Jim sent this in:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  – Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff

On Monday, October 19, top talk show host Glenn Beck will expose President Barack Obama’s latest power grab: control of the Internet. The show (aired on Fox News Channel at 5:00 PM EST) is a must-see for anyone interested in freedom and limited government, and it’s a welcome change from the Obama propaganda one gets from most news organizations.

However, on September 3, this writer exposed this stealth Obama-Congressional operation in a column worth reading to understand the danger Americans face when the government sets its sights on the last bastion of freedom of expression — the worldwide web. And, of course, they are using the problem of cyber crime to rationalize their takeover.

A Senate bill (S.773) if passed would give the President of the United States the authority to declare a “cyber emergency” and close down the Internet by disconnecting users.

In addition, it will require professional IT people to be certified by the federal government, something that angers many IT technicians and those who believe in the First Amendment. Americans are being deceived by the news media and their elected officials in Washington, DC and it’s Americans who will suffer from that deception, according to information technology experts.

This stealth legislation is being sponsored by the powerful and highly partisan Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and the liberal Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME), claim critics.

“The fact that a man [Rockefeller] who visited other nations to give them a heads up about our intentions [to invade Iraq] would now suddenly care about security is laughable,” said political strategist Mike Baker.
“But there is no laughing about a government that wants to control cyber space, the last bastion of freedom of speech in our crumbling democracy,” said Baker.

“What irks President Obama and the other liberal-left politicians is that fact that while they’re pampered by the mainstream news media, talk radio and the Internet are not in the tank for them,” he added.
 
During a White House announcement televised on Fox News, CNN and other news networks, Obama said he will appoint a cyber security coordinator—or Cyber Czar—for the critical infrastructure that all Americans depend on.

“We will ensure that these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilient,” he said. “We will deter, prevent, detect and defend against attacks, and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.”

The cyber security office will orchestrate and integrate all cyber security policies for the government, the president said. It will work closely with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure agency budgets reflect those priorities, and, in the event of major cyber incident or attack, it will coordinate government response.

The cyber security coordinator will be a member of the national security staff and will serve on the president’s national economic council.

But Critics point out that any high-tech program that entails government intrusion should be carefully monitored by not only the US Congress but also private sector experts in cyber security and computer-based espionage.

“People went ballistic when they discovered the Bush White House authorized the interception of telephone and other electronic communications by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and rightly so. Yet, I haven’t heard a peep from these same people who claim they are concerned with ‘privacy rights,’” said security expert and former NYPD cop Mike Fitzgerald.

“This may come back to haunt us as the first step down a truly slippery slope,” said former the Police detective and director of security.

“The technology involved is so complicated that it may take computer scientists to discover whether the government is protecting Americans on the worldwide web or spying on them. And what are businesses that rely on the Internet supposed to do if the President closes down the Internet?” asks Sam McCarthy a former police commander now a computer security expert..

The cyber infrastructure is not limited to the federal government. The office will work with state and local governments and international partners to combat cyber attacks, and also will work with the private sector to ensure an organized and unified response to future cyber incidents, Obama stated.

Experts agree that America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber security, which also affects public safety and national security. However, most experts contacted said that cyber security should be the responsibility of the private sector not government officials.

“We count on computer networks to deliver our oil and gas, our power and our water,” said McCarthy.

“Computers help run public transportation networks from the skies to subways, he noted, and hackers have launched attacks on electrical grids,” he said.

Part of the Obama program is a national campaign to promote cyber security awareness and digital literacy. The effort also will be part of the president’s initiative to build a digital work force for the 21st century. However, according to security experts, Obama is seeking powers never before given to a President even during the height of the Cold War.

“Once Americans realize what’s happening it may be too late thanks to Obama’s supporters in the news media. Do a search and you won’t see stories about this power grab in the major media,” warns Baker.

Jim sent this in:

“There is a major problem… between so-called conservative politicians and the conservative bloggers and commentators. The problem is there is hardly any relationship to speak of. Except for think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, there’s scant building of relationships, little cooperation and, if anything, the GOP attempts to avoid contact with the blogosphere.”

