Learned Nothing

There is a lesson in every defeat, if you’re not too pigheaded to learn it. When it comes to the shellacking Democrats have taken in the last few elections, pigheaded doesn’t begin to cover their reaction.

Well, they are Homo Superior Liberalis, and you’re a racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted neanderthal if you don’t understand that they are the superior life form with the superior intelligence.

Related image
So to show my superiority I riot and whine like a 2 year old who has had their favorite toy take away. My leaders pay for it. They tell me to keep it up.
Then I try to intimidate the Electoral College members like a mafia boss.
That’s how I show I’m superior because I already know I am.
Everyone in my echo chamber agrees with me.
So why are you so ignorant that you don’t?

With the exception of President Obama’s re-election in 2012, Democrats have been on a severe losing streak since 2010. It couldn’t happen to a nicer, more deserving group of people.

Americans had a large plate full of unfettered progressive rule in 2009 and 2010, and they did not like it. Ever since, they’ve been rejecting Democrats like a transplant patient rejects a bad kidney.

Only, the Democrats haven’t noticed.

With the exception of Barack Obama.

The cult of personality surrounding the president is disturbing, but less so over time as it became clear it was not contagious. Every candidate he personally pushed for went down in flames. Every time he put himself on the line for someone or something other than himself, he lost.

One shining example came when Martha Coakley lost to Scott Brown, a Republican in the blue state of San Francisco, er, Massachusetts, in a crucial Senate race. The only issue was the president’s health care bill, and it lost.

He is personally popular, but what he stands for is ants at a picnic. People have separated the two with him but married the policies and the party for everyone else.

Barack Obama is the best thing to ever happen to Republican get-out-the-vote efforts. The GOP realizes this, but Democrats are in denial.

You hear it all the time – MSNBC and CNN hosts and pundits can’t fathom the concept of their policies being unwanted any more than they can accept that they don’t work. Their losses have to be caused by other factors.

And they are obsessed to the point of cognitive dissonance about race where everyone who disagrees with them must therefore be motivated by racism.

Since the election, Democrats have blamed everything but a comet, a plague and the death of Prince for the GOP winning the White House and holding Congress. A couple more appearances by Howard Dean on TV, and you probably will start to hear about comets and plagues.

That’s the problem for Democrats – they don’t like looking into the mirror any more than the American people like looking at them.

You can’t shame the shameless. Nor can you get the Narcissistic to look at themselves critically.

I get that one of the stages of grief is denial. In fact, it’s the first one. Since having their posteriors handed to them in 2010, Democrats haven’t moved past stage one.

They blame the voters for being duped, self-destructive, even stupid. This year, with the rejection of Hillary Clinton, we’ve gone from being a racist nation that twice elected a black man to being a racist and sexist nation for twice not electing a woman – and for electing Trump. Oddly, the black man who beat her the first time avoided the sexist label because the left manufactures the labels. In the ultimate fit of irony, leftists even have taken to blaming media bias for their losses.

 

Missing from Democrats’ blame game is anything having to do with Democrats. It’s not that Clinton was a horrible candidate running to continue unpopular policies that have brought about economic stagnation; it’s that all of us who voted against her are a bunch of misogynists.

Racists, homophobes, islamophobes, and bigots! OH MY! 🙂

It’s not that Hillary’s corruptions were something the people did not want to reward; it was the media for reporting on them too much. It wasn’t Clinton’s decision to obfuscate disclosure rules and put national security at risk for reasons no one can believably explain; it was a letter the FBI Director sent so he wouldn’t have been found to contradict his sworn congressional testimony.

It’s always something else, never Democrats.

It’s never their fault, they are after all, Homo Superior Liberalis.

The last week and a half have demonstrated the power of denial and just how addicted the left is to it. They’re being rejected at every level of government. In many cases, Republicans won simply because they were running against Democrats.

Democrats: if we wish hard enough and crush people enough reality will bend to OUR will.

Given the names being floated to head the Democratic National Committee – the rehash of Dean and radical Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota – Democrats have shown they will not take that long, sobering look into a reflective surface anytime soon. They have learned nothing from the Obama years. Good.

 

But Republicans clearly haven’t either.

dear-gop

That the first thing they did after winning the White House and narrowly maintaining control of Congress was to attempt to reinstate earmarks shows this. How arrogant and self-destructive can they be? Wait, don’t answer that. Thankfully Speaker Paul Ryan killed that idea for now. But we have confirmation, as if we needed it, that Republicans are as obtuse as we feared and have learned nothing.

They say the job of parents of young kids is simply to keep the kids from killing themselves. It’s not that their suicidal. It’s that they don’t know any better, and curiosity forms before the rational brain.

With politicians, the rational brain works, but the arrogance of power overrides it.

But with Democrats the rational brain is non-existent and the emotions are King.

Thomas Jefferson said, “Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty.” With the clowns we have in Washington, both in the minority and majority, we can’t afford complacency.

If Democrats somehow regain power, they will push the same policies, with the same arrogance, and the people will continue to reject it as if it were a compulsion. If Republicans go unchecked, they will turn into Democrats.

 

Each of the elections in the 21st century have sent clear messages to politicians about what the American people want and what we will accept, with each message louder than the last. The old way of doing things is unacceptable.

People want their liberty protected from government as much as they want it protected by government. It remains to be seen which way President-Elect Trump will slide on the scale, but Democrats and Republicans already have started to slide into their old habits.

If you thought electing Trump and retaining Republican control of government was the end of the fight, sorry to wake you; Democrats are out there ready to strike, and Republicans are ready to be Republicans again. This election was a game-changer with important lessons to learn. And there’s every reason to believe elected officials from both parties didn’t learn a damn thing. (Derek Hunter)

unackceptable

progressiveprotest

 

The Prism of Big Brother

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5dmf5xZJu0

The scale of America’s surveillance state was laid bare on Thursday as senior politicians revealed that the US counter-terrorism effort had swept up swaths of personal data from the phone calls of millions of citizens for years.

After the revelation by the Guardian of a sweeping secret court order that authorised the FBI to seize all call records from a subsidiary of Verizon, the Obama administration sought to defuse mounting anger over what critics described as the broadest surveillance ruling ever issued.

A White House spokesman said that laws governing such orders “are something that have been in place for a number of years now” and were vital for protecting national security. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the Verizon court order had been in place for seven years. “People want the homeland kept safe,” Feinstein said.

BUT Obama himself prior to  his re-coronation declared the War on Terror won.

“The war on terror is over,” a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

This new outlook has, in the words of the National Journal, come from a belief among administration officials that “It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists.”

“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida,” the source said, “now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

So who’s he keeping it “safe” from then? 🙂

The White House sought to defend what it called “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats”. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Fisa orders were used to “support important and highly sensitive intelligence collection operations” on which members of Congress were fully briefed.

“The intelligence community is conducting court-authorized intelligence activities pursuant to a public statute with the knowledge and oversight of Congress and the intelligence community in both houses of Congress,” Earnest said.

Or are we talking about Janet Napolitano’s “domestic Terrorists”, aka The Tea Party. 🙂

History: http://governmentagainstthepeople.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/senator-barack-obama-on-illegal-domestic-surveillance/

“This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises …”

Barack Obama, May 23

Nice thought. But much as Obama would like to close his eyes, click his heels three times and declare the war on terror over, war is a two-way street.

That’s what history advises: Two sides to fight it, two to end it. By surrender (World War II), by armistice (Korea and Vietnam) or when the enemy simply disappears from the field (the Cold War).

Obama says enough is enough. He doesn’t want us on “a perpetual wartime footing.” Well, the Cold War lasted 45 years. The war on terror, 12 so far. By Obama’s calculus, we should have declared the Cold War over in 1958 and left Western Europe, our Pacific allies, the entire free world to fend for itself – and consigned Eastern Europe to endless darkness. (Charles Krauthammer)

With Al Qaeda’s core now “on the path to defeat,” he argued, the nation must adapt.

But “adapt” to what?

Top secret PRISM program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Facebook and Apple.

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.

The program, code-named PRISM, has not been made public until now. It may be the first of its kind. The NSA prides itself on stealing secrets and breaking codes, and it is accustomed to corporate partnerships that help it divert data traffic or sidestep barriers. But there has never been a Google or Facebook before, and it is unlikely that there are richer troves of valuable intelligence than the ones in Silicon Valley.

Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”

PRISM was launched from the ashes of President George W. Bush’s secret program of warrantless domestic surveillance in 2007, after news media disclosures, lawsuits and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court forced the president to look for new authority.

Which, of course, make all of this George Bush’s fault! He;s the one responsible for invading your every waking moment technologically! Not Big Brother Obama and his cronies! 🙂

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims “collection directly from the servers” of major US service providers.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

In a statement, Google said: “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data.”

Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. “If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge,” one said.

An Apple spokesman said it had “never heard” of PRISM.

It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers.

Government officials and the document itself made clear that the NSA regarded the identities of its private partners as PRISM’s most sensitive secret, fearing that the companies would withdraw from the program if exposed. “98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft; we need to make sure we don’t harm these sources,” the briefing’s author wrote in his speaker’s notes. (WP)

The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.

Which according to the left makes all of this spying Bush’s fault! 🙂

The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US.

It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.

Disclosure of the PRISM program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers.

The participation of the internet companies in PRISM will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata.

Some of the world’s largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan “Your privacy is our priority” – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007.

It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online.

Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks. (UK Guardian)

In a statement issue late Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said “information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”

But the War on Terror was won, so who are you afraid of? 🙂

Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

So, a Note to the NSA computer that is reading my blog and listening to my phone: I HOPE YOU CHOKE ON IT M*F*!

Thank you.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Shout Louder: Food For the Sowell V

An old-time trial lawyer once said, “When your case is weak, shout louder!”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shouted louder when asked about the Obama administration’s story last fall that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. ambassador’s quarters in Benghazi, Libya, was due to an anti-Islamic video that someone in the United States had put on the Internet, and thereby provoked a protest that escalated into violence.

She shouted:

“We had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Students of propaganda may admire the skill with which she misdirected people’s attention.

After all, she is now running for President in 2016.

But those of us who are still old-fashioned enough to think that the truth matters cannot applaud her success.

Let’s go back to square one.

After the attack on the American ambassador’s quarters in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, the Obama administration immediately blamed it on the anti-Islamic video.

Moreover, this version of what happened was not just a passing remark. It was a story that the administration kept repeating insistently.

Hoax In High Places

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice repeated that story on five different television talk shows on the same Sunday. President Obama himself repeated the same story at the United Nations.

The man who put the anti-Islamic video on the Internet was arrested for a parole violation, creating more media coverage to keep attention on this theme.

“What difference, at this point, does it make?” Secretary Clinton now asks.

What difference did it make at the time?

Obviously the Obama administration thought it made a difference, with an election coming up. Prior to the attack, the administration’s political theme was that Barack Obama had killed Osama bin Laden (with an assist from the Navy SEALs), vanquished al-Qaida and was now in the process of putting the terrorist threat behind us.

To have the attack in Benghazi be seen as a terrorist attack — and a devastating one — would have ruined this picture, with an election coming up.

