"I FEAR THE GIVING OF MANKIND A DEPENDENCE ON ANYTHING FOR SUPPORT IN AGE OR SICKNESS, BESIDES INDUSTRY AND FRUGALITY DURING YOUTH AND HEALTH, TENDS TO FLATTER OUR NATURAL INDOLENCE, TO ENCOURAGE IDLENESS AND PRODIGALITY, AND THEREBY TO PROMOTE AND INCREASE POVERTY, THE VERY EVIL IT WAS INTENDED TO CURE."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN!
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Oath Keepers
It has been a long standing believe of mine that if our military, police, and fire-fighters protect the peoples rights as defined in the United States Constitution we as a country, in the long run, will be fine. It has been my experience though that some in our military, and policemen especially do what they are told instead of honoring their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and to protect the people against all enemies foreign and domestic. Just think of what happened in New Orleans with hurricane Katrina. Guns were taken, sometimes at the point of a gun, from people who lawfully had a right to own them and were using them for protecting themselves, their families, and their livelihoods from cheating, lying, thieves. Does that sound right to anyone else? To take away peoples right under the Second Amendment to the Constitution to lawfully own a gun and protect themselves and others?
On September 12, 2009 my Nephew went to Washington D.C. along with 1.5 million other people to protest the taking by our own government the rights of its own people. My Nephew brought back a card from a group called Oath Keepers and what follows is the oaths they would like for the Military, Veterans, Police, and Fire-Fighters to keep on the back of their cards. I have not done any kind of research on Oath Keepers but I liked most of what was on this card. If anyone has any information on them let me know. Let me know also what you think of what follows.
OATH KEEPERS
For out brothers and sisters in the Military, Veterans, Police, and Fire-Fighters, who will honor their oath to defend the Constitution.
Guardians of the Republic. . . Honor Your Oath. Join Us
OATHKEEPERS.ORG
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty
6. We will NOT obey order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble ,and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
On September 12, 2009 my Nephew went to Washington D.C. along with 1.5 million other people to protest the taking by our own government the rights of its own people. My Nephew brought back a card from a group called Oath Keepers and what follows is the oaths they would like for the Military, Veterans, Police, and Fire-Fighters to keep on the back of their cards. I have not done any kind of research on Oath Keepers but I liked most of what was on this card. If anyone has any information on them let me know. Let me know also what you think of what follows.
OATH KEEPERS
For out brothers and sisters in the Military, Veterans, Police, and Fire-Fighters, who will honor their oath to defend the Constitution.
Guardians of the Republic. . . Honor Your Oath. Join Us
OATHKEEPERS.ORG
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty
6. We will NOT obey order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble ,and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Friday, September 18, 2009
A Letter From Upper Representative Bill Nelson of FL, And My Response
September 16, 2009
"Dear XXXXXX,
Most of the calls and mail coming into my office these days are from constituents worried about health care. Regardless of where anyone stands on the specifics of this issue, I think we all can agree the current system is unfair, too costly, and needs to be fixed. President Obama gave some clearer answers in his speech to Congress last week about his views on reform. I found it interesting that what the president described is pretty close to the bill I'm helping prepare as a member of the Senate Finance Committee. I want to tell you basically what this bill does. In essence, it will let folks happy with their insurance keep it, including seniors on Medicare and veterans. It also will create a marketplace--exchanges--where those without coverage, or those who are unhappy with what they have, can get coverage at an affordable price. The bill will hold insurers' feet to the fire by requiring them to cover everyone and preventing them from dropping individuals who get sick. Additionally, it will contain several measures aimed at reducing overall medical and prescription drug costs and eliminating waste and fraud in the system.I still intend to offer several amendments aimed at further improving the legislation. One of my amendments would require drugmakers to provide rebates to Medicare, just like they do to Medicaid. This would save Medicare a ton of money. Further, by eliminating the tax break drugmakers get for TV and other advertising, we would gain another $37 billion over the coming years to help pay for health care reforms.The Senate Finance Committee will begin considering this bill as early as this week. Meantime, please know that I value your continued input."
