There has been a lot of discussion in recent months regarding the policies and direction the Obama administration is taking. Speculation and quite honestly, good deductive reasoning would lead one to conclude that Cass Sunstein is behind the push for net neutrality and other freedom quelching procedures. A move that Obama is following given his recent speech about the Internet and the “distractions” and “misinformation” it causes.

Cass Sunstein has been a part of both the legal world and academia since he graduated from Harvard Law in 1978. He gave a lecture in 2007 called “He said that, she did what?” a piece where we glean a little more about his own political philosophy. This lecture was in line with his book “On Rumors” and “Going to Extremes.” On Rumors discusses the harm that spreading rumors via the internet, media, or other forms of communication, can cause. In his book he suggests regulation for these sources of information so the truth is known and rumors aren’t spread. This view is controversial, and rightly so, because it is in direct violation of the first amendment. Most political philosophy, for example, is based upon personal beliefs and opinion and not on fact, like mathematics, so how can a regulatory agency enforce certain opinions or belief systems?

Opening his lecture, Sunstein declared that one of his goals was “to drive a wedge between the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ and ‘Truth.’” Identifying truth specifically with factual accuracy, he outlined three mechanisms by which false rumors gain traction in that marketplace and become widely held beliefs.[…]

Focusing on false rumor propagation, Sunstein voiced two concerns unaddressed by these explanations. First, people tend to be unaware of the bias of the groups in which they are participants. Second, individuals discount the importance of ideologically minded people to willfully mislead. As he explained, “It’s underestimated the extent to which, with respect to certain rumors, there’s a self-interested or ideologically-motivated mover who is starting the information [process].”

Connecting these behavioral observations to issues of freedom of speech, Sunstein discussed certain Supreme Court decisions. Using the example of a case centered on a newspaper’s publication of the name of a rape victim, he noted the Court’s reliance on the argument that, if a fact is already in the public domain, then wide publication of that fact should always be protected. But this sort of publication can cause irreparable damage, he said, which might prompt a more nuanced application of law.

Raising a more recent phenomenon—YouTube—Sunstein warned of the dangers of turning every citizen into “their own Truman Show,” in which the minutiae of everyday life is broadcast to the world. “A life is not an incident or an event, but a series of them,” he explained, a fact which is lost when incidents are broadcast over the Internet or other media, without context. “Sometimes the isolated segment or event will have a kind of defining character, in a way that will be extremely destructive, not only to the individual involved, but also to people trying to make rational judgments about the relevant person.”

The freakiest part of his lecture wasn’t deciding truth from fiction from an already biased source such as himself, but what he said about the freedom of press: (Watch the webcast.)

Sunstein quoted Felix Frankfurter as saying, “Freedom of the press is not an end in itself, but a means to the end of achieving a free society.” After offering some examples in which uninhibited press freedom leads to the destruction of other freedoms, he proposed a reconsideration of the idea of the ‘chilling effect’”:

“Many First Amendment questions in this domain are resolved by reference to the ‘chilling effect’ concern. Indeed, it has become quite clear that references to the ‘chilling effect’ have had a very serious ‘chilling effect’ on engagement with the constitutional question …The question shouldn’t be whether there’s a chilling effect and how to avoid it, but how to achieve the optimal chilling effect.”

“Zero chilling effect, in light of the mechanisms just described, would be profoundly destructive to a host of relevant variables.”

One can only assume that a chilling effect in essence is the regulation of freedom. Chilling something usually slows it down. If I chill a gas does it not start to become a liquid and equally a liquid becomes a solid? I think it’s time to start saying “Hands off my youtube.”

Sunstein’s other book is “Going to Extremes” in which he believes that people become more and more polarized when they associate with like-minded people on a continuous basis like the internet, social networks, specific organizations and of course talk radio. I find it interesting that talk radio was mentioned specifically. I must also believe that he probably thinks there is no perfect time like the present to enforce his social and philosophical experiments on the masses when organizations and powerful grassroots movements like the Tea Party are shaping the political landscape.

It was Cass Sunstein, now a Harvard constitutional law professor, who first alerted a broad public to the kind of polarization that has preoccupied us most in recent years. Society, with the help of the Web, was sorting people by ideology in a way that eroded fellow-feeling and fostered mindless partisanship. Almost a decade ago, his Republic.com lamented that while daily newspapers confront people with all kinds of material they didn’t ask for, the Web allows them to dodge what they disagree with. This was an alarming refutation of our smug claims about the Internet. In theory, the Internet opens people up to new ways of looking at things. In practice, it lets people wall themselves off in informational micro-environments of their own design. It makes them not more cosmopolitan but more parochial.

Now Sunstein has written Going to Extremes, a short book about the nature and roots of extremism. It is meant to unsettle us in the way his earlier work did. He finds that sitting people down to deliberate does not necessarily lead them to compromise or to converge on their mean opinion. They tend to radicalize in the direction of whatever bias they had to begin with. Teams of doctors, deciding collectively, are more likely to support the “extreme” strategy of heroic efforts to save terminally ill patents than the average individual doctor among them. Juries tend to vote, after discussion, for much more “extreme” monetary awards than the average individual juror among them would. Talking things over isn’t necessarily wrong. But it doesn’t lead reliably to moderation, either.

An additional source can be found at the Harvard Law Record:

Sunstein stated that extremism in multiple domains (labor unions, corporations, environmental protection, gay rights, and more) “is a product of a distinctive kind of crippled epistemology resulting from group polarization.” In other words, individuals tend to come to more extreme views if they deliberate a given issue with like-minded people.

From Sunstein’s essay: “Delibrative Trouble? Why Groups Go to Extremes” [can’t you just hear Billy Joel singing as you read this?]

Polarization is also likely to be produced by magazines with identifiable political convictions, such as the American Prospect, the Weekly Standard, the New Republic, and the National Review; by Pat Robertson and his special television programs devoted to his preferred causes; and by talk radio hosts with distinctive positions that are generally shared by their audiences. Because the results of group polarization cannot be evaluated in the abstract, nothing need be dishonorable in these efforts.