“Mission Accomplished” Anyone? 🙂

The key question that remains unanswered to this day is:

What speck of evidence is there that the attack in Benghazi was due to the much-discussed video or that there was ever any protest demonstration outside the ambassador’s quarters?

If there is no evidence whatever, then the whole attempt to say that a protest over a video escalated into an attack was a deliberate hoax by people who knew better.

There is no point in the administration saying that they did not have all the facts about the attack immediately. All the facts may never be known.

But the real question is:

Did you have even a single fact that would substantiate your repeated claims that some video led to a protest in Benghazi that got out of hand and led to the attack?

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton herself was not featured in this campaign, even though as secretary of State she was a key figure.

Hillary was not about to create video footage that could come back to haunt her if she runs for president of the United States in 2016.

In a larger context, the Benghazi attack showed that you cannot unilaterally end the “war on terror” or the terrorists’ war on us, by declaring victory.

For years, the Bush administration’s phrase “war on terror” was avoided like the plague by the Obama administration, even if that required the Fort Hood massacre to be classified as “workplace violence.”

But, no matter how clever the rhetoric, reality nevertheless rears its ugly head.

Once the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi is seen for what it was — a highly coordinated and highly successful operation by terrorists who were said to have been vanquished — that calls into question the Obama administration’s Middle East foreign policy.

That is why it still matters.

But Obama and his minions in The  Ministry of Truth have moved on to other distractions, Gun Control and Amnesty.
Benghazi? What’s that? Oh that thing, that’s old news stop worrying about that. You’re just trying to hurt the President by bringing that up. Go away….
We have the Coronation succession of Queen Hilary I to plan. Go away you partisan pests…
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

You Mean it wasn’t a Film That Did It?!

YOU MEAN IT WASN’T A FILM’s FAULT!? 🙂

Obama Sept 12th, 2012: And Obama said that despite the inflammatory movie, the violence was unwarranted.

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” he said. “But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence — none.” (CNN)

An independent panel’s sharply critical report on the Sept. 11 attacks on the Benghazi consulate blames “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies within two bureaus of the State Department” for the post’s inability to defend itself. 

The report details the events that unfolded on Sept. 11 in Benghazi, Libya, when the Special Mission post was overrun by militants who used rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and machine-gun fire, according to the 39-page report. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

The report’s findings fall largely into two categories: staffing and the physical security of the Benghazi post. Staff was, according to the report, talented but relatively inexperienced. Personnel there spent about 40 days on assignment, resulting in “diminished institutional knowledge.” 

In a statement Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she accepts the report’s recommendations. The independent review board was formed at her request and was chaired by former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Tom Pickering. 

YOU MEAN IT WASN’T A FILM!

Ramirez.jpeg

But the truly sad thing is, a President was impeached for WaterGate and removed from office.

A President was impeached but not removed from office for having sex in the Oval Orifice and lying his ass off about it.

But this, nothing substantive will actually happen. Neither Obama or Hilary are seriously threatened by this politically. They are too busy with their shiny new “crisis” to waste time on this old thing.

And that’s the sad part.

But that’s the reality of Amerika today. The truly guilty can get away with anything as long as they are Democrats.

And the American people, in general, are too sheepish and stupid to care.

Hey, look “American Idol” is going to be on again…WOW!  Now that matters!  🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

ROTFL!

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Mission Possible: Deception

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he took office.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair: That is simply not true. In fact, unemployment has now dropped below 9%. It’s continuing to drop. He’s been focused on —

Carlson: It’s higher than when they promised the stimulus would lower it to 8%.

Wasserman Schultz: You see, that narrative doesn’t work for you anymore, though, because —

Carlson: It’s not my narrative. I’m just talking about facts.

Wasserman Schultz: You just said the unemployment rate is going up since Obama took office, and it hasn’t.

Carlson: Is unemployment higher since President Obama took office?

Wasserman Schultz: What’s happened since President Obama took office —

Carlson: Is unemployment higher than when he took office?

Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it’s dropping. You just said it’s been increasing and that’s not true.

New narrative and Talking Points from the Orwellian Ministry of Truth Minister. 🙂

Deny reality. Repeatedly. And by the way, we are at war with Oceania and always have been… (1984 reference).

Now, it’s Harry Reid’s turn: Reid: “Millionaire Job Creators Are Like Unicorns” … They “Don’t Exist

Reid: “The Republicans say the richest of the rich in our country, even those who make millions every year, shouldn’t contribute more to get our economy back on track. They call our plan, time after time, a tax on job creators, and I say so-called “job creators.” Because I say that, Mr. President, every shred of evidence contradicts this red herring. For example, there have been many outlets, but I’ll concentrate on one. National Public Radio went looking for one of these fictitious millionaire job creators. A reporter reached out to the business groups and a tax lobby in the Republican Congress hoping to interview one of these millionaires. Days ticked by with no luck. Many of our job creators are like unicorns, they’re impossible to find and don’t exist. That’s because only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than one percent, are actually small business owners and only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction is a traditional job creator.”

Yeah, they might be Bill Gates (Microsoft), or the Late Steve Jobs (Apple). Or even JEFFREY IMHELT (Job Creation Czar) – Jeffrey Immelt’s net worth is $60 million dollars and annual salary of $22 million.

And, of course they don’t employ anyone. 🙂

The Orwellian smoke being blown up your ass is that that the millionaire aren’t “small business” people.

So, since millionaires aren’t “small business” job creators (they are BIG business job creators) it’s ok to tax the hell out of them!!!

Oh, and by the way the “millionaires” tax goes all the way down to $250,000 a year WHICH CAN BE A “SMALL BUSINESS” Job Creator. But we won’t talk about that because it interferes with our class warfare narrative.

So it’s all word games and misdirection and manipulation, as usual.

It’s meant to confuse you.

And you think, dear reader, you’re safe…

What began as an attempt to restrain foreign piracy on the Internet has morphed into a domestic “kill switch” on First Amendment freedom in the fastest-growing corner of the marketplace of ideas.

Proposed federal legislation purporting to protect online intellectual property would also impose sweeping new government mandates on internet service providers – a positively Orwellian power grab that would permit the U.S. Justice Department to shut down any internet site it doesn’t like (and cut off its sources of income) on nothing more than a whim.

Under the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) the federal government – which is prohibited constitutionally from abridging free speech or depriving its citizens of their property without due process – would engage in both practices on an unprecedented scale. And in establishing the precursor to a taxpayer-funded “thought police,” it would dramatically curtail technology investment and innovation – wreaking havoc on our economy.

Consider this: Under the proposed legislation all that’s required for government to shutdown a specific website is the mere accusation that the site unlawfully featured copyrighted content.  Such an accusation need not be proven – or even accompanied by probable cause. All that an accuser (or competitor) needs to do in order to obtain injunctive relief is point the finger at a website.

Additionally, SOPA would grant regulators the ability to choke off revenue to the owners of these newly classified “rogue” websites by accusing their online advertisers and payment providers as co-conspirators in the alleged “piracy.” Again, no finding of fact would be required – the mere allegation of impropriety is all that’s needed to cut the website’s purse strings.

Who’s vulnerable to this legislation?

“Any website that features user-generated content or that enables cloud-based data storage could end up in its crosshairs,” writes David Sohn, senior policy council at the Center on Democracy and Technology. “(Internet Service Providers) would face new and open-ended obligations to monitor and police user behavior. Payment processors and ad networks would be required to cut off business with any website that rights-holders allege hasn’t done enough to police infringement.” (The Hill)

But if Congress does pass these laws, it will be a testament to the enormous power and influence of two Democratic special interest groups—the Hollywood lobby, comprised of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, and the trial lawyers.

If you’re wondering why lawyers and Hollywood folks would get behind legislation to censor the Internet, you only need to listen to former Senator Chris Dodd (of Dodd-Frank fame), now the head of the MPAA, who last week explained to Variety that the lobby is only asking for the same kind of power to censor the Internet as the government has in the People’s Republic of China:

“When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn’t do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites.”

And one thing Liberal really want to to do is make sure there’s no one to contradict their Big Brother vision of controlling everyone and everything.

But Dodd calls such alarms “exaggerated hyperbole.”

Just like unemployment that has been above 8% since February 2009 means the rate has dropped to 8.6% (which was a politically motivated number that didn’t count the massive number of people who just gave up!)

Remember that the unemployment rate is not “how many people don’t have jobs?”, but “how many people don’t have jobs and are actively looking for them”

Since 2007, the percent of the population that either has a job or is actively looking for one has fallen from 62.7 percent to 58.5 percent. That’s millions of workers leaving the workforce, and it’s not because they’ve become sick or old or infirm. It’s because they can’t find a job, and so they’ve stopped trying. (WP)

So the more people who give up entirely, the better the Unemployment rate looks.

Now that’s government in action! 🙂

And the Debt hasn’t gone up under Obama, that was the fault of George W. Bush, and they just haven’t had enough time to fix it yet. It’s been tougher than they thought (yeah spending $5 Trillion dollar in less than 3 years will do that).

These are all Democrat/Liberal Talking Points. they are all mean to deceive.

And deception is the only game in town these days.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Outrageous

Time to get up on my high horse and be an old fart. I nearly flipped out when I found out about this one.

You wonder why your insurance rates are going up:

Replace your normal rearview mirror with this complete all-in-one Bluetooth Rearview Mirror, featuring hands-free cell phone calling, built-in GPS navigation, multimedia on-the-go, DVR capabilities, radar detector, and a wireless parking camera! Also featuring a 4.3 inch touchscreen, this high-tech rearview monitor is one of the safest and smartest car gadgets available.

Safe?!!! Multimedia on your rear view mirror? A DVR?!!

What nutcase definition of safe is that!!! WTF!!!

So we have alcohol,drugs,sleepiness, distractions, cell phones, DVD’s, internet and texting…Now you can play games and record “American Idol” on your rear view mirror!

Now that makes me feel safer, how about you!? 😦

The state of Arizona leads the nation in accidents caused by Texting. Can you imagine what this idiotic thing will do?

Your Car is NOT YOUR F*CKING LIVING ROOM!!!!!!!

I may be old fashioned, but I thought  driving was a serious mental exercise involving a half-ton (or more) vehicle that could kill you or someone else and was a serious business and it needed your full attention!

Silly me.

People want it to be your multi-media entertainment center at 60 miles an hour!!

WTF!!!! ARE YOU CRAZY!!!!

In 2008, at any given moment, over 800,000 people were texting, making calls, or using a hand-held cell phone while driving in the United States. With distracted driving killing nearly 6,000 Americans in the same year, it’s no mystery that cell phone use is risky for drivers. In fact, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health said that auto accident deaths involving cell phones and texting while driving rose 28% from 2005 to 2008, even though states continue to enact laws to restrict cell phone use while behind the wheel.

