Friday, January 31, 2014

Popular anti-fracking study discredited by Colorado health department

By Ashe Schow | JANUARY 30, 2014 AT 6:37 PM

Topics: Beltway Confidential Health Colorado Energy and Environment Fracking

Research claiming that hydraulic fracturing -- fracking -- causes increased cancer risks and birth defects have been discredited by Colorado state public health officials.
The researchers with the Colorado School of Public Health cited "minuscule" statistical differences and ignored other factors in producing a report on the negative side effects of fracking, according to a statement released by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment on Thursday.
“It is difficult to draw conclusions from this study, due to its design and limitations,” Dr. Larry Wolk, CDPHE’s chief medical officer, said. “We appreciate continuing research about possible public health implications that may be associated with oil and gas operations in Colorado.
“With regard to this particular study, people should not rush to judgment."
Why? Because the study didn’t distinguish between active wells and inactive wells. It also did not distinguish between vertical, horizontal, oil or natural gas wells.
“This makes it difficult to draw conclusions on the actual exposure people may have had,” Wolk said.
Further, the researchers never considered outside factors that may have resulted in birth defects, such as drinking or smoking.
“Without considering the effect of these personal risk factors, as well as the role of genetic factors, it is very difficult to draw conclusions from this study,” Wolk said.
Oddly, the study in question showed a decreased risk of pre-term birth among women who lived closer to wells, which should have raised questions about its findings from the beginning.
The researchers noted in the study that they never bothered to check where the mother lived during conception or the first trimester. This is when most birth defects occur, so not knowing what was going on in the mother’s life at that time is a significant problem in determining whether fracking was to blame.
But all these obvious errors didn't stop anti-fracking activists from using the study to further myths about the dangers of fracking.

The secret 1971 memo exposed by Progressive Rep. Keith Ellison that you need to read

Jan. 31, 2014 10:34am Benjamin Weingarten

Recently we read through progressive Representative Keith Ellison’s (DFL-MN) new autobiography, “My Country ‘Tis of Thee.”

The secret 1971 memo exposed by Progressive Rep. Keith Ellison that you need to read

One section that struck us was Ellison’s discussion of the evolution of conservatism from Barry Goldwater to today.

Ellison notes that conservatives were propelled by “property-rights fundamentalists,” back in the ’60s, and that “racial resentment and free-market fundamentalism remain pillars of the Republican identity.” In fact, this is the only section of the book in which the the words “property rights” and “free-market” appear.

In any event, Rep. Ellison concludes his discussion of conservatism by bringing to light a 1971 memo that he claims was heavily influential in “radicalizing” conservatives, and a blueprint for villainous “corporate interests” to flex their political muscle and thus destabilize American democracy.

The confidential memorandum was penned by Lewis Powell, a then-corporate attorney who was writing to a friend at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Two months after mailing the document, Powell would be nominated to the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon.

According to Ellison the so-called “Powell Memorandum,” titled “Attack on American Free Enterprise System,”

“laid the foundation for present-day politics: big-money donors and corporate interests having more influence [over] the electorate. Powell called for the surveillance of and elimination of “left-wing elements.” He wrote of censoring textbooks and television content, and monitoring left-wing activity on college campuses.”

Rep. Ellison further argues that the “strategy reflected in the Powell Memorandum shaped the modern-day Republican Party. It was the blueprint used by Ronald Reagan, and it’s the manifesto put forward by Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan and the current crop of Republicans.”

The document was leaked in a critical column published in the Washington Post in September of 1972, after Powell had already gained his appointment to the Supreme Court.

We had never heard of this supposedly highly influential document, and judging by a simple Google search it appears it is primarily the focus of the Left, which they believe inspired corporations to set up think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation to subvert our political system.

Given the importance the Left seems to place on the document, it piqued our interest and we decided to look it up.

What we found in the document was remarkable.

We will be discussing this story and all the day’s news on our live BlazeCast with Editor-in-Chief Scott Baker (@bakerlink) beginning at 2 pm ET:

What President Obama Doesn't Understand about the Economy

What President Obama Doesn’t Understand about the Economy

Posted on January 30, 2014 @ 2:42 pm by Mark Skousen in Politics

“The triumph of persuasion over force is a sign of a civilized society.”
– Mark & Jo Ann Skousen, Persuasion vs. Force

