Penza On Why Progressives Fail To Get Support For Policies: Arrogance

I was following an Al Gore discussion thread when I ran across a piece at The Moderate Voice that so accurately describes the far left liberal "progressives", I found it much more interesting that the Gore topic.

Penza states:

At its core the problem is a total failure of persuasion. Progressives often fail to get support for their policies because they often try to bully people into expressing agreement instead of undertaking the hard work of actually persuading them. That is the common root of many failed progressive efforts, from the speech codes that try to prevent dissent from emerging on the same college campuses where progressives used to champion it to the failure of global warming “climate change” activism to the ongoing political collapse of health care reform.

The common thread between these diverse progressive policy failures is an incoherent and often enraged failure to understand that sometimes people might disagree with them. When people disagree or even just start to express concerns, most progressive commentators just slap them into a category labelled “stupid” or worse and proceed to demonize them as evil to boot. When the dominant reaction to dissent is not argument but contempt and demonization, it imposes a heavy cost on progressive political viability. The voters don’t like being alternatively condescended to and outright condemned as jerks and rubes. The most surprising thing is that so many highly intelligent progressives are themselves surprised by this conventional and seemingly obvious feature of human psychology.

The reason this resonated so fast for me is because in the discussions listed under the original Gore piece, I had just clicked a link to a progressive site that made Penza's point quoted above, perfectly.

He’s just throwing shit to see if he can make a statue of a pony. Note the slippage between what might be a “character flaw,” as Mead dubs it, and Gore just being rich — a curious position for a rightist to take, to say the least. (Mead intones “You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place,” which is some hard fucking luck for Dick Cheney, who is apparently morally superior to Gore in this calculus because he was always upfront about being a sonofabitch.) And get a load of this: “A fawning establishment press spares the former vice president the vitriol and schadenfreude it pours over the preachers and priests whose personal conduct compromised the core tenets of their mission; Gore is not mocked as others have been.” Damn. Mead wouldn’t be getting away with that shit if Bob Somerby were still alive.

I think Moderate Voice's Logan Penza should send FireDogLake's Thers a nice fruit basket as a thank you for proving every word he said as true.

.

Did You Hear? The Netroots Nation Bitchfest Has Begun

Did you hear the news of the day? The far left liberal annual bitchfest has begun. It is called Netroots Nations and you can think of it as the moonbats annual get-together where far left liberal progressive all gather to piss, moan, bitch, complain and threaten before they go back to their lives and plan on how to get the person they are bitching about this year, Barack Obama, reelected.

Headlines, via Memeorandum:

Huffington Post- Progressives ‘Break Up’ With Obama

President Barack Obama is decidedly "not [the left's] boyfriend anymore," progressive supporters of gay- and immigrant-rights said on Thursday, rebuking the White House for breaking promises to the left while also asking them for money.

The Note- ABC News- Fear & Loathing In Minneapolis: Progressives Vent Frustration With Obama At Netroots Nation

Daily Caller- Capper to a great week: Piqued Netroots Nation freaks critique bleak Obama geek


Other headlines, via Google search, include but are not limited to;

Politico- Liberals' frustration on display at Netroots

Slate- Netroots Nation: The Sadness of Crowdsfrustration on display at Netroots

Then you have the blogospheric discussions surrounding those headlines, such as TPMDC with "Progressives Still Fighting Obama, Democrats At Netroots 2011"

Weasel Zippers- Obama's Communication Czar Heckled By Liberals During Daily Kos Conference...

The Nation- Netroots to White House: Where's the Love?

Booman Tribune- The Professionally Disgruntled — For the second straight year …

The most amusing part of all this is that after they are all done stomping their feet, beating their chests, screaming about how horrible Obama is and how he has disappointed them to no end, they understand just as Barack Obama does, they will either help him get reelected in 2012 or they will sit it out because they certainly won't vote for a Republican candidate.

Barking Moonbats are alllllll bark and no bite when it comes to Barack Obama.

Obama is probably kicked back, feet on his desk, laughing his butt off and telling his advisers "Please, who do you think they are going to vote for in 2012? A REPUBLICAN???? Dude, I own their asses."

.

Note To The Far Right : CUT. IT. OUT... Pretty Please

Seriously folks, get your act together.

Here is the deal as I see it (me being a conservative voter)- In 2008, Barack Obama, a man with no experience to warrant a position like the President of the United States of America, was elected as the President of the United States of America.

Why?

Voters turned against Republicans, pure and simple. They were the tipping point.

In 2010, after a far left extreme liberal agenda was jammed down America's throat, debt rising at unimaginable speed, government spending reaching monumental levels, bailouts mania, stimulus that stimulated nothing but higher unemployment and Obamacare, voters turned, yet again, and handed a victory to the GOP on the largest scale in over 70 years.

They did with the promise from the GOP that they would get serious on spending cuts, work on job creation and get the ball rolling to lower our debt.

From the 2008 election to the 2010 midterms, many of us, myself included, watched and wrote about the far left liberal so-called progressive extremists tearing the Democratic party apart, piece by piece, insisting that for the "good" of all, the far left liberal agenda should be shoved down American's throats and Americans would understand afterward what a wonderful thing Democrats had done.

How'd that work out? Huh? Huh?

Hint: 2010 Midterm elections.

So here we are, April 2011. A budget deal was negotiated, one that should have been passed last year while Democrats held the House, the Senate and White House, but the hard choices that needed to be made were too much of a "political hot potato," so they kicked the can down the road and the deal had to be made between a Republican controlled House of Representatives, a Democratically controlled Senate and a Democratically controlled White House.

The deal was made. Government didn't shut down, the GOP set the tone of discussion to surround spending, deficits and job creation by the end, and even had Obama and Harry Reid touting spending cuts as historic and the largest ever seen.

The GOP did so in a manner which kept voters (you know the people that will determine what direction and what message to send in 2012)engaged, informed and took into account that voters would rather see the major battle fought over trillions and not just billions. Those same voters, the majority, (which again for those that are slow, determine the outcome of elections) did not want to see a government shutdown over billions when the real fight is to come to cut spending by trillions.

Now I see hardcore conservatives, who admittedly are taking a principled stand, criticizing the size and scope of the deal that was made. I see them willing to tear into anyone that dares look at the good the GOP has done with the first initial battle.

Whether they admit it or not, there was plenty of good done. Starting with setting the public debate stage with the proper theme of debt, spending and jobs.

Lets take a quick look at what the GOP has accomplished, being in control of only the House of Representatives: (Via The Politico)

***The $40 billion in cuts was not only historically high, it was more than Boehner himself wanted to push for a few short months ago.

***Earmarks, which many thought would never go away, are now taboo - even to earmark addicts like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who reluctantly gave them up after the 2010 election.

***Deficits are all the rage on Capitol Hill, and will be until Congress wends its way through the debt limit fight and the next budget. The word “deficit” appeared in 470 documents in the Congressional Record between the beginning of January and the end of March, more than in any session’s opening since 1995, according to a review by POLITICO. And Americans listened: Asked by Gallup to identify the most important problem facing the nation, 13 percent said “federal debt” in March of this year, up from 8 percent a year ago.

