Right Wing Extremists A Threat?

Homeland Security has put out an assessment on right wing extremism. Since left wing extremists are for abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, unlimited spending, bigger government and universal healthcare, just to name a few, then what is wrong with the right wingers? Why is Homeland Security involved? Now we know that there are those on either side of the fence that go too far but why the need for a ten page document? It says that the rights are mainly anitgoverment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state and local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. The one that gets me is the concern with returning veterans because they possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right wing extremists. The document says these veterans have violent capabilities that could be useful. Well if the government is going to spend my money, my children's money, grandchildren's money in the idiotic spending bill you don't have to be a veteran to have these capabilities. Look at the Tea Party's that have gone on today. There were left and right wing people at the protests. People are just fed up with our government and want action now. In my opinion the government sees those who believe in the Constitution as a threat because the Constitution holds them in check of what they can and can't do. From this document the right are the ones holding more to the Constitution than the left. Maybe that's why they are scared.

Will bill give Obama control of Internet?

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared "cyber emergency." Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack. Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm over the act's broadly drawn government powers. The whole thing smells bad to me," writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an Internet and print news source on technology issues. "I don't like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don't like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president." In a statement explaining the bill's introduction, Sen. Rockefeller said, "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on." Critics, however, have pointed to three actions Rockefeller and Snowe propose that may violate both privacy concerns and even constitutional bounds: First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the Internet – including private citizens' banks and health records, if Rockefeller's examples are accurate – if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president. Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as "the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information," including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the "critical infrastructure." Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional. According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the "critical" networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.

Universal Healthcare, Unhealthy?

We have all heard the talk about how everybody deserves healthcare. No, not everybody deserves healthcare, it is a privilege. If you work you pay for your coverage and your families coverage under the health insurance your employer provides. Under universal healthcare the government provides this service for you and they get the money to pay for this from, you guessed it, you and me the tax payers. If you look at Canada or any other country that has universal healthcare you will see that you will be very limited in the service you need. In Europe there is a waiting list for the waiting list. Some people go weeks, months and even years waiting to have surgery for whatever illness they have and some end up dying in the process. If you remember just not long ago Natasha Richardson died from a blow to the head from a skiing accident. Although she refused treatment at the scene she complained of headaches not long after and was rushed to the hospital, but the drive took 2 hours. They had to drive because Canada did not have enough money to buy the helicopter needed for such a transport. When they arrived at the hospital they found out the hospital did not have the equipment to run the appropriate tests so they had to drive to another hospital. If she was here in the United States more than likely she would not have died. So, I ask you, do you think universal healthcare is a good idea?

Government Motors

General Motors name could be changing to Government Motors. Since being bailed out GM has said goodbye to it's CEO on the request, or demand, of the government. How many more companies will be under government rule? If the government giveth the government can taketh away. The Pres. announced that all warranties will be covered but he didn't tell the people that they would be paying for it. Since the government has no money, except what they tax, print or borrow, then how can they cover the warranties? You and me that's how. The bailout is said to be an investment, using tax payer money, so why don't they just give out free cars to everybody? We are never going to get a return on this so called investment. The government has proved time and time again that they cannot manage anything. Look at our debt. Since it takes gov. so long to get anything done, does it make you feel any better knowing that gov. employees will now be working on your car, if you own a GM? I suggest that nobody buy from GM. Hopefully this will send a message to gov. that they need to let businesses fail when they fail to operate there business properly.