President Barack Obama should have earned an MBA or a Ph. D. in economics at the University of Chicago rather than a law degree. He then would know why wages rise, and why unilateral government edicts like the minimum wage law often backfire.
In Tuesday night’s annual State of the Union address, President Barack Obama highlighted companies, such as Costco, which have raised wages “as a smart way to boost productivity and reduce turnover.” He also talked about the co-owner of Punch Pizza in Minneapolis, who decided last month to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour for its 300 employees. “It’s got nothing to do with politics,” he said, “it’s good business.”
What Obama apparently doesn’t understand is that companies can’t afford to raise wages unless they have the profits to pay those higher wages. Costco made a sizeable profit before it decided to raise wages. It made $2 billion last year and has $6 billion cash in the bank. Punch Pizza is first and foremost a highly profitable company. It can afford to pay its workers more and only then is it a win-win situation.
In my classes at Columbia and Chapman universities, I always told my students about when Henry Ford began paying his workers $5 a day, more than doubling their wages in 1914 because he had record profits.
Profits must come first. Wage increases can follow. Study after study shows that companies that earn higher profits pay their workers more.
Costco has received a lot of publicity lately for paying its employees more than Walmart. Costco’s stock has done a lot better lately than Walmart’s. But there is a cost (no pun intended). Costco’s profit margins are thin, only 2%, while Walmart’s profits are double that.
One final point: There’s a big difference between persuading business leaders to raise wages and them making that important business decision voluntarily instead of government forcing them to raise wages. Profitable companies can and do pay higher wages; unprofitable or breakeven companies can’t. It is business or economics 101.
President Obama needs to read our pamphlet, “Persuasion vs. Force.” I suggest you send him a copy.
You Blew It! The Ugly American Redux

“The system of America [should be] commerce with all and war with none.” — Benjamin Franklin

How would most Americans and Congress react if a foreign government passed laws regulating U.S. businesses and people in the United States? Probably with justified outrage. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is U.S. financial imperialism at its worst and is causing great resentment in much of the world, which is hurting U.S. interests.
The above words come from Richard Rahn of the Cato Institute in a column recently about the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act passed three years ago by Congress.
It is an absolute disaster costing billions of dollars in compliance and ill will with foreign countries, all in a vain effort to catch tax cheats. But the IRS is expected to garner at most only $800 million in lost revenue — small change for a big price tag.
Nobody bothered to do a cost-benefit analysis when they passed this stupid piece of legislation.
Basically, the new law requires foreign banks and institutions to report transactions to the IRS. As a result, most foreign banks won’t have anything to do with U.S. citizens. According to Richard Rahn, it also “may drive hundreds of billions of dollars of job-creating foreign capital out of the United States; that could trigger a global financial crisis by driving up interest rates that the U.S. government pays on its bonds; that makes it almost impossible for Americans living abroad to open bank accounts; and that violates international trading agreements that the United States has signed.”
Thanks, Congress.
In case you missed it, I encourage you to read my e-letter column from last week about President Obama’s attack on investors. I also invite you to comment in the space provided below.

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

Posted on 31 January, 2014 by clyde

TIMOTHY B. LEE
If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.
In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from “My House.” They opened the phone to determine the number for “My House.” That led them to the man’s home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.
The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.
The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.
But as the storage capacity of cellphones rises, that position could become harder to defend. Our smart phones increasingly contain everything about our digital lives: our e-mails, text messages, photographs, browser histories and more. It would be troubling if the police had the power to get all that information with no warrant merely by arresting a suspect.
On the other hand, the Massachusetts case involves a primitive flip-phone, which could make this a bad test case. The specific phone involved in this 2007 incident likely didn’t have the wealth of information we store on more modern cellphones. It’s arguably more analogous to the address books and pagers the courts have already said the police can search. So, as Orin Kerr points out, if the Supreme Court ruled on the case, it would be making a decision based on “facts that are atypical now and are getting more outdated every passing month.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/

House GOP Leadership's Immigration 'Principles'

House GOP Leadership's Immigration 'Principles' | Conservative Infidel Conservative Infidel

Full Text: House GOP Leadership’s Immigration ‘Principles’

Posted on Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 5:25 pm. by: George Washington

Matthew Boyle
The long-awaited House GOP leadership immigration “principles” document has surfaced. Titled “Standards for Immigration Reform,” the document breaks down each of the pillars of what House GOP leadership is pushing, including a claim that America’s “national and economic security” depends on granting amnesty through legal status to illegal aliens.
Below is the full text of the principles.

