Obama's agenda relies on the tactic of overloading the
system
Items on this page are in
chronological order or in order of discovery . . .
Jobs Stimulus
In his January 5th, 2009, radio address, Obama uses some new
language when discussing what he wants the stimulus package to achieve
in terms of jobs. First off, he has a name for the package -- the
"American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan."
says he wants to
"create three million new jobs" -- this is a change from a few weeks
ago, when he said he wanted the plan to create OR SAVE two million jobs.
He says the "No. 1 goal of my plan ... is to create three million
new jobs, more than 80 percent of them in the private sector."
If
you do the math: 20 percent of three million means 600,000 new
government employees.
600,000 new
government employees = 576,00 Democratic Party jobs
Obamanomics 101
Back in February, 2009, Obama met with a group of CEOs in the White
House, seeking their support for his economic stimulus package. One of
his chief targets was Jim Owens, the head of Caterpillar in Peoria,
Illinois. The day after the session in Washington, the president flew to
Peoria to speak at the Caterpillar factory and took Owens and newly
elected Republican representative Aaron Schock, the youngest member of
Congress at 28, with him.
Aboard Air Force One, Obama chatted
amiably with Owens and Schock. Owens showed Obama two pages of a
PowerPoint presentation. The first gave the details of China's stimulus,
devoted mostly to infrastructure. The second was Obama's stimulus
(drafted by congressional Democrats), with far less money going to
building and repairing roads, bridges, and other projects. That was the
problem, Owens told Obama: too little for infrastructure and thus too
little to engage companies like Caterpillar, which had just furloughed
20,000 workers.
When Obama delivered his speech in Peoria, he
either hadn't understood what Owens told him or simply refused to accept
it. The stimulus package, he said, would be "a major step forward on our
path to economic recovery. And I'm not the only one who thinks so."
Owens, the president said, had told him that "if Congress passes our
plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were
just laid off."
This was not only untrue, but proved to be
embarrassing for Obama.
Obama unveiled much of his
economic strategy in Wisconsin, while campaigning in 2008: He wants to spend $150
billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an
infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He
wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants
to "reopen" trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to
raise the barriers to free trade.
He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers,
and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax
credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the
earned income tax credit, the EITC, and triple the EITC benefit for
minimum-wage workers. The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around
$800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won’t pay for it.
It’s the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden
in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.
This isn’t free enterprise. It’s old-fashioned-liberal tax, and
spend, and regulate. It’s plain ol’ big government. The only
people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Mr. Obama’s
tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a
52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6%
dividends tax, and a 55% estate tax.
Not only is Mr. Obama the big-spending candidate, he’s also the
very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.
Obama doesn't understand the vital role of capital formation in creating
businesses and jobs. He doesn't understand that without capital,
businesses can’t expand their operations and hire more workers?
Redistribution
Obama's 'emergency' economic plan -- raiding corporate
America
On Friday, Obama
announced
an "Emergency Economic Plan" that would give families a stimulus check
of $1,000 each, funded in part by what his presidential campaign calls
"windfall profits from Big Oil."
The first part of Obama’s plan is an emergency energy rebate ($500 to
individual workers, $1,000 to families) as soon as this fall.
Separately, Obama’s plan includes a $50 billion stimulus package that
his campaign claims would save more than 1 million jobs, with half of
the money going to state governments.
Obama announced his plan for a windfall profits tax on oil companies on
June 9 in Raleigh, N.C., as he launched a two-week economic tour after
clinching the Democratic nomination.
Friday’s proposal says Obama "is proposing to offset the cost of his
emergency energy rebates over the next five years by enacting a windfall
profits tax on big oil companies."
The windfall-profits tax tried by Jimmy Carter resulted in decreased
domestic production and forced us to import more oil -- it did nothing
to relieve weary consumers.
The Congressional Research Service analyzed the Carter-era
windfall-profits tax and called it a complete failure.
Spend, Spend, Spend
On the first day of what is to be a two-week economic tour around
the country, Barack Obama said Monday that lawmakers should inject
another $50 billion immediately into the sluggish U.S. economy.
