To recap what they stated, the affair, if it occurred, happened in 2004 well before Obama’s election to the White House. A fine lady named Vera Baker has repeatedly denied that anything happened, but there is a limo driver that asserts that he dropped Baker off at a hotel to have a “secret hotel rendezvous in a Washington hotel where Obama was staying”.

All of this is overshadowed by the fact that the people doing the investigation are trying to pay for information. While this payola style of information gathering is not uncommon in investigative journalism, it does cast some serious doubt on the information that has been obtained to this point.

Another issue I have with this limited report is that any verification of the data that is presented is simply stated as fact. No information on the reporter that claims to be able to corroborate the drivers information is presented, nor is any further information as to the source of the information.

While many of you know that I am a huge critic of the President and most especially his policies, and most of you likely know how badly I would like this information to be true, I am also a good and truthful man. What it comes down to is that the Enquirer was wrong to post this story before they actually had any proof of wrongdoing. The evidence presented is skimpy at best. In short, it smells like a hatchet job at this point.

Hey, at least you know I am fair. Oh yeah, and sorry about the image… I couldn’t resist getting in a little slam on the President.

You may think that I’m being sarcastic, and I am (to a point), yet as of election time back in November of ’08 the two houses of Congress held an approval rating hovering around 11%. That is, only 11 people out of 100 thought that congress was doing a good job. But with House and Senate reelection rates at 94% and 83% respectively, the blame for the low approval rating is clearly the result of somebody ELSE’S representatives, not MINE.

P.T. Barnum would be SO proud. These scheisters have managed to fool MOST of the people ALL of the time.

And they continue to do it, too. Despite all of the evidence that they don’t think that you have a brain cell in your skull. From Harry Reid’s ‘Unwashed Masses’ comment, to the current ‘Climate-gate’, the message is clear for those who choose to see it. In fact, with an attempt to dismiss ‘Climate-gate’ I heard an elected official claim that the average citizen doesn’t understand scientific debate (I don’t remember who, and I couldn’t find it online, so take that as you will).

I tell you this now, and I will stand by this as truth; many of your elected officials will burn this country to the ground (and happily, too), if they are guaranteed to stay in power. Too many of them don’t give a hairy rat’s butt what you think, in point of fact, many of them don’t think you have the capacity to think for yourselves anyway.

Open your eyes.

In late 2008 the majority of Americans voted a grossly inexperienced, massively unqualified junior Senator from Chicago into the most powerful office in the world, using nothing more than charisma and pretty ‘say nothing’ speeches. Within 28 days he effectively DOUBLED the national debt. A debt, I might add, that took over 230 years to accrue.

This President has appointed at least SIX tax cheats to his cabinet (actually, I think he appointed more than that, but only six made the final cut), not the least of which snagged a position as the Secretary of the Treasury (Tim Geithner).

He has appointed, outside of congressional approval, at LEAST 31 czars that are answerable ONLY to him. Many of whom hold strong anti-American, socialist and/or dangerous pacifistic ideals. At least one of which was a SELF-PROCLAIMED COMMUNIST (Van Jones)!

The change that everyone voted for has definitely come, hasn’t it. Too bad it wasn’t the change that we needed.

So now my last question for you: Why is it that “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” are the nine most terrifying words in the English language?

Because we’ve seen what happens when the government steps in to “help”. We saw it in the U.S.S.R., we saw it in Cuba, we saw it in Venezuela. Hell, for those that are old enough to remember (and there are damn few these days), we saw it here in the U.S. during the Great Depression of the 1930′s. And guess what, it’s happening again.

Every time that a government steps in to ‘help’ costs go up, wages go down, unemployment skyrockets, and standards of living plummet.

In the late 1950′s there was a charismatic young man running for political office. Among his political battle-cry’s was a free, universal health care. And the people loved him for it. They cheered him in the streets whenever he came around. They still do, though now the cheer him out of fear, rather than reverence. By all accounts, Cuba was a wonderful place to be in before the Castro regime took power.

But I do have to give Castro credit…. they DO have a free health care system.