Standards for Immigration Reform
PREAMBLE
Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced. Washington’s failure to fix them is hurting our economy and jeopardizing our national security. The overriding purpose of our immigration system is to promote and further America’s national interests and that is not the case today. The serious problems in our immigration system must be solved, and we are committed to working in a bipartisan manner to solve them. But they cannot be solved with a single, massive piece of legislation that few have read and even fewer understand, and therefore, we will not go to a conference with the Senate’s immigration bill. The problems in our immigration system must be solved through a step-by-step, common-sense approach that starts with securing our country’s borders, enforcing our laws, and implementing robust enforcement measures. These are the principals guiding us in that effort.
Border Security and Interior Enforcement Must Come First
It is the fundamental duty of any government to secure its borders, and the United States is failing in this mission. We must secure our borders now and verify that they are secure. In addition, we must ensure now that when immigration reform is enacted, there will be a zero tolerance policy for those who cross the border illegally or overstay their visas in the future. Faced with a consistent pattern of administrations of both parties only selectively enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, we must enact reform that ensures that a President cannot unilaterally stop immigration enforcement.
Implement Entry-Exit Visa Tracking System
A fully functioning Entry-Exit system has been mandated by eight separate statutes over the last 17 years. At least three of these laws call for this system to be biometric, using technology to verify identity and prevent fraud. We must implement this system so we can identify and track down visitors who abuse our laws.
Employment Verification and Workplace Enforcement
In the 21st century it is unacceptable that the majority of employees have their work eligibility verified through a paper based system wrought with fraud. It is past time for this country to fully implement a workable electronic employment verification system.
Reforms to the Legal Immigration System
For far too long, the United States has emphasized extended family members and pure luck over employment-based immigration. This is inconsistent with nearly every other developed country. Every year thousands of foreign nationals pursue degrees at America’s colleges and universities, particularly in high skilled fields. Many of them want to use their expertise in U.S. industries that will spur economic growth and create jobs for Americans. When visas aren’t available, we end up exporting this labor and ingenuity to other countries. Visa and green card allocations need to reflect the needs of employers and the desire for these exceptional individuals to help grow our economy.
The goal of any temporary worker program should be to address the economic needs of the country and to strengthen our national security by allowing for realistic, enforceable, usable, legal paths for entry into the United States. Of particular concern are the needs of the agricultural industry, among others. It is imperative that these temporary workers are able to meet the economic needs of the country and do not displace or disadvantage American workers.
Youth
One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents. It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children through no fault of their own, those who know no other place as home. For those who meet certain eligibility standards, and serve honorably in our military or attain a college degree, we will do just that.
Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law
Our national and economic security depend on requiring people who are living and working here illegally to come forward and get right with the law. There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law. Rather, these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits). Criminal aliens, gang members, and sex offenders and those who do not meet the above requirements will not be eligible for this program. Finally, none of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been implemented to fulfill our promise to the American people that from here on, our immigration laws will indeed be enforced.
For More: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/30/Full-text-House-GOP-leadership-s-immigration-principles

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Bees are in Danger? Another Environmental Lie Exposed

January 30, 2014 By Alan Caruba

I cannot say it strong enough. Do not believe the lies that environmental groups, particularly those that receive millions from liberal foundations and from members who never question the “science” they claim to justify massive scare campaigns.

One such organization is Friends of the Earth (FOE) and its latest claim is that bees are dying all over the world as the result of the use of pesticides in agriculture and by people protecting their gardens. It is a lie.

The attack on the use of pesticides began in 1962 with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” that claimed that their use posed a threat to human life. She said “Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species — man — acquired significant power to alter the nature of the world.”

The problem with her opinion is that humanity cannot alter nature, but can protect itself against the diseases and other problems. Humanity endures nature in the form of climate that currently is cooling much of the Earth. Were it not for science, we would not have put an end to polio and reduced other diseases such as malaria by killing the mosquitoes that spread it. We would not have learned how to create water purification systems that protect the residents of cities worldwide. We would not have learned how to increase crops that feed millions thanks to genetic modification.

Is humanity at risk? There are seven billion of us, more than any previous time on Earth.

Why do I defend pesticides? Because, since the 1980s, I have served pest control trade associations by providing communications programs, too often ignored by the mainstream press. In the 1980s I worked for a corporation that produced one of the most extraordinary pesticides invented; one that was applied with water! It so alarmed the Environmental Protection Agency, that it insisted that its multi-million dollar registration be repeated and that company decided to cease making it available in the U.S.

What do pesticides do? They protect us against trillions of insect and rodent pests that spread diseases while some represent millions in property damage—termites—every year. In June 2011, the EPA announced it intended to ban the sale of “the most toxic rat and mouse poisons, as well as most loose bait and pellet products” to residential customers. The only result of such a ban would be millions more rats and mice in their homes!

Rachel Carson’s book predicted the massive loss of bird species due to the use of pesticides. It was a bestseller and is still in print. She was wrong, but she triggered the beginning and growth of environmental groups that have used the same bad “science” to unleash all manner of fears on Americans and worldwide. Friends of the Earth is just one of them.

Recently I received a FOE email from Lisa Archer, its food and technology program director, in which she reported a Valentine’s Day project to stop Home Depot and Lowe’s stores from selling pesticides. The project is based on the totally false claim that all the bees are dying from the use of pesticides; in particular neonicotid pesticides that are widely used in agriculture.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) disputes this while acknowledging that “In the last decade, a massive decline in bee populations was detected. It was given the name of “Bee Colony Collapse Disorder” and “while the problem seems to have abated somewhat after 2010, periodic declines continued, and fears of recurrent major extinctions persisted.” The fears have been fanned by environmental organizations, but the ACSH revealed new research by scientists affiliated with the Department of Agriculture here and in China, reviewed in “The Scientist” that “provides the first evidence that the bee problem in fact, stems from the tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV), not from pesticides.”

Not from pesticides despite the FOE’s claim that “neonicotinoid pesticides are killing bees” noting that Europe is banning them. Europe is a hotbed of environmental fears and, ironically, is reversing its trend toward solar and wind energy after it has driven up the cost of electricity there and harmed its economic growth.

The ACSH reports that “the bees may pick up the virus from the pollen of plants that they feed upon, and that the virus may be spread to other bees by mites that feed on them. Once it has gained a foothold in a bee, the researchers determined that TRVS can replicate itself in the bee’s body.”