"Such relief can't wait until the next president takes office. ...
That's why I've called for another round of fiscal stimulus,
an immediate $50 billion to help those who've been hit hardest by
this economic downturn," Obama told a crowd in Raleigh, N.C.
And he's going to take it from you to give it
to them -- it's what socialists do.
Obama Gets What He Wanted -- Collapse
Do you think the recent stock market
collapse or troubles in the banking system are good news?
Well, according to CNN's Candy Crowley, the Obama campaign does.
On Monday's "Anderson Cooper 360," after CNN senior political analyst
David Gergen said "what happened over the weekend with the economy and
the bottom falling out of the financial markets...is the opportunity for
Obama to seize the momentum back on his side," Crowley actually said, "[J]ust
as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section,
along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street...I mean, this
is what they wanted."
I kid you not. The transcript of this disgraceful exchange follows
(video embedded right, at link)
"As I said before, I think that one of the things we have to determine
is how we can be most helpful. It’s my sense that the most helpful thing
we can do right now is, uh, to let everyone know this is a sufficiently
important problem. I can be helpful, and I am prepared to be anywhere,
anytime. So, uh, I think the message is, if I can be helpful, I am
prepared to be there at any point."
Bear in mind that Senator Obama wants to run the executive branch
starting in January. At a moment when his country needs leadership and
Congress is meeting to determine policy that will affect the executive
branch for the next several months and years, he doesn’t consider his
role as a Senator important enough to take part in those negotiations.
"If I can be helpful," Obama says, indicating that he doesn’t consider
fulfilling his current responsibilities helpful or even desirable.
Obama Sits On Energy Producers
When Obama
told a Pennsylvania audience this past weekend that, "We can't drill
our way out of this," he was repeating the same line that Nancy Pelosi
used days earlier and that Harry Reid used on Wednesday.
The "Big Three" Dhimmicrats all agreed, they're against a Republican
proposal to lift a ban on oil drilling off the Florida coast, saying it
would take at least 10 years for that to offer motorists relief at the
pump -- the same argument dhimmicrats have been making for 20 or 30
years.
That's what they said during the Clinton Administration, and the Carter
Administration before that.
Obama is against every available option -- exploration, drilling,
refineries, clean coal and nuclear. His alternative? -- "clean
energy" -- which is also 10 years away.
If Clinton and his allies in Congress hadn't used this same excuse to
block drilling in ANWR in 1997, we'd be pumping oil there today.
Why are they so desperately opposed to exploiting our energy resources?
They have more nefarious goals and
this video
exposes them, the nationalization of the oil
industry.
If they can't tax the oil companies out of business, their alternate
goal is to seize the oil industry, just like their comrade, Hugo Chavez,
did in Venezuela.
There is no talk about where they’d get the trillions to buy out
stockholders, because they’re talking about outright theft -- the
seizure of the oil industry by the dhimmicratically controlled Congress.
Inflate Your Tires
Obama's Solution To The Drilling Debate: Inflate Your Tires -- he's
serious!
"We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off
drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular
tune-ups. You
could save just as much."
Obama is a lot like Sean Penn or George Clooney. If you give him a
script, he can deliver it pretty well. But if he tries to talk without a
script that has been written for him by others, he quickly reveals that
he is poorly-informed if not downright ignorant. Today he delivered
another classic, by claiming that if only we would all properly inflate
our tires, we could save as much gasoline as "all the oil that they're
talking about getting off drilling."
Obama's solution to the energy problem -- Hot Air! (00:22)
Update 8/4/08: Time
reports that McCain supporters in Michigan will distribute tire
gauges at Obama’s energy speech in Lansing, and that the RNC will also
deliver gauges reading "Obama’s Energy Plan" to Washington newsrooms.
Mary Katharine Ham may want to update her tribute to "Obama on your
shoulder" to include his helpful hint on the importance of tire gauges
and tune-ups.
Is This Guy An
Idiot Or An Enemy?
Breitbart is reporting that
Obama plans to "spend our way out" of the financial crisis.
