google circa 2012 if sopa passes

Consumer protection confermation

 President Barack Obama isn't backing down from demanding that Republicans confirm his pick to head a new consumer watchdog office, saying GOP lawmakers are depriving middle-class Americans of better protection against the kind of deceptive business practices that contributed to the financial meltdown.

Every day that the country must wait for a director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board "is another day that dishonest businesses can target and take advantage of students, seniors and service members," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.

"So I refuse to take `no' for an answer. Financial institutions have plenty of high-powered lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them. It's time consumers had someone on their side."

Senate Republicans this past week blocked Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, to lead an agency they said had been given too much power and too little accountability.

Without a director, the office designed to shield consumers from the excesses behind the 2008 financial crisis is unable to operate at full strength.

With voters set to begin selecting a Republican presidential nominee in less than a month, Obama suggested the disagreement is another example of two parties who see fairness very differently. He said a consumer watchdog agency is critical to protecting ordinary Americans from the greed of the financial sector.

The internet as we know it is under attack

Not just from SOPA the sweeping bill in congress that would limit what you can and cannot see on the internet but also from COICA a bill Republicans and Democrats alike -- have signed onto. It would vastly expand the government's power to censor the Internet.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.
COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.

The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.

One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.

But if COICA passes, Viacom wouldn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down -- as long as they can persuade the courts that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, the whole site could be censored.

Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn't get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.)
COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet -- and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship.

Why cutting federal jobs is a bad idea

Earlier this week, Senate Republicans rolled out their proposal for financing an extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut scheduled to expire at the end of December. Disappointingly, the conservative counteroffer is to pay for this job creation measure by cutting federal employees' jobs and wages. The "pay-for" proposed by Senate Democrats -- a 3.25 percent surtax on the 1-in-500 households earning over $1 million -- for an expansion of the payroll tax cut is anathema to conservatives; Senate Republicans have already filibustered a litany of job-creation proposals that would be financed by varying millionaire surtaxes. Last night, the Senate Republicans filibustered yet another such jobs package -- both the proposed extension and expansion were rejected in the Senate.

The Senate Republican proposal would limit federal agencies to hiring only one replacement employee for every three full-time employees leaving the agency until employment has fallen by 10 percent. This would result in roughly 280,000 job losses -- ironic, given that the purpose of the payroll tax cut is to create jobs. Someone should remind the GOP that the purpose of a pay-for is to offset the cost of a policy, not its impact.

Laying off hundreds of thousands of federal workers is terrible policy for reasons beyond causing job loss during a jobs crisis. First, it ignores the need to keep up with a growing population. These civil service jobs deemed unnecessary by Senate Republicans include one out of 10 federal judges, FBI agents, Veterans Affairs doctors, National Institutes of Health cancer researchers, food safety inspectors, and air traffic controllers, to name just a few.

Republicans again back the rich against the middle class

 The Senate failed Thursday to pass an extension of a payroll tax cut, leaving in limbo a break that saved working class households about $1,000 apiece this year.

Democrats sought to extend and expand the break, while paying for it with a 3.25 percent surtax on incomes over $1 million. Just one Senate Republican, Maine's Susan Collins, voted for the middle class break, which died 51 to 49 in an unsuccessful effort to end a Republican filibuster. Three Democrats opposed the bill.

"I am extremely disappointed that Republicans' insistence on protecting millionaires from paying a penny more in taxes has blocked our effort to extend and expand the payroll tax cut for millions of middle class families and small business owners," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Minutes later, a Republican version of the measure was blocked by Democrats and a majority of the GOP senators.

Democrats had complained that it was too small of a break -- and that it was paid for by cutting 200,000 federal workers.

"Tonight's votes highlight a sharp contrast between the two parties: Democrats voted to put more money in the pockets of the middle class families who need it most, while Republicans would only support a bill that exacts a price from middle class workers while protecting the wealthiest Americans," Murray, the fourth-ranking Democrat, said.