Response:
I sincerely appreciate your e-mail regarding your position on our health care. I am printing it out as I type this as I find that it may come in handy when you are up for re-election. I have just a few simple questions for you though. Will you, sir be keeping your insurance our getting on board with what you want the rest of us little people to have? You state in your e-mail: "I think we all can agree the current system is unfair, too costly, and needs to be fixed." You went on to say that, "I found it interesting that what the president described is pretty close to the bill I'm helping prepare as a member of the Senate Finance Committee" and "In essence, it will let folks happy with their insurance keep it, including seniors on Medicare and veterans." Do you lead me to believe, sir that our "current system is unfair, too costly, and needs to be fixed" on the one hand but you will let folks happy with their "unfair", "costly" insurance keep it? That is an ill that is too grave to face why with all of those poor seniors and veterans that will be allowed to keep such an unjust, costly system. Surely you, a person of such high moral character would not allow a travesty of this kind to occur. One more question for you sir; If I do not want to carry health insurance, will I be forced to buy it? If not will I be penalized on my taxes a certain amount of money, say something like $3500? As my upper representative in Congress I look forward to your response, if you find it worthy of one.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
This Just In: Read the Post Below Befor This One
Obama helps strengthen General Electric-Putin ties
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
09/17/09 2:06 PM EDT
Reuters reports an interesting nugget in the wake of President Barack Obama's decision to grant Vladimir Putin his wish and kill the Eastern European missile shield:
Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia's government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world's largest private equity firms
General Electric may be the company with the closest ties to the Obama administration (if not, GE is second only to Goldman Sachs), and here we see the company benefiting from an abrupt foreign policy change made by President Obama. But GE isn't the only company benefiting. Reuters paints the broader picture:
"U.S. companies have arguably lost out to some European companies in joint ventures, and better diplomacy will likely improve the chances for investors in the strategic sectors of the Russian economy," said Carlo Gallo, senior Russia analyst at London-based consultancy Control Risks.
GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.
Now what about all of those arguments saying republicans are in bed with big biz? Looks like they all are, but we smart people knew that didn't we?
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
09/17/09 2:06 PM EDT
Reuters reports an interesting nugget in the wake of President Barack Obama's decision to grant Vladimir Putin his wish and kill the Eastern European missile shield:
Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia's government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world's largest private equity firms
General Electric may be the company with the closest ties to the Obama administration (if not, GE is second only to Goldman Sachs), and here we see the company benefiting from an abrupt foreign policy change made by President Obama. But GE isn't the only company benefiting. Reuters paints the broader picture:
"U.S. companies have arguably lost out to some European companies in joint ventures, and better diplomacy will likely improve the chances for investors in the strategic sectors of the Russian economy," said Carlo Gallo, senior Russia analyst at London-based consultancy Control Risks.
GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.
Now what about all of those arguments saying republicans are in bed with big biz? Looks like they all are, but we smart people knew that didn't we?
Who Does Our President Align Himself With?
Today September 17, 2009 marks the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland and how does our President mark the occasion of this day to our Polish allies? He kills the missile defense shield that would protect them and other close allies of ours. Look at this headline from the UK: Dismay in Europe as Obama ditches missile defence
President Obama dismayed America's allies in Europe and angered his political opponents at home today when he formally ditched plans to set up a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The project had been close to the heart of Mr Obama's predecessor, President Bush, who had argued before leaving office in January that it was needed to defend against long-range ballistic missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.
But it had hobbled relations with Russia, which considered it both a security threat and an unnecessary political provocation in its own backyard.
Full Story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6838058.ece
How about this headline and article: Polish PM wouldn't take U.S. calls
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed today that he declined last night to take a call from the U.S. informing him of the decision to scrap planned missile-defense bases in his country.
Two U.S.-based sources close to the Polish government said Thursday that Tusk also rejected a call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — on the grounds that, as the head of the government, he should speak to the president.
Full Story: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Polish_PM_wouldnt_take_US_calls.html?showall
All of you ask yourself this question: Who is Obama pleasing with this deal? Our allies in Europe do not like the idea. Russia does. Where was PM Putin on September 10 2009? Why he was in Venezuela with another one of Obama's dear friends Hugo Chavez.
And what were they discussing? Hugo Chavez wants to join the nuclear energy club and is looking to Russia for help in getting started. The socialist president is closely allied with Iran and defends its nuclear program.
Here is that article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hk9wRad6D4mpLEA24Ag1XNyXGW0gD9AO5IFO1
So why is it that our President turns on our democratic-republican allies, and embraces socialist like Chavez, Putin, Castro, etc. etc. etc?
President Obama dismayed America's allies in Europe and angered his political opponents at home today when he formally ditched plans to set up a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The project had been close to the heart of Mr Obama's predecessor, President Bush, who had argued before leaving office in January that it was needed to defend against long-range ballistic missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.
But it had hobbled relations with Russia, which considered it both a security threat and an unnecessary political provocation in its own backyard.
Full Story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6838058.ece
How about this headline and article: Polish PM wouldn't take U.S. calls
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed today that he declined last night to take a call from the U.S. informing him of the decision to scrap planned missile-defense bases in his country.
Two U.S.-based sources close to the Polish government said Thursday that Tusk also rejected a call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — on the grounds that, as the head of the government, he should speak to the president.
Full Story: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Polish_PM_wouldnt_take_US_calls.html?showall
All of you ask yourself this question: Who is Obama pleasing with this deal? Our allies in Europe do not like the idea. Russia does. Where was PM Putin on September 10 2009? Why he was in Venezuela with another one of Obama's dear friends Hugo Chavez.
And what were they discussing? Hugo Chavez wants to join the nuclear energy club and is looking to Russia for help in getting started. The socialist president is closely allied with Iran and defends its nuclear program.