Obama
outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday,
saying the nation must continue to "spend our way out of this
recession," until more Americans are back at work.
Without
giving a price tag, Obama proposed a package of new spending for
highway, bridge and other infrastructure projects, deeper tax breaks for
small businesses and tax incentives to encourage people to make their
homes more energy efficient.
The Washington Times
editorializes, "The Obama administration used last week's jobs
summit to promote policies Obama admits will kill jobs."
In case
no one in the White House has noticed, unemployment has become a bit of
a pressing issue. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
number of jobs lost in 2009 far surpasses the number in any other year
since World War II. More than 3 million jobs have evaporated into
the ozone layer since Obama usurped the office.
Everything the
administration is doing threatens to dig that hole deeper. Obama
has never hidden his anti-business agenda. When campaigning last
year, he told a group of journalists at the San Francisco Chronicle:
"We would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is aggressive if not
more aggressive than anybody else's that is out there. I was the
first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap-and-trade system.
...So if somebody wants to build a power plant, they can; it's just that
it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for
all the greenhouse gas that is being emitted."
At the jobs
summit, Obama promised to keep working on that plan to bankrupt the coal
industry. He joined a clean-energy breakout session and emphasized
that the cap-and-trade bill still needs to pass the Senate. In
case you're curious where he draws the line between style and substance
on purported global warming, Obama made it clear: "The most
important thing we talked about here is packaging and marketing."
He then went on to repeat the canard that the cap-and-trade bill was
"not a jobs killer but a jobs grower." Packaging and marketing,
indeed.
As the recent scandal about fudged global-warming data
has proved, it can be tricky trying to market baloney because facts have
a way of bubbling to the surface. For example, Obama warned that
"as you know the unit costs on a lot of these renewable energies, if
you're not factoring carbon in, you are not going to be able to catch up
to coal. You just can't. Coal is going to be substantially
cheaper for the duration unless people take into account the
externalities the industry produces."
Translation of that
wonkery is fairly simple. The price of coal needs to be jacked up
so government-favored but wildly inefficient energy sources can compete.
When the price of coal goes through the roof, the number of jobs related
to coal will go through the floor. Every business in America will
have to pay higher energy costs, making it harder for all employers --
from the corner dry cleaners to automakers to international consultants
-- to hire new workers and retain current staff.
There's no way
Obama's promised boom in green jobs can compensate for the unemployment
that will result in traditional industries if his draconian energy
policy becomes the law of the land. Contrary to some claims, Obama
does have a jobs plan. The problem is it kills jobs rather than
creates them.
Welcome To ObamaVille
Noel Sheppard
says a sign reading "Welcome to Obamaville, Colorado's Fastest
Growing Community" appeared at a homeless tent city in Colorado Springs
this week. You probably didn't hear about it because outside of
two Colorado television stations nobody found this newsworthy.
No hope and change here
By contrast, when word got out in March of a tent
city in Sacramento, California, news media couldn't get enough of the
story. Is it because that happened so soon after Inauguration Day
that it could easily be blamed on George W. Bush, and that given the
name given to this area that's no longer possible?
Before you
answer, here's the report logged Thursday by ABC affiliate KRDO-TV
(video embedded below the fold, h/t
Breitbart TV): According to LexisNexis and Google news
searches, only KRDO and
KJCT
reported the appearance of this sign.
By contrast, Sacramento's
tent city garnered much national coverage in March. In fact,
according to LexisNexis, television news outlets ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC
all covered it. So did the Associated Press, the New York Times,
the Washington Post, and Slate.
Yet not a peep about Obamaville.
Exit question: If the Colorado Springs tent city sign read
"Welcome to Bushville," do you think it would get more media attention?
-- Yes, that's a rhetorical question.
Unemployment Pointing in the Right Direction
Unemployment pointing in the right direction (00:21)
Barack Obama told an audience today that the unemployment rate
is "pointing in the right direction." The unemployment rate is currently
at 10% for the second month in a row. Obama said it would not get over
8% if his $787 billion Stimulus Bill was passed.
