Monday, March 30, 2009

The Death of the Fairness Doctrine - and Dick Durbin's work-around

Just to get this part out of the way:

The real point of a “fairness doctrine” would be to silence such voices as Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham & Glenn Beck – by forcing radio stations to broadcast equal time-slots of such personalities as Joy Behar, Al Franken, and Roseanne Barr. This would (as has been demonstrated) offset the money-making ability of the conservative shows, and very likely make the whole endeavor not worth the financial-effort for the local radio stations – which would, in turn, drop the whole talk-radio format in favor of something that would reliably sell advertising.

There - now we're all on the same page.

If you were paying close attention to the news recently, you may have heard that senator Jim DeMint was able to push through an amendment to prevent the FCC from forcing the enactment of a “Fairness Doctrine” – which would use the FCC’s “public interest” clause under
TITLE 47, CHAPTER 5, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, § 303. Powers and duties of Commission
to force (in the “public interest”) broadcast media (read: Talk Radio) to devote “equal time” to opposing-viewpoints.

Senator Jim DeMint, realizing that a bureaucratic-process quashing of free-speech would be just as egregious as any other kind, inserted an amendment into
Senate Bill 160 – the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 - A bill with the intended purpose of granting that : ”… the District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.”

Knowing that the assembled body would be …(ahem).. ‘unlikely’ to vote-down a bill granting DC one more voice on the national stage, Senator Demint included the following amendment:

DeMint Amdt. No. 573 - To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.


(a) Limitation on General Powers: Fairness Doctrine.--Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

``Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, guidelines, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, guideline, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part)--

``(1) the requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council against Television Station WTVH, Syracuse New York, 2 FCC Rcd. 5043 (1987); or

``(2) any similar requirement that broadcasters meet programming quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance.''.

(b) Severability.--Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.

So there it is, right?

After a
winning vote of 87-11, the FCC cannot (even under threat or political pressure) bureaucratically, or by virtue of internal process, re-enact the conditions of the Fairness Doctrine – “Done and done”, as they say.

...Well,...not quite.

Enter Senator Dick
“Americans are Nazis” Durbin

You see, knowing that Senator Demint was moving to block the re-emergence of the Fairness Doctrine in a time & way unlikely to be opposed, Senator Durbin countered by inserting his own amendment into the very same Bill.

Knowing also that he couldn’t insert an amendment with language in direct-opposition to an already-accepted amendment, Senator Durbin (in a move remniscent of colleague Barney Frank) went quietly for a back-door:

Durbin S.Amdt. 591: To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.


``(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.--The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

``(b) Construction.--Nothing in section 303A (the section created by Demint’s Amendment – MD) shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.''.

(b) Severability.--Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.

Looking at the money-quotes there:

- The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership

- ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

- Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission

- ...regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.''.

Written with specific language intended to thwart the spirit of Demint’s amendment – with the application of Durbin’s oh-so-thinly-veiled amendment language – the FCC may not be able to specifically dictate the content of a particular radio station’s programming…

But they can determine that the “decisions” of a particular radio-station-owning company indicate that their ownership of said radio-stations does not sufficiently “encourage and promote diversity” – demonstrating, in turn, that license is not being used “in the public interest”.

Ownership & Licensing decisions that “Nothing in Section 303A” shall limit.

In short:

While Durbin couldn’t find a way to allow the FCC to dictate “diverse-broadcast-content”, he could make sure that no-one could stop the FCC from shutting-down a radio station for lack of “diverse-broadcast-ownership”.

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

In the face of losing the Fairness Doctrine, Dick Durbin has created a back-door.

So now what do we do?