If you don’t think that what happened in Cuba could happen here, wake up and look around you. Your elected officials are screwing you over, and you LET them. One thing that many of the people seem to have forgotten, and what most politicians choose to ignore, is that THEY WORK FOR US! WE DO NOT WORK FOR THEM!

–JK

Yes, you read that correctly, I am a racist. Now, I’m not saying that I run around in a white sheet burning crosses on peoples’ lawns. I’ll leave that to some of the senior members of congress. No, the people on the left will claim that I am a racist because I want our nation’s borders closed to illegal immigration (for those who want to steal that quote to defame me, don’t forget to delete the word ‘illegal’). I am a racist because I oppose Obama-care. I am a racist because I think that every militant extremest Muslim should be dragged out into the middle of the street and beaten to death with a ham hock. Okay, that one’s pretty racist, I’ll give you that. Bottom line, the left will call me racist, because I love my country and want to keep her safe.

But you see, there’s one thing that I don’t understand. It’s kind of like when a right wing candidate ascends to the Presidency, the nut-job conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork claiming that he will try and create a New World Order/ One World Government, but when a left winger becomes President, and actually TRIES to create a NWO/ OWG, the nuts go silent. So, along those lines, I don’t understand why the crazies rail against people like myself as racists, when the real racists go completely ignored.

Let me ask all of you altruistic non-racists out there a question: what do you think would happen to Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and their rabble-rousing ilk if their professed “agenda” were to actually come to pass? What would happen to them if Dr. King’s dream actually came true? They would be out of a job, that’s what. Therefore, it is in THEIR best interest to maintain the illusion of racial bias. It is in their best interest to continue to keep the black man down. It is in their best interest to keep the blacks thinking that they can’t get ahead in life because of the whites. Those types of people are the true racists. Let me ask another question: If Al and Jessie can pull themselves out of the slums and get ahead in life all on their own, why do they try and make everyone they claim to support think that they can’t do what they themselves did? In other words, if they could do it by themselves, why can’t you do it without their help?

One last thing, I’m going to break one of the biggest rules of the conservative movement. I’m going to tell you one of our biggest secrets. It is the goal of every conservative to destroy the way of life of every minority group in America. It is our goal to stop the “Welfare way of life”. It is our goal to get young men to once again take pride in themselves. It is our goal to get young men out of the gangs, and into worthwhile jobs. It is our goal to get people to stop demanding what they believe they deserve, and to instead EARN what they work for. It is our goal to make people understand that the only thing that they need the government for is to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and generally, to stay the hell out of the way of private citizens so that they can become as great or as small as they desire.

–JK

The outrage of millions of taxpayers following the $700 billion bank bailout and the $787 billion stimulus bill did not stop Congress from passing and President Obama from signing a bloated $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act in March.  With the subsequent approval of the President’s budget, the national debt will triple over the next 10 years.

In fiscal year 2009, Congress stuffed 10,160 projects into the 12 appropriations bills worth $19.6 billion.  The projects represent a  12.5 percent decrease from the 11,610 projects in fiscal year 2008.  The $19.6 billion is a 14 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 total of $17.2 billion, belying claims of reduced spending.  Total pork identified by Citizens Against Government Waste since 1991 adds up to $290 billion.

Although this is the second year of so-called transparency, which requires every earmark to be identified with the requesting member of Congress,  $6,430,414,000 was spent for 142 anonymous projects.  This accounted for 6.6 percent of the earmarks and 57 percent of the cost in the bill.  There were several big-ticket items, including:  $88,000,000 for one C-40 aircraft; and $70,230,000 for one C-37B aircraft.

In total, out of the 10,160 projects in the 2009 Congressional Pig Book there were 9,939 requested projects worth $11.8 billion and 221 anonymous projects worth $7.8 billion.

I.  AGRICULTURE

Appropriators loaded up on less agriculture pork this year. The number of projects decreased by 23.9 percent, from 614 in fiscal year 2008 to 467 in fiscal year 2009, while the cost decreased by 9.6 percent, from $388 million in fiscal year 2008 to $351.1 million in fiscal year 2009.