Well,
here's a graph illustrating the unemployment rate for the last
10 years. You decide. Do you think it's "pointing in
the right direction?"
Gateway Pundit
says, maybe Rush was right. Maybe Obama really does want to destroy
America.
Stimulus? There's No Stimulus Here
The Wall Street Journal says Obama wants to spend more, but don't
ask him what the money is for.
Assuming that Barack Obama holds
another White House press conference -- his last was back in July --
here's a question worth asking: If the stimulus is truly the success you
and your team claim, why are you so reluctant to use the word?
It's a timely question, with Congress returning to Washington this week
after a year of record spending. Right now the spotlight is on the
effort by the Democratic leadership to ram through a health-care bill --
any health-care bill -- in time for Obama to declare victory in his
State of the Union. But a second stimulus may not be far behind,
with the House having already passed a version before members left for
Christmas.
The House approved its $154 billion second stimulus
package in its last vote of 2009, little more than a week after a policy
address Obama delivered at the Brookings Institution. In that Dec.
8 speech, he reviewed the progress of the earlier stimulus -- the $787
billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- and used the
occasion to call for additional congressional spending. The
headlines rightly described what he was proposing as a "second
stimulus."
Yet perhaps the most intriguing part of that speech
is what Obama did not say.
Not once did he use the word
"stimulus." If you search under "speeches and remarks" on the
White House Web site, it will tell you that the last time Obama used the
word "stimulus" in public remarks was in an offhand reference in a
speech about clean energy in October. A month before that he used
the term once in a speech that was about the stimulus.
The Washington Times
says Barack Obama has the worst budget record of any administration
in American history. White House budget office spokesman Tom Gavin
claimed "a very strong beginning" for the Obama's purported first-year
attempts at controlling spending -- for example, zeroing out a $17
million program for work incentive grants. But such paltry efforts
are round-off numbers compared to the gush of red ink created by Obama
and congressional Democrats. This government is setting the United
States on an inevitable path to permanent debtor status.
The
White House entitled Obama's first budget "A New Era of Responsibility,"
which essayist Roger Kimball observed should have been called "Gone with
the Wind." Obama's budget, coupled with the $787 billion stimulus
slush fund, was the most irresponsible in history. The effects of
his ruinous policies can already be measured. The 2009 budget
deficit tripled over 2008. The deficit as a percentage of gross
domestic product went from 3.1 percent in 2008 to 9.9 percent in 2009.
The deficit for the first month of fiscal year 2010 was $176 billion,
which was greater than the $161 billion deficit for the entire 2007
fiscal year.
The hits keep coming. Public debt as a
percentage of GDP was an already-high 40.8 percent in 2008. The
Congressional Budget Office -- which is run by Democrats -- estimates
this figure would more than double to 81.7 percent by 2019. That's
a rate not seen since the end of World War II. This figure is
likely to be revised upward; between June and August 2009, budget
scorers had to raise their estimate for the fiscal 2011 deficit by 33
percent. CBO projects a softening but still brisk increase in
future debt based on reduced growth in government spending, which is
highly unrealistic, and a trillion dollars in new taxes, which is
frighteningly likely.
Back in February 2009, at the beginning of
the fiscal bloodletting, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag
preached that, "elevated budget deficits are beneficial." But by
November, Obama warned that, "if we keep on adding to the debt...people
could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually
lead to a double-dip recession."
People certainly have lost
confidence in Obama. A CNN poll from the second week in January
showed that 62 percent of the public disapproves of his handling of the
budget deficit, and 54 percent disapprove of his economic policies in
general. In a January Quinnpiac poll, 53 percent said Obama is
fiscally irresponsible. A Bloomberg poll from the first week of
December showed that 60 percent believe that chronically high deficits
constitute a high threat to economic performance, and 57 percent
disapprove of Obama's handling of the issue. An October 2009 NBC
News poll showed that 62 percent believed controlling the federal
deficit was more important than boosting the economy.
