Googly, Googly… revisited… Facebooky… Facebooky…

How is anyone surprised by the “Big Reveal”, in every entendre imaginable, from Facebook that ALL OF YOUR INFORMATION WAS USED IN A WAY THAT YOU DON’T LIKE… AND THEY TOOK YOUR FRIENDS INFO TOO… BECAUSE YOU LET THEM.

How is the news?

We’ve been talking about this for over 5 YEARS!  It’s now 032118…

And, I’m always fashionably late to the party!

Where have you been?

(Update 091113: Yesterday, Google lost a similar decision to the one below.  It was on Appeal before the Ninth Circuit.  The Folks at EPIC are happy… but doesn’t the this story make more sense and a seem little less conspiratorial now that we know the NSA has been collecting all of our data and doing so with the aid of our allies?  Originally Posted 072712)

“In April, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission fined Google, saying the company “deliberately impeded and delayed” its investigation into Street View.

It’s unclear what, if any, penalties would be imposed on Google by Britain’s ICO or regulators in any of the 10 other jurisdictions in which the company had wrongly retained Street View data.

“We need to take a look at the data… There’s all sorts of questions we need to ask,” an ICO spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity because office rules prohibit him from being named in print.”

The above quote and where I decided to begin and end it may seem a little confusing, but there is a point…

Today we find out that Google has not destroyed/deleted all of the street view info it was caught collecting in Britain. Keep in mind, when I say “street view info” that includes wi-fi networks and names, e-mail addresses and various and sundry other items of information having nothing to do with a street, or the view from it.

Here’s the fun part however… Britain’s regulators, the IOC, are very “upset”. There has been aplenty “tough” language directed at Google for this blatant breach. Yes… they are terribly, terribly upset don’t you know.

While Google has apologized, it is clearly not enough for the IOC.  In all fairness it’s not enough for me either but here’s the punch line; the IOC is demanding to see the information for “forensic analysis”.  Seriously… You Brit’s are Brilliant!  “Yes, yes, I will need to see all the pornography you have so I can determine if it is actually pornography.  I will also need plenty of time to review it… alone…”

So why did I take the above quote from where I did?

Without question Google was harvesting the same information here in the U.S. that it was in Britain.  No doubt about it.  And the U.S. is watching closely what is going on across the pond… very closely.  But why?

If the IOC is successful in gaining access to the Google information for “forensic analysis” because Google has been very, very bad… then U.S. regulators will not be far behind the Google spanking bandwagon.  What red-blooded, privacy cherishing, citizen wouldn’t want Google to be punished for collecting a bunch of info it shouldn’t have?

Well… this one.  If punishing Google requires the government seeing all of the intel, I would prefer Google to get away with it and we can deal with them in the market place.   Think about this for a second, who would you rather have possessing your secrets, a private company answerable to the legal system or a government answerable to no-one?

The monster under my bed has always scared me the most by whispering “don’t worry…  I’m from the government and I’m here to help…”.  Now he’s muttering “googly… googly..” and my parents still don’t believe me.

Your freedom is directly correlated to your ability to live your life anonymously.  If you care.

Apparently, like the rest of the planet, I may just elect to drink myself to sleep.  Unlike the rest of the planet I will only do it late at night… straight from the bottle… in front of a full length mirror… crying…

NSA disguised itself as Google to spy, say reports  (link added 091213)

Advertisement

Bipartisanshitt

There is an urban myth out there that needs to be addressed.

“Binge drinking is bad.”  No, wait.  Wrong one.

“Compromise is good.”

If you’re a product of the public schools (like I am) it should be expected you believe we should all get along.  You probably think our elected representatives should be having dinner together, holding hands and making out in the back of dark movie theaters.  You might even think it is GOOD when they all get together and create legislation effecting the rest of us.

In other words, you might believe passing lots of bills is a terrific way to judge their productivity.  You think the government should “do something”… You might have been taught that the founders of this country wanted our leaders to strip down and embrace each other every time they met so they could create lots of really cool law.  If any of this rings true for you, what you “know” is wrong.  You should demand a refund on that free public education.

