While JCPenney got at least a temporary reprieve from the Martha Stewart branding debacle with Macy’s, that doesn’t come close to undoing the damage by recently ousted CEO, Ron Johnson. They can console themselves at least a little that the dismissal cost them a paltry $148,924, but in all fairness (pun intended), that number should include the 25% losses in sales, and the 50% drop in stock values. Hindsight is 20/20, and one can only wonder now why JCPenney would think that Johnson could have helped to boost their sales the same way did with Apple stores. Comparing the two is like the proverbial comparison of “apples and oranges” – Apple products enjoy a base of loyal consumers that buy products simply because they are manufactured by the electronics giant. It’s also abundantly clear that it was huge mistake to give Johnson free reign to make changes to the department store’s brick and mortar operations at will. It’s been argued that he was fixing something that wasn’t broken, and should have been focusing on online sales.

So, to rectify all of this, JCPenney may very well be making another big mistake by bringing back former CEO, Myron Ullman. Nothing says a company has learned its lesson about past mistakes like bringing back someone that failed to address problems previously, even if that person could be considered the “lesser of two evils.” Yes, the colossal mistakes made by Johnson need to be rolled back, and it probably won’t hurt the bottom line at least temporarily, to appease consumers that were annoyed with the radical changes by assuring them that it will be going back to “business as usual.” But, if the future plans don’t include a sincere effort to compete in the online market, JCPenney can’t count on a long-term recovery. And that brings us to “the apology” ad campaign:

The transcript:

It’s no secret, recently JCPenney changed. Some changes you liked and some you didn’t, but what matters from mistakes is what we learn. We learned a very simple thing, to listen to you. To hear what you need, to make your life more beautiful. Come back to JCPenney, we heard you. Now, we’d love to see you.

The commercial encourages consumers to visit the corporate Facebook page, to offer their feedback. A quick review of their interactions with the public isn’t particularly encouraging though. Visitor comments run hot and cold, with quite a few consumers making suggestions about the company returning to old practices. But, this is Facebook, and it’s likely that responses would be radically different on other social media sites. Many of the comments are from older consumers, and while they are important to consider, the reality of the situation is that building a marketing plan based on feedback from age-limited niche will be yet another disaster. Bluntly, particularly if catering to Baby Boomers, that is a recipe for short-term success followed by a precipitous drop and flat-line. It can’t be assumed that JCPenney will be smart enough to avoid this either, since they’ve opted to re-hire Ullman. Only time will tell where this all leads, but if the past is any indication, consumers will get one thing they tend to enjoy for at least a little while – going out of business sales.

When: Tuesday, April 23rd, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: This administration decided it was a good idea to stay focused on gun issues, so here we go! Well, before we get to the guns, we’ll talk a bit about racism, with someone who’s trying to show that it isn’t wrong to be proud about being white. (And no, it’s not someone from that Democrat organization, the KKK!) Then we’ll have a little chat about guns, and more importantly, the way Facebook deals with gun and ammo companies on their site. So, as usual, don’t expect politically correct talk!

When I say criminals I am not just talking in the abstract; I am referring to real criminals.

According to a study from the online publication Capitol Hill Blue, the American people have elected a bunch of politicians that are better at breaking laws than making laws. America’s low information voters have chosen some real class acts to represent them.

Just how bad are some of our members of Congress?

29 members have been accused of spousal abuse, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 19 have been accused of writing bad checks, 117 have bankrupted at least 2 businesses, 3 have been arrested for physical assault, 71 have such bad credit that they can’t even qualify for a credit card, (yet with their special clearance as a member of Congress they get an Amex card without having a credit check.) 14 have been arrested on drug related charges, 8 have been arresting for shoplifting, and at least 84 members of Congress have been stopped for drunk driving but subsequently let go once they showed they were members of Congress.

If all that hasn’t made you lose your lunch this sure will.

According to the 2013 Congressional schedule, Congress will take 239 days off! That means they will only “work” 126 days of the year. If that wasn’t bad enough these hardly working, drunk driving, womanizing, bad credit, criminals get paid a minimum of $175,000 a year. Not bad for 126 days of so called work. They have worked themselves so hard that they don’t even have the strength to create a budget. The last time our dedicated public servants passed a budget was April 29, 2009. That is an unbelievable mind boggling 1,415 days without a budget, and counting.

This article’s intent is not to highlight the ineptness and unprincipled actions of our corrupt Congress; instead its purpose is to illustrate just how incidental and unnecessary Washington, DC has become. Former Republican Presidential nominee Rick Perry may not have been able to talk his way out of a paper bag; however he had the political will and courage to tell the American people that if he were to be elected President he would make Congress a part time job.

I couldn’t agree with him more. In fact, I’d like to take his suggestion a little further and dismantle Washington, DC altogether; and here is how we can do it.

We live in a virtual and digital society in which nothing seems impossible. The constant advancements in technology have created a very mobile society. We live in a world where you can start your car, turn the lights on and off in your house, and check your blood pressure, all by using your I-phone. There is no reason why Congress can’t conduct official government business from their respective state Capitols. Think about how much money they could save in travel expenses and housing alone?

