Truth in Advertising: This SHOULD be Obama poster

H/T Kevin

Firewall 11: Obama's Friends and Enemies

Bill is back with a barn-burner of a Firewall. Enjoy:

"I Don't Understand" with Obama

Neal Boortz describes this video with the tweet: "So simple even a liberal Democrat could understand it."

He may be a bit optimistic about that. In my experience, they recoil at any DoublePlusUngood CrimeThink.

I Want Your Money

This looks very promising:

DBD Nails It (Again)

If you are reading Day by Day already, you don't need me to tell you how well Chris Muir nailed the latest outrage brewing in Congress:

If you aren't, what in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is wrong with you?

Whittle vs. The Narrative

I don't normally bother to comment on just every "Afterburner" episode Bill does on PJTV. The link is over there in the sidebar, and I figure most people who come here go there. Insty links to most of them too.

But this one is a must see. Bill eviscerates MSNBC and the rest of the MainScream Media as the dishonest scum that they are. Set aside 15 minutes, pop yourself some popcorn, and enjoy a good old-fashioned ass-whoopin'. (Bill is the one doing the whoopin'.)

Of course you can keep your coverage...

Our old buddy Don tipped us off with this analysis of ObamaCare. I normally rely on Muscle Daddy to dig through lengthy legislation, because he can do that without reflexively grabbing an icepick to stab his eyes out. What's a mere Monster to do? Well, I can whip out my digital hi-lighter and see if I can connect some dots.
This particular provision grabbed my eye:

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

This sounds troubling. If you don't have "acceptable health care coverage", you get stuck with an extra 2.5% marginal income tax. But what does "acceptable health care coverage" mean? Subsection (d) lists Medicare, Medicaid, Armed Forces, and VA, as well as these:

(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).

(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
. . .
(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

So what's in 100(c)?

(1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- The term ‘acceptable coverage’ has the meaning given such term in section 202(d)(2).

Good grief. So what does section 202(d)(2) say?

(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan.

(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER CURRENT GROUP HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).
. . .
(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage, such as a State health benefits risk pool, as the Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, recognizes for purposes of this paragraph.

It's déjà vu all over again! Nowhere does anything define "a qualified health benefits plan".

How about that "grandfathered" business in 102(a)? Check out the reassuring title, then the gory details:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
. . .

Note that the only coverage "grandfathered" is individual coverage, which is explictly not group coverage (like most employer-based plans are) according to the prior 101(c)(2):

(2) INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE- The terms ‘individual health insurance coverage’ and ‘group health insurance coverage’ mean health insurance coverage offered in the individual market or large or small group market, respectively, as defined in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act.

The way I read this definition, when President Obama says "you'll be able to keep your existing coverage", he's hiding the fact that for most Americans with health insurance today, the coverage they'll be allowed to keep won't prevent them from paying the 2.5% tax for "freeloaders" who don't have "adequate coverage".
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
I've barely begun to read this bill. I think the average person who manages to read the whole thing will be begging for a "death panel" to put him out of his misery. MuscleDaddy, I have no idea how you do it.

Declaration of Dependence

Haven't precisely abandoned anyone - just have a lot of things going on in the background.
For now, enjoy (enjoy?) Barack's Declaration of Dependence which comes via Conservative Black Woman.
========================================================

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one Messiah to dissolve the historic bonds that have connected his subjects with the fundamental beliefs of a bunch of dead white guys, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Marx entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that I should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, womyn, transgendered and questioning individuals deserve equal division of goods, that they are endowed by Me with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to abort life, servitude to the state, and the pursuit of taxpayer-supported benefits.

That to secure these rights, government is instituted in Me, deriving my just powers from the consent of a Democrat Congress, ACORN, and Universal Voluntary Public Service. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of Me to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Big Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing (with the help of the groups previously named) My powers in such form, as to Me shall seem most likely to effect My subjects' safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that My government short established should be changed for causes I deem appropriate; and accordingly all my inexperience hath shown that personkind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the oppressive regime instituted by dead white men to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce my subjects under absolute Evil Capitalism, it is My right, it is My duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future Social Security.

- Such has been the patient sufferance of these downtrodden victims of Evil Capitalists; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. This history of the present Representative Republic is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute freedom for these victims.

To prove this, let facts be submitted to a slavering mainstream media.

This Representative Republic was founded on the principles of limited government, and does not allow Me to make all decisions without impunity.

This Representative Republic allows for too many States' rights.

This Representative Republic allows Me to serve only two terms in the highest office in the land.

This Representative Republic allows for too much personal freedom, assuming that individuals know best how to spend the money that they earn and how best to live their lives.

This Representative Republic allows for the free market, not all-knowing bureaucrats, to right any wrongs in the economy.

This Representative Republic expects judges to uphold, not enact, law.

This Representative Republic allows private citizens to own firearms, thus allowing them to protect themselves and their family from all intrusions (including those from government).

This Representative Republic does not guarantee electoral outcomes for any one particular party - namely, My party.

This Representative Republic guarantees citizens equality before the law - not social justice as defined by activist judges and legislators.

In every stage of these oppressions, I have petitioned for redress in the least humble terms: My repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Representative Republic, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define oppressive Evil Capitalism, is unfit to be the government of a people yearning for Hope and Change.

Nor have I been wanting in attention to my Global Citizen brethren. I have warned them from time to time of their attempts by their elected leaders to follow in the footsteps of the United States. I have reminded them of the circumstances of America's many mistakes. I have appealed to their systems of justice and social programs, which I hope to emulate.

