Everything you need to know about Wikileaks

First of all, any one who is responsible for leaking top secret Federal information should be prosecuted and charged with treason. There should be no slaps in the wrist here.

Second, other than that, there really are no surprises that have come out of the wikileaks scandal. Nothing learned is new. Nothing learned is amazing. Nothing.

Many people are wondering why Obama is silent on the matter. Many Conservatives are saying he should come out and denounce it. The problem is, progressives like Obama have the goal of bringing down the U.S. to size with other nations.

We are an arrogant nation who thinks we are better than all others. While conservatives believe we need to be the leader of the free world (think American exceptionalism), progressives hate this. So the whole wikileaks thing is good for progressives. So why then would Obama speak against it when it supports his agenda.

This is nothing new.

Likewise, what we have learned is nothing new. No surprises.

The leaks informed us that China is responsible for nukes to Iran. I think the wise of us suspected as much, and the Fed has denied it.

Iran obtained nukes from North Korea. What's new about this. If Washington denied it, they were lying. Both Iran and North Korea have been known terrorist nations for years. Just ask George W. Bush, who called them on it and the left was angry.

George Bush and Obama claim to have such a cozy relationship with Rusian leaders, yet the leaks reveals Medvedez plays "Robin to Putin's Batman." While our leaders said one thing in public, they though another. No surprise here: our leaders are lying to us.

While they deny it in public, U.S. officials have called Ahmadinejad to be "like Hitler. No surprise here.

Hillary hired spies to spy on UN leaders. Of course they'll lie and deny it, but are we surprised?

The problem with these leaks is that they decrease respect for other nations and world leaders for the U.S., and may make it so people of importance won't trust us. Likewise, it decreases our ability to defend the U.S. because the leaks may reveal secrets needed to be kept secret for national security purposes.

The leaker is said to be a Private first class officer, yet it seems kind of fishy that one person could have obtained all this highly sensitive information without help. Maybe Obama leaked it. Probably not.

It also shows the incompetence of the Obama administration. Was it Hilary Clintons fault? Some call for her to be fired. Should she be fired? I'm not concerned about that. That's not the issue as far as I'm concerned.

In fact, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says she should be fired as a "fall guy" responsible for the leaks. Yet personally I think Assange should get no credibility, and Clinton has actually done a decent job considering her political affiliation. She's done nothing worth getting fired for.

Something like this could have happened regardless who was president, so we shouldn't be so hard on Obama either. The question is, could the Fed made a better effort to threaten the leakers and prevented this? Should Wikileaks be prosecuted and stopped? Is it a first amendment right to report this, or espionage?

That's all for others to decide. What we do know is that leaks of this nature are really bad for the U.S., someone ought to be charged with treason, someone in Washington ought to be fired and likewise charged with treason (the leaker that is).

Other than that, there are no surprises here. We already knew Iran and North Korea were thug nations. We already knew Putin was a socialist thug. We already knew the government lies to us. No surprises here. It's wrong. But no surprises.

Kagan unconstitutional

There's an old saying that if your wife says she loves you, and you have to think about whether you love her, then you probably don't love her. I think the same holds true regarding the constitution. If someone asks you, "Do you think this or that is Constitutional," and you have to think about it, chances are you don't respect the Constitution if you are wise to it, or you are completely ignorant about the Constitution.

Recently Republican Senator Tom Coburn proposed this question to Supreme Court Nominee Elenor Kagan: " If I wanted to sponsor a bill, and it said, "Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day," and I got it through Congress, and it's now the law of the land, does that violate the commerce clause?"

She said, "But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether -- the question of whether it's Constitutional. And I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless."

Well, no it would not be wrong if the law was, say, unconstitutional. And, according to the 10th amendment, anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to decide.

You know, I find it funny that Kagan can't say outright that she thinks a court can't strike a law down just because it thinks the law is stupid, when Kagan herself believes that abortion laws had to be struck down because they were stupid. She believes a woman has a right to protect her reproductive rights, yet she doesn't think a person has a right to protect her digestive rights.

New York has already proposed laws that would make it illegal to eat trans fat or salt. Others have talked about banning people from eating fatty foods or fried foods such as french fries and Kentucky FRIED chicken.

This is another attempt by the left, the progressives, who have been insidious since the days of that monster of a president Woodrow Wilson (who by the way was the 1st president to speak bad of the Constitution) to change the Constitution, or ignore it, in order to get their ideologies passed through Congress.

It has been a slow moving process for them to turn America from a capitalist country into a communist one. And they have made slow progress without ever admitting they are progressives and liberals because neither of those words are popular, as conservative and traditionalist are.

And every liberal and progressive presidential candidate (from FDR to McCain) has run pretending to be a conservative. So you know it's not popular what they are doing. And they don't care, because whenever they gain control of the Washington, they pass laws the people don't want, like Amnesty and cap and trade and healthcare reform.

You can go back to FDR and note his Recovery Act that set prices and created the ideal socialistic program, yet thankfully that program was swiped down by the supreme court, although by the time that happened it was too late, and the depression was prolonged because of it.

And while you know it's not Constitutional to do certain things, and it's not Constitutional to filibuster a presidential nominee, yet it was okay when democrats filibustered hundreds of G.W.Bush's court nominees.

And, if it's Constitutional for the dems to filibuster court nominees, this new one is so out of whack with America, has such a misunderstanding about our own Constitution (of which she has no respect for by the way), that I think if this nominee is not stopped in her tracks by the rightful democratic process, this would be a good place for republicans to filibuster.

They have to do it. Kagan is evil. Kagan is not evil by communist and marxist and progressive standards (those are all the same things by the way), but he is evil if you are a constitutionalist, traditionalist and conservative. It is if you love your freedom and want to keep it.

Salt anyone? Sorry, it's against the law.