He's a thug through and through.

SCOTUS meets Chicago style politics

President Obama's Rose Garden remarks yesterday on the Supreme Court are shameful, a blot on his presidency.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

As a purported constitutional law lecturer, President Obama is fully aware that laws passed by democratically elected majorities (that's how laws are made) are overturned by the Supreme Court on a regular basis. His claim of a sizable majority is false when it comes to the House, where the margin was very close. But the size of the majority has no relevance, nor does the fact that the law in question was passed on a purely partisan basis with no Republican votes make any difference either.

Because the Harvard-educated lawyer knows all this, the words "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" are lies.

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

This is willful redefinition of judicial activism, which refers to inventing new law from something other than the actual words of the Constitution. As Richard Viguerie and Mark. J. Fitzgibbons remind us, the Constitution is the law that governs the government. Laws are unconstitutional when they exceed the limitations placed on the government by the people, through the Constitution. The law restrains the government, as the civil and criminal codes govern us. Overturning a law on that basis is not activism, it is law enforcement. Overturning a law because of some imagined right discerned not in the text but in an invented doctrine such as a penumbra does count as judicial activism. Obama knows this.

I must conclude that the only reason why President Obama would so egregiously lie is to send a message to the Court that if it displeases him, he will appeal to the segments of the American public utterly ignorant of the Constitution and not really paying close attention to the news. And he will in effect tell them that the Court isn't really legitimate. This is a Chicago-style "if they bring a knife, you bring a gun" threat.

The Justices know very well that they depend on consensus acceptance of their rulings. What if certain segments of society began to characterize the Court as illegitimate? The prospect of a president whipping up a segment of his base against the court's authority is, to use Obama's much-abused word, extraordinary. In the wake of liberal activist ruling, the talking heads always remind us that we must respect "the rule of law" when the Court invents law.

FDR's failed court packing adventure when faced with a reluctant court didn't incite the mob in a challenge to the court's legitimacy itself so far as I know. It was a proposal for legislation to enlarge the Court, a modification of the institution, not an implicit threat to challenge the institution itself.

Jon Meacham of TIME, no Conservative, cautions Obama:

...here is a pretty good rule of thumb for Democratic Presidents: if it didn't work for Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four terms and a World War, it probably won't work for you either.

Don Surber thinks Obama is making himself look ridiculous:

In attacking the Supreme Court, President Obama is channeling Democratic governors in the past such as Orval Faubus and George Wallace. Maybe he can go total jackass and stand in front of the hospital door shouting Obamacare now, Obamacare tomorrow, Obamacare forever.

Michael Walsh of NRO sees Obama as unable to deal with the word "no."

this is a man who has never heard the word "no." All along hisglide path to power, as he was handed off from one enabler to another, he's been told he's the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being anyone has ever known, and he erupts in petulant frustration when reality intrudes upon his narcissistic fantasy.

Jeannie DeAngelis comments:

Funny, Obama doesn't seem to have a problem with the unelected Burger court, almost four decades ago, taking the "unprecedented step" of deciding "the right to privacy" included killing unborn babies. With that in mind, maybe it's high time the American people follow Barack Obama's lead and revisit the injustice of one particular activist SCOTUS ruling he happens to heartily agree with, which for almost 40 years has negatively affected both the born and the unborn.

Obama must have been winging it in the Rose Garden. His delivery was slow, and it appeared that he was groping for words. He went with his Alinsky gut instinct, hitting those who stand in his way below the belt. It was not a wise decision.

I await the reaction of left wing law professors. Will any actually defend Obama's lies?

Update and bump:

Herb Meyer points out that if the president is correct, then Harvard Law School is incorrectly teaching constitutional law. Surely the dean ought to be questioned about this. So should every educator

Was it judicial activism when a Federal judge struck down a law passed by a majority of Californians that prohibited illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits? Is it judicial activism that Obama refuses to enforce immigration laws?

Bwahaha....