With email, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, video conferencing, and websites such as gotomeeting.com; there is no shortage of technology that could be utilized to perform the everyday functions of Congress from outside of Washington, DC.

According to census.gov, 1 out of 10 workers over the age of 65 works from home. This is a growing trend that is only going to continue as more businesses look for ways to cut operating expenses and increase productivity. With so many older workers still in the workforce due to the Obama economy; many of these workers work from home.

Companies that employ workers who telecommute save on expenses such as office space, equipment, furniture, and supplies. Employees who work from home are able to save money on such expenditures as clothing, childcare, parking, and gasoline. Also, some studies have shown that workers who telecommute are more effective and efficient at their jobs than those who work in the office. Why not extend that same invitation to members of Congress?

According to statistics from the 112th Congress, the average age of a member of the House of Representatives is 57 years and the average age of a member of the Senate is 63 years. These folks should be required to work remotely from their respective states and only come into Washington a few times a month to cast votes.

Washington, DC is 68.3 square miles of influence, corruption, and centralized power. The only way to change Washington is to remove the influence, corruption, and power from it; and that starts with Congress. The only way to do this is by forcing members of Congress to not congregate permanently in Washington, DC.

A suggestion would be to pass a law in which no member of Congress is allowed to have permanent residence within 100 miles of Washington, DC. By doing this you automatically decentralize the influence and power, and make it harder for lobbyists and power brokers to influence fiscal policy. This is how you change Washington, DC.

To some who are reading this I understand it may sound a bit Orwellian. Telling free people where they can and cannot live may seem a little extreme. What is more extreme is having career politicians drunk with power spending future generation’s money on programs they can’t pay for. We are at a time in our nation’s history in which the only real solutions require real drastic measures.

The truth is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we take away Congress’s power we can return it to its rightful owners; we the people. Most Democrats who read this will think I’m crazy. Even some Republicans will think this is a bad idea; however most limited government Conservatives will love it. My only hope is that those members of Congress who believe in freedom, liberty, and limited government read my article and introduce legislation based on this idea. A good idea can only become a great idea when it is acted upon.

As a political strategist, commentator, and radio talk show host my job is to give solutions, not talking points. I may not always be right, but I am always thinking outside the box about different ways to make America a better, stronger, and freer country. If we are serious about saving this country and truly believe in a limited government it is time we put our money where our mouth is and dismantle Washington, once and for all.

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
Dreams from my surrogate father
Now that Pope Benedict XVI has resigned who should replace him?
How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters
The puppets of Pyongyang

It seems idiotic.  Feminists have long clamored that there aren’t enough women in Congress, corporate board rooms, sports, etc., but seem perfectly content with cannibalizing their own when one manages to make it to the top.

Katie Roiphe of Slate wrote last week that:

The main critiques of Sandberg and Mayer boil down to the fact that they are “not like us.” And yet, it is precisely because they are not like us that we should admire them, or at least be pleased, abstractly, about their existence on earth.

It also seems like a feminist mistake to expect women entrepreneurs to create little utopias instead of running extremely successful businesses. Mayer was attacked recently for her decision not to allow employees to work at home. She is a woman, this line of thinking goes, how could she think women should have to work away outside of their houses, away from their children? But why should Marissa Mayer have some special responsibility to nurture her employees with a cozy, consummately flexible work environment just because she is a woman? Isn’t her responsibility to run a company according to her individual vision? If we want powerful female entrepreneurs shouldn’t we allow them to pursue entrepreneurial power?

Roiphe cited Anna Holmes of the New Yorker, who took Maureen Dowd and Jodi Kantor of the New York Times to task for taking Sandberg’s quote (“I always thought I would run a social movement”) out of context to make her look “arrogant.”

The original, quite reasonable quote was: “I always thought I would run a social movement, which meant basically work at a nonprofit. I never thought I’d work in the corporate sector.” But even if she had said the sentence, as a standalone aspiration, why should out-scale over the top ambition in a woman be considered arrogant or unappealing? Why is there so much resentment and mockery aimed at women with grand visions?

Hanna Rosin, also of Slate, noted how Mayer doesn’t consider herself a feminist, and thinks women of that mold are “militant,” with “a chip on their shoulder.”  Gasp!  It’s a duel between the individualist, independent-thinking woman and the collective tyrants of the secret circle.  Sandberg has stated that women themselves may be the problem when it comes to advancing in the workplace, as Norah O’Donnell reported on 60 Minutes. Rosin used Sandberg’s new book to convey this point.

… [the] tension between the individual and the collective is at the heart of the debate over Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg’s “lean in” idea. Sandberg is publishing a book of advice to young women executives at the same time as she launches a “consciousness raising” movement complete with specific instructions on how to run lean-in circles. But that kind of collective action feels at odds with the advice in the book. In the book, out next week, Sandberg tells women how to negotiate for higher salaries and promotions, how to nurture their own ambition, how to behave at work if they want to advance. It is all excellent advice, but it’s not the stuff of a consciousness-raising movement. It’s advice for this age of meritocracy, when feminist success largely means professional advancement, one woman at a time. What happens if you’re up against another woman for a promotion? In Sandberg’s world, you go for it.

