For Santorum

By Michelle Malkin

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth.”

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.  He is the author of It Takes a Family, an answer to Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village.  His wife Karen wrote Letters to Gabriel for their son who die just hours after he was born.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.

And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012.

Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere.

Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race. Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent.

Remember October 2009?

From reader Barnaby, who sent back his crossed-out Republican solicitation forms with a “NO RINOS” sticky note for Newt Gingrich:

Remember the rebuke in Dubuque? May 11, 2011:

Video: GOP12.com: Angry Iowan confronts Newt

Guy: Speaker Gingrich, what you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable.

Gingrich: I didn’t do anything to Paul Ryan!

Guy: Yes, you did. You undercut him and his allies in the house.

Gingrich: No, I…

Guy: You’re an embarrassment to our party.

Gingrich: I’m sorry you feel that way.

Guy: Why don’t you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.

It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”

For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.

And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.

***

Side note: Unlike many bloggers and pundits weighing in on GOP 2012, I have zero connections to any of the final four GOP candidates’ campaigns. I have neither received a single penny from, nor donated a single penny, to any of their campaigns. I have not served as any kind of consultant or adviser to any of the campaigns. I have not written any speeches or talking points or briefing papers for any of their campaigns. I have not organized any blogger calls or social media efforts for any of their campaigns. I have not spoken to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich since interviewing them for Hot Air at CPAC in 2006, and as far as I can recall, I have not communicated directly with either Santorum or Paul. My first and only contact with Santorum’s campaign came last week when a spokesman called to assure me that Santorum was not withdrawing from the Florida primary or the race in general and was in it for the long haul.

So much for my “establishment” credentials, eh?

***

Santorum is headed to Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada.

“The Rick Santorum for President Campaign will expand nationally this week with campaign stops in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada in the coming days,” a spokesman Matt Beynon said in a statement.

Santorum is slated to make several stops in battleground states over the next few days, but did not appear to be heading back to Florida, where Republicans go to the polls on Tuesday.

Santorum is expected be in Las Vegas, Nevada on Tuesday when the Florida results are known.

After winning Iowa — the first state to chose which Republican they want to face Obama in November — Santorum’s campaign has struggled to catch fire.

In Florida — a winner-takes-all race — the former senator has not appeared much and is barely avoiding a vote share in single digits according to polls, putting him in third place behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich or even tied or fourth behind Ron Paul, who also isn’t campaigning much in Florida.

Nevada will vote just four days after Florida, while Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri all vote on February 7th.

Santorum had put campaigning in Florida on hold Sunday, as his daughter, Bella, was hospitalized just days before a key primary vote.

Two days before Florida’s winner-takes-all primary, Santorum spent the day in Pennsylvania, where his three year-old was admitted to a Philadelphia children’s hospital.

***

A reader writes:

I read your “For Santorum” article on your website. You wrote the argument against Newt clearly and completely. While Romney’s been on both sides of issues, Newt has been on both sides at the same time. I think Newt would be almost as combative and adversarial to a Republican congress than a Democratic one…

***

Question of the day: Who is the “machine?”

Secondary question of the day: If you were a simple machine, what kind of machine would you be — inclined plane, wheel & axle, lever, pulley, wedge, or screw?

Posted in: 2012 Campaign

Scary: Rick Santorum says daughter almost died this weekend

Glenn talked with former Senator and GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on radio today and he revealed more details about his three-year-old daughter's trip to the hospital. "A simple cold can kill her, and it almost did," he said about his troubling weekend with his daughter who has a rare condition called Trisomy 18. Get the full interview on radio today.

Related:

Prayers for Bella 

*I believe that, at least at this point Rick Santorum, like Ron Paul, is not going to win and after all is said and done, Mitt Romney will be the nominee because can bring the moderates and independents into the tent… a must do this time around to defeat Barack Obama.  But if you are looking for the true conservative alternative for the primaries to Mitt Romney and are not a Libertarian, so some of Ron Paul’s ideas scare you off, then you should be voting for Rick Santorum… not baggage laden Newt Gingrich!*

**I love Michelle Malkin and agree with her views overall but not in all areas or degree with some of what she says, but this was a great article on the Santorums and I thought it worth the read!**

Obama’s Hidden Past… You Be the Judge! (Video)

Video: Obama’s Hidden Past

Information about Obama's hidden past is finally coming out due to the diligent research of www.citizens4freedom.com, Donald Trump's investigation into Obama (And it's NOT about the birth certificate issue.) and Attorney Orly Taitz persistence.

The video above, recorded from The Power Hour radio show by Joyce Riley, exposes the FACTS they have uncovered about Obama's past that may be surprising, even shocking, to some. Manipulation of political figures by the ruling elite is nothing new. In fact it's the documented history of how the British Empire (the mercantile elite class of Britain) was able to control the world (and still do).

Knowing information like this and keeping it suppressed while financing them to high political office is how the controlling elite of the world are able to completely control the puppet politicians in America and deceive all but the most astute studiers of history.

Related:

Hillary Leaving as Obama’s Eligibility Trial(s) Move Forward… Coincidence?

Bombshell: Barack Obama Conclusively Outed… - - Video of: Wayne Madison Bombshell: Barack Obama Conclusively Outed As CIA Creation – AJ 1/3

FBI Destroyed File on Obama’s Grandfather

ShoreBank, Obama’s Mother and Geithner’s Father – Hmmm… Coincidence?

Tales of Affairs

The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues

Obama Ordered to Appear at Hearing: Attorney Taitz Says It Will Be 100 Times Bigger than Watergate’

Let Them Eat Cake

Eligibility Rulings Vanish From Net

Is Barry Soetoro Guilty of Treason and Fraud Against America?