II.  Commerce, Justice, Science

In fiscal year 2008 the number of projects in the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations Act decreased by 13 percent while the cost dropped 47 percent.  This year, the number and total cost of projects fell again.  The number of projects decreased by 10.6 percent, from 1,731 in fiscal year 2008 to 1,548 in fiscal year 2009.  The cost was down by 7.1 percent, from $1 billion to $936.8 million.

The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, administered by the Department of Justice, accounted for 37.8 percent of the total number of projects (585) and 23.5 percent of the cost ($220.1 million).  In fiscal year 2008, the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool gave the COPS program a “results not demonstrated” rating, which “indicates that a program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing.”

III.  Defense

On the strength of an extremely expensive collection of “anonymous” projects, which do not contain the name of any representative or senator, dollar amounts in the 2009 Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act skyrocketed by 53.5 percent, from $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $11.2 billion in fiscal year 2009.  The absence of such information violates congressional rules and contradicts repeated claims of more transparency in the appropriations process.  Since the number of projects increased by only 1.1 percent, from 2,108 in fiscal year 2008 to 2,131 in fiscal year 2009, it would not have been too much work to fill in the blanks.  The DOD Appropriations Act proved yet again that given the opportunity members of Congress would rather fund parochial projects instead of the Pentagon’s defense priorities.

IV.  Energy and Water

There is some relatively good news in the fiscal year Energy and Water Appropriations Act: earmarks in the bill are back down to their fiscal year 2006 levels after climbing sharply in fiscal year 2008.  The number of projects decreased by 46.3 percent, from 1,782 in fiscal year 2008 to 957 in fiscal year 2009.  The total cost of the projects was 42.5 percent less than in fiscal year 2008, falling from $3.8 billion to $2.2 billion.

V.  Financial Services

While totals are down in most appropriations bills, there was a substantial increase in pork in the fiscal year 2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.  The number of projects increased by 22.8 percent, from 215 in fiscal year 2008 to 264 in fiscal year 2009, while dollar amounts increased by 47.9 percent, from $98.7 million in fiscal year 2008 to $145.9 million in fiscal year 2009.  The Small Business Administration (SBA) has long been a bastion for pork, and this trend continued in fiscal year 2009.

VI.  Homeland Security

The amount of taxpayers’ money wasted on Homeland Security pork has continued its decline over the past two years from its peak in fiscal year 2007 at $2.4 billion.  The number of projects in this year’s Homeland Security Appropriations Act decreased 8.9 percent, from 124 in fiscal year 2008 to 113 in fiscal year 2009, while the dollar amount decreased 22.1 percent, from $294.8 million in fiscal year 2008 to $229.6 million in fiscal year 2009.

VII.  Interior

After falling by 40 percent in fiscal year 2008, the cost of Interior appropriations is on the rise.  Fiscal year 2009 Interior Appropriations Act earmarks will set taxpayers back $433.7 million, up 7.4 percent from $403.8 million in fiscal year 2008.  The number of projects in the bill decreased by 2.3 percent, from 556 in fiscal year 2008 to 543 in fiscal year 2009.

IX.  Legislative Branch

There is a common saying in theater that “there are no small parts, just small actors.”  Earmarks in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act confirm that there is no appropriations bill too small to earmark.  While the scant number of earmarks in this bill  do not usually grab much media attention, any earmark is one too many.  The number of projects decreased by 25 percent, from 4 in fiscal year 2008 to 3 in fiscal year 2009.  The amount of pork dropped by 5 percent, from $400,000 in fiscal year 2008 to $380,000 in fiscal year 2009.

X.  Military Construction

While there were big changes in other appropriations bills, the fiscal year 2009 Military Construction, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act was fairly similar to the fiscal year 2008 version.  Fiscal year 2009 saw a decrease of 7.9 percent in projects, from 191 in fiscal year 2008 to 176, while the dollar amount increased by 6.7 percent, from $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2009.

XI.  State and Foreign Operations

Once again the House and Senate certified this appropriations bill as “earmark free.”  Unfortunately for taxpayers, there were 16 earmarks and they weren’t free they cost $256 million.  This is a 60 percent increase in projects from fiscal year 2008, when there were 10 projects, and a 235.6 percent increase in dollars from the $76.3 million in fiscal year 2008.

