a so-called “cyber emergency” and pull the plug, or at least cripple networks deemed a threat. The U.S. government is not seriously worried about Chinese hackers or mischievous kids in Latvia (as Rockefeller cited as a danger) but rather fear free and unfettered speech and activism on the part of its own citizens.

Obama’s promise is merely an effort to string you along with a big fat lie. He has absolutely no respect for you or the Bill of Rights.