$8 billion - just for 'cap-and-trade' staffing

(Analyst's Note: Funny how the billions add up! All the new jobs are in the Federal Government. This "administrative cost" will be small compared to the management of health care for millions of Americans. )

A senior policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation believes "cap-and-trade" legislation will increase an already bloated federal government.

David Kreutzer tells OneNewsNow that if cap-and-trade legislation -- sometimes referred to as "energy ration and tax" by opponents -- passes the Senate, it will add more than $8 billion in additional government staff.

"This is not the cost to the economy from the higher energy prices -- that's much, much higher; that will be thousands of dollars per family...$9.4 trillion over the first 24 years," Kreutzer explains. "The eight billion [dollars] is just for the staff in Washington to handle the paperwork."

Obama seeks to track visits to .gov websites

(Analyst's Notes: Must Read. Not long ago there was a massive outcry over NSA tapping national telephones. Lets see how much concern there is when the White House itself is spying on Americans. The only motives for the WH also to be involved have to be POLITICAL - not national security. That is a big difference! Where is it stored? Where is it shared?)

WASHINGTON – The Barack Obama administration has announced plans to lift a government ban on tracking visitors to government websites, and potentially, collect their personal data through the use of "cookies" – an effort some suspect may already be in place on White House sites.

A ban on such tracking by the federal government on Internet users has been in place since 2000, however, the White House Office of Management and Budget now wants to lift the ban citing a "compelling need."

In fact, according to the Electronic Privacy and Information Center, federal agencies have already negotiated agreements and contracts with social networking sites like Google, YouTube, SlideShare, Facebook, AddThis, Blist, Flickr and VIMEO to collect information on visitors for federal web sites. All of these private companies are known to have agreements with federal agencies, but the public has never seen them.

In public comments submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, EPIC notes it has obtained documents that show federal agencies have negotiated these contracts with the private sector in violation of "existing statutory privacy rights." Those agencies include: Department of Defense, Department of the Treasury, and the National Security Agency.

There are suspicions the White House is already involved.

When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was recently asked by Fox News reporter Major Garrett why Americans who had not signed up to receive any e-mails from the White House, were now receiving e-mails from White House adviser David Axelrod promoting President Obama's health care plan, Gibbs refused to answer the question.

"The Obama administration's favorite book seems to be '1984' by George Orwell," said Brad O’Leary, publisher of The O'Leary Report monthly newsletter and author of "Shut Up, America: The End of Free Speech." "Only they don't see '1984' as a warning, but rather a blueprint for spying on every American who visits a government website – something that has been banned for nearly a decade."

According to Obama "technology czar" Vivek Kundra, the "compelling need" driving this major policy reversal is the administration's desire to create "more open" government and to "enhance citizen participation in government."

O'Leary finds serious fault with Kundra's rationale.

"According to the new technology czar, there is a 'compelling need' to do this," said O'Leary. "The only compelling need I can think of is for a failing Obama administration to compile an enemy list of gun owners, pro-lifers, tea-party participants, those opposed to illegal immigration, and anyone opposed to the Obama-Pelosi agenda of government control over Americans' lives."

Spy cookies can do more than merely recall the user names and passwords of visitors who return to their favorite web sites. They can also track, retrieve and report selected movements someone makes on the Internet. Through the use of cookies, the federal government could have the power to create an individual profile of anyone who visits a government website – right down to a person's recent online purchases, or even race, gender and income level.

"No matter what the Obama administration says, a 'cookie' is a spy device," said O’Leary. "No matter how inoffensive the administration says their spy devices will be, once you open the door to the federal government spying on every American who visits a government website, it can't be closed – it can only be expanded."

According to O'Leary, if the Obama administration is successful in lifting this ban on federal privacy invasion, the lives of many Americans could become open books for bureaucrats.

"What if a harmless trip to the State Department's travel website or the White House's health care site, the Census Bureau's web site results in the Obama administration's discovery that you are someone who recently visited Cabela's, Smith and Wesson, or a tea party or pro-life web site?" asked O'Leary. "Is this all mundane information that political animals in government don't care about? Of course not. You might sooner expect a visit from Obama's IRS or Homeland Security than a pat on the back for 'participating' in government."

O'Leary says that it is time for Congress to step in and pass legislation to protect the privacy rights of Americans who could fall victim to White House spy cookies.

