“WE NOTICED”
This was written by Sherry Hackett, Buddy Hackett’s widow……..
“WE NOTICED”
President Obama:
Today I read of your administration ‘ s plan to re-define September 11 th as a National Service Day.
Sir, it’s time we had a talk………
During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.
YES, “We noticed.”
During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say you intended to visit all 57 states.
We all know that Islam, not America , has 57 states.
YES, “We noticed.”
When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.
YES, “We noticed.”
Every time you apologized to other countries for America ’s position on an issue we have wondered why you don’t share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us . In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.
YES, “We noticed.”
When your pastor of 20 years, “God-damned America , ” and said that 9/11 was ” America ’s chickens coming home to roost , “ and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so. (Since the inauguration, Jeremiah Wright has been your guest at the White House at least six times.)
YES, “We noticed.”
When you announced that you would transform America , we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, “if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn’t be sitting in the White House now.” Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one.
YES, “We noticed.”
All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions
YES, “We noticed.”
You are 9 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care / insurance ”reform” package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation.
YES, “We noticed.”
We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled “un-American”, “racist”, “mob . ” We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your inauguration, Americans always had the right to speak out.
YES, “We noticed.”
On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.
And YES, “We noticed.”
There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have failed us.
YES, “We noticed.”
September 11 th is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a “National Service Day . ” While we know that you don’t share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is … a disgrace.
YES, “We noticed.”
You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.
YES, “We noticed.”
We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office.
Take notice.
Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”
Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.”
Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shutdown or takeover of the Internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.
Unfortunately, I’m still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I’ll let you know if and when I get a response.
Written by: Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for CBSNews.com who has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights
URGENT REQUEST FOR ACTION – TO PRESERVE OUR CONSTITUTION
Dear Member of the U.S. Congress;
On January 8th, 2009, you will be meeting in a joint session of Congress in order to perform the final step of COUNTING and CONFIRMING the electoral votes for the President of the United States (POTUS).
This urgent letter is a request by your (and Mr. Obama’s) employers, We The People, for you to submit an OBJECTION to those votes being counted due to the Constitutional INELIGIBILITY of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to serve as POTUS:
1. No proof that he was born on U.S. sovereign territory, as required by Article II of the U.S. Constitution (the posting of his forged & fraudulent Certification of Live Birth (C.O.L.B.) only proves fraud – and that he’s INELIGIBLE;
2. No proof that he ever applied for U.S. citizenship, when reaching the age of majority, following his years as a citizen of Indonesia (this would make him ‘naturalized’, and therefore INELIGIBLE);
3. No proof that he was born of two parents of U.S. citizenship, with both owing allegiance to and being under the jurisdiction of the U.S., as required by law and/or the Constitution, in order to be a ‘natural-born citizen’. (actually he has freely admitted the opposite to be true, and therefore INELIGIBLE);
4. No proof that he was authorized, as a ‘natural-born U.S. citizen’ with a U.S. Passport, to travel to Pakistan in 1981 (he could not by law), or that he re-applied for ‘naturalized’ U.S. citizenship on his return, which would also make him INELIGIBLE;
5. No certified proof that he registered for the draft/Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 26, as required by law, thereby rendering him ineligible, by law, for employment in the Executive Branch of our government, and therefore INELIGIBLE for POTUS. (NOTE: over a year of multiple FOIA requests produced a forged and blatantly fraudulent Selective Service Registration form that should be cause for indictments and arrests);
6. No proof that he is, in fact, not an illegal alien, and therefore subject to the same penalties that would befall all illegal aliens in his situation. Therefore, INELIGIBLE;
Constructive Knowledge would inform and confirm to all who have examined the facts of this collossal fraud being perpetrated upon We The People of America (see www.DrOrly.Blogspot.com – ‘Open Letter to C.J. Roberts’) that confirming the electoral votes and thereby furthering the act of installing Mr. Obama as POTUS could possibly be construed as failure to honor one’s oath of office.
Therefore, we are calling on you, as a member of Congress, sworn to uphold, protect, and defend that Constitution, to OBJECT to the counting and confirmation of those electoral votes until proof of his eligibility or ineligibility can be determined, and to call for indictments in regard to any and all alleged violations of U.S. laws and one’s sworn oath.
Please let us know if you intend to stand with We The People in this epic battle to defend and preserve our Constitution. Our Nation can survive four years of any President. It cannot survive without a Constitution.
Sincerely;
We The People of the United States of America