“This process of a virus moving from one species to another is call ‘host shifting’”.

Writing in 2012, Rich Kozlovich, a pest control expert, reported that “it is not true that there has been a mysterious worldwide collapse in honey bee populations. In fact managed bee hives (which contain the bees which do the vast majority of our pollinating) have increased by a remarkable 45 percent over the last five years.”

He also noted that “most staple foods—wheat, rice and corn—do not depend on animal pollination at all. They are wind-pollinated, or self-pollinating.”

These well-established facts mean nothing to FOE or other environmental organizations seeking to demonize pesticides. It means nothing to the EPA that has banned many extraordinarily effective pesticides from use to protect humans and property.

It is the advances of modern science that have protected and extended human life. Banning them just exposes Americans to a range of diseases, some of which kill. Until more Americans understand that the real threat is the EPA and the environmental groups spreading baseless fears, they will continue to be at risk.

- See more at: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/01/30/bees-are-in-danger-another-environmental-lie-exposed/#sthash.uNuqCADb.dpuf

Bees are in Danger? Another Environmental Lie Exposed

January 30, 2014 By Alan Caruba

Is humanity at risk? There are seven billion of us, more than any previous time on Earth.

“This process of a virus moving from one species to another is call ‘host shifting’”.

He also noted that “most staple foods—wheat, rice and corn—do not depend on animal pollination at all. They are wind-pollinated, or self-pollinating.”

- See more at: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/01/30/bees-are-in-danger-another-environmental-lie-exposed/#sthash.uNuqCADb.dpuf

Republican Congressman Steve Stockman Walked Out of Obama’s State of The Union

Republican Congressman Steve Stockman Walked Out of Obama’s State of The Union

Written By : John Hawkins
January 30, 2014

One member of Congress did what all of them should have done to protest Obama’s lawless presidency.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) said Tuesday night he left President Obama’s State of the Union speech early after “hearing how the president is further abusing his Constitutional powers.”
“I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly-defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers,” Stockman said in a press release shortly after Obama’s speech ended. “Needless to say, I am deeply disappointed in the tone and content of tonight’s address.”
Stockman said Obama was promising to “break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree.”
“This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense,” the Texas congressman said.
…”Unfortunately, what I heard from President Obama tonight was hostility toward our foundational principles, condescension toward a co-equal branch of government, and a general aversion to common sense and bipartisanship,” Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) said in a press release.
“The president’s attempt to intimidate Congress by abusing executive power demonstrates a serious unwillingness to work with the coequal legislative branch of government,” Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) said in a statement.

Barack Obama seems to believe he can enforce or ignore any laws he chooses, change the law at his whim and go around Congress any time he pleases. Nothing that they mildly disagree with that policy isn’t sufficient, so it’s great to see Republicans like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann and Steve Stockman taking it even further. Every Republican in Congress should be raising holy hell over the way Obama is behaving and walking out of the State of the Union to protest how Obama’s behaving sends the right message to the American people.

Why You Should Delete SnapChat

August 22, 2013social media

1K+

I’ve been engaged in various forms of social media since AOL chat rooms in 1994. And I’ve never seen a more dangerous application targeting teenagers, specifically girls, than SnapChat.
The premise of SnapChat is simple. You take a picture, send it to a friend, and they can only see it for up to 10 seconds before it’s deleted.
And that’s where the lie begins.
I want to be blunt. My goal for this post is to motivate you to delete SnapChat from your phone.

Reason #1 – SnapChat is built on a lie

In my book, A Parent’s Guide to Understanding Social Media, I share three rules about social media which lead me to the conclusion that SnapChat isn’t to be trusted:

Rule #1 – Everything posted online is public

I wrote about this in depth here.
The central premise of SnapChat is that what you are sending is private. That’s a lie. There is a very real risk that everything you share with any app or on any website will become public. One day, every image you post online may become associated with your name. When you post something online you give up the ability to control where that image goes. So even if you aren’t using your real name to post with SnapChat, that “private image” may one day pop up in a Google Search of your name.
The same is true of anywhere you post something online. You always must know that what you are posting could become public.

Rule #2 – There’s no such thing as anonymity online, only perceived anonymity.

Any time your device connects to the internet it associates 100% of your activity with your device. (Every device has a unique identifier, like a finger print. When you buy it and register it that transaction is linked to you and everything you do with it is ultimately pointing back to you.)
Every site, every image you upload/download, every search, every call… everything is associated with that device. E.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g. Even if you delete it. Even if you use a proxy server. Even if… E.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g.
The content isn’t always saved, but the activity itself most definitely is.
With SnapChat, the perception that your account is anonymous… meaning it is using a pseudonym [An account name] and not your real name, makes it easy to think that you are disassociating what you send on SnapChat from “the real you.”
Pure and simple. Perceived anonymity is dangerous. And SnapChat uses that to their advantage to get you to trust it. Over time you’ll begin to think that if you’re using a fake name, what you send can’t be tracked back to you.
But that’s not how the internet works at all.
SnapChat knows who you are, where you are, and they store it all. (They are legally bound to.) Even though their marketing copy says they don’t… their terms of service say that they do store it AND they have the right to sell that information as an asset to the company which they can sell. (See Usage Data on their terms of service. Also look at the language in their privacy policy: “We cannot guarantee that deletion always occurs within a particular timeframe.” This is important because when you create an account you are legally agreeing to these terms even though it’s exactly opposite of the marketing.)

