Vacate Huffington Post

Author Naomi Wolf was arrested alongside Occupy Wall Street protesters after she disputed police claims that they had to clear sidewalk.

Wolf was led away in handcuffs after addressing protesters outside an awards ceremony held to honour New York's governor, at which she was a guest.

The author had disputed claims by police that a permit granted to the event – organised by the Huffington Post website on Tuesday night – allowed them to clear the sidewalk outside the venue in the Soho district of Manhattan.

Inside, the New York state governor, Andrew Cuomo, was being presented with the "game-changer of the year" award by the Huffington Post. A group of protesters had arrived from the Occupy Wall Street group's camp in Zuccotti Park to demonstrate against his opposition to extending New York State's "millionaire's tax", and his support of the contentious process of extracting natural gas from shale, known as fracking.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

1. An award to Cuomo? For what? For "his opposition to extending New York State's "millionaire's tax", and his support of the contentious process of extracting natural gas from shale, known as fracking"?

2. No one (except Wolf) at this event stood up for the protesters? Where was Huffington in all of this or these other "Game Changers"?

3. JP Morgan Chase was a sponsor of the event. Is this another reason why Huffington and her fellow "Game Changers" weren't willing to protect the protesters?

There are many other things that were wrong with the whole "Game Changers" event but the biggest one is that most of the people celebrated are not game changers, they're game players. Add this to the fact that HuffPost has terrible labor practices, is a trashy tabloid along the lines of a Murdoch rag (with a liberal slant) and there is no reason why any self-respecting person who pretends to care about society would continue supporting Huffington Post in any way.

In honor of the #Occupy movement, I propose: #VacateHuffPost

GOP: What do they believe?

Only one seems to believe in anything. He might have terrible solutions, but at least he has integrity.

Who Do You Trust?

If your life was on the line who would you trust to decide if you are a traitor to our nation? Barack Obama? Rick Perry? What about Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders?

Obama has decided that he is judge, jury and executioner of any American citizen he decides is a threat to the United States and that he doesn't need to justify that decision with a trial or even hard evidence. You may agree that Anwar Al Awlaki was a threat and there are valid reasons to believe that but there is no hard evidence as you can see quite clearly in this exchange:

So, what we have is a man who was a propagandist for a terrorist organization, though not an actual member:

Ironically enough, despite all his efforts in support of al-Qaida, al-Awlaki had never become a formal member of the terrorist organization or its branch in Yemen. Indeed, it's unclear whether he ever swore the "bai'a," the oath of allegiance necessary to become a member. The first time he showed up in an official AQAP video was in May 2010 -- and that was only as a kind of interview guest.

And this was enough to warrant his assassination. The precedent is set. If the President of the United States decides you, an American citizen, are a threat to our nation or it's allies you can be exterminated without hard evidence or a trial. It is difficult to defend Al Awlaki and I see no reason to. What there is ample reason to defend is the rule of law and our rights to a trial as citizens. What if you are a Secessionist in Texas who believes Obama is destroying America and we need a revolution to set things right? Are you a traitor? What if you are a Socialist who believes Obama and Bush sold America to to corporations and are waving signs in the Occupy Wall Street protests demanding a dismantling of Capitalism? Are you a traitor? What if our next president is Rick Perry who loves executions and has already called Ben Bernanke a traitor and made a veiled threat? By Obama's precedent Perry would have the right to execute Bernanke based on his opinion that he is a traitor.

Obviously some of this is hyperbole but it is meant to illustrate a point. Our 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

We're in a time of war you say? True, but it is a potentially never ending war - a war on terror - otherwise known as a war on people who hate us. We are at war in numerous countries (both officially and covertly) and hundreds of thousands of people have died in these wars, many of them innocent civilians. People are going to continue hating us for a very long time. So, that means the justification of "in time of War or public danger" can be used perpetually. Does that mean our 5th Amendment is invalidated due to our war on terror?

Maybe. But we should really think about the ramifications of that and debate it in public before we decide to waive an essential civil liberty for a free and just nation. Sadly, we didn't get to have that debate, Obama decided already and that Amendment is void. Maybe you like Obama and trust his judgement, but will you feel the same about the next president, or the one after that?