The Obama Eligibility Question - best article on the topic

Will Ignorance Lead to a Second Obama Term??

Rick Santelli Looks at What the Latest Debt Ceiling Increase Will Cost Each Person Living in the US

CNBC ‘s Rick Santelli has been credited with delivering the February 2009 rant heard ‘Round the World’ that many have said was the spark that led to the Tea Party movement. Following a somewhat unnoticed vote to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling last week, Santelli is at it again.

To largely less outcry than the ‘debt crisis’ that broke out within the beltway this past summer, the Senate on Thursday voted to allow President Barack Obama to increase the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion to ensure that the federal government can pay its bills through the November elections. With the political discussion of late largely focusing on the GOP primary and income inequality chastised by “the ninety-nine percent,” many media commentators have seemed to forget the mounting US debt that will weigh heavy on the backs of each and every American.

Rick Santelli hasn’t forgotten, and he’s quantified just how much each person will be on the hook for with the latest rise in the debt ceiling.

Santelli hashed out the population and debt numbers on CNBC Friday, where he determined that the additional increase from Thursday alone places “$3, 834 for every man, woman and child,” and if you take into account the August increase $10, 545 each. To look at the total picture, the new debt ceiling is now at $16.4 trillion for the 312 million people in the US, which equals $52, 409 per American.

“I can’t even think of a clever way to close this other than a gulp,” said Santelli said on CNBC Friday. “I don’t know that my mike is that good. How much have we heard about this last debt ceiling increase? zero.”

Watch the fiery Chicagoan go off HERE at the Blaze.

Video:  The National Debt Roadtrip – A Must See Video!

Allen West to Obama, Reid, Pelosi: ‘Get the Hell Out of the United States of America’

 

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said Saturday President Barack Obama and other liberals should "get the hell out of the United States of America." (AP)

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) had a strong message Saturday for President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Get the hell out.”

West made the comments during a speech at a Palm Beach County GOP event in West Palm Beach.

“This is a battlefield that we must stand upon. And we need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain’t on the table,” West said.

The audience was booing by the time West got to Pelosi’s name.

“Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else,” he continued. “You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

As the audience cheered and many rose to their feet, West added, “Yeah I said ‘hell.’”

“This is not about 1 percent or 99 percent. This is about 100 percent. It’s about 100 percent America. And I will not stand back and watch anyone defame, degrade or destroy that which my father fought for, my older brother, my father-in-law, myself, my nephew and all my friend still in uniform,” he said.

“I will not allow President Obama to take the United States of America and destroy it. If that means I’m the No. 1 target for the Democrat Party, all I got to say is one thing: Bring it on, baby.”

Video:  Rep. Allen West - "Obama, Reid, Pelosi, get the hell out of the USA" - 28 January 2012

The Blaze

Newt Gingrich Re-Writes His Reagan Connections and Video Where He Bad-Mouths Ronald Reagan in 1988

Video:  Newt Gingrich bad-mouths Ronald Reagan in 1988

Newt Rewrites His Reagan Connection

In 1995, when Newt Gingrich first became speaker of the House, Bob Dole was already on the threshold of becoming the longest-serving Senate Republican leader in U.S. history. Relations between the two GOP leaders, which were never chummy, were not helped by Gingrich's openly disparaging Bob Dole as "the tax collector for the welfare state."

Barely two years later, after having been chosen Time magazine's Man of the Year, Gingrich had plummeted in public esteem to where, in a CBS-New York Times poll, just 14 percent of voters had favorable personal feelings toward the speaker.

This prompted an apocryphal Washington exchange between a perplexed Gingrich and Dole. "Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly explained: "Because it saves them time."

Watching the last televised candidates debate before the Jan. 3 Iowa presidential caucuses, and hearing Newt Gingrich once again invoke the name and record of President Ronald Reagan as well as his own close relationship with Reagan, reminded me that Dole wasn't the only one on the receiving end of Gingrich's barbs.

At the Reagan presidential library this fall, Gingrich boasted of how "I helped Reagan create millions of jobs while he was president." And after modestly acknowledging his own less significant role than Reagan's, added, "We helped defeat the Soviet empire." Unmentioned by Gingrich then, or in any of the 2,414 debates during this campaign, was his 1985 criticism of President Reagan's historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev as "the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with (British Prime Minister) Chamberlain at Munich in 1938."

In an interview on CNBC, Gingrich recently emphasized his close identification with the nation's 40th president: "I've done a movie on Ronald Reagan called 'Rendezvous With Destiny.' Callista and I did.

We've done a book on Ronald Reagan. You know I campaigned with Reagan. I first met Reagan in '74. I'm very happy to talk about Ronald Reagan."

Just like when Newt went to the House floor during the Gipper's second White House term and declared the president's Soviet policy a "failure." Here is what Gingrich said: "Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire's challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing and without a dramatic, fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail. ... The burden of the failure frankly must be placed first upon President Reagan."

This was after Gingrich, as reported in the Congressional Record, had found Reagan responsible for our national "decay": "Beyond the obvious indicators of decay, the fact is that President Reagan has lost control of the national agenda." Students of Newt-speak will recognize that by "decay," Gingrich was generally referring to factors such as crime, illegitimate births and illiteracy.

These blatant contradictions between what Congressman Gingrich actually said at the time about President Reagan and what Candidate Gingrich now offers as fictitious reminiscences of his unwavering allegiance to Reagan remind me of one of the former speaker's own broadsides against Washington, D.C. "In this cold and ruthless city," he once said, "the center of hypocrisy is Capitol Hill." Newt Gingrich is quite obviously an expert on both subjects.

