Mission Possible: Deception

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he took office.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair: That is simply not true. In fact, unemployment has now dropped below 9%. It’s continuing to drop. He’s been focused on —

Carlson: It’s higher than when they promised the stimulus would lower it to 8%.

Wasserman Schultz: You see, that narrative doesn’t work for you anymore, though, because —

Carlson: It’s not my narrative. I’m just talking about facts.

Wasserman Schultz: You just said the unemployment rate is going up since Obama took office, and it hasn’t.

Carlson: Is unemployment higher since President Obama took office?

Wasserman Schultz: What’s happened since President Obama took office —

Carlson: Is unemployment higher than when he took office?

Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it’s dropping. You just said it’s been increasing and that’s not true.

New narrative and Talking Points from the Orwellian Ministry of Truth Minister. 🙂

Deny reality. Repeatedly. And by the way, we are at war with Oceania and always have been… (1984 reference).

Now, it’s Harry Reid’s turn: Reid: “Millionaire Job Creators Are Like Unicorns” … They “Don’t Exist

Reid: “The Republicans say the richest of the rich in our country, even those who make millions every year, shouldn’t contribute more to get our economy back on track. They call our plan, time after time, a tax on job creators, and I say so-called “job creators.” Because I say that, Mr. President, every shred of evidence contradicts this red herring. For example, there have been many outlets, but I’ll concentrate on one. National Public Radio went looking for one of these fictitious millionaire job creators. A reporter reached out to the business groups and a tax lobby in the Republican Congress hoping to interview one of these millionaires. Days ticked by with no luck. Many of our job creators are like unicorns, they’re impossible to find and don’t exist. That’s because only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than one percent, are actually small business owners and only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction is a traditional job creator.”

Yeah, they might be Bill Gates (Microsoft), or the Late Steve Jobs (Apple). Or even JEFFREY IMHELT (Job Creation Czar) – Jeffrey Immelt’s net worth is $60 million dollars and annual salary of $22 million.

And, of course they don’t employ anyone. 🙂

The Orwellian smoke being blown up your ass is that that the millionaire aren’t “small business” people.

So, since millionaires aren’t “small business” job creators (they are BIG business job creators) it’s ok to tax the hell out of them!!!

Oh, and by the way the “millionaires” tax goes all the way down to $250,000 a year WHICH CAN BE A “SMALL BUSINESS” Job Creator. But we won’t talk about that because it interferes with our class warfare narrative.

So it’s all word games and misdirection and manipulation, as usual.

It’s meant to confuse you.

And you think, dear reader, you’re safe…

What began as an attempt to restrain foreign piracy on the Internet has morphed into a domestic “kill switch” on First Amendment freedom in the fastest-growing corner of the marketplace of ideas.

Proposed federal legislation purporting to protect online intellectual property would also impose sweeping new government mandates on internet service providers – a positively Orwellian power grab that would permit the U.S. Justice Department to shut down any internet site it doesn’t like (and cut off its sources of income) on nothing more than a whim.

Under the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) the federal government – which is prohibited constitutionally from abridging free speech or depriving its citizens of their property without due process – would engage in both practices on an unprecedented scale. And in establishing the precursor to a taxpayer-funded “thought police,” it would dramatically curtail technology investment and innovation – wreaking havoc on our economy.

Consider this: Under the proposed legislation all that’s required for government to shutdown a specific website is the mere accusation that the site unlawfully featured copyrighted content.  Such an accusation need not be proven – or even accompanied by probable cause. All that an accuser (or competitor) needs to do in order to obtain injunctive relief is point the finger at a website.

Additionally, SOPA would grant regulators the ability to choke off revenue to the owners of these newly classified “rogue” websites by accusing their online advertisers and payment providers as co-conspirators in the alleged “piracy.” Again, no finding of fact would be required – the mere allegation of impropriety is all that’s needed to cut the website’s purse strings.

Who’s vulnerable to this legislation?

“Any website that features user-generated content or that enables cloud-based data storage could end up in its crosshairs,” writes David Sohn, senior policy council at the Center on Democracy and Technology. “(Internet Service Providers) would face new and open-ended obligations to monitor and police user behavior. Payment processors and ad networks would be required to cut off business with any website that rights-holders allege hasn’t done enough to police infringement.” (The Hill)

But if Congress does pass these laws, it will be a testament to the enormous power and influence of two Democratic special interest groups—the Hollywood lobby, comprised of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, and the trial lawyers.