Hence, why – ironically – independent women, like Mayer and Sandberg, are anathema to the feminist establishment.  They aren’t thinking like a feminist. They’re thinking about their careers, and their own interests.  Men do the same thing.  In fact, anyone who wants to get ahead will do the same thing.  As Robert Frost once said, “I do not want to live in a homogenous society, I want the cream to rise.”

This problem that feminists have with women succeeding relates to their movement as a whole.  It’s a common criticism that the third – and current – wave of feminism lacks a clear vision for the 21st century. What issues, if there are any, are left for women to campaign on that haven’t already been addressed.  There’s nothing new in the arsenal.  All that is left is what needs to be built on, and that isn’t necessarily a compelling call to arms.

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner wrote in her book the F-Word: Feminism in Jeopardy – Women, Politics, and the Futurethat the third wave is lost in the wilderness.

The lack of a cohesive movement is the crisis of the third wave.” Or as one of the young women she interviewed remarks, “In a nutshell, my problem with the third wave is that I think we’re a whiny bunch of elitists who think we’re so smart, but we’re not doing anything but power knitting. The lack of a political movement is huge, yet we feel so smug.”

What seems to frighten feminists about Sandberg and Mayer – and Rosin and Roiphe write this as well – is that feminism really didn’t help them rise to the top.  Furthermore, Rosin wrote that the crowd that Sandberg is trying to attract, of which Mayer is also a member, really don’t see much feminism has to offer in terms of advancing their careers.

Roiphe added:

the word feminist is of little use to us now, but if we are interested in female power then we should let our powerful women pursue power, without harassing them with our distaste for that pursuit. We should not expect them to be warmer, fuzzier, more nurturing than their male counterparts because to do so is to impose sexist expectations.

Could the feminist bashing of successful women be a manifestation of that frustration?  Is the “not being needed” angst driving this madness?  If so, the feminist establishment has a mindset of “these ladies have to go,” and hopefully the next crop will be more palatable to the cause. That’s one way to destroy a movement.  It’s something conservatives should’ve considered when they excluded GOProud at CPAC this year.

Either way, I say let women be women.  Better yet, let them be “American” – or “capitalist” – in their economic pursuits, which is grounded in being more aggressive, more competent, and more productive than your competition.  If a woman rises to the top, so be it.  She should be congratulated. We’re a meritocracy, and everyone should get a boost from the increased competition.  As for feminists, I suggest they go moan in a corner someplace else.  I want the economy to roar back –with men and women alike – and feminism isn’t helping anyone.

Yes, this is a conservative site, and that was a Fox News clip, but it wasn’t posted here because of political leanings. It was posted because Fox News was the one network that at least hesitated throughout the day from jumping on each new theory as it came out. They did run with the false assessment that Ryan Lanza was the shooter, but only after at least CBS and someone else had done the same. And this problem of insufficient fact-checking, and desperation to beat everyone else to the punch was clearly illustrated on Facebook by Mandy Nagy (Liberty Chick) from Breitbart.com. I couldn’t have put it better when she pointed out that if the explosion of garbage on social media was the way the brother of the shooter found out about the deaths of his family members, that is despicable.

And before the dust has settled at all, and before the crime scene has even been examined in earnest by investigators, the Democrats are already marshaling their troops in their incessant battle against the Second Amendment. It doesn’t matter that logic should tell them that gun laws will not prevent criminals or the criminally insane from acquiring weapons to commit crimes like this. Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush offered this in a statement today:

Lawmakers, local, state and national, can no longer be held hostage by those who are opposed to reasonable gun control laws. It is time for lawmakers to come out of hiding and to have the courage to face these issues. We must act on all fronts, social, economic, educational to answer the complex questions raised by today’s events. We must face, without shame, the issues of domestic violence and mental health that are no doubt a part of today’s events.

Perhaps the only correct part of that statement was the fact that this tragedy probably did have something to do with both domestic violence, and mental health. As for what Rush’s definition of “reasonable gun control laws” is, there is little doubt it has something to do with removing the ability for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms at all in the first place. As conservatives, we know that will lead to radically increased gun violence, not the opposite that liberals regularly claim.

But, it is not time for us to speak of politics, no matter how tempting it may be. I made the observation earlier today that at least on Twitter, conservatives were praying, while leftists were conspiring to use this tragedy for their own political agenda. While I personally don’t pray, I do prefer to be associated with those that do in this situation. This is not the time or place for politics. It is time to mourn, comfort others, and heal.

Companies such as Microsoft, Google and Amazon are already warning their customers of the potential threat to what is now referred to as “net neutrality” and plan to attend the conference to protest. In an online statement, Google had this to say: “Engineers, companies and people that build and use the web have no vote. The billions of people around the globe that use the Internet, the experts that build and maintain it, should be included” in the decision-making process.