Most adults who drive admit to engaging in distracted driving behaviors, according to a HealthDay poll from November 10-14, 2011. More than 2,800 American adults responded to the poll. Results showed the following statistics:

  • Approximately 86% of drivers said they ate or drank while driving at some point, and 57% said they do it “sometimes” or “often.”
  • Over 1/3 of drivers (37%) have sent or received text messages while driving, and 18% said they do it regularly.
  • Forty-one percent of adult drivers have set or changed a GPS system while driving, and 21% do it “more frequently.”
  • Many adult drivers (36%) have read a map while driving, and 10% do it “sometimes” or “often.”
  • One in five drivers have combed or styled his or her hair while driving. One in ten does it regularly.
  • Have you ever seen a driver putting on makeup? Approximately 14% have done it once, and 7% do it frequently.
  • About 13% of adult drivers have surfed the Internet while driving.
  • Results of the poll showed that younger drivers were more likely to engage in distracted driving. Men were more likely to drive while drowsy, drive after drinking, read a map, use a GPS system, and use the Internet.
  • A large percentage of the people said they know distracted driving is dangerous, but do it anyway.

Texting While Driving Statistics

  • About 6,000 deaths and a half a million injuries are caused by distracted drivers every year.
  • While teenagers are texting, they spend about 10 percent of the time outside the driving lane they’re supposed to be in.
  • Talking on a cell phone while driving can make a young driver’s reaction time as slow as that of a 70-year-old.
  • Answering a text takes away your attention for about five seconds. That is enough time to travel the length of a football field.

2009 Cell Phone and Distracted Driving Statistics

Please note that 2010 and 2011 cell phone and distracted driving statistics are not yet available.

  • In 2009, 5,474 people were killed in the U.S. because of accidents that involved distracted driving. Another 448,000 were injured.
  • Of the 5,474 killed because of distracted driving, 995 involved reports of a cell phone as a factor. However, the number of fatalities caused by cell phone use could be much higher. For those who were injured, 24,000 involved reports of cell phone use as a distraction.
  • The under-20 age group had the highest percentage of distracted drivers; 16% of drivers under 20 years old involved in fatal crashes were distracted while driving.
  • The 30- to 39-year-old age group had the highest percentage of cell phone use in fatal crashes.
  • More people are driving while distracted when they are involved in fatal crashes. The percentage of fatalities associated with distracted drivers increased from 10% in 2005 to 16% in 2009.
  • In 2009, 867 fatal crashes were reported to have involved cell phones as a means for driver distraction (18% of all fatal distracted-driving crashes).
  • People driving light trucks and motorcyclists had the highest percentage of total drivers reported as distracted at the time of fatal crashes (12% each).
  • A teen driver riding with one other passenger doubles the risk of being involved in a fatal car crash. With two or more passengers, the risk increases to five times as likely.
  • Research reveals that 46% of drivers under 18 admit to texting while driving. Driver distraction is a factor in 25- to 50% of all car accidents, with 61% of teen drivers admitting to risky driving habits.
  • In 2009, the South had the highest percentage of cell phone use while driving at 6%. The Northeast came in at 4%.

Teen Driver Cell Phone and Text Messaging Statistics

  • Despite the risks, the majority of teen drivers ignore cell phone driving restrictions.
  • In 2007, driver distractions, such as using a cell phone or text messaging, contributed to nearly 1,000 crashes involving 16- and 17-year-old drivers.
  • Over 60 percent of American teens admit to risky driving, and nearly half of those that admit to risky driving also admit to text messaging behind the wheel.
  • Each year, 21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 were the result of cell phone usage. This result has been expected to grow as much as 4% every year.
  • Almost 50% of all drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 are texting while driving.
  • Over one-third of all young drivers, ages 24 and under, are texting on the road.
  • Teens say that texting is their number one driver distraction.

Adult Driver Cell Phone, Texting, and Car Accident Information

  • Talking on a cell phone causes nearly 25% of car accidents.
  • One-fifth of experienced adult drivers in the United States send text messages while driving.
  • A study of dangerous driver behavior released in January 2007 by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. found that of 1,200 surveyed drivers, 73 percent talk on cell phones while driving.
  • The same 2007 survey found that 19 percent of motorists say they text message while driving.
  • In 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that ten percent of drivers are on hand-held or hands free cell phones at any given hour of the day.
  • A study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Motorists found that motorists who use cell phones while driving are four times more likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves.
  • In 2002, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis calculated that 2,600 people die each year as a result of using cellphones while driving. They estimated that another 330,000 are injured.
  • According to the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, drivers talking on cell phones are 18 percent slower to react to brake lights. They also take 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked.
  • An estimated 44 percent of American drivers now have cell phones in their automobiles.
  • Of cell phone users that were surveyed, 85 percent said they use their phones occasionally when driving, 30 percent use their phones while driving on the highway, and 27 percent use them during half or more of the trips they take.
  • 84 percent of cell phone users stated that they believe using a cell phone while driving increases the risk of being in an accident.
  • The majority of Americans believe that talking on the phone and texting are two of the most dangerous behaviors that occur behind the wheel. Still, as many as 81% of drivers admit to making phone calls while driving.
  • The number of crashes and near-crashes linked to dialing is nearly identical to the number associated with talking or listening. Dialing is more dangerous but occurs less often than talking or listening.
  • Studies have found that texting while driving causes a 400 percent increase in time spent with eyes off the road.

Study Reveals the Dangers of Texting While Driving

The following statistics come from a study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI):

  • Of all cell phone related tasks – including talking, dialing, or reaching for the phone – texting while driving is the most dangerous.
  • Teen drivers are four times more likely than adults to get into car crashes or near crash events directly related to talking on a cell phone or texting.
  • A car driver dialing a cell phone is 2.8 times more likely to get into a crash than a non-distracted driver.
  • A driver reaching for a cell phone or any other electronic device is 1.4 times more likely to experience a car crash.
  • A car driver talking on their phone is 1.3 times more likely to get into an accident.
  • A truck driver texting while driving is 23.2 times more likely to get into an accident than a trucker paying full attention to the road.
  • A truck driver dialing a cell is 5.9 times more likely to crash.
  • A trucker reaching for a phone or other device is 6.7 times more likely to experience a truck accident.
  • For every 6 seconds of drive time, a driver sending or receiving a text message spends 4.6 of those seconds with their eyes off the road. This makes texting the most distracting of all cell phone related tasks.

Now you want to add more multi-media distractions!!!

“I’m sorry officer I didn’t see the lady in the crosswalk because I was DVRing ‘American Idol’ and playing Mario Kart on my Rear View Mirror”

But it wasn’t my fault! 😦

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Ve Vill Crush You!

The announcement that Americans are set to be bombarded with mandatory government propaganda via their cellphones represents a shocking lurch forward in the Obama administration’s bid to launch a total takeover of all communications as part of a wider move towards controlling the Internet, developing an omnipresent wiretap system, and creating a constant environment of suspicion and distrust by enlisting citizens to spy on each other.

So, what elese can these chips be used for? The government-mandated chips would also help achieve the Department of Transportation’s aim of <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40418794/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/t/govt-evaluating-cell-phone-blocking-tech-cars/>blocking all cellphone use in cars. The chip would allow authorities to prevent use of the phone by measuring the speed you are traveling via GPS technology and shutting down the handset.

The system is also wide open for abuse in more prosaic terms, with some fearing that the messages could include PR talking points and political electioneering

No, Obama is above such crass things! 🙂

And of course, tracking everything you buy and tracking everywhere you go and what you do is nothing to be worried about! 🙂

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a
human face – forever.”– George Orwell

And just to add insult to lethal injury to your freedom:

The government’s Consumer Price Index recently announced that inflation over the last 12 months <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm> has been 2.7 percent

Well, one expert says actual inflation, dollars and cents that consumers have to pay to cover their living expenses, food, clothing, utilities and such – actually are well above 8 percent, not 2.7 percent.

John Williams of Shadowstats.com says that since 1980, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the Consumer Price Index – in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality and other things.

Recalculating the data without the methodological changes BLS began in 1990 reveals inflation getting worse.

The Producer Price Index increased 0.7 percent last month, which equates to an 8.4 percent annual wholesale inflation in the pipeline for consumers.

Inflation data last month confirms that the cost of living is rising much faster than wages. We are on a trajectory to crush the middle class within five years unless urgent, decisive action is taken now. The traditional safety net of home equity today no longer exists.

And in what society is there only the Rich and the Poor and no actual middle class? Where their are only apparatchiks and everyone else (peasants).

Communism, Socialism, Marxism…. TA DA! 🙂

But don’t worry, Obama is a likeable guy. There is no harm. He’s a good guy at heart…

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

In search of Hispanic votes and a long-shot immigration overhaul, President Barack Obama on Tuesday stood at the U.S.-Mexico border for the first time since winning the White House and declared it more secure than ever. He mocked Republican lawmakers for blocking immigration over border security alone, saying they won’t be happy until they get a moat with alligators along the border.

“They’ll never be satisfied,” he said.

“Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said derisively to laughter from the crowd. “Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat.”

I’m for the moat! 🙂

The approach also allowed the president to make clear that it’s Republicans — not him — standing in the way of immigration legislation. As his re-election campaign approaches it’s a message he wants broadcast loud and clear to Latino voters who don’t like his administration’s heavy deportations and feel he never made good on his promise to prioritize immigration legislation during his first year in office.

“I am asking you to add your voices to this,” Obama said. “We need Washington to know that there is a movement for reform gathering strength from coast to coast. That’s how we’ll get this done.”

Politically, Obama sought to have it both ways.

He said he would lead a “constructive and civil debate” on the issue but publicly questioned the motives of Republicans and their ability to keep their word.

And it remained unclear how mocking Republican calls for border security would get Obama any closer to his goal of bipartisan legislation.

Given Republican opposition the bills likely won’t get far, but Obama will try to make certain voters know who to blame.

Divide and Conquer! 🙂  Classic Liberal tactic.

In full campaign mode, he’s been deploying his administrative agencies to do favors for his big contributors, to the detriment of ordinary Americans.

Last week, Obama made the gutsy call to threaten public schools that are asking students for proof of residency. The memorandum warned school districts that it’s illegal to ask students for proof of citizenship or legal residency status.

Obama’s wealthy donors need illegals so they can get cheap nannies, cooks and pool boys.

On the other hand, illegals being paid off the books are not helping Americans find jobs.

According to a May 4, 2011, report from the (liberal) Pew Research Center for the People

& the Press, 76 percent of “hard-pressed Democrats” — defined as “religious, financially

struggling” — agree with the statement: “Immigrants today … are a burden on our country

because they take our jobs, housing and health care.”

As Kausfiles observes, maybe financially struggling Democrats believe immigrants

“take our jobs” because, in fact, they do.

How many illegal servants do Obama’s friends need? Another million? How about 10 million? Then will Obama start enforcing immigration laws? And isn’t it his job to enforce the law, irrespective of whether his campaign contributors need slave labor?  (Ann Coulter)

And he can count on the Ministry Of Truth Media to back him up.

The trip had a more overtly political component too. From El Paso, the president headed to the relatively liberal bastion of Austin to raise money for the Democratic National Committee at two events. A total of about 800 people paid $44 to $35,800 to attend.(Newsmax)

There was the REAL reason! $$$$$$$ Gotta raise that Billion Dollars to buy the election.

After all, it’s really all about HIM.

What are Americans supposed to do to earn money? Obama doesn’t care: Ordinary Americans are irrelevant to the Democrats’ electoral ambitions — they exist only to justify the hiring of more government workers.