I have also appealed to our enemies, as I have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow the usurpations of America, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. I must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces America's sovereignty, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, superiors in war, in peace superiors.

I, therefore, the Messiah of the United States of America, acting of my own volition, appealing to Myself for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of Myself, solemnly publish and declare that the United States ought to be dependent states; that they are absolved from the Tenth Amendment, and that all political connection between them and the Federal Government, is and ought to be of a dependent nature; and that as subservient and dependent states and citizens thereof, they have no power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, or do any other acts and things without express permission from Federal Government thus represented by Me. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Nanny State, I pledge to oversee your lives, your fortunes, and what is left of your sacred honor.

Signed,



No other signatories needed

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

H.R. 1966: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act

Okay – now bear in mind that I have two young children myself (and I’m about as protective of them as you might expect for someone carrying around this particular online-nic), so I’m automatically going to be against any sort or level of ‘bullying’.

While being ‘Me’ means being personally more likely to ‘deal’ with anything of the sort myself – I can also understand the impulse of those people who are not ‘Me’ to wish for some institutional answer to the problem – the “There-Oughta’-Be-A-Law” reaction to injustice.

But the rub there is that that 'Law' would require the buy-in of your elected officials.

If there’s anything to be learned from the past 18 months or so, it’s that an alarming number of your elected representatives care FAR more about being ‘Elected Representatives’ than they do about YOU - the people they’ve been ‘Elected’ to ‘Represent’.

It’s not that they’re unaware of the topics you feel are important – they just consider those topics to be largely dismissible or otherwise subordinate when compared to their own agendas…

…except when those topics can be used as a screen to help further those agendas.

By now, everyone has heard of Megan Meier, the 13-year-old girl who was ‘CyberBullied’ until she finally committed suicide – it was, more than anything, a horrific example of grownups refusing to act as though they had any grown-up standards or expectations to live up to – If you’re not familiar with the story, go HERE.


While anyone who’s ever read or heard this story agrees that it is one of the more nightmarish things connected to internet-use-by-otherwise-seemingly-normal-kids, what follows here - and bears her name - seems to be one of two possible things:

- Either a shoddily-written bill that inadvertently lends itself to abuse,

- Or a larger-agenda piece of legislation that uses tragedy as a cover for its own advancement.


H.R. 1966: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act


This is a surprisingly short Bill, light on explanation or definitions (which automatically makes me suspicious), so hitting all of it won’t be a big chore… that said;

Let’s Review:

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.

Specifically, that’s Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41 of the US Code – “Extortion and Threats” – to which “Cyberbullying” would be added as its own subsection.

Now, I don’t usually spend too much time on the findings – but in this case, they actually lend to the picture of the thin-veneer laid over the worst parts of the Bill language, so this time I’ll make an exception.


Section 2: Findings

Congress finds the following:

1)Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.

Not what you’d expect in a country “facing the worst economic crisis since the great depression’, but okay…

(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.

That’s a little like saying “Kids who play in the street are more likely to be hit by a car” – seems like more of a mood-setter than any sort of “Finding” a committee would have to “Research”..

(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.

Okay – leaving aside that neither Lori Drew nor the UK Pentagon-Hacker would likely concur with the ‘provide anonymity’ part – take out all of the embellishment and this “Finding” is saying that “Electronic communications…” [are] “potentially…” “severely dangerous and cruel to youth”...

I’m afraid that I would have to contend that it is ‘cruel communications’ by people lacking a proper upbringing or sense decency are potentially dangerous to youth.

(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.

This is another one like #2 – “victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems” – another mood-setter “Finding”.

(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.

Which sounds like ‘regular’ bullying – except you can hit the ‘off-switch’ to escape the ‘Cyber’ variety.

(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.

This one bothers me in a more subtle way – the “Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues” was taken by a group of psychiatrists and responded-to based on data gathered from existing patients.

...as in ‘people already being treated for overt mental-health issues’ – which, if you’re a looking for a mental-health related “Finding”, seems sort of like fishing in a stocked-pond.

Not to mention that, given the ‘stocked-pond’ conditions, that “60%” becomes rather less impressive or imposing – if this were a legislation-worthy crisis, wouldn’t you expect them to hit higher than “60%” among a sample-group of psychiatric patients?

…me too.

But as we look at the section they’re proposing to include into the US Code, it becomes more likely that we’re looking at legislation that has a completely different purpose:

‘Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

‘(b) As used in this section--

‘(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

‘(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘881. Cyberbullying.’.

I’m going to take this out-of-order, because I think that proper focus on the included definitions is important to really understanding the scope & breadth of this deceptively-short bit of proposed inclusion.

If the definition of “communication’ is:

- The electronic transmission of information of the user’s choosing
- between or among points specified by the user (thus being the User’s “audience”)


And if the definition of “electronic means” is:

- any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an “information service”.


And if “information service” includes – yet is apparently not expressly limited-to:

- “email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.”


Then this, as written, absolutely applies to... (wait for it)...


Television and Radio.


Notice also, that this language is completely devoid of definitions for “coerce”, “intimidate”, “harass”, “cause substantial emotional distress”, “severe”, “repeated” or “ hostile behavior”.

That being the case, if you have a Television show, Radio show or Blog that someone (ostensibly ‘someone in government’) finds to contain:

‘coercive’ (to compel to an act or choice),
‘harassing’(critical or mocking?),
‘repeated’ (critical or mocking?),
‘hostile behavior’ (critical or mocking?)