To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM BY MARK SHIELDS

In the Reagan Diaries, Ronnie mentions Gingrich only once and sparingly…

The one mention of Newt Gingrich in The Reagan Diaries (The Reagan Diaries Unabridged) is in Chapter 3, which covers 1983, on page 123 in the book:

"Newt Gingrich has a proposal for freezing the budget at the 1983 level. It's a tempting idea except that it would cripple our defense programs. And if we make an exception on that every special interest group will be asking for the same."

Related Stories:

Tic… Toc… GOP Toc…. Or Rather Talk

This Should Be An Eye-Opener

Romney Releases His Tax Returns

Talking Points About SOTU and Romney’s Taxes

Tantrum on the Tarmac

Gov. Jan Brewer gives Obama the wrong finger…

On a beautiful day in sunny Arizona (one of my favorite states), a thin-skinned man-child, who fancies himself king, skipped down the steps of his 747 to meet with Governor Jan Brewer.

Video: Jan Brewer - Obama Very Thin Skinned

Brewer stood toe to toe with Obama and didn’t back down an inch. As I understand it, she gave him a letter welcoming him to the Grand Canyon State, which he disdainfully tossed into his waiting power mobile after barely glancing at it. He let Brewer know just how unhappy he was with her new book “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Border.” Oh, how appropriate is the title, Jan! Scorpions indeed.

From Hot Air:

Here’s a bit about the Obama passage in Brewer’s book that has The One so exercised. Our Barack, “condescending” and “patronizing”? Again, go figure:

“It was though President Obama thought he could lecture me, and I would learn at his knee,” the governor wrote, calling his tone “patronizing.”

“He thinks he can humor me and then get rid of me,” Brewer wrote.

Questioned about the different description, the governor said she did not lie.

“I mean, we weren’t yelling at one another, screaming at one another,” she said.

“But it was a pretty one-sided conversation,” Brewer said. “He was, I believe, condescending. And he was lecturing me about what we were going to do and how we were going to do it.”

It sounds … so unlike him.

Right… I think our dear leader needs to go nappy-bye or maybe have a time-out. Someone seems a bit cranky.

The petite blond governor stuck her finger in the Marxist-in-Chief’s chest and informed him that the book was simply the truth. Sucks to be you, huh, Obama? Obama was asked if he read the book and admitted he only read excerpts. But darn it! The excerpts were sorely unflattering and Obama wasn’t going to let Brewer get away without knowing how ‘dissed’ he felt. He then cut her off in mid-sentence, turned his back on her and stomped off. How very presidential.

From Drudge:

“He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast. I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So.”

Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Brewer said: “That he didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn’t get my sentence finished. Anyway, we’re glad he’s here. I’ll regroup.”…

She said the president brought up the book.

“I thought we probably would’ve talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another. Our country is upside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I know again that he loves this country and I love this country.”…

He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn’t finish her sentence.

Here’s the letter that Brewer gave him:

Transcript:

Dear Mr. President,

Welcome to Arizona!

You‘ve arrived in a state at the forefront of America’s recovery — and her future. We were at the brink. We were at the bottom of the list in job creation. Today, we have a balanced budget and we’re in the top 10 for job creation.

I’m proud of that hard-won recovery — the result of many tough decisions, courage and perseverance.
My hope is while you are here you will have a chance to see our tremendous results first hand.

We both love the great country, but we fundamentally disagree on how to best make America grow and prosper once again. I‘d love an opportunity to share with you how we’ve been able to turn Arizona around with hard choices that turned out to be the right ones.

And, of course, my offer to visit the border — and buy lunch — still stands!

With respect,

Jan

Well I can certainly see how a wee tyrannical dictator would get his itty bitty feelings hurt. Oh, the cruelty! What a freaking drama queen. Brewer called Obama “patronizing” and “condescending.” I’ll bet – she was way too kind. She left out arrogant, petulant, elitist and a whole list of other adjectives that come to mind. You just know that the book has been eating at him and he planned his attack and timing for maximum effect, thinking he would embarrass the governor. It backfired and Obama came off as a spoiled toddler throwing a tantrum on the tarmac. I’m just thankful his lordship didn’t have Brewer beheaded on the spot. I’m sure he was tempted. Maybe later.

Brewer would make a better president – at least she has a set…

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton – The NoisyRoom

Food Fights and Class Warfare

There was a time when full tables signified prosperity and thick waistlines were considered attractive. The ability to eat one's fill was what separated the gentry from the peasant making do with a few crusts and salted leftovers. Fat was in because it represented leisure and wealth. Thin meant you were on the road to the poorhouse or to consumption, which meant your body was being consumed, not that you were the one doing the consuming.

Then feudalism went the way of the dodo, agriculture was revolutionized and starvation went extinct in the West. Between the widespread availability of cheap food and social welfare programs covering everything from soup kitchens to food stamps, it became hard to starve. Not only was the availability of food no longer associated with prosperity, but even the poor had begun to eat so well that fat began to carry working class and lower class associations.

Fat was no longer wealth, instead conscientious fitness became a mark of prosperity. The laden table made way for micro portions and exotic but barely edible foods. Thin was in on the plate and the waistline.

In Third World countries where feudalism never ended and the agriculture revolution never mattered, the values often never flipped. Instead of anorexia, teenage girls suffer from being force fed to make them more marriageable. The wealthy are fat and the feasts at the top never end.

In the West, weight stands in for class, at a time when explicit classism has become politically incorrect. When Europeans sneer at how fat Americans are, and American coastal elites sneer at the rest of the country for being fat, it's a class putdown that dressed up longstanding contempt in the colors of the welfare state.

