► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘government’ Category

Freddy Gray Autopsy Report Deals Blow to Murder Charges

by Iron Fist ( 166 Comments › )
Filed under Crime, Democratic Party, DOJ, Progressives at June 25th, 2015 - 6:29 am

Speaking of Civil Wars (I just did a vitriolic Facebook status report about the Left’s seeming lust for a new Civil War to kill or enslave the South), we have this missive from the Baltimore Front:

Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby has withheld the autopsy report on Freddie Gray from defense counsel and the public for nearly two months. It is the report on which she relied to file murder and other charges against six police officers, even though the investigation into Mr. Gray’s death was not close to being complete. Now, just two days before Friday’s court deadline for the state to disclose the report to the defense, it has been leaked to the Baltimore Sun. The Sun’s story makes it easier to understand why Ms. Mosby wanted the autopsy kept under wraps. It raises additional disturbing questions about her case — a case in which she has already had to dismiss false-imprisonment charges, the untenable nature of which I explained when Mosby filed them. It turns out that Mr. Gray “tested positive for opiates and cannabinoid.” Moreover, he carried on wildly when initially placed in the police van. It had previously been widely reported that he was not belted into his seat, a violation of recently adopted Baltimore police policy that Mosby dubiously makes the plinth of her case. The Sun’s latest dispatch, however, indicates that Gray was making matters difficult for the police: “yelling and banging, ‘causing the van to rock,’ the autopsy noted.” The van made several stops during its 45-minute ride. At the second one, six minutes after the arrest, Gray was reportedly “still yelling and shaking the van.” Police thus removed him and placed him in leg restraints — ankle cuffs, to go along with the handcuffs that had already been applied. Gray was “then slid onto the floor of the van, belly down and head first,” according to the autopsy report, which gingerly adds that he was, at that point, “still verbally and physically active.” It’s now easier to understand why Mosby wanted the autopsy kept under wraps: It raises additional disturbing questions about her case. It was after this, the medical examiner concluded, that Gray suffered a severe spinal injury (which led to his death, a week later). At some undetermined point during the van’s journey, he was catapulted by the force of its deceleration and crashed into the interior. The injury is likened to a “shallow-water diving accident.”

An accident. Not murder. Mosby has way over-charged this poor man. He may indeed be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but he is not a murderer, and the autopsy proves it. Mosby charged murder to placate the mob. She is sending the message that rioting works. It gets results. Therefore, when another unfortunate incident occurs you are much more likely to see more rioting. Mosby is on the side of the mob in this case. She is not on the side of the State, and she is certainly not on the side of Justice.

Mars Attacks: The Department of Education Must Go

by Mars ( 146 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Climate, Communism, Democratic Party, Education, Environmentalism, Fascism, Free Speech, Global Warming Hoax, government, Guest Post, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Political Correctness, Progressives, Regulation, Science, Socialism, Technology at June 16th, 2015 - 7:00 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/06/09/the-government-is-helping-fund-a-minecraft-style-game-for-teaching-kids-about-the-environment/

The government is helping fund a Minecraft-style game for teaching kids about the environment

Minecraft is a cultural phenomenon. The block-based exploration and crafting game was snapped up by Microsoft for $2.5 billion last year and has helped inspire competitors from giant toy companies like Lego.

Even the government is interested in building on Minecraft’s success: The Department of Education is helping fund a project known as “Eco” that looks a lot like Minecraft, except with a few added twists: There’s a looming ecological disaster and players must band together to make a community — agreeing on laws and living in harmony with the environment.

If they fail, the world dies forever. Strange Loop Games, the company behind the game, describes it a “global survival game” and says failure results in “server-wide perma death.”

Eco is designed to help teach middle school students about environmental science and was awarded a nearly $900,000 grant from the Department of Education last month. It has completed a test phase where 60 students in five classes tried it out, according to the grant contract. The prototype for that test run also received a DOE grant of around $150,000.

Here’s what the game prototype looks like in action:

The latest grant will help build out new features, including a teacher dashboard, and let researchers figure out how effective the game is by collecting data on 150 students in 10 classrooms. Half of the classes will use the normal environmental teaching plan, while the other half will supplement the curriculum with Eco — letting the developers see if the game actually helps boost students’ understanding of ecology.

Minecraft itself is already used by some educators for things like building replicas of ancient Roman apartment buildings and teaching problem-solving.

Understand, Minecraft is a phenomena amongst the younger crowd. It is a huge sprawling creative sandbox that allows the children to experiment with construction and even computer design and programming. This atrocity is something else entirely. It is also designed for programming, programming children to become Eco-nuts. It is developed using a gameplay that the kids are familiar with and enjoy, but adds in all of the Eco nonsense that you could ever hope a future generation of children would need to become good little “citizens of the world”.

Minecraft meets ecology simulation in an open-world educational game

By Charlie Hall on Jun 09, 2015 at 3:30p @Charlie_L_Hall
Share
Tweet
Stay Connected. Follow Polygon Now!
×

Veteran studio Strange Loop Games is embarking on an ambitious project to create a new kind of open world multiplayer game where the survival of every player on the server depends on careful management of in-game resources. With funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Eco hopes to become a platform for teaching middle school students about ecology in a communal, cloud-based game world.

Strange Loop calls their project a “global survival game.” In Eco’s fiction there is an impending disaster looming over humanity — an event like a meteor strike, a drought or a flood. The clock is ticking, and players must work together to prevent the onrushing apocalypse or risk “server-wide perma death.”

The tools at players disposal are familiar to anyone who’s played Minecraft. Eco’s world is a lush paradise, modeled after the Pacific Northwest, filled with plants and animals. But unlike Minecraft, real ecological forces are at play in the background.

“Resources are finite,” states the game’s website. “Chop down every tree and fail to plant more? They won’t be growing back. Hunt every elk for food? They’re now extinct. Pollute a section of land with mining runoffs? Your crops are poisoned. This ecosystem is your only lifeline in a race against time.