The Democrats have now officially abandoned working-class Americans.

Obama is doing what’s in his and his party’s self-interest, rather than concerning himself with the mass of American citizens. He is using his executive authority to reward gays, illegal aliens, do-nothing government employees, far-left union bosses, abortion industry executives and global warming kooks.

Are you on that list of Obama’s friends?

Democrats blithely act as if big labor, pro-illegal-immigration, pro-government union policies combined with massive government red tape and huge socialist programs will have no effect on jobs.

They incessantly repeat “gutsy call” for “you’d have to have been brain-dead not to make the call to kill bin Laden,” hoping the Democratic Party will suddenly seem macho.

Then, after a few weeks of robotically chanting “gutsy call,” they can get back to their true passion — destroying jobs — at which point they will robotically chant Bush’s name to explain why millions of Americans have lost their jobs under Obama.

How gutsy. (Ann Coulter)

Has he been Deified yet? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Revolution

Stomach flu sucks!

I came down with it yesterday just after writing my blog.

I have spent the last 19 hours in bed. I am still weak, but I am eating again.

Which is is fortunate since I don’t really have any sick days but had to do it yesterday.

So I’m not going to be long winded today. But I did find it curious that one of the first things the Egyptian Government did was kill the internet when the uprising started.

And Obama has been pursuing such a kill switch. Fascinating…

Censorship: Virtually the first thing an authoritative Egyptian government did to quell dissent was to shut down its Internet. So why are we debating a bill to give our government the same power?

In George Orwell’s classic “1984,” the control of information and its flow was critical to Big Brother’s maintaining his grip on the people and manipulating their passions. Authoritarian governments and dictators worldwide know that lesson well.

The ability to see how others live and to exchange ideas is a catalyst to dissent and unrest. The ability to choke off that flow is a necessity for authoritarian governments. The Internet and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter have helped fuel democratic movements from our own Tea Party to the Iranian dissidents.

It was no surprise that when unrest poured onto the streets of Egyptian cities, the Internet was a major way for protesters to communicate and organize. It was also no surprise that the Egyptian government moved quickly to shut things down.

Organizations that track Internet traffic worldwide reported the virtual collapse of the Egyptian Internet at 5:20 a.m. last Thursday, as more than 88% of Egyptian Internet access was shut down.

Christopher Williams, technology correspondent for England’s Telegraph newspaper, reports the withdrawal of more than 3,500 of what are called Border Gateway Protocol routes by Egyptian Internet service providers.

Which is why we are concerned about the resurrection of a bill that would give our government the ability to shut down part or all of American cyberspace in what the government would declare a “cyber-emergency.” Certainly the need for enhanced cybersecurity is clear, but why the ISPs and the government are incapable of protecting their own turf is unclear.

Last June, a bill titled “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010” was introduced in the Senate by Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins. It would authorize the creation of a cyberpolicy office in the White House and a cybersecurity center run by the Homeland Security Department, the same people who think enhanced pat-downs and groping our junk are necessary evils.

The bill sailed through the Senate’s Homeland Security Committee in December but expired with the new Congress a few weeks later. Chief sponsor Collins told Wired.com that the bill will be reintroduced in the new Congress.

The president would be granted the power to “authorize emergency measures to protect the nation’s most critical infrastructure if a cybervulnerability is being exploited, or about to be exploited.” How the president would know that, or what these “emergency” measures might be, is unclear.

No, there won’t be a red switch on the president’s desk, and experts note that our Internet is far larger and more diversified than Egypt’s. Yet this is an administration of czars — like FCC “diversity czar” Mark Lloyd, who admires Hugo Chavez’s approach to the media and supports free-speech threats such as “net neutrality.”

This is an administration that has orchestrated the virtual seizure of banks, insurance companies and the car industry. It routinely bypasses the will of Congress and the people, from mandating the purchase of health insurance to letting the Environmental Protection Agency govern us down to our lawn mower via regulation.

It is also an administration that believes that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, as former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once put it. Would a “cyber-emergency” also be a terrible thing to waste? Putting the nation’s Internet under the control of the folks who run the Transportation Security Administration gives us pause.

As we’ve said, there’s no single magic switch. Jim Cowie, founder and chief technology officer at Renesys Corp., a company that analyzes Internet performance worldwide, says: “What is most likely is that somebody in the government gives a phone call to a small number of people and says, ‘Turn it off.'” In a “cyber-emergency” declared by the president, who would dare say no?

An unfettered Internet is a guarantor of free speech and freedom. We would prefer to keep it that way, and more than a few Egyptians might agree with us. (IBD)

Political Cartoon

The Speech

I will give the President props. He gave a great speech.

“Bad things happen,” Obama said, “and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.”

Hello, Mainstream Media and MSDNC!

He took shots at the LEFT and the media that went crazy, which I didn’t think he would.

He sounded Presidential for the first time ever.

But will it last and will he and the Democrats grow up and be that angel of our better nature and be able to live up to soaring speech about living up to the child’s vision of Christina Taylor Green. “I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it,” Obama said.

“We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us.” -President Obama.

“Let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy. It did not,” the president said.

He admonished against any instinct to point blame or to drift into political pettiness or to latch onto simple explanations that may have no merit.

Lofty words. But will his party of Social Justice nutbags temper themselves and be more civil to those with whom they disagree?

I doubt it.

I am too cynical.

I just have to think, I will get them to re-elect me in 2012 and then we got them! Heh heh heh… This is my cunning plan!

That and when he gets back to Washington DC Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the Queen, will slap him and say “I am not amused…” 🙂

Sorry, that’s me.

Arizona has been through a lot in the last few years.

Illegal Immigration gangs and Cartel killings.

A Governor who abandons her post to be the Peter Principle of the New President and then blows us off. (Janet Napalitano)

She said Illegal Immigration was a “federal problem” and then we she was the Fed she largely ignored us and said “it’s more secure than ever”.

So that’s why we have snipers in the hills of the border and thousands of drug dealers coming over the border, agents killed, ranchers killed, and signs near the border saying Americans should stay away because it’s too dangerous IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

So when we try and address the issue, the Government sues us and we all get tarred as “racists”.

When I saw Napalitano at the Memorial my first thought was “Well, we finally got her to come back here. Can we rope her and tie her to border”.

And I saw Eric Holder, and wondered if now that he was here we could convince him that we aren’t all angry white racists and bigots.

Both decided to read for the Bible instead at the Memorial.

They know the Bible?? Aren’t most Progressives secular and God and Christianity is evil (clinging to their guns and religion, right-wingers, etc)??

Isn’t this “government sanctioning religion”??

Will the ACLU sue them. 🙂

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized — at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do — it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds,” the president said.

I would like to believe it, but I am too cynical. So I take the Ronald Reagan attitude of “trust but verify”. I don’t trust the Left. Period.

It sounded good. But if it is not acted on it is but sound and “fury” signifying nothing.

The Day before the shooting the Obama administration planned to announce plans for an Internet identity system that will limit fraud and streamline online transactions, leading to a surge in Web commerce, officials said.

What it will really do is make the government the nanny of the internet and of course with Mr Loughner’s well known use of the Internet it will be the Left’s opportunity to regulate the internet to our death.

Ve vill be vatching you! (bad german accent)

So not much has changed.

Been There. Done that got the T-Shirt.

The “capitalist” T-Shirt sold at the McKale Center at U of A Memorial service.
“i don’t understand how the Right can get all butthurt about coming together…it just seems…i mean…someone was shot in the fu**ing head…a congresswoman…and you can’t, for one goddamn second stop with all the BS and just join hands and even if you’re not a believer…at least close your eyes and hope?…wtf is wrong with these people?” (TPM-a liberal blog- reader comment)

Now that’s striking a new tone, don’t you think! 🙂

Can the Left grow up and stop the childish and churlish ad hominems and be civil.
I very much doubt it.
So, American Left, prove me wrong. I dare you! 🙂

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Previous Political Cartoon Political Cartoon

 

 

 

Tolerance, The Liberal Way Forward

Political Cartoon

KABUL, Afghanistan — During an unannounced New Year’s Eve visit to Afghanistan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano traveled to the country’s mountainous border region near Pakistan to see first-hand her department’s efforts in the war effort there.

“Seeing is worth a thousand words,” Napolitano said after the tour, to which Fox News was granted exclusive access. “This all involves safety and security in this part of the world. And that is something that has direct connection as well to the United States.”

She just won’t come back here to Arizona to “see” for herself. No, that’s not happening.

Maybe she can take a job in the Karzai government and secure that border!

****************

And while we are on incompetents, how about Katie “Cupcake Socialist Elite” Couric, The alleged “news” anchor of CBS News on her web show. (oh god, she has a web show?!)

CBS anchor Katie Couric believes a “Muslim version of ‘The Cosby Show’” could open the eyes of Americans and perhaps put an end to all the ”seething hatred many people feel towards all Muslims.”
“The bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface,” Couris said. “Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic Center, mosque, down near the World Trade Center, but I think there wasn’t enough sort of careful analysis and evaluation of where this bigotry toward 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected, and so wrong — and so disappointing.”
You mean the analysis that the majority of attacks in the last 40 years have been committed by 18-40 year old Muslims?
That Al-Qaeda is made up of Muslims.
That the attack yesterday in Egypt was likely Al-Qaeda.
That Al-Qaeda wants us all dead.
You’re right, we’re just all bigots. 😦
Not All Muslims are in Al-Qaeda but all Muslims are the same to Liberals using racial division politics and their moral equivalency.
After all, we deserved to have 3,000 people killed on 9/11. And we deserve to have all the attempted attacks because we’re just evil bigots!
Damn it! It’s the Terrorists who are the victims!
“Maybe we need a Muslim version of  ’The Cosby Show,’” Couric replied. “I know that sounds crazy, I know that sounds crazy. But ‘The Cosby Show’ did so much to change attitudes about African Americans in this country, and I think sometimes people are afraid of what they don’t understand, like you, Mo … If they became part of the popular culture.”
Before Cosby we were all in-the-dark KKK Bigots! to blacks and then we all had a collective revelation!
No wonder I watched Sledge Hammer! instead. 🙂
But what this does say is that extreme liberals like her do believe that TV has an effect on people.
So it’s time to get out the Orwellian brainwashing idiot box and train America to love people who want to kill you.
That’s TV’s job. To get to you “understand” the liberal ideology and to have an epiphany by watching it.
Mind you, that also involves rooting out and destroy the Snake in the Liberal Garden of TV Eden that tempts you way from the Politically Correct Way of Righteousness.
That of, course, would be FOX News. 🙂
EVIL!
BIGOTS ALL!
And of course, Talk Radio is next!
Mind you, this same mindless hatred is the very same thing they are mad at you about in regards to Muslims.
But this is on The Agenda, so it’s ok to hate when the Liberal Elites say it’s ok.
* The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs.
The Two Minute Hate (or in Couric’s case the 30 Minute newscast and MSNBC any minute of the day 24/7):
Daily telescreen specials in which various elements of crimethink were packaged into a parade of horrible images and sounds, at which, the viewers were expected to boo, hiss, curse. and release any negative emotions upon.
Sounds like the Liberal News Media to me… 🙂
* The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. 

