The Twitter Communists Got Me

So, I am at work taking care of some responsibilities, and after the task I was working on is done, I go to check my Twitter account @CapitolBlog.

I had been very active today harpooning liberals on several lies that the media is currently spinning, and I have also been responding to some outspoken liberals on Twitter that have voiced very hateful opinions towards members of the Conservative community.

I go to check my feed, and what is this?  My account is suspended.  No explanation as to why it has gone dark.  Just a note at the top of the page telling me that my account has been suspended and that I should click on a link for more information.  I click on the link, see even less information, and am told to submit a help ticket.  Guess what?  Twitter won’t let me submit a help ticket; it tells me to try again later.

So yea, Twitter Communists strike again.  I probably offended some liberal wack job and that caused me to break some “Twitter Rules.”  Please.  The worst stuff on Twitter comes at the hands of the left wing.

I can only imagine that the tweet that got me suspended was one to Roseanne Barr (@TheRealRoseanne) which read “@TheRealRoseanne is the definition of liberal, hypocritical wack job.  And her show sucks too #tcot”

Harsh? Sure, but Roseanne is not the most soft spoken on Twitter either. 

Earlier in the day she tweeted, “Nobody’s going 2 vote 4 ROmeny, not even greedy woman hating closested homophobic freedom hating republicans.”

If mine was harsh enough to break Twitter’s rules, then her’s is not?  Just another instance of mass media groups going to bed with hypocritical, vile, disgusting Liberal pigs.  Come to think of it, “pig” is the perfect word for Roseanne.

Roseanne went on the respond to me saying, ‘Why do you hate my freedom?” 

I don’t hate your freedom Roseanne.  I hate people like you who take my freedom away.  Yes, Twitter, you took my freedom away while allowing people like Roseanne Barr to have hers. 

I demand an explanation as to why I was suspended, and I demand to have my account reinstated.  It is ridiculous that it is not active right now. 


Obama and Syria –A Coward’s Foreign Policy

For a man who portrayed himself as such a well-rounded candidate in the 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama has been a complete failure in the realm of foreign policy.  Mitt Romney has noted this, describing Obama’s strategy as a “policy of paralysis” on Tuesday.  I stand with Romney on this and completely agree with him.

One does not have to look far for an example of Obama’s favorite way of dealing with foreign issues.  Over the weekend, over 100 Syrian civilians, the majority of them children, were massacred at the hands of al-Assad’s oppressive regime.  The death toll for his murdering spree has reached upwards of 10,000, many of whom are civilians.  Yet, Barack Obama has done nothing.  Wait, sorry, he has withdrawn his diplomats.  Real tough, Mr. President.

Now, I am not the largest advocate of America acting as World Police, but when 10,000 people are murdered at the hands of a government who has a history of corruption, oppression, and being backed by arms dealers in Russia, it might be a time to step in.  Yet, Barack Obama refuses to do so.

One can only assume that this refusal is for political gain.  Many Americans who do not know the truth about Syria might see it in a negative light if Obama were to send in troops to a nation that is not often talked about in conversational circles.  However, as Obama idles in his foreign policy, hundreds of innocent Syrians are being executed and massacred every single day.

Many prominent Republicans, such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have called for airstrikes to be carried out against key government strongholds in Syria, but as usual, Obama has ignored such calls.  I understand the need to present a positive political image heading into an election that he will probably lose, but Obama stills has a duty as President of the United States.

The United States has long set a history and precedent of protecting those who wish to extend democracy in a world marred by governments such as Syria who grab power and will not relinquish it at any cost.  Barack Obama has failed to carry out this precedent.  There are Syrians who desire to have democratic elections where there voice may be heard, but Obama does not respect that desire.  Instead, he sits in Washington spending billions to finance the campaign to secure his own power for another four years.

Obama does not have to send a single soldier into Syria to suppress a violent, murderous regime.  Air strikes will go far to send a message to al-Assad and his villainous army that such actions will not be tolerated on the world scene.  If Syria wants to be a nation that is taken seriously, then it is going to have to act civilized or face repercussions.

Further extending the situation, Obama has made no comment to Russia, who opposes any intervention in Syria.  The reason is pretty obvious.  Russia has long been a supplier of arms and weapons to Syria to the point that Syria has almost become a Russian satellite nation.  In talks of the proper course of action to take relating to Syria, Russia has played the role of obstructionist and refuses to allow the United Nations to act.  In usual form, Obama has kept quiet on the matter and continues to allow Russia to push the United Nations around.

Obama is a weak president when it comes to foreign policy.  He can act, but he won’t.  He fails to protect international groups that desire the freedoms that we have in America.  He fails to stand up against other governments who desire only to protect their own interests.  Put simply, on foreign policy, Obama fails, at the expense of others.