What can be said, in the abstract, is that attempts to ensure discussion among people with similar predispositions may succeed in increasing the confidence of individual participants and also in moving them toward more extreme positions. Thus would-be social reformers do well to create forums, whether in person, over the air, in cyberspace, or in print, in which people with similar inclinations frequently speak with one another and can develop a clear sense of shared identity.

[…]

An understanding of group polarization raises more general issues about communications policy. Under the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned, broadcasters were required to devote time to public issues and to allow an opportunity for opposing views to speak. The second prong of the doctrine was designed to ensure that listeners would not be exposed to any single view. When the FCC abandoned the fairness doctrine, it did so, on the ground that this second prong often led broadcasters to avoid controversial issues entirely, and to present views in a way that suggested a bland uniformity. Subsequent research has suggested that the elimination of the fairness doctrine has indeed produced a flowering of controversial substantive programming, frequently with an extreme view of one kind or another; consider talk radio. Typically this is regarded as a story of wonderfully successful deregulation. But from the standpoint of group polarization, things are more complicated. The growth of issues-oriented programming with a strong, often extreme view may create group polarization, and all too many people might be exposed to louder echoes of their own voices, resulting in social fragmentation, enmity, and misunderstanding. Perhaps it is better for people to hear fewer controversial views than for them to hear a single such view stated over and over again.

It is not clear what can be done about this situation. But it certainly makes sense to consider communications initiatives that would ensure that people are exposed to a range of reasonable views, not simply one. This was the original inspiration for the fairness doctrine, and there is reason to encourage media outlets to implement the same goal today. Thus Habermas’s suggestion: (Harbermas’ tenets are described as Marxist in nature)

The diffusion of information and points of view . . . is not the only thing that matters in public processes of communication, nor is it the most important. . . . [T]he rules of a shared practice of communication are of greater significance for structuring public opinion. Agreement on issues and contributions develops only as the result of more or less exhaustive controversy in which proposals, information, and reasons can be more or less rationally dealt with.

Perhaps a code of fair programming could promote voluntary self-regulation in this direction. With respect to the Internet, Andrew Shapiro has suggested public subsidy of a civic icon that would promote exposure to substantive discussions from a variety of viewpoints. An appreciation of group polarization suggests the need for creative approaches designed to ensure that people do not simply read their “Daily Me.”

[…]

The answer is that we often do know enough to see which views count as reasonable, without knowing which view counts as right, and this point is sufficient to allow people to construct deliberative processes that should correct for the most serious problems potentially created by group polarization. What is necessary is not to allow every view to be heard, but to ensure that no single view is so widely heard, and reinforced, that people are unable to engage in critical evaluation of the reasonable competitors.

When did it become the government or even one czar’s job to assess and regulate whether people decide to congregate with like-minds or with differing views? Is that not the freedom of choice we were given as a people when this country was founded? This is what is most disconcerting, although an intention may be good (and I still do not believe that is the case), ultimately all human beings have a bias. As a member and friend to an ideological Democrat, it can only be assumed that the regulatory czar, himself, is biased (especially when he was also a contributing editor to The New Republic). Ultimately, whatever party is in power would lean towards their ideological principles, especially if it came to enforcing a policy like net neutrality.

I will again draw the point that the tea parties are a huge contingent and based upon the writing of Sunstein and his views on “extremism” and “group-think,” or as he likes to call it, “polarization,” the tea party movement is a prime target of his regulatory experimentation. Sunstein would love nothing more than to decide which voices and views should be heard. A regulatory agency or an individual would decide which opinions are reasonable – with a liberal deciding those things, the tea party would never have a voice.

The exact arguments that Sunstein makes in the second paragraph of Sunstein’s preface to Republic.com 2.0 ‘Revenge of the Blogs,’ is that staying in like-minded circles is like 1984, when it reality, having some bureaucrat legislate what is extreme, enforcing multiple viewpoints, or deciding what is a rumor is more Orwellian than free. Extremism can be both good and bad, but it is within the individual to decide what they will do with it. Human nature can, and never should be legislated. It is something the founders knew, but it is something that progressives seem to cannot grasp.

So wouldn’t it make sense that the FCC is going to find a backdoor way to “nudge” this policy into place? Sunstein is also associated with FreePress.net, the Soros-funded group that advocates for, what they consider media diversity, localism, ownership caps and other regulations that restrict free speech. FreePress.net is pushing for Net Nuetrality and in 1995 published Sunstein’s work, “Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech.” A snippet:

Sunstein writes that an overhaul or requalification of the existing judicial, academic, and social interpretations of the First Amendment would lead to a greater understanding of the actual intent of the framers. He argues from a Madisonian standpoint that the First Amendment is above all designed to promote self-government, and that current free speech law compromises the intent of Madison and other founders.

The FCC:

This week, the FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, from many and various sources intends to change the classification of the Internet from Title I, which is an information utility, to Title II telecommunication’s utility. The new reclassification will allow the Title II regulatory authority to enforce Net Neutrality. At this time is doesn’t quite make a whole, more like a half change. The agency will not be enforcing the regulations to the fullest of extent, against broadband providers, immediately, though, it seems odd that the push would be to re-title, in order to enforce at some future point. Oddly enough, by this reclassification, the FCC is going against the last 10 years of its own legal rulings.

In order to sidestep the recent court’s rulings against the FCC’s authority to enforce Net Neutrality, and to be able to watchdog the internet, broadband usage, etc. the FCC is doing this unprecedented move. This will allow more ability for them to regulate what occurs on the Internet. Since the court’s decision on Net Neutrality and it’s stance that the FCC had no right or authority to enforce Net Neutrality, it is almost expected that this will open the door to further litigation by those affected by this decision that the FCC has chosen to make.