Eliot Spitzer Bombs in Ratings Following Keith Olbermann Exit

Not the race baiter's narrative

911 call shows Zimmerman stopped following Martin after dispatcher’s request, corroborates story

Obama

DUBIOUS DONATIONS ILLUSTRATED (ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTOR EDITION)

The Obama re-election campaign fundraising scandal deserves to be, and I think inevitably will be, a major news story. Earlier this morning I decided to find out how far an illegal donor could push the envelope and still have his contribution welcomed by the Obama campaign. So, like a number of our readers, I went to the Donate to Obama page and identified myself as Illegal Contributor. I entered my address as Cell Block 13, State Penitentiary, Stillwater MN. I identified my employer as Minnesota Penal System and my occupation as Inmate. Here is a screen shot showing the donation from Illegal Contributor:

Here are my employer and occupation:

I put a $3 contribution on one of my credit cards, and the Obama campaign accepted it. The campaign site automatically prompted me to set up a “Grassroots Fundraising” site, so I did. I identified myself as “Illegal Contributor” and added a graphic of an inmate behind bars. I included the legend “Illegal contributions wanted!” and this fundraising blurb:

Barack Obama is a money machine, but let’s not take any chances! Come to this page to make your illegal contributions. It’s easy, because the Obama campaign facilitates fraud!

My Obama Grassroots Fundraising page is here; it will be interesting to see how long it stays up, especially after this post. This is a screen shot of Illegal Contributor’s Obama Grassroots Fundraising page:

The Obama campaign acknowledged my contribution and sent this email to IllegalContributor@yahoo.com:

It is inconceivable that the Obama campaign disables all credit card security measures (unlike every other presidential campaign) for any reason other than to facilitate violations of the campaign finance laws. The Obama campaign has deliberately set up its fundraising system so that legal contribution limits can easily be circumvented, and illegal contributions from foreign nationals can be accepted. It is ironic that Democrats fulminate about Citizens Unitedand the need for disclosure of donors to non-campaign-related organizations, when the Obama re-election campaign is one gigantic fraud, structured to facilitate violation of federal campaign finance laws.

How the left wing media sanitizes the news...

S.F. Occupy activists evicted from building

Police on Monday evicted and arrested nearly 80 Occupy activists who had taken over an empty San Francisco building the night before and had stockpiled bricks and supplies with the apparent intention of staying long-term.

Officers in riot gear stormed the two-story building at 888 Turk St. at about 1:15 p.m. after tearing down a barricade protesters built to block the main entrance, said police spokesman Sgt. Michael Andraychak.

The building, which is owned by the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco, has been used as a music education facility by the archdiocese-associated nearby Sacred Heart Cathedral High School.

Occupy protester Beth Seligman said Monday morning that a few hundred people came into the building and stayed the night, but police said they believed that only about 80 people were inside Monday afternoon.

Activists said they chose to take over the building because they believed it has been vacant for five years and should be used as a center for health services and education instead of standing empty.

George Wesolek, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said the activists were wrong about the building's vacant status. The building was used for regular music classes until as recently as 18 months ago, Wesolek said. The archdiocese was also considering leasing out the building and using the revenue to help with financial aid for low-income Sacred Heart students, he said.

"This is definitely not a vacant building," Wesolek said. "It's not forgotten. It has a purpose."

Late Sunday night, the archdiocese signed a citizens' arrest for the occupiers on charges of trespassing and graffiti. By Monday afternoon, police said it had become clear the protesters were planning to stay in the building for quite a while, Andraychak said.

Demonstrators had "stockpiled" bricks and cans of paint on the roof of the building, he said, and they blocked windows and doors with plywood and stacks of chairs.

After police broke through the main door, protesters fled deeper into the building, barricading doors and stairways along the way, Andraychak said. One man jumped from a second-floor window to avoid police, but was caught soon after, he said.

There were no injuries during the arrests, Andraychak said.

The interior of the building on Monday afternoon, after the protesters had been removed, was covered in spray-painted graffiti and posters and photographs from previous Occupy events. There were signs on the walls to designate sleeping areas, "media free zones" and smoking rooms.

Protesters left behind sleeping bags and backpacks, guitars and a tambourine. A half-eaten sandwich sat on a crate in one room, and in the kitchen were boxes full of fresh fruits and vegetables. In one large room on the second floor, a bowl of dog food sat next to an empty bottle of tequila.