- MuscleDaddy

Gorebal Warming Agenda Revealed

FOX News has uncovered the real agenda behind "global warming climate change":

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Long ago, I read something (can't recall exactly where or the precise words, but here's the gist of it) that explains how middlemen operate.
There is a point in any transfer of money between two parties, when the money is no longer in the first party's hands, but is not yet in the second party's hands. This magic moment is when an opportunist can snatch off a little piece of the money, leaving the principal parties to the transaction unaware that they've lost anything.
The mechanism is clear in such things as withholding from wages and salaries; most people don't even realize the extent to which they are taxed over the course of a year, and some are even now bragging about how big of a refund they are getting. Now, think about a scheme that forces trillions of dollars a year to be transferred from productive endeavors. Even if the putative recipients of those transfers are performing a valuable function in abating atmospheric CO2 levels (which I vehemently dispute, given the record of temperature levels rising and falling about eight centuries before the corresponding changes in CO2 levels), those trillions will be an irresistable target for the middlemen.

And Al Gore is already established in the business of "carbon offset" middleman, so he figures to have a good market share under this new regime. How can the credibility be tainted of a scientist debunking second hand smoke scares, who has received funding from tobacco companies; but not that of propagandists like Gore with a clear financial interest in implementing these cap-and-trade and carbon-tax schemes, and the scientists pushing AGW scares, who receive funding from governments that stand to raise a good deal of money from those schemes? And am I nuts to think that George Soros has an inside track to position his considerable assets so as to benefit from these major changes in the world economy?
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Saturday, March 28, 2009

9 Minutes and 22 Seconds of Honor - on the floor of the Senate

Take the time - watch & listen closely.

You may not see its like again.

"I fear for our Republic." 

- How wrong is it, that I find it strange to hear that coming from someone not sitting at my keyboard?

Would that the majority of our elected officials saw 'Honor', 'Courage', 'Integrity' & 'Decency' as other than just voice-over noise for their campaign commercials...

- MuscleDaddy

I Love FedEx!

H/T to Neal Boortz for this story on Federal Express's plans to cancel 30 Boeing 777 cargo planes ($7 billion worth) if the "card check" bill passes Congress and gets signed into law. You see, FedEx had a little clause inserted into the contract for the planes for just such a contingency. And now they've said that they will use it.

Money quote emailed to Neal from a FedEx worker:

"I am in my 14th year with Fedex. Union organizers used to come around every year. Employee would throw stuff at them, scream at them telling them to have sex with themselves. Have not seen the organizers for the last 5 or 6 years. My message to them: the day I quit is the day Fedex becomes unionized."

Friday, March 27, 2009

H.R. 1444 - They're not even trying now...

(H/T - Michelle Malkin)

Some of you may remember my post on H.R. 1388 a few days ago.

Well, it turns out that it has not only
passed both House and Senate, but has even been re-named to honor Ted "swimmer" Kennedy.
(apparently, Orrin Hatch thought it would make a nice present)

Now, while all of the parts that tie "Volunteer Requirements" to "grants" remained in 1388 -
they did remove something before getting the abomination passed.

Between being first officially "reported" to the House and being voted on by the full House, bill managers stripped one whole section of the measure that created a Congressional Commission on Civil Service, thus removing the section that contained the language cited above concerning "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" and a possible requirement for "all individuals in the United States" to perform such service. The section could be restored during the Senate-House conference committee meeting.

A new, separate bill containing that language has since been introduced in the House.

Did you hear your internal reading-voice deepen on that last sentence?

"A new, separate bill containing that language..."

That's a polite way to put it - but how about this instead:

The whole section was lifted - in its word-for-word entirety - and reintroduced as if it were a brand-spanking-new piece of legislation, rather than the unendurable, cast-off by-blow that it really is.


H.R. 1444: Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act

Identical in every single way to the 1388 text - they didn't even rearrange the section numbers:

(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

And make no mistake - both laws being passed will have exactly the same effect as if it had remained one law, their details, intent and design so neatly dovetailling the way they do.
(what a coincidence!)

There is one significant difference, though.

Apparently out of gratitude for having 1388 named after him,
Ted Kennedy actually put his name on 1444.

1388 is enough to light-torches-and-raise-pitchforks over, but at least it still uses the grant-money-carrot to lure you in.