For your viewing pleasure I have included a fun little diddy from the movie “The Best Little Whore House in Texas” – “I like to do a little sidestep”

Wouldn’t it also make sense that Elena Kagan, a fellow colleague and an admirer of Cass Sunstein would follow in these same philosophies that academia so loves to experiment with? Kagan wants to suspend Miranda Rights for American citizens, wants to control gun rights, and give more power to the executive branch when it comes to REGULATION: PERFECT for both Obama and Sunstein, who see the Supreme Court as too right-wing, and find their rulings to be more ‘fundamentalist’ than ‘minimalist’ as Sunstein writes in his book “Radicals in Robes.” Sunstein also believes, and I would assume his former boss Kagan does as well, that the Regulatory State needs to be reconsidered in his Harvard Law Review article in 1989 “Interpreting Statutes in The Regulatory State,” and his 1993 book, After the Rights Revolution:

In this provocative and lively book, Sunstein argues that the Reagan adminstration’s vigorous attack on government regulation was misplaced, contending that government regulation is superior to the behavior of private markets…Sunstein thus offers a spirited defense of the ‘rights revolution’ embodied in the new social and economic regulation–from clean air and water to antidiscrimination rules–that have swept government since the New Deal, and especially since the 1960s…The result is a careful, prescriptive study positioned among theorists’ visions of justice, laywers’ concepts of due process, and politicians’ imperatives for effective policy. (American Library Association )

Over the past decade Cass Sunstein has emerged as one of the country’s most prolific and provocative legal scholars. After the Rights Revolution is a rich discussion of how the courts have handled–and should handle–the plethora of regulatory statutes enacted since 1932. It deserves to be read widely by students of politics.

Liberals really have issues when it comes to the imperfections that human nature gives us. Rather than seeing the beauty in the imperfections, they want to eradicate them so society becomes as homogenous and equal as possible. Take for example Sunstein’s view on American Exceptionalism and its false notion in regards to the Constitution:

The third explanation Sunstein rejects is a cultural one that he refers to as the story of “American exceptionalism.” This explanation proposes that America’s culture is hostile to the idea of positive rights because of America’s unique history, which has never included any significant experiment with socialism. Sunstein rejects the cultural argument because he believes that “it is utterly implausible to suggest that something in the [nation's] culture foreordains our practices, present and future.” Additionally, Sunstein points out that although the political left in America is relatively conservative in comparison to almost all other developed countries, America is not without its own social welfare tradition. He cites Roosevelt’s New Deal, the movement for female equality, and the recent movement for recognition of gay and lesbian rights as examples of the flexibility of American culture, and, therefore, the falsity of the cultural argument.

Come to think of it, that certainly sounds similar to what Elena Kagan recently said regarding socialism.

I would consider the Internet, blogs, talk radio all innovative examples of American Exceptionalism, where people have aspired to and become successful bloggers, online investigative journalists, talk radio hosts or large Internet companies. Content will not always be fair and equal, to the chagrin of Sunstein, because we have the freedom of speech and of press. Sunstein and his ilk, however, would prefer that equality is forced upon his “subjects.” Would the forcing of equality actually become an oxymoron? How can one enforce equality but then make it appear that freedom of choice, which gives us the most equality, is being adhered to?

Sunstein would also prefer that average citizens don’t do their homework on elected officials, lest it ruins a liberal’s reputation or give us information to work from in order to investigate. Most truths start out as conspiracies. They only become fact when they are proven. That means it’s time to sign off before Sunstein scrubs my post, which would probably be deemed a conspiracy theory – something he abhors.

Share on Facebook

As Alanis Morisett would say, “Isn’t ironic doncha think?” that every ideological liberal in Chicago is intertwined in some shape or form? Well, Elena Kagan is no different. I think we need to come up with a new 6 degrees of separation game; Kevin Bacon is getting old anyhow.

Since Sunstein may be the driving force behind many of Obama’s decisions, I could only note his views on the Supreme Court within his own essay, “The Myth of the Balanced Court,” where he contends that the so-called liberals that exist on today’s Supreme Court are not really liberal but moderate, and those who are considered to the right, are radically to the right. In Sunstein’s mind, although past liberal justices may not have acted appropriately when interpreting the constitution or legislation, they were at least liberal. Sunstein wants more liberal judges on courts to combat what he sees as a far right tendency when interpreting law. I personally feel his views are radically skewed to the left mainly due to the fact that legal circles have embraced liberalism so fully, moderate looks conservative and liberal looks moderate, and so on.

Here’s what he thinks about Constitutionalists or those he derogatorily refers to as ‘Fundamentalists’ or ‘Originalists’:

Fundamentalist constitutional theory is based on the idea that the proper approach to constitutional law is discerning and applying the intent behind the Constitution when it was ratified in 1789, the intent behind the Bill of Rights when it was ratified in 1791 or when the Fourteenth Amendment (through which much of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states) was adopted in 1868. This approach is most often advocated by conservatives. In particular, Sunstein associates it with a movement known as the Constitution in Exile. Proponents of that view contend that decisions dating from the 1930s have erased the original intent behind the Constitution and that it’s true meaning needs to be restored.

Sunstein views the constitution as nonexistent prior to 1925 since it would leave out minorities, women and homosexuals. He states that there is no way that a female, a homosexual or a person of color could associate or understand a 200 year old document and relate it back to the ratifier’s intent. [I take offense to that narrow-mindedness].

If one intellectual admits that they are upset that positive rights were never included in the Constitution, but that only intellectuals considered positive rights a hobby/pastime to debate and ponder, why should we not believe that one of Sunstein’s colleagues and a pure intellectual with no working experience would not feel the same? The constitution as it stands is not good enough for intellectuals, in fact it is just a major hindrance.