With the health care controversy heating up, rank-and-file conservatives are relying on Internet news and commentary web sites to discover the truth about ObamaCare. Unfortunately, according to conservative Internet journalists, bloggers and activists, America’s conservative movement allowed the left-wingers, Marxists and One World Government advocates to form alliances with powerful politicians and deep-pocketed leftists such as George Soros.

Say what you will about the left-wing bloggers and left-leaning Internet web sites, they are a power to be reckoned with, according to a growing number of conservatives. And Democrat politicians with dreams of winning elections, changing American society, increasing their power and creating a New World Order know it.

For example, During the 2008 presidential election cycle, ABC News reported that close to 1,000 bloggers assembled in Las Vegas “to gear up for the 2008 presidential race.”

The big news was that several potential Democrat candidates were there, as well. And they were kissing up to their new media base while receiving feedback regarding their political positions on key issues viewed as important to these “pajama journalists.”

The weekend jamboree was organized by Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the far-left blog DailyKos. Democrats who attended included former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, and former NATO commander General Wesley Clark, all considered potential Democrat presidential contenders at that time.

New York’s Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was absent from that convention due to the fact that she was intensely disliked within the radical left blogosphere because of her support for the war in Iraq, which she used in order appeal to so-called moderates.

One source said that the left-wing blogs played a big role in hurting Democrats who attempted to move to the center of the political spectrum during the primaries and then thel turned their sights on the Republican presidential candidate.

“If you read the right-wing conservative blogs, well, they’re all about ideas, whereas liberals do nothing but snipe and gripe at George W. Bush [and the Republicans]. They’re all about power, winning the next election. Nothing else,” said one attendee.

The DailyKos — said to be the most visited political web site on the Internet — became a big supporter of Howard Dean in the 2004 presidential cycle because he was willing to speak out against the Iraq war. It was largely through Dean’s support on the Internet that he became, for a while anyway, the Democratic front-runner in the 2004 primary. By autumn 2003, he had raised $40 million with help from online advocates.

”Dean’s popularity on the Internet soon garnered him an enormous amount of attention by the mainstream news media, or ‘old media,’ to the point that his mug showed up on the covers of many newsmagazines such as Time. The Dean Machine ran out of steam because … well, he was Howard Dean, and Howard can’t help being Howard,” said political consultant Nathan Tabor.

And it’s not only at conventions that there’s collaboration between Internet left-wing web sites and left-wing politicos in the Democrat Party. For instance, during the confirmation hearings for US Supreme Court Associate Justice Alito, bloggers fed Democrats their research on Alito, complete with half-truths, innuendo and out-and-out lies.

While conservative bloggers and Internet news web sites such as FreeRepublic.com and  NewswithViews.com present ideas and solutions to problems, those on the left denigrate, smear and ridicule those with whom they disagree. Yet, most Democrat officeholders on the national level know that these radicals on the net are an important part of acquiring more power.

There is a major problem, however, between so-called conservative politicians and the conservative bloggers and commentators. The problem is there is hardly any relationship to speak of. Except for think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, there’s scant building of relationships, little cooperation and, if anything, the GOP attempts to avoid contact with the blogosphere.

“Why are they so slow in discovering what Democrats discovered long ago?I believe it’s because most Republican officeholders in Washington turned their backs on their conservative roots as well as the conservative movement in general,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

“While most Americans are duped by the mainstream news media into believing that Republican equals Conservative, the truth is the current GOP is run by its RINO-wing (Republicans In Name Only),” aka liberals in GOPs clothing, he added.

Jim sent this in:

While the American people, the news media and most politicians are absorbed with proposed health care legislation,  two pieces of legislation that were introduced in the U.S. Senate, if passed, will grant the President Barack Obama unprecedented power to access private Internet data, regulate cybersecurity in the private sector, and the authority to completely shutdown the Internet during a cyber emergency.

The cyber security office will orchestrate and integrate all cyber security policies for the government, the president said. It will work closely with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure agency budgets reflect those priorities, and, in the event of major cyber incident or attack, it will coordinate government response.The cyber security coordinator will be a member of the national security staff and will serve on the president’s national economic council.

But Critics point out that any high-tech program that entails government intrusion should be carefully monitored by not only the US Congress but also private sector experts in cyber security and computer-based espionage.