XII.  Transportation/Housing and Urban Development (THUD)

With all the talk about the supposed lack of spending on infrastructure and economic development during the 2009 stimulus debate, taxpayers might think the federal government hasn’t spent a dime on roads, bridges, bikeways, or economic development.  But Pig Book readers know that in the last two fiscal years for which individual appropriations bills were passed (2006 and 2008), CAGW identified 4,738 THUD earmarks costing more than $5.2 billion.  While the bill is larded up this year with 1,789 earmarks totaling $1.5 billion, that is a 11.9 percent decrease in the number of earmarks from fiscal year 2008 and a 3.1 percent decrease in cost.

Alaska once again led the nation with $322 per capita ($221 million).  The runners up were Hawaii with $235 per capita ($302 million) and North Dakota with $222 per capita ($142 million).

Access to the information above can be found at http://www.cagw.org.  The Citizens Against Government Waste 2009 Congressional Pig Book Summary was written by David E. Williams, vice president, policy, Sean Kennedy, research associate, and Kerrie Rushton, visiting fellow.

US Senators’ average annual stock performance beat the market average by approximately 12.3%, while stock purchases made by corporate insiders on average outperform the market by 7.4% and stock portfolios of the average US household under-perform the market by 1.5%.

In 2007, the 10 wealthiest US Senators traded stocks in a total of 45 different companies spanning finance, insurance, oil, pharmaceutical, telecom, and other industries. Those 45 businesses also received $18 billion in federal appropriations that same year.

“Financial disclosure records show that some of these Financial Services Committee members, including Ohio Rep. Charlie Wilson, made bank stock trades on the same day the banks were getting a government bailout from a program Congress approved. The transactions may not have been illegal or against congressional rules, but securities attorneys and congressional watchdog groups say they raise flags about the appearance of conflicts of interest…

For example, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, a Florida Republican, bought Citigroup stock valued between $1,001 and $15,000 on Oct. 2, the day before the House passed the financial rescue bill and President George W. Bush signed it into law, records show. She opposed the bill.

Eleven days later, she bought $1,001 to $15,000 worth of Bank of America stock. It was on the same day that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told leading banks that he expected them to accept billions in bailout money to prevent a financial meltdown…

Wilson, a Democrat from the eastern Ohio town of Bridgeport, sold between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of Huntington Bancshares stock on Nov. 14, the same day Huntington got $1.4 billion in bailout money from the federal Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, records show. Wilson’s transactions over the course of last autumn also included Bank of America and BB&T, both beneficiaries of the bank rescue program that Treasury implemented after congressional passage.

Wilson’s spokeswoman said the congressman did not personally pick these trades because he leaves day-to-day investment decisions to a money manager who uses a proprietary model in selecting securities to buy or sell…

A spokesman for Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat also on the Financial Services Committee, said she similarly leaves transactions solely to the discretion of account managers. McCarthy’s trades included a $2,275 purchase of bailout recipient J.P. Morgan Chase while Congress was still hammering out its rescue bill.

Another member of the Financial Services Committee, Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of California, said on a recent financial disclosure report that she bought up to $15,000 in Citigroup stock on Nov. 7. That was 10 days after the bank got a $25 billion bailout.

Her office now says the report was filed in error, the transaction should have been listed as her husband’s — and she wishes he had not made it… Her husband wasn’t the only committee spouse trading on bank stocks.

The stockbroker husband of West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, sold more than $100,000 in Citigroup stock in several transactions late last year. His brokerage firm was owned by Citigroup and his compensation included Citigroup stock. A Capito spokesman said the House Ethics Committee gave her verbal approval to join the committee despite her husband’s job.

Another committee member, Illinois Republican Judith Biggert, whose husband sold Wells Fargo stock while Congress was helping to shape the rescue bill, said she does not discuss stock transactions with her spouse.”