Here is that article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hk9wRad6D4mpLEA24Ag1XNyXGW0gD9AO5IFO1
So why is it that our President turns on our democratic-republican allies, and embraces socialist like Chavez, Putin, Castro, etc. etc. etc?
House Passes Sweeping Student-Loan-Market Overhaul
Another huge step towards fascism here in America happened today. While everyone was talking healthcare the house today voted to "end private-lender involvement in the student-loan market, establishing the federal government as the sole provider of college loans."
From the Wall Street Journal:
Similar to the continuing efforts at overhauling health care, the changes to the federal government's higher-education policies would have a serious effect on the bottom line for private-sector players currently serving the marketplace. The House vote was 253-to-171, largely along party lines. Under the legislation, all lenders would be cut out of the market for originating loans. There would still be a role for private banks and lenders to bid for a limited number of contracts to service the loans after they are made by the government. (Private banks they say, ya right.)
For companies like SLM Corp., better known as Sallie Mae, the proposed changes are already having an impact. This week, Fitch Ratings downgraded Sallie Mae to triple-B-plus status and called its outlook negative. Sallie Mae's shares were recently trading down more than 2% at $9.
Full Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125321217589620383.html
Here is another good article on this subject written a few days before passage of this power grab bill: The Quietest Trillion: Congratulations. You're about to own $100 billion a year in student loans.
The Obama plan calls for the U.S. Department of Education to move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans. The remaining 20% of the market that is now completely private will likely shrink further as lenders try to comply with regulations Congress created last year. Starting next summer, taxpayers will have to put up roughly $100 billion per year to lend to students.
Full Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405154157021052.html
From the Wall Street Journal:
Similar to the continuing efforts at overhauling health care, the changes to the federal government's higher-education policies would have a serious effect on the bottom line for private-sector players currently serving the marketplace. The House vote was 253-to-171, largely along party lines. Under the legislation, all lenders would be cut out of the market for originating loans. There would still be a role for private banks and lenders to bid for a limited number of contracts to service the loans after they are made by the government. (Private banks they say, ya right.)
For companies like SLM Corp., better known as Sallie Mae, the proposed changes are already having an impact. This week, Fitch Ratings downgraded Sallie Mae to triple-B-plus status and called its outlook negative. Sallie Mae's shares were recently trading down more than 2% at $9.
Full Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125321217589620383.html
Here is another good article on this subject written a few days before passage of this power grab bill: The Quietest Trillion: Congratulations. You're about to own $100 billion a year in student loans.
The Obama plan calls for the U.S. Department of Education to move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans. The remaining 20% of the market that is now completely private will likely shrink further as lenders try to comply with regulations Congress created last year. Starting next summer, taxpayers will have to put up roughly $100 billion per year to lend to students.
Full Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405154157021052.html
White House Collects Web Users Data
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/obama-wh-collects-web-users-data/
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.
Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.
"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.
Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.
Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to "social media" and to public comments "received by the president or immediate staff."
Thanks JEF for sending me the article.
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.
Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.
"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.
Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.
Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to "social media" and to public comments "received by the president or immediate staff."
Thanks JEF for sending me the article.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
March On Washington D.C. 9-12-09
Here are some pictures of all the patriots that marched on Washington D.C. I would like to personally thank everyone that went, you spent your time and your money to make a difference and try to restore this country to its former glory. Estimates from the British press (can't trust too much media over here in this country) is between a million and two million people. More than Obama's inaguration, and guess what, you left it clean. The last two are my personal favorites.>
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
ACORN Scandal! ! ! Now Go Figure!
Even though this is ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) I was still shocked when I heard Glenn Beck playing this on the radio this morning. This is video of the blatant and disturbing corruption at the Baltimore, Maryland ACORN office. Going undercover and posing as a couple who are a pimp and a prostitute, these ACORN advisor gives them tips on tax fraud and how to keep underage sex slaves under the radar of the government, all with a smile. Remember, this is the group that Obama said he'd call them in to help 'shape the agenda' of the next presidency of the United States. Have you had enough yet America? Ready to get off your asses and do something? Well there are TEA Parties all across the United States this weekend Saturday Sept. 12. Oh, but wait, ya, you have plans this weekend right? Time to do what is right, as John Adams said "The science of government is my duty to study, more that all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take place of, indeed to exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." I, like a lot of people, HATE politics but damn it in the times we are living in IT IS MY DUTY AS AN AMERICAN TO STUDY IT AND HELP SAVE OUR REPUBLIC. What will you do?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Dave Ramsey On The Cash for Clunkers Program
"With all the buzz about Cash for Clunkers, it’s easy to think that it was a great way for people to get a better set of wheels. But was it really? No way! Cash for Clunkers was simply a way for broke people to buy cars that they really couldn't afford. It was a bad idea on multiple levels. But before digging into that, let’s take a little history lesson.
About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.
Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what? Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.
The Cash for Clunkers program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?
When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.
Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place! This is theft, plain and simple.
Cash for Clunkers is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.
There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”
So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good."
About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.
Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what? Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.
The Cash for Clunkers program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?
When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.
Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place! This is theft, plain and simple.
Cash for Clunkers is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.
There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”
So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good."
Friday, August 28, 2009
Best Six Month Rally For Stocks Since 1933
You have to love that title I got from the Drudge Report. "Best Six Month Rally For Stocks Since 1933." Now I am no depression era historian like current head of the Fed Ben Bernanke (That is sarcasm at its finest right there folks) but wasn't 1933 a year that the Great Depression was still going on? And didn't it last up into the 1940's? Please post a comment and let me know if I am wrong here but I am pretty sure I am right (Once again that is sarcasm). I KNOW I AM RIGHT. I think we have a long way to go in this down slump.
Read Article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aV3FdIUV9VDI
Read Article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aV3FdIUV9VDI
Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet
Well the just keep chipping away and we keep letting it happen. Here is an article from CNET by by Declan McCullagh
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
Full Article Here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
Full Article Here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Exposing The Obama Administration
Here we have a clip from the Glenn Beck show on Fox showing us who Obama's Green Job's Czar is, really. His name is Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist and board member of the Apollo Alliance. Don't know what the Apollo Alliance is? Well do your homework. My question is this: Why is such a radical communist so high in the Obama administration, acting as one of his chief advisors? Oh and one more little tidbit, in a book Van Jones wrote several years ago he said he would like to see a government program called "hoopdies for hybrids." No that is totally different than Obama's Cash for Clunkers. With radical friends everywhere around Obama why is it so difficult for some educated people out there to understand what kind of American hating fascist this president is?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Getting Involved: Town Hall Meeting At Its Best
Great Video of a Marine Corp Vet sticking it to his congressman. You have to love the congressman's response to Mr. Hedrick (the Marine) when he tells his congressman that he heard him refer to the people speaking their minds at these town hall meetings as brown shirts. The congressman says "no, I did not... and I apologized for that." Apologized for what congressman not saying it? If it wasn't so frightening it would be funny.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Cash For Clunkers Rant
First off let me apologize for the weeks with no post. I was on vacation for one of those weeks and. . . well hey, it's summer in Florida, what can I say. Now on to the meat.
This bill, above all others this year, has put the spotlight on exactly what the problem is here in the United States of America. I know several "conservative" people who have either already traded their car in with this cash for clunkers deal, or are seriously thinking about doing it (if the money keeps coming in, which it doesn't look like it will, he he). I have listened to people bitch and moan about our President saying he is ruining the country, turning us into a socialist country, etc. etc. I happen to agree with most of what they are saying also. What I do not understand is how can someone complain about our country turning socialist on the one hand and then take advantage of this cash for clunkers program.
You want to know how they can, I will tell you. They will say things like, "well the government is sticking it to me so I will stick it back to them and take that money." Or something like: "I have been paying into social security and I won't see a dime of it so why not take the money." You people get the idea I am sure. So why is it that these "conservatives" are so willing to embrace another one of Obama's socialist programs? The answer: They can take advantage of it. It gives them something, it "helps" them out.
I have been working on some things since I have been off, positive things, but this puts a bigger damper on the whole work. I knew people that took advantage of the system were everywhere in the United States, but people I thought shared the same dream for America as I did? It almost hurts me. Nothing will ever change in America until attitudes like this change, at least from the people who know better. These people think that they are sticking it to their government, who has raped them for so long, but they are not. They are part of the problem. They are not hurting the government, they are throwing fuel on the fire of socialism that has swept through this great country.
They are helping grow government, not helping get it back under control. Wake up people, there is a HUGE difference between your government and your country. Which one do you really want to preserve? Do you want to preserve the "radical" movement of freedom. Freedom is like a grain of sand on the beach of time. Look through your history and compare those who have had freedom and those who have been ruled over by a King, Prince, Dictator, etc. Are we really so eager to throw our freedoms away because our government wants to put our country more in ruin by chaining posterity with more and more debt? Do people really want to hand over their freedom so Uncle Sam can take care of them? I know a lot do and it makes me afraid for our country. I know times are tough, I know so people "need" a car but socialism is never the answer.
Look at where it has taken us the last one-hundred years. A bankrupt social security system, a bankrupt health care system, and it looks like poverty still exist, I guess all of the money spent on "The War on Poverty" and the Great Society didn't help out much did it. No!!! It never does, it creates more government that is all. Seriously these so-called conservatives really need to sit down by themselves and think about what they want The United States of America to look like in fifty years. This selfishness has got to stop. Lets preserve freedom for our future generations. And to all of you out there that took advantage of the cash for clunkers program, and helped put our beloved country further in debt SHAME ON YOU!
This bill, above all others this year, has put the spotlight on exactly what the problem is here in the United States of America. I know several "conservative" people who have either already traded their car in with this cash for clunkers deal, or are seriously thinking about doing it (if the money keeps coming in, which it doesn't look like it will, he he). I have listened to people bitch and moan about our President saying he is ruining the country, turning us into a socialist country, etc. etc. I happen to agree with most of what they are saying also. What I do not understand is how can someone complain about our country turning socialist on the one hand and then take advantage of this cash for clunkers program.
