Posts Tagged ‘dictatorial power’

Mubarak Not Only Dictator Who Wants To Control Internet (Btw, Our Dictator’s Name Is Barack Too)

January 29, 2011

Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak is a dictator – that’s right, Vice President Biden, I said “dictator” – who just exercised his dictatorial control by shutting down the internet in Egypt.  From The Wall Street Journal:

In the face of mounting political unrest, Egypt took the unprecedented step of severing all Internet connections and shutting down its cellphone services—with the cooperation of international firms.

Egyptian authorities asked mobile operators to “turn down the network totally,” said Vittorio Colao, chief executive of U.K.-based Vodafone Group PLC, which owns 55% of Egypt’s largest carrier, Vodafone Egypt.

ESHUTDOWN

Mr. Colao, speaking Friday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said the request was legitimate under Egyptian law, but he hoped the government would reverse course soon. […]

Other countries attempting to undermine or contain political uprisings in recent years—from Myanmar in 2007 to Iran and China in 2009—have also clamped down on Internet access and cellphone use.

But Egypt’s crackdown appears unique in both scale and synchronization, particularly for a country with such an advanced infrastructure with so many providers, according to Internet security experts.

“What’s shocking about this is that they didn’t just take down a certain domain name or block a website—they took the whole Internet down,” said Mr. Cowie.

Yes, Hosni Mubarak and the thugs in Myanmar are DICTATORS.  And dictators love to control and suppress information.

But don’t forget our dictator, whose name also happens to be Barack.  He wants to be a dictator, too:

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet
Published August 28, 2009
FOXNews.com

A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a “kill switch” to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks — a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.

“In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a ‘cyber-emergency,’ which they didn’t define,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

“We think it’s a very bad idea … to put in legislation,” he told FOXNews.com.

Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.

“The current language is so unclear that we can’t be confident that the changes have actually been made,” he said.

The new legislation allows the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online — a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president “amorphous powers” over private users.

But, hey, it gets even worse in the new and improved version being taken up by the Democrat-controlled Senate this year: now Obama can shut down the internet any vaguely-worded time Obama thinks its necessary without judges having any say-so in the matter:

According to a report Monday at CNET News, the bill will be back on the Senate agenda in the new year. But a revision introduced into the bill in December would exempt the law from judicial oversight. According to critics, this change would open the law to politically-motivated abuse by any administration, no matter how narrowly the law is interpreted.

“The country we’re seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court,” Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which represents online companies such as eBay and Yahoo, told CNET. “Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure.”

“Judicial review is our main concern,” he added. “A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance.”

Under the proposed law, the Department of Homeland Security would draw up a list of Internet “critical infrastructure” it deems vital to the proper functioning of the web and US economy. The president would then be granted the power to order some part of that critical infrastructure to be shut down, in case of a “national cyberemergency.”

While the bill does lay down what constitutes “critical infrastructure,” critics say it’s not clear what constitutes a “national cyberemergency.” Nor is it clear what other powers the president may exert, aside from shutting down parts of the web.

Many people have the unfortunate tendency to fail to see just how quintessentially fascist this president, his party and the cozy liberal media-industrial news complex which undergird that political party truly are.  It wasn’t all that long ago that Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer compared conservative political speech to porn that should be regulated.  Democrats have been calling for some version of a “Fairness Doctrine” regulating and controlling (and even subsidizing leftwing journalists) political speech for years and years.  And the Tucson, Arizona shooting in which Democrats and the mainstream media immediately combined to demonize conservative speech – notwithstanding that conservatives had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting – simply reinforces the mortal danger that free speech is in from the left these days.

All of the above are as fascist as they think they can get away with.  And they keep pushing the envelope toward more fascist big government totalitarianism.

Liberals and progressives want power.  And then they want more power.  And then they want more.  And more.

Frankly, they want to amass enough power so that, as Barack Obama himself put it:

We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…

They want to control people’s lives so that they can be the sole determiners of who wins and who loses.  They want to amass enough power so that they are invulnerable to the will of the people.

As Democrat John Dingell put it:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Obama wants dictatorial power so that he can become a better dictator.  And the only thing that is stopping him is a Constitution that Democrats constantly undermine and a finicky entity called “the people.”  Democrats have already reinterpreted the Constitution into meaninglessness, and the will of the people?

