FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS: “…that’s something that’s going to be a top priority.” (4/27/10)

ENERGY SECURITY: “And that’s why my energy security plan has been one of the top priorities of my Administration since the day I took office.” (4/28/10)

EDUCATION REFORM: “To train our workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we’ve made education reform a top priority in this Administration.” (2/24/10)

STUDENT LOAN REFORM: “This is something that I’ve made a top priority.” (2/1/10)

EXPORTS BY SMALL BUSINESSES: “This is going to be a top priority.” (12/3/09)

HEALTH ASSISTANCE TO 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS: “I’m not just talking the talk, we’ve been budgeting this as a top priority for this Administration.” (2/3/10)

END HOMELESSNESS AMONG VETERANS: “I’ve also directed (Veterans Affairs) Secretary Shinseki to focus on a top priority: reducing homeless among veterans.” (8/17/09)

HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS: “Our top priority is ensuring the public safety. That means appropriate sheltering in place or if necessary, getting as many people as possible out of harm’s way prior to landfall.” (5/29/09)

H1N1 FLU VACCINATIONS: “And throughout this process, my top priority has been the health and the safety of the American people.” (5/1/09)

SUPPORT FOR MILITARY FAMILIES: “These military families are heroes too. And they are a top priority of Michelle and me. And they will always have our support.” (5/30/09)

STRENTHENING TIES WITH CANADA AND MEXICO: “We’re going to make this a top priority…” (10/16/09)

CONSUMER PROTECTION: “During these challenging times, the needs of American consumers are a top priority of my Administration.” (2/11/09)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: “So this is going to be a top priority generally improving our environmental quality.” (11/5/09)

But as if all that weren’t enough, SF Weekly blogs reported this week that the city of San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) doesn’t allow advertisements with guns in them.  Specifically, SFMTA advertising policy regarding firearms says, “Advertising on Municipal Transportation Agency (“MTA”) property, or as authorized under any contract with the MTA, constitutes a nonpublic forum.  No such advertisement shall:  … appear to promote the use of firearms.”

One victim of the policy (other than the First Amendment rights of advertisers) is a subway poster for the action-comedy movie “The Other Guys.”  The official poster for the movie shows Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg (their characters are law enforcement officers, no less) flying through the air with guns drawn. Typical movie stuff.  But not for SFMTA, which apparently finds the poster threatening and will only allow a revised poster, featuring Ferrell holding a can of pepper spray and Wahlberg sporting only his fists, as they supposedly take on the bad guys. The anti-gun lobby presumably would be happy if real cops had to use pepper spray instead of firearms.

Ads like the official movie poster pose no threat to anyone.  The ridiculous SFMTA policy, as applied to movie ads, is not only unconstitutional, but is another example of anti-gun paranoia and political correctness.  And that makes it an outrage.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his “foremost” mission as the head of America’s space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world. Fox News.

This is too mind-boggling for the NIP to comment upon, so we’ll let you make your own judgement after watching the June 30th interview:

WASHINGTON: Yesterday Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) announced his opposition to Kagan’s appoint to the Supreme Court. We here at the NIP hope that other Senators will put personal interests aside and remember their oath of office. Hatch enumerates two main objections, lack of experience and a proclivity toward judicial activism. The NFL draft has tighter standards than this judicial process. It’s time to take it seriously.

Orrin Hatch Opposes Kagan as SCOTUS

I have carefully examined Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s record, actively participated in the entire Judiciary Committee hearing, and considered the views of supporters and opponents from Utah and across the country. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law. I have concluded that, based on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.

Supreme Court Justices who, like General Kagan, had no prior judicial experience did have an average of 21 years in private legal practice. General Kagan has two. The fact that her experience is instead academic and political only magnifies my emphasis on judicial philosophy as the most important qualification for judicial service.

Over nearly 25 years, General Kagan has endorsed, and praised those who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. I was surprised when she encouraged us at the hearing simply to discard or ignore certain parts of her record. I am unable to do that. I also cannot ignore disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views. She promoted the Clinton administration’s extreme position on abortion, including the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. As Dean of Harvard Law School, she blocked the access by military recruiters that federal law requires. And she took legal positions on important issues such as freedom of speech that could undermine the liberties of all Americans.