Democrats pointed to the defection of Republicans from the GOP bill as an embarrassment for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who had predicted there would be support for some sort of payroll tax cut extension.

More US Soldiers Committed Suicide Than Died in Combat

re-posted from projectcensored.org


For the second year (2010) in a row, more US soldiers killed themselves (468) than died in combat (462). “If you… know the one thing that causes people to commit suicide, please let us know,” General Peter Chiarelli told the Army Times, “because we don’t know.”  Suicide is a tragic but predictable human reaction to being asked to kill – and watch your friends be killed – for a war based on lies.  Perhaps being forced to bag the mangled flesh of fellow soldiers could be another reason why some are committing suicide.



Read the full article here

If your mad about TARP watch this and it doesnt seem so bad anymore

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Why Senator Bernie Sanders is one of my personal heroes

SOPA threat to freedom of speech now looms in congress

Why we have deficit spending

The country of america has 308,745,538 people at the end of the last census. We spend 685.1 billion dollars on the millitary each and every year. that's 685,100,000,000 so for every man woman and child int he nation we spend roughly $2200 per year on the total military budget. $6 per day comes out of your taxes. 


This is the Operation budget of the defense department, but the spending doesnt stop there when you consider that the military dips into other departments for its functions such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA. When you include those functions it inflates up to 1.030–$1.415 trillion (the numbers on some of the debt spending for previous wars are scetchy) even taking the smaller amount 1.030 trillion dollars 1,030,000,000,000 it inflates up to $3300 per citizen per year. when you make less than $20,000 a year as many Americans do 3k dollars is a very real very large amount of money.


Americans spend more than any other country in the world on the military

The reason we have so many wars is because we have to justify the enormous cost of continuing post cold war spending on military programs. Dwight D Eisenhower (a republican and former WWII general of the armed forces) warned us of the military industrial complex 50 years ago in his farewell address:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government,we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

 Medicare and social security account for a large percentage of the deficit and has been on the wanted list for chopping block by republicans since its inception but nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room military spending.

The War on Thanksgiving

Why is there not an outcry about the creeping of "Black Friday" into Thursday by the easily outraged, especially the super patriotic types on FOX? Why are we letting greedy stores steal this unique national family valued event from their clerks, stockboys, cashiers, and managers?


I remember a few years ago the blowhards started crying about the "War on Christmas" because some folks suggested that wishing Merry Christmas to Jews, Muslims, and Atheists was rude and that people with good manners should simply wish the inclusive "Happy Holidays" so all could be included in the seasonal cheer. To them, politeness is "political correctness". Where is the patriotic outcry about the War on Thanksgiving, the holiday founded by people seeking religious freedom?


To me Thanksgiving is every bit as meaningful as the Fourth of July. When I sit down for dinner on the fourth Thursday in November I reflect on the fact that I am part of a ritual feast shared by so many for so long. And then, as I chew, I wonder, why don't we cook turkey more often? And the answer is. Because Thanksgiving and all the fixins are sacred. Let's keep it that way. Let's not go shopping til Friday morning and let's tell the shopkeepers to let their employees spend this special American day with their families and friends.

More abuse by police in occupy movement

The top voted comment for this video says it all

the use of weapons is not justified by police officers unless they are under threat of immediate attack - thats their own rules and thats the law - try to tell me with a straight face that officer who shot him was in imminent threat of attack by the guy filming.

the next time someone tries to force that old line "christian principals the country was founded on line"...

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." -- George Washington (From the Treaty of Tripoli).  

"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled."  -- Millard Fillmore 

[L]eave the matter of religious teaching to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate." -- Ulysses S. Grant

"I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this county in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." -- Andrew Jackson (In his refusal to establish a national day of prayer).

"There is not a shadow of right on the general goverment to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject that I have warmly supported religious freedom." -- James Madison

"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Glenn beck attacks vet

Sgt. Shamar Thomas, an Iraq war vet who spent 14 months in Iraq, was captured on video chastising the New York Police Department for using excessive force against demonstrators.  “This is not a warzone!” and “There is no honor in this!”  You can see the shame in the eyes of the police as this hero speaks to them. They know what their bosses are telling them to do is wrong.