…that ‘causes substantial emotional distress’ (which I suppose could be more subjective…somehow)

Then You, as the creator/participant in that Television/Radio-show/Blog, would be subjected to fines, imprisonment or both.


Notice that there is no provision for anything like “except in the act of political discourse” in there.


But here - at the very beginning – is the part where they tip their hand as to the real intent of this Bill :

” Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication…”

So a Bill supposedly offered up as a “response” to the Megan Meier tragedy – wouldn’t have been applicable to her case, because that entire exchange occurred within the same neighborhood.


So this would only be applicable to ‘Cyberbullying’ that comes from out-of-state or a foreign country.


Like Fox news, if they’re being critical of the government…

Or Michael Savage, whose speech against the government, jihadists etc., has managed to get him banned from the UK.

Or like this blog – if you happen to be one of the congressmen sponsoring this Bill.


Go ahead and say I’m just being paranoid if you want, but it would have only taken the addition of a few short phrases to keep this from being so used, if that was not their intent.

Only a tiny bit of extra effort.

But they didn’t.


- MuscleDaddy

Obama, Unions, Card-Check and Dept. of Labor Cuts

A little dot-connecting math...

The sum of this...

Obama Slashes Union Enforcement

"President Obama today unveiled a paltry $17 billion in cuts to the $3.4 trillion federal budget, about half of which will come out of defense spending.

But buried in the budget documents released by the White House today is a 9 percent cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that is in charge of regulating unions."

"Under the leadership of Elaine Chao during the Bush administration, the Labor Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards took its job of policing unions seriously. Its actions led to 929 convictions of corrupt union officials and to the recovery of more than $93 million on behalf of union members. Yet the Obama administration has proposed slashing its budget from $45 million in 2009 to $41 million in 2010, citing an insufficient "workload" for the office."

... PLUS -

HR 1409 - Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 - to abolish secret-ballot in union-adoption,

"Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 - Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative (card-check) (Unions get to see the names of those voting for&against, in the name of 'fairness' - MD.) and there is no other individual or labor organization currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit."

Equals......?


Come on everyone, stay with me:

* Giving Unions the names of those employees voting "Nay" to installing the Union...

Combined with

* Stealth budget-cuts to the unit that investigates corrupt Union practices...


...Anyone? Anyone?.... Bueller?


- MuscleDaddy

Sowell: 'Empathy' vs. Law

The brilliant Thomas Sowell brings us a cautionary tale of what happens when a nation abandons the rule of law in favor of touchy-feely emotions like 'empathy':

Those people who just accept soothing words from politicians they like are gambling with the future of a nation. If you were German, would you be in favor of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people and nation”? That was the law that gave Hitler dictatorial power.

He was just another German chancellor at the time. He was not elected on a platform of war, dictatorship, or genocide. He got the power to do those things because of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people.”

When you buy words, you had better know what you are buying.

Sowell isn't the first person to note the parallels between the US today and Weimar Germany, and I fear he won't be the last either.

S. 773 – The “Cybersecurity Act of 2009” - UPDATED

Sorry Wayne, I should’ve hit this one sooner…

Senate Bill 773 – The “Cybersecurity Act of 2009" is one of those bills that starts off sounding dry, technical and innocuous enough – standardizing security guidelines for Federal computer networks – sounds okay, right?

Still, just to get started, the “Findings” section sets the stage for “why this is so vitally important that you should all just vote for it RIGHT NOW!”
(so much for abandoning the politics of fear, eh?)

(1) America’s failure to protect cyberspace is one of the most urgent national security problems facing the country.

(5) John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism wrote on March 2, 2009, that ‘our nation’s security and economic prosperity depend on the security, stability, and integrity of communications and information infrastructure that are largely privately-owned and globally-operated.’.

(6) Paul Kurtz, a Partner and chief operating officer of Good Harbor Consulting as well as a senior advisor to the Obama Transition Team for cybersecurity, recently stated that the United States is unprepared to respond to a ‘cyber-Katrina’ and that ‘a massive cyber disruption could have a cascading, long-term impact without adequate co-ordination between government and the private sector.’.

(like the 'Katrina' reference?)

(7) The Cyber Strategic Inquiry 2008, sponsored by Business Executives for National Security and executed by Booz Allen Hamilton, recommended to ‘establish a single voice for cybersecurity within government’ concluding that the ‘unique nature of cybersecurity requires a new leadership paradigm.’

(8) Alan Paller, the Director of Research at the SANS Institute, testified before the Congress that ‘the fight against cybercrime resembles an arms race where each time the defenders build a new wall, the attackers create new tools to scale the wall.

(this is the part where Napolitano would make a statement about 10-ft-walls & 11-ft-ladders...)

(13) President Obama said in a speech at Purdue University on July 16, 2008, that ‘every American depends--directly or indirectly--on our system of information networks. They are increasingly the backbone of our economy and our infrastructure; our national security and our personal well-being. But it’s no secret that terrorists could use our computer networks to deal us a crippling blow. We know that cyber-espionage and common crime is already on the rise. And yet while countries like China have been quick to recognize this change, for the last eight years we have been dragging our feet.’ Moreover, President Obama stated that ‘we need to build the capacity to identify, isolate, and respond to any cyber-attack.’.

By the way, all of these recommendations for computer-central-planning were turned down by the previous administration – looks like they found a more sympathetic ear this time around.

