Proof! N.Korea sank S.Korea ship

Worrisome developments as the war talk revs up. This is the problem with a President who appears weak,. Testing, testing and misjudgements as to reactions are what leads to war.

On the brink of ‘all-out war’: The lettering on a propellor that proves North Korean torpedo DID sink South’s navy ship

 

North Korean submarine fired torpedo in revenge for 2009 firefight

Seoul vows to take firm action as China refuses to condemn Pyongyang

North warns that punishment or sanctions will trigger ‘all out war’

 

North Korea has threatened to wage ‘all-out war’ if it is punished for the sinking of a South Korean warship.

The warning came after investigators in Seoul unveiled evidence they said proves that a North Korean submarine fired a torpedo that sank the corvette Cheonan on March 26, killing 46 sailors.

Pieces recovered at the sinking site ‘perfectly match’ the schematics of the torpedo included in introductory brochures provided to foreign countries by North Korea for export purposes, chief investigator Yoon Duk-young said.

The final nail in the coffin was a serial number on a torpedo fragment that matched the markings on a North Korean torpedo that South Korea obtained years earlier, Yoon said
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1279828/North-Korean-torpedo-DID-sink-Souths-navy-ship-propellor-lettering-proves.html#ixzz0oTTkJQsL

Congress about to limit political speech of bloggers?

From over at HotAir a read with “No surprise” here, though the comment “unintended consequences” is a stretch too far. There is nothing the Obama Regime does is “unintended.” March on Comrades, it is all for the State, don’t you know. And while I have the chance since we are on the topic of free speech- Hey HotAir…you closed your comments section to new folks, allow no trackbacks or pings now… us little ones who think we might be able to add to the debate are no longer welcome? I guess you don’t need the traffic.  Hey Michelle- is this what you had in mind? 

Reason’s Bradley Smith and Jeff Patch warn that the perhaps-unintended consequences of legislative language will allow the FEC to regulate political speech online.  The fact that media entities like the New York Times have specific exemptions built into the bill makes the intent, or lack thereof, rather murky:

Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere.

The DISCLOSE Act’s purpose, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Chris Van Hollen and other “reformers,” is simply to require disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.

The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected disparate treatment of media corporations and other corporations (including nonprofit groups) in campaign finance law. “Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment,” Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

No legitimate justification exists for excluding media corporations from regulations on political speech applicable to other corporations, unless the goal is to gain the support of editorial boards funded by the New York Times Co.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/19/congress-about-to-limit-political-speech-of-bloggers/

Top Obama advisor John Brennan talks about his love for “al-Quds.”

Listen below to this nut case… I wonder how many American Jews who voted for this regime are squirming in their seats watching Obama’s top counter terrorism advisor refer to Jerusalem by it’s Islamic name, “al-Quds?”…

John Brenna talks about his favorite city “al-Quds” and praises the Middle East for the freedom to practice your faith(?)

“I did spend time with classmates at the American University in Cairo in the 1970’s. And, time spent with classmates from Egypt, Jordan, Palestine from around the world who taught me that whatever our differences in nationality, or race, or religion, or language, there are certain aspirations that we all share. To get an education. To provide for our family. To practice our faith freely (huh?). To live in peace and security. And in a 25 year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle East… In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques at Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that pilgrimage. And, in all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem where three great faiths come together.”

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/top-obama-officials-now-calling-jerusalem-al-quds-video/