Naturally, the ITU claims it has no plans to restrict online expression (no, not the U.N.! They would never seek to censor anyone, ever) but that they simply want to adjust outdated international responses to changing technology. ITU’s Toure says he expects “a light-touch regulatory approach”. The United States is expected to resist any regulations and will send a 123 member delegation to the meeting next month.

123 members of one nation to attend an 11-day U.N. meeting in the most expensive place on earth – that sentence alone is everything that is wrong with the United Nations. It is an organization run by thieves and despots. These are the same people who want to regulate what small arms we own as American citizens and what parental rights we have when it comes to our disabled children…but we’re supposed to believe they will take a “light-touch regulatory approach” to what has been the biggest boon for freedom and free markets in the history of mankind.

This is one time where I wish the liberal narrative of “big business” were true. I wish Google and other Internet giants were all-powerful like they are in Hollywood and could just use their Illuminati-fueled powers to destroy this nonsense once and for all. Unfortunately, just like nearly every other liberal premise that one is mostly fantasy. Hopefully the amount of money those companies add to the U.S. economy will be enough to motivate Obama’s delegation to resist any attempts at international control of American communications. For our part, we can call our representatives and let them know we know about this and are concerned and we can also spread the word about what will be happening in Dubai. Share this blog and other stories about the conference. Check in with Google, Amazon and others to sign their petitions and find out more about how you can make yourself heard.

The Internet has opened the doors to freedom, free communications and prosperity across the planet. It is no wonder that the dictators and whack jobs in the U.N. feel moved to control it. It’s in their nature. That is in the nature of communist/socialist believers – the idea that we humans are and should be in control of everything. It is a dangerous idea and it is on our doorsteps. Don’t forget that as you support the economy online today.

crossposted at kiradavis.net

Do Democrats see the United Kingdom as a model for their version of the surveillance society?  What on earth could Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) be thinking offering legislation that gives authorities access to personal information with no more than a formal written request and the contents of those communications with nothing more than a subpoena?

According to Declan McCullagh of C|Net, Sen. Leahy thinks it’s perfectly fine for law enforcement officials to troll your emails, twitter, and Facebook without a warrant.  It’s a perverse exploitation of the law, which hasn’t caught up to 21st Century standards – and any American who values their liberty should be appalled by this gross incident of congressional overreach.

McCullagh wrote today that:

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

It’s an abrupt departure from Leahy’s earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boastedlast year that his bill “provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by… requiring that the government obtain a search warrant.”

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys’ Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to “reconsider acting” on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

Here are the revisions:

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans’ electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans’ correspondence stored on systems not offered “to the public,” including university networks.

✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant — or subsequent court review — if they claim “emergency” situations exist.

✭ Says providers “shall notify” law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they’ve been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to “10 business days.” This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

Now, this afternoon, The Hill reported that the senator had no such intention to support a bill with warrantlees searches.

CNET has it wrong,” an aide tweeted from Leahy’s account.”Sen. Leahy does NOT support an #ECPA exception to search warrant requirement [for] civil enforcement [for agencies] like FTC, SEC.” A Judiciary Committee aide confirmed to The Hill that Leahy “does not support broad carve-outs for warrantless email searches.” Leahy is pushing a bill that would revise the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Leahy’s measure next week.

Ideas from many sources always circulate b4 a markup 4 disc., but Sen.Leahy does NOT support such an exception for #ECPA search warrants

— Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) November 20, 2012

But we must remain vigilant. As long as Federalism remains under threat, we must keep a close eye on bills, from both parties, that seek to make us safer – while sacrificing our freedoms in the process.

:

Just a few simple words, speaking volumes!

“On this solemn anniversary, Laura and I hold the victims of September 11th in our thoughts and prayers.”

Yesterday, we reported on a “Kill Mitt Romney” Facebook page that was created by Joshua Scott Albert.  Nearly four hours after we published, and after many readers and other Facebook users reported the page to Facebook, it was finally removed.

However, prior to the content being removed, CDN and many others received email responses from Facebook that stated:

“After reviewing your report, we were not able to confirm that the specific page you reported violates Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.”

When a Facebook representative was asked about this message, we were told, “the email you received is most likely because we had already removed the page and are responding to the report based on a deleted piece of content. Because it had already been removed by the time you received an update on the report, that’s what would have caused the response below.”

Nameless, Faceless Facebook PR Representative

Even though we provided many of these messages to the team at Facebook that were time-stamped over 2 hours before the content was removed, Facebook stuck to that explanation.

We also asked why it took nearly four hours for Facebook to remove the threat to Mitt Romney’s life, but again, we were stonewalled by the typical PR Response from the Facebook representative, who said, “we don’t discuss average time frames for reporting.  Whenever Facebook receives a report of a Page that violates our policies, we work to remove the Page immediately and this case is no different. As a resource, to learn more about our reporting procedures, see this infographic that might be helpful for your readers.”

Facebook declined to comment if law enforcement had been involved.