“People went ballistic when they discovered the Bush White House authorized the interception of telephone and other electronic communications by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and rightly so. Yet, I haven’t heard a peep from these same people who claim they are concerned with ‘privacy rights,’” said security expert and former NYPD cop Mike Fitzgerald. 

“This may come back to haunt us as the first step down a truly slippery slope,” said former the Police detective and director of security.

“The technology involved is so complicated that it may take computer scientists to discover whether the government is protecting Americans on the worldwide web or spying on them. And what are businesses that rely on the Internet supposed to do if the President closes down the Internet?” asks Sam McCarthy a former police commander now a computer security expert.

The cyber infrastructure is not limited to the federal government. The office will work with state and local governments and international partners to combat cyber attacks, and also will work with the private sector to ensure an organized and unified response to future cyber incidents, Obama stated.

Experts agree that America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber security, which also affects public safety and national security. However, most experts contacted by NewswithViews.com said that cyber security should be the responsibility of the private sector not government officials.

“We count on computer networks to deliver our oil and gas, our power and our water,” said McCarthy.

“Computers help run public transportation networks from the skies to subways, he noted, and hackers have launched attacks on electrical grids,” he added.

Part of the Obama program is a national campaign to promote cyber security awareness and digital literacy. The effort also will be part of the president’s initiative to build a digital work force for the 21st century. However, according to security experts, Obama is seeking powers never before given to a President even during the height of the Cold War.

“Once Americans realize what’s happening it may be too late thanks to Obama’s supporters in the news media. Do a search and you won’t see stories about this power grab in the major media,” warns Baker.

The other day when I was bemoaning yet another disappointing date (a gentleman I met by chance via the internet when he came across my book website) to a sympathetic girlfriend, she blamed the information superhighway for the breakdown of respect I repeatedly bent her ear about during the course of our one-hour conversation. According to her theory, we should blame cyberspace for making it too easy for liars to lie and players to play.

And while I understand and even share her sentiment, which does contain some merit, I submit that it is merely a symptom of a much larger problem that has its roots in every liberal Baby Boomer’s favorite decade— the “illustrious” Sixties. While today’s traditional-minded Americans rightfully rail against cultural killers like the breakdown of the family; the prevalence of sexual promiscuity among pre-teens and teens; and the objectification of little girls (as a quick trip through any girls’ department in a retail store will affirm), it would also be useful to acknowledge the genesis and evolution of these formidable problems.

After all, our current cultural crisis did not develop overnight; nor will it be a simple task to undo an unfortunate phenomenon that has been over 40 years in the making. And while it would be quite convenient to place the blame fully on technology, that’s a bit little like blaming the messenger for an unpleasant announcement: simply because modern communication provides another (admittedly easy) vehicle through which to deceive, does not deem it culpable for the preponderance of deceivers.

As someone who was raised in a traditional home with parents who not only espoused values like respect, integrity and honesty—but actually demonstrated them in their daily interactions—dating and relating in the modern world has been and continues to be quite a challenge for me. If practice indeed makes perfect, I should’ve achieved a Gold Medal by now; unfortunately in the stiff competition between conservative upbringing and contemporary culture, there truly are no winners, although the latter seems to prevail most of the time. And for that, I hold those self-proclaimed “champions of women,” the Betty Freidan’s, Gloria Steinem’s and Jane Fonda’s of the world at least partially responsible.

Once upon a time, long before the “summer of love” (which should be more accurately titled “the summer of free sex without commitment”), there was a quaint little practice in America known as courtship, whereby if a man found another woman to be attractive, he would invite her on a date, fully expecting to pay for dinner, regardless of whether or not he felt a “spark” within two minutes of talking to her across the table. Cognizant of three possible options, e.g. the first date could pave the way for 1). a second date only; 2). an exclusive relationship; or 3). end with the understanding that there would be no future dates for a myriad of reasons, the man simply expected he’d have to make this small investment of time and money. Call it the price of dating, if you will.

But as this week’s events involving David Letterman and Sarah Palin demonstrate, we are (sadly) light-years away from the world of Ozzie and Harriet; Leave it to Beaver; and I Love Lucy. Somewhere between the 1960s and now, it became acceptable to reduce females to sex objects, rather than desirable potential girlfriends or wives to be wooed with dinner dates, flowers and—most importantly, respect. Spurred on by alleged feminists who believe it a matter of equality for women to imitate the bad behavior of some men (i.e. engage in meaningless sex with multiple partners without the benefit of a verbal commitment, let alone a ring), our culture began to change for the worse.