"They had no intention of leaving," Andraychak said.

Mayor Ed Lee, who has been criticized for being indecisive in his handling of the Occupy encampment at Justin Herman Plaza in late 2011, said before the arrests Monday that he was deferring to Police Chief Greg Suhr on plans to oust the protesters.

The mayor said he sympathized with the Occupy protesters' concerns over vacant buildings, but suggested they compile a list of vacant properties and share it with city officials rather than going the attention-grabbing route and taking them over.

"Identifying a building is one thing," Lee said. "When you occupy it and it's not in a condition of livability, it could be a danger for everybody.

"I personally would love to see every vacancy in the whole city have some plan and activity going on in it," Lee added. "I hate seeing vacancies in storefronts."

Left out of this story but reported by the local TV news was that Anarchist and white supremacist literature was found. Now, just imagine what if...

But, sending US warships to the Gulf of Hormuz did nothing?

Report: Obama Blaming Israel for Rising Fuel Prices

The Obama administration is blaming Israel for the recent rise in global crude oil prices, says its "posturing" on Iran brought the rise.

The Obama administration is blaming Israel for the recent rise in global crude oil prices, according to a Sunday report in The World Tribune. The rise in fuel prices is deemed as harming the U.S. economy and has also hurt Obama in the polls as he seeks re-election in November.

The report cited a leading U.S. analyst, Robert Satloff, who returned from talks with Israeli officials.

Satloff, executive director of theWashington Institute for Near East Policy, said, according to The World Tribune, that the Israeli leadership sawWashington as attributing the higher gas prices to “Israel’s posturing” on Iran.

“They think the Iranians should be held responsible for the higher gasoline prices,” Satloff was quoted as having said.

He added that the officials told him the Obama administration was staging a campaign to undermine Israel.

“I cannot underscore how deep and visceral the [Israeli] comments of the leaking that came out of Washington were,” Satloff said, noting Israel is alarmed by what officials determined were leaks by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama of purported Israeli preparations to attack Iran.

The Israeli concerns come in the wake of a report in Foreign Policy magazine last week, according to which Israel has purchased an airfield in Azerbaijan on Iran's northern border, prompting the United States to watch very closely.

Journalist Mark Perry wrote that the Obama administration is monitoring Israel's relations with Azerbaijan, particularly its military ties.

The Americans believe Israel may use the site as a springboard for an attack on Iran's nuclear plants, or as a landing and refueling spot following one. The site could also be used for aircraft needed for search, rescue and recovery in the wake of an attack.

“We're watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we're not happy about it,” an official told the Foreign Policy writer.

Azeri president Ilham Aliyev later dismissed the speculation and said, “Azerbaijan's territory will never be used to launch an attack against its neighbor, Iran.”

How about the turmoil in Libya Mr. President? Or, your comments about Iran? Though anyone with a shred of sense realizes that Obama will do nothing to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons.

What do you think he has in store for Israel if he gets a second term?

Conditional loans? Conditional on how much gets kicked back to the DNC

Solar company bankrupt despite 'win-win' DOE loan

In keeping with the recent trend of so-called green companies going into the red, another solar energy company supported by President Obama's top administration officials declared bankruptcy today.

Solar Trust for America received $2.1 billion in conditional loan guarantees from the Department of Energy -- "the largest amount ever offered to a solar project,"according to Energy Secretary Steven Chu -- for a project near Blythe, Calif., butdeclared bankruptcy within a year. It is unclear how much of the guarantee, if any, was actually awarded.

Senior officials in Obama's administration had very high hopes for the Blythe project. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar attended the groundbreaking ceremony, which he described as "a historic moment in America’s new energy frontier" and "another important step in making America’s clean energy future a reality." Chu trumpeted at the time that Solar Trust would prove that "when we rev up the great American innovation machine, we can out-compete any other nation."

The embarrassment should be bipartisan. "This is a huge milestone for our community," Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., said when the company received its loan guarantee. "I look forward to continuing my work supporting projects . . . that will harness our local energy resources and help reduce our nation’s dangerous dependence on unstable foreign oil.”