Stephen Koff and Sabrina Eaton, “Members of U.S. House Financial Services Committee Snapped Up or Dumped Bank Stocks as Bottom Fell Out of Market,”

Plain Dealer, June 25, 2009

“[W]e find that members of the U.S. Senate outperformed the market by almost 100 basis points per month….….When we equally weight the returns of each Senator, the buy portfolio earns a compound annual rate of 28.6% on an equal-weighted basis and 31.1% on a trade-weighted basis compared to 21.3% for the market…….Cumulative abnormal returns for the portfolio of stocks bought by Senators are near zero for the calendar year prior to the date of purchase. After acquisition, the cumulative abnormal return rises over 25% within one calendar year after the purchase date. The cumulative abnormal returns for the portfolio of stocks sold by the Senators are near zero for the calendar year after the date of sale. However, these same stocks saw a cumulative abnormal positive return of 25% during the year immediately preceding the event date. These results suggest that Senators knew the appropriate times to both buy and sell their common stocks…

After being sold by Senators, stocks under-perform the market by 12 basis points per month on a trade-weighted basis….Combining the buy transactions with the sell transactions in a hedged portfolio we find that Senators outperform the market by 97 basis points (nearly 1%) per month on a trade-weighted basis……We find no reliable differences between the returns earned by Democrats and Republicans but seniority appears to be important. Senators with the least seniority (in their first Senatorial term) earn statistically higher returns than those Senators with the longest seniority (over 16 years in the Senate).”

Dec. 2004 – Alan J. Ziobrowski, PhD
“Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of the U.S. Senate,”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) – Avg. Net Worth of Household in 2006:  $267,789,805

Kerry sits on the following committees Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Foreign Relations, Finance Chair, Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Top 5 Stocks Owned as of Dec. 31, 2007

COMPANY Exxon Mobil Corp.
AMOUNT $65,002 – $150,000

Additional Information Exxon Mobile Corp. received $1,024,498,594 in government contracts for fiscal year 2007, including over $1 billion from the Defense Logistics Agency.

Senator Kerry sits on the following committees that may present a conflict of interest with this investment: Commerce, Science, and Transportation//Foreign Relations//Finance//Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Chair)

COMPANY Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G)
AMOUNT $30,002 – $100,000

Additional Information Procter & Gamble Co. received $312,449,362 from government contracts for fiscal year 2007, including approx. $312.2 million from the Defense Commissary Agency.

Senator Kerry sits on the following committee that may pose a conflict of interest with this investment: Commerce, Science, and Transportation

COMPANY General Electric Co. (GE)
AMOUNT $17,003 – $80,000

Additional Information General Electric Co. received $3,176,850,382 in government contracts for fiscal year 2007, including a total of approx. $2.6 billion from the Navy, Air Force, and Army.

Senator Kerry sits on the following committees that may present a conflict of interest with this investment:  Commerce, Science, and Transportation//Foreign Relations//Finance//Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Chair)

COMPANY American International Group, Inc. (AIG)
AMOUNT $16,002 – $65,000

Additional Information American International Group, Inc. received $1,783,492 in government contracts for fiscal year 2007.

Senator Kerry sits on the following committees that may present a conflict of interest with this investment:  Commerce, Science, and Transportation//Finance//Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Chair)

COMPANY Intel Corp.
AMOUNT $16,002 – $65,000

Senator Kerry sits on the following committee that may present a conflict of interest with this investment:  Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Top 10 Richest US Senators’ Top Stock Trades in 2007 and Potential Conflicts of Interest  http://insidertrading.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=001580

Stuart P. Green, JD, Professor of Law and Justice Nathan L. Jacobs Scholar at Rutgers School of Law, wrote in his May 13, 2008 email to ProCon.org:

“People in many fields of endeavor are privy to valuable confidential information before it is made public: For example, business executives, investment bankers, and lawyers have access to information about impending corporate mergers and acquisitions; Judges, juries, and court personnel have access to information about the probable outcome of court decisions; and officials at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], and other administrative agencies have access to information about the likely outcome of regulatory proceedings. All of these individuals are prohibited by law from using such confidential information in the purchase and sale of publicly traded stocks. Likewise, members of Congress and their staffs are also privy to valuable confidential information not yet made public. They have information about the likely outcome of various votes, committee proceedings, and investigations. Such information can be extremely valuable to investors. Those who buy and sell stock on the basis of such non-public information will have an obvious advantage over those who lack such information. This is not the sort of information that even the most savvy and sophisticated investor would be able to obtain legally. From a moral perspective, such informational advantages are indistinguishable from those enjoyed in more familiar forms of insider trading.”