***The broader budget debate is now fought on the tea party’s terms: It’s not whether to reduce government, it’s by how much. This helps explain why serious centrist commentators and even some liberals PRAISED a $6 trillion budget cut plan proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Remember how a similar plan was received two years ago?

***Thanks to a pickup of 675 legislative seats in 2010 - many because of these budget principles

***The most sweeping work is getting done in states. Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana are now working, real-time labs for discovering how much the party can cut government - without cutting off the support of independents. A GOP senator told us the party studies what happens in these state showdowns to test the limits of what will work here. One early finding: Many think Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) went too far, too fast by gutting union power without first educating the public.

***The real fight over spending erupted in late spring of 2009, and consider the results: The GOP won the governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey in 2009; the Scott Brown Senate race in Massachusetts in early 2010; then won back the House, picked up Senate seats and captured the most state legislative seats in a single year since Watergate — all in November of last year.

Most Republicans and moderate conservatives are looking at the big picture, seeing the messaging war won, the stage for the future battle set to fight the bigger fight over trillions and time being bought to inform the public each step of the way so that the majority of the public is behind them.

All that in a few short months.

I took a political leanings test once, assumed I would come out as a moderate conservative, and was extremely surprised to see the test tell me I was in the top 10 percent of "ulta-conservative".... wow, really? I thought I was mellow.

The reason I tell you about that test is because I happen to agree with the hardcore far right extreme conservatives on quite a few of their political beliefs.

I believe the budget deal should have been fought over trillions (as the 2012 budget battle will be with Paul Ryan's GOP's Path to Prosperity). I believe a government that spends more than it takes in will go bankrupt, it is unsustainable. I believe saving billions in the face of a $14 trillion debt is ridiculous.

So far I agree with almost everything the far right wants and believes we need as a country.

So, why am I telling the far right to CUT. IT. OUT?

I disagree with how they want those goals achieved and how they are prepared to tear the Republican party into pieces as the far left progressives did with the Democratic party.

Back to the top everyone:

From the 2008 election to the 2010 midterms, many of us, myself included, watched and wrote about the far left liberal so-called progressive extremists tearing the Democratic party apart, piece by piece, insisting that for the "good" of all, the far left liberal agenda should be shoved down American's throats and Americans would understand afterward what a wonderful thing Democrats had done.

I am watching the far right head down the same path as the far left extreme portion of the Democratic party did from 2008 to 2010. I am watching the far right encourage Republican politicians to make the same mistakes the far left liberals forced their politicians to make from 2008 to 2010.

The principles, to which I agree with them on most issues, of the far right and their own thoughts on how our Representatives should achieve those principles, seem to be more important to them than the majority of the public and the voters in the upcoming elections.

Voters, the majority of them, must be behind everything that is done. They must have time to research the available information. They must be given time and the respect shown to them to decide issues for themselves without being told "you have to pass it to learn what is in it" (Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare quote)

Inevitably we see the argument how politicians shouldn't make their decisions based on "polls" and for the most part that is true but politicians are elected to represent their constituents and if the majority of voters turn against a party as they did Republicans in 2008 and Democrats in 2010, those voters can and will replace those politicians they feel did not represent them.

Most Tea Party supporters seem to have found a good balance here. They are arguing that more needs to be done at the same time acknowledging the limitations the politicians have to work with.

Ever heard the expression "pick your battles"?

The war is the 2012 budget, the one just passed was simply a skirmish to set the stage.

Politicians- Please do not make the same mistake Obama/Reid/Pelosi made. Do not allow the extreme portion of the GOP party to cause you to lose the majority of voters.

Far right- Please do not make the same mistakes the far left liberal so-called progressives made. Don't rip the Republican party to shreds when we will need them to unite and fight the biggest war to come.

We are all on the same side here. Can we start acting like it?

I am begging you... CUT. IT. OUT. Pretty please.

.

Budget Battle On The Hill And In The Blogosphere

We spend too much. We spend more as a country than we take in.

That is the underlying concept the GOP has been preaching since before the November midterm elections and their promises to cut government spending was, in large part, one of the major reasons voters handed them the biggest victory seen in decades with one of the largest turnover of House seats, giving control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans and stripping that gavel from Nancy Pelosi to make John Boehner the Speaker of the House.

Let me repeat myself.. we spend too much.

Ezra Klein runs the latest reports in the ongoing budget battle down in one paragraph:

Back in February, Paul Ryan unveiled what was supposed to be the opening bid from the House Republicans: $32 billion in cuts for the rest of 2011. But the Tea Party demanded more and House leadership quickly caved, doubling their proposed cuts to more than $60 billion -- or almost $100 billion less than barack Obama’s 2011 budget request (quick note: different news stories present these numbers differently, as it depends on whether you use Obama’s budget request or 2010’s funding as a baseline. I’m using the difference from 2010 funding, which makes for lower sums). Now Democrats are offering as a compromise measure $30 billion in total cuts, or exactly what Ryan’s original proposal had called for. Pretty neat, huh?

Progressive liberals in the blogosphere are having another woe is me moment over the latest $20 million in cuts the Democrats are offering up. Calling their party leaders losers, calling the offer pathetic because they don't want spending cuts and generally peeved that Democrats are supposedly caving in.

People like Ezra are handing out the talking points as evidenced by his title "A huge win for the Tea Party, a win for Republicans and a big loss for Democrats."

Really?

Is that truly where they want to go with this?

The U.S. is over $14 trillion in debt, we spend more than we take in, and Republicans were handed the largest victory in 70 years in the last elections on the campaign promise that they would cut spending massively.

$30 billion is a start, I will admit that because I see each "drop in the bucket" as going toward the eventual outcome of filling the bucket, emptying it, then putting it back down to collect more.

Liberals like Ezra would love for conservatives to see the "Democrats have lost" meme and kick back, smile happily and stop pushing for more spending cuts, but that is not going to happen.

It is not a we win, you lose game. It also shouldn't be a conservative vs liberal battle either, but it is because the priorities of the left do not match the priorities of the right or Independents.

Gallup recently found that 71 percent of Americans say they worry about the economy "a great deal," 22 percent say they worry about the economy a "fair amount" with only 7 percent listed as "only a little/not at all."

64 percent of Americans say they worry about federal spending and the budget deficit a "great deal" with 23 percent saying they worry about it a "fair amount" and 12 percent listed as "only a little/not at all."

Those are the top two out of 14 issues Gallup polled on.

The breakdown of those Gallup findings are telling though and explains why supporters claim Democratic leaders are folding or losing in their eyes.

Click image to enlarge

Federal spending doesn't even register in the top four for Democrats while it is in the top two for Republicans and Independents.

The fiscal showdown continues as Congress returns to their jobs this week and in this specific case Republicans have the majority support of the American people who understand what liberal pundits do not seem able to grasp.

40 days ago the GOP controlled House passed a bill to fund government and cut spending and 40 days later the Senate, which is still Democratically controlled, has not because they are fighting to prevent the spending cuts the House passed.

We spend too much.