If you’re wondering why lawyers and Hollywood folks would get behind legislation to censor the Internet, you only need to listen to former Senator Chris Dodd (of Dodd-Frank fame), now the head of the MPAA, who last week explained to Variety that the lobby is only asking for the same kind of power to censor the Internet as the government has in the People’s Republic of China:

“When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn’t do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites.”

And one thing Liberal really want to to do is make sure there’s no one to contradict their Big Brother vision of controlling everyone and everything.

But Dodd calls such alarms “exaggerated hyperbole.”

Just like unemployment that has been above 8% since February 2009 means the rate has dropped to 8.6% (which was a politically motivated number that didn’t count the massive number of people who just gave up!)

Remember that the unemployment rate is not “how many people don’t have jobs?”, but “how many people don’t have jobs and are actively looking for them”

Since 2007, the percent of the population that either has a job or is actively looking for one has fallen from 62.7 percent to 58.5 percent. That’s millions of workers leaving the workforce, and it’s not because they’ve become sick or old or infirm. It’s because they can’t find a job, and so they’ve stopped trying. (WP)

So the more people who give up entirely, the better the Unemployment rate looks.

Now that’s government in action! 🙂

And the Debt hasn’t gone up under Obama, that was the fault of George W. Bush, and they just haven’t had enough time to fix it yet. It’s been tougher than they thought (yeah spending $5 Trillion dollar in less than 3 years will do that).

These are all Democrat/Liberal Talking Points. they are all mean to deceive.

And deception is the only game in town these days.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Big Brother Wants You!

imtenet-censorship.jpg

For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

So yet again, the liberals idea of the only way for you to be free is for the government to control whatever it is.

Orwell would be proud you my sons.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And my 4th Precept: FEAR IS HOPE. (https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/the-4th-precept/)

It’s very typical of the modern Liberal to want to control everything for your own good, because you’re far too stupid to it yourself.

Health Care, Finances, Education,News,Entertainment, Food, and now the Internet.

Freedom is slavery to the government. Government is here to protect your stupid ass self from the evil capitalist exploiters.

Gee, aren’t you happy? 😦

What has the Liberals’ panties so much in a bunch?

People like me. Little ole me. And all the other anti-liberal progressives out there.

Matt Drudge, Daily Caller, bloggers, etc.

We can’t attack in frontal assault so we’ll do what all Liberals always do, attack from the rear, in seemingly innocuous ways by “fairness” and “concern” that creep like a cancer that just grows and grows until it kills the patient.

Leaving Dr. Liberal is control of everything.

What liberal wouldn’t like to control everything?

None, that are in power right now.

The government, The Liberal Progressive one is  your only hope.

You can’t possibly do it without us.

So what if you have ever since the Internet exploded onto the seem 20 years ago. You can’t now.

Why?

Because they say you can’t.

And if you learn only one thing about Liberals, and that is that they believe they are incapable of error and are vastly superior to the mere mortal  both morally and intellectually.

So questioning them is impertinent.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a “choice” between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC’s action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of “reasonable” network management for years to come. How’s that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn’t ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter’s night for Internet freedom. (WSJ)

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

And Lame Duck Cancer is a disease we are already suffering. We just don’t need another dose of it.

But the Liberals are thinking, we have to do it now because if we don’t the evil Republicans won’t let us next year. So it’s now or never!

And they are hardly the only ones.

The very liberal and toothless namby-pamby UN wants to get into the act.

The U.N. has been wanting to run the Web for years and is not letting a crisis — the WikiLeaks releases — go to waste. Following the Chicagoland model, it has plans to form an intergovernmental group that would “attempt to create global standards for policing the Internet.”

The meeting delegate from Brazil, which is pushing the proposal, told iTnews that the plan isn’t to take over the Web. Which is no reassurance at all. Whenever an elected official or bureaucrat says a program won’t cost much or the regulation being considered won’t be a burden, history teaches us to expect the exact opposite.