* Then the face of Big Brother faded away again and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

crimestop – Orwell’s definition: “The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short….protective stupidity.”
Crimethink: All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. “Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death…. The essential crime that contains all others in itself.”
So we need a Mahmoud Cosby to teach all us ignorant peasants how great Allah is and how great it is to kill agents of the Great Satan!
We must have tolerance for those who want to kill us.
But Christians, Jews, Fox News and Talk radio are EVIL!
Oh wait, the “great satan” is US!
Whoops! 🙂

“Let me ask you about the mid-term elections. You are, by all accounts, one of the most — if not the most — powerful and successful speakers of — in the history of the United States. You’ve passed so much legislation. The president was elected with a significant majority.

You had control of both houses of Congress. And yet now, people are talking about you might lose your majority in the House. The gap seems to be growing wider between what’s achieved and what’s making an impact with the people. How did this happen?”– Christiane Amanpour (ABC’s “This Week”) to Then-Speaker Pelosi.

Biased much? Softball kiss-up much?

On MSNBC’s “Hardball,” host Chris Matthews trotted out a quasi-conspiracy theory, saying the “right-wing media machine” — including Rush Limbaugh and Fox News — are awaiting a terrorist attack with knives sharpened to go after Obama.

“If something breaks against us in terms of a terrorist attack, you say the entire right-wing media machine led by Limbaugh and Fox [News] and everybody else will say, ‘Yeah, we warned you,’” Matthews said Thursday.

According to Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, a guest on Matthews’s program, the hypothesis was correct. The “very conservative media” wouldn’t unite behind Obama but they would “make a lot of trouble” for the president. He acknowledged the existence of “a liberal media” and warned of a hidden alliance between this so-called conservative media and the Republican Party.

“Yeah, and it’s his fault no matter what the facts are because we used to talk about a liberal media in this country, and there was a liberal media for much of the 20th century,” Alter said. “Now we have a very powerful conservative media. And they are very, very effective at driving a political agenda. They work hand-in-glove with the Republican Party and they will make a lot of trouble for Barack Obama if he slips up.

That “Conservative media” being FOX and Talk Radio. You know, “The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” that Hillary talked about 15 years ago!

The Liberal media being ABC,NBC,CBS,MSNBC,CNN,and most Newspapers.

But that’s not a Liberal bias (even though he hosted a program apparently on MSNBC called “The Rise of the New Right,” hosted by Matthews, Wednesday night. And I’m sure it was very fair and balanced and not a hint of left-wing bias). 🙂

After all, The Tea party and it’s Nazi sympathizers are just bigots, racists and domestic terrorists just waiting to explode!

When Big Brother owns everything and can control everything (including the internet through the FCC) and everybody then suddenly bias will disappear!

Amazing how that would be so, isn’t it!! 🙂

2011: The Year of Regulatory Slavery And other Fine Toasts

Your new #2 at the “Social” Justice Department, James Cole, appointed by recess fiat from Obama’s vacation in Hawaii:  Cole went on to write that the United States has faced “many forms of devastating crime,” from the drug trade to organized crime to rape and child abuse. “The acts of Sept. 11 were horrible, but so are these other things,” he wrote.

Ah, good old liberal Moral Equivalency where nothing is better or worse than anything else. Just different.

And that 3,000 people dying in an actual terrorist attack is the same as a rapist. No more important than that.

Car bombs the same as doing a dubbie in the back of car.

Drug Cartel Violence. Domestic Violence. No difference.

Doesn’t it just fill your heart with joy this New Year’s Eve to know that you this man going Big Sis Janet and AG Eric Holder in protecting and upholding our rights?

<<sound of screaming and running away>>

*****

Oh, did you hear this one?

The reason why New Yorkers were buried in snow for days on end and 2 people died (including a baby) is because the Sanitation UNION was “quietly” protesting. They were having a childish moment of defiance!

Yes, you got it. They deliberately took their time and did it as slow as possible to protest cuts in their budgets.

2 people f*cking Died!!

And you wonder why why I hate Unions.

Indolent New York City union officials who oversee snow removal apparently live by a different creed: Sloth enhances political power, Da Boss slow the plow.

Come rain or shine, wind, sleet or blizzard, Big Labor leaders always demonstrate perfect power-grabby timing when it comes to shafting taxpayers. Public-sector unions are all-weather vultures ready, willing and able to put special interest politics above the citizenry’s health, wealth and safety. Confirming rumors that have fired up the frozen metropolis, the New York Post reported Thursday that government sanitation and transportation workers were ordered by union supervisors to oversee a deliberate slowdown of its cleanup program — and to boost their overtime paychecks.

Why such vindictiveness? It’s a cold-blooded temper tantrum against the city’s long-overdue efforts to trim layers of union fat and move toward a more efficient, cost-effective privatized workforce.

Welcome to the Great Snowmageddon Snit Fit of 2010.

New York City Councilman Dan Halloran, R-Queens, told the Post that several brave whistleblowers confessed to him that they “were told (by supervisors) to take off routes (and) not do the plowing of some of the major arteries in a timely manner. They were told to make the mayor pay for the layoffs, the reductions in rank for the supervisors, shrinking the rolls of the rank-and-file.”

It would be laugh-out-loud comedy if not for the death of at least one newborn whose parents waited for an ambulance that never came because of snowed-in streets.

This isn’t a triumphant victory for social justice and workers’ dignity. This is terrifying criminal negligence.- Michelle Malkin

I agree. The Union and their bosses should be hounded to their political death for this one. NEVERMORE!

Naturally, the Unions deny it. What, are they going to come out and be honest and say, “Yep, we did it. Screw you!”.

I think not.

**********************************************

For an Obama bureaucrat, however, the will of Congress is a mere speed bump. Hence this regulatory trifecta, each one moving smartly left — and nicely clarifying what the spirit of bipartisan compromise that President Obama heralded in his post-lame-duck Dec. 22 news conference was really about: a shift to the center for public consumption and political appearance only.

These regulatory power plays make political sense. Because Obama needs to appear to reclaim the center, he will stage his more ideological fights in yawn-inducing regulatory hearings rather than in the dramatic spotlight of congressional debate. How better to impose a liberal agenda on a center-right nation than regulatory stealth?

It’s Obama’s only way forward during the next two years. He will never get past the half-Republican 112th what he could not get past the overwhelmingly Democratic 111th. He doesn’t have the votes and he surely doesn’t want the publicity. Hence the quiet resurrection, as it were, of end-of-life counseling.

Obama knows he has only so many years to change the country. In his first two, he achieved much: the first stimulus, Obama-Care and financial regulation. For the next two, however, the Republican House will prevent any repetition of that. Obama’s agenda will therefore have to be advanced by the more subterranean means of rule-by-regulation.

But this must simultaneously be mixed with ostentatious displays of legislative bipartisanship (e.g., the lame-duck tax-cut deal) in order to pull off the (apparent) centrist repositioning required for re-election. This, in turn, would grant Obama four more years when, freed from the need for pretense, he can reassert himself ideologically and complete the social-democratic transformation — begun Jan. 20, 2009; derailed Nov. 2, 2010 — that is the mission of his presidency.– Charles Krauthammer

Ignoring both Congress and the voters, the Environmental Protection Agency starts the new year governing by decree with job-killing regulations. Take a deep breath, but if you exhale you’re a polluter.

Cap-and-trade is dead, long live cap-and-trade in the form of regulations promulgated in the coming year by what George Orwell might call the Ministry of Environment. It claims that the Clean Air Act and a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 let the EPA regulate carbon dioxide as a planet-warming pollutant.

We recently commented on the EPA’s recent commandeering of the permitting process from Texas, with which it is in a legal tussle over federalism, states’ rights and the Constitution’s enumeration of powers and who may exercise them.

The federal agency also plans to issue greenhouse gas permits in seven other states — Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon and Wyoming.

The EPA held its fire, hoping a Democratic Congress would get cap-and-trade legislation through both houses. In April, 2009, Time magazine ran a piece titled “EPA’S CO2 Finding: Putting A Gun To Congress’ Head.” Last year the New York Times said that if Congress fails to ram through cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA should ram it down our throats. And so it did.

With Barack Obama’s election, liberal hopes for cap-and-trade rose. But neither businessmen nor homeowners were buying it, especially after the data manipulation and fraud perpetrated by the U.N.’s IPCC, Britain’s Climate Research Unit and even our own NASA.

So now just as rationing and death panels return under regulations written “as the secretary shall determine,” a phrase rapidly replacing “we the people” under this administration, the EPA plans to propose so-called performance standards for oil- and coal-fired power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2022.

“We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce (greenhouse gas) pollution that threatens the health and welfare or American and contributes to climate change,” says EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. Perhaps she appreciates the irony of the people of Cowlitz, Wash., as columnist George Will points out, approving construction of a coal export terminal to send energy-hungry Beijing coal we won’t burn here. The transporters? Ships that themselves burn fossil fuels.

As it turns out, much of China’s domestic coal is far inland away from urban centers. High-speed trains, as such, have nothing to do with being “green.” Far from it. They enable China to use more coal — not less.

As Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, related on a YouTube video: “Lisa Jackson, Obama’s EPA administrator, admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today (issuing its finding) in good measure on the findings of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true.”

We hope the incoming Republican House will deal rapidly with what is bad regulation based on junk science.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says: “There are serious questions about EPA’s decision to move forward with these job-killing regulations that will usurp power from the states, violating the principles of federalism that are the backbone of the Clean Air Act.”

Otherwise China will burn our coal and steal our jobs, polluting planetary skies, with that pollution wafting its way across the Pacific to the Western shores of an industrially neutered America and a foolish California.

Oh, and remember those high-speed electric trains in China that have people like the New York Times’ Tom Friedman cooing over how green China is? James Fallows, writing in the Atlantic, quotes a Chinese official as saying they are being built to move passenger trains out of the way of coal trains. (IBD)

And Obama will want to borrow even more money from them to fund it all!!

Rejoice!! 🙂

Another one:

On Dec. 23, the Interior Department issued Secretarial Order 3310 reversing a 2003 decision and giving itself the authority to designate public lands as “Wild Lands.” A clever twofer: (1) a bureaucratic power grab — for seven years up through Dec. 22, wilderness designation had been the exclusive province of Congress, and (2) a leftward lurch — more land to be “protected” from such nefarious uses as domestic oil exploration in a country disastrously dependent on foreign sources. (IBD)

That $5 a Gallon Oil price that is coming isn’t from some greedy Texas oil millionaire (or the increase in grocery and other product costs because of it) but a bunch of “green” Liberals who want you in your solar-powered house with your electric car eating government approved food ,watching government approved TV, your end-of-life counseling on the table in front of you, and surfing the Government-approved Internet.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a
human face – forever.”– George Orwell

HAPPY NEW YEAR From The Liberal Progressive Democrat Party! 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Big Brother Wants You!

imtenet-censorship.jpg

For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

So yet again, the liberals idea of the only way for you to be free is for the government to control whatever it is.

Orwell would be proud you my sons.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And my 4th Precept: FEAR IS HOPE. (https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/the-4th-precept/)

It’s very typical of the modern Liberal to want to control everything for your own good, because you’re far too stupid to it yourself.