"Because of the lack of transparency from the Obama White House, we are filing FOIA requests to determine exactly how these agencies are using spy cookies," said O'Leary.

Shocker: Sharia fails to deliver equality, accountability in northern Nigeria

(Analyst Note-LC: Here are some practical examples of how sharia law works in the real world.)

"Equality," of course, can only mean the equal accountability of Muslim men before the law, because Sharia is not designed to provide the same for women or unbelievers. And by their nature, theocracies do not lend themselves to accountability due to the sense of entitlement to rule, and the paternalistic "government knows best" attitude that clerics and politicians can invoke holy writ to support.

Aside from that, two themes in this article are worth noting: The first is that it is the poor implementation of Sharia that is the root of the problem. Sharia's legitimacy cannot be questioned: It is "good" because divine law has to be good (otherwise, one has crafted a deity worthy of being portrayed on screen by John Malkovich), and of course, the deity in charge has the last word on goodness.

In a related vein, there is the unshakeable belief among Muslims in this article-- one that is widely transmitted to naïve multiculturalists in the West -- that the "good" Sharia has to be out there, somewhere. And maybe, if we try it here, this time will be the one that works; that assessment is always subject yet again to the circular reasoning described in the preceding paragraph.

The alternative, and more realistic assessment of the situation in Nigeria is that any implementation of Sharia -- even a supposedly diluted, de-fanged version -- is a slippery slope toward the rest of the package: Theocratic systems do not lend themselves to partial implementation, and despite the fact that its supporters act as though there is nothing inherently wrong with the system, any Sharia is a ticking time bomb for civil rights and liberties -- because after all, the people in power are in agreement that it is "good."

And at the end of the day, power corrupts. So it should be no surprise that Sharia has only shifted around corruption in northern Nigeria rather than solving it.

"In Nigeria, Sharia Fails to Deliver," by Karin Brulliard for the Washington Post, August 12:

KANO, Nigeria -- As military rule ended in Nigeria a decade ago, an Islamic legal system was swept into place on a wave of popular support in the country's desperately poor and mostly Muslim northern states. It has turned out in a way few expected.

The draconian amputation sentences warned of by human rights activists and the religious oppression feared by Christians have mostly not come to pass. But neither has the utopia envisioned by backers of sharia law, who believed politicians' promises that it would end decades of corruption and pillaging by civilian and military rulers. The people are still poor and miserable, residents complain, and politicians are still rich.

Mostly? Some would beg to differ. How much violent intolerance is trivial?

How the battles over sharia play out could have effects beyond Nigeria, a nation pivotal to West Africa's stability and viewed by the United States as key to stopping the spread of religious extremism in Africa. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to discuss the issue with Nigerian leaders on a visit to the country this week.

"People want sharia. But not this kind of sharia," said Ahmad Al-Khanawy, 41, a reed-thin filmmaker, adding that the most visible signs of Islamic law are new censorship rules banning dancing and singing in movies made in Kannywood, as this city's film industry is known. Sharia-promoting politicians, he said, "want to cover their failure by making noise about fighting immorality. That is it."

Nigeria's moderate form of sharia may not have delivered a Muslim revolution, but it has fueled a growing disillusionment that analysts say has weakened public faith in democracy -- and could, if unchecked, spark religious militancy. That prospect was highlighted last month when a radical Islamist sect called Boko Haram attacked security forces in northern Nigeria, triggering violence that killed more than 700 people. The group draws its members from the ranks of frustrated youths.

Hence the slippery slope: Partial Sharia is a foot in the door, creating an opening for the rest of it -- or else.

"Sharia is about justice. Where you have sharia, you have development," said Salisu Saidu, 32, standing amid the leather bags he sells in Kano's labyrinthine market. "Nothing has changed. If one relied on tap water, one would die of thirst. We don't even talk of electricity."

Islam has dominated in this region on the edge of the Sahara for centuries, in a tenuous coexistence with the Christianity that is prevalent in more prosperous southern Nigeria. When Kano and 11 other northern states that had long applied Islamic law to civil cases adopted sharia for criminal matters, clashes broke out between Christians and Muslims. Early on, several sentences of death by stoning for female adulterers -- never carried out -- and the amputation of two men's hands for theft drew international condemnation.

This is a pattern we have seen across the Islamic world. International scrutiny and bad press have a way of causing a temporary softening of Sharia for public consumption.