Sometimes referred to as “the mother of modern feminism,” Betty Freidan, author of The Feminine Mystique, sought to “free” women from the shackles of marriage and motherhood— the very foundation of a strong and prosperous nation. But what conservatives view as an honorable life purpose, women such as Freidan condemned as indentured servitude:

“Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and brownies, lay beside her husband at night—she was afraid to even ask herself the question ‘Is this all?’”

I am not quite sure how (or even if) Freidan conducted the necessary research to make such a sweeping pronouncement. Suffice it to say, I am beyond grateful that my own mother took great pleasure in raising her five children (including one with special needs); nurturing her marriage; managing the books for my father’s medical office; volunteering for various school boards and organizations; and cultivating genuine, lasting friendships with other women who were also happily engaged in the same activities.

Of course, I am also eternally grateful that my parents were pro-life, having been conceived at the worst possible time financially speaking, when they already had four young mouths to feed, a daunting mortgage payment and a dearth of furniture in their two-story suburban colonial.

But I digress.

Somewhere between Woodstock (every self-absorbed Boomer’s most cherished memory) and The Vagina Monologues (Eve Ensler’s incredibly distasteful play that did more to objectify women than any man ever could), we reached a point in this country where a woman’s worth in pop culture was judged by the quality and size of her breast implants; her prowess in the bedroom (a once private matter reserved for her and her husband); and if she happened to be a celebrity, her latest drunken sexcapade with the pool boy while her young children were left unattended in her Beverly Hills mansion.

And then there’s the Internet.

As with everything else, it is not the invention itself, but its misuse by dishonorable people that presents the problem. For the most part, the Internet has been a positive force in my life, enabling me to self-publish my novel, write political and cultural commentary for a variety of websites, and express my views as a co-host on countless Blog Talk Radio programs. But with respect to dating, it has wrought more harm than good.

Case in point: this past weekend. To make a long story short, a gentleman (ahem) unexpectedly contacted me via email, after coming across my website in cyberspace. For the next two weeks, we engaged in regular communication in the form of email and telephone conversations. Seemingly holding much in common, including a desire to save the United States from ruination, it seemed a logical conclusion that we meet in person to determine if there was any potential for a real relationship.

Granted, geographical distance between the man and the woman does present a unique challenge, as does older age. Unlike the America of the past where families tended to live together in the same geographical area, and the daters in question tended to be much younger (most folks in their 30s and above having already been joined in the bonds of marriage), today the “safety net” of having a man pick up a woman at her parent’s home is almost non-existent. In this example, my suitor would have to drive about six hours just to meet me. An inconvenience? Possibly, but also a fact of life in the contemporary dating scene.

For obvious reasons, including my own personal safety, I’d set the expectations well in advance: the man who desired to make my acquaintance in order to determine if we had a corresponding physical “spark” to accompany the intellectual one, would have to stay at a nearby hotel. Over the phone, he appeared quite understanding about the arrangement. I’d also informed a few close friends and family of his name, hometown and location of our get-together, simply as a precaution. And since the suitor in question was a self-described “old-fashioned kind of guy from Texas,” it never occurred to me he’d take issue with buying me a $20 entrée at a mom-and-pop establishment by the beach.

Admittedly, along the way I’d ignored some serious warning signs such as his distasteful tendency to divulge intimate details of previous relationships, his confession that the only photo he’d sent was over 12 years-old and the fact that (on his way over in the car!) he phoned to alert me that the birth date on his Facebook profile was indeed, false. In actuality, he was much older than the posted birth year would suggest. And in spite of my inquiries, he begged me to keep an open mind and wait for the answer until I met him in person. I chalked it up to nervousness and decided to give the guy the benefit of the doubt; after all, he was taking some time and expense to meet me. I could cut him some slack.

Note to self: never do that again!