May 13, 2008 – Stuart P. Green, JD

At this point in time, it is already illegal for a felon to own or posses a firearm of any sort. This is well known among felons, as well as the general population. I believe H.R.2401 will bring significant portions of the general citizenry to the level of felons in the eyes of the US government and those state governments that submit to it. (Yeah, that was a bit of a reference to the 10th Amendment…) By doing this, citizens that have not been charged with a crime, much less convicted, will be punished. Not only is it a punishment, it is a violation of any citizens Second Amendment rights that happen to be on the “no fly list” and should be shot down before it ever sees the light of day.

Another point against this bill besides the whole part about it being illegal and outside of the scope of government.

At this exact point in time, there are 77,982 people on the no fly list that is published at a non government website. (I am not going to mention the site due to the fact that the information from it can not be verified at the moment. Lets just take it as an example of what may be correct.) The exact composition of nationalities that make up the list are not currently available to me, but for the sake of the article, lets assume 20% are US citizens for now. That leaves 15,596 citizens that are currently not able to fly on any commercial airplane for some unknown reason. If this bill passes, that means that those 15,596 CITIZENS would not be able to purchase a firearm in the US any more. An obviously illegal step considering the Second Amendment still happens to be an active portion of our Constitution.

There is even more to those numbers though. How many people in the US have the name of Daniel Brown, or Robert Johnson, or David Nelson? What about the host of other names on the list that are probably shared by hundreds of thousands of people in the nation? Are we willing to forgo their rights as well?

There is no big twist when it comes to H.R.2401. It is very simple. In fact, the total size of the bill is only 2 pages long. It doesn’t require a speed reader to dedicate a week of their time to read it like H.R.3200 does. In fact, it only took me about 30 seconds.

The point of this article is simply to let everyone know that H.R.2401 is an illegal bill the second it passes. It strikes down the Constitutional rights of citizens without a felony conviction. I HIGHLY suggest you contact your Representatives to let them know that this bill will be illegal the second it passes and should be fought against with every tooth, nail, or stand of hair they have left. Considering the average age of Congress, I would think they might be running out of teeth and hair, so make sure you hurry! We can’t allow this abomination of a bill to become law.

The first thing that this bill does is to give the President the authority to appoint a “Cybersecurity Advisory Panel” to advise him. The topics that they are to advise him on are as follows:

• Any process, program, or protocol that relates to the Internet or an Intranet.
• Automatic data processing or transmission.
• Telecommunication via the Internet or an Intranet.
• Any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks.

Not a bad thing there, right?

It goes on to provide for several other considerations:

• Requires the Department of Commerce to develop and implement a system to provide cybersecurity status and vulnerability information regarding all federal information systems and networks managed by the DoC.
• Provides financial assistance for the creation and support of regional cybersecurity centers for small and medium sized US businesses.
• Requires the NIST to create cybersecurity standards for all federal government, government contractor, or grantee infrastructure information systems and networks.
• Requires a national licensing and certification program for cybersecurity professionals.
• Will provide for civil or criminal penalties if certain services are provided without being certified.
• Much more…

The items that are listed above which this Cybersecurity Advisory Panel can advise the President are scary to begin with. The description opens up nearly any communication medium we use that requires electricity.

The first point. Any process, program or protocol:

This can apply to ANYTHING you use on your computer, cell phone, land line (in most cases), or nearly any other multimedia device. It goes further though. The software you use for email, web browsing, chat, watching movies, doing your job, writing letters, playing games, or doing your banking are all covered by this line alone.

Second point. Automatic data processing or transmission:

Oh boy… This is going to hit a spot with everyone out there that uses direct deposit. Many systems that are used for banking in general are automated data processing systems. Many web sites use automated data processing in their code to handle users, sessions, and a multitude of other data. ATM’s use automated data processing to both dispense and receive money from clients. All of the above use automated data transmission as well. There are thousands of other examples of this particular type of technology being used throughout our personal lives as well as business.