Here’s the truth, our system of government was designed specifically to be slow, cumbersome and rarely produce laws.  It was created to make sure no single branch could run rampant over the others with this purpose in mind.  It was designed for a fight… over everything… in the hopes that whatever came out was only what was absolutely necessary.  Less was more.  Nothing getting done was fine, if not preferred.  (I’ve floated this idea around the house but have not had much traction.)

We have come a long way from that original intent.  Over the last 100 years we have entitled our politicians to do whatever they want.  They have learned to routinely create law outside of the Constitution because they know that the odds are no-one will challenge it.  And, if their law does get challenged it will take too long and the American people will lose interest, or more often think they are owed whatever the law might “give” them.

These same politicians also know they can slow down the process of any legal challenge by appointing judges who also don’t care what limitations the Constitution puts in place.  Such judges then present their rulings utilizing previous unconstitutional rulings they or their fellow travelers passed down earlier.  Amazingly, they are also not above using foreign law for validation… which I’m very sure the Founding Fathers did not intend.  The fact that we revel in our lack of understanding and promote such behavior in our leaders should be frightening.  It has brought us to a very scary place.  Haven’t you wondered why alcohol sales are up? We’re frightened, but too uninformed to know why.  It’s like a horror movie where the person about to get killed runs around the house and turns all the lights… off.

There has been a determined movement over the last 80 years to position the U.S. Constitution as too restrictive.  (Our current president is on the record promoting this very idea.)  But you will most often find it repeated by the “open-minded” who have not taken the 5 minutes needed to read it, let alone try to discuss and understand it. (They don’t need to read it… their hearts tell them what they need to know… what’s scary about that is they vote…)   These are also the people who think we should all give each other big wet sloppy kisses… all the time.  To them, getting along to “help the country” sounds so nice it requires no further exploration on their part.

To make things worse, there are too many people who want to be led and then insist you must be led as well.  These people have found a home on both sides of the aisle.  The Founders were aware this would always be a reality. The defense they gave us against such people was an extremely well-defined and very restrictive document, that could be changed, in other words amended, if needed… but it would take an act of congress. (Yes, that’s where the phrase came from.)

What it comes down to is that you have two sides to choose from.  One side subscribes to individual freedom and one does not.  What makes one side somewhat sinister is that it wants to control you with “the best of intentions”.  Bear in mind, those who believe the sheep need to be led never seem to count themselves among the sheep….

So there must always be a war between those who know you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself  (Statists/Socialists) and those of us who think you are the only person who knows what’s best for you. (Free-market Capitalists)   If you give it a moment of thought, does it  make sense that a person who subscribes to individual freedom be buddies with a person who believes in the soft slavery of statism?  It’s really as simple as that.  The line in the sand is Force.

In conclusion, we are not supposed to get along.  We are not supposed to compromise our individual freedoms.  Ever.

If you need proof, compromise with Socialists is what got us here today… bankrupt, having our e-mail and phones call tapped, “intelligence agents” looking at our daughters cell phone pictures and Facebook pages while your grandmother is getting molested at the airport.  And the useful idiots continue begging for more Bipartisanshitt…

(Originally Posted 012012.  Reposted yet again because it needs to be.)

Bipartisanshitt

There is an urban myth out there that needs to be addressed.

“Binge drinking is bad.”  No, wait.  Wrong one.

“Compromise is good.”

If you’re a product of the public schools (like I am) it should be expected you believe we should all get along.  You probably think our elected representatives should be having dinner together, holding hands and making out in the back of dark movie theaters.  You might even think it is GOOD when they all get together and create legislation effecting the rest of us.

In other words, passing lots of bills is a terrific way to judge their productivity.  You think the government should “do something”… You might have been taught that the founders of this country wanted our leaders to strip down and embrace each other every time they met so they could create lots of really cool law.  If any of this rings true for you, what you “know” is wrong.  You should demand a refund on that free public education.

Here’s the truth, our system of government was designed specifically to be slow, cumbersome and rarely produce laws.  It was created to make sure no single branch could run rampant over the others with this purpose in mind.  It was designed for a fight… over everything… in the hopes that whatever came out was only what was absolutely necessary.  Less was more.  Nothing getting done was fine, if not preferred.  (I’ve floated this idea around the house but have not had much traction.)