Just because the left and its class warfare worldview, which pretends to be concerned about the plight of the underclass, dominates Western societies does not mean that it is not classist. The left is elitist and its underclass protectionism creates a new wave feudalism with a vast government funded upper and middle class dedicated to caring for the underclass, subsidizing it, caring for it and taxing it to pay for all those services.

The obesity concern trolling is a combination of classism and nanny statism that brings to mind the days when their ideological forebears thought that the way to deal with the poor was to sterilize those who seemed less capable than the rest to improve the breed. There is something equally Darwinian in the sneers aimed at Paula Deen. The breed being culled while the elites try to teach their less evolved cousins to survive by eating their arugula.

The nanny state is built on a technocratic confidence in the ability to create one size fits all solutions, overlaying that on a map of the current medical wisdom leads to the creation of single standards, which often have less to do with health than they do with the status symbols of the leisure class. 19th century popularized medicine created so many of these fads that some of them are still around today. The 20th century created even more.

Death though is not only inevitable, but it cannot be dodged with a one size fits all standard. Fitness guru Jim Fixx who helped kickstart the running craze died in his early fifties of a heart attack. Fixx had quit smoking and lost weight, and still died at an early age. Jackie Gleason who spent his life looking like a walking health attack, smoking and drinking, outlived him by nearly twenty years.

Medicine is individual and the collectivization of medicine is a technocratic solution that leads nowhere except to few doctors and ranks of unionized medical personnel nudging patients into following the script handed down to them by professors who have never actually practiced medicine a day in their life. This is the outcome of a nanny state outlook that sees individuals as dispensable, that is concerned only with group outcomes.

This view requires seeing all people as endowed with certain problems that require broad stroke solutions, like adding calories to menus and other rats in a maze tactics designed to modify human behavior on a national level. The targeting of fast food restaurants, public school meals and food stamps reeks of the same elitist arrogance that drives the nanny state.

The politicization of food by the elites of the left always comes down to class, no matter how it may be disguised in liberal colors. From exotic to locally grown, the trajectory of food politics follows the upselling of food prices The only difference is that the dominance of the left has wrapped the added cost with no added value in their own politics. The more affordable food becomes, the more the left finds ways to add cost to food, without adding value.

But the politicization of food goes beyond the fair trade and locally grown fetishes of the politically correct elites, the more politics ends up on your plate, the more the elites are driven to involve everyone else in their food fights. What begins as a way of raising prices while diminishing value to assert wealth and privilege becomes imposed on everyone in the name of their political morality. Once everyone else is paying more and getting less, then the classist left demands new ways to set its superior moral eating habits apart. Instead of everyone ending up with more food, everyone ends up with less.

The cultural ascendance of the left has meant that instead of conspicuous consumption, the consumption has to be disguised with conspicuous political pieties. The food may cost twice as much, but it's locally grown on a farm run by handicapped union workers who visit Cuba to receive free health care or by the indigenous peoples of Tuba-Tuba with the proceeds going to a complete sonic library of their chants and ceremonies. The entire thing is meaningfully meaningless, but it disguises the consumption in a hairshirt, which is the entire point.

Conspicuous consumption is now for the poor while conspicuous conservation is for liberal elites. Al Gore may live in a mansion but he still has the carbon footprint of a mouse. The problem is the truck driver whose vehicle emissions are killing the planet. Whole Foods is just fine, but we need to do something about McDonald's.

Conspicuous conservationism has made America a poorer country, destroyed millions of jobs and outsourced them overseas. Now it's beginning to make America a hungrier country. In a moment of horrifying tone deafness that makes Marie Antoinette seem enlightened, the left is cheering that fewer Americans are eating meat, without seeming to understand that it's because fewer Americans are able to afford it because of their economic policies.

What the left's food police can't accomplish with nudges and shaming, they can finish off with policies and regulations that end up raising the price of food or by making it too difficult to sell. As the left tries and fails to sell the general public on conservation as a status symbol, it moves in the heavy bureaucratic artillery.

It isn't unusual for elites to use the legal system to enforce their own values on the general public, though it was the kind of thing that the universal franchise was supposed to put a leash on, but there is something grim about their growing preoccupation with the habits and mortality of the population. It's the kind of concern that has a habit of ending in eugenics and the more medicine is universalized, the easier it is to start cutting off access to medical treatment for those who haven't been nudged far enough in the right direction.

Social medicine politicizes food consumption and a globalized economy politicizes food production. And the politicized American plate has less on it and at a higher price. While the left obsessively pursues its mission of destroying fast food in the name of lowering social medicine costs and being fairer to farmers, what they are truly accomplishing is to take affordable and filling food off the shelves, as they have done with countless other products that they have targeted.

By the time the left was done with Russia, it had gone from a wheat producer to a wheat importer and many basic food staples were hard to come by even in a country filled with collective farms. Finding modern day examples of that isn't hard. We only have to look as far south as Venezuela to see empty store shelves under the weight of government food policies. But one day that may be the local grocery store if the left gets its way.

By Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish  -  Cross-Posted at True Health is True Wealth  - h/t to TMH of the NoisyRoom

Hillary Leaving as Obama’s Eligibility Trial(s) Move Forward… Coincidence?

Pantsuits Quitting – Hillary Clinton Announces She’s Leaving Administration…

The story (immediately below) was posted Wednesday (the day after the SOTU… when Obama referenced Clinton in the audience). Today (Thursday) I see that Hillary “is” leaving:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday she does not want to stay in her job if President Obama wins a second term in 2012 and has no plans to mount another White House bid or become vice president or defense secretary. "I'm going to do the best I can at this job for the next two years," she said. 