“You’re facing two existential crises simultaneously: an external threat that you must avert, and the threat of causing your own destruction. A rock and a hard place.”

But the game doesn’t want to be preachy, it just wants to attempt to simulate the real forces at play on our planet, give players a sense of ownership and empower them with the tools the make change.

“In Eco the goal isn’t to save the environment,” said studio head John Krajewski earlier this year in the YouTube video above. “The goal is to build. The goal is to create a civilization.”

In the background the game is constantly keeping track of real complex data, which allows players to see the changes being felt by in-game populations in near real time. While players on the server will be given free choice, the entire community will also have the opportunity to vote on laws that will change how they’re allowed to interact with the environment.

“Every law in Eco needs to be backed up with scientific documentation,” said Krajewski, “that’s based on the actual data that’s coming from the game.”

The game will run on a server in the cloud, which will allow players to access the game from anywhere — including at home or in the classroom. Teachers will be given a toolset to allow them to tailor individual worlds to meet their educational needs, effectively letting them create specific scenarios and influence the game world in real time.

“The classroom time is the chance to have the council meeting. … That’s where we see the role of the teacher is very important.”

The promise of the game has even captured the interest of the U.S. Department of Education, which has given Strange Loop Games a two year, $900,000 grant to develop the game. There is also a Kickstarter expected later this year.

“Eco is possibly the first video game where your character can actually save the world,” says the website, “because the alternative is for once possible.”
http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/9/8752973/eco-minecraft-ecology-simulation-strange-loop-games

The overarching themes of “save the world” is worrying enough, it’s when you get into what the game is designed for is when things get really terrifying. They have actually set it up where you “design laws” for your enviro friendly civilization.

This is blatant programming of children, you take something kids are already enjoying, you change it around to fit an agenda and then you force feed the kids the final result in the school system. If a company tried something this blatant they would be shut down and the heads would probably be thrown in jail. Your federal government at work. Changing hearts and minds, by mandate.

Mars Attacks: Liberals Establishing “Evidence” to Make Conservatism A Mental Disorder

by Mars ( 180 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Communism, Democratic Party, Education, Fascism, Free Speech, government, Guest Post, Hate Speech, History, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Nazism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism at May 12th, 2015 - 7:00 am

I recently stumbled this article. While the whole thing might seem to be innocent enough and not a direct attack, it’s pretty obvious to anyone who is paying attention that there are a lot more insidious motives involved in the “research” in this article. This is not true research, nor is it a true study, this is pop psychology teaming up with political correctness designed to destroy an opposing ideology. Psychology has been used for years as a bludgeon by the left to attack anything they dislike so this was inevitable. For those who think this is harmless, I would like to remind them that both Stalin and Hitler labeled their political opponents as insane and mentally deficient. It is a long used tactic of the left to discredit and imprison those who disagree. This is a vital step in their drive to impose their views on the rest of us.


http://mic.com/articles/95234/psychologists-discover-the-striking-difference-between-conservative-and-liberal-brains

Psychologists Discover the Striking Difference Between Conservative and Liberal Brains
By Tom McKay July 30, 2014

Psychologists Discover the Striking Difference Between Conservative and Liberal Brains

The news: Are conservatives and liberals really all that different? New scientific research says they are, and it’s all in their heads.

A growing consensus is emerging among political scientists and psychologists that differences between liberal and conservative ideology may actually be hardwired in our brains. Recent research from political scientist John Hibbing at the University of Nebraska and colleagues published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences argue that right-wingers possess what’s called a strong “negativity bias,” or physiological fixation on negative stimuli in their environments.

According to the study, conservatives have a more threat-oriented and reactionary mindset than liberals. If true, then differences between left and right may be just as physiological as they are psychological.

The studies: Hibbings and his colleagues published a comprehensive review of the evidence for their approach in the journal and invited feedback from 26 individual scholars or teams. Here are some of their findings:

– Multiple studies finding that non-political authoritarian parenting styles seem to be significantly linked with political conservatism.

– Evidence showing that the Big Five personality traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to new experiences, extraversion and emotional stability) are correlated with political orientation. Specifically, liberals tend to score higher on experiential openness while conservatives tend to be strongly conscientious. Other evidence links politeness with conservatism and empathy with liberalism. Hibbings says these findings might indicate that liberals and conservatives “construct and occupy different individual and social environments.”

– NYU professor Jon Haidt found that conservatives emphasize moral purity, authority and in/out-group status while making moral judgements, whereas liberals consider equality and harm avoidance. Hibbings’ team also pointed to studies which have found conservatives to own more cleaning supplies and prefer different cuisine and art. Conservatives, he argues, tend not to enjoy the unfamiliar.

– Conservatives have stronger implicit attachment to traditional values and are more likely to see the world in strongly defined categories.

– Highly experimental but initially promising research linked complex neurological behavior to political ideologies. One paper even found evidence that neural structures may differ between young liberals and conservatives.

– A dramatic 2008 paper by Douglas R. Oxley that found contemporary American political conservatives react much more quickly and defensively to threatening stimuli. Those stimuli included “a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it.”

What does this all mean? The researchers stopped short of saying that conservatives and liberals have fundamentally different kinds of brains and admit ideology is far too messy to categorize into neat labels. But they are confident there’s a link between strong negativity biases and political conservatism and that both are associated with a wide range of subconscious, psychological and possibly neurological factors. Tellingly, just three of the 26 responses by critics rejected the idea entirely.

A “negativity bias” may sound like a bad thing, but Hibbings and his team noted it’s associated with higher levels of satisfaction and life happiness. But Salon’s Paul Rosenberg noted that the study shows conservatism is clearly unsuited for the modern era and its “negatives clearly seem to be growing beyond all control.”