You want to know how they can, I will tell you. They will say things like, "well the government is sticking it to me so I will stick it back to them and take that money." Or something like: "I have been paying into social security and I won't see a dime of it so why not take the money." You people get the idea I am sure. So why is it that these "conservatives" are so willing to embrace another one of Obama's socialist programs? The answer: They can take advantage of it. It gives them something, it "helps" them out.
I have been working on some things since I have been off, positive things, but this puts a bigger damper on the whole work. I knew people that took advantage of the system were everywhere in the United States, but people I thought shared the same dream for America as I did? It almost hurts me. Nothing will ever change in America until attitudes like this change, at least from the people who know better. These people think that they are sticking it to their government, who has raped them for so long, but they are not. They are part of the problem. They are not hurting the government, they are throwing fuel on the fire of socialism that has swept through this great country.
They are helping grow government, not helping get it back under control. Wake up people, there is a HUGE difference between your government and your country. Which one do you really want to preserve? Do you want to preserve the "radical" movement of freedom. Freedom is like a grain of sand on the beach of time. Look through your history and compare those who have had freedom and those who have been ruled over by a King, Prince, Dictator, etc. Are we really so eager to throw our freedoms away because our government wants to put our country more in ruin by chaining posterity with more and more debt? Do people really want to hand over their freedom so Uncle Sam can take care of them? I know a lot do and it makes me afraid for our country. I know times are tough, I know so people "need" a car but socialism is never the answer.
Look at where it has taken us the last one-hundred years. A bankrupt social security system, a bankrupt health care system, and it looks like poverty still exist, I guess all of the money spent on "The War on Poverty" and the Great Society didn't help out much did it. No!!! It never does, it creates more government that is all. Seriously these so-called conservatives really need to sit down by themselves and think about what they want The United States of America to look like in fifty years. This selfishness has got to stop. Lets preserve freedom for our future generations. And to all of you out there that took advantage of the cash for clunkers program, and helped put our beloved country further in debt SHAME ON YOU!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
More Power For The President?
Read the article below. Seems like another power grab for a power hungry dictator to me, how about you?
Caracus - Hugo Chavez is asking Congress to give him more power to control health care cost.
A Chavez letter to top lawmakers on Friday said the move would be "a critical step forward" in controlling health care cost and providing better care. The proposal would allow an indendent advisory board that is contolled by Hugo Chavez to recommend changes in reimbusement rates for doctors, hospitals, and other providers.
Now I must be honest, with some liberties taken of course, this article above is false. Did it upset you? Did it make you shrug and ask yourself some important questions? Why is it that we can see how people are reaching for dictatorial power in other countries but we can't see it here? Now read the real article below.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is asking Congress to give the executive branch more power to limit Medicare's rising costs.
A White House letter to top lawmakers on Friday said the move would be "a critical step forward" in controlling health care costs and providing better care.
The proposal would allow an independent advisory board to recommend changes in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals and other providers. If the president approved the recommendations, Congress could still vote to reject them altogether. But Congress could not approve some recommendations and reject others. Currently, Medicare reimbursement rates vary from region to region. Key lawmakers often get involved in setting local rates, a practice the Obama administration plan would end.
Caracus - Hugo Chavez is asking Congress to give him more power to control health care cost.
A Chavez letter to top lawmakers on Friday said the move would be "a critical step forward" in controlling health care cost and providing better care. The proposal would allow an indendent advisory board that is contolled by Hugo Chavez to recommend changes in reimbusement rates for doctors, hospitals, and other providers.
Now I must be honest, with some liberties taken of course, this article above is false. Did it upset you? Did it make you shrug and ask yourself some important questions? Why is it that we can see how people are reaching for dictatorial power in other countries but we can't see it here? Now read the real article below.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is asking Congress to give the executive branch more power to limit Medicare's rising costs.
A White House letter to top lawmakers on Friday said the move would be "a critical step forward" in controlling health care costs and providing better care.
The proposal would allow an independent advisory board to recommend changes in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals and other providers. If the president approved the recommendations, Congress could still vote to reject them altogether. But Congress could not approve some recommendations and reject others. Currently, Medicare reimbursement rates vary from region to region. Key lawmakers often get involved in setting local rates, a practice the Obama administration plan would end.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Health Care a RIGHT For Americans
We all knew it was coming so get involved and lets do something about it. So I ask you one question: Show me where in the Constitution is health care a right? Please, Please people read. Read the Five Thousand Year Leap to get started. Do your history.
Here is a little bit of an article from My Way News.
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic leaders, pledging to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, are offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy.
Full Article Here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090715/D99EO8BO0.html
Now lets see what is happening over there across the pond in England with their wonderful health care, you know the one we are trying to get passed over here.
A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1199714/A-9-month-wait-arthritis-treatment-Delay-mean-lifetime-agony-victims.html#ixzz0LNBgER6S
Here is a little bit of an article from My Way News.