Retiring? Hmmm…

Kind of interesting timing with Obama's eligibility hearing don'tcha think?  Raising the question is Hitlery going to be exiting sooner than she says to run in Obama’s place in many minds?  When you think about people saying, “Newt Gingrich has too much baggage to win (which essentially he does), doesn’t someone have to say somewhere along the line… what about, them, the Clintons with so many unanswered question and stories… about Bill, Hillary, their past, their associations: Alinsky, Cloward and Piven, George Soros? Wow… who does that sound like?  And remember Hillary’s famous quote, “I prefer to think of myself as a Progressive!”

Add to this Hillary friend and mentor George Soros making comments like: “There is not much difference between Obama and Romney.”, making it more and more obvious that Romney is the person they fear running against, whether it is Obama or his old protégé Hillary.

From Obama to Hillary. From the frying pan into the fire. Only difference between Hillary and Obama is that Hillary is not a puppet to the globalists. She IS a globalist.

Hillary is just as connected to George Soros as is Obama if not more… plus she is more of an equal in status.  And Hillary is smarter than Obama!  Yet people are still holding their breath waiting for Hillary to run?!?

Photo from campaign 2008 vanishing act.  More than one person has pondered how a barely known junior senator could have defeated one of the toughest political machines in U.S. history. Others realize there was a deal struck as part of a plan much larger than most of us want to consider.

If you haven’t, read: The Shadow Party and The Manchurian President… you should!

M~

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wants to step off the political stage…

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wants to step off the “high wire of American politics” after two decades and is again tamping down speculation that she might stay in government if President Barack Obama wins a second term.

Clinton told State Department employees on Thursday that she is ready for a rest and is paying no attention to the Republican presidential candidate debates. She said she wants to find out just how tired she is after working flat out as first lady, senator, aspiring presidential candidate and finally the top U.S. diplomat.

“I have made it clear that I will certainly stay on until the president nominates someone and that transition can occur” if Obama wins re-election, she told a town hall meeting. “But I think after 20 years, and it will be 20 years, of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am.”

But, she appeared to leave the door open for a possible eventual return, adding to laughter from the crowd that “everyone always says that when they leave these jobs.”

As secretary of state, Clinton is barred from partisan politics (YGTBKM!!) and she acknowledged that it is unusual not to be participating in this election season. But, she said she is enjoying being away from the fray and hasn’t watched any of the GOP debates.

“It is a little odd for me to be totally out of an election season,” she said. “But, you know, I didn’t watch any of those debates.”

Clinton said she expected the campaign for November’s election to “suck up a lot of the attention” normally devoted to foreign policy issues but she joked that that might actually help the State Department.

“The good news is maybe we can even get more done if they are not paying attention, so just factor that in.” (read more)

Cross-Posted on January 26, 2012by sundancecracker at the Last Refuge

What happened at Obama-no-show trial

Sworn testimony reveals fake Social Security number, other gaps

Georgia citizens today delivered sworn testimony to a court that Barack Obama is slam-dunk disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state, because his father never was a U.S. citizen, which prevents him from qualifying as a “natural-born citizen” as the U.S. Constitution requires for a president.

The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.

The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Several of the attorneys introduced passages from Obama’s own writings that Barack Obama Sr. was his father. They then introduced evidence that the man never was a U.S. citizen, that he was a citizen of Kenya at the time of junior’s birth and was therefore a subject of the United Kingdom.

His father’s citizenship, they said, precludes him from serving as president, since the Founders required that officer to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a “citizen.”

The term is not defined in the Constitution, but evidence introduced included a passage from a 1875 Supreme Court opinion that states:”The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Weldon explained in his presentation that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural-born citizen.”

The attorney argued also that another later court case referenced citizenship in the dicta, not the central holding in the case, and thus was not controlling.

Many of Irion’s arguments were echoed by Hatfield, a strategy that at least one constitutional expert, Herb Titus, said was sound.

Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Prior to his academic career, he served as a trial attorney and a special assistant United States attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, Mo.

He told WND the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen should be sufficient.

“That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” he said. “That alone is evidence. … They don’t need anything additional.”

Taitz argued multiple prongs of the case: that the birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery; that he probably has had several citizenships, such as when he was listed in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen; and that he’s been known under the names Obama, Soetoro and Soebarkah.

She also had a private investigator, Susan Daniels, testify that it appears Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.

Documents and imaging expert Doug Vogt asserted the birth documentation released by the White House was a creation of a software program and not a scan of any original document. That would mean Obama’s documentation, despite what the White House released in April, is still under wraps.

Obama and his attorney boycotted the proceedings, issuing a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp that the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.” The statement came after Malihi refused to quash a subpoena for Obama’s testimony and his records, which effectively was ignored by the White House.

The judge is expected to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the state whether there is reason to be concerned about Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.

He apparently will have no defense evidence, but Kemp had warned Obama about that.

Kemp said late last night in a response to a demand from Obama’s attorney that he simply order the hearing stopped.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued. “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.”

But the judge thought otherwise.

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.

“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,’” the judge said.

Jablonski also had argued that the state should mind its own business.

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argued.

The image released by the White House in April:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House

Titus said, “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning. Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

The final official ruling is expected on February 5, 2012.

by Jerome R. Corsi

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation", “Where's the Birth Certificate?” and "Unfit For Command."

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday's hearing in GA.