Hibbing is more optimistic, arguing that by acknowledging the cognitive factors involved in the formation of our ideologies, we can move towards a more realistic and functional form of politics.

More realistic and functional politics? Wouldn’t that be nice.

This is evil at work. And it just keeps going. Here’s a new one I found the next day.

http://neuropoly.com/2011/04/05/psychology-sex-dirtyliberals-disgust-morality-politics/

Soap, Sex and the Dirty Liberal
April 5, 2011 dj Leave a comment Go to comments

Do you find Rush Limbaugh more palatable after vs. before taking a bath? Might you be more inclined to linger on the Bill O’Reilly Show while channel flipping in a recently-mopped and cleaned room compared to a dirty and disheveled one?

Perhaps you just might. At least, that’s what recent research from Cornell’s Erik Helzer and David Pizarro suggests. Their just published study showed that reminding people of physical cleanliness made them report being more politically conservative and also led them to make harsher moral judgments when considering mildly perverted sex acts.

The study builds upon work showing links between moral judgment and the subjective experiences of bodily purity and visceral disgust. Recent studies have shown that individuals who experienced disgust in response to foul odors or by sitting at a dirty desk, judged the moral transgressions of others far more harshly compared to controls. The general idea behind these and other studies is that moral judgments are in part based on emotional responses which originally evolved for other purposes. For example, visceral disgust — say, the kind one might experience when smelling rotten meat — likely evolved as a means of detecting and avoiding harmful pathogens. The argument, as it goes, suggests that self-reported moral disgust responses to, for example, a visible display of homosexual affection (two men kissing) could be subserved by the same system from which “visceral disgust” responses emerge. The current study builds on this work with a crafty two-part experiment.

In the first study, participants were approached in the hallway of a campus building and asked to complete a questionnaire, which asked three questions about political orientation. Participants were instructed to stand either near a hand sanitizing station (the experimental condition) or step over to a wall where there was no hand sanitizer nearby (the control condition) to complete the questionnaire. Those who stood near the hand sanitizing station rated themselves as being more conservative than the control group.

In the second study a wall sign commanding researchers to “use hand wipes” before typing at a computer served as a reminder of cleanliness. Additionally, while the moral judgement task was introduced, participants were asked to use a hand wipe before starting. In the control condition, there was no sign and subjects weren’t asked to wipe their hands. First, participants filled out the political orientation questionnaire from experiment 1. As in the first study, participants in the cleanliness condition rated themselves as more conservative. Then participants engaged in the moral judgment task in which they were asked to rate their moral approval of sex-related items, such as:

“A woman enjoys masturbating while cuddling with her favorite teddy bear”
“After a late-term miscarriage, a woman asks her doctors to take a picture of her cradling the miscarried fetus.” (phew!)

Participants who received the cleanliness reminder issued harsher moral judgments of sexual acts than the control group. As a within-group control, both groups were also asked to rate their level of approval of non-sexual but purity related items such as “As a practical joke, a man unwraps his office mate’s lunch and places it in a sterilized bed pan” and non-sexual, non-purity related items that described people lying on their taxes, or forging a reference letter. For these latter two groups of items, there was no difference between control and experimental groups. Only the sexual items were rated more harshly by those in the “cleanliness” condition. In sum, reminders to maintain cleanliness led to increased conservativeness and harsher moral judgments for sexual violations of purity but not for non-sexual and/or non-purity related violations.

The paper adds to the growing body of work supporting the idea that moral condemnation may have evolved by piggybacking onto evolutionarily older systems originally dedicated mainly to survival via “literal” pathogen avoidance and concern with personal cleanliness and only later being adapted for a more uniquely human purpose. One big question that emerges from this work is: what comes first? The cognitive disposition or the ideology? The author’s suggest that the evidence supports a bidirectional explanation. Beyond that it’s mostly speculation.

Also unclear is the question of the relationship between moral condemnation and moral behavior. Does one predict the other? Conservatives often describe themselves as adhering to higher moral standards when it comes to sex than liberals. And they tend not to be supportive of “alternative” lifestyles, especially romantic relationships between homosexuals. Conversely, most liberals take pride in their embrace of a wider range of lifestyle choices and more progressive sexual attitudes. But, this is not to suggest that either conservatives’ or liberals’ attitudes necessarily maps directly on to their behavior. People sometimes say the wrong thing and do the right thing. Or, conversely, say the right thing and do the wrong thing.

Reference

Helzer EG, & Pizarro DA (2011). Dirty Liberals!: Reminders of Physical Cleanliness Influence Moral and Political Attitudes. Psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society / APS PMID: 21421934

Don’t let yourselves be fooled. This is an attempt to make normal, historically accepted behavior deviant. And make deviancy normal. Very soon, conservative thought and opinion will be either a mental health or criminal situation.

30 April 1975 – 40 Years Ago: Never Forget The Fall Of Saigon (and the bloodshed that followed).

by Bunk X ( 223 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Democratic Party, government, History, Media, Military, Politics, Viet Nam, World at April 30th, 2015 - 7:00 am

SOUTH VIETNAM FLAG 2

On 30 April 1975, the capitol of South Vietnam was captured by the NVA and the Republic ceased to exist. The gruesome carnage that followed as the communists overran the country had not been seen since WWII, yet it was described in the US media left as a march to freedom.

Tell that to the survivors and see what you get.

Of those who escaped the bloodshed, most arrived on US soil with little more than their lives, and many passed through Camp Pendleton’s tent encampments as refugees where they were fed, clothed and provided medical treatment. These people, with no country to return to, were grateful for the opportunity to succeed and prosper, and they did. The Vietnamese community in Southern California is a modern story of successful assimilation (without the burden of false handouts called Affirmative Action) and yet they preserved their ethnic heritage. Little Saigon is a prime example of a thriving business district created from next to nothing. Then this happens.

A Commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of The Fall of Saigon was scheduled over a year in advance, with thousands expected to attend ceremonies at Camp Pendleton, the gateway to freedom for many Vietnamese refugees.

A U.S. policy that would prohibit the use of South Vietnamese symbols on federal property has killed a commemoration ceremony at Camp Pendleton for the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon.

The decision to scrap the location has sent organizers scrambling for new options in the Little Saigon area – with two weeks left until the planned event at which 5,000 to 10,000 were expected to attend.

“We call it a banner of freedom and heritage and not having it would be a big deal,” Kenneth Nguyen, the spokesman for the commemoration’s organizing committee, said of the South Vietnamese flag. “We’re looking at other possibilities, but we won’t know until Monday.”
[…]
The all-day event, scheduled for April 25, has been in the planning for more than a year. Camp Pendleton was chosen for its significance as the first base on U.S. soil to house Vietnamese refugees after they fled their homeland.

To many in Little Saigon, Pendleton represents the refugees’ first step in becoming a successful American community.
[…]
As news of the cancellation swept through Little Saigon, the reaction was one of disappointment and sadness – and disapproval of the U.S. policy.

“It is true that the flag is the flag of South Vietnam as a nation and that nation is no longer recognized,” Garden Grove Councilman Phat Bui said. “But it is also a symbol for the Vietnamese community worldwide. It is a symbol of the refugees and of freedom. It’s a mistake not to allow it.”
[…]
Not everyone, though, agreed with the decision to move the ceremony away from the Marine base.

“It’s unfortunate, but I understand. If I was in the U.S. government’s position, I would have done what I had to, even if I regretted it,” said Leslie Le, a former colonel in the South Vietnamese Army. “But as a community, we don’t recognize the government of Vietnam as really representing the people. … We could have still held it at Camp Pendleton and asked everyone to wear the color of the flag. That wouldn’t have been prohibited.”

[Source]

With only weeks to go, the Commemoration was moved to Little Saigon and I plan to attend. You’ll recognize me as the tall white guy waving
The Flag of The Republic Of Vietnam.

SOUTH VIETNAM FLAG

Husky Lover Bonus:

A great read about the Fall of Saigon is Black April: The Fall of South Vietnam. The book blames the Democrat Congress that was elected in 74 for the fall of Saigon.

B-I-NGO Revisited

by coldwarrior ( 256 Comments › )
Filed under government, Open thread at March 27th, 2015 - 7:47 am

The original Post is here.

Pat Buchanan continues the story about these pesky and insidious worms. They are organizations of true believers, zealots funded by your money.

NGOs: Agents of subversion?

 

Though “Bibi” Netanyahu won re-election last week, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will still look into whether the State Department financed a clandestine effort to defeat him.

Reportedly, State funneled $350,000 to an American NGO called OneVoice, which has an Israeli subsidiary, Victory 15, that collaborated with U.S. operatives to bring Bibi down.

Are we now secretly pumping cash into the free elections of friendly countries, to dump leaders President Obama dislikes? And there is a larger question: Is the U.S. using NGOs to subvert regimes around the world? If so, who decides which regimes may be subverted?

What gives these questions urgency is the crisis that has Moscow moving missiles toward Europe and sending submarines and bombers to probe NATO defenses.

America contends that Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea and backing for pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine is the cause of the gathering storm in Russian-NATO relations. Yet Putin’s actions in Ukraine were not taken until the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian regime in Kiev, in which Moscow contends an American hand was clearly visible.

Not only was John McCain in Kiev’s Maidan Square egging on the crowds that drove the regime from power, so, too, was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. In an intercepted phone call with our ambassador in Kiev, Nuland identified the man we preferred when President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted. “Yats,” she called him.

And when Yanukovych fled after the Maidan massacre, sure enough, Arseniy Yatsenyuk was in power. Nuland also revealed that the U.S. had spent $5 billion since 1991 to bring about the reorientation of Ukraine toward the West.

If the U.S. had a role in that coup, the American people should know it. And if we are now using NGOs as fronts for secret operations to dump over regimes, we are putting all NGOs abroad under suspicion and at risk.

Not in our lifetimes has America been more distrusted and disliked. Among the reasons is that we are seen as constantly carping at governments that do not measure up to our standards of democracy and endlessly interfering in the internal affairs of nations that do not threaten us.

Nor is it Moscow alone that is angered over U.S. interference in its internal affairs and those of its neighbor nations. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt has expelled members of U.S. NGOs. Beijing believes U.S. NGOs were behind the Occupy-Wall-Street-style street blockages in Hong Kong.

If true, these actions raise a fundamental question: What is the pre-eminent goal of U.S. foreign policy? Is it to protect the vital interests and national security of the republic? Or do we believe with George W. Bush that “the survival of liberty” in America “depends on the success of liberty in other lands.”

If it is the latter, then our mission is utopian — and unending. If we believe our liberty is insecure until the whole world is democratic, then we cannot rest until we witness the overthrow of regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Belarus, most of the Arab and African nations, as well as Venezuela and Cuba.

And if that is our goal, our republic will die trying to achieve it.

 

 

State’s Rights and Medical Marijuana

by coldwarrior ( 192 Comments › )
Filed under government, Health Care, Open thread, Politics at March 10th, 2015 - 9:04 am

Rand Paul and others are introducing a bill that strikes a blow for state’s rights. So, for those who don’t care for or are against legalization of marijuana, lets change ‘medical marijuana’ to any of the other onerous fedgov control mechanisms and extortion that they hold over the states…ban on ammo? federal hate crime laws? extortion through the laundering of tax money?

This is a step in the right direction, not only for medical marijuana, but more importantly for a stronger Constitution. The States should be the seat of power, not Washington DC. The States should decide what is best for them, not some power-hungry scumbag in DC.

This will be a good test to see exactly what Congressmen, Senators, and Presidential Candidates think about State’s Rights over the power of fedzilla. I will be watching this very closely.