So, it heads into a pretty standard top-down approach (as government is wont to do) :

The President shall establish or designate a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel.

The President
(2) may seek and give consideration to recommendations from the Congress, industry, the cybersecurity community, the defense community, State and local governments, and other appropriate organizations.

“Other appropriate organizations” - outside of those listed?

Hmm.. Okay - Moving down – we get into some of the How-this-will-work:

SEC. 5. STATE AND REGIONAL CYBERSECURITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

(a) CREATION AND SUPPORT OF CYBERSECURITY CENTERS- The Secretary of Commerce shall provide assistance for the creation and support of Regional Cybersecurity Centers for the promotion and implementation of cybersecurity standards. Each Center shall be affiliated with a United States-based nonprofit institution or organization, or consortium thereof, that applies for and is awarded financial assistance under this section.

Hold on - “Each Center shall be affiliated with a United States-based nonprofit institution or organization, or consortium thereof, that applies for and is awarded financial assistance under this section.” ?

What kind of “non-profit” is going to volunteer to administer “the promotion and implementation” of government standards?

A "non-profit" that would want to push government mandates?

Anyone?...Anyone?... Bueller?


But wait, let’s step back a little further - “Cybersecurity Centers”… o-kay, but since security can be pushed-down through federal systems via their own electronic networks, why establish physical ‘centers’?

(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of the Centers is to enhance the cybersecurity of small and medium sized businesses in United States through--

Uh… wait – so suddenly it’s the business of the Federal Government to “enhance the cybersecurity of small and medium sized businesses in United States”?

Why am I uncomfortable with that?

And here’s another interesting, if seemingly-unrelated bit:

(d) ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDS FROM OTHER FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES- In addition to such sums as may be authorized and appropriated to the Secretary and President, or the President’s designee, to operate the Centers program, the Secretary and the President, or the President’s designee, also may accept funds from other Federal departments and agencies for the purpose of providing Federal funds to support Centers. Any Center which is supported with funds which originally came from other Federal departments and agencies shall be selected and operated according to the provisions of this section.

So the aforementioned “non-profit” stepping-up to administer “the promotion and implementation” of government standards…can double-dip from the Federal snack bowl?

It occurs to me that such a non-profit/center could then also apply for monies under HR1388…


So - money given, with ‘Volunteer Commitment’ strings attached, to a non-profit tasked with pushing Federal cybersecurity standards into private business…

How’s that for a disturbing feedback-loop?


The next tremor comes almost half-way through the text of the Bill:

SEC. 6. NIST STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT AND COMPLIANCE.

This starts out with some pretty standard development language – “metrics”, “controls”, “security” etc., etc.. nothing too out of the ordinary – until:

(4) SOFTWARE CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION LANGUAGE- The Institute shall, establish standard computer-readable language for completely specifying the configuration of software on computer systems widely used in the Federal Government, by government contractors and grantees, and in private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

Um…

(5) STANDARD SOFTWARE CONFIGURATION- The Institute shall establish standard configurations consisting of security settings for operating system software and software utilities widely used in the Federal Government, by government contractors and grantees, and in private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

Hold on now – “and in private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks” ?

Wait – I’m going to look for a definition of that term… doesn’t seem like the kind of thing you’d want left ‘subjective’ … hold on, I’ll be right back…


Right, I thought that sounded familiar - #9 under “Findings” stated:

‘our nation’s critical infrastructures are composed of public and private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking finance, chemicals and hazardous materials, and postal and shipping.

So – “Critical Infrastructures” include ‘public’ and ‘private’ and could be… anything.


Getting nervous now – let’s see if we can figure out how they determine what’s “Critical”…


Uh-oh.

d) COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT- The Director shall--

(1) enforce compliance with the standards developed by the Institute under this section by software manufacturers, distributors, and vendors; and

(2) shall require each Federal agency, and each operator of an information system or network designated by the President as a critical infrastructure information system or network, periodically to demonstrate compliance with the standards established under this section.

Wait-wait-wait… “Designated By The President”?

As in: “The POTUS… Barack Obama… gets to decide which private businesses have to comply with these “Federal Security Standards”?


Can I get a “NO!” in here?!?


And I guess that once they let that cat-out-of-the-bag in writing they figured all bets were off anyway:

(b) MANDATORY LICENSING- Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States, or to be employed in the United States, as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President, or the President’s designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program.

So FIRST they want to create mandatory security standards, not only for Government systems but also for privately-held systems (not ALL privately owned systems, of course – just for those that Barack Obama WANTS it to be mandatory)

THEN they want to dictate who can be employed in “cybersecurity services” by making it UNLAWFUL to do so unless you’re licensed under their certification?


Are you thinking that this can’t get worse at this point?

Come on, you know me better than that by now…

SEC. 14. PUBLIC-PRIVATE CLEARINGHOUSE.

(a) DESIGNATION- The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to Federal Government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

(b) FUNCTIONS- The Secretary of Commerce—

(1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access;

No kidding, folks - “All of Your Networks Are Belong to US” …if Barack Obama designates them so.


Hold on though – what would be the point of all the HARD WORK involved in creating this nightmare, if they weren’t at least going to be able to make some money off of it (think Freddie/Fannie)

SEC. 15. CYBERSECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT.

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, or the President’s designee, shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology on the feasibility of—

(1) creating a market for cybersecurity risk management, including the creation of a system of civil liability and insurance (including government reinsurance); and

(2) requiring cybersecurity to be a factor in all bond ratings.