We have come a long way from that original intent.  Over the last 100 years we have entitled our politicians to do whatever they want.  They have learned to routinely create law outside of the Constitution because they know that the odds are no-one will challenge it.  And, if their law does get challenged it will take too long and the American people will lose interest, or more often think they are owed whatever the law might “give” them.

These same politicians also know they can slow down the process of any legal challenge by appointing judges who also don’t care what limitations the Constitution puts in place.  Such judges then present their rulings utilizing previous unconstitutional rulings they or their fellow travelers passed down earlier.  Amazingly, they are also not above using foreign law for validation… which I’m very sure the Founding Fathers did not intend.  The fact that we revel in our lack of understanding and promote such behavior in our leaders should be frightening.  It has brought us to a very scary place.  Haven’t you wondered why alcohol sales are up? We’re frightened, but too uninformed to know why.  It’s like a horror movie where the person about to get killed runs around the house and turns all the lights… off.

There has been a determined movement over the last 80 years to position the U.S. Constitution as too restrictive.  (Our current president is on the record promoting this very idea.)  But you will most often find it repeated by the “open-minded” who have not taken the 5 minutes needed to read it, let alone try to discuss and understand it. (They don’t need to read it… their hearts tell them what they need to know… what’s scary about that is they vote…)   These are also the people who think we should all give each other big wet sloppy kisses… all the time.  To them, getting along to “help the country” sounds so nice it requires no further exploration on their part.

To make things worse, there are too many people who want to be led and then insist you must be led as well.  These people have found a home on both sides of the aisle.  The Founders were aware this would always be a reality. The defense they gave us against such people was an extremely well-defined and very restrictive document, that could be changed, in other words amended, if needed… but it would take an act of congress. (Yes, that’s where the phrase came from.)

What it comes down to is that you have two sides to choose from.  One side subscribes to individual freedom and one does not.  What makes one side somewhat sinister is that it wants to control you with “the best of intentions”.  Bear in mind, those who believe the sheep need to be led never seem to count themselves among the sheep….

So there must always be a war between those who know you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself  (Statists/Socialists) and those of us who think you are the only person who knows what’s best for you. (Free-market Capitalists)   If you give it a moment of thought, does it  make sense that a person who subscribes to individual freedom be buddies with a person who believes in the soft slavery of statism?  It’s really as simple as that.  The line in the sand is Force.

In conclusion, we are not supposed to get along.  We are not supposed to compromise our individual freedoms.  Ever.

If you need proof, compromise with Socialists is what got us here today… bankrupt, having our e-mail and phones call tapped, “intelligence agents” looking at our daughters cell phone pictures and Facebook pages while your grandmother is getting molested at the airport.  And the useful idiots continue begging for more Bipartisanshitt…

(Originally Posted 012012.  Reposted yet again because it needs to be.)

Fixing Ferguson

If you give Fools a Stage they will Perform.

There is a very real issue in Ferguson. In fact, there are several.

First, there is the possibility that a young man was killed by a police officer without cause. There is also the possibility that the young man was killed with cause.

Second, A small group of criminals has decided to use this event to loot and burn businesses.

Third, a gathering of Anti-American activists from across the US have found their way to a part of St. Louis they never knew existed.

So what do we do?

We, as Americans, honor the right of those who question the Police… and for that matter the Government… regarding the death of this young man. Agree with those who believe the police killed him in cold blood or not, peaceful display of concern… anger… and pain remain part of our fabric. Remember, contrary to Mrs. Clinton, Dissent is not necessarily Patriotic. The Toleration of Dissent is Patriotic.

To the Second issue of criminal behavior, I would suggest ceasing the non-stop LIVE coverage of night-time protests. If you give Fools a Stage they will perform upon it.

Instead take that energy being expended by the News Media and focus it on those folks who are genuinely concerned about their community and their relationship with authorities… during the day. They merit the stage far more than the criminals.

