OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has “an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful — yet fragile — transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.” He added: “I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

 “The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. “History has shown us time and again … that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.” 

Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest.”

 OBAMA: “And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi’s deadly advance.” 

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya’s air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi’s ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

 Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that “the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened.”

Only small numbers of Gadhafi’s troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

 At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. “It is not a very robust organization,” he said. “So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that.”

 For the rest of the “Facts” please go here:

http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2146732&spid= 

Face Forward comments:

To know one’s surprise and after avoiding making a statement or explaining himself for weeks, Obama made his teleprompter guided speech to the American public last night. After hiding in Latin America, Obama returned to the states to declare that his undeclared war on Libya was justified. I will say this for him, while he continues to be the worst modern day president to ever be elected, he is one of the better liars. Had there not been access to the facts I would have turned off the television thinking, “we are so lucky to have him as our leader in this time of crisis”.

What I find particularly interesting about this fact check is that the article was on the WLS website. WLS is the BIG talk radio station in Chicago. If the voice of radio Chicago is reporting on Obama and his poor record of telling the truth, then his support base has really taken a hit.

Republicans found fault with the Obama Justice Department on other issues, including its handling of a voter intimidation claim, drug enforcement issues and the status of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, said the department has not cooperated fully with the U.S. Civil Rights Commission’s investigation of alleged voter intimidation by two members of the New Black Panther Party at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.

Culberson said the commission’s report indicates Justice Department lawyers were encouraged to be aggressive in defending blacks from voter intimidation and other forms of harassment but were discouraged from being as active fighting discrimination against whites.The congressman referenced a quote from a former Democratic activist who said the Philadelphia incident was the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career. 

Holder said that implication “just flies in the face of history.”

He denied the Justice Department makes decisions based on race and said he took the issue particularly personally because his sister-in-law, the late Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama. Holder said the New Black Panthers case is not a good comparison “to what happened to my people” and that it is a disservice to those who risked their lives during the civil rights battles of the ’60s.

 Excerpt from Article:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/02/house.holder/index.html?

 Face Forward Comments:

You remember the Philadelphia case, right? Several Black Panthers try to intimidate white voters with threats to harm them and their children. Why that is not looked at as voter intimidation is beyond me.

 I don’t care if the Attorney General is black, red, pink or white. All I want from him is to keep his end of the bargain which is to lead the Department of justice and help enforce the DOJ’s mission statement.

 From the DOJ’s website is there mission statement

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

 Whenever a Attorney General refers to any group of people in question of breaking the law whether they are identified by a color, a creed, a religion or any other means as “My People” the battle to remain fair and impartial is long lost. Eric Holder must go.

With the recent events in Egypt and the debate over proposed legislation, “Cyber Security and American Competitiveness Act of 2011”, the term “Internet Kill Switch” has flashed into popular discussion. So what does the term mean, what does it look like, and can it be really be done?

Last week, Wired reported that the “Kill Switch” bill will introduce legislation that would give the US government power to limit Internet traffic in the event of cyber-security emergency. The intent of the bill is to provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector to respond swiftly to a significant threat. It is not a mandate to be able to shut down the entire Internet but rather authorizes the president to order access to “critical infrastructure” be turned-off.

Egypt’s actions follow other recent government ordered blackouts as seen in Myanmar and Iran. In each case, an autocratic government could assert control over a relatively small number of major ISPs (ASNs – Autonomous System Numbers). Flipping the switch was achieved by changes to the routing tables (CIDR deletions) used by the ISPs.

The question remains….. could the same approach be taken in the US? The ubiquitous and interconnected nature of the United States ISPs, and the reliance of the critical infrastructure sectors within the U.S. on those ISPs coupled with the lack of overall visibility present enormous technical challenges. Below are three to consider:

1) Master complete visibility and understanding of the Internet – In order to control, direct, or limit routing, which is essentially what would be required, the government would have to have visibility and a solid understanding of all Internet assets and their routing commands. When considering the global Internet, you must have the ability to view it, map it, and track it from multiple perspectives and vantage points. If this is not achieved, you could never be sure closing access in one area would not open access via another, nor could you be sure to maintain operations of those assets you wish not to impact.