The explanation for America’s rejection of constitution protection for positive rights that Sunstein accepts is what he refers to as the “legal realist” argument. Sunstein posits that America’s current non-recognition of positive constitutional rights results from an unfortunate twist of fate in the 1968 presidential election. According to Sunstein’s view, had Hubert Humphrey, rather than Richard Nixon, won the 1968 election, America would have a catalog of judicially created, positive constitutional rights today. However, Nixon won the election, and he was able to use his presidential appointment power to reshape the Supreme Court and, according to Sunstein, effectively eliminate any chance of the recognition of positive constitutional rights in the near future.

Sunstein supports this thesis by noting that through its so-called “new property” cases of the late 1960s, the Supreme Court came very close to interpreting some positive rights into the Constitution. The term “new property” originated in an influential law review article by the same name written by Charles Reich. Reich defines the “new property” as the “the jobs we hold, plus benefits, credentials, licenses, public welfare and all of the other kinds of valuables that come from large organizations and government” that provide the economic security that is necessary for the exercise of liberty. Reich argues that these entitlements served the same role as land and more traditional personal property- securing the liberty of the individual-and therefore should receive a similar level of protection. Sunstein sees the post-New Deal period and the “new property” movement as evidence that Americans are not as opposed to the idea of positive rights as many have assumed. The implication of Sunstein’s legal realist explanation is that “[w]ith modest shifts in the future, parts of the second bill of rights could well be included in our constitutional understandings, and certainly in the nation’s constitutive commitments.”

Cass Sunstein believes his nudge principle applies not only in regulatory affairs, but also in law. He feels that a court could gradually become liberal by nudging decisions leftwards every so often.

Elena Kagan, may not have specifically written in terms of nudging or minimalism as Cass Sunstein describes in his book “Radicals in Robes,” but she holds the same type of liberal ideals as Sunstein and Obama. Sunstein wrote in an article on The New Republic, of which he co-edits, that Obama is a visionary minimalist.

Barack Obama is widely regarded as a visionary because of his emphasis on “change” and his soaring rhetoric, but he also has strong minimalist tendencies. In his victory speech in Iowa, Obama went out of his way to say that it is time for a president who will “listen to” those who disagree, and also “learn from” them. In The Audacity of Hope, he asks for a politics that accepts “the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point.” In a crucial passage, he refers to “the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager’s abortion.” In this way, he suggests that across one of the nation’s least tractable divides, Americans have far more in common than we tend to think.

Like all minimalists, Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning, and accommodation–a belief directly reflected in many of his policies.

I don’t believe for a second what Cass Sunstein mentions above, but I do believe that what is happening behind the scenes is the gradual transformation of the United States into the “Utopia” that is envisioned by liberals. The Saul Alinsky tactics, conform to become “The Man” and enact change, and tear down traditional institutions is reminiscent of Gramsci Marxism which proposes the same route for transformation.

Elena Kagan believes in more executive powers in the government. She prefers that the executive branch regulate more than the legislative. This view would fit perfectly with both Obama and Sunstein, who believe in legislating morals, ethics, and human nature. They think that perfection (in their minds) can be regulated and the government can oversee it. Elena Kagan would fit perfectly into this mold and she would be incredibly malleable seeing as how she has had no prior judicial experience.

Both Kagan and Sunstein also lament the fact that more liberalism doesn’t exist or that socialism has failed to be implemented.

“In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness,” wrote Kagan, Obama’s solicitor general.

“Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?” she asked.

“Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered.

“The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America,” she wrote. “Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.”

Kagan brought Sunstein over to Harvard Law from Chicago in 2007 and in so doing had the following to say about him:

Introducing Sunstein before the talk, Dean Elena Kagan ’86 described him as “the world’s pre-eminent legal scholar,” one who “challenges our assumptions and changes the way we think about legal issues.” Suggesting that Frankfurter was a forebearer of what she called “Sunsteinian Minimalism,” Kagan noted that the Justice, who was sometimes accused of being too leftist, brought to the Supreme Court a strong belief in judicial restraint. “He believed more in the institutions of democracy than in the courts,” said Kagan. “He also insisted … on respect for Federalism, for the decisions of state governments.”

“Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of our time, the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential,” Elena Kagan, dean of the Harvard Law School, said in a statement released yesterday.

“His work in any one of the fields he pursues – administrative law and policy, constitutional law and theory, behavioral economics and law, environmental law, to name a nonexhaustive few – would put him in the very front ranks of legal scholars,” Kagan said.

It would appear as if somebody had an idol, and how else would one better flatter their idol by exemplifying him?

America doesn’t need political ideologues on the Supreme Court, but rather those who interpret the law and are independent thinkers that have the experience and knowledge to back it up–Just being a legal wonk, a dean, connected to Democrats, Larry Summers, and Goldman Sachs isn’t enough.

Share on Facebook

After much talk about Goldman Sachs, Al Gore, CCX, GIM and other miscreants of the corporate and political world, it’s interesting that the name of Maurice Strong hasn’t surfaced.

In order to understand his role in Crime Inc., maybe this movie clip will put it into perspective:

Maurice Strong is a huge United Nations guy who is a big advocate of the dreaded One World Order conspiracy but, more accurately, is pushing hard along with Al Gore for global environmental regulations which, of course, means cap and trade.

Many believe that Strong is behind the United Nations’ current reputation, which carries with it numerous scandals such as Oil for Food, funneling money to North Korea, shady dealings with Tongsun Park and Kofi Annan, procurement fraud, and rape cover-ups.

Report from 2007 [Strong just turned 81]:

Strong, now 77, is best known as the godfather of the environmental movement, who served from 1973-1975 as the founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) in Nairobi. UNEP is now a globe-girdling organization with a yearly budget of $136 million, which claims to act as the world’s environmental conscience. Strong consolidated his eco-credentials as the organizer of the U.N.’s 1992 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which in turn paved the way for the controversial 1997 Kyoto Treaty on controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

But his green credentials scarcely begin to do justice to Strong’s complicated back-room career. He has spent decades migrating through a long list of high-level U.N. posts, standing behind the shoulder of every U.N. secretary-general since U Thant. Without ever holding elected office, he has had a hand in some of the world’s most important bureaucratic appointments, both at the U.N. and at the World Bank. A Canadian wheeler-dealer with an apple face and pencil mustache, Strong has parlayed his personal enthusiasms and connections into a variety of huge U.N. projects, while punctuating his public service with private business deals.

