Chris Kelly, a writer with "Real Time with Bill Maher," wrote a piece on the Huffinton Post on Saturday about Joe McGinniss' move next door to Sarah Palin and her family. Of course anyone who writes for Bill Maher is going to have a very level-headed and completely fair outlook on things, especially political things...and especially political things that have to do with the apparently dumbest woman in the world, Sarah Palin.
He writes his little piece, obviously a bit of satire, comparing how the Palins are upset about McGinniss moving so close to the Bush Administration's use of "torture." Kelly writes:
So, for Joe McGinniss, and any other nosey Parker looking for information about someone, here's a guide - from Bush Administration lawyers who acted in good faith to protect us -- as to what's acceptable and what isn't.
And he goes on to list various types of this torture and explanations given by the Bush lawyers. Now, here's the thing, I'm not making an argument whether or not torture was justified under the Bush Administration. You see, Mr. Kelly, what you happened to miss was that the Palins are American citizens and have certain rights that American citizens enjoy that enemy combatants do not. So comparing the rights of the Palins to terrorists is apples to oranges, even if you were "joking around" and weren't actually suggesting that Todd Palin be tortured.
The EPA has announced a video contest called Rulemaking Matters! that challenges Americans "explain federal rulemaking and motivate others to participate in the rulemaking process" with a 90 second video. The winner gets a $2500 taxpayer-funded prize.
Seriously?
I mean, really?
Soooooo, that means, I'm going to throw my hat into the ring. I've begun making my own little video to enter into the contest. Unfortunately for me, I won't be winning the award although I will follow each and every rule. I will post it when I submit it.
___________________________
By the way, anyone see the irony in the way the liberals are flipping out about the new Arizona illegal immigrant law? According to them, it's unconstitutional, which it may be. It's funny, though, they are perfectly okay with trampling over the Constitution when it involves pushing their own agenda, but when the shoe's on the other foot, look out.
Here's the deal: how about the federal government does what it's supposed to do and actually protects its citizens and seals the border from illegals. For once, I'm yelling at Obama and saying "DO SOMETHING!" But he's never going to do the right thing, he's going to try to give illegals amnesty. Oh boy...
The FDA has decided that it's going to start "working with" the food industry to gradually decrease the salt levels in foods.
Oh really?
A lot of people will come out and say, "Hey, they're just trying to keep people healthy. What's the matter with reducing salt intake?" There's nothing wrong with reducing salt intake, but let me, MYSELF, decide whether or not I want to do that. Tell me where in the Constitution it says that the government has the right or responsibility to regulate the health of its citizens.
Some people have good intentions with this. They think that they're making a "healthy America" or something. But they don't understand the danger in this. It sets a precedent that the government is allowed into the individual's life.
"But it's just one small thing they're doing!" they'll say. The nanny state will not take over your life all at once. It needs to do it slowly and in a way that you won't notice. How would you try to move a pile of 1000 bricks? Would you try to lift them all together at once or just take a few at a time?
And isn't it ironic that they decided to start this after the health care bill was passed? They only talked about doing it before, but now the plan is in place. With the government taking steps to take over the health care system, they're going to have to start determining where the funds go. And yes, I mean rationing. If the government's going to be paying for your health care, they're going to want to reserve the right to tell you how to keep your health.
Still not convinced about nanny state? The group lobbying for the FDA to regulate salt is the Center for Science and Public Interest, founded by Michael Jacobson (who has a column on the Huffington Post). He's got a huge problem with soda and wants it to be required that warning labels be placed on soda cans and bottles that warn about tooth decay and obesity. Seriously, who doesn't know that soda can do that to you if you drink too much of it? He also was an important person in getting calorie counts to be included on the menu boards in fast food restaurants in the Affordable Health Choices Act. (1) Once again, who doesn't know that a Big Mac is bad for you? According to his Wikipedia page, "Jacobson advocates higher taxes on unhealthy foods, greater use of warning labels on food and beverage packaging, restrictions on advertising and selling junk foods (“snack foods"), and lawsuits against food producers and retailers whose practices he believes are detrimental to public health." (2) High taxes on "unhealthy" foods and restriction on junk food? The Center of Consumer Freedom has named him the "nanny of the year" three times. (2)
You see, society nowadays is very conscious of its health. If a company can make a product that tastes good but is healthier than competition at a competitive price, people will buy it. Let each individual decide what he or she eats. Hey government, stop poking your nose into my life, I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions.
Maybe I'm stupid, but here are just a few things I don't understand...
How can the Tea Party protesters be both anti-government and fascist?
How can President Obama make fun of the Tea Parties and their protesting when he was a community organizer himself?
How can Joe Biden and John Stewart use the F-bomb and be celebrated for it when Dick Cheney is slammed for it?
How is it seditious to criticize President Obama's policy but "patriotic" to portray President Bush with a Hitler moustache and a bullet in his forehead?
How is criticizing considered based on race but calling a black man an "Uncle Tom" isn't?
Why was President Bush criticized for the Patriot Act but no one has said a word when President Obama extended the PATRIOT Act?
Why is it wrong to refer to Obama's administration as the "Obama Regime" but it's perfectly acceptable to say "Bush Regime?"
We've all heard about this joker now, Jason Levin, the founder of the crashtheteaparty.org website. Well, his school district has placed him on administrative leave and are investigating whether or not he used school computers and school time to work on his website. I'm sure he started the site with a nice smug smile on his face thinking "Oh, I've really got them now," but the way it's blown up in his face is quite enjoyable to watch.