If Democrats force a government shutdown because they refuse to understand that basic concept, Americans are more than aware of which party is fighting to cut spending and which party is fighting tooth and nail to prevent those cuts.

.

This, Right Here, Is What Is Wrong With Progressive Liberals

In 2007, the yearly Kos Convention, now named Netroots Nation, hosted Democratic presidential contenders, Democratic politicians and liberals from across the country and they hold this convention every year.

Do Conservatives protest this convention, do hundreds flock outside holding signs and declaring that liberals do not have the right to meet and discuss their agenda?

Not that I have seen, please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you have photos of any massive protest against this or any other liberal meeting.

In the meantime, the news is full today screaming headlines "Hundreds march outside Koch brothers' retreat."

Koch Industries is the nations second-largest privately held company. They fund efforts to push for limited-government, libertarian agenda as well as help organize Tea Party groups.. among other things.

Charles and David Koch held their eighth retreat for prominent conservative elected officials, major political donors and strategists, and according to Koch spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer, the meeting "brings together some of America's greatest philanthropists and job creators … who share a common belief that the current level of government spending in our nation is simply unsustainable."

The meeting is focusing on ways to reduce the rising federal deficit, she said, as well as "strategies to promote policies that will help grow our economy, foster free enterprise and create American jobs."

Liberals have MoveOn.org and many attend the annual Net Nations conventions which has work groups set up to discuss the progressive agenda and how to further it, just to name two such events and organizations, which bring Democratic politicians, strategists, presidential contenders together to discuss many of the same issues. Groups that donate heavily to the progressive agenda, but in the eyes of a liberal, to their thinking, they have the right to bring together like minded individuals, corporations and such but Conservatives do not.

About Koch Industries:

Koch Industries was co-founded by Fred C. Koch in 1940 when they developed an innovative crude oil refining process. Now Koch Industries is a conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch is involved in manufacturing, refining and distribution of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments.

To liberals the Kochs represent "corporate greed" as the protest signs signal.

Last I heard, starting a business, building it up and creating a profit by offering services for money, is the basis behind capitalism. Handing that business down to your children to have them expand and grow it, is a legacy.

It also creates jobs for thousands if not millions over time.

In the twisted minds of liberals, Koch's main offense is that they are conservative/libertarian in political nature and they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

How dare them support the Tea Party!! How wrong of them to have a political affiliation as well as having money. How "insidious" for them to use their money to help achieve their goals and what they believe to be right for the country and themselves.

I mean come on, liberal protests are never funded and organized by groups, unions or organizations, right? Protesters are never bussed in by liberals to liberal rallies or such, right?

If Conservatives held massive protests against Liberal conferences and meetings where Liberals got together to discuss what their ideas and politics, they would accuse, hell they would scream bloody murder, about how Conservatives were trying to stifle their free speech, their right to a political belief.

Yet that is exactly what liberal protesters did at the Koch retreat. All because these folks are rich and influential. Isn't that prejudicial? Isn't that discrimination?

Oh no, sorry, in the eyes of the progressive liberals you cannot be discriminatory and prejudicial against the rich, they aren't people, they are rich.

The fact that they cannot even see their own hypocrisy and double standards, right there, is what is wrong with the far left liberals of today.

.

49 Percent Of Americans Find Democratic Party 'Too Liberal'

Gallup reports that 49 percent of Americans believe the Democratic party has become "too liberal" with 38 percent believing the Democratic party is just about right. On the flip side, 34 percent of American find the Republican party "too conservative" while 41 percent find the Republican party just "about right."

The recent increase in perceptions of the Democratic Party as too liberal could be a response to the expansion in government spending since President Barack Obama took office, most notably regarding the economic stimulus and healthcare legislation.

The 49% of Americans who now believe the Democratic Party's views are too liberal is one percentage point below the 50% Gallup measured after the 1994 elections, the all-time high in the trend question first asked in 1992.

Since February 2008, the percentage calling the Democratic Party "too liberal" has increased by 12 points among independents and 8 points among Republicans, with little change among Democrats.

This confirms what a previous Gallup poll found which was that conservatives are still the dominant ideology as 40 percent of U.S. Adults self identify as conservative, 35 identify as Moderate and just 21 percent self identify as liberals.

Americans are still right of center in terms of ideology and liberals are still the minority with those identifying as "very liberal" only total 6 percent.

Liberal Democrats are disconnected from the majority of America, which is why the things they seem to fight for or against so hard is done against the opposition from most of America.

The most recent example of that is the tax deal Barack Obama negotiated with Republicans that liberals so opposed, yet ever poll conducted showed Americans supporting it as a whole package.

That deal was signed into law December 17, 2010 with top Democratic leadership noticeably absent from the signing ceremony.

.

Finally A Liberal Lists The Reason Americans Do Not Like The Estate Tax aka Death Tax

Estate Tax aka Death Tax definition from IRS.gov:

The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death (Refer to Form 706 (PDF)). The fair market value of these items is used, not necessarily what you paid for them or what their values were when you acquired them. The total of all of these items is your "Gross Estate." The includible property may consist of cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, annuities, business interests and other assets.

Over at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum writes a piece titled "Tax Cut Deal Wildly Popular", where he shows the same graph I used yesterday taken from the ABC News/Washington Post poll showing support for specific components on the tax deal negotiated between Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans.

Drum then asks what is going on? He seems confused that the payroll tax cut garnered so much less support than the increased exemption on the estate tax (which is set at $5 million in the new tax deal).

He sees possible answers to his own question:

Possible answers: (a) people don't really understand that cutting payroll taxes means they'll see an immediate increase in their take home pay, (b) people associate payroll taxes so strongly with Social Security solvency that they don't want to cut them, (c) people fantastically overestimate how likely they are to have a $5 million estate when they die, (d) lots of people have a strong instinctive view that people should be able to pass on their wealth to their kids no matter how much it is, (e) people are just generally confused about all this stuff and it's hopeless to try and figure out what's really going on.

The majority of his "possible answers" seem to stem from his own inability to understand how liberals could be in the minority in their thinking and that people are too slow witted to truly understand the "progressive" thinking.

With that said, finally, a far left liberal lists the reason most Americans do not agree with the death tax and are supportive of increasing the exemption to the highest possible number if the whole tax the dead concept won't be scrapped.

Credit where it is due though, at least Drum did add the correct answer into the equation, much to the dismay and anger of other liberals.

How difficult is it to understand that people work their whole lives chasing the American dream in order to live well and be able to pass it on to their children/family?

The majority of the money millionaires or billionaires have, was either worked for and taxed already or someone in their families had worked for it and had it taxed already, so instinctively Americans wince at the thought of stealing from the dead simply because they died and had money when they did.

So, the answer is (d) lots of people have a strong instinctive view that people should be able to pass on their wealth to their kids no matter how much it is.....

Tell me how hard is it for far left liberals to understand the words "their wealth" and "their kids", words Drum used in his possible answers, are the key words and the reason the polling is showing support for the higher exemption?

Perhaps it is Drum and his far left brethren that "don't understand" and are "confused about all this stuff."