His message to the police that they too are citizens and part of the 99%. They don't have to fight the protesters they should be joining them against the forces in power that want to harm the middle class.

here the slime ball beck's take on this mans message of peace

Glenn beck sure does talk a mean game but I didnt see him step up to fight the wars his buddies in the white house started ten years ago. This man has the temerity to mock a man that gave over a year of his life serving in a war that should not have happened in the first place.

The man was fed up with what was happening, there are many documented cases of brutality against the movement  Sure the police were not doing anything right then but what about the pepper spray incident or the woman that was forcibly dragged under a barrier across the pavement. how bout the man in Oakland that got shot int he face with a tear gas canister. While Glenn and his cronies chuckle away real people willing to stand up for what is good and right are being harmed. Chuckle away Glenn because nobody cares about your small minded stupidity anymore. Not even Fox news can stand you anymore and that's saying something.

Ill just leave this here

Ohio Issue 2

*Just to be clear No vote strikes down this law and yes upholds it as law

Being an Ohio citizen and a liberal I personally am going to vote to strike down issue 2. If your not familiar with the topic, issue two is the citizen referendum on Senate Bill 5 in the state of Ohio. SB5 limits the power of lobby groups to collectively bargain in public sector jobs. That means that the republican dominated state legislature and governor killed unions with a single pen stroke. The whole concept of unions relies on their ability to group together for strength against a much more powerful management.

So if you've been paying attention to the slimy tactics the opposition has been using in Ohio you'll realize how important it is to conservatives to muddy the waters in this debate. I've been subjected to commercials telling me how voting yes on issue two will "help" police and fire fighters. Explain to me how taking away their ability to combat massive pay cuts and staff cuts helps them? In short it doesn't. I'm a teacher, I'm a member of OEA the teachers union in Ohio, I gladly pay my dues from every paycheck knowing that if it were not for the efforts in the past by this and other organizations like it my salary would be a fraction of what it is today.

Here is an example of how low these people are willing to stoop to confuse the issue for voters take a look at the original commerical here.

Now look here at how the vote yes campaign twisted the words of this elderly woman to mean the opposite of what she actually said. If I was that woman I would be furious right now.

Unions aren't perfect but they are a damn sight better than the pre-union, pre-labor law things that businesses did during the industrial revolution as a matter of routine.

Republican thuggery reached a new low yesterday when Mike Huckabee (A major republican icon) was quoted in the Cincinnati Enquirer stating

"Make a list... Call them and ask them, 'Are you going to vote on Issue 2 and are you going to vote for it?' If they say no, well, you just make sure that they don't go vote. Let the air out of their tires on election day. Tell them the election has been moved to a different date. That's up to you how you creatively get the job done."  Source

These are the depths these villains are willing to sink to, he advocates "letting the air out of your tires" to stop you from voting. I say to you mike and your ilk get thee behind me.

Its shit like this fox

Really

Recent Crackdown on Dispensaries in California

Before you read this post realize that I engage in no substance abuse other than the occasional drink of alcohol. I am not advocating a side from personal reasons. My state (Ohio) doesn't even have medical laws for legal marijuana.

US: California pot crackdown targets large dispensaries

In the above video If you listen and replace the word Marijuana with the word alcohol, you start to understand the kind of  hypocrisy this nation is engaged in. I'm not a consumer of pot I never have been, however I feel that the prohibition on drugs in this country fuels the criminal element in the same way that alcohol prohibition fueled the rise of organized crime in the 1920.

If you think logically about "the war on drugs" what good has it done for our nation?

• Do people who wish to consume these substances have trouble getting them? 
• Are criminals getting rich and funding other illegal activities through the sale of artificially inflated prices brought on through a black market? 
• Are there people doing hard time, more than rapists and murders in some cases for the act of owning a plant, some powder, or pills?
• Are prisons overcrowded in an era of state budjet cuts, and filled with non violent drug criminals?