Rule #3 There’s no such thing as online privacy, only perceived online privacy

The biggest lie is that the images go away. In fact, because they are transferred between users of the app, that image actually touches several servers between your phone and your friends phone. The image goes from your device, to your phone carriers servers, to SnapChats servers, to your friends phone carriers servers, to their phone. That message is logged all of those places, that image is stored on SnapChats servers, that image is stored on your phone, and that image is stored on your friends phone. (Not to mention a ton of servers and switches who pass that data across the web.)
All the SnapChat app actually does to make it so you see if for just a few seconds is change the name of the file so that you can’t see it. But it’s still there. [Read this article: Forensic Expert Pokes Holes in SnapChat and Facebook]
Bottom line: Perceived privacy is dangerous. It convinces you that something is private, when at it’s very core it isn’t private at all. Combine that with the lie that what you share on SnapChat is anonymous and you’ll see why I think SnapChat is so dangerous, especially for teenagers.
Sidenote: Ironically, a text message is more private than something sent with SnapChat. The FCC guarantees that a text is a private exchange between two devices and it takes a search warrant to access your texts. With SnapChat you are willingly sharing something over a network that is not secure and you are not protected, legally, from them revealing all of your messages down the road. When you agree to the terms of service you agree that all of the data is theirs and they can do with it whatever they want.
I mean, why do you think the app is free? Because they are collecting data about you and selling it to marketing companies. Duh.
You are the product they are selling!

Reason #2 – SnapChat was created as a safe way to sext

Currently, the creators of SnapChat are busy suing one another about who really created the application in the first place. The case has revealed documents which confirm what everyone has known since the beginning. SnapChat was created as a “safe” sexting app.
Here’s an email about drafting the first press release, included in the court documents. (The app was originally called picaboo)
snapchat-email-1

And this is an exchange between the creator and a person they are asking to promote the app’s release.
snapchat-email-2

The creators refer to themselves as “certified bros” who brag about their fraternity getting kicked off Stanford’s campus. And they refer to women, their target demographic, as “betches.”
Is that how you like to be talked about? If you are a parent, are you excited about your daughter being targeted to send images through a service to “certified bros” who call your daughter a “betch.”
I think not.
The fact is that SnapChat was created as a sexting app. Like a do it yourself version of Girls Gone Wild. You might not use it that way, but that’s what it was created for.
And the fact is that the images are not deleted, according to the terms of service, they can store for whatever purposes they want for as long as they want.
(Read this article about the lawsuit, including more documentation about how the creators talk about women, the app, and their hopes to get very rich selling your usage data.)
Worse yet? SnapChat is funded with venture cap money, lots of it. So the goal of SnapChat is to sell it for a lot of money… including all of the data… meaning you have zero control where your “private” images will one day end up.
Check this little gem out in their privacy policy: “Sharing of information: We may share information about you as follows or as otherwise described in this Privacy Policy: In connection with, or during negotiations of, any merger, sale of company assets, financing or acquisition of all or a portion of our business to another company;”
What does that mean? That means your “private pictures” are ultimately for sale. And you’ve given them permission to sell them.
Don’t think that’s a problem? Read the story of Angie Varona, who shared some images at age 14 and is now a face & body used to sell porn and fake Facebook accounts against her will.

“But I use it innocently” “But it’s really fun.”

Lots of not-so-innocent things are used innocently. And lots of innocent things are used for not-so-innocent things.
Yup. That’s true. But I think when you understand that the app is fundamentally built on a lie, one which intentionally deceives you, and when you understand that the original intention of the app– in the words of its creators– was “the best way to sext.”
Do your homework. Investigate for yourself. Then delete it.
My advice? Share pictures over text message or Instagram. (Instagram, part of Facebook, has a much better privacy policy, terms of service, and is not built on the lie of privacy.)

Download a free PDF of this post to email to anyone who needs it.
Why You Should Delete Snapchat (34770)

A left-wing disdain for conservative women and families flares up

By Timothy P. Carney | JANUARY 30, 2014 AT 12:53 PM

Topics: Beltway Confidential Republican Party Conservatism

MSNBC writers and tweeters posit that the "right wing" broadly and uniquely bears hatred for multiracial family.
MSNBC host Alex Wagner might have meant no ill will when she asked of GOP congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers "where's the needlepoint," but imagine if a conservative host had asked that about a Democratic woman. And there's no real innocent interpretation of NY Times editor Andrew Rosenthal calling Rodgers a "Stepford" wife.
It's not hard to see a theme here: New York liberals holding conservative women in disdain. I've seen that Rosenthal mindset plenty: the assumption that a woman who holds conservative views does so only because she has had her brain removed and reprogrammed by manipulative men.
This closed-mindedness is far from universal. I'm from New York and I live in Montgomery County, Md., and most of my liberal friends are happy for me having a big family and a conservative wife who stays at home working (more than) full time to take care of our kids and home. But to the degree this mindset does exist at the liberal mainstream media, it really dampens any hope for peaceful discussions about family, marriage, and politics.