This big idea is coming only a few months after the Internet Governance Forum, a group that consults with the U.N., met in Vilnius, Lithuania. Its goal: to save the Internet with an international treaty that would include net neutrality.

So you could have the FCC, The US Government and the the UN all look after you.

Gee, don’t you feel better now. 🙂

The Internet is in no need of supervision from the U.N. or Washington. It is an energetic, broadly accessible marketplace of ideas.

Ideas, that the Liberal Left wants to control. For your own good, of course.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

As Rod Beckstrom, president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, said in September at the Vilnius meeting that the Internet works. It lets us communicate on an unprecedented scale, and its relative lack of regulation has made “it a fertile field for innovation and competition.”

The best thing for the U.N. and Washington to do is just stand back and let it flow. (IBD)

But Liberals, especially, and Washington in general has Control Freak issues.

But it’s for own good.

We are from the Government and we are here to protect you. 🙂

FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski:

As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet is unprotected. No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for the Internet service providers, so that they can manage and invest in broadband networks.

That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order…

On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who would adopt a set of detailed and rigid regulations.

I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework – one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment.”

Barf Bag anyone?

The FCC’s new, ostensibly softer approach comes on the heels of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision earlier this month, which ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to directly regulate internet providers nor require them to offer equal treatment to all Web traffic. Comcast sued the FCC, arguing that the commission could not force the company to be “net neutral” in regards to the file-sharing program BitTorrent, which Comcast at one point was filtering on its system.

In response, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced the “third way” which consists of simply removing ISPs from their current classification in order to “have enough of a legal footing in place to make sure the agency can protect consumers and achieve goals presented in the National Broadband Plan.”

Currently, the FCC categorizes Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as Title 1 “information service.” The classification meant that the FCC lacked the direct authority to regulate these providers. The FCC’s other option, however was to classify ISPs as Title II “telecommunications service,” which internet providers say would bring with it regulatory madness and  the same red tape that wireline phone agencies find themselves in.

Genachowski’s “third way” then will be an attempt to run between the two classifications:

The chairman will seek to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the court decision in order to fulfill the previously stated agenda of extending broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers, ensuring fair competition, and preserving a free and open Internet,” the official said.

The confirmation from the FCC comes only hours after two senior Democratic politicians sent a letter to Genachowski saying that imposing Net neutrality regulations on broadband providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon is “essential.” And Free Press, the liberal lobby group that’s led the fight to hand the FCC more Internet regulatory authority, hastily convened a conference call to warn that Genachowski would be leaving President Obama’s Net neutrality promises unfulfilled.

Net neutrality proponents have bemoaned the recent Appeals Court decision and wish to see a “free and open internet.”  But those opposed to interference from the FCC have argued that regulation will only suffocate business and innovation in an area that has thrived without government interference.

Yesterday, one FCC official said Genacoswki was trying to have it both ways, hoping:

to balance “a weak Title I and a needlessly burdensome Title II approach.” Title I refers to lightly regulated information services; Title II refers to heavily regulated telecommunications services, such as legacy telephone networks.

The balancing act between what the FCC has been told it cannot do and what it wants to do, has caused the committee to run over itself more than once. As BetaNews reports:

“The Third Way,” as the FCC now calls it, is a clear effort to defer to US Supreme Court decisions that suggested the FCC has the authority to declare what it does not regulate. As a model for deciding what’s in and what’s out, Schlick refers to the classic dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia in the 2005 Brand X decision. There, Justice Scalia argued that since it doesn’t make much difference to the customer whether he receives service through one route or another, it shouldn’t make much difference to the law, either.

Dancing lightly over the fact that Scalia’s argument was a dissent from the decision, and not actual law, Schlick suggested this morning that the FCC should now embrace an approach that it had vehemently rejected just weeks earlier.

Currently, the “third way” contains only six provisions from Title II regulations, although “the FCC could decide it needs more or less as this process wears on,” according to Engadget.com.

Republicans in Washington rejected the “third way” characterization and accused the Obama Administration of once again seeking to expand the power of government over the private sector.  House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said, “Under this job- killing big government scheme, the Obama administration is seeking to expand the power of the federal government.”

Republican FCC Commissioners Rob McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker issued a joint statement, saying: “This dramatic step to regulate the Internet is unnecessary.”