When at last we met face-to-face, I admit I was a bit disappointed inasmuch as he did not remotely resemble his photo. However, being an open-minded person, I determined to spend the next few hours listening and talking, understanding that the heart and soul within supercedes the exterior package. And yes, while I do believe in “chemistry,” I don’t simply base it upon the first two minutes of a physical interaction involving a friendly hug and a warm greeting. Sure, in many instances, it does develop within a matter of seconds; however, in my experience, this isn’t always the case.

This man and I went on to have dinner, although his reluctance to do so should’ve provided another clue. Unknown to me, “Zack” had already determined back at the Comfort Inn parking lot that the elusive “spark” he was seeking was nowhere to be found in Deerfield Beach—at least not with me. And as I mentioned, the feeling was mutual, although I was willing to give the guy a chance. As we sat at the dining table, he mentioned how “full” he was from lunch, having been treated to the Cheesecake Factory earlier in the day by a client. Undaunted and hungry (it was dinnertime after all), I ordered a chicken entrée, which came with a side of unwanted pasta, a dish I willingly gave him once the waiter arrived with the home-cooked food.

After he paid for our meal (the water-with-lemon was free as far as I know), we proceeded to walk along the beach, talk and even dance for the next several hours. If Zack wasn’t feeling the “spark” he must’ve been desperately trying to create one because at various points throughout the evening, he’d put his arm around me and even rub my bare feet and place his head on my thigh as we sat by the sand. Alas, these efforts were in vain as he later announced in no uncertain terms back at the hotel parking lot that he just wasn’t that into me.

Fair enough, especially considering the feeling was mutual; however, for him the disappointment ran so deep he didn’t even want to meet for breakfast the next morning. And although I am no psychic, I picked up on a subtle vibe that my crestfallen date truly resented having to sacrifice any gas, time and money for a girl he’d only ever regard as a friend. For him, no initial spark = Dutch treat; it also meant he’d be hitting the highway first thing in the morning, rather than spend any quality time with a new platonic relationship. Too bad he hadn’t enumerated his ground rules from the start to this “old fashioned kind of girl.” When I inquired about attending a free concert as buddies the next evening he protested, “But what if I see a girl there I am interested in? I won’t be able to talk to her because I’ll be with you!”

Needless to say, that was my cue to leave in spite of his protests to “talk it out” some more. This unfortunate interaction led to a few emails back and forth, including this little gem, so eloquently written without the benefit of proper grammar and punctuation (bold emphasis mine):

its more than just me paying for ur dinner…First of all, we were not in the “dating routine”…I had never even met u before so i would hardly say we were dating…Secondly, i expended money, time, gas and personal committment to drive there and meet you…Dont u think the least u could have done is take ME out to dinner, split the bill, or found me free acomodations??…I think it highly presumptuous of you to just assume things that had not even matured yet….Once again, u are over assuming…my coming to see you was not a “date” as in romance or after having established more between us…What it was was to see if there might be a spark where a romantic relationship could grow…Obviously it wasnt there…Apparently from ur reply letter, you considered this a date and as such the man should be responsible to pay for everything…Im sorry for that assumed delusion…Maybe u should grow up a little and understand that when someone (whom u dont know) has invited u to meet them for the first time, it is proper etiquette to split monetary charges between the two and to even extend accomodations to the weary traveler…If we had already established a romantic interest in each other prior to this weekend, then everything u said in this email would be correct, but that simply is not the case…Even u yourself said i knew what the ground rules were before i came; meaning no sex or intimacy…That being the case, how could u expect to have received more than what u got..Daria, when i go out with my female friends (of whom i have no romantic interest) we always split evenly all things we do….Why couldnt u have extended the same graciuosness to me until the two of us decided whether or not there was a romantic spark to further the relationship along into something more that just friends??…You are stil a very sweet girl and I wish u the best in all you do…

Silly me! I should have realized from the start that the fact I wasn’t planning to put out would automatically transform my evening from a “first date” with a guy I met online to an actual audition, whereby if my mere presence didn’t generate those elusive fireworks within his entire being, I would immediately lose all rights to the hotly contested $20 dinner. Rather than complain about this modest output of cash, Good ol’ Zack ought to thank his lucky stars that I am not a Boca Babe, or he’d have been out a heckuva lot more money. Oh how I sometimes wish I had time machine to transport me back to the Fifties! In spite of the benefits of modern technology, in a culture gone to extremes, a good man is still hard to find.