More leftist propaganda from the Consumers Union

  It didn't take long for the Consumers Union—publisher of a nonprofit consumer magazine and, lately, water-carrier for the Progressive agenda—to take advantage of the Gulf spill to push another of the Progessive's agenda items.

In an email with subject line Had enough? They are using corporate bad-boy BP to push enacting the Administration's cap and trade bill.

The email, signed by Shannon Baker-Branstetter of Consumers Union of the U.S., ends with the following promise (threat?)

You’ll be hearing more from us as we push for a comprehensive energy policy that prioritizes clean energy, rewards innovators, punishes polluters, and encourages consumers to put efficiency to work in our homes.

Pay no attention to the little man on the dais

Obama spokesman's remarks draw fire from Pelosi

WASHINGTON (AP) - In spite of criticism from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, President Barack Obama's chief spokesman on Wednesday defended his remark that the party could lose control of the House in this fall's elections. He hastened to add that he doesn't think that will happen.

Shh! No! No! There is no problem! What's the matter with him? Democrats, relax. Hit the beach in Florida come November.

Axelrod on Fox News Sunday

David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Sunday today. When asked about the government's response to the AZ immigration problem, he appeared to be quite uncomfortable and went into a defensive posture claiming the US has assigned more assets to cover the border. Senator Kyl later correctly noted that to say "more" has been done is not the same as saying "enough" has been done.

And, Axelrod, attempting to deflect criticism of Holder's suit against Arizona, brought up the tired line:   we can't have a patchwork of fifty different immigration laws.

All that was beside the point. The point is H tried to do just enough to give him cover with the people without upsetting the Hispanic vote.

Come November, he will discover he failed.

Judge Napolitano's misunderstandings

Judge Napolitano, on today's Freedom Watch program, raised two objections concerning government surveillance that I believe are mistaken:    The use of UAVs to monitor our borders and the use of microphones to monitor sounds in our cities.

First, the use of UAVs—drones—over our borders.   The Judge objected to the use of UAVs categorizing them as a tool for spying on citizens.   The counter argument revolves around our expectation that the federal government will control immigration across our borders and, like the use of men on horesback or riding in SUVs, UAVs simply are an enhancement of ability over men on foot patrol.

The Judge also mentioned UAVs flying over metropolitan areas.   While I haven't heard of such a thing, I can see use of UAVs as a legitimate alternative to helicopters to follow fugitives on the run as we occasionally have seen on live TV.   To suspect the federal government intends to use UAVs to conduct 24/7 surveillance on citizens is to engage in Orwellian fantasy.

The second objection raised by the Judge is on microphones some metropolitan areas have installed outdoors, the purpose of which is to triangulate to the location of gunshots.   Here, the Judge—again mistakenly—characterized these microphones as devices for monitoring conversations of citizens on the street.

Judge Napolitano is known for his libertarian approach to government and correctly brings up legitimate issues with federal government overreach.   But, as no-one is perfect, I choose to apply a commonsense filter to his pronouncements.