Van Jones, A National Treasure, To Rejoin Liberal Think Tank

I’m thinking that I may want to reconsider my position on things – it appears that the more radical and revolutionary you are, the more awards, employment opportunities, and face time you get. 

Take for example Van Jones; although he was ousted from the White House for his trutherism, his radical ideological beliefs, namely being a self-professed communist, he is still receiving accolades from the liberal community.  Van Jones will receive the coveted NAACP Image award this year and will also rejoin the Center for American Progress {be wary of that word Progress} a liberal “think” tank. 

Van Jones calls himself an environmentalist, but more so in the sense of social justice; a term that many of us have been schooled in over the last couple of years.  Social justice is just a nicer term used to confuse the masses that calls for the redistribution of wealth because of all the inequalities and unfairness in the world.  Somewhere in life, I found that inequality and unfairness were part of human nature and it was up to an individual to make the most of what they were given and strive for success at every turn.  I believe what I’m getting at is the “pursuit of happiness,” and there is a reason that the word pursuit is in the phrase; happiness isn’t handed to us – we have to earn respect and earn success.

Van Jones on the other hand, believes in the idea of welfare, hand outs and redistribution.  He is a self-avowed communist who believes that nobody should be in jail, in fact they should all have green jobs to rehabilitate themseleves… something I’m more than a little skeptical of.

A little synopsis of what Van Jones is up to and some additional benefits that he is receiving:

In his first interview since stepping down as President Obama’s environmental adviser on Sept. 5, Jones said that a green jobs policy represents the best chance of both aiding poor Americans and bridging the political divide.

“When the food fight is over, there’s one spot of clean common ground in American politics, and that is the need for us to be leading on energy, clean energy, and for us as a country to be more secure with all those jobs,” Jones said Tuesday.

Jones, who has been consulting for companies and nonprofits on environmental issues, will start teaching at Princeton University in June and is rejoining the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, next month. On Friday, he will receive the NAACP’s President’s Award, for achievement in public service, the organization announced Tuesday.

Not surprising, another liberal ivy league school is also patting Van Jones on the back where he will teach and commute from DC to southern New Jersey.

As another aside, the liberal think tank that Van Jones will be a part of, commonly referred to as CAP, is run by none other than John Podesta and as recently as yesterday, has given its “unbiased” review of the Obama administration favoring unionized companies bidding on federal contracts, stating that it would bring down contracting costs, which is patently false.

Bernie Sanders Compares Global Warming Deniers to Holocaust Deniers

Bernie Sanders, the self-professed far left socialist from Vermont, compares global warming that’s right, I mean climate change, or whatever they have changed it to, to fit their agenda, deniers to Nazi sympathizers/Holocaust deniers.  The liberals are great at just cutting off debate by throwing carpet bombs at any opposition.  Slinging words like Nazi and racist as often as they do, has taken away from the seriousness of these words, and the American public is getting tired of it.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is comparing climate change skeptics to those who disregarded the Nazi threat to America in the 1930s, adding a strident rhetorical shot to the already volatile debate over climate change.

“It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s,” said Sanders, perhaps the most liberal member of the Senate, during a Senate hearing Tuesday. “During that period of Nazism and fascism’s growth-a real danger to the United States and democratic countries around the world- there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said ‘don’t worry! Hitler’s not real! It’ll disappear!”

Correct me if I’m wrong Bernie, but wasn’t your far left idol, FDR, one of those individuals who ignored warnings about World War II until Pearl Harbor was hit? I also believe if there is anybody who is currently denying a war and acting like Neville Chamberlain it’s our very own President and many of you in Congress.

Sanders’ reference to the Nazi threat is sure to enrage Republicans who are already skeptical of the science behind climate change. But Sanders wasn’t the only one throwing bombs at a hearing that was ostensibly about the EPA’s fiscal 2011 budget. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called global warming a “hoax,” is asking for an investigation into the science used in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the governing body on climate science.

Shouting down debate only proves that liberals are afraid that someone may find out that this was in fact the greatest hoax of our time; that their new beloved theology could be disproved by facts. The best form of democracy is healthy, civil debate, and I believe the American people want transparency on all issues that our government finds so important.