Congressman Explains Why He Bailed On SOTU Address

January 29, 2014 by B. Christopher Agee Leave a Comment

For millions of patriots, Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night was yet another frustrating reminder that he views Congress as an obstacle to be avoided in his pursuit of a leftist utopia. He repeatedly expressed his desire to act unilaterally in imposing his will on the American people – even as he directly addressed the legislators he promised to bypass in the process.

One of those lawmakers, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman, apparently had enough of his imperial rhetoric and actually excused himself before the speech was complete.

“I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly-defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers,” he explained, adding he was “deeply disappointed in the tone and content” of the speech.

Stockman, a proven conservative with strong Tea Party support, did not mince words when he accused Obama of “abusing his Constitutional powers,” breaking his presidential oath, and “enacting his own brand of law through executive decree.”

The congressman’s remarks reflected those of many of his colleagues – not to mention millions of Americans outraged over Obama’s continual power grab.

Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador, for example, issued a statement blasting the speech for its “hostility toward our foundational principles, condescension toward a co-equal branch of government, and a general aversion to common sense and bipartisanship.”

“This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense,” he added, suggesting the speech should have included Obama’s admission that “his policies have failed.”

Stockman, who is hoping to oust Republican Sen. John Cornyn in the upcoming election, is often outspoken in his criticism of Obama and leftism in general. Sometimes, as evidenced by his early departure from Tuesday’s speech, actions truly do speak louder than words.

Congressman Explains Why He Bailed On SOTU Address

January 29, 2014 by B. Christopher Agee Leave a Comment

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

One of those lawmakers, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman, apparently had enough of his imperial rhetoric and actually excused himself before the speech was complete.
“I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly-defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers,” he explained, adding he was “deeply disappointed in the tone and content” of the speech.
Stockman, a proven conservative with strong Tea Party support, did not mince words when he accused Obama of “abusing his Constitutional powers,” breaking his presidential oath, and “enacting his own brand of law through executive decree.”
The congressman’s remarks reflected those of many of his colleagues – not to mention millions of Americans outraged over Obama’s continual power grab.
Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador, for example, issued a statement blasting the speech for its “hostility toward our foundational principles, condescension toward a co-equal branch of government, and a general aversion to common sense and bipartisanship.”

By walking out on the annual event, however, Stockman was able to bring attention to the tyrannical policies Obama endorsed in the address. He then capitalized on that publicity by lambasting both the speech and its orator.
“This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense,” he added, suggesting the speech should have included Obama’s admission that “his policies have failed.”
Stockman, who is hoping to oust Republican Sen. John Cornyn in the upcoming election, is often outspoken in his criticism of Obama and leftism in general. Sometimes, as evidenced by his early departure from Tuesday’s speech, actions truly do speak louder than words.

Obama’s 2013 State of the Union proposals: What flopped and what succeeded

By Glenn Kessler
January 28 at 6:00 am

(Charles Dharapak/Pool via European Pressphoto Agency)

This column has been updated
Every president announces a slew of initiatives in his State of the Union address. Here, in order of delivery, is a summary of the key proposals, pledges or priorities announced by President Obama a year ago — and what happened to them.
In general, Obama’s success rate has been relatively poor since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2011. In 2013, Obama had only five wins out of 24 proposals checked, for a batting average of .208. (If we exclude the six “in the works” proposals, the batting average rises to .277.) To see how Obama has fared in previous years, click these links: 2012, 2011, 2010.

The Proposals

Obama: “On Medicare, I’m prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health-care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.”
No action has been taken. The two sides did not even begin a negotiation on reductions on entitlements, which was fine with many Democrats.
Obama: “To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested, and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and the well-connected.”

No action has been taken.
Obama: “Now is our best chance for bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit.”

No action has been taken.
Obama: “Let’s set party interests aside and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future. And let’s do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors.”

Congress finally passed a budget plan and then an annual spending bill — although it took one more round of brinkmanship. The government shut down for 16 days in an impasse over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The experience so scarred lawmakers in both parties that they were able to come together and soften some of the automatic spending cuts in the sequester. We’ll rate this as completed, although it certainly did not happen as smoothly as the president had wished.
Obama: “A year and a half ago, I put forward an American Jobs Act that independent economists said would create more than 1 million new jobs. And I thank the last Congress for passing some of that agenda. I urge this Congress to pass the rest.”

No action has been taken.
Obama: “So tonight, I’m announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs, where businesses will partner with the Department of Defense and Energy to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs.”