Health Care, Finances, Education,News,Entertainment, Food, and now the Internet.

Freedom is slavery to the government. Government is here to protect your stupid ass self from the evil capitalist exploiters.

Gee, aren’t you happy? 😦

What has the Liberals’ panties so much in a bunch?

People like me. Little ole me. And all the other anti-liberal progressives out there.

Matt Drudge, Daily Caller, bloggers, etc.

We can’t attack in frontal assault so we’ll do what all Liberals always do, attack from the rear, in seemingly innocuous ways by “fairness” and “concern” that creep like a cancer that just grows and grows until it kills the patient.

Leaving Dr. Liberal is control of everything.

What liberal wouldn’t like to control everything?

None, that are in power right now.

The government, The Liberal Progressive one is  your only hope.

You can’t possibly do it without us.

So what if you have ever since the Internet exploded onto the seem 20 years ago. You can’t now.

Why?

Because they say you can’t.

And if you learn only one thing about Liberals, and that is that they believe they are incapable of error and are vastly superior to the mere mortal  both morally and intellectually.

So questioning them is impertinent.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a “choice” between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC’s action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of “reasonable” network management for years to come. How’s that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn’t ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter’s night for Internet freedom. (WSJ)

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

And Lame Duck Cancer is a disease we are already suffering. We just don’t need another dose of it.

But the Liberals are thinking, we have to do it now because if we don’t the evil Republicans won’t let us next year. So it’s now or never!

And they are hardly the only ones.

The very liberal and toothless namby-pamby UN wants to get into the act.

The U.N. has been wanting to run the Web for years and is not letting a crisis — the WikiLeaks releases — go to waste. Following the Chicagoland model, it has plans to form an intergovernmental group that would “attempt to create global standards for policing the Internet.”

The meeting delegate from Brazil, which is pushing the proposal, told iTnews that the plan isn’t to take over the Web. Which is no reassurance at all. Whenever an elected official or bureaucrat says a program won’t cost much or the regulation being considered won’t be a burden, history teaches us to expect the exact opposite.

This big idea is coming only a few months after the Internet Governance Forum, a group that consults with the U.N., met in Vilnius, Lithuania. Its goal: to save the Internet with an international treaty that would include net neutrality.

So you could have the FCC, The US Government and the the UN all look after you.

Gee, don’t you feel better now. 🙂

The Internet is in no need of supervision from the U.N. or Washington. It is an energetic, broadly accessible marketplace of ideas.

Ideas, that the Liberal Left wants to control. For your own good, of course.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

As Rod Beckstrom, president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, said in September at the Vilnius meeting that the Internet works. It lets us communicate on an unprecedented scale, and its relative lack of regulation has made “it a fertile field for innovation and competition.”

The best thing for the U.N. and Washington to do is just stand back and let it flow. (IBD)

But Liberals, especially, and Washington in general has Control Freak issues.

But it’s for own good.

We are from the Government and we are here to protect you. 🙂

FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski:

As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet is unprotected. No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for the Internet service providers, so that they can manage and invest in broadband networks.

That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order…

On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who would adopt a set of detailed and rigid regulations.

I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework – one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment.”

Barf Bag anyone?

The FCC’s new, ostensibly softer approach comes on the heels of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision earlier this month, which ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to directly regulate internet providers nor require them to offer equal treatment to all Web traffic. Comcast sued the FCC, arguing that the commission could not force the company to be “net neutral” in regards to the file-sharing program BitTorrent, which Comcast at one point was filtering on its system.

In response, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced the “third way” which consists of simply removing ISPs from their current classification in order to “have enough of a legal footing in place to make sure the agency can protect consumers and achieve goals presented in the National Broadband Plan.”

Currently, the FCC categorizes Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as Title 1 “information service.” The classification meant that the FCC lacked the direct authority to regulate these providers. The FCC’s other option, however was to classify ISPs as Title II “telecommunications service,” which internet providers say would bring with it regulatory madness and  the same red tape that wireline phone agencies find themselves in.

Genachowski’s “third way” then will be an attempt to run between the two classifications:

The chairman will seek to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the court decision in order to fulfill the previously stated agenda of extending broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers, ensuring fair competition, and preserving a free and open Internet,” the official said.

The confirmation from the FCC comes only hours after two senior Democratic politicians sent a letter to Genachowski saying that imposing Net neutrality regulations on broadband providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon is “essential.” And Free Press, the liberal lobby group that’s led the fight to hand the FCC more Internet regulatory authority, hastily convened a conference call to warn that Genachowski would be leaving President Obama’s Net neutrality promises unfulfilled.

Net neutrality proponents have bemoaned the recent Appeals Court decision and wish to see a “free and open internet.”  But those opposed to interference from the FCC have argued that regulation will only suffocate business and innovation in an area that has thrived without government interference.

Yesterday, one FCC official said Genacoswki was trying to have it both ways, hoping:

to balance “a weak Title I and a needlessly burdensome Title II approach.” Title I refers to lightly regulated information services; Title II refers to heavily regulated telecommunications services, such as legacy telephone networks.

The balancing act between what the FCC has been told it cannot do and what it wants to do, has caused the committee to run over itself more than once. As BetaNews reports:

“The Third Way,” as the FCC now calls it, is a clear effort to defer to US Supreme Court decisions that suggested the FCC has the authority to declare what it does not regulate. As a model for deciding what’s in and what’s out, Schlick refers to the classic dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia in the 2005 Brand X decision. There, Justice Scalia argued that since it doesn’t make much difference to the customer whether he receives service through one route or another, it shouldn’t make much difference to the law, either.

Dancing lightly over the fact that Scalia’s argument was a dissent from the decision, and not actual law, Schlick suggested this morning that the FCC should now embrace an approach that it had vehemently rejected just weeks earlier.

Currently, the “third way” contains only six provisions from Title II regulations, although “the FCC could decide it needs more or less as this process wears on,” according to Engadget.com.

Republicans in Washington rejected the “third way” characterization and accused the Obama Administration of once again seeking to expand the power of government over the private sector.  House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said, “Under this job- killing big government scheme, the Obama administration is seeking to expand the power of the federal government.”

Republican FCC Commissioners Rob McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker issued a joint statement, saying: “This dramatic step to regulate the Internet is unnecessary.”

“It is a stark departure from the long-established bipartisan framework,” they said. (Daily Caller)

Bi-Partisan, wonder where I’ve heard that before?

Oh, yeah, it’s when you roll over and let the Liberal do what they want to do without objection.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Orwell Rides Again

Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson

The Orwellian Alphabet soup from hell is alive and well.

The FDA wants to control what you eat.

The EPA wants to control your energy input and output in your home, your business and your car.

The IRS will be in charge of enforcing the Health Care Mandate.

And the FCC wants to control what you see on TV, hear on the radio and do on the Internet.

Who needs Congress when you can just regulate people to death.

Ownlife refers to the tendency to enjoy being solitary, which is considered subversive. Winston Smith comments that even to go for a walk by oneself can be regarded as suspicious.

Crimestop is a Newspeak term taken from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. It means to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts, i.e., thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the Party. This way, a person avoids committing thoughtcrime.
In the novel, we hear about crimestop through the eyes of protagonist Winston Smith: “ The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak. (We call it “political correctness” 😦 )
He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions — ‘the Party says the earth is flat’, ‘the party says that ice is heavier than water’ — and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them.” (sound like any liberals you know!)
Orwell also describes crimestop from the perspective of Emmanuel Goldstein in the book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism:
“     Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

Blackwhite is defined as follows: “ …this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

Doublethink: To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink. ”
“ The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Now The REAL WORLD:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will “preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet.” No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the “freedom” of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski’s draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped “non-public, for internal use only” to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for “openness.”

The issue of “net neutrality” is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user’s connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

In some cases, heavy use of this sort slows the Web experience for everyone sharing the same lines. That has prompted some cable Internet providers to consider either charging the heavy users more or limiting access to the “problematic” services. Of course, if cinema buffs find themselves cut off from their favorite service, they’re going to be mad. If companies don’t act, they’re just as likely to find irate customers who don’t want their experience bogged down by others.

It’s not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it’s not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.

No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC’s last attempt in this arena. “That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss,” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. “And now the team is about to run the exact same play. … In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so.”

Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That’s why Mr. Genachowski’s proposal should be rejected and Congress should make it even more clear that the FCC should stop trying to expand its regulatory empire. (Washington Times)

Get the idea.

The Obama administration is moving to give states broad leeway to decide how best to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases from factories, refineries and other industrial facilities.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance to states Wednesday appears aimed at allaying businesses’ fears of a heavy-handed, Washington-dominated approach to greenhouse-gas regulation. But business groups and some lawmakers said the vagueness of the agency’s directive would invite differing interpretations and prolong companies’ uncertainty over what they must do to comply with the law. Environmental groups largely cheered the EPA’s step.

Any time environmental whackos cheer is bad for all of us.

So now you’ll 50 different envirnomental regulations to deal with. Isn’t that the reason cited by The Health Care nuts not to allow states the right to determine their own systems because it would be fractious and it was deemed not a good thing by the whackos pushing it so we had to have the heavy hand of federal bureaucrats step in and rule over us all.

Hmm….

The Global Warming crowd in sunny Cancun is facing a mutiny by Japan and other “rich” countries.

So socialist country extraordinaire Venezuela had this to say, “We will not support any situation where these countries get away with this and make no commitments. We want concrete commitments for Kyoto. A handful of countries have no right to do this,” said Claudia Salerno, Venezuela’s special climate envoy.

Gee, doesn’t that just make you feel better about them.

Wealthy countries were last night trying to avoid a diplomatic disaster, saying they were not trying to kill Kyoto. Britain and the EU have said they are prepared to sign up to a second commitment period – provided others do so too.

Developed countries have indicated in closed meetings that there is now littlechance of a second commitment period for Kyoto being negotiated in Cancún. (UK Guardian)

President Hugo Chávez today blamed “criminal” capitalism for the rains and flooding that have brought chaos to Venezuela, killing 32 people and leaving 70,000 homeless.

“The developed nations irresponsibly shatter the environmental order, in their desire to maintain a criminal development model, while the immense majority of the earth’s people suffer the most terrible consequences,” Chávez added.

He criticised the “arrogance” of rich nations. “The environmental imbalance capitalism has caused is without doubt the fundamental cause of the alarming atmospheric phenomena,” he wrote in his weekly “The Lines of Chavez” column.

“The world’s powerful economies insist on a destructive way of life and then refuse to take any responsibility.”

Gee, that’s sounds like the Obama and the Liberals… 🙂  Funny That…

Speaking of which, The Radical Left’s Socialist Haven of California….

California currently suffers with its’ self-inflicted $6 billion shortfall in this fiscal year’s budget (a wound that is supposed to swell to $24.5 billion over the next 18 months). 2 weeks ago outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a “special legislative session” so the state Senate and Assembly can “fix” the budget crisis, but then quickly announced his legislative priority for the special session: a law to “ban” plastic grocery bags.