“It is a stark departure from the long-established bipartisan framework,” they said. (Daily Caller)

Bi-Partisan, wonder where I’ve heard that before?

Oh, yeah, it’s when you roll over and let the Liberal do what they want to do without objection.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Big Brother Eric Wants You!

Who says Congress never gets anything done?

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the “nuclear option,” which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites “off.”

COICA is the latest effort by Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies to stem the tidal wave of internet file sharing that has upended those industries and, they claim, cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade.

The content companies have tried suing college students. They’ve tried suing internet startups. Now they want the federal government to act as their private security agents, policing the internet for suspected pirates before making them walk the digital plank.

Many people opposed to the bill agree in principle with its aims: Illegal music piracy is, well, illegal, and should be stopped. Musicians, artists and content creators should be compensated for their work. But the law’s critics do not believe that giving the federal government the right to shut down websites at will based upon a vague and arbitrary standard of evidence, even if no law-breaking has been proved, is a particularly good idea. COICA must still be approved by the full House and Senate before becoming law. A vote is unlikely before the new year.

Among the sites that could go dark if the law passes: Dropbox, RapidShare, SoundCloud, Hype Machine and any other site for which the Attorney General deems copyright infringement to be “central to the activity” of the site, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group that opposes the bill. There need not even be illegal content on a site — links alone will qualify a site for digital death. Websites at risk could also theoretically include p2pnet and pirate-party.us or any other website that advocates for peer-to-peer file sharing or rejects copyright law, according to the group.

In short, COICA would allow the federal government to censor the internet without due process.

The mechanism by which the government would do this, according to the bill, is the internet’s Domain Name System (DNS), which translates web addresses into IP addresses. The bill would give the Attorney General the power to simply obtain a court order requiring internet service providers to pull the plug on suspected websites.

Scholars, lawyers, technologists, human rights groups and public interest groups have denounced the bill. Forty-nine prominent law professors called it “dangerous.”  The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch warned the bill could have “grave repercussions for global human rights.”  Several dozen of the most prominent internet engineers in the country — many of whom were instrumental in the creation of the internet — said the bill will “create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation.”  Several prominent conservative bloggers, including representatives from RedState.com, HotAir.com, The Next Right and Publius Forum, issued a call to help stop this “serious threat to the Internet.”

And Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web, said, “Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.” He added: “In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that no person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty.”

Critics of the bill object to it on a number of grounds, starting with this one: “The Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,” the 49 law professors wrote. “The Act permits the issuance of speech suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content.”

Because it is so ill-conceived and poorly written, the law professors wrote, “the Act, if enacted into law, will not survive judicial scrutiny, and will, therefore, never be used to address the problem (online copyright and trademark infringement) that it is designed to address. Its significance, therefore, is entirely symbolic — and the symbolism it presents is ugly and insidious. For the first time, the United States would be requiring Internet Service Providers to block speech because of its content.”

The law professors noted that the bill would actually undermine United States policy, enunciated forcefully by Secretary of State Clinton, which calls for global internet freedom and opposes web censorship. “Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere,” Clinton said in her landmark speech on global internet freedom earlier this year. She was referring to China. Apparently some of Mrs. Clinton’s former colleagues in the U.S. Senate approve of internet censorship in the United States.

To be fair, COICA does have some supporters in addition to sponsor Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) and his 17 co-sponsors including Schumer, Specter, Grassley, Gillibrand, Hatch, Klobuchar, Coburn, Durbin, Feinstein, Menendez and Whitehouse. Mark Corallo, who served as chief spokesperson for former Attorney General John Ashcroft and as spokesman for Karl Rove during the Valerie Plame affair, wrote Thursday on The Daily Caller: “The Internet is not at risk of being censored.  But without robust protections that match technological advances making online theft easy, the creators of American products will continue to suffer.”

“Counterfeiting and online theft of intellectual property is having devastating effects on industries where millions of Americans make a living,” wrote Corallo, who now runs a Virginia-based public relations firm and freely admits that he has “represented copyright and patent-based businesses for years.” “Their futures are at risk due to Internet-based theft.”

The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, praised Leahy for his work, “to insure [sic] that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish.”