A little something for both the ‘Civil Trial Law’ and ‘Insurance’ lobbies – tucked in there for good measure.


…Oh no …not done yet … they buried the best part at the very bottom.

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

The President—

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;

(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;

(8) may delegate original classification authority to the appropriate Federal official for the purposes of improving the Nation’s cybersecurity posture;

(10) shall withhold additional compensation, direct corrective action for Federal personnel, or terminate a Federal contract in violation of Federal rules, and shall report any such action to the Congress in an unclassified format within 48 hours after taking any such action;

Let's Review:

- Forcing Federal standards, guidelines and language onto any system the President “designates”.

- Making it “Unlawful” for anyone to provide ‘Cybersecurity Services’ – even for their own systems – without “Mandatory Licensing” granted by the government.

- Requiring the surrender of all data of ‘Designated’ systems without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.

- Including some built-in graft potential for civil lawyers and the insurance lobby,

- Granting the President the power to declare a “cybersecurity emergency” and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any network (or, obviously, connection of networks) designated ‘compromised.

- Granting the President the power to disconnect ‘Designated’ systems from internet-access, under the auspices of ‘National Security’

(which ones? Google? AT&T – how many would it really take to cripple communication between different parts of the country – and how would that affect the new “all digital” television broadcast?)



I knew this would happen – all of the Central-Planning, Power-Grabbing, We-Know-What-Is-Best-For-You, **OBEY ** legislative attempts at bringing EVERYTHING under their direct control.

The only thing that surprises me is the speed with which the grabs are coming.


- MuscleDaddy

UPDATE: Sorry I missed this one - S. 778 To establish, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor.

I'm not sure exactly why they would use a different Bill for this, but I'm now convinced it can't be good. - MD

UPDATE: DHS Secretary Napolitano Stands by "Right Wing Extremism" Report

Napolitano stands by risks report

"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S."

On the other hand, it looks like some previously-smug Obama supporters have started sweating as they realize that the 'Most Messianic Administration Evah' may have crossed the line:

"But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued.

"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans," said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in his letter sent Tuesday night."

...and maybe... just maybe... you're starting to see a few too many eyes narrowing at that, huh?

"Ms. Napolitano insisted that the department was not planning on engaging in any form of ideological profiling."

Uh-huh...

- But we've all seen the report already, so I'm afraid it's a little late to get that toothpaste back into the tube now.

- MuscleDaddy

Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremism” Setup

(sorry for being a little late on this – family in from out of town - MD)

Just to be clear – this is the Department of Homeland Security’s report on ‘Rightwing Extremism’, dated 07APR2009:


(Here’s the link to the .pdf)


The most glaring feature that leaps to the fore when reading this ‘report’, is that it is regrettably light on facts or references, seeming instead to follow an “Everyone Knows” approach to fact-gathering, i.e. :

“Where are you getting your information?”

“What do you mean? Everyone knows it’s true!”

In the course of my work, I’ve seen … quite a few… threat assessment reports.

This one is a political editorial wearing ‘threat assessment’ clothing.


Let’s Review.

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

So straight-away, the authors of this “report” state that they … well,… have nothing to report in the way of actual facts or information – nothing actionable, nothing specific – not even a currently-identified group to use as an example…

… only a general notion that the hordes of Rightwing-Nuts (that everyone knows about, after all) may be recruiting new members.

...Because the President’s Black and ‘everyone knows’ that those on the Right are violent racists.

Oh Wait! There’s an asterisk in there! Let’s see what details or clarifications are provided:

* Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

So, included under ‘Rightwing Extremism’ are:

- Those “based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups” (Nation of Islam, Black Panthers & CAIR – welcome aboard, guys!)

- Those who think that the Federal Government has no business exercising control over local governments, OR that government in general has no business dictating to the individual in a free society (see also: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin)

- Those dedicated to opposing abortion or illegal immigration (letting the Leftist discussion-framing peek through, they’ve – once again – left out the word ‘illegal’)


…So much for ‘asterisks’.

Onward.

“Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

“Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.”

Again – we have a threat assessment report that states:
“While there is no ‘there’ there – well,…well… there could be!”

Very informative – Very Useful.

And then there’s the Report’s version of ‘The Race Card’:

“Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and…”

…and don’t you dare try to dispute that, or you will have denied the very existence of racism in this country as a motivating force at the forefront of the American mind – and you know what that would make you.


Next, we move on to the part of the report that says that the Right Wing Extremists become dangerous every time there’s a Democrat in the White House:

"The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers."

I guess the difference **this time around** is that the POTUS keeps reassuring us that the threat to U.S. sovereignty is not only real, but actually on his agenda. (links)

Wrapping up our 90’s-Flashback and closing the circle:

"Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power."

Oooh, I see.

So now that we have a POTUS who has a history with domestic-terrorist-bombers, is actively working to tank the economy, and intends to downgrade us from “preeminent world power” to “citizen of the global collective” – we can expect an uptick in groups of people who think that ‘Change’ is not necessarily ‘Progress’?

Good thing we’ve got this report to tell us that.


Okay!

And now we get into that part of the report that is my personal favorite…

"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.

The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."

So – propositions within our government to abrogate the right of the people to keep and bear arms (as recognized in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) – would not be met by "We The People" with open arms… some of them might even take it into their minds that the government lacks the right or legal authority to do something like that and *just might* be willing to actually fight to keep those rights, as the founders of our country did so many years ago.