It’s not going so well for him now, but we’re only one election away from tyranny.

We’re sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed.  Please hang up and try your vote again.

Advertisements

Obama Administration A Fifth Column Destroying American Competitiveness From Within

June 10, 2009

Obama has a plan to make American business as competitive in the world economy as the proverbial Dodo bird for the sake of “economic justice.”

Obama Tells American Businesses to Drop Dead: Kevin Hassett

June 8 (Bloomberg) — I’ve finally figured out the Obama economic strategy. President Barack Obama and his team have been having so much fun wielding dictatorial power while rescuing “failed” firms, that they have developed a scheme to gain the same power over every business. The plan is to enact policies that are so anticompetitive that every firm needs a bailout.

Once that happens, their new pay czar Kenneth Feinberg can set the wage for everybody and Rahm Emanuel can stack the boards of all of our companies with his political cronies.

I know, it sounds like an exaggeration. But look at it this way. If there were a power ranking of U.S. companies, like the ones compiled by football writers for National Football League teams, Microsoft would surely be first or second to Google. But last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer came to Washington to announce what Microsoft would do if Obama’s multinational tax policy is enacted.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said, “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S.” If Microsoft, perhaps our most competitive company, has to abandon the U.S. in order to continue to thrive, who exactly is going to stay?

At issue is Obama’s policy to end the deferral of multinational taxation.

The U.S. now has about the highest combined corporate tax rate, second only to Japan among industrialized countries. That rate is so high that U.S. firms have an enormous disadvantage versus competitors. The average corporate tax rate for the major developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2008 was about 27 percent, more than 10 percentage points lower than the U.S. rate.

Tax Burden

U.S. firms have nonetheless prospered because our tax code allows a business to set up a subsidiary in a low-tax country. When that subsidiary earns profits, they are taxed at the rate of that country, and don’t face U.S. tax until the money is mailed home.

The economically illiterate partisan Democratic view is that this practice is unpatriotic and bleeds jobs from the U.S. The economic reality is that American companies use this approach to acquire market share overseas. The alternative is losing the business to foreign competitors.

Don’t just take my word for it. A recent paper by Harvard economists Mihir Desai and C. Fritz Foley and Berkeley economist James Hines and published in the distinguished American Economic Review, gathered data on American multinationals to explore the impact of foreign investments on domestic U.S. activity.

Encourage Overseas Sales

Their conclusion was striking. The authors found that “10 percent greater foreign capital investment is associated with 2.2 percent greater domestic investment, and that 10 percent greater foreign employee compensation is associated with 4 percent greater domestic employee compensation. Changes in foreign and domestic sales, assets, and numbers of employees are likewise positively associated; the evidence also indicates that greater foreign investment is associated with additional domestic exports and R&D spending.”

So when firms expand their operations abroad, taking advantage of the lower foreign tax rates, it helps their workers in the U.S. Higher sales abroad (surprise, surprise) are good for domestic workers.

It is worth noting that this study, which is confirmed by a boatload of evidence elsewhere, was coauthored by the same James Hines who recently wrote a sweeping review of international tax policy with Obama’s top economist, Larry Summers. Summers has to know what the literature says.

Inexplicable Stance

So the question is, why does Obama advocate a policy that so flies in the face of everything that economists have learned? How could Obama possibly say, as he did last month, that he wants “to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens?” Further, how could Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner call a practice that top scholarship has shown increases wages and employment in the U.S. “indefensible?”

I have to admit I am at a loss. Maybe it is good politics to bash American corporations, and Obama isn’t really serious about making this change happen. But if the change is enacted, and domestic corporate taxes aren’t reduced to offset the big tax hike, the result will be a flight from the U.S. that rivals in scale the greatest avian arctic migrations.

If that occurs, the firms that stay in the U.S. will be at such a huge tax disadvantage that they will absolutely need a “rescue.”

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Is the destruction of America deliberate?

It’s certainly possible.

Another possibility is that Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner have never actually had to make a payroll, or run an actual business.  It’s all just monopoly money for these guys.  They live in a world of theory, and their theories are all crap.