The Obama Administration Continues To Play Favorites With Unions

We are all well aware that the Obama administration is beholden to the unions like SEIU and the UAW who gave millions to then Senator Obama during his campaign for the White House. However, what many may not know, or have forgotten is the fact that Barack Obama signed three executive orders that would make it easier to favor unions and unionized companies.

Here is the synopsis of the three pro-union executive orders signed early in 2009:

The first executive order requires employers with federal contracts above $100,000 in value to post a notice in the workplace informing their employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including the right to join a union. This order also repeals Executive Order 13201, issued by President Bush in 2001, that required federal contractors and subcontractors to post so-called “Beck notices.” Such notices, named after the Supreme Court’s decision in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) informed employees covered under the NLRA that they could not be required to join a union or maintain union membership in order to retain their jobs and that employees who are subject to a union security clause and choose not to be union members may object to the purposes for which mandatory union dues are used.

The second order applies to federal contractors who provide services to government buildings. While there are several exemptions, under this new executive order, when a federal agency changes contractors, the new contractor will be required to offer jobs to the non-supervisory employees of its predecessor. This order is designed to try to ensure that when a unionized contractor is replaced, its successor will be obliged under existing labor laws to bargain with the original contractor’s labor union.

The third order prevents federal contractors from being reimbursed in federal funds for money spent to oppose (or support) union organizing efforts among their employees, which could violate first amendment rights if ever challenged in a court of law due to government interference and a company’s freedom of speech.

That’s why the latest news coming from the Obama administration is very disconcerting since they are planning on supporting proposals that will favor unions and unionized companies bidding on federal contracts, which will only increase the size of the government, the amount of bureaucracy, and the cost of contracts.  However, it’s not anything we don’t already know since Obama’s philosophy seems more like “Go big, or go… you know something? just go big because you won’t have a home by the time our administration is through.”

Here’s more information regarding the proposal via the Daily Caller:

The proposals, collectively known as “High Road Contracting Policy,” were first reported earlier this month. The basic elements of the policy would give preference to companies bidding on federal contracts that pay their hourly workers a “living wage” and provide health insurance, employer-funded pension plans and paid sick days.

Following the report Republicans slammed the proposal, with Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma referring to it as “backdoor card check.” Other critics, led by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, worry the new rules would increase the cost of government contracting by as much as 20 percent, or more than $100 billion annually, while further slowing the procurement process.

Proponents of the proposals, including the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute, argue government contracting should be used as a vehicle for expanding the middle class and many of the workers that would be impacted by the changes end up costing the government more through public assistance programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. David Madland of CAP also pointed to studies on the state and local level that show no cost increase following the implementation of similar policies.

However, the White House did admit that contracting costs would increase if this proposal went through.  Pardon me if I’m a little skeptical and a little tired of unions being used as the end-all-be-all of the middle class.  Most of the middle class are professional workers or even blue collared workers who don’t belong to unions.  Take for example my father – he’s a mechanic but doesn’t belong to the UAW, much like many of his co-workers.  Does he make a ton of money? No, he’s just simply middle class and thus it is completely disingenuous for anybody to equate unions with the middle class at all times.  It seems as if the current crop of bureaucrats would love nothing more than for the true middle class to be unionized and therefore controlled and dependent upon the federal government.

And lest we forget some of the eye-opening clips of Obama speaking with organizations like SEIU:

{My favorite part is Obama telling SEIU that they should want a leader who can tell the truth… Interesting that he’s now been caught in many lies, most recently ACORN}

Children of the Political Corn

What is it with liberals and their childish, spoiled behavior?

I was recently at a rally in downtown Annapolis last Wednesday night, held by several organizations to get the state of Maryland back on the side of the people rather than under the thumb of one-party rule.  Several liberals who were protesting the event decided they would start acting up and what better way to act up than to scream racist at every individual who walks by? What good does that do anybody and for what reason? Why is it the liberals who are always pointing out the differences in people rather than what unites us and makes us equal?

These ‘children’ outside of the rally started whining to the police officers that broke up the chaos.  It immediately turned into the blame game – heaven forbid any one of them act like grown-ups, apologize, and let it go. This tends to be the norm from what I have observed from liberals; spoiled children who want everything their way and have no concern for those around them as long as they get what they want.