Earlier this year as the state continued to swim in debt without any budget at all, California’s legislature attempted a legislative ban on plastic bags. A budget full of accounting gimmicks got passed, but the bag ban failed.

So with the legislature called back to “fix” the phony budget, Governor Schwarzenegger is obsessed with creating his legacy: “We’re going to try over and over again” he said, as he argued for a plastic bag ban, “because we have seen in the past that when you don’t give up, eventually you can be successful.”

Never mind that Rome is burning. California will “be green.”

Arnold may get his historic plastic bag ban (condolences to those who may subsequently lose their jobs in the plastics industry), but California will not seriously address its fiscal failures. California politicians are instead making themselves feel good about their efforts to save the planet, while likely assuming that the federal government will take care of the state’s finances.

Who cares about fiscal responsibility when the Feds (with Taxpayer money) will just come in and bail us out anyways.

Does that sound like Liberal Economics 101 to you?

A) “Generate enough new renewable energy within California to serve more than 30% of current peak energy demand.” That’s a good “what” statement, but on this point the plan is devoid of any “how” substance.

B) “Reducing energy consumption in exiting California homes by 40%.” One could imagine the legislature mandating energy rationing in California households. Or perhaps the state will hire a new “residential thermostat police” force, and then claim that ‘green jobs” have been created.

C) “Revising energy efficiency standards for new homes and commercial buildings.” Such a maneuver would likely make it more difficult for those in the construction trades, but could nonetheless expand the work load for government employees who perform environmental control and building inspection tasks.

D) “Adopting new energy-efficiency standards for appliances, lighting and consumer electronics sold in California.” There has already been such a standard established for tv sets sold in California – a mandate that tv sets consume “33% less electricity” than older sets – but that new policy hasn’t even kicked-in yet. If California continues to set such “standards” that are different than the standards across the country, the state will continue to drive up the costs of electronic products, but could probably justify hiring new state “product testers.”

E) “Hire a renewable-energy jobs czar.” Yes, of course. “Creating jobs” always begins by expanding the government payroll.

Thus far, Governor-elect Brown’s “plan” has had nothing to do with saving California from its real nemesis, and has everything to do with expanding the power of government. And his plan is completely consistent – both in terms of its alleged “environmental “ components, and its reckless fiscal model – with what we’ve seen at the White House.

It is quite an opening salvo, from a soon-to-be-Governor will be asking the President for a bailout next year. But it serves to move California further and further away from the center of the universe.

Yep, that’s Liberalism 101. Ignore reality and go for what you want, regardless.

And when people complain about it, just crush them with Orwellian bovine fecal matter, regulations, fear and intimidation.

Yeah, that’s sounds about normal, for Liberals.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!

Political Cartoon by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson

Sheriff Sis Rides into Town

Imagine that. The Obama administration and Big Sis just stepping in and seizing businesses just because they want to, not from anything like due process. No, they are above that. They haven’t even had Congress pass the law yet and they are already doing it.  It’s their moral duty. 🙂

Imagine that… the Obama administration seizing something… 🙂

Hey, Sis, how about the Border?

Whoops! Politically incorrect. Sorry…Too busy trying to shove Amnesty down again…

How about foreign terrorists? Whoops!…can’t! No Profiling!

The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.

ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.

The sites are replaced with a note from the government: “This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations.”

For instance, borntrade.com, 51607.com, and amoyhy.com have each been seized.

One of the site owners told TorrentFreak that his site was shut down without any notice or warning.

The effort comes as Congress considers the Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). Critics, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) say it is too heavy-handed. He has vowed to put a formal hold on the bill.

Bill, who needs a Bill…Not Progressives on a mission to save you from the evils of the Internet. Nexzt stop, those evil bastards at FOX News.

Meanwhile, the border violence gets worse and worse and the criminals more brazen, but who cares! We’re been saved from the internet by Big Sis!!

You may not have a job. You may be on the verge of starvation or bankruptcy but damn if you still have your internet connection Sheriff Sis is in town and she going to clean up the poop!!

Rejoice Citizen!

Ninety-six pioneering Internet engineers have signed an open letter calling COICA a dangerous, unsound measure that would “risk fragmenting the Internet’s global domain name system.”(WP)

Congress screw up something that isn’t screwed up for their own political gain, gee, that never happens!

The very liberal Huffington Post: An entire generation has grown up having to battle their impressions of ownership they get from interests like industry associations they perceive as nefarious entities and the common sense notion that people should get compensated for what they create. In a generation of so many artists and entrepreneurs, the value of ownership is still strong. Yet, the disillusion with interests that bully their way through Congress and the courts is stronger. In the case of COICA, Congress shouldn’t burn the house to roast the pig. There is too much to lose.

And the Old Sheriff still wants to pass their own pet projects before leaving town.

Hugh Hewitt: A liberal friend of mine sent out an email this past week urging all of the recipients to urge their Representative and Senator to push for the passage of the Dream Act when Congress reconvenes next week.

I wrote back that such a result would be a disaster for the cause of real immigration reform, no matter what the short-term benefits he imagined flowing from the act. Anyone who wants a comprehensive solution to the problem of illegal immigration, one that begins with the completion of the fence and moves on to regularization of the millions of illegal aliens in the country, cannot hope for a jam down of the Dream Act through a discredited Congress.

Similarly, no proponent of a policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military should be cheering a quick vote on Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell in the next few weeks. Nor should any champion of campaign finance reform urge a vote on the Disclose Act.

In short, no serious proponent of representative government ought to be urging that the sweeping message of November 2 be ignored just so their particular special interest can garner a last-minute “win” in a lame duck Congress.

That lame duck session could and should pass a short term spending measure to allow for the operation of the government through, say, the end of February.

And it would be consistent with the mandate the GOP received at the polls to extend the Bush tax cuts until such time as Congress affirmatively votes to raise them.

But nothing should issue from this lame duck meeting of a discredited and repudiated Congress that in effect nullifies the vote on November 2.

“I won,” President Obama bluntly told GOP leaders at a White House gathering shortly after his inauguration in 2009. Though he might well have been much better served by some humility as well as some of the bipartisanship he campaigned on, the president was simply stating that elections have consequences. He received the powers of his office from the people, and he used them.

But this failed Congress ought not to be legislating as though nothing happened, or as though the people affirmed the recklessness of the past two years. The vote was a national knock-out of the left’s beliefs and program, a complete and utter denunciation of the tax-and-spend policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and to ignore that verdict is to strike at the very core of the country’s social compact: Voters are sovereign.

The temptation is great to try and use the last few hours of power to reward political friends and punish political opponents, but the cost is so high that even the most dogmatic liberal ought to refuse the temptation.

There are 23 Democratic senate seats on the ballot in November 2012. Any of those 23 who vote for any of the left’s last-minute agenda, or even for cloture on the bills, are telling their voters that those voters’ don’t matter to those senators. Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, for example, just witnessed a wave of red wash across the Buckeye State. If Brown participates in an anti-democratic jam down in December 0f 2010, that will be all that Ohio’s voters need to know between now and November, 2012 –that Sherrod Brown has contempt for them and their votes.

What Brown and many other Senate Democrats need right now is a does of well-deserved humility as to what they know and don’t know about the country. They completely misjudged the public’s appetite for spending and Obamacare. If they continue to refuse to listen, their countdown to retirement will have certainly begun.

The votes of these 23 over the next three weeks will define many races for 2012. No senator hoping to remain seated in January 2013 will ignore the results of November, 2010.

But since they are so morally superior and it’s for the best that they get in as much of THE AGENDA in before the barbarian hordes take over that they are compelled to do so.

<<Barf bag on standby>>

Oh, and by the way: IN VERACRUZ, MEXICO Exploiting loopholes in the global economy, Mexican crime syndicates are importing mass quantities of the cold medicines and common chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine – turning Mexico into the No. 1 source for all meth sold in the United States, law enforcement agents say.

After several years of declining production, the 2010 threat assessment by the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center said Mexico was again “the primary source of methamphetamine consumed in the United States.” A companion report was not released for fear of embarrassing Mexican President Felipe Calderon on the eve of his trip to Washington in May. (WP)

But don’t worry, Sheriff Big Sis and her posse are on it. 🙂  Internet Scum!

And Big Brother Barack has the North Koreans in a TSA hold. 🙂

Rejoice Citizen.

Political Cartoon by Gary McCoy

Big Brother Eric Wants You!

Who says Congress never gets anything done?

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the “nuclear option,” which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites “off.”

COICA is the latest effort by Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies to stem the tidal wave of internet file sharing that has upended those industries and, they claim, cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade.

The content companies have tried suing college students. They’ve tried suing internet startups. Now they want the federal government to act as their private security agents, policing the internet for suspected pirates before making them walk the digital plank.

Many people opposed to the bill agree in principle with its aims: Illegal music piracy is, well, illegal, and should be stopped. Musicians, artists and content creators should be compensated for their work. But the law’s critics do not believe that giving the federal government the right to shut down websites at will based upon a vague and arbitrary standard of evidence, even if no law-breaking has been proved, is a particularly good idea. COICA must still be approved by the full House and Senate before becoming law. A vote is unlikely before the new year.

Among the sites that could go dark if the law passes: Dropbox, RapidShare, SoundCloud, Hype Machine and any other site for which the Attorney General deems copyright infringement to be “central to the activity” of the site, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group that opposes the bill. There need not even be illegal content on a site — links alone will qualify a site for digital death. Websites at risk could also theoretically include p2pnet and pirate-party.us or any other website that advocates for peer-to-peer file sharing or rejects copyright law, according to the group.

In short, COICA would allow the federal government to censor the internet without due process.

The mechanism by which the government would do this, according to the bill, is the internet’s Domain Name System (DNS), which translates web addresses into IP addresses. The bill would give the Attorney General the power to simply obtain a court order requiring internet service providers to pull the plug on suspected websites.

Scholars, lawyers, technologists, human rights groups and public interest groups have denounced the bill. Forty-nine prominent law professors called it “dangerous.”  The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch warned the bill could have “grave repercussions for global human rights.”  Several dozen of the most prominent internet engineers in the country — many of whom were instrumental in the creation of the internet — said the bill will “create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation.”  Several prominent conservative bloggers, including representatives from RedState.com, HotAir.com, The Next Right and Publius Forum, issued a call to help stop this “serious threat to the Internet.”

And Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web, said, “Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.” He added: “In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that no person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty.”

Critics of the bill object to it on a number of grounds, starting with this one: “The Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,” the 49 law professors wrote. “The Act permits the issuance of speech suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content.”

Because it is so ill-conceived and poorly written, the law professors wrote, “the Act, if enacted into law, will not survive judicial scrutiny, and will, therefore, never be used to address the problem (online copyright and trademark infringement) that it is designed to address. Its significance, therefore, is entirely symbolic — and the symbolism it presents is ugly and insidious. For the first time, the United States would be requiring Internet Service Providers to block speech because of its content.”

The law professors noted that the bill would actually undermine United States policy, enunciated forcefully by Secretary of State Clinton, which calls for global internet freedom and opposes web censorship. “Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere,” Clinton said in her landmark speech on global internet freedom earlier this year. She was referring to China. Apparently some of Mrs. Clinton’s former colleagues in the U.S. Senate approve of internet censorship in the United States.