The debt
outlook is increasingly bleak. Congress shows no desire to rein in
spending, and is debating a heath care bill that will add even more red
ink. The amount of debt owned by foreign countries is increasing,
confidence in the dollar is dropping, gold prices are soaring, energy
costs are rising, the trade deficit is widening and Obama's first year
Gallup approval rating has fallen faster than any president since
records have been kept. Connect the dots. The Obama
administration is an unmitigated economic disaster for this country, and
most Americans are worried about that.
And while the country plunges
deeper into the dumper, what does Obama do?
Why, have
another party -- this one, a birthday
celebration for Bridezilla.
Fannie, Freddie, Fraud
Patrick Cox reports that last week, new research from Edward Pinto,
a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, began
to penetrate the media fog. Pinto has documented that as far back
as 1993, Fannie and Freddie were buying risky subprime and Alt-A loans,
but routinely misrepresenting them as prime.
Let me drive this
point home. Without Fannie and Freddie’s certification of millions
of bad loans as safe, other banks both domestic and foreign wouldn’t
have bought them. More importantly, world financial markets
wouldn’t have relied on those packaged loans as collateral and collapsed
when they went bad. Fannie and Freddie, both government-sponsored
enterprises that are guaranteed and funded by U.S. taxpayers, committed
fraud so massive it dwarfs the Enron scandal.
Austrian
economists saw this coming three decades ago, and warned in the 1980s
that government involvement in the housing market would inevitably
produce catastrophe. Even Republicans attacked them as an enemy of
home ownership. The theory, held by many in both parties, was that
owning a home made Americans stakeholders in the system and stabilized
our economy. Others pushed the envelope further, using Fannie and
Freddie as a way to give homes to low-income individuals. All very
noble, of course, but it was always doomed.
Obama is, of course,
sticking to the story line that this "great recession" is a failure of
capitalism. This won’t change because so many high-ranking
administration officials profited from the mortgage fraud business, but
the beginning of the Fannie and Freddie fraud that Pinto documents took
place under the watch of Jim Johnson. You may remember Johnson as
the "trusted adviser" to Obama who helped pick his running mate, Joe
Biden.
While few know about Johnson’s role in the financial
collapse, many know him for his legendary generosity with Fannie’s fake
profits. As CEO of Fannie, he bestowed fortunes on his favorite
causes, which made him one of the most popular people inside the
beltway. Many of my colleagues spoke out against this laundering
of the public’s money for personal and political purposes, but were
ignored or attacked.
Rep. Barney Frank was the chief defender of
Fannie and Freddie, accusing anyone who wanted more oversight of the
out-of-control institutions of being heartless, racist or both.
While I’m not a huge fan of the Bush administration, the truth is that
it made multiple attempts to rein in Fannie and Freddie.
Unfortunately, they were successfully parried by Frank.
Over the
weekend, administration talking heads were sticking to the line that
they have deterred financial disaster with bailouts and stimulus
spending.
And while Obama blames
the "fat cat bankers," don't forget the Buycks-Roberson case, and
Obama's personal role
in forcing lenders to give more loans to those who had
poor credit -- in setting the stage for the mortgage meltdown.
The Latest Obama Con
TalkingSides.com
says that since the Massachusetts special election, every day seems
to bring a new Obama con; some grand and empty gesture made in an
attempt to fool the American people into thinking that he is listening
and moving away from his radical agenda toward a more reasonable method
of governing. He's not and the latest proof is the news late
Monday that he will
ask
Congress to freeze spending for some domestic programs for three years
beginning in 2011. While that may sound like a step in the right
direction, it's just more of the same smoke and mirrors for which this
administration has become famous.
The freeze would
affect $447 billion in spending, or 17% of the total federal budget,
and would likely be overtaken by growth in the untouched areas of
discretionary spending. So while those who only hear the promise
to freeze spending in Wednesday night's State of the Union address and
believe the $250 billion "saved" over the coming decade is an
improvement, the reality is that that money and more will be spent in
other areas not affected by the so-called freeze.
And it's still
not
clear how much of Obama's "Middle
Class Initiatives" proposed Monday afternoon would cost or where
that money would come from.
Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner
(R-Ohio), reacted to the latest gestures from the White House by
saying, "Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge,
this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a
pie-eating contest." (source) Mr. Steel was being kind. It's actually
like announcing the diet while still shoving the pies in your mouth. And
they're someone else's pies.
Like more traditional con artists who give you a small piece of gold
to get you to invest in the non-existent gold mine, Obama's bait will
turn out to be nothing more than gold painted rocks. And Wednesday
night's address promises to be a sack full of them.
Obama Boasts Biggest Deficits Since World War II
CNSNews.com is
reporting that Obama’s first two years in office will boast
the two biggest annual federal budget deficits since World War II, when
measured as a share of GDP, says the Congressional Budget Office.
"Last year’s deficit was the largest as a share of GDP since the end
of World War II, and the deficit expected for 2010 would be the second
largest," said CBO.
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
projects that if current laws and policies remained unchanged, the
federal budget would show a deficit of $1.35 trillion for fiscal year
2010," said CBO. "At 9.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP),
that deficit would be slightly smaller than the shortfall of 9.9 percent
of GDP posted in 2009."
"Last year’s deficit was the largest as a
share of GDP since the end of World War II, and the deficit expected for
2010 would be the second largest," said CBO.
The estimates were
included in the CBO report, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal
Years 2010 to 2020," which was released today.
The federal
deficit in 2009 was also the largest ever in sheer dollar amount.
"The budget deficit surged to $1.4 trillion in 2009, the largest
shortfall on record in dollar terms and nearly $1 trillion greater than
the deficit recorded the previous year," said CBO.
The CBO’s new
estimate also indicates that if current federal tax and spending laws
are maintained, the U.S. Treasury will need to borrow an additional $6
trillion between 2011 and 2020 to cover expected federal spending.
"Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is
daunting," said the CBO report. "Projected deficits average about
$600 billion per year over the 2011–2020 period."
This estimate
that the government will borrow an additional $6 trillion from 2011-2020
is based on the assumption that the tax cuts enacted under President
Bush in 2001 and 2003 will be allowed to expire, thus raising income tax
rates and that Congress will not enact temporary fixes -- as it has in
the past -- to stop the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting the incomes
of middle-class Americans.
OK, who's surprised?
Everybody knew this guy was a socialist who strongly believed in
reparations and redistribution -- then we found out about
Cloward-Piven and the
strategy of manufactured crisis -- Obama's game plan.
"Pretty Much Everyone Hates Obama"
John Carney
says that after a year in which his administration’s policies helped
produce some of the best years on record for Wall Street firms, Barack
Obama has been struggling to recast himself as an adversary of the
banks.
He seems to have succeeded in taking on this role with one
important group -- the bankers themselves.
"Pretty much everyone
hates Obama," a senior trader at a major Wall Street firm told us.
"He's never been popular but this is a whole new level," he said.
Obama Surrendering Internet To Foreign Powers
Without the ingenuity of America’s brightest minds and the
investment of U.S. Taxpayer dollars, there would be no Internet, as we
now know it today.
Now, the Obama administration has quietly
moved to cede control of the web from the United States to foreign
powers.
Some background: The Internet came into being
thanks to the genius work of American's, Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr.
Vinton G. Cerf. These men while employed by the Department of
Defense, in the DARPA office (Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency), in the early 1970’s, went to work conceiving, designing and
implementing the idea of "open-architecture networking." This
breakthrough in connectivity and networking was the birth of the
Internet.
These two gentlemen had the vision and the brainpower
to create a worldwide computer Internet communications network that
forever changed the world and how we communicate in it.
They
discovered that by providing a person with a unique identifier,
(TCP/IP), which was able to be recognized and interact through a network
of servers, all users then could communicate amongst themselves and with
others. The servers would recognize the identifier and connect
networks-to-networks, (utilizing a series of giant servers), that would
pass on information from computer to computer in a seamless real-time
exchange of information. This new process of communication became
know as the "information super highway," the Internet.
Now for
the bad news -- in an effort to show the World how inclusive, sharing,
cooperative and international America can be, the Obama administration
has set off on a plan to surrender control and key management of the
Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce and their agents.
