My Letter To Twitter–Possible Lawsuit

Below, you will find a letter that I have sent to several Twitter contact emails as of 11:51 A.M today, July 3, 2012.  In the letter, I detail the situation with my Twitter account, notify them of a lawsuit I am in the process of drafting, and request information from them that I am entitled to by law and their own Terms Of Use.

On May 30, 2012, my Twitter account @CapitolBlog was abruptly suspended.  I have submitted several support tickets, have replied to two emails seeking confirmation to open my support tickets, and I have yet to receive a single explanation as to why my account was suspended, the status of the tickets, or an assurance that my account is being looked into.  To my knowledge, I did not break a single Twitter Rule, and I have not been correctly notified to any rule that I have broken.  As of now, my account has been suspended without an explanation or a reason given to the owner of that account, myself.

                I understand that support tickets are not always accessed and processed in a timely manner, but I feel like more than four week is adequate enough time for someone to at least contact me and give me an update on my account, a reason it was suspended, or the status of my support tickets.

                In the time that my account has been suspended without a single notification or explanation given, I have seen a significant decrease in traffic on the blog to which my Twitter account was connected (  My Twitter account was the leading generator of traffic to my site, and when Twitter suspended my account, the leading traffic source was now gone. 

                I am currently drafting a lawsuit against Twitter for time and wages lost due to the suspension of my account.  In my opinion, this situation would not be necessary if I was given a single reason as to why my account has been suspended.  Furthermore, I would not be in this position if Twitter would have given me an update on my support ticket and/or account.

                In the time that I am drafting this lawsuit, I am open to a settlement with Twitter.  I am not asking for money; I am simply asking that my account be unsuspended and an apology issued for this practice of bad business and customer support.  I will cease the pursuit of this lawsuit if these terms are met, and I am once again given full control of my account.

                In the meantime, pursuant to Twitter’s own Terms of Use, I am invoking the rights to my original content and demanding that Twitter email to me a complete collection of every tweet that I have submitted.  Twitter’s own Terms of use guarantees my rights to this content, and I am asking for a complete collection of my content so that I can have it as evidence that I have not violated Twitter’s Rules.

                Furthermore, pursuant to the US-EU Safe Harbor agreement and the fact that my content has been both viewed and sent to countries in the European Union, I am requesting that Twitter release whatever information that it currently holds on my account to me.  The Safe Harbor agreement affirms my rights to this information.

                As noted, I am wishing to see my account reinstated if Twitter cannot produce a single piece of evidence to show that I have violated Twitter rules in some way. 


ObamaCare Ruling Updates

Hey everyone.  As we get closer and closer to an anticipated Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare, I am going to do my best to stay up to date and bring you as many live details as possible.


10:21 AM—Having many reporter friends in DC tell me that media is gathering outside of SCOTUS anticipating a ruling being handed down on ObamaCare sometime today.  This could be the week that ruins any shot at re-election for Barack Obama

10:27 AM–In other news, the SCOTUS has made it a little bit harder for public sector unions to collect fees.

10:28 AM–All opinions are in, no healthcare ruling today.  Sorry folks.  We will try again Monday


In the meantime, educate yourself on what the Supreme Court is ruling on.  Obama wants to wield enormous power by REQUIRING each and every American to purchase healthcare if they are not provided it.  No such power is granted to any branch in the Constitution.  The absence of commerce is not commerce;therefore, Congress cannot regulate it.

ACORN, Barack Obama, and Bill Ayers–The Truth About Their Relationship

This is what Barack Obama said in 2008.


You will notice that Barack Obama says that “as an elected official he had interactions with ACORN.”  Obama is clearly trying to make it known that he did not have any deeper relationships with the organization who works to keep liberal leaders in government by using dirty political tricks and identity/voter fraud.

Obviously, the President of the United States would want to steer clear of any accusations of a relationship with an organization who has repeatedly broken election laws and federal laws in the past.  Such a relationship would implicate Barack Obama in many of the frauds conducted by ACORN.

At one point, Barack Obama’s website “Fight The Smears” section definitively denied any close relationship between Barack Obama and ACORN.  Since, that particular page has been taken down off of the web.