It would seem as though Maurice Strong and George Soros could be twins separated at birth.  Neither are American citizens by birth but have a strong hand in the current conduct of liberal politics in the United States.  He is also another one of those shadow financiers who is connected to everyone and no one.

If you look up Maurice Strong at muckety.com you will find nothing, however, he has his tentacles in practically everyone at the United Nations, the CCX, the ECX, environmental companies, institutions and grassroots organizations, as well as other shady characters.

After Maurice Strong scurried away during the Annan, Ghali, Park and Oil for Food scandals, he wound up in China, where he currently resides and has even teamed up with Soros to build the “every-man’s” car; the Chery.  Strong, surprisingly, is a partner and good friend to the lovely and ever so talented Mr. Gorbachev.

Maurice Strong’s sister was once a translator for Anita Dunne’s idol, Chairman Mao, and Strong has advised not only the Rockefeller and Rothschild Trusts, which are connected to everything political, but also the World Bank, another partner in the great circle of malfeasance; the CCX.

Maurice Strong has been tracked heavily by the Canadian Free Press, a conservative Canadian publication that doesn’t receive enough credit, in my opinion.

Strong, the silent partner [at CCX], is a man whose name often draws a blank on the Washington cocktail circuit.  Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the United States.  That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower.

The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the failing Kyoto Protocol.

Full credit for the expose on the business partnership of Strong and Gore in the cap-and-trade reduction scheme should go to the investigative acumen of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of “An Inconvenient Truth” traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.  Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

The Investigative “experts” in the MSM, appeared to have missed the connection between MMTI, the DOE, and Strong.

Upon tracking down several organizations of interest that are mentioned in connection with Maurice Strong, I find that muckety.com does not bring up results, or somebody doesn’t want them to bring up results. Those organizations are the Earth Council Alliance, the University for Peace, or UPEACE, a private entity that Strong used to funnel money to the United Nations, and Oil for Food.

However, the organizations I could find were the United Nations Foundation [a creation of Ted Turner’s] and the Global Environmental Facility, which was the catalyst for the Kyoto Protocol, Agenda 21 and the Rio Conference.

Muckety only connects the GEF to Mohamed El-Ashry, who is associated with Resources for the Future. Resources for the Future has trustees and chairmen like Lawrence Linden and Deutch, who are both partners respectively at Goldman Sachs and Citibank, mega-banks that are involved with the CCX and GIM.

Connecting the dots with CCX:

CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support in 2000 for a preliminary study to test the viability of a market in carbon credits. On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who, since the 1970s, has helped create an international policy agenda for the environmentalist movement. Strong has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His former job titles include “senior advisor” to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn and board member of the United Nations Foundation, a creation of Ted Turner. The [then] 78-year-old Strong is very close to Gore.

CCX has about 80 members that are self-confessed emitters of greenhouse gases. They have voluntarily committed themselves to reduce their emissions by the year 2010 to a level 6% below their emissions in 2000. CCX members include Ford Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, American Electric Power, International Paper, Motorola, Waste Management and a smattering of other companies, along with the states of Illinois and New Mexico, seven cities and a number of universities. Presumably the members “purchase” carbon offsets on the CCX trading exchange. This means they make contributions to or investments in groups or firms that provide forms of “alternative,” “renewable” and “clean” energy.

More about Strong may be understood in this 1972 BBC interview:

In Strong’s own words:

Strong in his statement at the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) stated: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.”

Strong stated: “”The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”

The European Union was an experiment, whereby every country lost more of its sovereignty every year, and fortunately, we are seeing the results of that experiment unfold today. The euro is on the brink of collapse because every European country is intertwined in a convoluted web of enablement, debt, and socialism.

So, as much as liberals and progressives decry the wrongs of Capitalism, they really are still involved in the practice, however, rather than being proponents of pure Capitalism as Adam Smith had intended, they want to apply a new form of ‘Selective Capitalism’ that circulates wealth among the already wealthy and the Elite.

It seems to me that half of these wealthy elites are selfish hogs, who are happy that they were able to use the Capitalist system to earn their money, but now that they are content with their piece of the pie, they would prefer to keep it to themselves and shut the doors off to any type of upward mobility for the rest of us, the way real Capitalism should work.

As much as people cringe at the mention of Marxism, because let’s face it, it’s scary to admit it may be true, the same basic philosophy applies. The elite class rules while the middle class is destroyed and the rest remain poor.

Share on Facebook

The release of the mid-year budget review from the White House has been delayed.  It really comes as no surprise anymore that the Obama team meant “transparency for thee but not for me.”

As a democrat, it’s ok to harp about Republicans, scream, and whine when you feel as though they aren’t being transparent enough.  Then campaign on empty slogans of hope and change, but once in office do nothing of the sort.  As they say to the victor goes the spoils and in this scenario, the spoils include hypocrisy and a lack of information disseminated to the American public. 

The White House said Monday it was delaying the release of the annual midsummer US budget update, but refuted suggestions it was trying to put distance between its own optimistic predictions and the sour state of today’s economy.

“Because of the unique circumstances of a transition year, we are — like President George W. Bush in 2001 — releasing the Mid-Session Review a few weeks later than as is usual in non-transition years,” said Kenneth Baer, communications director for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

When all else fails, as this administration has demonstrated, play the victim and take no responsibility for your actions.  The greatest leadership characteristic is finger pointing…/sarc.

Funny, I thought that Obama was going to stop using old Bush policies and was going to create “change we could believe in?”  Seems like those old Bush policies are convenient when he needs to get away with something, such as bad budget numbers/forecasts from his office.

The White House has run so far over budget in only the first half of the year, that they would prefer this report was covered up and never released.