Finally, there is never a reason to give Anti-American Activists a platform. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE to FREEDOM AND LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL which is the opposite of what these Socialist organizers want to convey. If they were serious about their supposed concerns regarding Human Rights they would be busy is IRAQ, or myriad other places like China etc..  Instead they focus their efforts on the Freest country on Earth.  And the Safest for them to posture, and promote their Progressive Utopia.

The reason they are not confronting areas of real crimes against humanity is because they are far more concerned with promoting their Socialist agenda. They should be ignored.

These simple changes might not drive News ratings…

But they would put the focus back where it should be.

The voices that need to be heard would be heard.

Lives could be saved.

And the Federal Government could go back to DC where it belongs.

Questions from the Chris Christie Barbeque

I have taken the transcripts from the Chris Christie Inquisition which occurred in New Jersey over the artificial traffic jam created by some in his office.

I’ve held off several days to let it all shake out… frankly the use of government power to do these types of things is unacceptable regardless of who is doing it.  But that isn’t my point with this post.  I will also not be delving into the obvious “didn’t the press get the message that all of this was to be saved until Christie was the Nominee” problem the Democrats have.

The point here is:

Where are these questions for President Obama regarding Fast and Furious… Benghazi… NSA Domestic Spying… Political Targeting by the IRS…

Do these reporters only exist in New Jersey?

Here are some of my favorite Questions (Bold and Italics are mine… replace “Governor” with “Mr. President”, replace “U.S. Attorney” with “Constitutional Law Professor” and you can replace the below actors with Holder, Clinton, Clapper et al. for effect.)

Governor, beyond the apology and the terminations that you’ve announced, what other steps — concrete steps do you plan to take to demonstrate to the people of New Jersey and the people of the country that you want to change the perception of what has happened here? And will that include working cooperatively with these investigations that are now moving forward because in the past you had some rather nasty words for the people who were heading them up?

Your critics say this reveals that you are a political bully, that your style is payback. Are you? And does this compromise your ability to serve?

Governor, you say that you’re going to individually interview all the members of the governor’s office.  What about the campaign? Are you going to — are you going to personally interview —

How confident are you that this doesn’t rise above Bill Stepien in the campaign?  But there were plenty of other officials, some of them quite close to you.  You’re sure that they didn’t know about?

How confident are you that this tactic — this bullying tactic, this revenge/retribution tactic — did not go beyond — (off mic)?  But you can tell us that you do not authorize this kind of retribution.

Can you understand why people would have a hard time believing that you didn’t know about this thing? Considering your management style and the closeness of your staff, if you didn’t know about it, what does that say about your ability to lead?

Governor, the U.S. attorney in New Jersey has said he’s opening an investigation to determine whether a federal law was violated here. You were the U.S. attorney in New Jersey at one time. Would you, as a U.S. attorney — would you think that there’s anything to be investigated — (off mic) —

Are there any other — are there any other cases — have you asked from your staff if there are any other cases of political retribution conducted during your campaign to other mayors — (in New Jersey ?)?  (Inaudible) — now that you know it did happen?

You say you’re going to continue to ask these questions of your staff. I want to know what kind of questions you might be asking of yourself. These aren’t just any of the 65,000 employees, these are people — five or six people as close to you as you can get — people you trust — (inaudible) — to your birthday party, and they either —  Went to a birthday party.  One of your staff — (one of the ?) staffers you fired this morning  So, I’m just asking, what do you ask yourself about — they either thought this is what the boss wanted, or they — as a group, they were willing to go rogue and do this and then try to cover it up — (inaudible) —

Governor, the mayor of Jersey City is quoted as saying that today he declined to endorse you and said he would vote Democrat, and as many as 10 appointments between state officials and Jersey City officials were cancelled suddenly, all at once.  How do you explain that in the context of what you now know about what some of your staff did?

Yeah, I heard that you actually — when your staff read the Bergen Record and learned something in terms of situational awareness, does the universal apology to the state of New Jersey include the press corps?

I’m wondering what your staff said to you about why they lied to you. Why would they do that? What was their explanation? And what about Mr. Samson? What role did he play in this?