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic leaders, pledging to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, are offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy.
Full Article Here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090715/D99EO8BO0.html
Now lets see what is happening over there across the pond in England with their wonderful health care, you know the one we are trying to get passed over here.
A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1199714/A-9-month-wait-arthritis-treatment-Delay-mean-lifetime-agony-victims.html#ixzz0LNBgER6S
Just Answer The Damn Question
Sotomayor: "No Fundamental Right to Bear Arms"
No Right to Protect Your Property? You have got to watch this Video, and Call you Senators!!!
This woman has no idea what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is about and she wants to be a Supreme Court Justice? She says that the states can make whatever gun control laws they want, and she is serious. Does she not know what the Bill of Rights are and how they came about? The Bill of Rights was what the states wanted passed before the would sign the Constitution. Makes sense then that since one of those Bills was the Second Amendment that the states wanted to make sure that the Federal government couldn't come in and take that right away from them. Now we live in an upside down world most of the time and states are making gun control laws. But since we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights it is unconstitutional to ban the use of guns by individuals. Watch this video and you answer this question: Is this you America? Is this what you believe? How would you answer this question?
Me, since God gives us the right to own land, and the right is fortified in the Constitution of our country, and the Second Amendment is in the Constitution I say "You are damn right we have a right to protect ourselves and others."
No Right to Protect Your Property? You have got to watch this Video, and Call you Senators!!!
This woman has no idea what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is about and she wants to be a Supreme Court Justice? She says that the states can make whatever gun control laws they want, and she is serious. Does she not know what the Bill of Rights are and how they came about? The Bill of Rights was what the states wanted passed before the would sign the Constitution. Makes sense then that since one of those Bills was the Second Amendment that the states wanted to make sure that the Federal government couldn't come in and take that right away from them. Now we live in an upside down world most of the time and states are making gun control laws. But since we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights it is unconstitutional to ban the use of guns by individuals. Watch this video and you answer this question: Is this you America? Is this what you believe? How would you answer this question?
Me, since God gives us the right to own land, and the right is fortified in the Constitution of our country, and the Second Amendment is in the Constitution I say "You are damn right we have a right to protect ourselves and others."
Monday, July 13, 2009
Call Your Senators And Tell Then No On Sotomayor
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats praised Sonia Sotomayor as a judicial pioneer, but Republicans questioned her impartiality and President Barack Obama's views as well Monday at confirmation hearings for the nation's first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court.
Even so, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Sotomayor, "Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed."
"And I don't think you will" have a meltdown, he added quickly.
Even so, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Sotomayor, "Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed."
"And I don't think you will" have a meltdown, he added quickly.
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican, vowed a "respectful tone" and "maybe some disagreements" when lawmakers begin questioning Sotomayor on Tuesday.
Moments later, he underscored that point. "I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision," he said.
"Call it empathy, call it prejudice or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it's not law," Sessions said. "In truth, it's more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom."
That was a reference to Obama's declaration—made before he named Sotomayor—that he wanted a person of empathy on the high court.
Moments later, he underscored that point. "I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision," he said.
"Call it empathy, call it prejudice or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it's not law," Sessions said. "In truth, it's more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom."
That was a reference to Obama's declaration—made before he named Sotomayor—that he wanted a person of empathy on the high court.
Republicans signaled that they will press her to explain past rulings involving discrimination complaints and gun rights, as well as remarks that they say raise doubts about her ability to judge cases fairly.
The most fertile ground for Republican questioning appears to be on race and ethnicity, focused on Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment and a ruling on white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who won their Supreme Court case last month.
In a speech in 2001, Sotomayor said she hoped a "wise Latina" often would reach better conclusions than a white male who lacked the same life experience.
By a 5-4 vote last month, the high court agreed with the firefighters, who claimed they were denied promotions on account of their race after New Haven officials threw out test results because too few minorities did well. The court reversed a decision by a New York appeals court panel that included Sotomayor.
The most fertile ground for Republican questioning appears to be on race and ethnicity, focused on Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment and a ruling on white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who won their Supreme Court case last month.
In a speech in 2001, Sotomayor said she hoped a "wise Latina" often would reach better conclusions than a white male who lacked the same life experience.
By a 5-4 vote last month, the high court agreed with the firefighters, who claimed they were denied promotions on account of their race after New Haven officials threw out test results because too few minorities did well. The court reversed a decision by a New York appeals court panel that included Sotomayor.
Government Controlled Media. Its Coming
Broadcasters Seek Federal Aid
WASHINGTON --A group of minority broadcasters asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Monday for financial assistance akin to the aid that has been extended to the financial and auto industries.
"Minority-owned broadcasters are close to becoming an extinct species," the letter said. "Even in better economic times, minority broadcasters have historically had difficulties accessing the capital markets."
The broadcasters told Mr. Geithner they can bounce back if they are given some temporary assistance while the credit markets are slow. "Unlike the auto business, broadcasting has been healthy for many years," their letter said.