___

Facebook Stock Slide

With an initial public offering of $38.00 a share, a high of $45.25 a share, and a low of $18.75 per share, Facebook’s stock has been as rocky as a soap opera love affair. Today’s trading shows the current price per share is $19.44. However, with this slide, comes the calls for the company’s CEO and majority stock holder Mark Zuckerberg to step down. For some, it’s rather easy to gloat in the downturn of those who they perceive to be “well off” or “rich”. I however marvel in the fact that someone can take what seems to be a simple idea (sharing pictures, ideas, lives), apply the idea to a system that’s already invented (computer, internet), and turn it into a multi-billion dollar company. It really signifies the American dream.

Let’s be frank, any of these internet companies that are webpage centered make their revenue from advertising dollars. Whether it’s Facebook, Drudge Report, The Blaze.com they all have one product they sell for profit, advertising. Something of interest happened just days before Facebook’s IPO. U.S. Government owned General Motors, pulled it’s advertising from Facebook, a really suspect move. Some conservative media outlets picked up on the story, however not much was really ever made of it, it didn’t get a lot of air time in the national media.

I’m going to switch gears for a moment, (stick with me, I promise, this all ties together). Progressive insurance has a “wonderful” invention they use for information gathering called the ‘Snap Shot’ Discount. The idea that the consumer is sold, is, “you’re going to save a bundle of money on your car insurance”. What really is happening is all of your driving habits are being digitally recorded. Some say, “well, what’s wrong with that?” I’ll tell you. It may start ok, you know the recorder is plugged into your car, and you drive accordingly, but, after a short while you will forget that it’s there, it’s just human nature, and then every time you go above 65 mph, it knows. Every time you lock up your brakes, it knows. Every time you take a corner hard, it knows. Every time you drive at odd hours, or long distances, or in bad neighborhoods, it knows. What Progressive is really doing is data mining, you. The Snap Shot device is really like having a drone follow your every move, if you knew who the CEO of Progressive, Peter Lewis, is, then you understand why this device is so popular with the company. He is a huge progressive liberal who supports a lot of left-wing pet projects.

Now imagine, the Federal Government had the capability to do the same thing that the Snap Shot device could, and so much more. Would that concern you? With the U.S. Government bailout of GM and subsequent bankruptcy, the Government acquired something else, On Star. On Star is the Snap Shot device, on steroids. On Star can roll down your windows, shut your car off, start your engine, unlock all your doors, shut off your fuel pump, shut down your fuel injectors, apply your brakes, all layered on top of the fact that it knows all of your driving habits. It seems the government has liked having these new-found powers because as of 2015 all new vehicles to be sold in the U.S. will have black box technology on board. This of course is sold under the guise of making cars safer, helping in accident investigations, and the like. However, do you think insurance companies were extremely interested in having this law passed? Of course. Insurers have three methods to impede claims payment, deny the claim, delay the claim, or litigate the claim. Picture this, you were in an accident. Your car was totalled. You believe you were operating the vehicle like a responsible adult, however you were going 7 mph over the speed limit, and you were a little slow on hitting the brakes. Sorry claim denied, and you gave the insurance company the evidence against you; willingly. The insurer sees you as a liability, so they drop you from the company.

Essentially your life is an open book, and your privacy is getting smaller as government is expanding exponentially.

As with the data mining that can be done through your vehicle, the grand daddy of all voyeurs is Facebook. If you are a member of Facebook I’m not telling you anything new. It absolutely amazes me how much a person will share voluntarily on their Facebook webpage, let alone all the info they want to set up your page. I believe Facebook is on a path to government ownership, and that’s a vastly more disturbing proposition. If you use Facebook mobile, it knows where you are, when your online, who you message, who and where all your friends live, where you shop, and through tagging it knows who your with. It is a totalitarian governments dream.

This is just a hypothesis of mine, I do not ask anyone to subscribe to it, however I do ask that you ponder it. I am not apt to believing in conspiracy theories. Like many, I am a well grounded thinking man’s type of guy. I am however, a war gamer.

Facebook had a slew of IPO problems, such as the initial stock price appears to have been inflated, then it had a few trading glitches, and now we find out George Soros has invested. The stock continues to slide, which triggers the carnival barkers in the liberal media to call for Zuckerberg to step down. The issue is this, any market can be manipulated, similarly, any stock can be manipulated, there’s a lot of psychology involved. The stock’s sale was manipulated, through investment house rules. Only certain “investors” were permitted to purchase. People with a lot of sway and power can in fact move markets, just ask currency killer George Soros. It all really reminds you of the end of one of the great modern classics, “Trading Places“. In the movie, Eddie Murphy’s character and Dan Akroyd’s character get their revenge on a couple of men who were manipulating their lives over a bet of $1.00. The trading scene at the end shows how the technique can be done. Buy low, and sell high. They bought a very large amount of orange juice futures and drove the price through the roof, then just when the time was right, they sold. Sell, sell, sell! In the process, they made a ton of money!

If you think a Facebook bailout can’t happen, look to GM, Chrysler, AIG, Banks and Investment firms. Five years ago, we would have said these bailouts would never happen. But they did.

There are certain governmental factions that would love to be able to data mine Facebook all day long everyday. (They may already be doing so.) We live in the new age of no rules for government.