Uwe Schmidt, chairman and CEO of the company, also argued that Solar Trust was good for the nation. He wrote last year that "the DOE loan guarantee is a 'win-win' for government and the companies involved and will not only advance the cause of energy independence but will create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country."

The bankruptcy makes Schmidt's attempt to rebuke DOE critics in the wake of the Solyndra bankruptcy particuarly ironic.

"Despite the posturing and finger pointing, the American solar energy industry is alive and well," Schmidt wrote in an op-ed for the Huffington Post, before discussing his company's business plans. Referring to Solyndra, he lamented that "one company's bankruptcy has cast doubt on the credibility of a government program that is otherwise being administered with incredible efficiency."

The list of bankrupt solar companies has grown since Schmidt scolded Solyndra investigators. How many more might go bankrupt? Secretary Chu won't say.

Bureaucratic fascism

EPA gives E15 go-ahead despite objections, approves production applications

As predicted and expected, the Environmental Protection Agency today approved the first applications to make E15, a blend of gasoline with 15 percent ethanol in it. This means that E15 is now a "significant step" closer to production and sale in America.

For decades, gasoline in the U.S. has had up to 10 percent ethanol in it, but the extra five points were enough to generate resistance. The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute and the Science Committee in the House of Representatives both took steps to prevent E15 from entering the national supply. Even the EPA admits not every vehicle should use the new blend, saying it is approved only for Model Year 2001 vehicles and newer.

Many automakers have been hesitant about E15, fearing fuel system and engine damage, so a number of them joined a lawsuit against it in 2010 through the Auto Alliance. Some have even gone so far as to say that any older vehicles that use E15 will have their warranties voided. The EPA's rules say that any pump dispensing E15 must be clearly labeled. The EPA is not requiring any station to sell E15 in any way, but the Obama Administration does want to encourage its use, and thus wants to help get 10,000 blender pumps installed in the U.S. over the next 5 years.

In late 2011, the U.S. Congress ended a 30-year tax subsidy on corn-based ethanol while also stopping tariffs on ethanol imported from Brazil. Since 1980, the ethanol industry has received an estimated $45 billion in subsidies. Check out the official EPA press release for further details after the jump.

Is he saying that blacks are racist?

Van Jones: Obama Wouldn't Lose Black Vote If He Came Out As Gay

“I think if President Obama came out as gay, he wouldn't lose the black vote," a cheerful Van Jones told MSNBC this afternoon.

"President Obama is not going to lose the black vote no matter what he does," he added.

Second Amendment

Federal judge says N.C. can't ban all citizens' guns during emergencies

Not when her Ox is gored. Why is the "Living Wage" good for others?

Quinn for the 1 percent

To the surprise — and consternation — of some, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has moved to exempt part of a major Manhattan development project from her economically corrosive “living wage” bill.

The Related Cos. won a carve-out from the bill for a significant chunk of Hudson Yards, the 26-acre mixed-use development along the West Side.

The bill would require developers like Related and other companies that receive city subsidies to pay their workers at least $10 — and as much as $11.50 — an hour, far above the state’s minimum wage.

Why the special treatment for Related in this instance?

Well, it certainly doesn’t hurt that the firm has taken quite a liking to mayoral wannabe Quinn, with its employees thus far donating $34,200 to her campaign.

But you’ve got to wonder what some of New York’s major developers think of this.

For one thing, passing such a bill with one carve-out just opens the way to adding further exemptions down the line for other companies. That’s simple equity (not that Quinn & Co, care much aboutthat).

But additional exceptions would render the bill practically meaningless in terms of its actual effect.

That’ll be just fine with folks who care about the city’s future, of course.

We’ve warned from the outset that such a bill would do little more than radically drive up construction costs — a significant disincentive for New York development.

Or kill important projects a-borning — as with the erstwhile Kingsbridge Armory undertaking in The Bronx.

More fundamentally, the current scheme says a lot about how Quinn plans to govern if she’s elected mayor.

Her proposal plays both sides of the issue — scoring points with the unions, who desperately want the bill, while covering the back of a key developer and campaign supporter.

But, not to coin a phrase, her approach protects the 1 percent of developers — big players like Related — while forcing the 99 percent to carry the burden of the bill’s business-stifling effect.