Governor, you mentioned earlier that — (off mic) — asking the question is what did I — (off mic) — lie to me, but are you also asking the question, what did I say or how did I conduct myself in the office to behave in a way that would lend these folks to think it was OK to carry out such a scheme like this? (Off mic) — that suspicions that (you fostered ?) — (off mic) — through your administration or your campaign that allowed people to think it was OK to intimidate or retaliate against people?

(Off mic) — apologize to the (road men ?) there. Are you going to also apologize for the joke you made — (off mic) —  What prompted you to joke about it in the —

(Off mic) — your campaign, did you guys every (sic) go into and say that this is what happens if you endorse us?

Governor, you said you had been doing some soul-searching. I’m wondering if you’re soul-searching about the kind of people you hire, or the kind of people who run your campaigns, or the kind of people you want to run the Republican Party who are willing to apparently engage in political retribution and also call the mayor reportedly a racially insensitive man.

(Off mic) — how much of a crisis in confidence — (off mic) — people you surrounding yourself with and your ability to accept future leadership roles?

Governor — (off mic) — just found out about — (off mic) — story. Is that just a misstatement, or —

OK. The (other thing is ?), in terms of drilling down down now that you’ve been able to get a handle a little bit more on — (off mic) — what happened (then ?)? Was there a threat or an ask for an endorsement? Was there then retribution?

So you still don’t know what prompted an apparent vendetta? OK.

Two questions about your judgment. You said clearly that you had nothing to do with the actual implementation of what happened. So are you now questioning your own judgment about whether or not you can discern with your nose for scandal — to discern whether or not putting out a series of cones to change a couple of lanes of traffic was actually a legitimate traffic study, one?

So in this environment, it didn’t raise a smell for you?

You’ve said — you’ve said that — just a moment ago that sometimes this raises to the level of governors. There’s a report now that in fact you called Governor Cuomo to complain that your representative on the Port Authority board was asking too many questions — (inaudible) —

Governor, didn’t Pat Foye perjure himself when he said he didn’t believe this traffic study — (inaudible) — did he lie under oath — (inaudible)

(Off mic) — right? You still think everything he said was genuine and that he’s not in any way —

Why didn’t you check back — (off mic)? You never called him to see —

(Off mic) — with Stepien yesterday, what was going on, why he —

(Are you not curious ?) — (off mic) — what happened here yourself?  I mean, it has come out —

What about — what about the cover-up piece of this?

There are multiple reports that an elderly woman in — (inaudible) — died after emergency — (inaudible). What’s your reaction?

Governor, along the lines of doing the job as governor that you have said that you’re focused on — regaining the trust of the people of New Jersey — a lot of people are upset about this and shocked. The first couple of years you were governor, you did a lot of town hall meetings. You traveled all over the state and spoke to people. Any thought about possibly trying to do something like that again?  (Editor note: Could you imagine the President going on a town hall type tour to promote Obama Care let alone even being asked to do so?)

Governor, as a U.S. attorney, you — (off mic) –hundreds if not thousands of people.  So how could you fail to get the truth from your own staff?

Governor, you were a U.S. attorney, very high-profile, in fact investigated one governor — (off mic) — governor’s office and a state party. You now are a governor who has a U.S. attorney investigating people that (sic) were connected to your office. What instructions are you giving, have you given to your staff? What will you do? And can we expect to see claims of executive privilege and, no — (off mic) — you cannot have documents, or are you going to cooperate fully and very helpfully?

In terms of — it seems like your fact-finding is still getting some momentum. You’re still finding out what’s going on. Do you think this could have an impact and you should put on hold — (off mic) — O’Dowd’s nomination to be the attorney general since he was the chief of staff and would probably be involved in setting the tone?

You mentioned this as we saw from the emails, that too much of this discussion was taking place on private email accounts. Have you asked your staff to stop communicating government business on private email accounts?

Have you requested any more documents?

Bridget Kelly, did she have the authorization to carry out significant policy decisions such as an authorization of the governor’s office — (off mic) — or funding without getting prior approval from you or your senior staff — (off mic) — authorized to make those decisions?