 

Rand Paul to introduce medical marijuana bill in U.S. Congress

(Reuters) – Senator Rand Paul, a possible Republican presidential candidate, will introduce legislation with two Democrats that would prevent the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana users in states where it is legal, aides said on Monday.

While the bill’s prospects in Congress are uncertain, it could help the libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator stand out in what is shaping up to be a crowded field ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Public opinion has shifted dramatically toward legal marijuana in recent years, and several of Paul’s potential Republican rivals have framed it as a states’ rights issue. Few have been as active on the issue as the libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator.

Paul has been an outspoken critic of the war on drugs and has said pot users should not be put in jail. He has pushed to legalize hemp, a less-potent version of the plant, for industrial purposes.

Last month, he accused former Florida governor Jeb Bush, a potential rival, of “hypocrisy” for opposing medical marijuana in Florida after admitting to pot use as a student.

Medical marijuana is now legal in 23 states and the District of Columbia, and voters have approved it for recreational use in four states and Washington, D.C.

But it remains illegal at the federal level. That disparity locks marijuana businesses out of the banking system and exposes users to arrest.

Paul’s legislation would ensure that buyers and sellers in those states would not risk federal prosecution if they are complying with state and local laws, according to congressional aides and a marijuana-advocacy group.

(If anyone has questions about medical marijuana, I will be more than happy to answer them.)

Mars Attacks: Net Neutrality and a Very Dark Puzzle

by Mars ( 157 Comments › )
Filed under American Exceptionalism, Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Business, Censorship, Communism, Cult of Obama, Economy, Education, Fascism, Free Speech, government, Guest Post, History, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, taxation, Technology at February 27th, 2015 - 1:40 pm

I have been noticing for a very long time now that there seems to be a cohesive puzzle being assembled by the left in regards to the internet. Through time I’ve been able to pick up the pieces of this puzzle, but today with the imposition of new regulations under the guise of Net Neutrality the puzzle becomes much clearer. I believe that the Net Neutrality regulations are the “frame” of this puzzle. Here are some of the pieces of collected through the years, see if you can see the same picture I do.

2011
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/

http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Reveals+National+WiFi+Plans+Claims+it+Will+Cut+Deficit+by+10B+USD/article20887.htm

2015
http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Obama-Pitching-More-Access-to-Fast-Internet-288518261.html

http://gizmodo.com/fcc-redefines-broadband-to-bring-you-faster-internet-1682516928

And now the new Net Neutrality regulations.

Through speeches since his election Obama has referred to a Free and Open Internet constantly, with stress on the word free. Many time there have been references to poor people who can’t afford internet. This coupled with everything else I posted above paints a dark picture for the future. One of the stumbling blocks for the people who want everyone to have access to the internet has been the fact that the average paying customer has been offended at the idea of people getting “broadband” speeds for free while everyone else has to pay for them. By changing the definition of broadband, the FCC has just managed to open up a huge amount of speed variations that they can now force companies to give away while not calling them broadband.

Second, by reclassifying broadband the FCC can force companies to meet a minimum standard for broadband service, which will require a complete reworking of the internet infrastructure. Where will this money come from ? Well, I figure the government will suddenly appear to save the day the way they did with the banks. There will be massive strings attached. The worst part is this money they will be handing out will already have come from the companies themselves in the form of the new utility taxes and regulatory fees that come with Title II reclassification of a utility. (The speech writes itself, I can already see Obama pontificating on this very subject. “90% of this country are getting below broadband speeds,………. this is a problem,………… a problem that can only be fixed…. by investing in the American Infrastructure”. /insert applause from mindless drones./ “The people of this country…….. deserve better……….and I intend to see that that happens.” As we all know “investing in the American infrastructure is left speak for massive tax hikes.)

There is even more to this than my little conspiracy theory.

Net Neutrality is a horror story in it’s own right. Who here is old enough to remember the Ma Bell monopoly that the government created out of the depression and allowed to run wild until the late 70’s? Well here is someone who does. He’s a member of the FCC’s own commision, Commissioner Ajit Pai.

http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a5

h/t Calo

In his oral dissent Commissioner Pai lays out exactly why this is such a dangerous set of regulations, and exactly what this means for the future of internet service. It’s not pretty, higher prices, slower speeds, less competition. It’s all there. And the best part? The regulations weren’t even written by the commission. The White House itself created a shadow FCC to write the rules they were going to impose. Here’s some of the people invited in to the White House to regulate the rest of us.

What the press has called the “parallel FCC” at the White House opened its doors to a plethora of

special-interest activists: Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Public

Knowledge, just to name a few. Indeed, even before activists were blocking Chairman Wheeler’s

driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials. But what about the rest of

the American people? They certainly couldn’t get White House meetings. They were shut out of the

process. They were being played for fools.

And the situation didn’t improve once the White House announced President Obama’s plan and

“ask[ed]” the FCC to “implement” it. The document in front of us today differs dramatically from the

proposal that the FCC put out for comment last May. It differs so dramatically that even zealous net

neutrality advocates frantically rushed in recent days to make last-minute filings registering their concerns

that the FCC might be going too far. Yet the American people to this day have not been allowed to see

President Obama’s plan. It has remained hidden.

This brave commissioner and the other republican on the commission attempted to get this regulation put out in the public eye where everyone could see it and review what it actually entailed. They were rejected by the 3 socialists on the commission. Make no mistake this set of regulations came DIRECTLY from the White House. Once again the President is making rules where he does not have the authority to do so. As an interesting aside to this, within Commissioner Pai’s dissent he shows a whole bunch of evidence and statements detailing how this is going to destroy small ISP companies. Some of the ISP’s that are about to be destroyed…the very Municipal (ie government) ISP’s he was lavishing praise on not long ago.

http://ctmirror.org/2015/01/14/white-house-pushes-fast-affordable-internet-praises-manchester-bristol-in-p/

To really see what is happening take a look at this thank you letter from the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, one of the groups at the forefront of trying to impose Net Neutrality.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win

What makes this letter interesting is not it’s general obsequiousness but the fact that they acknowledge that there is a vague statement in the regulations that would allow the FCC to pretty much do anything it damn well pleased, up to and including censoring content. (This is the same statement the the EFF has been trying to get them to drop since the regulations were first discussed.) It should also be noted that a year ago when the Chair of the FCC was trying to put into place much more limited rules over Net Neutrality, the EFF itself stated that the FCC had NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO.