The answer you reach when you read this I hope is yes on all four counts. War on substances like this does more harm than good. Ask any teenager how hard it is to get a fifth of liquor then ask them how hard it is to buy a ounce of weed. 

Do I say that we should sell drugs to kids? No I say we should regulate them jsut like alchohol, the system is already in place. We don't need special "pot" dispensaries, make liquor licensed establishments able to apply for recreation drug permits. 

The lady in the video complains about how things are happening in California, I say they are happening that way because California was forced to go through the back door of medical use for something that should not be illegal in the first place.

The best arguments against it by this lady was that it was harming the environment, she went on and on about trash and cutting down trees and garbage and illegal immigrants. Oddly she didn't say a word about the other farrm industries in California, I'm sure many of those use pesticides, hire illegals, use contaminating fertilizers and such but the "evil" pot growers are singled out. 

reasons to abolish the war on drugs:

• It creates crime
• It costs millions of taxpayer dollars to enforce annually
• It imprisons nonviolent offenders for long unreasonable amounts of time
• It creates congestion in the prison system
• making drugs illegal makes them easier for minors to obtain because the seller is an unlicensed lowlife rather than a business professional
• It creates a large burden on the tax payers housing, feeding, and guarding all these drug offenders
• It creates a black market that fuels international crime with mexico

Melinda Haag ended he speech with think of the children, I agree with her. Think of the children harmed by the current federal legislation. Think of the children in high schools across the country who know a dealer who has no responsibility not to sell to them and every incentive to make money from young hands. Think of the children whose communities have been ruined by the criminal element spawned by non-regulated black market drugs. Melinda think of the children.

Occupy Wallstreet

If you haven't heard the hacker group anonymous and the Canadian site ad-blockers have teamed up to protest wallstreet. You very well might not have heard about this since the mainstream media have been blocking all coverage of this. Now reports from the Internets have ranged from 1,000 to 10,000 protesters at various times. That is a pretty big swath but considering even the lowest amount is 1k people. Its fairly difficult to mobilize even 1,000 people to do anything. The NYPD have been merciless against this group arresting individuals for exercising their right to protest and peaceably assemble. One rogue policeman tony baloney has pepper-sprayed non violent non confrontational protestors on two separate occasions. Helpless women who were being cordoned off in a baracade doing nothing more than shouting their protests were sprayed with pepper spray to the face. 

This is not acceptable use of force NYPD

If this was a gathering of tea party being maced the media would be all over this. The NYPD would be vilified and things would be getting done. Instead this is a group standing up to corruption in America so the people in charge are making sure the media ignores it. This is the injustice that is america today

Which Founder Are You?

Take the "which founder are you?" quiz at the national constitution center http://constitutioncenter.org/FoundersQuiz/

Im James Madison apparently

Conservapedia.com on the theory of relativity

So I was surfing around on conservapedia looking for some laughs (If you really want to roll on the floor check out their page on president obama) and on their homepage they had a link saying "Conservapedia is proven right again: The science world was left in shock..." (http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page) so I thought why not and clicked. Clearly they are claiming that they knew about neutrinos (heres a link in case you have benn living under a rock) before CERN did. Then I read the first sentence and my mind was filled with billions and billions of *uck. Now I'm not a scientist, I have a undergrad in history and a masters in special education but even with my general course science learning I know the difference between the theory of relativity and the moral social viewpoint of relativism. So I screencaped it and was just going to make a small demotivator about conservatives being stupid. Then I read some of their examples. Now I don't claim to be a scientist but... well read for your self. (you will need to click on the image to read I tried to make it as small as possible)

About me

I'm a liberal thinking american who is tired of the Conservative bias in today's society. First off lets get something out of the way. Did I vote for Obama? Yes I did. Am I happy with the job he has done? No I'm not. I voted for a progressive candidate who's message was one of change in America. What I got was a wishy-washy moderate who cant stand up to the least bit of opposition.