 2) Overcome the size and scale of the countries Internet presence – (ASN’s in the US 16,000 in Egypt 96) When one considers the difference in scale of ownership and governance between the US government infrastructure and these other countries, it is hard to infer that the US government could induce a blackout to the same effect as these other cases.

3) Own the ability to take action – An effective surgical response requires sensing and validating the cyber-emergency from multiple sources, sharing the appropriate notice and responsibility with critical infrastructure partners and relevant agencies, and managing a distributed means to synchronize, execute, and monitor the shut down activity.

Until these challenges are overcome, a technical solution will be out of reach – even if a political solution is enacted.

Article from:

http://www.securityweek.com/internet-kill-switch-technically-feasible-us

Response By CompEngFriend

 1) critical infrastructure such as power generation and/or grid control, hospitals, traffic control systems, banking, etc. ARE NOT connected to the open Internet — they are implemented using isolated control networks. If these networks are NOT isolated, they definitely should be as a matter of standard, safe engineering practices. Any owners of critical infrastructure that is connected to the open internet should be fined or otherwise penalized.

2) The Suxnet worm gained access to the industrial control systems it infected via physical access to a computer system connected to the isolated control network. The worm was placed on a usb thumb drive that was physically inserted into a PC.

As you can see, there is no practical reason for a “Internet kill switch” to protect the “critical infrastructure” of the United States. The only reason to have an Internet kill switch is to limit the ability for the population to use the Internet as a communication media that is not controlled by the government.

The Internet is the most important, powerful, OPEN invention (since the printing press) for the dissemination of free speech and information. This is why the government wants to kill this technology!

The word “crisis” in this country tends to be overworked these days, yet it’s hard to avoid using it when looking at the fiscal condition of state and local government. Unfunded pension and other liabilities for states and localities now exceed $3 trillion. More than 40 states are facing a combined budget shortfall of $125 billion for fiscal year 2012. Texas faces a projected $27 billion deficit over its coming two-year budget cycle. Labor costs are heavily driving this situation. According to preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics data, state and local government employees in 2010 on average received a total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to the private-sector full-time employee equivalent average of $27.42 an hour. Wages in the public sector were 35 percent higher and benefits were 69 percent higher. Public employees, moreover, enjoy greater security. From late 2007, when the latest recession began, through mid-2010, the private sector shed a net roughly 7 million jobs, while state and local governments added 110,000 jobs. Wisconsin mirrors the larger picture. The state faces a projected $3.6 billion budget gap over the next biennial cycle. And at present, it faces a $58 million shortfall in its Medicaid program even taking into account a $194 million federal contribution.

 Union leaders might not have a persuasive case, but they do have a persuasive ally in President Barack Obama. In a Wednesday sit-down White House interview with Milwaukee NBC affiliate WTMJ-TV, the president, parsing his words somewhat, stated: “Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where they’re making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions. I think everybody’s got to make some adjustments, but I think it’s also important to recognize that public employees make important contributions to our states and our citizens.” The White House is providing more than talk. The president’s political operation, Organizing for America, starting Monday made phone calls, distributed Twitter and Facebook messages, and sent e-mails via group lists, in an effort to build mass support for the unions. This campaign came on the heels of a speech by Democratic National Committee Chairman Timothy Kaine exhorting Wisconsin union leaders.

If you wait long enough, the truth about unions always shows up

bargaining. The year 2009 represented a milestone. For the first time, union members in the public sector outnumbered those in the private sector, 7.9 million to 7.4 million. These figures represented 37.4 percent and 7.2 percent of their respective labor forces, falling somewhat in 2010 to 36.2 percent and 6.9 percent. Government employees, regardless of union density, have a natural incentive to behave politically, for it is through politics that they have obtained and expanded their sinecures. Enlarged government and enlarged union bargaining power go hand in hand. And governors and legislators typically have gone along with union demands, lest they be blamed for service shutdowns.

For this entire article please go here:

http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2011/02/20/union-bullies-shut-down-wisconsin-legislature-effort-block-fiscal-reform

Face Forward Comments:

Unions were created to protect people against big business. Does America really think that the State employees in WI need protection from the state? And to compare the teacher strike to the Egyptian pro democracy protest is just stupid. “Give me a $3 dollar perscription card or give me death” is not even close to reality.  Make sure to read the entire artice so you can see Michael Moore’s comments…… What a dufus!