Speaking of pages that have been taken off of the Internet, let’s move to the cold, hard evidence that Barack Obama associated with ACORN more than merely interacting as a public official.

In Social Policy (Winter 2003 Volume 34, Number 2), there is an article entitled “Towards A Chicago School of Youth Organizing.”  The paper discusses the current state of youth organization in Chicago following a meeting held by the Woods Fund of Chicago.  

Two things are important to note here.  This paper is written by two people who were both involved with the Woods Fund, and most likely involved with ACORN due to the fact that both were up and coming community organizers in the Chicago area.  

Secondly, the paper touches on ideas and discussions held at a series of youth organizer meetings sponsored by the Woods Fund.  Though published in 2003, it is believed that these meetings had been held years before, while Barack Obama was on the executive board of the Woods Fund.

Barack Obama served on the board of directors from 1993 to 2001.  During that time, Bill Ayers served on the board of directors as well.  There is our first relationship.  Obama has concrete connections to serving on the same board of directors as former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.  

Another important thing to mention is that the Woods Fund was a regular donor to ACORN, granting annual funds of around $70,000.  No connections other than as a personal official, President Obama?

Wait, that is not all.  In the same exact publication, there is a case study called “Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign.”  This specific case study written by Toni Foulkes chronicles the depth of the relationship that Barack Obama and ACORN truly had.  ACORN actively worked side by side with Obama’s campaign for Senate, and Barack Obama served as guest lecturer at multiple ACORN training sessions.

Obama’s claim that he had a minimal relationship with ACORN is starting to unravel in the face of facts.

Obama is a master of how to run a political machine.  A political machine is a network of corrupt, dirty, lying politicians (usually from the same region) that work together to ensure that power never leaves their hands.  In the case of Barack Obama, ACORN, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and others like them from the Chicago area, there is a large political machine being mobilized against the American people.

This machine will only ramp up again heading into the November elections.  Pieces of the machine are falling apart, like Eric Holder.  However, have no doubt in your mind that Obama will use the machine to his advantage.

Though he has repeatedly denied his relationship with ACORN and Bill Ayers, you will see here that there is proof that such relationships did occur and may have been much deeper than we initially thought.


The Reason Why Scott Walker Should be Vice President

It is about that time.  Mitt Romney is beginning to vet potential running mates many names are being thrown around. Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio are both strong, worthy candidates, but there is no doubt in my mind that Romney should select Scott Walker as his Vice President.

Coming off of a historical gubernatorial recall election, Scott Walker has momentum.  After such a long, gruesome fight, Walker is in a position to exert more power than he ever has before.  The man took on the unions, and the unions lost, BIG time.  Scott Walker squashed the greatest liberal cause of 2012 thus far.  

Many Americans are familiar with Walker now after the highly followed and publicized recall election, and voters know exactly where Governor Walker stands on the major issues of the coming election.  Voters have had weeks of coverage of the deficit reduction and union-combating policies that Walker enacted while governor of Wisconsin.

Better yet, how has Obama reacted to Scott Walker.  The answer is simple: he has not.  Obama was nowhere to be seen during the recall election.  He wanted to stay as far away from Wisconsin as possible.  For a man that pledged to stand by the unions, Obama let the unions fall.

The question must be asked: Why did Barack Obama not support a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in a state where the president had quite a large lead in the polls?  

Barack Obama is scared of Scott Walker and the courage that he brought to the office of Governor of Wisconsin.  For once, someone told the liberal wacks and union thugs “NO!”  Obama witnessed how strong of an executive that Walker is, and he did not want to become involved at all.  

If I were Romney, I would send Obama running.  Bring Scott Walker further onto the national stage and send the message to the left and the unions that there are things that need to be done in the federal government, and a Romney/Walker administration is an administration that will get things done.  

Scott Walker is a house hold name right now, make it even bigger.  Romney needs to make Walker the next Vice President of the United States of America.  Walker can be Romney’s bulldog, not afraid to take on whatever challenge comes his way.  Obama, Democrats, and the unions are terrified of people like Scott Walker currently.  

Don’t let them get comfortable.

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.

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