General Kagan is a good person, a skilled political lawyer, a brilliant scholar, and was a fine law school dean. I like her personally and I supported her to be Solicitor General. But applying the standard I have always used for judicial nominees, I cannot support her appointment to the Supreme Court.  Orrin Hatch

WASHINGTON

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet “kill switch.” Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause “the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication” in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website. Grant Gross, TechWorld

The enables the President to seize the Internet and control it in any manner he wishes, without Congressional oversight for a period of 120 days, which could be further extended with Congressional permission. Traitorous Susan Collins (R-Maine), co-sponsor of the bill, says detractors like the NIP are just being inflamatory:

“It’s been frustrating to read some of the misrepresentations of our bill in the cybersphere,” Collins said, arguing the new bill actually circumscribes the president’s existing authority and puts controls on its use. “I believe the substitute amendment we’re offering strengthens those protections even more.” Gautham Nagesh, The Hill

The problem with the bill is not that it supposedly “circumscribes the president’s existing authority” but that it gives him any authority at all. Instead of creating a new agency to make it easier for the President to control the Internet, Congress needs to repeal the provisions of the 1934 Communications Act that would give the President the excuse to seize it in the first place.

Senator Lieberman sounds even scarier as he tries to explain on CNN that Obama needs the same controls over the Internet that China has:

Obama is frustrated with any media he does not control, especially the Internet. The Internet may be the only force capable of stopping his mad quest to seize totalitarian control over the US. First the auto industry, then healthcare, this President will let nothing stand in his way. His response to the BP oil spill is illustrative.

One oil well in the Gulf fails and Obama shuts down all offshore drilling. He first delays response to protect his big time campaign contributor BP, then he seizes the opportunity to shut down an entire industry. Obama arbitrarily destroys the American oil business at the same time he is handing $2 billion to Soros-backed Petrobras in Brazil to drill even deeper. Talk about a man-made disaster!

Just like you don’t want Ferris Bueller and his friends anywhere near the keys to your Ferrari, you don’t want this President anywhere near the keys to the Internet. If the President is worried about cyber security he can strengthen government computer firewalls like responsible business are doing everywhere. There is no reason for him to control your access to the Internet which would make your PC valuable only as a boat anchor for Obama to throw into the Gulf.

As I have said, repeatedly, this is a deliberate strategy. Nothing discourages business more than uncertainty, and the Obama administration has introduced a climate of uncertainty in this country that is unprecedented in our history. Even during war, no American ever seriously believed anyone would come along and attempt to change the fundamental structure of our society. But it is happening now before our eyes!

The corruption of this administration, the fraud occupying the White House and the revolting, despicable animals running Congress, defy description. They are corrupt, subhuman slugs. Watch this four minute clip. Right on the money!

The Democrats have also done their own research and figured out who their “clients” are, where they live, and the issues that are their hot buttons. For them, it is simple, really. The Democratic constituents live in the big cities. Click on the 2008 presidential election map from the Washington Post and you’ll see it was the big cities that put Obama on the map.

If you added up the land mass of every blue and red county you’d see something really striking—the Republicans won 80 percent of this country, when measured by acreage. John McCain got a majority of votes in 2,417,000 square miles of the United States. Barack Obama, by comparison, won in just 580,000 square miles.

Ah, but now let’s look at the population numbers for each county. McCain still came out ahead, but not by much. The total population of counties won by Republicans was 143 million, while the population of counties won by Democrats was 127 million.

Basically, the Democrats swept the populations centers—the cities and more populated suburban areas—while the Republicans won everything else. Chip Wood, Personal Liberty Digest

So how did the Democrats win the big cities? Simple. By identifying the key issues of importance to their constituents. The “have-nots” in those cities are interested in handouts. Give them money and you win their votes. But you can’t win an election only with the have-nots. You need the monied and educated class. The “haves” in those cities are interested in the environment.

It’s easy to sell the “haves” on environmental issues. Most Americans have little contact with pollution. Much of our country is sparsely inhabited where pollution is non-existant, but the voters live in the big cities which they themselves pollute as these two maps from Pollution Scorecard illustrate:

Air Pollution Map of US

Chemical Pollution Map of US

By giving more electoral votes to the cities where Demo-crats control the “Demos,” the outcome is certain. Just like retailers know exactly what to offer their customers and control their market, the Democrats know how to control the election. If the rest of the country is interested in avoiding Democratic despotism they better get involved in the political process in a profound and persistent manner. It’s going to take more than laundry detergent to clean up this mess.

Congratulations Peggy for showing us why the left is so hard to deal with. Could it be that others on the left are like you, woefully ignorant of facts but still more than willing to opine based on their feelings and political orientation?