I like the following analogy; Veruca Salt is to Oompa Loompas as Liberals are to public policy.  I can hear them now: “But, Daddy, I want an Oompa Loompa NOW!” They want immediate gratification like a 5 year old in a toy store, throwing a temper tantrum if an adult says ‘NO,’ in hopes that the parent will eventually kowtow to the child (which has unfortunately become the norm in society).

Liberals want policy NOW – they don’t tend to read the bills, but because they sound nice, based on the game of semantics (loved by every liberal politician), they think that 2,000 page bureaucratic nightmares will create some type of Utopia in America. 

The problem I have with Veruca Salt is her attitude problem and the sheer fact that she doesn’t even know what is involved in caring for an Oompa Loompa because she doesn’t know what it is; but because this new and exotic creature sounds and looks cool – she has to have it! She could wind up killing the poor thing because she doesn’t know what to do with it once she gets it or there could be tons of unintended consequences, and somebody inevitably is always left cleaning up the mess. 

To be honest, I can understand why somebody under 30 still acts like Veruca Salt.  Perhaps they are too sheltered, perhaps they have never experienced hard times, perhaps they still believe that Utopias exist, or perhaps they just haven’t worked long enough to owe the government.  Those who I don’t understand, and feel have no business acting that way, are adults, especially politicians who have a hand in running our country — Case in point: Chuck Shumer.

Chuck Shumer is the epitome of egotistical elitist; a snob so to speak, who would seemingly say anything or stoop to any level just to remain ‘powerful’ in regards to the political arena.

Growing up in Connecticut and living around the limousine liberal elite has taught me that these individuals are nothing more than empty vessels floating along a shallow river of condescension and entitlement.

Chuck Shumer isn’t the only liberal to carry this haughty attitude – it certainly became patently obvious during his BFF, Martha Coakley’s campaign. Their hatred of average Americans is transparent, unlike the healthcare coverage on CSPAN that was promised by Obama’s administration.

I have to wonder, how intelligent or even how mature these politicians think they are when calling their peers names like tea-baggers? Do they believe that calling individuals perverted terms makes them look like pillars of the community? Do they think it makes them sound more intelligent and credible? If that is the case, they are sadly mistaken, because to most it makes them look like bitter, immature, adolescents; the same adolescents currently running amok in our government and spending money like a 16 year old with Daddy’s credit card.  These are the very same congress critters who have been in the majority since 2006 and were running our economy into the ground during the stock market crash. 

It’s easy for Americans to place blame on one individual like George Bush for the disaster called our economy in 2008, but guess what? Congress has more influence over the economy and over the regulations and oversight of the market than the president.  And guess who was supposed to be in charge of those two things when this crisis hit? The liberals, yes, that’s correct, and I dare ask anybody who disagrees to look it up. 

Speak of the devil, Barney Frank would like to change the rules in case Scott Brown wins Teddy Kennedy’s seat today… who cares about all the little people of America who elect these individuals that turn out to be wannabe dictators, right?

I don’t care if you were the valedictorian of your class at Harvard take the cotton out of your ears and stick it in your mouth – The American public no longer wants to hear what you have to say, we just want you to start listening! 

I think it’s time to take a look at some of the best quotes illustrating liberal arrogance in recent history:

Chuck Shumer: Then the flight attendant came by again and told Schumer that everyone on the flight was waiting for him to turn off his phone. He asked to finish his conversation but was told he could not; he then hung up and, according to the aide, he argued about the rule banning him from speaking on the phone.

When the flight attendant walked away, the aide told Politico, Schumer turned to Gillibrand and referred to the woman as a “bitch.”

New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who famously hammered then-Sen. Alfonse D’Amato for calling him a “putz-head” in their hot 1998 campaign, was accused Thursday of stepping into the gutter himself after he sent out a fundraising e-mail in which he called Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown a “far-right tea-bagger.” 

Obama: “You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

John Kerry: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” 

Harry Reid:  “My staff tells me not to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway, in the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it’s true.” 

Don’t forget that Harry also thinks the only reason Barack Obama was electable was his “light skin” and lack of “negro dialect.”

Chris Matthews: Video of Chris Matthews saying that all of the “teabaggers” are white, while talking with Mark McKinnon.