Americans aren't as gung-ho about class warfare as so-called progressives are.

.

Tax Deal: Two Separate Polls Show Liberals Fighting Against Majority of Americans, Even Their Own Party

Two polls released which show that an overwhelming majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats support the tax deal that Barack Obama and Republicans negotiating. This shows that far left liberals, including House Democrats that have been fighting against the deal as a whole, are not representative of America and are not even representative of their whole party.

Earlier it was reported that the Senate is set to move forward with it's first procedural motion, cloture, to test the level of support in the upper chamber and now Pew Research and an ABC News/Washington Post poll both find a broad level of support, a majority of Americans supportive of the tax deal as a whole.

Pew finds that 60 percent of Americans back the tax deal, and that includes 63 percent of Democrats and surprise, surprise, 65 percent of liberal Democrats, showing that the far left liberal blogoshere which has spent a week throwing a complete temper tantrum, does not even represent those that consider themselves liberal Democrats!!

The agreement between President Obama and congressional Republicans to extend tax cuts and unemployment benefits is getting strong bipartisan support. Overall, 60% approve of the agreement while just 22% disapprove.

There are virtually no partisan differences in opinions about the agreement – 63% of Democrats approve of it, as do 62% of Republicans and 60% of independents. Among Democrats, liberals are as supportive of the agreement as are conservative and moderate Democrats.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll is even worse news for the far left liberal blogosphere, as well as the House Democrats that have been fighting against the deal their own party's president negotiated:

Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they support the agreement announced last week by the president that would extend all expiring tax cuts for two years, extend unemployment benefits for 13 months, allow for a one-year payroll tax holiday, and increase the level of exemption from estate taxes, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found Monday.

The graph at the top of the post is a screen shot from the ABC News/Washington Post poll PDF, and it shows that the specific part of the tax deal that receives the least support is cutting social security and payroll taxes, not the part that liberal far left progressive Democrats have been complaining about, very loudly, which has been the estate tax provisions.

The estate tax provision increasing the exemption actually enjoys a majority of support even from Democrats.

(Click image to enlarge for better reading)

Initial reactions show blogosphere far left liberals in complete denial.

[Update] New reports show that a certain segment of conservatives are slamming the deal, with estate taxes also being the chief complaint... the difference is that the conservatives do not think there should be any estate tax aka death tax.

The polls mentioned above ask about support on "increasing exemption" but they did not ask about the estate tax as a whole.

I would be interested to see those figures gauging what portion of America thinks that leveling taxes on monies or estates left to family and/or friends is supported although as I pointed out in previous days, highlighting specific portions of the bill should not assume that just because one option or another would influence support as a whole.

The bill is not being voted on separately, it is a package and when determining levels of support the whole package should always be polled on rather than cherry picking individual issues to try to dishonestly mislead readers into thinking the package in full does not enjoy bipartisan support.

.

Tax Deal News: Sweeteners, Donors And Dems Yelling 'F*ck The President'

Liberal Democrats are angry, outraged, yelling and screaming and one, unnamed as of yet, even yelled "Fuck the President" during Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

Just another day of anger and temper tantrums in the liberal progressive world.

By now most political junkies know that the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted on a non-binding resolution against the tax deal that Obama and Republicans agreed to in order to show their displeasure over the fact that after trying to deal with them, Obama simply took matters into his own hands and negotiated directly with Republicans, bypassing Pelosi and House Democrats completely.

On the Senate side, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have been working and managed to get a bill written that they have now unveiled, keeping the President and Republican's framework but adding a few "sweeteners" as media are calling them to draw more Democratic support.

Initial test votes on related items have indicate that there will be enough votes in the Senate to pass the tax deal before they go home for Christmas.

Senate leaders on Thursday evening formally unveiled the huge tax cut package worked out between the White House and Republicans and immediately began debating it, while House Democrats rebelled against President Obama and threatened to keep the measure from ever reaching the floor.

A procedural vote was scheduled in the Senate for Monday evening to overcome a filibuster by Democrats opposed to the plan. But in a first test on Thursday, the Senate voted 65 to 11 on a technical issue related to the bill, suggesting it would not be difficult to secure the 60 votes needed to defeat the filibuster.

The $858 billion deal that was unveiled can be found here.

Not only are House Democrats peeved with Obama, The Hill reports that they are using their last few weeks at being in charge of the House's appropriations committee to as payback.

Incensed over President Obama’s tax compromise, House Democratic leaders are showing signs of abandoning the administration and going their own way on critical issues such as national security.

In a striking move, the appropriations committee late Wednesday attached a provision to a $1.1 trillion resolution to keep the government funded next year that would prevent Obama from spending any funds to try terrorism suspects in civilian court instead of military commissions.

The language would essentially prevent the closing of the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Some House Democrats viewed the move as an act of defiance and a direct demonstration of just how furious the caucus is with Obama’s decision to work with Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax cuts.

But many other Democrats, including Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, said they didn’t even know the provision was included.

Moran’s anger with the president boiled over in a short interview Thursday with The Hill about the provision and the tax debate held shortly after the Democratic caucus voted to reject Obama’s tax-cut deal.

“This is a lack of leadership on the part of Obama,” fumed Moran (D-Va.) “I don’t know where the f*** Obama is on this or anything else. They’re AWOL.

Emphasis mine.. so it was either payback or they still aren't reading what they are voting on.

What stunning incompetence or petulance.

Either way, thank heavens they won't be in charge of the House or the purse strings after January.

In other news the LA Times reports that liberal donors are annoyed with with Obama and some are not planning to part with their money in the 2012 elections, because of the tax deal.

In the meantime, Charles Krauthammer believes Obama won the tax fight and the perpetually angry Democrats are just too stupid to understand that he won them a StimulusII.

No, cries the left: Obama violated a sacred principle. A 39.6 percent tax rate versus 35 percent is a principle? "This is the public option debate all over again," said Obama at his Tuesday news conference. He is right. The left never understood that to nationalize health care there is no need for a public option because Obamacare turns the private insurers into public utilities, thus setting us inexorably on the road to the left's Promised Land: a Canadian-style single-payer system. The left is similarly clueless on the tax-cut deal: In exchange for temporarily forgoing a small rise in upper-income rates, Obama pulled out of a hat a massive new stimulus - what the left has been begging for since the failure of Stimulus I but was heretofore politically unattainable.

Obama's public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation. The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008 - and abandoned the Democrats in 2010 - is by changing the prevailing (and correct) perception that he is a man of the left.

Hence that news-conference attack on what the administration calls the "professional left" for its combination of sanctimony and myopia. It was Obama's Sister Souljah moment. It had a prickly, irritated sincerity - their ideological stupidity and inability to see the "long game" really do get under Obama's skin - but a decidedly calculated quality, too. Where, after all, does the left go? Stay home on Election Day 2012? Vote Republican?

The bottom line here is the Senate will pass the tax deal and the House will either pass it now in one of the Democrats' last acts while they have control of the House or Republicans when they take control in January will pass it.

It will be passed despite the screaming, angry, whining of far left liberal progressives.