It took almost twelve months before Obama, on Jan. 15, announced the first of these three manufacturing hubs during a speech in Raleigh, N.C. Work continues on selecting the other two hubs. So we can’t quite rate this as completed.
Obama: “And I ask this Congress to help create a network of 15 of these hubs and guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is made right here in America.”

There is bipartisan support for this idea, but so far Congress has not acted.
Obama: “I urge this Congress to get together, pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”

No legislative action was taken, but the Environmental Protection Agency did propose new limits on greenhouse gas emissions at new power plants, and pledged to propose rules for existing power plants in 2014. He also ordered the federal government to triple its use of renewable sources of energy by 2020. So we will mark this as completed.
Obama: “I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.”

The White House produced a fancy graphic illustrating this concept, but after that the idea appeared to lose steam, especially after Republicans sought to pair it with a lifting of drilling restrictions.
Obama: “I propose a ‘Fix-It-First’ program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country.”

Obama wanted $50 billion to shore up the nation’s infrastructure, but no action has been taken. Obama did sign a presidential memo to modernize the federal infrastructure process.
Obama: “And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the whole burden, I’m also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods, modern pipelines to withstand a storm, modern schools worthy of our children.”

No action has been taken on this idea.
Obama: “Right now, there’s a bill in this Congress that would give every responsible homeowner in America the chance to save $3,000 a year by refinancing at today’s rates. Democrats and Republicans have supported it before, so what are we waiting for? Take a vote, and send me that bill.”

The bills endorsing this idea never made out if the committees in either the Senate or House.
Obama: “I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every single child in America.”

Obama had sought $75 billion to help fund universal prekindergarten education. That did not happen, but Early Head Start and Head Start did get a $1 billion increase on top of a restoration of sequestration cuts. Funding was also added for competitive grants to states to help them expand pre-K programs. The administration is also claiming credit for the fact that 30 states have expanded access to pre-K through state programs. So there is some movement on this issue.
Obama: “I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. And we’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering and math — the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill the jobs that are there right now and will be there in the future.”

Congress did not fund this proposal, but the administration launched a competition to do it with existing funds. (We originally marked this with an “X” but shifted it to incomplete.)
Obama: “Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months, and I will sign it right away.”

The Senate with bipartisan support passed a comprehensive immigration bill that included a path to citizenship for more than 10 million undocumented immigrants, but action has stalled in the House. There is little support for the Senate bill among House Republicans, and it is unclear whether the House will even act, let alone reach agreement with the Senate.
Obama: “Today, the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden originally wrote almost 20 years ago. And I now urge the House to do the same.”

Two weeks after the State of the Union speech, the House, in a 286 to 138 vote, adopted a reauthorization and expansion of the law that brought gays, lesbians and transgender people, Native Americans and immigrants under its protections.
Obama: “I ask this Congress to declare that women should earn a living equal to their efforts, and finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year.”

No action has been taken.
Obama: “Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour.”

No action has been taken. President Obama has since backed legislation proposed by Democrats that would boost the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, from the current level of $7.25. The White House said that in tonight’s speech the president will announce that, via executive order, he is boosting the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2015 for workers on new federal contracts; he also will renew his call for a national increase.
Obama: “This year, my administration will begin to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America to get these communities back on their feet.”

Early in January, Obama announced the first five “promise zones”–San Antonio, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, southeastern Kentucky and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Since he did not say there would be 20 in a year, we will marked this as completed. (Note: this initiative was added as an update to the initial posting, which slightly increased the president’s batting average.)
Obama: “The leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution, because a coalition stands united in demanding that they meet their obligations, and we will do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.”

In breakthrough negotiations, major world powers reached an interim accord with the Iranian government that, in exchange for modest sanctions relief, caps certain uranium enrichment levels and bolsters inspections. But the fragile “joint plan of action” is under fire in Congress — and faces objections from Iranian hardliners — and so prospects for a final deal limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain uncertain.
Obama: “To boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

The negotiations on this free-trade deal in the Asia-Pacific region have not been completed but remain on a glide path toward an agreement. There is some hope that it might be wrapped up by the time Obama travels to Asia in April. Obama also announced he would launch talks with the European Union on a similar pact.
Obama: “We’ll keep the pressure on a Syrian regime that has murdered its own people, and support opposition leaders that respect the rights of every Syrian.”

The Syrian government has gained the upper hand in the fighting, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad remains in power. Obama nearly launched missile strikes in response to Syria’s apparent use of the chemical weapons but then accepted a Russian plan for destruction of Syria’s chemical stocks. Most analysts give Obama low marks for his handling of the Syrian crisis, even though there appears little appetite among Americans for involvement in another conflict in the Middle East. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that at least 100,000 people have died in the conflict, but it has stopped updating the toll because of the difficulty of getting information.
Obama: “I’m announcing a nonpartisan commission to improve the voting experience in America. And it definitely needs improvement. I’m asking two long-time experts in the field — who, by the way, recently served as the top attorneys for my campaign and for Governor Romney’s campaign — to lead it. We can fix this, and we will. The American people demand it, and so does our democracy.”