The broadcasters appeal follows a proposal sent in May to Mr. Geithner by a group of influential House members asking for a minority broadcaster support program, bridge funding, or government-backed loans.
The House letter was signed by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D., S.C.) and a group of key committee chairmen, including Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) and Oversight Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, (D., N.Y.).
Full Story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124752187967935029.html
WASHINGTON --A group of minority broadcasters asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Monday for financial assistance akin to the aid that has been extended to the financial and auto industries.
"Minority-owned broadcasters are close to becoming an extinct species," the letter said. "Even in better economic times, minority broadcasters have historically had difficulties accessing the capital markets."
The broadcasters told Mr. Geithner they can bounce back if they are given some temporary assistance while the credit markets are slow. "Unlike the auto business, broadcasting has been healthy for many years," their letter said.
The broadcasters appeal follows a proposal sent in May to Mr. Geithner by a group of influential House members asking for a minority broadcaster support program, bridge funding, or government-backed loans.
The House letter was signed by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D., S.C.) and a group of key committee chairmen, including Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) and Oversight Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, (D., N.Y.).
Full Story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124752187967935029.html
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Secret Is Out
The Secret Is Out
Yes that is right the secret is out. Of course it has been out for about a hundred years, and really out in the open for the last ten, if you haven't had your head in the ground, and slap you in your face out in the open the last couple of years. Al Gore lets is slip. Read this article and then watch the video for yourself. Now I know that Al Gore is as dry as baked cardboard so you can start listening at 1:05 in the video. That is one minute five seconds in. I have been trying to tell people this for years. It is nothing but a big redistribution of wealth scheme this whole global warming thing. Well who is the crazy, nut, conspiracy theorist, loon now? Oh wait, damn, I haven't taken the battery out of my cell phone yet. If you don't see anymore blogs this week you know what happened to me. Was that a helicopter I just heard? Gotta go!!
Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”
“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.
“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.
Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming. “But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”
Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000.
On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance."
“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.
“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.
Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming. “But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”
Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000.
On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance."
“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added.
Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed UN's Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.”
In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”
“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”
Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”
The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.
"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
Full Story: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance
Big Brother At It Again
Well Big Brother is at it again and would you believe it, that I agree with someone from the ACLU? Egads!!! What am I going to do? And there is at least one person living near San Francisco that has some brains, asking "Where does it end?"
Tiburon may install license plate cameras
Welcome to Tiburon.
Click.
Your presence has been noted.
The posh and picturesque town that juts into San Francisco Bay is poised to do something unprecedented: use cameras to record the license plate number of every vehicle that crosses city limits.
Some residents describe the plan as a commonsense way to thwart thieves, most of whom come from out of town. Others see an electronic border gate and worry that the project will only reinforce Tiburon's image of exclusivity and snootiness.
"I personally don't see too much harm in it, because I have nothing to hide," commodities broker Paul Lambert, 64, said after a trip to Boardwalk Market in downtown Tiburon on a recent afternoon.
"Yet," he said, "it still has the taint of Big Brother."
The readers, which use character recognition software, can compare plates to databases of cars that have been stolen or linked to crimes, then immediately notify police of matches, said Police Chief Michael Cronin.
If someone burglarized a Tiburon home at 3 a.m. one morning, he said, detectives could consult the devices and find out who came to town in the hours before - and who rolled out soon after.
MORON ALERT, MORON ALERT: Cronin called it a sound investment. He pointed to a frustrating twist in Tiburon crime: Residents feel so safe that they don't lock their cars and homes. Ya that is a good way to reduce crime, what an idiot.
Nicole Ozer, who directs policy on technology for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, isn't as supportive. She called the cameras a "needle in a haystack" approach that may waste money, invade privacy and invite unfair profiling.
"To be under investigation simply because you entered or left Tiburon at a certain time is incredibly intrusive," Ozer said. "Innocent people should be able to go about their daily lives without being tracked and monitored."
Some cities use the cameras to assess anti-congestion tolls on motorists, while casino bosses get an alert when a high roller - or a cheater - pulls in.
But Fred Mayo, 62, who lives in Tiburon and owns a travel agency in Mill Valley, said the cameras would invade privacy. "Where does it end?" Mayo asked.
Full Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/10/MNT6189U0U.DTL
Tiburon may install license plate cameras
Welcome to Tiburon.
Click.
Your presence has been noted.
The posh and picturesque town that juts into San Francisco Bay is poised to do something unprecedented: use cameras to record the license plate number of every vehicle that crosses city limits.
Some residents describe the plan as a commonsense way to thwart thieves, most of whom come from out of town. Others see an electronic border gate and worry that the project will only reinforce Tiburon's image of exclusivity and snootiness.
"I personally don't see too much harm in it, because I have nothing to hide," commodities broker Paul Lambert, 64, said after a trip to Boardwalk Market in downtown Tiburon on a recent afternoon.
"Yet," he said, "it still has the taint of Big Brother."