You know, I just had a thought on this one.


Remember back when, in an attempt to create a sense of moral-relativism to excuse terrorists around the world, the meme was “Well, George Washington was considered a terrorist in his time too!”

The point of that bit of pablum was to say:
‘You can’t say that suicide-bombing terrorists terrorists are inherently bad because they are just fighting for their version of freedom – JUST LIKE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DID!’

So – at what point did ‘fighting for freedoms like the founding fathers’ go from being a “Good” thing when used to apologize for terrorists, to being a “Bad” thing when applied to people taking precautions against the loss of those same freedoms and rights... that our founders actually fought for?

**Jump straight into the comments if you’ve got something there, because I don’t get it. **


Followed Immediately By:

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

I’m going to stop after this, because the rest of the report just regurgitates the same dreck over and over in an apparent attempt to make it all scarier/more-damning by repetition.

But seriously – “Returning Veterans”?

According to the US Census there were 23.7 Million military veterans in the U.S. in 2006

But somehow, the “returning veterans” today are different – THESE are the ones to watch out for.

I guess that’s particularly true if they’ve got a Ron Paul bumper sticker.


Poorly written, lacking anything specific in the way of references, examples, citations or even …well,... threats to be assessed, this “report” does nothing but attempt to demonize/criminalize those “rightwing” enough to disagree with Obama’s intent or direction – stopping just short of actually calling all of us “Domestic Terrorists” (which wasn’t supposed to be a ‘bad thing’ during the election) but suggesting that we should all be watched very carefully…

… because you never know – and particularly not when you work for the DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

- MuscleDaddy

P.S. - I'm already getting reports that the approach of the MSM (NBC specifically) to this has been to essentially read-the-report, interview someone from the Southern Poverty Law Center and show stock footage of the KKK.

Nothing to see here, folks - move along.

Obama Paves Way for 'Stimulus' to Cuba...

Obama to allow travel, money transfers to Cuba

President Barack Obama directed his administration Monday to allow unlimited travel and money transfers by Cuban Americans to family in Cuba, and to take other steps to ease U.S. restrictions on the island, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.

Real-Quick, here:

Just like tens-of-billions that get transferred out of the US to Mexico by the 12MM illegal-aliens the U.S. plays "host" to every year - money going 'out' to Cuba, won't be coming back.

- there's no "exchange for goods/services"

- it's just money leaving our economy

- it will be spent in Cuba, and eventually find it's way out to countries that trade with Cuba.


But this move (like nearly every other in recent history) isn't being made with the interests of the U.S. in mind...

With the changes, Obama aims to lessen Cubans' dependence on the Castro regime, hoping that will lead them to demand progress on political freedoms, the official said. About 1.5 million Americans have relatives in Cuba.

And here we see another example of Obama's view on the effect of hand-outs on a given populace:

The idea that if you make people's lives more comfortable without requiring effort on their part, it will motivate them to Change those lives - in a way that frustation at grinding governmental oppression never could.


...because that's the lesson we take from history, after all. (um,...no, wait)


This rather momentous change in U.S. policy (masked most recently by 24-hour-piracy-speculation "news") comes on the tail of the recent visit to Cuba by members of the "Congressional Black Caucus".

(must... resist... mentioning... obvious...racist...overtones)

*sigh*

I admit to being dumbfounded by that visit - wondering what rationalization they used to justify even making American taxpayers foot the bill for their vacation-to-Cuba in the first place.

I mean, what could a group from the Congressional Progressive Caucus (of which the Congressional Black Caucus are also members) hope to accomplish by slavishly heaping praise onto the country and government of Cuba?

Seriously - given that the CPC (and, by extension, the CBC) is really just the Partnership-Arm of the Democratic Socialists of America within our government, wouldn't the whole exercise just be akin to the 'Pot' complimenting the 'Kettle' on it's choice of attire - little-sound and no-fury signifying an obvious point of redundancy?


But now I see.


These 'Congressmen' - nominally, our political "Leaders" ...

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)

...have returned, painting a glowing picture of the 'freedom' and 'openness' they experienced in Castro's Cuba.


They've lent their congressional "credentials" - their pre-emptive stamp-of-approval to Obama's latest 180-degree-policy-change concerning the tiny Communist Dictatorship, assuring anyone who will listen that it's really a place like any other where the people are free to move/speak/worship as they will,

...and all they need is a U.S.-originating flow of money to make their lives (under their current form of government) more comfortable.


More. Comfortable.


Because - if you want a people to throw off the yoke of Communist oppression and demand Freedom - from which they might make of their lives something which they are currently unable to achieve...

... the first steps are to present their situation as 'more mainstream' and then make them 'more comfortable' right where they are.


Right?


- MuscleDaddy

Ramussen Poll shows more than Economic Preference

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism
(h/t Monopticus)

So sayeth the Ramussen Phone Poll...

Though according to the initial breakout, if you're sitting there scratching your head and thinking "That just can't be right"... chance are, you're probably over 40.

Let's Review:

- Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided.
(that last 30% are the vacantly-staring, disconnected, mental-tabula-razas that criminal-defense and civil-prosecution attorneys refer to as "jurors" - MD)

- Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism.

- Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

- Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism.

- As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

- There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism.

- Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism.

As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

Now I'm reminded of an old-saw that my brother and I frequesntly trade back-and-forth that goes:
"Truisms become truisms because, at some point, they were true."

You know - like:
"As people get older, start raising kids and become acquainted with cold reality - they become more conservative."