(Inaudible) — supposition, or as a follow-up question, is that I believe there is — (inaudible) — that some share that they find it hard to believe that Bridget could be — would be making these kind of calls, making these kinds of decisions, as reflected in the email that we saw yesterday, without prior approval, without the knowledge of senior staff.

Governor, you just said — (off mic) — I have nothing to hide, and then you repeated “I have nothing to hide”.  In your long public career at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, first term as governor, second term now, did you ever imagine you’d stand in front of this many cameras and this many reporters and have to say, I have nothing to hide?

Governor, obviously this has been a traumatic experience. You said you got very little if any sleep whatsoever last night. Did you ever for even a brief moment entertain the idea that perhaps you should resign?  (Editor note:  The reporter left out “Or kill yourself?”  Can you again imagine this being asked by the DC Press Corp?)

There were some folks that raised an eyebrow — (off mic) — with Mr. Baroni’s resignation at the news conference where you had asked — (off mic) — replaced by Deborah Gramiccioni, but that was something that was in the works and that you were trying to advance. Looking back on it now — (off mic) — clarify how that process played out, do you think Mr. Baroni was jumping ship a little bit here, trying to get out — (off mic) — political — were you guys moving to replace him before that news conference?

Governor, a couple of hours after the story broke yesterday, the assembly transportation boss, Wisniewski, was discussing the fact that the more he learns about this — he’s reading thousands of pages of documents — the longer the list was growing of people he would be thinking about issuing a subpoena to. And he was asked if that could possibly include you.

And he said he had the authority to issue a subpoena to anybody who he needs to get information from. If you were to get a subpoena, for whatever reason, what would you do?

Governor, the revealing nature of these emails made some of us wonder what else — what other emails — (off mic). (Off mic) — filed a number of requests for emails related to this, and they were told there was nothing available. And yet these emails that were released yesterday reveal that there — (off mic) — related to this issue. Is there a — did you know about that? Is there a transparency issue in general — (off mic)?

Governor, I’m wondering when you were first called for comment on the story, and whether you think this will affect your ability at the — (off mic).

— throughout this entire press conference you’ve said that you’re a loyal person, you expect loyalty, and you fired this person on your staff because she lied. Are you the victim here, or is — are the people of Fort Lee the victim? Should she have been fired because she ordered a traffic study that messed up traffic and put people in danger in that sense —- traffic problems.

Governor Christie, but one of the things is that in terms of a lying standpoint, the very person who has probably these most information about why she did this is the very person you cut off communication with. Isn’t that a management mistake?

Well, I’m saying talk to her. I mean, in terms of the conversation, like why did you do this? Get some information.

Like tampering with a witness — (inaudible)?  (Editor note: !)

(Inaudible) — something though about — (inaudible) — what point does political misconduct cross into criminality?

(Off mic) — that these people with emails — (off mic). These emails say that they took action in front of your constituents to try to — (off mic). They focused on the — (off mic) — but they did something that conned your constituents.

Is your credibility — (off mic)?

So — (off mic) — David Wildstein, is it possible that there could be other emails that Bridget Kelly may have shipped — have sent about this issue to other people — (off mic) — Port Authority, in your administration that you don’t know about at this time? And are you going to take– make an effort to look at computers and BlackBerrys and things like that in (her ?) office to see if these things are — (off mic)?

Governor, one of the things — (off mic) — this impression that you’re not sort of — (inaudible). And a lot of your opponents will use this as a — sort of — (inaudible) — like, see, we got you. You know, it’s always the same. Is there any level of political retribution that is acceptable and — (inaudible)?

Governor, there have been other examples of allegations of improper political behavior by state government — I’m thinking particularly about the Hunterdon county sheriff whose case was taken from the county prosecutor — (off mic) — knowing what you know now about, you know, your staffer lying to you, are you going to go back and look at some of those other situations and see what — (off mic) —

The mayor did say at one point there was some significant overtime involved for first responders in terms of police. Is that something that you would consider to — (off mic) — campaign fund, to reimburse — (off mic)?

Since I Cherry Picked… Full Transcript Here.

Keep in mind, it’s not Just the questions it’s the follow-up and order of the questions.  It the fact that there were NO softballs.  Not a single reporter asked him if this was “the toughest day of his life” or “How is your family holding up?” etc.