The fact remains that the Net Neutrality regulations were a great bait and switch perpetrated on those that pay little attention to what is actually going on. I hope the gamers and video streamers that have been worshiping this disaster enjoy their new slower, much more expensive internet plan. Our only hope at this point is that the courts act on this takeover. (I nearly said unprecedented but I would have been wrong. This is exactly the same as FDR’s takeover of the telecom industry in 1934.)

Strangely enough, probably the best statement on Net Neutrality comes from the Secretary General of the European People’s Party.

EUROPE GETS IN ON THE ACTION: The secretary general of the largest party in the European Parliament is adding to the chorus around net neutrality. Antonio López Istúriz-White of the center-right European People’s Party over the weekend chided President Obama for lambasting European regulations while at the same time calling for tough net neutrality rules from the FCC.

“The president’s position is riven with contradictions,” Istúriz-White wrote in a Financial Times op-ed. “He promotes burdensome regulations at home that could put the development of the Internet on ice in an attempt to protect one set of actors in the ecosystem. In another breath he calls on Europe to follow the very same successful U.S. model he wants to jettison to make life in Europe easier for that very same group of Over The Top players!”

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/overnights/233548-overnight-tech-pressure-building-ahead-of-net-neutrality-vote

Why indeed, does the President want to stifle progress and development at home, while promoting the opposite abroad?

Mars Presents: From The New American: Obama Hides Executive Abuses by Calling Decrees “Memoranda”

by Mars ( 170 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Communism, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Debt, Democratic Party, Energy, Fascism, government, Guest Post, Immigration, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Politics, Progressives, Regulation at January 7th, 2015 - 8:00 am

While everyone is watching and tracking his executive orders Obama is throwing out decrees left and right through Presidential Memorandas.

Despite promising repeatedly on the campaign trail to rein in George W. Bush’s executive-branch usurpations of power, Obama has been spewing a particular type of unconstitutional decree at a rate unprecedented in U.S. history. While the Obama administration has indeed unleashed a full-throated attack on the Constitution using “executive orders,” even more of his decrees have come in the form of so-called “presidential memoranda” — an almost identical type of executive action that he has used more than any previous U.S. president, according to a review published this week by USA Today.

Since taking office, Obama has issues 198 decrees via memoranda — that is 33 percent more than Bush, the runner up for the record, issued in eight years — along with 195 executive orders. Among other policy areas, Obama’s memoranda edicts have been used to set policy on gun control, immigration, labor, and much more. Just this week, Obama issued another memoranda decree purporting to declare Bristol Bay in Alaska off limits to oil and gas exploration — locking up vast quantities of American wealth and resources using his now-infamous and brazenly unconstitutional “pen and phone.”

“Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don’t require action by Congress,” reported USA Today as part of its investigation into Obama’s decrees. “They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.” However, despite the newspaper’s obvious confusion on constitutional matters — only Congress can make law, not the White House — the review raises a number of important issues.

For instance, as the paper implies, Obama has been using deception to conceal his radical — imperial or dictatorial, according to many lawmakers — machinations purporting to change policy and law by fiat. “The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years,” Obama claimed in a speech last July, without mentioning that he has issued more “memoranda” than any American president in history. “So it’s not clear how it is that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did.”

Other leading Democrats have made similarly deceptive arguments to dupe “stupid” voters, as ObamaCare’s Gruber put it. Aside from the fact that previous abuses by Republicans do not legitimize or excuse current abuses, the oft-heard claim that Obama has issued fewer “executive order” decrees than other presidents is more a matter of semantics than substance. “There’s been a lot of discussion about executive orders in his presidency, and of course by sheer numbers he’s had fewer than other presidents,” Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College, told USA Today.

“So the White House and its defenders can say, ‘He can’t be abusing his executive authority; he’s hardly using any orders,” Rudalevige continued. “But if you look at these other vehicles, he has been aggressive in his use of executive power.” Indeed, as The New American has documented extensively, Obama has been purporting to rule by executive fiat on everything from gun rights and the “climate” to immigration, education, national security, foreign relations, and health.

However, according to constitutional experts and even the president himself (before he took office), none of the “law”-making by presidential decree is actually legitimate. According to the U.S. Constitution, which created the federal government and granted it a few limited powers, only Congress has the power to make laws — assuming they are constitutional. The president’s job, by contrast, involves merely enforcing the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, not making them up while hiding behind patently bogus claims of imagined “executive authority.”

Obama, of course, understands that well — or at least he claimed to less than seven years ago. “I taught constitutional law for ten years,” then-Senator Obama told gullible voters in 2008 amid his first run for the presidency. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Except rather than reversing the illegitimate usurpation of unconstitutional power, Obama expanded it by leaps and bounds — to the point where his administration openly creates pseudo-“law” and pseudo-“treaties,” and then mocks Congress about it. Among the “memoranda” used by Obama thus far was the purported creation of the MyRA “savings” scheme, a widely ridiculed and criticized unconstitutional plot that analysts said would be used to extract more wealth from Americans under the guise of “helping” them. Even Congress does not have the authority to create such a program — much less the administration.