On a side note here but worth mentioning: For two years we have heard the left crying out that Republicans have been obstructionists and have refused to work with Democrats on anything, and on the tax deal Obama and Republicans worked together to hammer out a deal and the far left is still crying because Obama dared work with the right.

They never wanted any bipartisanship, they wanted to steamroll anything they desired through and with control of the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, they did exactly that for the past two years.

Now that the GOP has won control of the House, Obama has to work with Republicans and liberals are simply throwing a temper tantrum because they have lost their hold on a one party rule.

[Update] A little extra in my next post.. Barack Obama has now made it clear he considers House Democrats irrelevant.

.

Internal Democratic War: Centrists, Conservative Dems Say Pelosi And Progressives 'Holding Critically Needed Tax Cuts Hostage'

It was reported earlier, updates and links in a previous post, that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House until January when Republicans take control, has refused to allow the tax deal that Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers made come up for a vote in the House.

Now Centrists and Conservative Democrats are lashing out at Pelosi and the liberal progressive faction of the Democratic party, saying the "liberal wing of the Democratic caucus" is holding "critically needed tax cuts hostage", by not allowing a vote on the tax deal even though they claim there are enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass the deal as is.

Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.), among the most conservative Democrats on Capitol Hill, said he's "extremely displeased" that the White House-GOP deal might not come to the floor as it stands.

"A clear majority of the U.S. House of Representatives supports this plan," Boren said in a statement. "We are allowing the liberal wing of the Democratic caucus to hold these critically needed tax cuts hostage."

Pelosi controls the calendar and if she does not allow the vote to come to the floor, even knowing the votes are there to pass it, then it cannot be passed through the House and if it is not passed before the end of the year then taxes for every American goes up and unemployment benefits end without extension. A 13 month extension for UI benefits is written into the tax deal Obama and Republicans negotiated.

Question: Does Pelosi really want one of her last acts as Speaker to allow tax cuts for every American to expire and allow UI benefits to end just to have the first act of the Republican controlled House of Representatives next year be to extend UI benefits and give Americans the tax cuts?

IRS has warned that providing the tax cuts and having to do it retroactively, as the Republicans would be forced to in January if Pelosi doesn't allow a vote on the deal there is already a bipartisan agreement for ,to come to the House floor, "would be extremely detrimental to the entire tax filing season and to tens of millions of taxpayers."

PS- Is it any wonder the American public fired Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House? January simply cannot come fast enough.

[Update] Senate is moving forward with tax deal, Reid proposes minor changes for McConnell and Republicans to consider indicating they were aimed at winning over enough Democratic support to overcome a filibuster.

(Correction made to title of post)


Previous:

"Tax Deal: Done Deal Despite Progressives? Not So Fast, House Dems Defy Obama"

"Liberals Want To Let Taxes Rise For Everyone And Cut Off Unemployment Benefits."

.

Liberals Want To Let Taxes Rise For Everyone And Cut Off Unemployment Benefits

Nothing shows the complete chaotic disarray that Congressional Democrats have come to, more than the headlines and news articles coming out over the weekend and today, with media outlets across the board and Barack Obama giving a speech and answering questions publicly, announcing to the American public that the White House and the GOP (who will control the House of Representatives in January) have come to a compromise and made a deal on taxes which include the continuation of all Bush-era tax cuts, a deal on estate taxes aka death taxes, an extension of unemployment insurance, payroll-tax cuts, incentives for businesses and tax credits.

Below are just samples of the major news outlet headlines found using Google search:

ABC News "Bipartisan deal reached to extend tax cuts."

Washington Post "Obama, GOP reach deal to extend tax breaks."

Washington Times "Deal reached on tax cuts, jobless."

The news spread wide and far and television news reported on it, polls conducted, all major newspapers reported it and over the weekend strong reactions have come like a firestorm across the blogosphere.

So, the public has been informed there is a bipartisan deal. Loudly. Clearly.

A reminder of what the deal entails from Ezra Klein which I quoted in an earlier post:

The GOP got around $95 billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans and $30 billion in estate tax cuts. Democrats got $120 billion in payroll-tax cuts, $40 billion in refundable tax credits (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and education tax credits), $56 billion in unemployment insurance, and, depending on how you count it, about $180 billion (two-year cost) or $30 billion (10-year cost) in new tax incentives for businesses to invest.

Today's headlines show that liberal Democratic politicians would rather see no deal, which would allow jobless benefits aka Unemployment Insurance to expire and allow taxes for everyone to rise rather than pass the deal Obama's White House brokered with Republicans.

The Hill reports "Liberal leader suggests GOP House should handle tax cuts, unemployment benefits."

A leader of an 80-plus member bloc of House liberals suggested Wednesday that Democrats should let the GOP-led House handle the expiring Bush-era tax cuts and unemployment benefits next year.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said such a move would force Republicans into deciding whether or not they want to take two potentially unpopular stances during their first month in power.

"Let them tell the unemployed they won't get benefits. Let them tell [the middle class their taxes are going up]," he said on MSNBC.

Keep in mind, if Congress does not act, does not pass the compromise deal, then as of the end of this year, everyone's taxes rise with the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts from a decade ago.

Grijalva's mistake here is that the Democrats still control both house's of Congress until January, so it won't be Republicans having to "explain" anything, it would be Democrats having to explain to all of America that the White House, which is Democratically controlled, and the GOP had a deal agreed upon, but liberals refused to pass it therefore letting everything expire for Americans.

NEXT headline "Liberals Try to Prevent Pelosi From Bringing Tax Bill to the Floor."

Fox has learned that Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Jay Inslee (D-WA) are crafting a letter to share with the House Democratic Caucus that would try to prevent the Speaker from bringing the tax bill to the floor.

They hope to get 60 signatures on their letter (which is still being drafted) and then force a vote in the caucus. DeFazio says he thinks that if a majority of House Democrats are against this compromise, they shouldn't bring it to the floor.

I repeat, if the bill does not come to the floor, it cannot pass and again, all tax cuts expire raising taxes for every American and UI benefits do not get extended.

To show even more disarray throughout the whole Democratic caucus, Nancy Pelosi calls the deal Obama and the GOP reached on estate taxes aka Death Tax, a "bridge too far."

In the meantime, there is this little tidbit:

The Obama-GOP agreement sets the inheritance tax at 35 percent for individuals bequeathing more than $5 million to their heirs. The Democratic-controlled House passed a bill in 2009 that would set the estate tax at 45 percent and start the exemption at $3.5 million. There is no estate tax in 2010.

Right now there is no estate tax, the House passed a bill but the Senate cannot get the House's bill passed, so is Pelosi prepared to nix the whole tax deal and let estate taxes rise to 55 percent which is what will happen if nothing is done? Gallup shows the American public does not want that, not increasing estate tax came up first on the lest in their polling.

Should this be passed on until next year when Republicans are in control of the House of Representatives, there is no guarantee that Republicans will keep that portion in the deal if Democrats do not honor the deal while they still have control.