The report is traditionally published in mid-July. This year’s version is expected to include massive deficit projections as the administration of President Barack Obama stewards a costly overhaul of the US healthcare system.

The CBO is projecting a $1.9T budget deficit, but that’s not exactly accurate.  The accurate approximation is a $4T deficit – which is unprecedented in this nation’s history.

Share on Facebook

I grew up in the liberally elite state of Connecticut, inundated with yacht clubs, country clubs, and various people suffering from the chronic condition of cranial rectal disorder. Connecticut was a cross between the cinematic masterpieces of Pretty in Pink, Mean Girls, and the Stepford wives. I never lived on the right side of the tracks, like Molly Ringwald, was never popular, nor did I want to conform to the rest of the “wives” living in the neighborhood. I was dead set to go against the grain, remaining true to my morals and beliefs. Growing up in Connecticut allowed me to see the superficial hollowness that becomes so prevalent in elite society.

To this day I’m still incredibly surprised that I made it out of that state with a wonderful education that didn’t turn me into a raging liberal, just a mild one. I was also fortunate enough to have a couple of teachers who had a significant impact on my life. I remember camping in the woods during a high school elective English class, studying poetry by Robert Frost, reading about Henry David Thoreau, analyzing short stories and human nature. Our opinions were never formulated for us, rather our teacher continuously asked questions of us when describing our own personal interpretation of what we had read or experienced. Through my experiences I became enamored by the human condition and sought to read literature that provided deeper insight into our humanness. One flattering moment, that should have clued me in, came later in the evening my Sophomore year in High School, where my English teacher called my Mother to let her know that he had never met anybody at such a young age who was so sensitive to the outside world and who was as insightful as friends of his in their early 60’s. As great as that moment was, there is only so much one can learn from books and listening to what others have to say, the greatest learning experience for me was real life.

I went onto college in Virginia, originally hoping to play soccer at a DII or DIII school, but “fell for” a larger one in the middle of the Shenandoah Valley; James Madison University. I tried out for the club soccer team, because there was too much I would miss, if I weren’t playing a team sport. I had a competitive edge, a drive, and a determination that needed to be squelched, and soccer was my outlet. As I studied and did well in school, I felt a deep nagging within me. There was something different, something missing, but within my first two years at JMU I wasn’t able to put my finger on it.

The first time I was able to vote, I was a Sophomore in college, leave it to a Utopian seeking, one-issue voter, who doesn’t know any better, to cast their ballot for Al Gore – believe me I’m still making amends for it today.

The second half of that year I spent a semester living abroad. I lived in Spain with a family for close to four months, unable to speak English with them, only the group of 25 that I went with. I was always an independent young woman – I was the only one from my high school graduating class to go to my college and didn’t know anybody when I left for Europe. I was immersed in a completely different culture, and don’t get me wrong, I had fun, probably too much fun, but I began becoming homesick more often than not. I started to realize what it was I had taken for granted in the United States, like having a computer in my dorm room. In Spain I had to walk a mile or so to an Internet café and pay to use an Internet connection that sometimes would not work. I had a roommate and our beds were so close together that I could reach my hand towards her and touch her arm. Showers could only be taken every other day and my jeans were always stiff after they came out of the wash, as if a box of starch was dumped on them. I lived on a small narrow floor in a tiny flat with 5 other people, no TV, no phone calls, unless they were made in the street via a payphone, and we couldn’t leave lights on for long periods of time. I took classes that were in a different language, had my wallet stolen, and stayed up all hours of the night. I slowly became more patriotic, even if it was very subtle.

I was a junior in college on 9/11. I had just gotten out of the shower and was eating breakfast with my roommates getting ready to drive over to campus for our early economics class. My hair was still wrapped in a towel when we sat on our couches watching the planes fly into the two towers and the pentagon. We screamed as the first tower came crashing to the ground, soon followed by the second. I tried to call my Mother to find out if anyone we knew or any family members working on Wall Street were injured, or worse yet, killed in the attack. I also needed to find out if she was ok. My mother worked in the Pentagon from time-to-time when on business travel to DC. All phone lines were busy and the only people we were left with were each other. That day was solemn, we wandered around like zombies, silent for hours, until it broke and the waters came cascading through. I bonded with people I never had contact with, or those whom never interested me as friends. Life had changed forever in that moment, that day, that year.

The problem that surfaces is our apathetic nature, our requirement for immediate gratification and results. The War on Terror dragged on and many forgot 9/11 – including myself. It’s not that I wasn’t patriotic and more so than I was previously, but that I became so consumed with me.

I graduated from college with a 3.58 GPA, which got me to Cum Laude status. I would be taking home a degree in International business, finance and a minor in Spanish. I just wasn’t taking a degree in humility, character, and a minor in honesty, home with me.

I left Virginia and headed to Baltimore for a job in the Defense Industry. Through my encounters with real war heroes and patriots, I was able to ascertain what it means to believe and fight for the constitution and the country. I tended to be a sponge of sorts when it came to one-on-one encounters; taking in not only my own experiences, but also others, and using them to form my opinions on life. My opinions started to change, however, I still didn’t know all that much about politics besides what my coworkers and boyfriend would tell me.

It was during this time in my early 20s that I faced some of the biggest struggles of my young life. What wasn’t mentioned above was the fact that I had an Irish curse, but unfortunately had no Irish ancestry. My life was clouded by drinking and partaking in things I was taught not to do. I lived to excess and became a belligerent, miserable human being. There came a point in time where my boyfriend of two years couldn’t deal with me, my family had cut me off, my job was in jeopardy, and I had several falling-outs with close friends. I was the most self-centered, egotistical, victim that walked the face of the earth. And I was alone in the world. I hit rock bottom… I looked into a mirror for the first time in years and scared myself to death. There was nothing looking back at me, just emptiness.