Obama, though, regularly brags about his lawless pseudo-lawmaking. “One of the things that I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for a legislation [sic] in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” Obama announced at the beginning of the year, right before his first cabinet meeting. “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone — and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”

Shortly after that, in his State of the Union speech to Congress, he brazenly told the American people’s elected representatives that he would ignore them if they did not promptly submit to his demands. “America does not stand still — and neither will I,” Obama threatened before lawmakers stood up and applauded the outlandish behavior. “So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.” Many lawmakers were furious, blasting Obama as a “socialistic dictator,” calling for his impeachment, and more, and the public was horrified, but the rule-by-decree continued.

Indeed, unlike his false campaign promises, Obama did indeed make good on his threats to continue ignoring Congress and the Constitution to rule by unconstitutional decree. Behaving more like a Third World dictatorship than a U.S. presidential administration, the White House even trotted out senior officials to tell the press that even the American people’s elected representatives would be unable to stop the usurpations and abuses. In addition to the “executive orders” and “presidential memoranda,” which the administration itself considers to be essentially the same, Obama has also unleashed dozens of so-called “presidential policy directives.”

Of course, there can be some legitimate functions for executive orders — outlining the manner in which the administration plans to faithfully execute the constitutional laws passed by Congress, for example. However, purporting to make and change law — or even contradict existing federal law, such as Obama’s radical amnesty-by-decree scheme supposedly preventing the enforcement of immigration law — are certainly not among those legitimate functions.

The solution to the imperial decrees and pretended acts of legislation from the White House is simple: Congress must refuse to fund it. However, despite being elected on a wave of popular outrage against the Obama administration’s usurpations of power, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle recently voted to fund virtually all of the White House’s illegal decrees through next September. The only way to put a stop to the scheming will be for an educated American electorate to hold their elected representatives accountable to the oath they swore, with a hand on the Bible, to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/19739-obama-hides-executive-abuses-by-calling-decrees-memoranda

Warren G and Silent Cal and the Banker Mellon

by coldwarrior ( 216 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, Election 2014, Elections 2016, government, History, Open thread, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, The Political Right at October 31st, 2014 - 6:21 am

Are we ready for Old School economics? Are there any GOPsters who dare do this in DC? Does the Right have an economic spine?

Lower taxes, Less Government? OH MY!

Good ol’ Warren G. & Silent Cal: Harding & Coolidge understood basic economics

By Amity Shlaes

Saturday, Oct. 25, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Republicans and Democrats resemble one another too closely for voter comfort these days. Whatever their own political leanings, voters would prefer more diversity in the policy spectrum.

Consider the question of whether the federal government should increase spending. Politicians’ answers come in a broad range: “yes” or “yes, a lot.” Even candidates who talk about cuts are really only speaking about reductions in increases. In fact, politicians don’t believe they really can make cuts. No modern president has, or at least no president who took office in peacetime.

Not Bill Clinton, who told the nation the welfare era was over. Not even Ronald Reagan, the great free-market president of the postwar era. Budget cutters, the assumption runs, can’t get elected. Federal austerity, the politicians often warn, might hurt the economy anyhow. Presidents just can’t say “no.”

But there have been peacetime presidents who said “no.” Two were presidents we scarcely hear about anymore, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. The 29th president died amid scandal in 1923 — but not before cutting the federal budget. Coolidge then served 512 years, to 1929, a period when the population and the economy grew. Yet when Coolidge left the White House and returned to his hometown of Northampton, Mass., the federal budget was actually lower than when he came in.

How Harding and Coolidge managed to say “no” is a good story and one that couldn’t have happened without the contribution of the nation’s greatest banker, Andrew Mellon.

The story starts in 1920 and in a fiscal landscape that would seem familiar. As today, the federal debt loomed over the future. Yet tax rates, ranging into the 70s, could hardly be pushed higher. The government had expanded, but various groups were pressing for greater federal spending. World War I veterans did not all find jobs and many were disabled — they sought a pension or a bonus.

With commodity prices bouncing up and down, farmers demanded some kind of subsidy stream as well. The presidents lacked control or even oversight of the budget: Congress called the shots. Yet Harding, an ebullient senator of Ohio, and Coolidge, a quiet governor of Massachusetts, ran and won on a ticket of “no.” They would say “no” to both high taxes and government expansion.

Harding did some of the first hard work of cutting. He shepherded through the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which unified the budget process under the president and gave the White House the power to impound and sequester. Harding also cut the budget and vetoed veteran pensions and farm subsidies.

Harding appointed Mellon as Treasury secretary, and Mellon adroitly rescheduled the debt; Harding and Mellon also passed a round of tax cuts. Harding was not a “naysayer” by temperament. He disliked using the veto on his old Senate colleagues. He appointed friends, rather than professionals, to key posts. Their corruption tainted his reforms and aborted them.

Few reckoned that Coolidge could continue or complete what Harding had started. Voters figured Coolidge was a lame duck, “the accident of an accident.” The real Republican candidate would emerge in 1924. Coolidge’s colleagues in Washington didn’t expect much either: “Coolidge had little about him that was regal,” recalled George Wharton Pepper, a senator of Pennsylvania.

Still, Coolidge pushed forward where Harding had hesitated. He and Mellon sought and received several more rounds of tax cuts, bringing the top marginal income tax rate down to 25 percent, a level even lower than Reagan’s. In his years observing railroads, Mellon had noted that when you cut the toll for a rail line, you might get more business. An owner charged, as Mellon put it, “what the traffic will bear.”

Mellon thought the same principle might apply to tax rates. Perhaps lower rates would permit more business activity and therefore bring higher revenues. Today we call this philosophy “supply-side economics.”

Coolidge was not as enthusiastic. His thrifty temperament led him to obsess about the budget. In fact, the president kept twin lion cubs, which the White House named “Tax Reduction” and “Budget Bureau.” The point was that the lions were twins: Fed on steak, they weighed the same. To match Mellon’s tax cuts, Coolidge kept up with budgets. He also vowed to prevent future spending. “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones,” Coolidge had written his father years before. As president, Coolidge “killed” 60 laws by veto, compared with Harding’s record of six.