U.N. Talks About Regulating Internet Freedom

In December, United Nations members will meet to discuss a topic that could lead to the end of freedom as we know it: regulation of the Internet.  There have been talks of the United Nations expanding their authority to include a regulatory arm for the Internet before but the talks were not necessarily serious.  Now, certain nations are again pushing their repressive agenda by trying to gain support for their plans to regulate the Internet.  This time, the threat is so serious, that the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on communications is holding a hearing later this week about the topic.


The nations that are leading the push for such a policy are the same nations who have went as far to shut down the Internet before in order to protect their image or to prevent the spread of rebellion.  Russia, China, and India are three of the main United Nations member states that have tried to push European countries and the United States to enter more serious talks about the United Nations assuming the role of Internet-regulator.  


We must ask ourselves: what is the purpose of such regulation?  Vladimir Putin, the ex-KGB Russian political leader who has rewritten the framework of Russian government to ensure his own power, had an interesting opinion on why such regulation is necessary at the hands of the UN.  Putin commented on the increasing need to “democratize” the globe (which is interesting coming after massive protests against the Russian government for corruption and refusing to listen to the people).  He has said that such democratization can only come when the exchange of information internationally is controlled and regulated.


I have to say, Putin’s statement makes no sense whatsoever.  Extend democracy by regulating free speech?  Does democracy not come from the freedom of the people to comment on their government and to influence their government through their political opinion?  How can a person do this knowing that the United Nations is playing watchdog over the Internet and has the right to regulate whatever it wishes.  Putin, who is arguably the leader of one of the least democratic “democracies” in the world, is a complete moron if he beliefs a splinter of his statement.


It is very important to note that America will be powerless to ether veto or resist any majority decision by the United Nations when it comes to such a decision.  What happens if the UN does indeed decide to extend its authority and begin to regulate the Internet?  How many basics of American Constitutional belief will be violated?  Well, the short answer is: the complete first amendment.  The Internet is an extension of a person’s ability to communicate opinions, gather into like-minded groups, discuss grievances with government and politicians, and publish press chronicling what is happening in the world.  As you see, every First Amendment right is involved when we talk about the Internet.  If the Internet comes under regulation, the First Amendment will be completely violated, and in this case, by a international alliance which the United States of America has no power to resist.  


Will America leave the United Nations if such a policy is implemented?  I can only hope so, but probably not due to the influence that America exercises in the group.  I am not sure what will happen if such a policy is ever implemented.  The Supreme Court would undoubtedly rule that regulation of the Internet is a violation of free speech,press, assembly, and petition, but it is not like either the President or Congress will be able to enact legislation or an executive order to cease the regulation.  The only answer will be to leave the United Nations.


If the United States even threatens to do such a thing in these December talks, then I feel that this threat will be enough to derail any attempts to enact an international regulatory arm.  However, will our leaders be strong enough to do so?  Mitt Romney? No doubt.  Barack Obama, on the other hand, has shown how weak he is when it comes to foreign policy.  He will let anyone push him around when it comes to negotiations.  


George Washington warned against international alliances in his Farewell Address.  We did not listen to him very well.  International organizations fail.  They are useless.  NATO has existed merely due to the lack of a need for its action.  The European Union is failing and will soon collapse.  It is unwise for a nation to involve itself and make itself subservient to an international body.  Hopefully, this proposed policy adjustment will cause the United States to leave the UN and never look back.


Remember how upset that everyone was, individuals and corporations, when the SOPA bill was discussed in Congress?  Imagine the uproar when the majority of American people realize that a foreign body is attempting to regulate the Internet on a greater level that Congress’ own version of Internet overwatch.


Put simply, any attempt to regulate any form of speech is ridiculous.  The Constitution guarantees every American the freedoms listed in the First Amendment.  Americans will never let our government take those freedoms away from us, and we sure as hell won’t let a group of overseas Communists try to take them away either.  


Please follow me @CapitolBlog


Also, please subscribe by email to my blog for all of the latest updates.

My Response to Chris Hayes’ Comments About Fallen Soldiers

                              On Sunday, a day before our great nation would stop to observe Memorial Day and honor those that have made the greatest sacrifice in the name of protecting freedoms for each and every one of us, MSNBC Host Chris Hayes said that he was “uncomfortable” using the word “hero” to describe men and women who have fallen in battle serving America because he feels that such a term just justifies more war.

                                Since saying these words, several groups (including the VFW) have demanded an apology from Hayes for his vile, insulting remark.  I have not personally read or heard the apology, but to my knowledge, he has indeed given one.

                I feel that no apology, no matter on what level, would ever be good enough to eradicate such a wrong.  Hayes completely and utterly disrespected and degraded our military men and women that have died for his right to even sit in front of a camera and say such things.  The mere thought that someone would disrespect these soldiers and their families on national television is sickening.