Something happens to an individual when she is left alone to look inside herself. After years of running from who I really was, and after years of blaming all my problems on everyone around me, I realized that I was the only common denominator in all them. I spent two years reading a book that was quite large and had a bluish tint. I spent two years being told to sit down, shut up, take the cotton out of my ears, and put it in my mouth from “old timers.” I knew the value of tough love, and the value of taking an inventory, following principles, traditions, and realizing that most of my problems can summarily be pinned on one thing: ME.

I, as much as I hated it, did not have control over everything. God, a power greater than myself, was the captain of the ship I had boarded. I had free will to roam around the vessel and make decisions upon which course I attempted to traverse, but ultimately the current was God’s. I had finally found faith, and the above-mentioned feeling of absence was just a gaping hole inside of me that just so happened to fit God perfectly.

Through a life changing process I was able to see the significance of common sense and logic. I had learned the definition of insanity a long time ago: “Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.” What applies in our own personal lives, whether it’s attempting to relieve debt by creating more debt, or just repeating the same habits over again, hoping for a different outcome, all equates to insanity, and quite frankly makes no sense. In essence, I had lifted myself up by my bootstraps, been raised from the dead, and suddenly taken from the scrap heap of life to something better than I had known. I live life by two mottos: “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye.” ~ The Little Prince; “My Creator, I am now willing that you should have all of me, good and bad. I pray that you now remove from me every single defect of character, which stands in the way of my usefulness to you and my fellows. Grant me strength, as I go out from here, to do your bidding. Amen.” ~ Bill W.

It has become harder to relate to friends my age who have never traveled outside the country, let alone their state. It’s harder conversing or debating with those who have never lived in an inner city seeing liberal philosophy play out first hand. It’s harder still finding common ground with those who have never known what it is like to suffer and overcome adversity, and recognize the value of life, and those intangible elements that fulfill each little moment of every day.

There is more to life than college degrees, great grades, titles, money, power, material goods, or using empty rhetoric well when staring at a teleprompter. I tend to believe that intellect may come from books and theories, but wisdom comes from life experience. Wisdom far outweighs intellect on any given day. I have come to realize in the last few years, that my personal strife and success has awakened me to things I would have been forever blinded to otherwise.

I believe that our values shape our political ideologies. What is important to me in life shapes how I view the outside world, and those aspects of life and people that I deem most important.

Values and traditions are imperative for a fruitful society and many of those traditions run in tandem with our morals and principals. This is why the constitution needs to be upheld; not merely because of the blood, sweat, and tears of our founding fathers, although that should be enough, but because it’s what made this country great in the first place. As they say, “Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.” The Constitution was a lessons’ learned document much like businesses have standard operating procedures to make companies as efficient as possible. Our founding fathers knew what they didn’t want after experiencing a soft tyranny first hand. They knew that by making a government less centralized and more federalized that constituents could be better represented. The founding fathers also felt that members of congress should hold real life jobs while working in the capitol so they would not lose sight of their peoples’ concerns and hardships. Sadly, our country continues to move further and further away from the true intentions of our founding documents. Lobbyists, special interests, “too-big-to-fail” corporations, media, political power, and elitism seep through the pores of our nation’s face, and there is no honest dermatologist in sight!

I am a skeptic of the highest order, and that is why I don’t give credence to either party. Both are as progressive and as power hungry as the other. I simply want regular people to wake up and realize who is supposed to be in charge, and who knows, maybe there is one honest politician on the horizon? One can hope.

Common sense tells me that staying true to the Constitution will make this country tick, that keeping firearms is not about hunting, but about defending freedom and liberty, that using our own natural resources and nuclear power would make us energy independent much faster than alternative energy for a propagandized crisis that is non-existent in reality. Common sense tells me that spending your way out of debt does not work, that saving, scrimping, and being fiscally responsible is what we should be doing in our own lives, so why not the government? Common sense tells me that tax cuts and supply side economics make sense during a recession to relieve economic woes, and that trying to fix the symptoms rather than the underlying disease will make the patient sicker. Common sense tells me that universal healthcare does not work, and there is no such thing as a free lunch, that cap and trade is just a power grab that will destroy many of our still thriving industries like coal, that big government equals big corruption, and that immigrants should come in the right and legal way, much like our ancestors. Common sense tells me much, much more, but I could go on forever about the many issues that I see emanating from Washington, D.C.

D.C. is making decisions for future generations and each and every American, rather than giving us that choice. It kills me to know that so many my age cannot see what’s coming, nor do they care. I have spent too much of my life pointing my finger blaming people for my wrongdoings and feeling entitled. I care more about individuals and the content of character, rather than the color of one’s skin, their religion, or ethnicity. If we were all created equal why don’t we start acting like it? It’s time to wean ourselves off the government dope that the bureaucrats continue to push. I would prefer to change my own diapers than have a nanny state change them for me.

The people of the United States are the only arbiters of change. It is up to us, as a society of regular folks to affect those around us and take up a cause that puts our country back on the right track. It’s time to stand up and be counted, it’s time to bring common sense back to Capitol Hill, and it’s time to put country before ourselves.

I am a 27 year-old conservative, and a federalist; I’m a believer in the constitution, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of a sub-prime loan. I’m a believer in honesty, integrity, and character, and above all else, I’m a believer in the American people.

“Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved.” ~ Helen Keller

Share on Facebook

Yesterday afternoon Obama’s Teleprompter was on overload apparently – it came crashing down in the middle of his speech:

Here are some quips:

If a teleprompter falls on a floor, does Obama make a noise?

Breaking: TOTUS to be buried in Arlington, there will be 24/7 news coverage and Al Sharpton plans on praising TOTUS during the memorial service.

If the President’s TOTUS dies, does that mean Biden’s TOTUS takes over?

Update: Obama plans on stating tomorrow that he inherited TOTUS from Bush “Bush Lied, TOTUS died.”

Have any other good ones?? Do tell!

Share on Facebook

If there is one person who knows energy in this country it is Sarah Palin.  She has taken the gloves off and has come out swinging against cap and trade in her latest Op-ed in the Washington Compost.  I love her subtle digs at Washington, DC, Obama, and this piece of legislation.  She starts out calling it cap and trade but quickly moves into our beloved term; cap and tax.