The result of Mellon’s partnership with Harding and Coolidge pleased most Americans. Government became smaller; the number of strikes fell. Mellon had won his bet: Revenues for the government actually increased from 1924, even though tax rates were lower. The team lowered the debt by a third. Working-class families became middle-class when they found they were able to acquire new comforts such as Model Ts and Model As, electricity, and indoor plumbing. The 1920s were not the fragile illusion depicted in, say, “The Great Gatsby.” Voters knew it and rewarded the pro-austerity Coolidge in 1924 with a resounding victory.

Under Herbert Hoover, policy shifted, with the White House becoming active. This shift, indeed the whole story, is little known, in part because people blame the Great Depression of the 1930s on the 1920s. But that is misplaced. As I noted in “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,” the economic crash had multiple causes. Few had much to do with policies from 1920 to 1928.

Knowing about the Harding-Coolidge-Mellon record doesn’t assure us that voters will elect to the White House a candidate who says “no.” Knowledge of that forgotten record merely broadens the range of options politicians can feel comfortable offering to voters today. That is, such knowledge makes a candidate who says “no” possible. And asked whether a wider range of policy choices represents an improvement, even those who oppose such policies will probably want to answer “yes.”

Time to Panic?

by Iron Fist ( 217 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Economy, government, Politics at October 5th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Good article in the Free Beacon:

Deadly, irrational, and determined, the intruder snuck across a weakened perimeter. Eluding capture, the intruder was detained only after missteps and close calls. The spin began soon after the threat was isolated. Information was selectively leaked. Half-truths and untruths were uttered. Responsibility was avoided; privileges and credentials asserted; authority reasserted. Trust us. Remain calm. Don’t panic.

This is the template of recent events. A mental case jumps the White House fence. He makes it to the East Room before he’s tackled by an off-duty Secret Service agent. Initial statements turn out to be misleading or false. We discover that lapses in security are much worse than previously understood, that in recent memory the White House was sprayed with bullets, and that an armed man with a criminal record rode in an elevator with the president. The official in charge of the Secret Service, promoted for reasons of affirmative action, resigns hours after the White House expresses its confidence in her abilities. The overriding impression is of disarray, confusion, bad management, failed communication, anomie, disillusion, corruption, and secrecy. But do not worry. Things are under control.

The elevator? It was in the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, where the president told the American people that the Ebola outbreak in West Africa is not a threat to our country. President Obama said the chances of Ebola appearing in the United States are “extremely low.” If a carrier somehow finds his way to the 50 states, “We have world-class facilities and professionals ready to respond. And we have effective surveillance mechanisms in place.” Two weeks later, as Byron York points out, the president was proven utterly wrong.

And he goes on with more examples. The upshot:

It is precisely the intersection of Ebola and globalization that worries me. The only response to a virus this deadly is to quarantine it. Stop flights, suspend visas, and beef up customs and security. It can be done. If the FAA can cancel flights to Israel, why can’t it cancel flights to and from the West African countries whence the outbreak originated?

Simple: because doing so would violate the sacred principles by which our bourgeois liberal elite operate. To deny an individual entry to the United States over fears of contamination would offend our elite’s sense of humanitarian cosmopolitanism. For them, “singling out” nations or cultures from which threats to the public health or safety of the United States originate is illegitimate. It “stigmatizes” those nations or cultures, it “shames” them, it makes them feel unequal. It’s judgmental. It suggests that America prefers her already existing citizens to others.

Such pieties endanger us. They are the reason we were slow to contain the influx of Central American refugees, the reason we do not follow-up on illegal immigrants who fail to show up for hearings, the reason we remain unable to strip jihadists of U.S. citizenship, the reason that a year after two Chechen refugees bombed the Boston Marathon, America is preparing to expand resettlement of Syrian refugees. The imperatives of the caste, the desire to make actual whatever is rattling around Tom Friedman’s brain at a given moment, take precedence over reality.

The system can withstand only so many shocks. For the last two years it has suffered nothing but blows, traumas, national and international concussions. The response by our government has been denial and delusion. But that has further alienated the public, and it won’t be long before things get really weird. Maybe it is time for the political class to panic, too.

Know hope? That’s passé.

Know fear.

He is right. Over and over our political class is falling short. We are proving again and a gain that our leaders simply aren’t up to the task of governing. My only question is what if they are doing it out of malice? I have been posing that question about Obama recently. I would say that at this point it is impossible to determine whether he is supremely incompetent or supremely malicious. It could be either of these, or both. But when they keep getting the same results from doing the same things, repeatedly and predictably, you have to ask if they are satisfied with the results that they are getting. The same is true of the political class as it is Obama himself. They insist on doing the same old same old, repeatedly, and they get the same piss poor results every time that they do it. It isn’t as though their policies have ever succeeded at bringing peace and prosperity to America. They always produce the same failures. Are our political elites somehow damaged intellectually, that they cannot see the results of their policies on every issue from gun control to foreign policy to the economy? Are they completely stupid? Even someone with mental handicaps is capable of recognizing when their actions produce negative results. They are (for the most part) capable of being self-critical, and of learning from their mistakes, and improving on the outcomes of their actions. Only the most severely mentally handicapped person is incapable of this (in my years in the restaurant industry I’ve worked with a number of developmentally handicapped people, and they have always shown the ability to do this). It is self-evident from their actions that either the Left must be incapable of this level of cognition (i;.e. rational and critical thinking), or they are acting with malice aforethought. You can’t necessarily prove which of these it is, but I ask you, if it were malice, what would they be doing differently than they are right now? I can’t think of much of anything. They do have to live in a world where they can only go so far openly, lest the LIVs catch on and vote them out of their offices, fire them from their jobs as academians, o r otherwise take steps to neutralize their malice.