Matthews said, “they’re all white, all of them, every single one of them is white.” Mark McKinnon agreed with Matthews saying “I think that’s a fair characterization, predominately no question.”

Barney Frank: In this view, the role of the great majority of Americans is simply to buy the products produced, work happily for their wages, and leave all of the significant economic decisions to the capitalists.

Nancy Pelosi: Out of touch and calling the middle class (making up the majority of the tea party protests) “Astroturf” & wealthy: What we want is a new direction. In fact, in the President’s initiative – in the Recovery and in the Budget – 95% of the American people get a tax cut. This is a tax cut for the great middle class. This initiative is funded by the high end – we call call it astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.
Barbara Boxer: “Do me a favor,” she said, “could say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’ It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you.”

More from that exchange:

Boxer: “Sir, they passed it. They passed it. Now, also, if that isn’t interesting you to we’ll quote John Grant, who is the CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta.” [She goes on to read quote.]

Alford: “Madam Chair, that is condescending to me. I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me.”

Boxer: “If this gentlemen were here he would be proud that he was being quoted.”

Alford: “He should have been invited!”

Alan Grayson: If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.

Now, that brings us back around to the Massachusetts Senate race, which will give us a new Senator tonight:

The public can choose a cookie cutter liberal with a bad attitude like the ones referenced above, or a new face, with new ideas, who stands for more than entitlement to a seat and his own ego.

People like Shumer and Coakley are New England elites with law degrees; you don’t need to be a genius or a lawyer to hold a seat in our government; in fact the founding fathers never intended for that in the first place.  Scott Brown may have graduated from law school but he’s spent years serving our country in a more important capacity, as a leader; as a member of our armed services.

Martha Coakley is a special interest, union loving, lobbyist kow-towing, big spending, big government, entitled, limousine liberal.  I’m tired of the same old same old and it’s time for a change, especially in a liberal hot-bed like Massachusetts.  (I can at least spell the state correctly, unlike Martha and her staff). 

Martha Coakley’s new slogan is open mouth, insert foot.  She is quickly replacing Joe Biden as Obama’s Czar of Gaffe. 

Martha Coakley states that there aren’t terrorists in Afghanistan, just weeks after 8 CIA agents were killed by terrorists in that very country.  She believes in freedom of religion, but thinks devout Catholics shouldn’t work in emergency rooms, she spelled Massachusetts wrong in an ad she recently placed on air, adding an extra ‘E’ at the end, and we can’t forget the push heard round the world, when her aide pushed down a conservative reporter and she stood there and did nothing. My personal favorite is of course the double standard – Martha flew down to DC just a week before the special election in MA, to meet with the real fat cats for a fundraiser, some of which were lobbyists from the health care industry – where’s the outrage liberal friends?…crickets*

Martha as of late has also tried to air attack ads painting Brown as a UPS truck driver who will ship jobs overseas, offending not only UPS, but truck drivers, along with Obama’s comments this weekend that anyone can afford a truck… Excuse me sir, but that’s not true – at least not for a majority of people who are jobless at the moment – maybe your liberal elite buddies can afford such luxuries but not the average American just trying to make a living. 

Coakley has also aired an ad using the old World Trade Center as a connection to greed and of course back to Bush, Republicans, and Scott Brown.  The only greed I have seen are the rich Democrats who basically run the hedge funds and Wall Street… a lot of these individuals are part of that ‘evil’ 1% who pay top dollar for CPAs to find loopholes in the tax code.  Stop blaming everything on Republicans when Democrats are evenly split on commercial bank contributions and take the cake when it comes to hedge funds and Fannie & Freddie.

Martha should just quit while she’s… behind… painting herself as disconnected and completely detached from the people.  As recently as yesterday, she told a radio station the American public is basically too stupid to know enough about health care.

I’m getting so tired of the name calling, the fear mongering, and the condescending attitudes of the Democrat party.  It’s time to usher in a new era of principled, uncorrupted individuals.  It’s high time we give some new faces the chance to turn around a ship that’s headed for an iceberg. We need people who understand that serving in this great country means serving their constituents and not themselves.  We need people who have worked in the private sector or don’t feel that they deserve a seat just because it was held by a late senator of the same ideology.  We need people who want to put government back on the side of the people.  I don’t want anymore career politicians and neither should you – let’s start electing grown-ups with standards. 