Adding the final nail into the progressive liberal coffin, we now see the White House admitting that the reason it has come down to the last minute, forcing the White House and GOP to compromise and create a deal in the first place, is not the solely Republican's fault, but also the Democrat's fault because they could not unite their own party before the November election when the White House wanted this issue dealt with.

But senior administration officials said their own party is at least party to blame for the deal. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said President Obama wanted Congress to extend the tax cuts, but there was no consensus on how to do so in the Democratic caucus.

"He and the White House, frankly, urged the House and Senate to hold votes on this before the election," Pfeiffer said on the liberal Bill Press radio show. "But they didn't do that, in part because there's not unanimity in the Democratic Caucus on this."

Conclusion:

Americans have been informed there is a deal which will prevent their taxes from rising and preventing unemployment benefits from expiring.

The liberal Democratic politicians, especially the leadership, do not want to pass that deal, which means it is liberals that want to let all tax cuts expire and raise taxes on everyone and liberals that want to let UI benefits expire.

How does Pelosi think that is going to go over with everyone except the 20 percent of Americans that self identify as "liberal"?

Does the expression cutting off one's nose to spite their face have any meaning to these people?

(Correction has been made to this post)

.

Democrats Can Say Goodbye To DREAM Act In Lame Duck Session

Harry Reid and far left Democratic politicians are planning to schedule a vote on one or all of the five different versions of DREAM Act that have been floated during the lame duck session of Congress and the GOP is standing firm against pushing through the rest of the Democratic agenda before newly elected Senators are seated and the House turns over control to the GOP in January after voters swamped the polls and stripped control from Nancy Pelosi and Democrats.

It is not only the Senate GOP that is refusing to cooperate with Harry Reid in the Senate though, centrist Democrats and Democrats who are up for reelection are not exactly thrilled with jumping off the cliff as Reid would like them to.

The Hill Reports "Short goodnight expected for the DREAM Act during lame duck."

Even as Democrats in both chambers prepare to consider the measure this week, Republicans and centrist Democrats are already lining up to shoot it down.

The climb is particularly steep in the Senate, where Republicans will filibuster the hot-button bill, and even former sponsors now stand in opposition.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, for instance, was the lead sponsor of the original DREAM Act when it emerged nine years ago. But already facing pressure from conservatives surrounding his 2012 reelection bid, the six-term Utah Republican is "sprinting to the right" away from the proposal, according to Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, an advocacy group lobbying for the bill.

"He's not on any of our 'get' lists," Sharry said.

Hatch spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier declined to comment Friday on whether Hatch supports the underlying policy. She said Hatch's opposition — at least in the near term — stems from the recent vow among Senate Republicans to deny everything that hits the floor before the Bush tax cuts and government funding issues are settled.

"Everything's a 'no' until the tax issue is resolved," Ferrier said.

Harry Reid already knows all of this as the GOP penned a letter and sent it to him making it very clear that until the Tax issue is dealt with, the issue ranking the very top of the list for Americans, the GOP will filibuster and stop anything else from the Democratic last minute to-do list.

For that reason, we write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.

To top matters off, we now see that Reid is also going to try to pass one last Omnibus bill, by shoveling 100+ other bills into one large bill to try to get his socialist, far left liberal agenda through at the last minute before the 5 addition GOP Senators are seated in January and the Republicans take control of the House.

Democratic efforts to push through more than 100 public lands and water bills in the lame duck session are reaching a fever pitch, with the recognition this is the last chance many of them have to become law.

Voters got sick of Reid/Pelosi/Obama doing that over the last two years and the Democrats are still trying to play the same game as they did before the elections, showing that they didn't learn a thing from the "shellacking" (Obama's word) that they took on November 2, 2010.

Americans and legal residents who have been battling against Democrats trying to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants have been pounding the phones letting their elected Representatives and Senators know it would be political suicide to jam through the DREAM Act during the lame duck session of Congress (after elections before the newly elected members are seated) and to that end, below is a long list of numbers to call and contact forms to fill out.

Democrats up for reelection and Republicans that need reminding of just who elected them.

From a previous post:

Daniel Akaka, Hawaii:

141 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6361
Web Form: akaka.senate.gov/email-senator-akaka.cfm


Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico.

703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5521
Web Form: bingaman.senate.gov/contact/

Sherrod Brown, Ohio.

713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2315
Web Form: brown.senate.gov/contact/


Joe Manchin, West Virginia.

1 RUSSELL COURTYARD WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954

Maria Cantwell, Washington

511 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/


Benjamin Cardin, Maryland

509 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4524
Web Form: cardin.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm


Thomas Carper, Delaware.

513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441
Web Form: carper.senate.gov/contact/


Robert Casey, Jr., Pennsylvania

393 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6324
Web Form: casey.senate.gov/contact/


Kent Conrad, North Dakota

530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm


Diane Feinstein, California

331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe


Kirsten Gillibrand, New York.

478 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota.

302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm

Herb Kohl, Wisconsin.

330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5653
Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/contact.cfm


Claire McCaskill, Missouri

717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6154
Web Form: mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=contact


Robert Menendez, New Jersey.

528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/


Ben Nelson, Nebraska.

716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Bill Nelson, Florida.

720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551
Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/contact-me.cfm


Debbie Stabenow, Michigan.

133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm

Jon Tester, Montana.

724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644
Web Form: tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

Jim Webb, Virginia.

248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
Web Form: webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island

502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2921
Web Form: whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/

Barack Obama is also up for reelection in 2012 and if he allows Senate and House Democrats to slam the DREAM Act through during the lame duck session, well perhaps letting him know we are watching and will remember in 2012 is in order as well.

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461

Web Form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact


Further, names of Republicans were provided by Michelle Malkin and she asked these names be passed around as well.

Sen. Murkowski of Alaska 202-224-6665
907-271-3735

Sen. Lugar of Indiana 202-224-4814
317-226-5555

Sen. Brownback of Kansas 202-224-6521
785-233-2503

Sen. Voinovich of Ohio 202-224-3353
614-469-6697

Sen. LeMeiux of Florida 202-224-3041
904-398-8586

Sen. Collins of Maine 202-224-2523
207-945-0417

Sen. Snowe of Maine 202-224-5344
207-874-0883

Sen. Brown of Massachusetts 202-224-4543
617-565-3170

Sen. Johanns of Nebraska 202-224-4224
402-758-8981

Sen. Gregg of New Hampshire 202-224-3324
603-225-7115

Sen. Hutchison of Texas 202-224-5922
214-361-3500

Sen. McCain of Arizona 202-224-2235
480-897-6289


They can claim they are aware, they learned their lessons, they understood the message.. they can claim anything they want, but actions are louder and more telling than words and promises.

They should act accordingly and vote against DREAM Act during the lame duck session.

Time to start dialing folks to prevent this last hard push from far left liberals to provide amnesty to illegals.

.

Wikileaks And Those That Side With Our Enemies

By now almost everyone has heard about how Wikileaks illegally obtained and now published secret and in some cases classified information, by way of over 250,000 embassy cables showing private diplomatic communications between countries fighting the war on terror. (More on the original release here)

I say illegally obtained because the cables were stolen from the military and given to Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, to which the Obama administration knew months ago and still could not stop the publishing of the information by Wikileaks.