Best that the bill die on the merits.

But if it moves forward, it should do so with no exemptions — either it applies to everyone, or to no one.

Quinn is supposed to understand these things.

Apparently not.

Democrat operatives. Will the Left complain about corporate media control here?

Local group to buy Phila. Media Network for $55 million

They're investigating how they can get out of lying. Why you can't trust the media.

NBC to Internally Investigate Misleading Segment on Zimmerman 911 Call

It's the inherent bias of the media. Remember how the media played the Duke LaCrosse team. Remember how NBC accused Richard Jewel was accused by the media of the Atlanta bomb only to be completely vindicated and successfully sued NBC and won. Tawana Brawley anyone?

The mainstream media has become worse then the old tabloids by an exponential factor. At least the old tabloids stuck to people who were abducted by aliens.

Reporter Matt Gutman said the clearer video shows "what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman's head."

Neighborhood Watch volunteer Zimmerman has said he shot 17-year-old Trayvon in self-defense. The video shows Zimmerman arriving at the Sanford Police Department within an hour after the shooting.

Gutman said the video had been "clarified" by Forensic Protection Inc. Former FBI Special Agent Brad Garrett told ABC that the clearer video shows "marks on the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head."

Another reason I don't buy GM

GM ends donations to climate-change-denying Heartland Institute

Obama: supporter of Jew haters worldwide

Obama’s Push to Fund UNESCO is No Joke

Even amidst the flurry of overt philo-Semitism that is the hallmark of President Obama’s election year Jewish charm offensive, some remnants of his less appealing foreign policy stands persist. One such anomaly is the administration campaign to restore American funding to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). U.S. law required Obama to cut off UNESCO after it admitted the Palestinian Authority as a full voting member of the group as part of the Arab effort to make an end run around the Middle East peace process. The Palestinian push for recognition of their independence without first making peace with Israel fizzled, but the president’s ardent love for the UN and its constituent agencies made him regret the fact that he was obligated to punish UNESCO.

There is little chance that Congress will amend the law so as to allow the flow of U.S. taxpayer cash to resume. But those supporting such a move got a boost recently when Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” did a segment intended to spoof the cutoff. The satire complimented UNESCO’s own efforts to persuade Americans that they are a collection of non-political do-gooders whose efforts are being hampered. But as Claudia Rosett writes in an important piece in The Weekly Standard, the truth about UNESCO is a familiar story for those who follow the world of international non-governmental organizations. The corruption of the agency and, in particular, its efforts in the African nation of Gabon (which was the focus of “The Daily Show’s” skits), serves as a warning of how the world body wastes American money intended for charitable purposes.

As Rosett writes:

Far from helping the world’s neediest, UNESCO’s top priority is helping itself. The Heritage Foundation’s Brett Schaefer calculates that 87 percent of UNESCO’s $326 million budget last year was allocated for its own staff, travel, and operating costs. More than half of UNESCO’s staffers are based in Paris, many pulling in tax-exempt six-figure salaries, with plush benefits and 30 days of vacation per year. UNESCO’s auditors reported that on travel costs alone, the organization was squandering more than $3 million annually via bad management and a taste for business-class airline tickets. A program of financial disclosure by senior UNESCO officials has been mysteriously delayed.

To its credit, UNESCO does have an Ethics Office, which in its 2009-2010 annual report bluntly noted “a failure by employees at all levels to take responsibility for their work.” That’s no surprise, given the findings in the same report that many of UNESCO’s employees don’t know what they are supposed to be doing. The Ethics Office further reported receiving “more and more complaints” about UNESCO employees “inappropriately using their diplomatic immunity” to show “non-respect of private legal and financial obligations.” In other words, they were abusing UN privileges to break local laws.

As for Gabon, as Rosett notes:

Apparently [UNESCO’s Washington flack] neglected to mention to Comedy Central’s intrepid reporter that little Gabon is the ninth-largest oil producer in Africa. Gabon’s 1.5 million citizens are poor not because the United States has been snatching their books or defunding UNESCO, but because Gabon has been plundered for more than 40 years by the family of President Ali Bongo Ondimba—the same fellow who showed his support for UNESCO after its Palestinian vote by pledging $2 million from Gabon.