What would a Government Sponsored Facebook look like? The very first thing that comes to mind is, say goodbye to privacy and the need for a warrant to search your person. The government would already own your data that you shared with them, or at the very least, they would have incredibly easy access to it. And you can stop posting any thing on faith or anything that points out Islam’s faults or hypocrisies. Because a government sponsored Facebook would be “neutral” on religion. And don’t think about putting together a charity event to feed the homeless, or to hand out drinking water, or to house the homeless, because government doesn’t like the competition for their welfare programs. If you think it’s censored now (and I do) wait till it becomes yet another government entity. And just think how it could be used to implement and administer Obamacare rules and regulations. A picture of you with a cigarette in your mouth could have you paying a higher penalty, or tax, I’m not sure what they’re calling it today.

I know it sounds like something that could never happen but, we live in a world and a country that has transformed over the last 3.7 years into something almost unrecognizable to Americans.

All of this begs the question, is Zuckerberg being set up for failure by those who are making gains on his brainchild? Is America being set up for yet another purchase of a private company?

& Share if you Agree

    More from this author.

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the top three U.S. oil companies alone paid $42.8 billion in income taxes in 2010. Ignore that fact and describe them as evil billionaires who don’t pay their fair share. After all, the petroleum, coal and natural gas industries all provide cheap energy to America, which stands in the way of implementing the administration’s agenda to fuel America with recycled unicorn poop.

It’s OK for the New Black Panthers to stand in front of polling places, wearing uniforms, wielding clubs and intimidating white voters with taunts of “now you’ll find out what it’s like to be ruled by a black man”. It’s also OK for Eric Holder, who publicly said: “I am not the tall U.S. Attorney. I am the black U.S. Attorney” to drop all charges against them.

It’s not OK for a “white hispanic” to defend himself from attack by someone who’s black

Tea Party demonstrators, who obeyed the laws, obtained permits, and cleaned up after themselves when they peaceable assembled to petition their government for redress of grievances are violent, racist extremists who should be monitored by the Department of Homeland Security as potential homegrown terrorists.

Occupy Wall Street, who squatted on public and private land for weeks at a time without permit, cost cities across the nation millions in clean-up and other costs, engaged in rape, drug use, public sexual acts, attacked police, destroyed property and generally disrupted the normal flow of life are great patriots. They deserve the public support of Barrack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, the DCCC, Elizabeth Warren, Barney Franks, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Charlie Rangle, Dennis Kucinich, et al. As Nancy Pelosi said: “God bless them, for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”

When kids are failing in school after being subjected to exposure to incompetent teachers who couldn’t teach a dog to bark yet can’t be fired because they’re protected by unions, lower testing standards. The possibility of hurting a student’s feelings by giving them a failing grade couldn’t possibly pass politically correct, everyone has to feel good about themselves at all times muster.

If you’re a kid who wants to hold a bake sale, open a lemonade stand or engage in similar activities which demonstrate initiative, ambition or a desire to utilize the free market in order to better yourself, you must be trained to first beg permission from the government. And boys and girls of all ages, don’t ever forget broccoli is good for you and snack cakes, candy bars and chips are bad. Since you’re too stupid to make the proper decision, government is going to enact legislation that deprives you of the right to choose.

Whenever “progressive” politicians are caught in an outright lie about where they were born, their bloodlines or military service rendered it’s due to a clerical error. If criticism persists, blame someone else for each and every one of your failures. When all else fails, play the race card.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/what-the-obama-adminstration-has-taught-america/

SAN JOSE, Calif., May 18, 2012 /PRNewswire/

The plaintiffs assert claims under the federal Wiretap Act, which provides statutory damages per user of US$100 per day per violation, up to a maximum per user of US$10,000. Even if Facebook’s alleged actions constitute a single violation of the Wiretap Act per class member, that implies more than US$15 billion in damages across the class. The complaint also asserts claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, various California Statutes and California common law.

The class action is being led by court-appointed co-lead counsel Stewarts Law US LLP and Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny, P.C. David Straite, Partner at Stewarts Law, stated: “This is not just a damages action, but a groundbreaking digital privacy rights case that could have wide and significant legal and business implications.”

In addition to co-lead counsel, the court has appointed a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee which includes Keefe Bartels in New Jersey; Mandell, Schwartz & Boisclair in Rhode Island; Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy in New Jersey; Bergmanis Law Firm in Missouri; Burns, Cunningham & Mackey in Alabama; and Murphy, Falcon & Murphy in Baltimore. The court has also appointed a committee of former State Attorneys General to advise the class, including former Mississippi AG Mike Moore, former Arizona AG Grant Woods, former Hawaii AG Margery Bronster, and former Louisiana AG Richard Ieyoub.

ATLANTA, May 18, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

“The buzz on Wall Street this week surrounds the long-anticipated initial public offering (IPO) of the wildly popular social media giant, Facebook. It’s being hyped as one of the biggest initial public offerings in history for an Internet company, and investors are lining up to own a share. I’m not one of them,” Bentley told supporters.