• P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425
• p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama's alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery
• P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify
• p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister
• p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns
• p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama
• p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama's passport records under FOIA
• p11. Barack Obama's Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia....
• Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

So is Hillary really in need of a rest?  Or are the elites getting ready in case the people rise up and Obama gets excluded from the ballots around the country? (The people of several states, seeing the hopeful results in GA, are organizing and soliciting the SOS in their individual states to keep Obama off the ballot.  Some are even asking Does Obama Want to Lose in November? And is this somehow the next stage of the and elitist scheme?

Ask Marion~

Related:

Video:  Obama May Be Left Off of Georgia Ballot

An “Empty Chair” Defense in Atlanta

Georgia Hearing Blow by Blow

Obama Eligibility Hearing Broadcast Live

And on this same day, my Governor and Representative (both Democrats) both announced that they will not run for re-election!

Tense Show Down in Arizona Between AZ Gov Jan Brewer and President Obama

Makes one proud. Arizona Governor talking to Obama

Obama tangles with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer over immigration book: Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America's Border

Arriving in Arizona on the second stop of his post-State of the Union tour, Obama descended the stairs of Air Force One and was greeted by Gov. Jan Brewer, who was among the local politicians waiting for him in a customary receiving line. Such moments are photo ops designed to burnish the image of the president and the politicians. This time, it quickly turned into a dust-up in the desert. Brewer attempted to hand Obama a letter, which she later told reporters was an invitation to sit down with her to discuss “Arizona’s comeback” and to tour the U.S.-Mexican border with her. “I thought we probably would’ve talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another,” Brewer said later. “Our country is upside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I know again that he loves this country and I love this country.” That’s when things went sour. Obama and Brewer engaged in what reporters described as an “intense exchange,” with the Republican governor pointing her finger at the president and the two appearing to talk over each other. The exchange ended when Obama abruptly walked away as Brewer appeared to still be speaking, according to a summary provided by reporters in the press pool that shadows the president on his trips.

Asked about the conversation, Brewer told the reporters that Obama was “a little disturbed” about her book, “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America's Border.’’ The book, which was published two months ago, details her conservative approach to dealing with the state’s illegal immigration challenges. (Washington Post)

Video: Jan Brewer: Obama Is Very Thin Skinned

Video:  Describes Unexpected Obama Confrontation

Video: Describes Unexpected Obama Confrontation

This Is the Handwritten Letter AZ Governor Jan Brewer Presented to Obama

(Related: AZ radio host reveals Dems are using distorted version of events to raise money)

It reads:

Dear Mr. President,

Welcome to Arizona!

You‘ve arrived in a state at the forefront of America’s recovery — and her future. We were at the brink. We were at the bottom of the list in job creation. Today, we have a balanced budget and we’re in the top 10 for job creation.

I’m proud of that hard-won recovery — the result of many tough decisions, courage and perseverance.

My hope is while you are here you will have a chance to see our tremendous results first hand.

We both love the great country, but we fundamentally disagree on how to best make America grow and prosper once again. I‘d love an opportunity to share with you how we’ve been able to turn Arizona around with hard choices that turned out to be the right ones.

And, of course, my offer to visit the border — and buy lunch — still stands!

With respect,
Jan

A scanned image of the letter was provided to The Blaze by Mike Broomhead’s team at 550KFYI. Broomhead interviewed Brewer on the tense exchange she shared with Obama after he landed in Arizona and she presented him with this letter.

The Blaze and h/t to MJ

To Google, Facebook, Twitter… Or NOT? - Perhaps Time to Assess Your Use and Membership? - Updated

Google

Many of you may have received the email below…

Dear Google user,

We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.

We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012.

One policy, one Google experience

Easy to work across Google

Our new policy reflects a single product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease.

Tailored for you

If you're signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you've expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube. We'll better understand which version of Pink or Jaguar you're searching for and get you those results faster.

Easy to share and collaborate

When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product or service with minimal clicks and errors.

Protecting your privacy hasn't changed

Our goal is to provide you with as much transparency and choice as possible, through products like Google Dashboard and Ads Preferences Manager, alongside other tools. Our privacy principles remain unchanged. And we'll never sell your personal information or share it without your permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests).

Understand how Google uses your data

If you want to learn more about your data on Google and across the web, including tips and advice for staying safe online, check out http://www.google.com/goodtoknow

Got questions?
We got answers.

Visit our FAQ at http://www.google.com/policies/faq to read more about the changes. (We figured our users might have a question or twenty-two.)

Notice of Change

March 1, 2012 is when the new Privacy Policy and Terms will come into effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Please do not reply to this email. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. Also, never enter your Google Account password after following a link in an email or chat to an untrusted site. Instead, go directly to the site, such as mail.google.com or www.google.com/accounts. Google will never email you to ask for your password or other sensitive information.

Many people are thinking of leaving Google and its tentacle services because this is just another consolidated grouping of information for Big Brother to monitor us and Google, like facebook, and others turn all their (your) information to the government.

Remaining with them or changing is something everyone should consider!

Here some really helpful links.  If you want to close your account, from what I read, they will delete everything… at least that is what they claim… guess we will see if they really do or if if you information ends up in digital space forever:

How to close your Google Account

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

Google faces backlash over privacy changes

The continuing onslaught against individual freedoms and the intrusion of government into our lives has inspired computer room like this one…

Additional Information:

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can't opt out

Global Search - Cuil!
http://www.cuil.pt/
Search
Is not powered by google, and not hosted in USA.
Every .com is.
http://www.cuil.pt/
Use Scroogle - very cool.
https://ssl.scroogle.org/
Read about it here:
www.scroogle.org
https://ixquick.com/
USE https://ixquick.com/ FOR PRIVACY
www.startpage.com
I've been using duckduckgo.com recently instead of Google and I like it.
www.duckduckgo.com
and their privacy policy[link to donttrack.us]
http://freenetproject.org/
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288017

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not...