After the release, the Wikileaks site suffered massive Denial of service attacks which rendered their site unavailable and they transferred the illegally obtained information to other servers, first Amazon for-rent servers, which has since removed the information and now others.

When it was first announced that Amazon was hosting the Wikileaks site, Senator Joe Lieberman, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman, took a stand.



Amazon soon removed the Wikileaks site.

Liberman's statement below:

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., Wednesday issued the following statement after Amazon.com decided to terminate its relationship with Wikileaks. After reading press reports that Amazon was hosting the Wikileaks website, Committee staff contacted Amazon Tuesday for an explanation.

“This morning Amazon informed my staff that it has ceased to host the Wikileaks website. I wish that Amazon had taken this action earlier based on Wikileaks' previous publication of classified material. The company’s decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them. Wikileaks’ illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No responsible company – whether American or foreign – should assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials. I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with Wikileaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information.”

Amazon refutes reports that the government inquiry was their reason for removing Wikileaks, explaining that when they determined Julian Assange's Wikileaks site was in violation of their Terms of Service (TOS), they severed the relationship.

Amazon's release below:

There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.

There have also been reports that it was prompted by massive DDOS attacks. That too is inaccurate. There were indeed large-scale DDOS attacks, but they were successfully defended against.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) rents computer infrastructure on a self-service basis. AWS does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not following them. There were several parts they were violating. For example, our terms of service state that “you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.” It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments.

We’ve been running AWS for over four years and have hundreds of thousands of customers storing all kinds of data on AWS. Some of this data is controversial, and that’s perfectly fine. But, when companies or people go about securing and storing large quantities of data that isn’t rightfully theirs, and publishing this data without ensuring it won’t injure others, it’s a violation of our terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere.

We look forward to continuing to serve our AWS customers and are excited about several new things we have coming your way in the next few months.

— Amazon Web Services

Soon after, Tableau Software followed suit and removed the Wikileaks visualizations that they were hosting, issuing this statement:

Wednesday afternoon, Tableau Software removed data visualizations published by WikiLeaks to Tableau Public. We understand this is a sensitive issue and want to assure the public and our users that this was not an easy decision, nor one that we took lightly.

We created Tableau Public—a free service that enables anyone to make interactive graphs from their data and share them online—because we recognized the need for strong analytics tools in a data-driven world. Given the controversy around the WikiLeaks data, we’ve closely followed the debate about who actually has the rights to the leaked data.

Our terms of service require that people using Tableau Public do not upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any content that they do not have the right to make available. Furthermore, if we receive a complaint about a particular set of data, we retain the right to investigate the situation and remove any offending data, if necessary.

Our decision to remove the data from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he called for organizations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their relationship with the website.

This will inevitably be met with mixed reaction. However, our terms of service were created to ensure responsible use of data.

Of course Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is making accusations of "censorship" but it bears noting to him and his "fawners" that nobody has the obligation to continue hosting his leaks, his site, nor his illegally obtained information.

Sites such as Amazon and Tableau Software, as clear in their terms of service has the last word on what they do or do not host.

Amazon Terms of Use here and Tableau's Terms of Service here.

It is easy to predict which American bloggers, which part of the liberal left, will always side with those trying to hurt us, our enemies, and of course they do not disappoint as they mimic Julian Assanges accusations of censorship, in this case using Joe Lieberman as their target.

The release of these cables had one specific purpose, to embarrass America and diplomats from other countries, many of whom are involved in gathering intelligence and/or sharing intelligence to protect their countries as well as our. The release has endangered our allies as well as our military personnel, endangered our ability to gather intelligence and the damage done by these releases will be felt for decades.

What is it about the liberal left that makes them side with our enemies time and time again? Makes them worry more about our enemies freedom to hurt us than than they do about our countries survival and ability to protect itself?

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom to publish stolen information. Julian Assange is free to say anything he wants, just as web hosts are free to deny him a format on their severs.


[Update] EveryDNS has also terminated it's relationship with Wikileaks, stating DOS attacks as their reason.

All systems are functioning normally.

EveryDNS.net provided domain name system (DNS) services to the wikileaks.org domain name until 10PM EST, December 2, 2010, when such services were terminated. As with other users of the EveryDNS.net network, this service was provided for free. The termination of services was effected pursuant to, and in accordance with, the EveryDNS.net Acceptable Use Policy.
See more.

More specifically, the services were terminated for violation of the provision which states that "Member shall not interfere with another Member's use and enjoyment of the Service or another entity's use and enjoyment of similar services." The interference at issues arises from the fact that wikileaks.org has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites.

Thus, last night, at approximately 10PM EST, December 1, 2010 a 24 hour termination notification email was sent to the email address associated with the wikileaks.org account. In addition to this email, notices were sent to Wikileaks via Twitter and the chat function available through the wikileaks.org website. Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has resulted from its failure to use another hosted DNS service provider.

Wikileaks has been forced to move to a Swiss domain, wikileaks.ch, which is hosted by two companies, one in France and one in Sweden.

Via AP:

The American company that directed traffic to the website wikileaks.org stopped late Thursday after cyber attacks threatened the rest of its network. WikiLeaks responded by moving to a Swiss domain name, wikileaks.ch — and calling on activists for support. Two companies host the Swiss domain name, one of which is in France. The other is in Sweden.

On Friday, France moved to ban WikiLeaks from French servers. The French government has been one of numerous administrations embarrassed by the frank assessments of U.S. diplomats and their sources in a flood of cables released by Wikileaks in cooperation with major newspapers in several countries.

Industry Minister Eric Besson says it's "unacceptable" for French servers to host the site, which "violates the secret of diplomatic relations and puts people protected by diplomatic secret in danger."

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is also under pressure as Sweden seeks his extradition in an investigation of sex-crimes allegations against him.

Assange is in Britain, Jennifer Robinson, one of his lawyers, confirmed Friday. She declined to elaborate.

Robinson said that her client was in no way evading arrest, noting that Assange left Sweden with the accord of authorities there and has repeatedly offered himself up for questioning. She also disputed media descriptions of Assange as a fugitive — saying that he was in hiding out of fear for his safety, not to dodge official attention.

Assange faces an arrest and deportation over allegations of sexual misconduct committed during his stay in Sweden back in August.

Sexual misconduct, what a tactful description by the AP of the charges which are a rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.



Previous:

Wikileaks Releases Largest Classified Military Leaks In History

Examples Of Progressive Liberal Wikileak 'Fawners'

The Obama Administrations Utter Failure To Stop Wikileaks

Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Wanted By Interpol For 'Sex Crimes'

.

Examples Of Progressive Liberal Wikileak 'Fawners'

Last night the largest cache of illegally leaked military secret US embassy cables were published by major newspapers and over 250,000 secret cables published by Wikileaks in downloadable format, which I covered in my previous post.

Today, looking throughout the blogosphere reactions to those leaks I see the right and some on the left have finally found something to agree on.... Wikileaks disregard for sensitive information was reckless, careless and idiotic.