“There are plenty of reasons not to ‘like’ Facebook’s initial public offering—despite the hype that it’s the hottest investment opportunity going. One is the past performance of two other technology darlings—Groupon and Netflix. When Groupon “went public” last November, its stock opened at $28 a share. I just checked the ticker—it’s now trading at around $14 a share.

“Last summer, Netflix was trading at nearly $300 a share, but for a variety of reasons, including a substantial price hike for its service, revenues have dropped and so has the price of Netflix stock—now trading at around $78.50 a share … If Groupon and Netflix weren’t reason enough to avoid the Facebook IPO, don’t forget the epic fall of MySpace, once a contender as the leading social hub on the web. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. purchased it for a whopping $580 million in 2004 and was happy to find a buyer for it last year at $35 million.

“A closer look at the numbers reveals that Facebook will likely follow a similar pattern of over-subscription based upon opening day hype, only to be followed by a struggle to maintain original market valuation … Facebook intends to offer 337.4 million shares at a price of $28 to $35 on NASDAQ under the symbol, FB.

Although advertising revenues are estimated to reach $6.1 billion in 2012, the valuation would price Facebook stock at 24 times revenue, compared to 5 times revenue for Google.

“Further, the company is still led by Mark Zuckerberg, who turned 28 this week. He’s the unquestioned genius who founded Facebook in 2004 from his Harvard dorm room and promptly dropped out of school to build the business. If the reports of Mr. Zuckerberg that I’ve read are at all accurate, I would be leery about placing confidence in his leadership,” wrote Bentley. “There are always more geeky college freshmen with highly marketable ideas. New and disruptive technology can surface overnight, and there is little to keep users loyal to one over the other.”

To read Chuck’s full remarks, click here or go to www.crown.org

“There’s obviously an agenda here,” said Gary Kreep, founder of the US Justice Foundation and a lawyer who filed the injunction request on Stein’s behalf. “They’re making a scapegoat and an example out of the sergeant.” Kreep continued, “It’s my opinion, but I believe Obama sent orders down from above to get rid of this guy.” Stein’s legal team found a 2005 Facebook photograph of a member of the military prosecution team, Captain Gavin Logan, showing him in full uniform with the caption, “You shut the F— up. We’ll protect America. Keep out of our F—— way liberal p——.” Stein’s defense attorney says the sergeant has broken no law and the prosecution is just trying to dredge up whatever it can to make Stein look bad. If he’s convicted, Stein could lose his rank and face a dishonorable discharge.

According to “The Social Corps,” a Marine Corps training manual on the subject, Stein does not appear to have done anything wrong with his postings. It says Stein has a perfect right to speak out on any political issue or candidate. On page 12 it says, “The Marine Corps encourages Marines to carry out their obligations as citizens. This includes politics. However, there are limitations to your political activity. You can express your political views on public issues or political candidates online, but not as part of an organized communication campaign.”

Obama and his administration has been marked by its fervor in trying to control online information about the president. First, the Democrat National Committee dedicated scores of people to the task, then the White House itself took over the job, appointing Jesse Lee the “director of Progressive Media and Online Response.” It’s difficult to accept the accusations that criticism of Obama on Facebook is a major threat to discipline. It looks like someone at the office of Progressive Media and Online Response has been working overtime to stroke the Narcissist-in-Chief’s ego. Obama has notoriously thin skin.

Ironically, Stein, as a Marine, has been in a position of defending the rights of Americans, including free speech, and now he’s had his rights essentially stripped from him because of a president with no respect for the Constitution. A Marine can’t say anything bad about the president, but the feds will gladly drag a Marine’s name through the mud.

And in the Further Irony department, the Marine Corps Times published the results of a Military Times survey that indicated that Obama received a 25% approval rating among active duty Marines, down from 35% after Obama’s first year on the job. Further, 44% said they disapproved of Obama’s performance as Commander-in-Chief.

While Stein has received criticism from the left and right for his actions, he has also gotten some strong voices of support in Congress. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has backed Stein up throughout the discharge hearing and proceedings. And last week another former service member in Congress, Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a retired lieutenant colonel, also added support.

Said West, “I am sad to see a Marine Sergeant may lose his career because he dared to criticize the President on a Facebook page. Should we have disciplined this young (non-commissioned officer)? Yes. But to end this Warrior’s career with a less than honorable discharge is not the answer… Maybe if America had leadership that gained the respect of our military, instead of simply using them as stage props for speeches, this atmosphere would not exist.”

Well said, Rep. West. But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.

Courtesy of The Blaze, via YouTube Screenshot

The latest “viral” video making the rounds on the internet is of a very fed up father taking out his frustration on his daughter’s computer to teach her a lesson. Not only is it making the rounds online, it is actually being reported on the news. Where I come from, this is not really a news story, it is simply an example of how every action has consequences.

Since when did a father showing his daughter that her actions have consequences become the news? No one was physically hurt, although the ordeal has brought Child Protective Services to their doorstep. After talking with the daughter, and doing a routine investigation, CPS determined that all was safe and sound, and this was indeed just a father trying to teach his daughter a life lesson.