The commission delivered its report just last week, so we will count that as completed.
Obama: “Overwhelming majorities of Americans — Americans who believe in the Second Amendment — have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned. Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. Now, if you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote.”

Obama ended his speech with calls for new gun-control measures in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., tragedy, but in perhaps his most crushing disappointment of the year, not even a stripped-down proposal for enhanced background checks could advance to a final vote in the Senate. No action was taken in the House. The White House notes that the president has taken executive action to address gun violence.

OBAMA’S PLAN TO MAKE BULLETS ‘VANISH’

January 27, 2014 / Clark Kent / 2 comments

Former U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., is joining the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups to warn about a back-door attack on the Second Amendment by the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.

Ex-Rep. Allen B. West, R-Fla. Allen West warns of back-door attack on guns
In a column posted on his website Sunday, West wrote about the Doe Run company’s lead-producing plant in Herculaneum, Mo., which is being forced to close after the EPA required it to spend up to $100 million on upgrades.
Doe Run, the last primary lead smelter in the United States, has been around since 1892 but is closing on Dec. 31.
West accused Obama of using the EPA to advance “backdoor gun control … while we are all distracted with Obamacare and Iran nuclear negotiations.”
West argued the Obama administration’s “new extremely tight air-quality restrictions” have led to the end of lead as the primary metal in bullets — making ammunition much more expensive and less accessible and leaving America no choice but to turn to overseas operations to produce lead bullets, a situation West says is akin to a federal power grab on guns.
“Come 2014, all ammunition sold to civilian gun owners in America will have to be imported, a result of President Obama’s crackdown on sulfur dioxide and lead emissions and accompanying harsh Environmental Protection Agency regulations,” wrote West.

The Doe Run smelter opened in 1892/Photo: KBIA
“[This] will surely increase the price and possibly come under government control,” Mr. West warned, according to a Breitbart.com report. “It seems this is fully in concert with the U.S. military and Homeland Defense recent purchase of large quantities of ammunition.”
He said the “chilling effect” is that while the closure of the smelt plant doesn’t take guns out of the hands of Americans, it does put in jeopardy ammunition supplies.
As the largest lead producer in North America, Doe Run was embroiled in a decade-long battle between angry parents, government regulators and environmentalists, who argued the plant was responsible for high levels of lead in the blood of children in the area, according to an August story on Mid-Missouri Public Radio.
The battles over contamination in the town pitted neighbor against neighbor and culminated in a flurry of lawsuits. One of them singled out the EPA and forced the federal government to revise the national air pollution standard for lead, tightening it by a factor of ten.
The NRA-ILA issued a press release in response to Doe Run’s closing:

Doe Run made significant efforts to reduce lead emissions from the smelter, but in 2008 the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead that were 10 times tighter than the previous standard. Given the new lead air quality standard, Doe Run made the decision to close the Herculaneum smelter.
Whatever the EPA’s motivation when creating the new lead air quality standard, increasingly restrictive regulation of lead is likely to affect the production and cost of traditional ammunition. Just this month, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that will ban lead ammunition for all hunting in California. The Center for Biological Diversity has tried multiple times to get similar regulations at the federal level by trying, and repeatedly failing, to get the EPA to regulate conventional ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

“You can own all the guns you want, but if you can’t get ammo, you are out of luck,” West wrote, on his blog. “Remember when President Obama promised his minions that he was working on gun control behind the scenes? Welcome to it. The result is that all domestically mined ore will have to be shipped overseas, refined and then shipped back to the U.S.”
West warned: “Not only will ammo be even harder to come by, the demand and the process of supply will cause the price to skyrocket even more. And ponder this: There is an excellent chance that Obama will rig the market to where all ammo has to be purchased from the government, instituting an ammo registration. … So America, backdoor gun control is moving forward … [and] our Second Amendment rights are undergoing an assault by clandestine infiltration.”
West concluded his editorial by bashing the president’s “progressive socialist acolytes” for destroying the Second Amendment before telling fellow GOP politicians, “Now it’s our move in 2014.”

Friday, January 31, 2014

Popular anti-fracking study discredited by Colorado health department

The secret 1971 memo exposed by Progressive Rep. Keith Ellison that you need to read

What President Obama Doesn’t Understand about the Economy

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Bees are in Danger? Another Environmental Lie Exposed

Bees are in Danger? Another Environmental Lie Exposed

Reason #1 – SnapChat is built on a lie

Rule #1 – Everything posted online is public

Rule #2 – There’s no such thing as anonymity online, only perceived anonymity.

Rule #3 There’s no such thing as online privacy, only perceived online privacy

Reason #2 – SnapChat was created as a safe way to sext

“But I use it innocently” “But it’s really fun.”

A left-wing disdain for conservative women and families flares up

Congressman Explains Why He Bailed On SOTU Address

Congressman Explains Why He Bailed On SOTU Address

By Glenn Kessler

January 28 at 6:00 am

The Proposals

OBAMA’S PLAN TO MAKE BULLETS ‘VANISH’

Former U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., is joining the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups to warn about a back-door attack on the Second Amendment by the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.

AddToAny

My Blog List

Search This Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me