Proposals to give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over the governance of the Internet could come up at a conference in Dubai in December. The move is reportedly backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other U.N. members.
“Today’s unanimous vote sends a clear and unmistakable message: the American people want to keep the Internet free from government control and prevent Russia, China and other nations from succeeding in giving the U.N. unprecedented power over Web content and infrastructure,” said Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), who sponsored the resolution. “We cannot let this happen.”
The proposals could give the U.N. more control over cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web’s address system. They could also allow foreign, government-owned Internet providers to charge extra for international traffic and allow for more price controls.
One more attempt for Globalism.
Obama’s administration is making noise like it will support this. Time will tell.
Medalists will have to pay hefty taxes for standing on the podium in London. It’s not the value of the medal itself that will require a separate line on this years tax returns, it’s the tax on the prize money that comes with a gold, silver or bronze.
The United States Olympic Committee rewards Olympic medalists with honorariums. A gold medal brings $25,000. Silver medals get you $15,000. And a bronze is worth $10,000.
The Weekly Standard, a conservative news magazine, ran the numbers and tabulated that the tax bill on a gold is $8,986, silver is $5,385 and bronze is $3,500.
They note that Missy Franklin, an amateur who has yet to cash in on her fame with endorsements, already owes $14,000 in taxes from her gold and silver medal. By the time the Games are finished, Franklin’s tax bill could reach $30,000.
I wonder:
How much tax did Mr Obama pay for his Nobel Prize?
Islam, as we all know, is an understanding, compliant, sensitive, all-encompassing religion based on the tenets of love, caring, and the embracement of all values, sexes and viewpoints.
Somali comedian who poked fun at Islamists shot dead
Gunmen shot dead a well-known comedian known for poking fun at Al-Qaeda linked Shebab insurgents in the Somali capital Mogadishu, officials and colleagues said Wednesday.
Abdi Jeylani Malaq Marshale, in his late thirties or early forties, was killed late Tuesday, minutes after leaving Kulmiye radio station, where he worked as drama producer and performer.
“Two men shot and seriously injured Marshale… the comedian was later pronounced dead,” said police lieutenant Mohamed Gaal, adding that “unfortunately the assailants escaped.”
The shooting of Marshale, who also worked for the London-based Universal TV station and who reported having received death threats on several occasions, is the latest in a string of apparently targeted killings against media workers.
Colleagues mourned the loss of a man they called a leader of the war-torn nation’s comedy scene. His shows have aired on Universal TV and are also available on YouTube.
“He had not done anything wrong to anybody, as far as we are concerned, but they shot him in the head and shoulders,” said Yusuf Keynan, a presenter at Kulmiye radio.
“This is a black day for the entire entertainment industry, he was a leader in Somali comedy and everybody liked his performance.”
That said, is there perhaps some “pushback” in France with regard to these incredibly-understanding Islamists?
PARIS (AP) -Authorities say two pigs’ heads were found hanging outside a mosque in southern France.
The local mayor denounced what she described as “intimidation.”
Pigs are considered unclean by Muslims, who are forbidden from eating pork and are currently observing the holy month of Ramadan.
A statement from the office of Mayor Brigitte Bareges in Montauban said the heads were found attached to entrance pillars outside the Salam Mosque, with a large pool of blood on the ground below.
The mayor condemned “this odious and blasphemous act toward the Muslim community.”
France has an estimated 5 million Muslims, a population that has struggled with discrimination.
This might be, alternately, called a “clue.” And not —ahem— “unanticipated.”
I’ve not addressed many of my posts, here, regarding Mitt Romney.
Because, admittedly, Mitt Romney wasn’t my first choice for the GOP. That said, he is what he is and he holds what he holds. And that is this: the GOP choice for president.
I could go green, I could go Libertarian, I could go any number of LOSER parties. They just don’t have the clout, the numbers, the power. Plain and simple. It still comes down to Demorats vs the GOP. And me voting Demorat whilst I still have a brain? Uh, no: Never.
So I stacked my cards up with Mitt Romney. And then I placed, shall we say, a lot of cash with Mr Romney. To the point where I’ve been asked to attend a local dinner with him. As I placed with my local 4th District federal representative, Tom McClintock, some months earlier. When I walk a walk, I also talk a talk and fund a walk. Ask TF or Bushwack. Instead of shutting up, I put up.
And please remember, that said, he was far from my first choice. People talk about the elder elements in both parties — I’d have to place Mr Romney on that periphery. Although, just, a bit at the fringe because he hasn’t attained serial appointments for the past thirty years like much of the Staid GOP. The Comfortable, Elder, Bloated, Moderate, Elite, Back-Slapping GOP. The CEBMEBS.
And as I surmised earlier, some black pastors aren’t quite so taken with Mr Obama’s stance on gay marriage. To the point where they are actively advocating against Mr Obama.
Washington (CNN) – A group of conservative black pastors are responding to President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage with what they say will be a national campaign aimed at rallying black Americans to rethink their overwhelming support of the President, though the group’s leader is offering few specifics about the effort.
That said, Mr Romney had an incredibly-positive visit to Israel which could be summarized in this fashion:
BY BRET STEPHENS
Mitt Romney infuriated Palestinians during his visit to Israel on the weekend by calling Jerusalem “the capital of Israel.” He then added insult to injury by noting—in the context of a discussion of “culture”—the “dramatically stark difference in economic vitality” between Israelis and Palestinians. A Palestinian official called the remark “racist.”
Racist?
How about “Culturist”? Because, truly, the Palestinians exhibit a LOSING culture as contrasted to that of Israelis.
So there we go:
Again, as with Leftists, the truth gets kicked aside.
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making. … In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.
The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”
Lies, ladies and gentlemen. LIES, again and again and again — motivated solely by Leftist philosophy, racist views, divisive tactics, class warfare, ignorance, naivete, inexperience.
On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.
Of course, you wouldn’t be shocked to read THE OBVIOUS that we all — as Conservatives — know:
Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.
Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it “payback time.” Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.
Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.