Or:
"A Liberal is just a Conservative who hasn't been mugged yet."

Okay - enough fun - looking back:

- Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided.

The phrase "adults under 30" seems more than ever like an oxymoron to me - particularly since the Obama campaign.

To be more accurate, that should probably read:
"kids at least old enough to have graduated college, who are still living with their parents, and are angry over not having been issued their Gulfstream IV with their degree".

Seriously, we're talking about the generation with the largest sense of collective-entitlement that our culture has ever seen.

MuscleDaddy-the-Elder asked his final (before retirement) Freshman English Class, on the first day of the semester, to scratch out a couple of paragraphs about:
"What you would want to have with you if stranded on a deserted island"

- more than one wrote "My Parents".

This is fairly indicative of the cultural phenomenon that allowed Barack Obama to get elected in the first place - nearly two generations brought up into lives of ease, short-attention-span and instant gratification... and they don't want it to end.

Someone should be their 'parent' - why not the government?

Bob Parks touched on this one in a recent post - go ye now and read it.


Sorry, what's that you say?

"But wait, MD - what about all of those patchouli-and-ponytail wearing oldsters?
What about the middle-aged Code Pinkos and over-the-hill Che-shirt-wearers?
What about the "Socialism" sides of the poll from the other age groups?
Don't they invalidate your chrono-centric rant, here?"

Not really, as it turns out.

But since they are a topic about which an entire book could be (and coincidentally, has been) written, I'll just point out that Diana West has already done all of the heavy-lifting on that topic - complete with a yeoman-effort of citation-and-reference gathering - and has produced the defining work in the explanation of that aspect of our societal failure with her book:

Death of the Grown-Up

...and follow by saying unto you all "go ye forth and read it".

(You can't have my copy - I'm hanging onto it against the long-chance of getting it autographed - go show your support of capitalism and buy your own!)


Seriously, folks - this isn't something that's going to fix itself, nor is the real work likely to bear fruit anytime soon.


The real change has to start here, now - with our kids.

- MuscleDaddy

(P.S. - I'm beating all of you to it - "Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!"... so there.)

ZoNation:Affirmative Action and Socializing the Big Three

I wonder what fellow PJMer Charles Johnson will have to say about 'Zo comparing Obama to Hitler. He's none too happy with Glenn Beck for doing it.

Obama Extends Central-Planning Grasp?

Senate legislators approve law eroding authority of Alaskan Governor

JUNEAU, Alaska — Legislators loyal to President Barack Obama approved a new law Tuesday that erodes the authority of Alaska’s Governor by subordinating her to a federally-appointed official.

The law approved by the predominantly pro-Obama Senate gives the official, who will be appointed directly by Obama, administrative authority over Alaska’s capital.

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin condemned the move as a new attempt by Obama to expand his power and weaken his opponents.

"The government wants to control everything, including the state and municipal offices administered by democratically elected leaders," Palin told The Association Press in a telephone interview shortly before the legislation was passed.

Palin, whose Presidential ticket was narrowly defeated by an MSM-backed Obama in November elections, plans to challenge the new law through a referendum.

Pro-Obama lawmaker Harry Reid denied the approval of the law was politically motivated, saying it would help resolve problems such as “inadequate” energy resource-redistribution because it establishes a direct link between the federal government and the state's top administrator.

But Reid conceded that it would inevitably lead to "more confrontation in the political arena."

Fewer than a dozen of the senate’s 100 members voted against the law.

===========================================

Okay -take a breath, go back and click the link at the top... Go ahead, I'll wait.

Yes, it's another of my lightly-retouched 'Hugo Chavez stories' - the likes of which you've seen before.

But, with all that you've seen and had to accept lately from The One, his Control Cabal and his riding of the Mob-Rule wave

... Do you see how much more-lightly I had to touch it this time?

If such a story were to actually appear in the WSJ tomorrow?

Let's be honest: "Horrifying - but not Surprising"

What is our country coming to?


- MuscleDaddy

Obama Embraces Islam

The Capitulation Heard 'Round the World:

President Barack Obama sought Monday to make American amends with the Islamic world after eight years of tension, declaring in a speech to the Turkish parliament that he is determined to have a “partnership with the Muslim world.”

“Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not – and will never be — at war with Islam,” Obama said in remarks delivered in Ankara.

Well, I'm sure that a lot of people will be very relieved to hear that...

...particularly the perps from The List.


Now, be certain - I hear the Old Rejoinders often enough to predict them here:

"It's only a small percentage"

"It's only the Fundamentalist Radicals"

"It's not all of the Muslims in the World"

etc., etc., etc.....


But Consider This:

If we were talking about a country (let's call it Muslonesia) committing these sorts of attacks against another country (with only a 'small percentage' of their military, of course), killing, burning, beheading...

...and the only response from either the leaders or the citizens of 'Muslonesia' was to quietly nod their heads and go about their business with no outcry, no condemnation, and no demands on their leaders to recall the soldiers committing those murders... (indeed, with some dancing-in-the-streets at any news of Western deaths)

...would you have to decide that 'Muslonesia' was 'at war' with you?

Naturally, You Would.


Would you meekly accept the assertions that 'Moderate Muslonesia' wishes your country no ill, even though they obviously don't bear you enough 'good' to speak out - and even though the various Muslonesian-leaders continue to insist, over and over again that there is no 'Moderate Muslonesia'?

Of course not.