                Though he did not say so, one can only take from Hayes’ statement that he does not feel like these soldiers are heroes.  Sure, he merely said he was “uncomfortable” with using the word, but what word does he suggest we use?  To him, “hero” is not a word to describe these fallen soldiers.  I cannot even begin to think how such a feeble minded person could exist who does not see these men and women as heroes.  If someone sacrifices their own live in order to protect the lives and freedoms of another, then that person sure as hell is a hero in my book.  Evidently Chris Hayes has a different kind of book. 

                Hayes’ book is full of unjustified war.  What does he even mean by saying that using the word “hero” justifies more war?  When soldiers have died in Germany, France, the Pacific, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq in order to ensure that this world is a better place and that Americans and our allies can continue to enjoy the freedoms that are bestowed upon us, “hero” makes you uncomfortable?  When men and women, just like you Mr. Hayes, decide to put aside their lives and to wear the uniform of this nation’s military to go abroad and fight villainous enemies who want no less than to take away your right to sit your pompous ass on your broadcasting set and say whatever it is that you want, they are not “heroes?” 

                The very men who gave you the freedom of the press by banding together and rebelling against an aggressor Britain are not heroes?  And since then, the men and women who have died avenging our nation after the horrific attacks of September 11, guarding the future of our nation against more extremist, hateful attacks by radical Muslims, does it make you uncomfortable when we honor and respect them?

                Chris Hayes, you are a despicable, worthless piece of trash.  I guess it is no surprise that you come from MSNBC; I am sure there are plenty like you there.  As for me and my family, we flew our American flag high on Memorial Day Weekend.  We honored those around us who have served in the military, and we remembered those who have fallen in their time of loyalty and duty.  You, on the other hand, disrespected the entire nation.  Congratulations.

  You are right, Mr. Hayes, I am uncomfortable using the word “hero” to describe these people as well, but I am uncomfortable for a different reason.  I am uncomfortable because assigning a mere word to such a great group of people does not give them the respect that they deserve.  There is no word in the world that can accurately communicate the respect that I have for those who have given the ultimate sacrifice.

                So Mr. Hayes, continue to sit on your little MSNBC set and spew whatever hateful trash that you so choose.  But just remember, with every single word you say, that there is a reason you have the freedom to say it, and that is because men and women have given their lives for YOU.

Liberalism is Dead–Finding a New Word To Describe The Left

Liberalism as we once knew it is dead.

                The term “Liberal” most often refers to someone who is left-leaning on the political spectrum, but I argue that this term is insufficient in modern times.  The group that “Liberal” once described has moved; they have shifted further and further left to a point that has overstepped the boundaries of liberalism.

                Liberalism began with philosophers such as John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers.  Their ideas, positions, and beliefs are what directly contributed to this nation in which we reside, respect, and adore.  Such ideas as natural human rights, a government controlled by the people instead of a monarch,  individualism, and self-motivation and a desire to move up the social ladder led to a revolution by a group of colonists wanting to maintain these rights.

                Over the course of the last century and a half,  Liberalism changed in meaning.  What once described thoughts towards the basic rights of humans in a democracy morphed into the description of a political ideology characterized by large government,  centralized power, and concentrated authority.  Liberalism has changed into exactly what it once was not.

                Classical liberalism resented large government.  It resented the rights of a select few, a king, or a federal body to dictate rules, regulations, and impose taxes on people who had little voice or power to implement the public will.  It instead called for a system of government where the people have the most power and voice, where the government is an extension of the people, a system where the government was the people, not a caretaker of the people.

                Liberalism today is something far more.  Modern Liberalism calls for a large government with unending authority.  It calls for a government that inherits its power from the people which justifies every action with a loose interpretation of the Constitution.  Liberalism today is the mother for the people, providing welfare, entitlement programs, and programs meant to spread the wealth and equalize the playing field.  It provides for a government that oversteps its Constitutional boundaries on so many levels that it makes one question whether modern Liberals either don’t understand the Constitution or do not respect it enough to model their policy and government on the document.

                For these reasons, the left does not deserve the title of “Liberal.”  Such a term degrades the Classical Liberalists who founded this great nation.  Such a term implies that founding fathers, ideas, and principles are somewhat related to the policies and programs pursued by the leftist regimes of modern times.

                It is time for a new word to describe and characterize characters such as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Maher, and Harry Reid.  Socialist might be a bit extreme (though accurate), but Democrat is not accurate enough.   Semi-Marxist?  Borderline-Communist?  None of these have a ring.  Federalist maybe, but then that degrades Alexander Hamilton.  Leftists does not illustrate their antics adequately.  Progressive is too friendly of a word. 

