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

If my math is correct, our election day was 40 weeks ago today (Nov 4, 2008). I was just listening to some music played by the sub on the Mark Levin show, and I began to recite the Gettysburg Address in my head. (I went to school back in the day when they made us memorize stuff.)  This prompted me to start looking at the calendar, counting the miserable weeks that we have had to stand by and watch our Constitution be dismantled, and I decided to update Lincoln’s precious words to apply to what is happening in our country today.  I hope he would not mind; he is a tremendous inspiration to me, and we might reflect on the perils in the country he had to deal with in his day, and take heart.  He brought our country through a terrible time of history.  They just do not make many statesmen like him, do they?  So many brave Americans before us gave their lives for this country.   For them, we must remember, United We Stand.

The American Address, 2009: Two score weeks ago, our uninformed, oblivious countrymen brought forth on this nation an Obama-nation, conceived in Marxism and dedicated to the proposition that all created men are equally controlled by government redistribution of the wealth.

Now we are engaged in a great culture war, testing whether this Obama-nation, or any nation, so ill-conceived and so oppressed, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of town-hall meetings and tea parties to fight this war. We must come to dedicate a portion of ourselves to this battle, in honor of this resting place of those who preceded us and gave their lives that this previous nation might live. It is altogether imperative and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground, until we remove the obstructions to our Constitution from office. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled before us, have consecrated it far above the power-hungry Congress to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what I say here, but we must never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated and focused to the unfinished and threatened work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-to preserve the Constitution in spite of those who defy the oath they took to uphold it; that from these honored dead we take increased inspiration and devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, UNDER GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:  Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Share on Facebook

First of all, I am exceedingly grateful for the release of our two American journalists who have been held by the North Korean authorities. There are two very happy Immigrant-American Families today and that is a joy worth celebrating.

But then there’s the politics:

This visit of a former President is a very dangerous display of legitimacy to the North Korean regime. Remember they are in desperate need of fresh propaganda at a time when they are flexing their nuclear muscles.

The timing couldn’t be worse: A few short months after a round of nuclear weapons tests by the North Koreans, America responds by apologizing (seems to be a trend) and begging for the release of prisoners. When did we become such pansies? When did we as a country decide that we owed anyone an apology for being the most generous and wealth-producing country the world has ever known? Now release those prisoners!!!

But all that is really of little consequence. North Korea has been playing these games for decades. They have their ups and downs, flex their muscles and get some desperately needed economic aid from a former President (remember Carter) who agrees to some shit we will never know about but which our children are on-the-hook for. The economic stimulus will shut them up temporarily while they plan their next big power play.

No, what bothers me the most is the double speak we get from the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs. The efforts to downplay the significance of this event are astounding. Obama can’t afford to be seen as weak on foreign policy therefore he has avoided this issue for months. Biden is now no where to be seen or heard of except for the occasional gaff-truth. But alas, Obama has the political cover to deal with the situation without being personally involved. Mr. President you have received a gift, and it’s not even your Birthday!

Did he approve this trip and the preceding negotiations? I think so, and here is way. Obama can’t have direct talks with N. Korea for foreign policy reasons. Having the Secretary of State’s husband and Ex-President extend-an-olive-branch gives Obama significant political cover. If things get ugly he can always through the Clintons under-the-bus. Something he’s wanted to do since the early days of the campaign.

Ask yourself this, is there anyway that a former President went halfway around the world to meet with the leader of a rogue nation without the knowledge of our security forces? No.

Further, don’t you think the Sitting-President would be made aware of such a trip out of professional courtesy? I’m thinking yes. If not, he should be pissed!!! I would be…

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

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

The latest bill set to pass through congress, the health care bill, is stacked with pork products, and not the type you eat at baseball games. 

Congress is trying to stuff the bill full of projects that have absolutely nothing to do with health care.  I will provide some examples:

1.  Walking Paths:  walking paths drastically increase health because it is almost impossible to walk and exercise on streets, grass, gyms, your home, or school race tracks.

2.  Streetlights:  Although not directly associated with vitamin D – it could serve as a great replacement for the sun some time in the future… or wait…

3.  Jungle Gyms:  I am hoping that those who need health care the most, i.e. senior citizens, get some new ‘sneaks’ and hit the playground.  I’m sure their hips and joints will love climbing up and down.  Is it just me or aren’t jungle gyms and things related to parks and recreation considered city works? – eh… who am I kidding – it’s not like Congress follows the rules; the Constitution.