1444 sets up "Mandatory" for everyone.

H.R. 1444 - Because Freedoms lost to the Collective come more easily in smaller bites.

- MuscleDaddy

Careful, now... you don't step in all that Global Warming!

(8:30am - Colorado, South of Denver - 20hrs accumulation)

I think I've found Al Gore's "Vanishing Icebergs" - you can see one peeking out of the back of the truck.

- MuscleDaddy

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Second Amendment - Social Engineering from the White House?

So - Instinct over @ Life in 3D dropped me an email this morning, pointing out an odd bit that he found on the White House website.

Just so that there’s no confusion or question, I’ve left the URL in place – this really is the WH:

Fine – good – the White House website has a section on the Constitution… but here’s the odd bit:

Um,… I’m sorry… “GIVES”?

The Second Amendment “GIVES” citizens the “right to bear arms”?

Nnooo… Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment as it’s actually written:

One of the finest and most straight-forward pieces of legislation in the history of our country, the Second Amendment clearly acknowledges the RIGHT of the American Citizen “to keep and bear arms” as pre-existing – inalienable enough to require no law or writ to “allow” it in the first place – a RIGHT so basic to the citizenry that the only mention of it necessary is that inherent in the explicit statement that it “shall not be infringed.”

Now, my brother (younger brother – but such wisdom) keeps telling me that we should always assume stupidity before actual malfeasance in matters like this...

...but it’s the White House website.

You’d think that they MUST have access to a lawyer there – maybe even one possessing a passing familiarity with the United States Constitution.

…then again, given how a couple of my other posts have turned out lately, maybe they don’t.

And now that I’m done ‘assuming stupidity’...

...maybe they do, and this is a small attempt to 'repeat a lie often enough'.

What do you think?

- MuscleDaddy

Things are going to get a lot worse...

Mark Steyn reports that the exodus of the brain trust from AIG has already started. Read the whole thing and then thank the Chosen One for creating the climate that allows this to happen.

Money quote: "I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down..."


The magnificent Jerry Pournelle has seen fit to republish SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS, originally written in 1983. As Jerry points out, some things have changed. On the gripping hand, much has not...

There are other masters; masters who will do more than hold fast to the old ways; they will usher in a new era. The theorists proclaim it. Times have changed. Old institutions, devised in simpler times, are outmoded. Modern times demand modern, streamlined, efficient government- government that can sweep away the dead hand of the past, and bring forth the new dawn.

A new friend of the people comes forth. He will end the babble of political parties and factions and class war He will give meaning to life; will lead a crusade against poverty, squalor, ugliness; will transform the nation into a land beautiful and shining. He will be the Hero, of whom Carlyle said,

His place is with the stars of heaven. He walks among men; loves men, with inexpressible soft pity--as they cannot love him: but his soul dwells in solitude, in the innermost parts of creation. Thou, 0 World, how wilt thou secure thyself from this man? He is thy born king, thy conqueror and supreme lawgiver not all the guineas and cannons under the sky can save thee from him.
Sound familiar? Do read the entire thing, and see just who was the object of Carlyle's adoration. [Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Can I get an Amen?

My friends, are you tired? Do you hate to get up in the morning to face another day of Congressional stupidity? Has your 401(k) got up and left? Is that what's bothering you Bunkie?

Well rejoice Dear Hearts! Reverent Jimmy has just the thing to brighten your day...

Monckton Rips Gorebal Warming Again

You may recall the joy with which I recommendedViscount Monckton's Open Letter to John McCain. If you didn't read it then, you might want to take a detour to read it first, as a nice appetizer for that is to follow.

Here is but an excerpt of his Keynote address to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change:

Gore no longer dares to publish his supposed “evidence” for “climate crisis,” because he is rightly terrified that we here will pounce on it at once and demonstrate that it is materially, serially, seriously inaccurate--demonstrate its falsity by the dull, outmoded method of reference to the facts, the science, and the data.