Hell, you're probably a High-School graduate who (apparently) knows how to work a computer - you're not stupid enough to miss the nose-on-your-face.

...even if a significant number of your fellow-citizens are.
(55 percent of those polled said they are without a basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Islam, ... but 58 percent said it is a peaceful religion. )


So why does our 'President' seem to have fallen off of the reality-train?

At what point did Barack Obama come to the conclusion that if you smile at an opposing force and say "I don't want to fight you, I want to be your friend" that they would fail to see the inherent weakness in that reaction and pour on the violence?

And what about "Giving them What They Want So They'll Leave You Alone" ?

Haven't we already seen that movie?


Apparently, France still remembers how it turned out.

Leave Turkey’s bid to join EU to us, Nicolas Sarkozy warns Barack Obama



And here's an extra bit of 'sticky' for your 'wicket':


Apparently, that part of the Turkish population lacking a world-domination-bent (read: 'want to just be left alone') don't even want to be a part of NATO



(the signs say "Obama Get Out!" ... hmmm... whaddaya think, CafePress?)

So we find ourselves with a 'President' whose stated intentions

- Will break our country's financial back,

- Capitulate to those who seek our destruction, and

- Surrender our sovereignty to some nebulous 'World Body' of questionable integrity and intent.


And who utterly rejects the notion that America is in any way greater than it's role of "cog in the collectivist machine" within his vision of a New World Order.


Remind me - how much more of this are we supposed to take?

- MuscleDaddy

H.R. 1664... (or, "All Your Salaries Are Belong to Us")

Just in case you weren't clear on this:

- Dictating to private or publicly-held companies that previously, legally-executed bonus contracts are null-and-void is not enough.

- Moving to pass Tax Law that is punitive, retroactive and aimed at a specific group of people - all in direct opposition to Article I of the U.S. Constitution - is not enough.

Congress and the Obama Administration are now voting themselves into the position of "Central Planning" over the salaries of each and every employee of every Financial Institution that has any amount of money from the "spend-our-way-out" government.

Enter H.R. 1664 - The Grayson-Himes Pay For Performance Act of 2009
(note: the title links to the updated/amended version of the Bill, as of 30MARCH2009)

(1) PROHIBITION- No financial institution that has received or receives a direct capital investment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment, other than a longevity bonus or a payment in the form of restricted stock, to any executive or employee under any existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement--

`(A) provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel established under section 125, in accordance with paragraph (2); or

`(B) includes any bonus or other supplemental payment that is not directly based on performance-based measures set forth in standards established by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2).

Okay - taken as 'read' that the amendment changes the Bill's statement of intent from "Executive Compensation" to "Certain Compensation" (because not everyone who draws a paycheck is an 'Executive' after all) - let's look at that first part.

The focus-points, in regard to Financial Institutions having received TARP funds:

No financial institution... may,

... make a compensation payment...

...to any executive or employee under any existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement

Now, make no mistake - "Compensation Payment" is defined @ the end of the Bill, and it means not only "Salary", but also "Retirement Contribution" and "Health Benefits" - so this Bill says that the companies involved grant any compensation, in any form that is "unreasonable or excessive".

What constitutes "Unreasonable or Excessive", the Bill goes on to tell us, would be determined solely by the Secretary of the Treasury...
(look closely now, it says "in consultation with" - not "requiring the approval of")

...in accordance with "Paragraph 2" of the amendment.

Well then, let's slide down to Paragraph 2, and get a look at these guidelines that Secretary Geithner will be applying as he determines whose salaries are "Unreasonable or Excessive":

`(2) STANDARDS- Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, with the approval of the agencies that are members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, and in consultation with the Chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel established under section 125, shall establish the following:

`(A) UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION STANDARDS- Standards that define `unreasonable or excessive' for purposes of subparagraph (1)(A).

`(B) PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS- Standards for performance-based measures that a financial institution must apply when determining whether it may provide a bonus or retention payment under paragraph (1)(B). Such performance measures shall include--

`(i) the stability of the financial institution and its ability to repay or begin repaying the United States for any capital investment received under this title;
`(ii) the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates;
`(iii) adherence by executives and employees to appropriate risk management requirements; and
`(iv) other standards which provide greater accountability to shareholders and taxpayers.

So, wait... 

This Bill - soon to be voted into Law - will give the Secretary of the Treasury the power to determine the "fairness" of the salaries of invididual employees of publicly-traded companies...

...based on criteria that he will be left to determine - at some point after the Law is passed, and requiring only the approval of agencies that largely report to Treasury in the first place?


How can anyone not see... oh, but wait - there's more!


Because how could such a class-warfare, pandering-to-the-mob piece of legislation be complete without a:

(3) REPORTING REQUIREMENT-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Any financial institution that is subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) shall, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and annually on March 31 each year thereafter, transmit to the Secretary, who shall make a report which states how many persons (officers, directors, and employees) received or will receive total compensation in that fiscal year in each of the following amounts:

`(i) over $500,000;
`(ii) over $1,000,000;
`(iii) over $2,000,000;
`(iv) over $3,000,000; and
`(v) over $5,000,000.

So, in the future, we can be "kept up-to-date" on the exact percentages of 'Evil' still existing in those companies.

Don't worry - I'm sure no one in Congress would dream of trotting that bit out whenever they need to throw something shiny to the shrieking mob.

When did 'We The People' allow our government to reach the position to make such naked power-grabs, with seeming impunity?

...and what are we going to do about it?

- MuscleDaddy