To be fair, COICA does have some supporters in addition to sponsor Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) and his 17 co-sponsors including Schumer, Specter, Grassley, Gillibrand, Hatch, Klobuchar, Coburn, Durbin, Feinstein, Menendez and Whitehouse. Mark Corallo, who served as chief spokesperson for former Attorney General John Ashcroft and as spokesman for Karl Rove during the Valerie Plame affair, wrote Thursday on The Daily Caller: “The Internet is not at risk of being censored.  But without robust protections that match technological advances making online theft easy, the creators of American products will continue to suffer.”

“Counterfeiting and online theft of intellectual property is having devastating effects on industries where millions of Americans make a living,” wrote Corallo, who now runs a Virginia-based public relations firm and freely admits that he has “represented copyright and patent-based businesses for years.” “Their futures are at risk due to Internet-based theft.”

The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, praised Leahy for his work, “to insure [sic] that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish.”

Over the course of his career, Leahy has received $885,216 from the TV, movie and music industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (Wired)

Why stop there?

There are plenty of other things to censor. Like bloggers… 🙂

Once you have tasted the power to control, what’s next?

After all, Eric Holder has done such a fine job already… He’s fair and impartial….

And this is surely one of the most pressing problems in America today, after all.

<<Barf Bag overload!>>

Freedom of (Liberal) Speech

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Liberal Progressive Rewrite:

Congress shall make no law respecting any religion, and will do it’s best to prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of Liberal speech, or of the Liberal press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (except for those who disagree with Liberals, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, but they will be ignored if they are not “deemed” worthy by Liberals.

An effort by Democrats to close down speech critical of their actions before it can impact the November elections is running into a rocky road in the U.S. House, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delayed action on the proposal while the party regroups and tries to assemble support.

The DISCLOSE Act, pending as HR 5175 in the U.S House and as S. 3295 in the Senate, targets the freedom of speech of companies and groups acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in its “Citizens United” ruling last winter.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen in the House and Sen. Charles Schumer in the Senate, has 114 co-sponsors with Van Hollden and 49 with Schumer.

Pelosi, however, pulled the proposal from a floor vote and sent members home for the weekend because of turbulence over the plan to impose a new set of reporting and other requirements on a long list of organizations, according to a report in Human Events.

According to the Connie’s Congress column, “Democrats have been scrambling to shut down conservative political speech before the November elections this year since the January U.S. Supreme Court decision in ‘Citizens United v. FEC’ that found freedom of speech applies to everyone: individuals, corporations and unions.

“Discontented with a more level playing field, Democrats threw together the DISCLOSE Act, a very lengthy and complicated piece of legislation designed solely to undo the court’s decision.”

While moving forward, it still needed additional support, and in recent days a “carve-out” was created that would have exempted the National Rifle Association from its demands, allegedly in exchange for the NRA dropping its opposition.

But analysts say the move backfired, since the Internet ignited with criticism of the organization’s “deal with the devil” and other less-complimentary descriptions.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.com said, “Congress’ attempt to repair their attack on the First Amendment, overturned in the ‘Citizens United’ decision earlier this year, has run off the rails thanks to the machination of its Democratic backers.

“Nancy Pelosi pulled the DISCLOSE Act from the House floor last night after the news of sleazy deals to exempt powerful organizations from the law started leaking to the media. Ironically, it was a rare partnership between the NRA and the Democrats that sealed the bill’s fate.”(WND)

And this Congress is not known for backroom slezy deals, after all, as Pelosi herself said in 2007, it was “going to be the most ethical Congress” in history. And she wouldn’t lie, now would see… 🙂

Cleta Mitchell, a member of the board of directors for NRA, which would have fallen into the bill’s exempting language, wrote in a newspaper column the true purpose of the DISCLOSE Act is to “silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections.”

“Since the court’s January decision in ‘Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission’ that corporations cannot be constitutionally prohibited from making independent candidate-related expenditures, Democrats have been hyperventilating at the notion that corporations might spend millions of dollars criticizing them,” she wrote. “To foreclose that possibility, the DISCLOSE Act would impose onerous and complicated ‘disclosure’ restrictions on organizations that dare to engage in constitutionally protected political speech and on corporations that dare to contribute to such organizations.

“The DISCLOSE Act isn’t really intended to elicit information not currently required by law. The act serves notice on certain speakers that their involvement in the political process will exact a high price of regulation, penalty and notoriety, using disclosure and reporting as a subterfuge to chill their political speech and association,” she wrote.

“It is only disclosure, say the authors. And box-cutters are only handy household tools . . . until they are used by terrorists to crash airplanes,” she wrote.

The dirty little secret that the Democrats don’t want discussed is that Unions were the #1 user and abuser of campaign ads until this ruling, they had a virtual monopoly because of the money they could raise from their members.

And as if that weren’t enough…

WASHINGTON — Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation’s homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans’ civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents.

“The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet,” Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Napolitano’s comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

Mind you, last year, this is the same person who called “right wingers” and returning military personnel “terrorists” and this are the same people who have called the Tea Party movement “terrorists” on occasion.

And with “net neutrality” still out there (aka censorship) you can always trust Big Sis to do what’s best for you. 🙂

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

Too Bad she doesn’t believe that about the Border!! 🙂

She added, “We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.”

You trade your freedom for our Security. What could be wrong with that. 🙂

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act would allow the President to disconnect Internet networks and force private websites to comply with broad cybersecurity measures.

Future US presidents would have their Internet “kill switch” powers renewed indefinitely.

The bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the “security status” of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries. Companies would be required to take part in “information sharing” with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that “relies on” the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. “information infrastructure” would also be “subject to command” by the NCCC under the proposed new law.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!

Millard (IA) Public Schools will stop using a children’s book about global warming — but only until the district can obtain copies with a factual error corrected.

A review committee, convened after parents complained, concluded that author Laurie David’s book, “The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming,” contained “a major factual error” in a graphic about rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.

However, the district will cease to use a companion video about global warming, narrated by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, he wrote.

The committee found the video “without merit” and recommended that it not be used.

In the video, DiCaprio attributes global warming to mankind’s “destructive addiction” to oil. He says “big corporations” and politicians gained too much money and power “on our addiction,” making them “dangerously resistant to change.”

So how many school district did do this?

After all, it’s just education….

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH! 🙂

Freedom of Information

“You’re are coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter.  With iPods and iPads and XBoxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”

Emancipation?  Curious choice of word there, or was it? 🙂


“All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

The Pressure being that he can’t lie as freely as past generations could.

As Liberals have control of most of the Ministry of Truth they do a good job of trying.

Hence the push for “net neutrality” aka government control of the internet information, the biggest thorn in his side.

People like me. 🙂

“So many voices clamoring for attention on blogs and on cable, on — on talk radio. It — it can be difficult at times to sift through it all, to know what to believe, to figure out who’s telling the truth and who isn’t.”–Obama at Hampton University

And, of course, the government is always telling the truth…
But then there’s: “President-elect Barack Obama has repeatedly said how much his BlackBerry means to him and how he is dreading the prospect of being forced to give it up, because of legal and security concerns, once he takes office,” and he did not give it up, he still has it.  So as usual it’s “do as I say, not as I do.” NYT
Perhaps it’s easier these days to spread disinformation, but it’s also easier to correct it. If the president doesn’t know how to use these devices, how does he explain the June 26, 2008, issue of Rolling Stone noting that Bob Dylan, Yo-Yo Ma, Sheryl Crow and Jay-Z were featured on his, uh, iPod.

Maybe it’s programmed for him, like his teleprompters?
In this administration, freedom of speech, press or information is a distraction and a threat. That’s why they sought to impose the doctrine of “net neutrality” on the Internet. In the name of opening up broadband to all, it’s designed to suppress the voices of those who have competed in the marketplace of ideas and won.
Being informed depends on information and the free flow thereof, with no one, especially not the government, being the final arbiter of truth. That’s for the individual to decide. That’s why in words inscribed in a frieze below the dome of his memorial in Washington, D.C., Jefferson said: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
We disagree with what some have to say, but will defend to the death their right to tweet it.
(IBD)

Speaking of Free Speech…

“up” Chuck Schumer and  Sen. Van Hollen have introduced legislation (supported by the Obama administration) reimposing the same type of First Amendment restrictions that the United States Supreme Court recently declared unconstitutional in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission  (FEC). In other words, their response to having free speech limitations overturned by the Supreme Court is to roll the same rock back up the same hill.

Under their bill, all contractors with the government and recipients of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds would be prohibited from U.S. election spending. The legislation would impose that same prohibition upon American businesses with as few as 20 percent of shares owned by foreign nationals, or whose boards of directors happen to have a majority of foreign nationals. (No word yet on whether Schumer, Van Hollen or the Obama administration will recognize their error and suddenly amend their bill to except illegal immigrants.)

But note one big-spending group that Schumer and Van Hollen suspiciously omitted from their prohibition: labor bosses.

According to a report in The Hill quoting Loyola Law School election law professor Richard L. Hasen, Big Labor may receive a free pass in the bill:

“Hasen said some of the biggest campaign spending restrictions in the summary would only affect corporations. For example, large federal contractors, recipients of government bailout funds who have not repaid the money and foreign-owned companies would be banned from election spending. ‘There are no foreign-owned unions, and unions are not government contractors,’ Hasen said. ‘The biggest limitations in this bill apply only to corporations because there are no parallels in the labor world.’“

There is simply no logical or ethical justification for exempting union bosses from the same restrictions that would limit their employer counterparts, considering the hundreds of millions in union members’ dues redirected toward union-friendly politicians. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) alone spent approximately $85 million to elect Obama and Democrats in 2008.

That’s 85 hardworking union members that the SEIU could make millionaires using the same money that it instead spent on political campaigns.

Sadly, that enormous campaign spending explains why Big Labor is excluded from the bill.(Daily Caller)

This is the way it used to be and they want it to be again. When the Court struck down the Campaign Finance Law, it wasn’t free speech that the Liberals were mad about, it was the competition.

They were no longer going to be the big stick on the block.

The biggest Bully.

The biggest purveyor of misinformation and disinformation.

And we all how much Liberal hate competition. 🙂

The sight of the American flag in America—even on Cinco de Mayo—should not be a source of offense to Americans of Mexican descent, but pride, providing of course that one sees him or herself as an American first. And here is the point that this young woman, the school administrators and a handful of sympathizers seem forever not to grasp. Americans do not want to be an extension of Mexico! Indeed many of us have had a peek south of the border and do not like what we see. The political culture and the values that support it hold little interest for those proud of our flag and “the republic for which it stands.”

Among many Americans, there is a growing sense that immigrants to this country have no interest in becoming Americans. Illegal immigrants are largely seen as people who disrespect our laws, our language, and our traditions. More significantly, they are viewed as taking advantage of everything this nation has to offer and yet refusing to assimilate into our American culture. The political class says that these fears are unfounded, and the elite label such thoughts as bigoted. And yet we are treated to stories like this one, wherein American children are sent home from school for wearing an image of the American flag. Should we believe the political elites? Or our lying eyes? (Daily Caller)

And lying eyes are everywhere… 🙂