Not only has the video itself gone “viral”, but Tommy Jordan, the father that made the video, has become somewhat of a Facebook celebrity from the incident. The family is now overwhelmed from the media attention they have garnished, and have turned off their phones for the weekend just to get some family time.

So what is it that has made Tommy Jordan’s video go “viral”?

Have you ever stopped and asked yourself the question: Why does a video go viral?

We will take a look at a few examples to see if we can find the answer to that question.

First, let’s start with the definition from the urbanditionary:

1. Short for ‘viral marketing’. An online marketing strategy that encourages people to pass on a marketing message. Amusing and low-budget, a good Internet viral campaign will get surfers forwarding the ad to all of their friends to others, giving the company great word of mouth.

2.  precious, rare, infrequent, one in a million kind.
“continuously duplicating,” and can refer to a biological or computer virus.

Applicable Thesaurus entries: video, Youtube, internet, funny, web, Facebook

Tommy Jordan is not the first, and most certainly will not be the last person who will go viral. While this was not Mr. Jordan’s goal, there is no doubt that there is something unique about his approach.

Let’s look at a completely different case and point. Susan Boyle, the 2009 winner of the reality show Britain’s Got Talent. When asked what her dream was, she simply stated, “to be a professional singer.” She did not say fame, fortune or notoriety. She did not say she wanted to leave a boring life behind. In fact, the somewhat saucy Susan seemed quite content with herself and her life with her cat, Pebbles. She simply wanted to live out her dream- to sing in front of an audience. When asked why her dream had never worked out before, she simply stated that she had never been given the chance before.

As you can see from the above video of Susan Boyle’s first audition, she had absolutely no idea she was going to go viral. She simply was given the chance to live out her lifelong dream. She sang her song and exited stage left. They had to call her back on to the stage to face the judges. In her mind, she had fulfilled her dream and was ready to go home.

Then there is the case of the Evolution of Dance:

Judson Laipply had no clue his nifty stand-up dance routine would go viral. Mr. Laipply is a bit different from the other two examples, because it is safe to assume that though he had no idea how popular it would be, it was his ultimate goal. While Mr. Laipply more than likely thought it would be great to go viral, for Susan Boyle, it’s likely that she never imagined that she would become a household name. In fact, after she became so famous, dealing with the media attention became overwhelming for her, and she had to take a step back from the spotlight.

The last example we will look at is Webcam 101 for Seniors:

There is absolutely no doubt that Bruce and Esther Huffman from McMinnville, Oregon had no intention of going “viral”. It is probably safe to say that this was the absolute last thing on their mind, due to the fact that they had no idea the camera was turned on. They were simply trying to figure out their new webcam. They have since been dubbed “The Happy Huffmans” because of their good natured fun. As someone on YouTube stated:

“You can learn a lot about how to live a good life from this video.”

So let’s go back to the original question we asked ourselves: Why does a video go viral?

Could it be that we, as a society, have become bored with the constant drivel that is called entertainment? We are spoon-fed remakes of classic movies and music on one hand, and complete garbage on the other, so much of the time. When something or someone unique comes along, we devour it like mad! This would be the case in the examples of Susan Boyle and Judson Laipply. They become heroes because they are out of the ordinary.

In the case of “The Happy Huffmans”, could it be that in a day and age where our lives have become inundated with the “latest and greatest” technological gadget, this couple is a welcome change to the fast paced world we live in? They are clueless about the technological world, yet neither of them every get frazzled trying to figure it all out. The Huffman’s become heroes because they remind us to live a good life, treat others well and be happy.

Finally, in the case of Tommy Jordan, could it be that the world CRAVES his old fashioned lifestyle, where actions have consequences and the word “entitled” isn’t even a blip in the dictionary of a teenager? Could it be that so many people would love to do the exact same thing he did (whether it is a computer, cell phone, iPod, or some other gadget or extra-curricular activity), but they are just too scared to actually take action?

Mr. Jordan has stated that he is no hero. But he is. No, not in his eyes, which, quite honestly, makes him all the more a hero. A true hero does not see himself as such. However, Mr. Jordan did what he thought was necessary to get the message across to his daughter that he meant business. That is the essence of a hero.  Mr. Jordan has become a hero because he reminds us that we- the PARENTS- are in control of how we parent our children, not the progressive liberals, the education system, or the government!

As many have stated in the comments on Mr. Jordan’s Facebook wall, one day his daughter will appreciate what he has done! While it is very unlikely that she will appreciate the world-wide attention their family has received from the video, she will most certainly appreciate the fact that her Dad and Mom loved her enough to do whatever necessary to make sure she understands that she has crossed the line. Children need boundaries. There is no doubt that Hannah realizes she crossed a boundary with her actions, and she is now reaping the consequences. A tough lesson learned, but one that will no doubt last a lifetime!

In the day and age we live in, there will be more Tommy Jordan’s. There will be more Susan Boyle’s, Judson Laipply’s, and “Happy Huffman’s”. Their stories will be different, but they will go viral. Those who are just ordinary people, living out ordinary lives, not seeking notoriety will become the heroes in our viral world.