4.  Farmer’s Markets:  After cap and tax and the new Food bill on the table – why worry about additional Farmer’s markets?  Our grocery stores will become just that… Plus, given the economic downturn I may just be forced to grow my own food or steal some from Michelle Obama’s garden!

I am hoping that those of you reading this are beginning to see the insanity if you haven’t already.  This is unbelievable, and the sad part; most Democrats think it all makes sense:

Advocates, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, defend the proposed spending as a necessary way to promote healthier lives and, in the long run, cut medical costs. “These are not public works grants; they are community transformation grants,’’ said Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate health committee whose healthcare bill includes the projects.

Let’s compare public works to community transformation, because the way in which politicians mask the truth is through words and labels:  Community = Society at large; a commonwealth or state; a body politic; the public, or people in general. Transformation = to perform a specified action or activity; work; operate

“If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening,’’ Coley said in a statement.

Teddy’s idea of exercise comes in the form of running from a murder scene…

But wait!  That’s not all… A recent report came out that proved what many of us already knew:  

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.

$17 Billion in aid has gone to Obama backers from his stimulus bill.  This is a captain obvious moment, but it should be disconcerting that when the country’s future is at stake, the good of the citizens takes a backseat to the pay-to-play political games of politicians – including Mr. Hope and Change himself.

Share on Facebook

The latest news is dreadful for the Obama administration and wonderful for those of us who care about this country and the founding principles it was built upon. 

Obama’s approval rating over the last couple of days is in free fall.  Rasmussen reported yesterday that his approval rating had dropped a full percentage point (-5) – which is huge for one day and usually indicates a trend.  Today’s report showed that Obama was at -8 making those who approve 51% and those opposed 48%.  The writing is on the wall and I think that other leaders in the conservative movement may have read these signs in advance – making their decisions that much easier. 

If Obama’s approval drops below 50% it will be incredibly difficult to get it over that point again – barring some miracle, economically speaking.  The chances of economic improvement are minimal and his empty slogan of hope and change is ringing hollow on the masses.  The economy does not look as though it will improve any time soon due to massive amounts of spending, a war waged against the middle class and small businesses, and the private sector, we will be in a massive downturn for a couple of years – inflation will be inevitable.  The chances of him surviving another term if he enacts legislation that would drastically dismantle the foundation this country was built upon, are slim-to-none.

Two swing states that turned blue last year were also polled.  The trend that is occurring at a national level is also occurring at the local level.  Both Ohio’s and Virginia’s approval ratings for Obama are below 50%. 

It will only be a matter of time before his personal approval rating comes down along with it!  My guess: October; when unemployment is worse, the market has taken another massive nose-dive (and it will – it will go lower than it did the first quarter of this year), and inflation hits.  

Share on Facebook

It’s important to remember that Massachusetts had a Republican governor at the helm, who proposed the same type of system that Obama is proposing.  As much as those out there argue that the governor’s plan was taken to extremes by the next liberal administration – that still does not excuse the fact that a progressive politician (be it Republican or Democrat) set in motion a piece of legislation that harms more than it helps.  The same could be said for Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind Act.’  It was still Bush’s idea and he pushed for the legislation, even after it was made into something unintended. 

A recent study released from Massachusetts showed that only 26% felt that the state’s universal health care program worked.  Those who actually were the poorest and previously did not have health care, liked the program the least.  Progressives want people to believe that billions of people are without health care, when that’s not the case, and the few million who don’t have it, are either here illegally, choose not to use one of the many programs in existence that offers health care, or are fine with going to the emergency rooms in hospitals. 

Make no bones about it, Obama wants his way or it’s the highway.  He WON remember?  Get over it!  He doesn’t want to compromise on the health care debate, and he made that point abundantly clear today, even from overseas.  He told the moderate Democrats in Congress that he does not want a compromise with Republicans… He wants exactly what he proposed.  Smoke and mirrors legislation that looks as though the program is competitive, but would eventually make it too expensive for small and medium sized business to carry insurance for their employees.  The government cannot compete with the private sector – it always wins.

Share on Facebook