The readers, which use character recognition software, can compare plates to databases of cars that have been stolen or linked to crimes, then immediately notify police of matches, said Police Chief Michael Cronin.
If someone burglarized a Tiburon home at 3 a.m. one morning, he said, detectives could consult the devices and find out who came to town in the hours before - and who rolled out soon after.
MORON ALERT, MORON ALERT: Cronin called it a sound investment. He pointed to a frustrating twist in Tiburon crime: Residents feel so safe that they don't lock their cars and homes. Ya that is a good way to reduce crime, what an idiot.
Nicole Ozer, who directs policy on technology for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, isn't as supportive. She called the cameras a "needle in a haystack" approach that may waste money, invade privacy and invite unfair profiling.
"To be under investigation simply because you entered or left Tiburon at a certain time is incredibly intrusive," Ozer said. "Innocent people should be able to go about their daily lives without being tracked and monitored."
Some cities use the cameras to assess anti-congestion tolls on motorists, while casino bosses get an alert when a high roller - or a cheater - pulls in.
But Fred Mayo, 62, who lives in Tiburon and owns a travel agency in Mill Valley, said the cameras would invade privacy. "Where does it end?" Mayo asked.
Full Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/10/MNT6189U0U.DTL
Saturday, July 11, 2009
What? It's Funny
I usually do not put stuff up on my blog like this but I could not resist this time. Here we have a picture of President Obama checking out the rump of a sixteen year old Brazilian. My question is: What are the feeding those girls? I don't think that is the kind of stimulus package the President was talking about.
Friday, July 10, 2009
More Protest in Iran
The young over in Iran want freedom. Hopefully they will get it someday soon, until then lets pray for all of those over there risking their lives to protest an oppressive government. All around the world, including here, it will take brave police officers, and brave members of the military to stand up for what is right and say "NO" to oppression, as is illustrated by some of the Iranian demonstrators as they chanted "Police protect us."
Thousands protest in Iran, defying crackdown vow
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Thousands of protesters streamed down avenues of the capital Thursday, chanting "death to the dictator" and defying security forces who fired tear gas and charged with batons, witnesses said. The first opposition foray into the streets in 11 days aimed to revive mass demonstrations that were crushed in Iran's postelection turmoil. Iranian authorities had promised tough action to prevent the marches, which supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi have been planning for days in Internet messages. Heavy police forces deployed at key points in the city ahead of the marches, and Tehran's governor vowed to "smash" anyone who heeded the demonstration calls.
Women in headscarves and young men dashed away, rubbing their eyes as police fired tear gas, in footage aired on state-run Press TV. In a photo from Thursday's events in Tehran obtained by The Associated Press outside Iran, a woman with her black headscarf looped over her face raised a fist in front of a garbage bin that had been set on fire.
But the clampdown was not total. At Tehran University, a line of police blocked a crowd from reaching the gates of the campus, but then did not move to disperse them as the protesters chanted "Mir Hossein" and "death to the dictator" and waved their hands in the air, witnesses said. The crowd grew to nearly 1,000 people, the witnesses said.
"Police, protect us," some of the demonstrators chanted, asking the forces not to move against them. Onlookers and pedestrians often gave their support. In side streets near the university, police were chasing young activists, and when they caught one, passers-by chanted "let him go, let him go," until the policemen released him. Elsewhere, residents let fleeing demonstrators slip into their homes to elude police, witnesses said.
Full Story Here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99B3RSO2&show_article=1
Thousands protest in Iran, defying crackdown vow
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Thousands of protesters streamed down avenues of the capital Thursday, chanting "death to the dictator" and defying security forces who fired tear gas and charged with batons, witnesses said. The first opposition foray into the streets in 11 days aimed to revive mass demonstrations that were crushed in Iran's postelection turmoil. Iranian authorities had promised tough action to prevent the marches, which supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi have been planning for days in Internet messages. Heavy police forces deployed at key points in the city ahead of the marches, and Tehran's governor vowed to "smash" anyone who heeded the demonstration calls.
Women in headscarves and young men dashed away, rubbing their eyes as police fired tear gas, in footage aired on state-run Press TV. In a photo from Thursday's events in Tehran obtained by The Associated Press outside Iran, a woman with her black headscarf looped over her face raised a fist in front of a garbage bin that had been set on fire.
But the clampdown was not total. At Tehran University, a line of police blocked a crowd from reaching the gates of the campus, but then did not move to disperse them as the protesters chanted "Mir Hossein" and "death to the dictator" and waved their hands in the air, witnesses said. The crowd grew to nearly 1,000 people, the witnesses said.
"Police, protect us," some of the demonstrators chanted, asking the forces not to move against them. Onlookers and pedestrians often gave their support. In side streets near the university, police were chasing young activists, and when they caught one, passers-by chanted "let him go, let him go," until the policemen released him. Elsewhere, residents let fleeing demonstrators slip into their homes to elude police, witnesses said.
Full Story Here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99B3RSO2&show_article=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)