I hope that Massachusetts does the right thing in electing Scott Brown – it’s time that people vote based not on party affiliation but on trust and who they believe will be honest, sincere, and do the best job. 

Good Luck to Scott, Massachusetts, and to America!

Holder the Hypocrite; Geneva Convention? What Geneva Convention?

Hypocrite, Eric Holder, in 2002, says the Gitmo terrorists aren’t covered under the Geneva Convention.  What article in the Geneva Convention you ask? Well, it’s Article IV and it goes a little something like this:

Click here for the Eyeblast video

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:  

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.  

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government [not a deity] or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. 

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: 

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. 

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. 

In summary, these terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention because they are not normal soldiers, conducting war by international rules and guidelines.  They are not regularly uniformed armed forces that abide by this Convention or any other treaties. These terror cells do not act on the behalf of a government, but rather as underground radical factions set up to terrorize other cultures and individuals.  If they were uniformed soldiers, I would agree that they should be treated in a manner that abides by the Convention, however that has not, nor was it ever, the case. 

A lot of thought and legal drafting went into the appropriateness of interrogation techniques used against Al-Qaeda and the terrorists at Gitmo who initiated the attacks on 9/11.  I fail to see where the means of interrogation were unjust and completely inhumane? Waterboarding did not take place for every single prisoner and for those who were waterboarded, they could only be waterboarded so many times, while our men and women serving get waterboarded more often.  Doctors are also required to stand by during a waterboarding session.  As far as bugs in a corner or sleep deprivation – well that just reminds me of college, so what’s the big deal? Did these terrorists consider the lives or feelings of anybody before they attacked innocent civilians? I will never understand how the liberal mind works – and maybe that’s a good thing.

Oh, and it would be nice for all the Bush bashers and the liberal elite media to at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of Holder and this administration…

More Government Malfeasance in Walpin-Gate

Investigations are still ongoing for recently fired IG, Gerald Walpin.  He was fired earlier this year after aggressively investigating the suspected fraud and misuse of funds by an Obama ally, Kevin Johnson and AmeriCorps. 

More information continues to trickle out regarding this case; eventually slow drips can cause a flood.  Darrell Issa & Charles Grassley, 2 senior ranking republicans, have been digging into this matter; to find out whether the firing was valid or if was used to cover-up fraud of a political ally, which seems to be the more likely case. 

The new information coming to the surface involves the head of AmeriCorps and Michelle Obama’s top aide/chief of staff.  

According to Republican investigators, Alan Solomont, then the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, had denied meeting with Jackie Norris, at the time the First Lady’s chief of staff.  But recently-released White House visitor logs show that Solomont met with Norris on June 9 of this year (as well as on two earlier occasions). President Obama fired Walpin on June 10 after an intense dispute over Walpin’s aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps money by Obama political ally Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California. 

After being presented with the visitor logs, investigators say, Solomont explained that he met with Norris to discuss Corporation business but did not discuss the Walpin matter.  When pressed, Solomont said he might have made an offhand comment or a mention in passing, about the Walpin affair, but that he and Norris did not have a discussion about it.

Solomont’s explanations have left both Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Sen. Charles Grassley, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, frustrated and vowing to continue their investigation of the Walpin matter. In a letter to Solomont, sent Friday, Issa wrote that he has “serious questions about the veracity of your…testimony.”  In a statement Saturday, Grassley said he is “concerned about the accuracy and completeness of Mr. Solomont’s answers to questions.”

Ruh – Roh, Mr. Jetson!

Crikey! The Government Is Monitoring Twitter & Facebook

*Banging head against the keyboard* – the government is monitoring the internet more now than ever.  If I wasn’t so politically charged, I probably wouldn’t care, nor would I really hear much about this, but much of my twitter and Facebook use is for political activism and pontificating on the issues of the day. If that gets me into trouble with the government, then so be it.  I’d rather get carted off for practicing my first amendment right of free speech than for doing something that was truly illegal like stealing my neighbor’s car. 