A few days ago, I decided to mozy on over to his site and see what was going on. I found something hilarious. The site, for Tea Party crashers, ended up getting swarmed upon by actual Tea Party members themselves and they filled the forums with some quite funny content of their own. As time wore on, less and less crashers were active, except for a few "brave" souls who tried to pretend like they were Tea Party members after a few days of being open crashers.
I don't like to call people dumb or stupid for disagreeing with me, but this guy is an idiot. He was so arrogant that he thought that the Tea Partiers wouldn't be able to figure out a way to combat what he was trying to do...and figure it out very quickly. It just goes to show how out of touch the people who really hate Tea Parties are.
Simple question to Jason Levin: if the Tea Parties really are homophobic, racist, and whatever else you accuse them of being, why would you have to plant phonies in there to act like they are homophobic, racist, etc? Just let them do their own thing and people will see them for what they are. Oh wait, that would mean that they would show that they're not racist, homophobic, or sexist.
Keep having fun, Jason. And keep giving us an easy target.
So I figured I'd stroll on over to my favorite site, MoveOn.org, to see wat they were up to. And right at the top of the page was a call for people to sign a petition to President Obama that told him who they want for a Supreme Court nominee. I found it hilarious. Here it is:
"President Obama: Choose a Supreme Court nominee who has a track record of standing up for everyday Americans and who will oppose efforts by right-wing justices to expand the power of corporations."
So, uh, what about that Constitution thing? Aren't Supreme Court Justices supposed to have a track record of upholding what the Constitution says? It's not about blocking right or left wing politics.
I find it funny. Surprising? Absolutely not, I've come to expect this kind of thing from groups like this.
I found this one awhile ago, but it's still very relevant. On February 6, 2009, my favorites, the Young Turks, posting a video giving Glenn Beck the "TYT Ban." They claimed they would never talk about Beck again unless he did something really ridiculous. Here's the clip:
They've really kept their word on it, right?
The thing is, they just can't help themselves. There have videos almost daily that go after Glenn Beck. And don't get me wrong, I have no problem with someone disagree with Glenn Beck on everything, but the Young Turks take it to a new level. They don't bother to actually argue the facts of what Beck says, they just do their patented ad hominem attacks.
Just look at the comments on their videos about Glenn Beck. TYT's fans seem to hate him personally. If you want to see vitriol, look at these comments. So the Young Turks know this, so to keep the fire burning, they just keep fanning the flames.
So I periodically watch the Young Turks' Youtube videos to see what the far left and Progressive movements are saying (although they ironically consider themselves to the be centrists). And like many liberals, they have an unwavering hatred for everything Glenn Beck. And so in order to prove their point, they either hold back some important information or straight up lie.
Here, the topic is Net Neutrality and why Glenn Beck is apparently an idiot for being against it.
Cenk said that conservatives and libertarians should look this up. So I did. And guess what, I'm against Net Neutrality. Like many things, it sounds like something great on the surface, but if you look at it a little more, you begin to see why it's not a good idea. I don't like the idea of companies blocking certain information and many will say that it is against free speech. But don't companies have free speech as well?
If certain cable companies are trying to block material they don't like, then people will not give them their business. Comcast is apparently one of the "violators," but they have their reasons for doing what they're doing. If you're okay with their practices, then you're fine. If you disagree, then take your business somewhere else. That's the glory of the free market. The consumers hold the chips.
The reason why people are against the Net Neutrality is that it would give the federal government (specifically the FCC) the power to regulate the internet. It's not like Net Neutrality would give the government complete control over the internet, but it sets a precedent and a starting point for government regulation of the internet. And it's not just Americans for Prosperity who's against it (click here to see their statement on it), the Heritage Foundation also agrees (click here to see their statement). Do you know who else disagree with Net Neutrality? The Supreme Court.
The Young Turks also touch upon the claim that Free Press is a marxist organization. But really, all they do is make the claim seem ridiculous, which is usually what they do with accusations like this instead of proving it wrong. I mean, who in their right mind tackle the actual argument? They also didn't show the second half of the Glenn Beck clip. Here's the whole clip. Watch it from 1:50 to the end.
So, uh, looks like there's a little more to Free Press and its founder, Robert McChesney, than the Young Turks would like you to believe. Clearly, McChesney and Free Press are all about free speech, right? What's also troubling is that Free Press' motto is "Reform media. Transform democracy." Umm, what's that supposed to mean?
And if that's not enough, McChesney served as co-editor of Monthly Review, which, according to its co-editor, John Bellamy Foster, "it was and is Marxist." (nytimes.com) Its founder, Paul Sweezy was "the nation's leading Marxist intellectual and publisher during the cold war and McCarthy era." (nytimes.com) And oooh, it has included work from Che Guevara. (nytimes.com)
I also find it interesting that Utne magazine named McChesney one of the "50 Visionaries Who Are Changing the World." Although they consider themselves "Not right, not left, but forward thinking" (you mean like progressive?), Wikipedia classifies their political alignment as "Left/liberal." And that makes sense when some of their covers are as follows:
So thanks for the honesty, Utne.
And that's one of the overall problems: so many people and organizations aren't being honest about who they really are. And the Young Turks have no issues with covering up for them. They're perfectly content with assuming that the name "Net Neutrality" is also it's definition. Really, they need nebulous and sometimes contradictory names in order to fool people into taking them for what they are on the surface.
I consider myself to be a libertarian. I am both fiscally and morally conservative and I believe that the best kind of government is small and limited government. I am an American, and a proud one. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution, so let's use it.