Over the course of his career, Leahy has received $885,216 from the TV, movie and music industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (Wired)

Why stop there?

There are plenty of other things to censor. Like bloggers… 🙂

Once you have tasted the power to control, what’s next?

After all, Eric Holder has done such a fine job already… He’s fair and impartial….

And this is surely one of the most pressing problems in America today, after all.

<<Barf Bag overload!>>

Technology Gap

The Hill: A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office.

This startling admission came Thursday from Peter Orszag, who manages the federal bureaucracy for President Barack Obama.

The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs.

The White House release that included Orszag’s comments said one “specific source” of ineffective and inefficient government is the huge technology gap between the public and private sectors that results in billions of dollars in waste, slow and inadequate customer service and a lack of transparency about how dollars are spent.

So that’s why they are holding all the negotiation for Nationalized health Care in Secret. They are writing it on a Commodore 64!! 🙂

It’s not the people.

It’s not the bloat of bureaucracy.

It’s not the ideology.

It’s not the Liberal need to control anything and everything.

It’s the Technology.

So if we just invest a few more Billions everything will be all great. Right? 🙂

“Improving the technology our government uses isn’t about having the fanciest bells and whistles on our websites — it’s about how we use the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars to make government work better for them,” Obama said in a statement.

<<Insert cynical laughter here>>

“It’s time to bring government into the 21st century,” Orszag said. “Information technology has the power to transform how government works and revolutionize the ease, convenience and effectiveness by which it serves the American people.”

On That note: The FCC wants to take over the Internet.

The FCC and the rest of the federal apparatus should keep their hands off the Internet. The Web is doing fine without the “help” of Washington. There are no compelling reasons for the government to be involved. It has neither the moral nor constitutional authority to interfere with peaceful, noncriminal private affairs that are voluntarily entered into.

Yet our governments at all levels are filled with officials, both elected and appointed, who feel that nothing in the private sphere should go unsupervised by them.

In the case of the Web and the FCC, the government wants to regulate consumer access to the Internet. Its goal is to reclassify broadband so it can be regulated the same way telephone service is regulated. It would use this power to stop Internet service providers from blocking customers’ access to legal content, a concept known as net neutrality, and perhaps to assert itself in pricing.

Government officials won’t admit that their urge to issue orders to ISPs is a power grab. Rather, they frame the issue as a matter of consumer protection.

“I am absolutely certain that consumers expect protection against gatekeeper control,” said Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat. “That’s why we need to move forward with whatever tools we have at our disposal to ensure an open Internet.”

Does Copps not understand that the Web would no longer be open once government steps in? A third party of lawmakers and bureaucrats will be an occupying force. Policies will be made in the halls of government and they will be based on politics, hardly an advancement for such a key resource as the Internet. To say the FCC will “open” the Web by violating ISPs’ right to determine how their property is used is to pervert the language.

While the FCC waits for a federal appeals court ruling in a Web traffic case that could decide what authority it has for regulating the Internet, it’s sifting through public comments on its attempt to regulate Internet service providers. So it’s possible that with everything going on, it has missed the dust-up in which Google is threatening to quit China if Beijing continues to insist on Web censorship.

That still doesn’t excuse government’s insatiable appetite for forcing its way even deeper into private matters. That’s an institutionalized flaw that needs to be removed. (IBD)

Well, since a large section of the American People go around the State Controlled Ministry of Truth Media, the Orwellian Liberals have to find a way to destroy dissent.

Trust us, we’re from the Government and we are always telling you what you need to know. 🙂

And, of course, the super-partisaned Democrats can be trusted to respect people who disagree with them, right?

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”–Ronald Reagan

This could never happen here:

Google said Tuesday the company and at least 20 others were victims of a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack” originating in China in mid-December, evidently to gain access to the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

“Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective,” according to a statement by David Drummond, senior vice president of corporate development and chief legal officer for Google, operator of the most popular Internet search engine.

“These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered — combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the Web — have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China,” Drummond wrote.

//

“We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.

“We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China,” Drummond’s statement reads. (CNN)

Next thing you’ll tell me is that they will have an Anti-Obama “Tea-Bagger” as a host on MSDNC!!

“Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”–Ronald Reagan