I’m sure that this tenacity has nothing to do with Christie being a Republican, even if he is one in name only.

Hubris

(A re-post from 052813 in light of a renewed effort by the current Administration to accuse us of creating “PHONY SCANDALS”.)

 

Like a small flash it hit me after reading this quote from a DNC fundraising email:

“They’ve (Republicans) been caught red-handed making up so-called ‘scandals’ out of thin air to stir up false rumors of vast ‘cover-ups’ happening in the White House,”  Full story here.

First, let’s address the substance of this statement by listing what must be “made up out of thin air”…

This is what really happened, AKA the Truth, according to the DNC:

A U.S. Diplomat and three security personnel, two of whom did not fly to the rescue by stealing an airplane, were not killed on Sept. 11, 2012 by Al Qaeda militants.

The State Department, for some inexplicable reason, did not blame the event on a you tube video that 19 people viewed prior to the non-existent attack by random folks living in Benghazi.

The Administration did not register the 11 other Benghazi victims under pseudonym’s when they were admitted to various hospitals for the injuries they did not receive during the non-attack.

The Internal Revenue Service did not admit targeting Conservative groups, who are perceived by the current Administration as opposition, for additional scrutiny.

One of those running things at the IRS did not plead the fifth in order to not incriminate herself.

The Department of Justice did not secure the phone records for 100 Associated Press reporters, which did not include ancillary business and personal phone numbers.

The Department of Justice did not secure months of e-mail, which included addresses for his contacts, from a FOX News reporter without his knowledge or agreement.

These ridiculous non-facts are just more of the same from the Republican Party…. stop reading here and send the Democrat National Committee your money now.

Or, keep reading a little longer.

The small flash I mentioned earlier was a word…  Hubris.

Hubris /ˈhjuːbrɪs/, also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις, means extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.  Full definition here.

Taking a short trip down memory lane, I recall the second year of President Obama’s first term.  At the beginning of that year he was being roundly criticized for appearing on television with unfettered frequency never before matched by any sitting president.  By the end of that year his party had lost the control of the House to the Republicans.  This happened to the dismay of those who predicted victory based on the turnout from his huge 6-point win 24-months prior.

I remember his demeanor being one of shock… for several months he seemed sullen and in a state of disbelief given such results.  I’m not sure he’s been quite the same since.

But, Barack Obama genuinely believed his victory over one of the oldest, “whitest”, most “war-mongering”, least Republican candidates in 2008 was not because he was a young, articulate, African-American… he believed it was because he had a mandate for his Socialist Ideas.  He actually thought the voters were listening to the meaning of his words… not just enjoying the beat, and hopped up on the desire to feel like their lives mean something… historic.

If you take a moment and slip on his size 12’s, you could understand this.  It’s undeniable, He spelled out his plan in “Blue Print for America”, his books, his speeches and with the people he surrounded himself with.  He was not keeping his Socialist values a secret… just ask Joe the Plumber.  Frankly, just ask any of us who were screaming at the top of our lungs exactly because we DID read his Blue Print, speeches and books.

President Barack Obama believed, and still believes, that the masses agree with him.  To him, The Ends of Social Justice… being Equality of Outcome with Government at the Center of every Solution… is justified by the Means of having the U.S. kneel before the world while using Government Force to destroy any Opposition to the Socialist Utopia.

I suggest the reason we are seeing all of these “non-existent” scandals come to light is a brilliant by-product of our founding Fathers Constitutional design.  This type of malfeasance will always surface in a transitional government.  When individuals within ones own party are interested in securing power for themselves, and your time is up… as mandated by law, anything you’ve been doing is up for review.  When I say anything, I mean trampling on the First, Second and Fourth Amendments.  It has to scream for Pepto-Bismol when the Benghazi Whistleblowers are all Democrats… who then are testifying that we (the U.S.) could have sent assistance which might have resulted in saving the lives… of a Democrat Ambassador and his Democrat security personnel.

It also has to cause his ulcer to bleed when his fellow Democrats join the chorus of those demanding investigations of the IRS for political targeting.