But I work in a web agency and EVERY single one of the sites we produce uses google hosted code. Its mainly for analytic data for our customers. If you've ever seen google analytic data and understand that 100% of our sites (and I'm sure its almost 100% of any other agency's sites) use this code... that means the scope of this is so huge I can't think straight! Google can very easily track people's web usage through this analytic code.

It doesn't matter if you are on a google made site or not, if the use google hosted code then they know!

Heck even GLP uses it. If you know how to view source look at the bottom of this site.
https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js
http://www.google.com/enterprise/government/

Google announces privacy changes across products; users can’t opt out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html

Google will soon know far more about who you are and what you do on the Web.

The Web giant announced Tuesday it is planning to follow the activities of users across nearly all of its ubiquitous sites, including YouTube, Gmail and its leading search engine.

Google has already been collecting some of this information. But for the first time, it is combining data across its Web sites to stitch together a fuller portrait of users.

Consumers won’t be able to opt out of the changes, which take effect March 1. And experts say the policy shift will invite greater scrutiny from federal regulators of the company’s privacy and competitive practices.

The move will help Google better tailor its ads to people’s tastes. If someone watches an NBA clip online and lives in Washington, the firm could advertise Washington Wizards tickets in that person’s Gmail account.

Consumers could also benefit, the company said. When someone is searching for the word “jaguar,” Google would have a better idea of whether the person was interested in the animal or the car. Or the firm might suggest e-mailing contacts in New York when it learns you are planning a trip there.

But, say consumer advocates, the new policy might upset people who never expected their information would be shared across so many different Web sites.

A user, for instance, may not want Google to use your social network to alert estranged friends — or your boss — that you are around the corner at a bar.

“Google’s new privacy announcement is frustrating and a little frightening,” said Common Sense Media chief executive James Steyer. “Even if the company believes that tracking users across all platforms improves their services, consumers should still have the option to opt out — especially the kids and teens who are avid users of YouTube, Gmail and Google Search.”

Google can collect information about users when they activate an Android mobile phone, sign into their accounts online or enter search terms. It can also store cookies on people’s computers to see which Web sites they visit or use its popular maps program to estimate their location.

The change to its privacy policies come as Google is facing stiff competition for the fickle attention of Web surfers. It recently disappointed investors for the first time in several quarters, failing last week to meet earnings predictions. Apple, in contrast, reported record earnings Tuesday that blew past even the most optimistic expectations.

Some analysts said Google’s move is aimed squarely at Apple and Facebook — which have been successful in building unified ecosystems of products that capture people’s attention. Google, in contrast, has adopted a more scattered approach, but an executive said in interviews that the company wants to create a much more seamless environment across its various offerings.

“If you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services,” Alma Whitten, Google’s director of privacy for product and engineering wrote in a blog post.

“In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience,” she said.

Google said it would notify its hundreds of millions of users of the change through an e-mail and a message on its Web sites. It will apply to all of its services except for Google Wallet, Chrome browser and Google Books.

The company said the change would simplify the company’s privacy policy — a move that was encouraged by regulators.

Still, some consumer advocates and lawmakers remained skeptical.

“There is no way anyone expected this,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of privacy advocacy group the Center for Digital Democracy. “There is no way a user can comprehend the implication of Google collecting across platforms for information about your health, political opinions and financial concerns.”

Added Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass): “It is imperative that users will be able to decide whether they want their information shared across the spectrum of Google’s offerings.”

Google has increasingly been a focus of Washington regulators.

The company recently settled a privacy complaint by the Federal Trade Commission after it allowed users of its now defunct social network Google Buzz to see contacts lists from its e-mail program.

And a previous decision to use its social network data in search results has been included in a broad Federal Trade Commission investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.

Federal officials are also looking at whether Google is running afoul of antitrust rules by using its dominance in online search to favor its other business lines.

Claudia Farrell, a spokeswoman at the FTC, declined to comment on any interaction between Google and regulators on its new privacy changes.

More on this story:

How to close your Google Account

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

Google faces backlash over privacy changes

PHOTOS | What products are impacted by new policy?

Twitter, Facebook, MySpace cry foul on Google search

Google updates social-networking name policy

European privacy proposal includes ‘right to be forgotten’

A couple of comments that I thought were interesting.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288156

Google has been doing this all along as does Apple, MS and so on. Limit or don't use their services in your first line of defense. If not possible then learn all you can about your device and take FULL control of it, flash it, root it, kernel secure it and spank those apps and daemons who are like little children leaking sensitive info about you to these data collectors without your knowledge.

Don't forget to learn to really disable gps, mic and your cam when necessary cause they are bugged. At this point you will be half way secure and well on your way to freedom. However there is a whole another world of hidden service, exploit and leak potentials within your device that are publically unspoken of and that you will need to discover over time.

Last piece of advice, learn to game the algorithm that is at all times trying to predict who you are and what your next move is.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29289587   (Did you know could block a website this way?)
I just went to my internet options and blocked www.google.com signed out of you tube and tried signing back in, got a notice, you have disabled your cookies please turn them back on..But it is not March 1, yet is it?

Facebook

Look at timing with Google’s announcement—perhaps time to flee them both!

Facebook Timeline Mandatory For All Users - With Just 7 Days To 'Clean Up'

Facebook's Timeline - a new look for people's Profile pages which exposes their entire history on the site - will become mandatory for all users.

The 'new look' has been voluntary up until now.