               Liberalism, in its essence, is a beautiful thing, a thing that deserves respect and praise.  Modern Conservatives are the ones that truly embody the ideas of classical Liberalism.  Small government, a free market, individualism and self-motivation are all underlying principles behind Republican and Conservative views and policies.  While I do not propose changing the term used to describe these views from Conservative to Liberal, I would like people to understand that it is a farce for leftists to masquerade under such a term when the true group embodying Liberalism is the group on the right.

                John Locke and Thomas Jefferson come nowhere near to falling under the characterization of a modern Liberal.  They are far from it.  Stop using the term “Liberal” to describe borderline-Socialist pigs like Barack Obama.  The only category that should include Obama and Thomas Jefferson is a list of US Presidents, thought hopefully not a list of those serving two terms.

Hypocritical Obama and His Overly Expensive Car

Recently, Barack Obama met with Congressional leaders from both parties over sandwiches, and the main item of debate was the debt ceiling and the proposed method of dealing with the issue once it reemerges as the critical topic in the fall.  John Boehner is adamant, as he was last fall, that the only way that he will allow the debt ceiling to be raised is if there are drastic spending cuts promised by Obama and his party cronies.

What Boehner is demanding seems logical.  If you are going to allow the country to go further in debt, then you should make measures to ensure that you do not have to keep sending the country further under.  However, Obama and other Democrats criticize this position.

Democrats have even gone as far to say that such a position will be holding the country hostage in the name of advancing political ideology.  Really?  Are they serious?

Demanding that the government significantly reduce their spending at a time when Congress is having to raise the national debt ceiling YET AGAIN is unreasonable? However, it is perfectly fine for Democrats to raise, raise, raise to fund their own political agenda.

This situation yet again plainly displays the hypocrisy that has enveloped the Democratic Party and their esteemed leader Barack Obama.  A logical step towards a solution is unreasonable, but unwarranted, irresponsible spending is the right thing for the nation.  And of course we know how MSNBC and other liberal media outlets are going to portray this: Republicans are just obstructionist.

What happens when Mitt Romney is elected and Democrats have to face the facts that the nation has popularly voted against their massive spending spree?  As a nation, we can only hope that such a realization occurs in the minds of the hypocritical children that parade on Capitol Hill flaunting their “growth” programs and redistribution programs.

The fact is: Democrats and Barack Obama dug a hole when they took office, and they have pushed the country into that hole.  It is even worse than that.  They are shoveling dirt on top of America.  That is how far under their liberal agenda has sent the American economy.  Why else do we have to raise the debt ceiling EVERY SINGLE YEAR? 

I am not convinced that spending money that you don’t have has any positive economic effect.  If I am a father of a family of four, and I am thousands of dollars in debt, the last thing on my mind is going to be spending thousands more to buy a car to get to a job when walking, carpooling, or public transportation will do just fine.

That is effectively what Obama’s logic is.  He is spending and spending and spending in order to generate growth.  Like a father buying an outrageously expensive car to provide transportation to a new job when much cheaper methods would suffice, Barack Obama is spending an unnecessary amount of money to move towards full employment for the American people.  At some point, spending becomes unnecessary and exorbitant.

It’s time for the American people to suck it up and take the bus instead of riding up to work in that brand new Lexus.

A Fresh Approach to Solar Energy

 I have an idea that I feel could be a solid, starting point for a move to solar energy, yet, an approach that seeks to largely keep government out of the energy industry.


What I envision is a system of solar panel fields funded entirely by private investors.  Private investors would buy panels and space that would ultimately be connected to a larger network of panels.  For example, investor A would buy a 10,000 square feet worth of solar panels.  This area would be connected to multiple other areas purchased by other investors.  All of these areas would form one large solar field.  In this way, a very large source of solar energy could be formed while spreading the costs of funding this source over various investors.  Revenue generated from selling this energy could then be redistributed as dividends to the investors.


This energy generated could then have numerous uses.  It could be sold to utility companies; therefore, power our homes.  It could be used to power our schools and other government buildings. 



This is why I feel that this idea is valuable at this time.  In the present, as it becomes obvious that we need to cut government spending and balance the budget,  expenses such as government production of renewable energy needs to be reduced.  However, renewable energy is an industry that must be explored, just not at government expense.  With this idea, we place the renewable energy business entirely in the private sector, funded by private investors.  However, there would be a significant source of renewable energy flowing into the grid.  Utility companies can slowly and efficiently move their expenses from nonrenewable sources to solar energy generated by these solar fields.  The government would also be able to transition to renewable energy by powering schools and other federal/state buildings with this solar energy.


My question for you is: Do you see this as a plausible solution to advancement in the field of solar/renewable energy?  Is this an approach that would be both favored by both parties, and is it an approach in which significant development could be made?


Follow me @CapitolBlog