Third point. Telecommunication via the Internet or an Intranet:

GAH! Do you speak on a phone? You are affected by this particular line. Do you chat on the net? What about sending email? Maybe use an internal office network for chat with coworkers? What about sending text messages? The word telecommunication has changed over the years. The change came because the networks were all changed to data networks over the years. Very few calls move over networks that are not either connected to the Internet or are technically part of an Intranet. The lines here can be smudged quite easily.

Fourth point: Any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks:

It would have been much more simple for the writers of this bill to just say this from the start. This is the punchline of the entire thing. They have oversight of everything concerning computers or computer networks. In other words, everything we do with the exception of writing on paper, talking in person, or carving our names in freshly poured cement.

To be fair though, these people are only going to be advising the president on these matters. Right?

Not so fast!

In a twist of fate that could only be brought about by someone already corrupted by government service, the bill gives the president the power to ”declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.” I hope that all the major bandwidth and cell providers are shaking in their boots right now. The fed will now have complete control over whether they function or not. As the bill doesn’t actually spell out the definition of a compromised system OR the definition of critical infrastructure, the new powers granted to the president could be used to shut down any network or computer across the nation if he sees fit.

Scared yet?

The bill also allows the president to gather and store security and vulnerability data on any systems or networks that the president thinks to be critical. Again, no definition of the word “critical” in the bill. To take this all one step further though, any of the data that is gathered by the president is available to the Secretary of Commerce “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.”

Ok, you should be a bit scared now. This bill very simply gives the government unrestricted access to any data on any public or private network or computer in the US.

I think I will just let that last line speak for itself.

Now, I am not picking on Immigrants. They deserve respect because they have gone through the LEGAL steps to become a citizen and have been required to take a literacy test to assess their knowledge of the English language. I am talking about Illegal aliens. I am going to say that again, Illegal. That means they are breaking the law. The same law that they want to hide behind and say they have rights. I say you have no rights because you are a criminal. Illegal aliens do not deserve jobs or to be forgiven. They do not deserve subsidies, free medical care or other benefits provided by U.S. Taxpayers.

Today it seems that the word Illegal has been dropped when speaking about immigration. It’s still used, but now it has become more of an association word that has no meaning. Most people associate the term Illegal Immigrant as someone from Mexico.

Pro-amnesty minded people don’t really see the word “Illegal” as a problem or that someone has really broken the law. I wonder what those people would think if they owned a store and someone shop lifted from them. Would they miss one candy bar? Probably not. Would they miss a million? Would the word “Illegal” take on a whole new meaning?

The plain fact that they are here means they are stealing from the American taxpayer.  They steal heath care and educational subsidies.  They steal American heritage and give it to their children because if you’re born here, you become a citizen.

Would you hire a thief  just because they would be willing to work for less money? Does it make a difference why they broke the law?  Or is the fact that they are a criminal enough for you to say, “No Yob Available.”

It takes a lot of cojones to ask me for a job after you have stolen from me.

Sir,

I applaud you for sponsoring S.J.Res.20. While I have not been able to get a copy of the whole bill, the synopsis states that congress would be able to suspend the amendment. I would like to ask if the particular situations in which congress shall be allowed by law to suspend the amendment are described or set forth within the bill? The synopses that I have been able to find to this point seem rather sparse on details and I would hope to be able to know at least some before I urge my own senators and representatives to support your efforts..

Thanks for your time. I hope for your response by either phone or email at your earliest convenience.

Bradley Allen

Since when did this become OK? Since when was it alright for our children to be indoctrinated into the hell that is socialism? Since when did the country stop caring what kind of people ran it? What a sham… Even more, what a shame… I would rather eat stewed vomit than listen to this again. The people that taught this to these school children should be fired. Politics are something to be taught. Not forced. In school, you give BOTH sides of the argument and let the students figure it out on their own. THAT is education. What these children got was indoctrination.

Shame…