Let the games begin!

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

Absolutely BRILLIANT!  – read the entire piece here.

Share on Facebook

Yesterday was good news for those believing in freedom, small government, and democracy.  The Senate does not plan on voting for Cap and Tax until September.  This delay will certainly give  us more time to change minds,  write letters, send emails, and melt the phones of our representatives.  We must continue to do so, even whilst they are away for the month of August.  The beginning of the next session begins immediately after Labor Day in which the Senate plans on voting/passing an immigration reform bill.  September will be a very busy month for those of us fighting for our country.  Hopefully the impact of the 9/12 tea party protest will be felt far and wide.  I also hope that we do a little more – Since Congress begins the new session after Labor Day, which is the week of the massive 9/12 March on DC, why not take the week off as vacation time and engage in a sit-in on the steps of Capitol Hill as our Congress-critters come back to work for the first day after their summer vacation!?  It’s time to make them realize who they work for; a good government is one that fears its people.

Tell your congressman/woman that the EPA admits Cap and Tax will not work.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began their hearings on the 1,500 page Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation Tuesday, and ranking member Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) won a startling admission from Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson. Inhofe produced an EPA chart generated last year during the Senate’s debate of the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade legislation. The chart showed that the carbon reductions under that bill would not materially effect global carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. Inhofe then asked Jackson if she agreed with the chart’s conclusions. Jackson replied: “I believe that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.”

Also at the hearing, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he did not agree with chart which is interesting since all the best science confirms Inhofe’s and Jackson’s conclusions. For example, a recent study of cap and trade by MIT concluded: “The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead. … The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation.”

Michelle Malkin and Nate Silver put some great information together regarding the “softies” on cap and tax in the Senate.  There is a chance to change several Democrat’s minds, especially those living in energy and coal producing states. (Don’t forget the liberal repubbies either)!

There is also some new and interesting data coming from those reading through the bill now that it has been posted.  One of those interesting tidbits is the amount of money going to ACORN in a CLIMATE CHANGE bill:

“The American people will see tax dollars go to so-called community development organizations like ACORN, to teach low-income residents how to live in accord with the worldview of the Environmental Left,” scowled a news release yesterday from Congressional critics of the Cap and Trade bill.

Sure enough, there are 19 mentions of the term “community development” in the bill, but nothing specific about ACORN.

Sec. 264 of the bill is on “Low Income Community Energy Efficiency Program,” which says the feds will dole out grant money to community development organizations “to provide financing to businesses and projects that improve energy efficiency” for low-income residents.

On page 561, the bill authorizes $50 million per year for six fiscal years, so that’s $300 million in all for these kind of programs.

“I just want to know if ACORN would qualify for these grants,” said House GOP Leader John Boehner, who was the only Republican to note the ACORN issue during debate on the House floor.

If you really want to make your blood boil and find the additional goodies that were hidden in the bill go here.

Share on Facebook

Orwell is that you?  I know the 80′s are back in style but I was hoping it wasn’t 1984 – I was wrong.  In fact, maybe they should have named the bill H.R. 1984 instead of 1966!

Democrats scream bloody murder when progressive Republicans usurp the Constitution, but suddenly suffer from double standard glaucoma when their own progressives are running the show.

This is one insidious piece of legislation because it completely violates our first amendment rights.  It will now be considered a FELONY, yes, a felony, to say anything offensive over email, on the Internet, through a blog, or anywhere else over the web.  Any individual who may not be PC on any given day could face up to 2 years in prison.

This is pure thought/mind control and is the reason why the PC society we find ourselves in does more harm than good.  Here is a section from the bill:

a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(b) As used in this section-

(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received;

(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

 We all know this is unconstitutional, but hypothetically speaking, if this section of the Hate Crimes bill passes, who will be in charge of deciding whether something was offensive to an individual or not?  I would make a wager that there will be an emotional distress czar appointed by Obama…unfortunately Stuart Smalley is currently working in Congress, but he’ll probably pick a liberal like Depak Chopra.  If Obama does in fact pick a czar for this – your freedom of speech will be politicized.  “Right wing extremist” talk, blogging, tweeting, and the like, will all be banned and we could all find ourselves in prison.  Emotional distress is so vague that a simple civil argument could possibly offend someone and cause, in their eyes, distress… Like all things in America, a policy like this would be used to excess. 

Wouldn’t one think that hate crimes would include every race, creed, religion, and sex? In a common sense world sure – but in DC, never.  Take for example the fact that a black teen mob attacked a white family in Ohio.  There was barely any mention of this in the news!  I know for a fact that there are racists in every group, so why wouldn’t this be a hate crime as well?  Why can’t white people be discriminated against?  Heck! I was when I lived in Baltimore! 

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend’s home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ”This is our world” and ”This is a black world” as they confronted Marshall and his family.

The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.

This could also be Obama’s back-door way to create an Internet czar to monitor the web, much like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea… getting the hint?  Remember the fairness doctrine and net neutrality?  I gaurantee that famous blogs will be taken down, conservative hashtags on twitter will give people away, and radio talk show hosts will be accussed of causing emotional distress.  

I better watch myself!  Here I was thinking I was an equal opportunity proponent by offending everyone – there goes my humor…

Here are the members of the House sponsoring this section of the bill:

Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39] (wrote the above section)
and 14 Co-Sponsors

* Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]
* Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
* Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23]
* Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1]
* Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
* Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7]
* Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
* Rep. Phil Hare [D, IL-17]
* Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27]
* Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9]
* Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL-10] (he is not a Republican vote him out! – he voted for Cap and Trade too)
* Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34]
* Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3] (I would give my right arm to run against this man in Maryland)
* Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3]

Share on Facebook

Michelle Obama’s sneakers: $540

Michelle Obama’s new clutch purse: $6,000

Obama ogling a teenage girl’s rear-end: PRICELE$$

Share on Facebook