Finally, he and his Administration must be suffering from Elitist Arrogance when they start using the Countries Security Services to investigate the Press for doing their job… well, at least when the Press are doing the part of their job which the Administration finds disagreeable.  The Press… the one ally the Leftists count on.  The enablers of government vice.  (The press giving any oxygen to this is unbelievable.  Talk about biting the hand that feeds you…)

I will state again, nothing is going to cause this President to be Impeached.  It will not happen.  And he knows it.

I don’t care if Congress finds out this Administration was selling missiles to Syrian Rebels associated with Al Qaeda.  I don’t care if they find out the IRS was coordinating their efforts to oppress Conservative Opposition with the FBI, DHS and OSHA.  I don’t care if they find out transcripts exist of the AP reporters personal calls to their spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc. which are being passed around DOJ for laughs.  And, I don’t care if we discover that help was truly available to be sent to Benghazi but was told to stand down because it might appear to be too “American”, or as the Leftists put it too “Militaristic”, which we also find out was the same reason they were there without the appropriate security in the first place.  I don’t even care if they find out the President is sleeping with Valerie Jarret and Susan Rice, at the same time, then lied about it under oath in order to escape a sexual harassment lawsuit based on law he directly championed.

Only an extremely over blown sense of competency, arrogance and undeserved righteousness could fuel such behavior.

However, none of this matters.  We have 3 1/2 more years of this guy and his Fellow Travelers.  That’s just the way it is.

But that doesn’t mean we have to sit by and watch them destroy what little of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which remain intact.

Get ready for the mid-terms.  (Update 112014… we won.  but it might not be enough if we still have no spine.)

It’s possible they believe there are no scandals… Hubris would explain that too.

If you make sh*t up, then write it down… and read it, you might just begin to believe it.  Such is the way of the Leftist.

A Little Riddle

You have a Problem with how we Serve.

You ask questions with some nerve,

But No Matter how Big or how Small…

a Lie says it All.

Because we think it’s all you Deserve.

What am I?

If They Can Stop Just One Terrorist Attack, It Is Worth It

I’ve always had a soft spot for Stormtroopers… Good Guys Wear White right?

Real Science

View original post

Where’s the DHS?

…or, Suspiciously Absent.

So here’s an interesting question;  Where is the Department of Homeland Security in this NSA Domestic Spying debacle?

The FBI is gleaning information from Innocent Citizens records courtesy of the NSA.  It goes without saying that the NSA is enjoying information from Innocent Americans records, it’s their program.

But where is DHS on this?

You must believe the agency supposedly tasked with the internal safety and security (formerly a FBI responsibility…) might be mildly interested in the type of data mined from your credit card purchases and phone records, not to mention your e-mail.

Yet, no word about their involvement.

Are they not involved?  Or, would that be the last straw as it would be extremely difficult to spin a tale the internal (read domestic) security service has legal, and constitutional, legitimacy to know everything about you… all the time… forever?

I have no information to say they are involved. None.

But it is the eerie silence… a complete absence of mention.  At the very least I would expect someone from DHS to slip out a quiet press release saying they have nothing to do with the bounty being harvested over at the NSA, unless…

We’ll see.

We Did it to Protect You.

This has been the marketing line for every Security Apparatus every created.

It is the claim of Tyrants, and the refuge for Criminals.

There has never been a Government who built a Security Apparatus which it marketed to its population with the tag line of “We are Doing it to Oppress you.”

Evil is never so overt… unless you write scripts in Hollywood.

The idea that we can suddenly trust the words of those who are angry they are being forced with stating them openly, is inane.

What should be remembered is that those who did the lying were comfortable doing the lying. It is a Culture.  They do what they want, then openly deny it… comfortable that nothing ill will happen to them for doing so.

This is the point.

The United States Government answers to the Citizenry. It is a “bottom up” model.  Because of this, we are Unique in the World.

When those we elect, and those we appoint, suffer no genuine consequence for their malfeasance regardless of their supposed intentions, We have wandered far away from the above.

When people like me express concern regarding where this country is headed… and where we are now… we mean it.

No Black Helicopters here. Simply distress based on plenty of history and observation.