Both parties are at fault for this obvious breach of personal privacy, but I believe one could make the argument where there are certain circumstances that warrant wire tapping or other similar techniques if it saves lives and stops terrorism.  However, the slippery slope is easily becoming not just a theory, but a reality.  I do not see the need to monitor Facebook or twitter.  These are mainly tools used by citizens to get short points across that consist of 140 characters.  Some people tweet articles, some tweet opinions, some tweet their daily activities, while others tweet photos – why should that be monitored by the government?  Does the government seriously care that I just got back in touch with Sally Muckenfuch from 3rd grade? 

I don’t want to seem like a ‘Debbie Downer’ but would terrorists really be using twitter? “Just strapped a bomb onto my back, headed to airport, can’t wait for virgins.” I am not naive, either, and believe that anything could be used for the wrong purpose, but twitter just doesn’t seem like the place to strategize and plan an attack.  Information can definitely be sent out to meet up, but whole terror plots are difficult to type in 140 characters or less, let alone hope that ADD riddled people already tweeting will follow.  Based on the latest NY Times editorial, however, that is not the intent of the government’s monitor at all though:

The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters. A public interest group has filed a lawsuit to learn more about this monitoring, in the hope of starting a national discussion and modifying privacy laws as necessary for the online era.

Wired magazine reported in October:

America’s spy agencies want to read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates — even check out your book reviews on Amazon.

In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA and the wider intelligence community, is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media. It’s part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using ”open source intelligence” — information that’s publicly available, but often hidden in the flood of TV shows, newspaper articles, blog posts, online videos and radio reports generated every day.

This is what scares common sense independents about the government — we allow them to have more power than ever should have been necessary and our rights and personal freedoms continue to disappear right from under us because we allow them to be taken PROGRESSIVELY… funny how we appear to be turning into those much storied frogs that are unable to jump out of a pot of luke warm water after it has boiled.

And as Noel Sheppard of Newbusters points out, the fact that this isn’t being reported as much as it would be if a Republican was in office, is just another hypocritical chink in the liberal media’s armor:

So be careful with your next Tweet or Facebook status, for you never know who’s watching.

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how Obama-loving media follow this story.

After all, the press were constantly bashing the Bush White House concerning electronic surveillance designed to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The Times might be pleased with itself by publishing an editorial on this subject in its opinion section, but under the previous administration, this would have resulted in a front page story with thousands of words.

Green Oath Takers: Climate Scientists Pledge Allegiance to GloBULL Warming

“I pledge allegiance to global warming and the corruption for which it stands.  One scam; incomprehensible, with tyranny and poverty for all.” 

The London Times reports:

The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

Funny, I think I might feel uncomfortable signing an oath to not speak ill of data I’m trying to research and prove as fact.  This is not a settled science as much as anybody would like to claim it is.  Theories exist and until they are proven as fact, they merely remain as theories – which is why science seems to take forever.  The idea that man can play such a huge role in something as large as our globe and the climate is sheer arrogance and egoism.  Climate change is a naturally occurring event that has ebbed and flowed for decades if not eons.  The more emails, the more proof, the more information that comes out on this hoax, the better for everybody.  That’s not to say that people who disagree do not believe in taking care of their environment, it just means that the skeptics have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of any type of man-made climate change.  I’d like to know how liberals can rail against big oil but seem to have no problem when their own side of the aisle is in the tank for Green Corporations and have much to gain from cap and tax – how is that any different?

Signing a pledge such as the one above seems to worsen the credibility and cause conflict of interest among people who became scientists to prove and disprove based on factual evidence.  What if, at some point, global warming is proven to be a hoax? Scientists should not be held down by some oath that forces them to hide significant information from the public.  There are other times in history when people had to pledge their allegiance to a cause, and that usually didn’t end very well…

The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition’s substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists’ authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the “consensus” rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

IMHO, any scientist who signs this petition has lost all credibility to be fair, reasonable, balanced, and able to report fact – not some fiction in which they signed onto.