Notice I used the words "some on the left", because still we see some on the so called progressive left, defending Wikileaks, defending the publishing of the cables and describing these leaks as a "good thing" and others denying that the progressive left "fawns" over their progressive hero Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks.

In looking through reactions from the right and the left, I ran across this over at the Mahablog:

For once, reactions from much of the right and left blogospheres appear to be in the same ball park — that much of what has been reported from the leaks so far is either stuff everyone pretty much already knew, or else was secret for a good reason. But today’s “even dumber than Jim Holt” award goes to Donald Douglas of Right Wing News, who writes,

I continue to be amazed at the fawning credibility Assange gets on the progressive left. Anything that tears down the military — even putting at risk the lives of Americans and our allies — is totally cool with these freaks. But maybe something good will come of all this, in the end.

And I thought, who on the progressive left is “fawning” over this stuff? And it turns out the link goes to Charli Carpenter of Lawyers, Guns and Money, who wrote,

Wow. Iran’s neighbors are threatened by its rise! Many governments think Pakistan may not be able to secure its nuclear arsenal! The US attempts to use its leverage with its allies to achieve its political objectives! China has engaged in a cyber-campaign against Google and other American companies! Yemen approves of US’ targeted killings on its soil (but claims otherwise to quell domestic opposition)! Also, governments routinely spy on United Nations officials!

Who knew all this stuff, eh? Thank the stars for Wikileaks.

[cross-posted at Duck of Minerva]

Yes, it’s true. Donald Douglas is too stupid to recognize obvious sarcasm, mistaking it for “fawning.” Like I said, even dumber than Jim Holt.

Ok, so "maha" doesn't like the example of Charli Carpenter of Lawyers, Guns and Money, let me provide a few more, since "maha" did ask the question "who on the progressive left is “fawning” over this stuff?"

Exhibit A:

David Kramer at The LRC Blog: Headline- "Republican Terrorist Calls for Criminalizing Terrorist Exposure" (In response to this story)

This isn’t the first time that a Republican has gone after a person brave enough to show the world what the United States government is really all about. It happened almost 40 years ago during the Vietnam War when the government tried to discredit a hero named Daniel Ellsberg. At that time, the government was under a Republican Administration (Pres. “Tricky Dick” Nixon). It will be interesting to see how far the current “liberal” Obama Democratic Administration will try to discredit, or even destroy, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Exhibit B:

Attaturk from FireDogLake: Headline- "Being informed… Cannot.Have.That."

Nevertheless, letting taxpayers and citizens of the “Land of the Free” know what is done in their name is just too much for folks like the execrable Long Island Republican Peter King:

“This is worse even than a physical attack on Americans, it’s worse than a military attack”

Yeah, you betcha’ Petey, knowledge is after all, power.

Exhibit C:

Chris in Paris AT AmericaBlog: Headline- "Should WikiLeaks have released diplomatic details?"

It's unrealistic to imagine other states not having this information, so the anger sounds overdone. Also, is it a surprise to anyone that US policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan are dysfunctional or that the US and Middle East partners want Iran's nuclear program to be terminated? Part of the problem may also be related to the lack of transparency in politics, which is not just a US issue. The decisions that our political leaders make could definitely benefit from the public being made more aware of what is going on with tax dollars.

If politicians are ready to ask individuals to justify every last cent received by the meager social welfare system in the US, it's fair to ask the same from the government. The information may make many uncomfortable, but that is no reason to keep everyone in the dark.

Exhibit D:

Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars: -Headline "BREAKING: Wikileaks Releases US Embassy Cables--UPDATED"

At least one progressive blogger, while generally supportive of Wikileak's actions, sees some long term damage from this. However, I'm of the belief that if this is the price we must pay to show the government that acting as if no one has a right to privacy is a double-edged sword that can hurt them as well, we might as well pay it now. If the government thinks it will damage their interests to have their corrupt actions known, perhaps they might not want to participate in them.

Exhibit E:

Digby at Hullabaloo: Headline- "Wikileak Fall Out"

There's a lot of chatter, for obvious reasons, about the Wikileaks document dump and whether or not it's a dangerous and despicable act. My personal feeling is that any allegedly democratic government that is so hubristic that it will lie blatantly to the entire world in order to invade a country it has long wanted to invade probably needs a self-correcting mechanism. There are times when it's necessary that the powerful be shown that there are checks on its behavior, particularly when the systems normally designed to do that are breaking down. Now is one of those times.

Exhibit F:

Brad Friedman from BradBlog: Headline- "In Wake of WikiLeaks Cable Release, JFK, Ellsberg's Remarks on 'Secrecy', 'Covert Ops' Worth Noting."

As this information becomes public, and as the U.S. Government continues to scramble to mitigate what the White House is calling today a "reckless and dangerous" leak, condemning it "in the strongest terms" as an alleged threat to national security, it's worth keeping in mind, for valuable perspective, what the 1970s legendary "Pentagon Papers" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg wrote in an op/ed for The BRAD BLOG in early 2008...

Many, if not most, covert operations deserve to be disclosed by a free press. They are often covert not only because they are illegal but because they are wildly ill-conceived and reckless. "Sensitive" and "covert" are often synonyms for "half-assed," "idiotic," and "dangerous to national security," as well as "criminal."

Exhibit G:

Robert Farley of Lawyers, Guns and Money: Headline "Brief Wikileaks Addendum."

Finally, having just worked my way through a negotiation simulation, I am kind of fascinated by the idea of “open” diplomatic communications. Diplomats lie to each other habitually, and also lie to their (portions of) their home governments. Nobody takes this too seriously, because no one expects diplomats to tell the truth. If Wikileaks and organizations of its ilk are really able to peel the layers of secrecy off the diplomatic world, it could potentially have far ranging effects on how nations relate to one another. Or maybe not.

Exhibit H:

Paul Rosenberg from Open Left: Headline- "US Death & Lies Machine Temprorarily Disrupted"

We're supposed to worry that this massive leak will impede the ability of the US government to connive in secret behind everyone's back? Well, after the past 10 years in particular, who in the world honestly thinks that would be a bad thing?

Maybe if Barack Obama had changed that policy one iota, as his entire campaign was implicitly and explicitly based upon doing, folks might feel a little differently. But as things stand today? Not so much.

Exhibit I:

John Cole from Balloon Juice: Headline- "Wikileaks Reaction."

I generally sense that people, overall, will be more hostile towards wikileaks after this dump. The previous dumps seemed to corroborate competing stories. This dump will just be viewed by many as an attempt to hurt the United States. I have a hard time getting worked up about it- a government that views none of my personal correspondence as confidential really can’t bitch when this sort of thing happens.

That is it, I cannot force myself to read any more drivel from the so called progressive left which attempts to justify what Wikileaks has done, but I think the examples list above should be enough of an answer to the head-in-the-sand "maha" from Mahablog about who exactly is "fawning" over this stuff.... Your brethren maha, your progressive left buddies.

Pretending that they do not exist does not mean they do not exist, it simply means you refuse to acknowledge that they not only do exist but are defending the indefensible.

.