From now, users will simply be notified that they are being 'updated' via an announcement at the top of their home page, which users click on to activate Timeline.

As with voluntary switches to Timeline, those who are 'updated' will have just seven days to select which photos, posts and life events they want to advertise to the world.

Via the official Facebook blog, the site announced, 'Last year we introduced timeline, a new kind of profile that lets you highlight the photos, posts and life events that help you tell your story.'

'Over the next few weeks, everyone will get timeline. When you get timeline, you'll have 7 days to preview what's there now.

'This gives you a chance to add or hide whatever you want before anyone else sees it.'

Timeline has been criticized for showing off pictures and posts that people might have wanted to forget.

The new look also pairs with 'timeline apps', such as Spotify, which post every time people listen to a song, or eat a recipe or visit somewhere.

'You can learn more about these new features by taking the quick tour available at the top of your timeline,' says Facebook.

'If you want to get timeline now, go to the Introducing Timeline page and click 'Get Timeline.'Or you can wait until you see an announcement at the top of your home page.'

Mark Zuckerberg described timeline as letting you 'tell the whole story of your life on a single page'.

The redesigned pages have a more magazine-like photo-heavy feel, with a large 'cover photo' at the top of the page.

On the right of the page there will be a timeline that breaks down all posts from a person's time on Facebook and allows viewers to jump back to people's earliest posts with a break down month-by-month.

Some were puzzled by the abrupt roll-out of the change, which is one of the biggest changes to Facebook - all the more so when paired with the new Timeline apps, such as Spotify, which posts a continuous stream of all songs listened to to your Timeline.

A user listening to Spotify on a smartphone, for instance, will default to posting every song to their Timeline for all to see. As with all Timeline features, there are various opt-outs, but they can be fiddly to find and use.

Likewise, e-book readers such as Kobo and video services such as Netflix can post every book and film people consume to Timeline.

Many sites published guides to how to 'hide' controversial content. Twitter users had mixed reactions.

Reactions included, 'I don’t want a timeline on my facebook - why do you force me to have one?' and 'I hate Facebook timeline design with a vengeance. More frippery and less function. Why are they forcing it on us?'

Many were shocked by how rapidly timeline had become compulsory.

Tech site Mashable said, 'Facebook must know that putting a ticking clock in front of users is bound to make very few of them happy, yet here it is, stop watch in hand. Here’s my theory.'
'Timeline apps aren't very effective without it. Conducting most of your day-to-day activities, like watching movies, sharing content, reading news, eating out, and more — that’s new. None of this has quite the same impact without Timeline.'

So far, Facebook has announced a few dozen Timeline apps.

Many sites recommend vetting apps carefully to see what they will post, and creating lists of friends to 'share' certain updates with, rather than bombarding your whole friends list.
Tech site CNET warns, 'Once you install an app and authorize it to post stories on your profile and News Feed, it'll never ask for your permission again.'

'If you love to cook, you can add the Foodily app to your timeline and share your latest dishes. If your friends have added the Foodily app, you can discover new recipes with each other, as you'll see their updates in the ticker and their timeline, and possibly News Feed.'
Facebook says that more Timeline apps, covering more interests will launch soon.

'Our vision for Timeline and our vision for the application platform is whatever you love and whatever story you want to tell, you can add that to your Timeline,' said Carl Sjogreen, Facebook's product management director.

Facebook Timeline with Apps and Ticker:
'Our message to developers is 'start your engines',' said Sjogreen.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2091735/Facebook-Timeline-mandatory-users--just-7-days-clean-up.html#ixzz1kb0jJtmF

SIDEBAR

PROTECTING YOUR PROFILE FROM PRYING EYES - WHAT TO DO IN THE SEVEN DAYS FACEBOOK ALLOWS YOU

Once timeline is activated on your profile, you have seven days to 'clean up' - and you will probably want to.

Things from your past that may have been previously hidden deep within your photos or timeline can be much more visible.

If there is anything particularly you don’t want shown, such as your relationship status from five years ago - which will be public by default - you’re best to click on the right hand side to the year it occurred, such as 2006, find the post and choose to either delete or hide it.

It all has to be done manually.

You can now choose directly from the right-hand side of nearly every section on profile who sees what for individual sections (such as photos, posts, likes etc). When you click on the item, you can choose whether it is seen publicly, by friends or by a customized list.

If you enable any timeline apps, be sure to read their privacy policies thoroughly - many will not ask again before posting information to your profile. Spotify, for instance, will default to filling your timeline with what you listen to, unless you tell it not to.

Facebook now has the ‘View profile as’ feature on the main page, rather than in privacy settings. This lets you check how different people can see your profile so you can then customize it as you wish.

For those looking to DELETE their facebook accounts permanently not just deactivate remove the spaces and copy paste this into your browser

If your doing it too replace your existing facebook account make sure your change your email address and password to something else first so you can use your original email. Funny how they hide this form.... HAH found youuuu!

https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2091735/Facebook-Timeline-mandatory-users--just-7-days-clean-up.html#ixzz1kb125TKI

Updated 1.27.12:

· Twitter to selectively 'censor' tweets by country

Friday, January 27, 2012 2:42:33 AM · by EnglishCon · 4 replies

BBC News ^ | 01/27/12 | BBC News

Twitter has announced that it now has the technology to selectively block tweets on a country by country basis. In its blog, Twitter said it could "reactively withhold content from users in a specific country". But it said the removed content would be available to the rest of the world. Previously when Twitter deleted a tweet, it would disappear worldwide. --- In its blog post, Twitter explained that its international growth meant entering countries "that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression", citing France or Germany which ban pro-Nazi content as examples.