Somebody Please Rebuke Pete Stark

Pete Stark was recently caught on tape being incredibly rude and condescending towards his constituents at a health care town hall held this weekend in California.  His reply to a constituent calling BS on the health care bill and treating Americans as ‘idiots’ was just the icing on the cake for the childish behavior being displayed by Democrats in the past couple of months: 

Pete Stark is notorious when it comes to being blunt and uncouth.  The double standards shown by the Liberals over the last few months, is what has my panties in a twist.  I would like for just one Democrat or one Liberal to admit that there are double standards and that much of their whining about protests, senators calling the president a liar, and fear mongering, is and has been done by those on the political side of the spectrum who now control the legislative and executive branches.  It would seem to Liberals that calling somebody out for lying is worse than actually lying under oath and committing the actual act, i.e. Bill Clinton.  In a recent post I used two examples from State of the Union addresses where Bush was Boo’ed and interrupted with raucous applause regarding social security obstructionism.  However, if we are to get specific on the House rules, these technically do not constitute a rebuke or violate those rules.  Knowing the sheer hate launched at president Bush over the last 8 years there had to be at least one Democrat who called him a liar on the House Floor and in fact there was – Pete Stark: 

Heaven forbid there is any type of consistency across both sides of the aisle.  Nope, the childish Democrats currently holding seats in Congress are acting like kindergartners and wasting taxpayer money to pass a resolution to rebuke Joe Wilson.  It should be noted that 7 Republicans voted against their Congressman and 12 Democrats actually voted with Joe Wilson.  Kudos to those Democrats who believed this was a waste of time and energy and to the 7, watch out in 2010!  Here’s the list: 

7 Republicans

Joseph Cao (La.)

Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.)

Jeff  Flake (Az.)

Bob Inglis (S.C.)

Walter Jones (N.C.)

Thomas Petri (Wisc.)

Dana Rohrabacher (Ca.) 

12 Democrats

Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)

William Delahunt (Mass.)

Gabrielle Giffords (Az.)

Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.)

Paul Hodes (N.H.)

Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)

Daniel Maffei (N.Y.)

Eric Massa (N.Y.)

Jim McDermott (Wash.)

Gwen Moore (Wisc.)

Gene Taylor (Miss.)

Harry Teague (N.M.) 

This entire debacle regarding Wilson is dishonest to the core and is merely being done to distract the American public from the health care debate.  Wake up and stop being so partisan – start calling a spade a spade, and admit to the hypocrisy: That’s all I ask!

Support Joe Wilson here.

Democrats: “Who’s Crying Now?”

I have Journey’s song playing in my head after Joe Wilson’s outburst Wednesday night.  Joe Wilson exclaimed “You Lie!” regarding President Obama’s assertion that illegal aliens would not be covered in any health care legislation, however, under all but one version of the health care bills, illegal aliens would in fact be allowed to partake in the system (no proof of documentation required).

This is something that was discovered several weeks ago by those citizens who actually took the time to read through the bills as they became available to the public.  There were other provisions in the draft legislation that also raised various red flags. 

The AP, of all publications, ran a mostly objective fact check on the President’s speech and found that he most certainly lied regarding that issue as well as various others.   

People could argue day and night over the issue of right and wrong and the appropriateness of Joe Wilson’s remarks.  There will always be those who agree with the timing of his remark and those who do not.  It’s just that simple.  Don’t cloud the issue of health care by demonizing a politician and distracting the American public when plenty of politicians have done the same thing in other forums.

I find it incredibly hypocritical to hear President Obama call Sarah Palin a liar, because she made complete sense in her recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, continue to blame Bush for everything, and state that Republicans do not have solutions, but feign outrage when somebody shouts out at a specific part of legislation that has been blatantly falsified, and all hell breaks loose. 

I also find it funny that during various State of the Union addresses by then President Bush, the Democrats would interrupt him as a raucous crowd, applauding their own social security obstructionism:  

2005:

2006:

 

(H/T Gateway Pundit)

I have to wonder in wild amazement how Democrats can be so blind to their history of doing the same things that they get so riled up about.  I realize that there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle, but give it a rest.  How many times did specific liberal politicians give an interview during Bush’s term in office stating that he was a liar?  How many times did Democrats like Harry Reid make disparaging remarks about the support of our troops by stating that the War was lost?  What about Nancy Pelosi’s recent CIA accusation, where she called them liars?  I could go on, but I’ll leave it there.  The selective outrage of the liberal wing of the Democrat party is astounding, if not so pathetic.