Though UNESCO was supposedly reformed in the last decade after a long history of being one of the most corrupt and politically biased (against Israel) of all the UN’s agencies, the reality is that the rhetoric we have heard from the president and Secretary of State Clinton about its value to the world is largely fluff. It continues to show its prejudice against Israel in efforts to treat Jewish holy sites in Hebron, Bethlehem and Jerusalem as Muslim shrines and to oppose archeological digs in Israel’s capital as attempts to “Judaize” the city.

The Obama campaign to refund UNESCO is one more example of how the president intends to use a second term to show how “flexible” his foreign policy will be. UNESCO doesn’t deserve American funding. But one can bet that a re-elected Obama will spend the next four years finding ways to funnel U.S. support to his pets at the UN.

The hood ornament of the limousine liberal

Keith Olbermann Complained To Current That Car Service Drivers ‘Smelled, Talked To Him’

Obama and his friends

Top Obama campaign donor accused of fraud

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A major donor to President Barack Obama has been accused of defrauding a businessman and impersonating a bank official, creating new headaches for Obama's re-election campaign as it deals with the questionable history of another top supporter.

The New York donor, Abake Assongba, and her husband contributed more than $50,000 to Obama's re-election effort this year, federal records show. But Assongba is also fending off a civil court case in Florida, where she's accused of thieving more than $650,000 to help build a multimillion-dollar home in the state - a charge her husband denies.

Obama is the only presidential contender this year who released his list of "bundlers," the financiers who raise campaign money by soliciting high-dollar contributions from friends and associates. But that disclosure has not come without snags; his campaign returned $200,000 last month to Carlos and Alberto Cardona, the brothers of a Mexican fugitive wanted on federal drug charges.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt declined comment to The Associated Press. He instead referred the AP to previous statements he made to The Washington Post, which first reported the allegations against Assongba in its Sunday editions. LaBolt told the paper 1.3 million Americans have donated to the campaign, and that it addresses issues with contributions promptly.

Assongba was listed on Obama's campaign website as one of its volunteer fundraisers - a much smaller group of about 440 people.

Assongba and her husband, Anthony J.W. DeRosa, run a charity called Abake's Foundation that distributes school supplies and food in Benin, Africa.

In one Florida case, which is still ongoing, Swiss businessman Klaus-Werner Pusch accused Assongba in 2009 of engaging him in an email scam - then using the money to buy a multimillion-dollar home, the Post reported. The suit alleges Assongba impersonated a bank official to do it. Pusch referred the AP's questions to his attorney, who did not immediately return requests seeking comment Sunday.

Meanwhile, Assongba has left a trail of debts, with a former landlord demanding in court more than $10,000 in back rent and damages for a previous apartment. She was also evicted in 2004 after owing $5,000 in rent, records show.

In an interview with the AP on Sunday, DeRosa said the allegations against his wife were untrue, although he couldn't discuss specifics because of pending litigation. He said he and Assongba were "very perturbed" by the charges, and said the couple's charity does important work in Africa.

Assongba has given more than $70,000 to Democratic candidates in recent years, an AP review of Federal Election Commission data shows. Her larger contributions include $35,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee between Obama and the Democratic Party, and at least $15,000 to the Democratic National Committee. She also contributed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

Abake's Foundation is listed by the IRS as a registered nonprofit organization; its financial reports were unavailable. A representative who picked up the phone at the foundation's Benin office declined to answer questions, and instead referred the AP to Assongba.

Obama's campaign declined to comment on whether its vetting procedures were thorough enough, or whether Assongba's contribution would be refunded. All told, Obama has raised more than $120 million this election, not counting millions more from the Democratic Party - giving him a financial advantage thus far over any of his Republican challengers.

The Brits are subjects of the crown, will we become subjects of the government?

Internet activity 'to be monitored' under new laws

Ministers are preparing a major expansion of the Government's powers to monitor the email exchanges and website visits of every person in the UK, it was reported today.

"Nick Pickles, director of the Big Brother Watch campaign group, said: "This is an unprecedented step that will see Britain adopt the same kind of surveillance seen in China and Iran."