When Gore appeared before the Senate a few weeks ago, the hearing was supposed to be public. For it is one of the most ancient and settled principles of parliamentary democracy that the deliberations of those whom we elect, and the testimony that their committees hear, shall be open and visible to all. Yet, with the furtive connivance of Senator Boxer and her politicized snivel servants, the science slides Gore showed to the Senators were kept secret. I and others have asked for them. They are “not available at this time.” And the Senate is “exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.”

Why are those slides “not available at this time”? Because Gore is running scared. Rightly scared. Scared of prosecution for peddling a false prospectus in Generation Investment Management. Neither Gore nor any bed-wetter will any longer dare to debate the science of climate with us or anyone in the light of day. Gore’s speaking contract stipulates that he will not debate, he will not answer unscripted questions, and he will not be interviewed except by journalists acceptable to him. Which journalists are they? The dim ones that don’t know any science, and the prejudiced ones that don’t care. Just about all of them.

Recently four of us in this room were invited to a meeting of Government and opposition leaders and policymakers in Madrid, to debate the science and economics of climate against Al Gore (not a climate scientist); Railroad Engineer Pachauri, the head of the U.N.’s climate science working group (not a climate scientist); Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of the U.K. Socialist Government’s joke report on the economics of climate change (not a climate scientist); and the Environment Minister of Spain (not a climate scientist).

All four of us--three climate scientists and I (not a climate scientist) accepted the invitation to debate. All four of them refused. They said they would only come if they could speak on their own, without facing any challenge, any debate, any question, any fact, any inconvenient truth. Not one of them dared to face us. They did not have what in English we should call the cojones.

There was no climate crisis. There is no climate crisis. There will be no climate crisis. “Global warming” is not a global crisis. It is a global scientific fraud.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
I'd say Monckton had opened up a can of whoop-ass on Al Gore and his ilk, but that would be to damn his work with faint praise. This was a semitrailer full of industrial-strength, concentrated whoop-ass. You need to savor every word of this gem.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

We Are Still A Republic

"Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose.

Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat.

The same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step, or his first baby shaves, and makes his first sound like a man.

Some words can give you a feeling that make your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.

-John Wayne, “The Alamo”

As the events of the “First 100 Days” continue to unfold, I find that many of the really BIG mistakes (by which I mean ‘those likely to have the farthest-reaching negative effects on the fabric of our country) to which I am forced to bear witness seem to have a single common thread – that they stem from a loss of understanding of one very basic precept that has guided the very existence of our nation – perhaps “The” basic precept:

The United States of America is a Republic.

You’ll notice that I said “loss of understanding” rather than “lack of understanding” – that was on purpose, because it is something our elected officials used to know, but seem to have lost – It’s also something that cannot adequately be imparted, but something that may be regained by people familiar enough to recognize it.

At its heart, the problem is that they seem to have fallen into a trap of shoddy linguistics, so that they have come to mistake our “Republic” for a “Democracy”, confusing the essence of each as many people confuse the terms themselves, considering them to be synonyms … which they most assuredly are not.

In the immortal words of MuscleDaddy-the-Elder: “Let’s Review”

The difference between a Republic and a Democracy lies in their respective sources of official power.

A “Republic” is a political entity governed by a charter, which directs a restricted group (citizens) to elect representatives who will govern the state. Republics are free societies precisely because they are bound by their charters, which restrict the responsibilities and powers of the state.

It is this restriction, along with the legal consistency and rationality of the charter, as well as the people’s willingness to observe and live by it, that keeps people free.

A “Democracy” is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. There is still a restricted group (citizens) in a democracy, but this group rules directly and personally runs everything. The group may delegate specific tasks to individuals, (governorships, etc) but there is no question that the ruling force in a democracy is not a charter, but the vote of the majority.

Unbound by any sort of charter, democracies are free only so long as the citizen-rulers are consistent in their application of freedom. If the citizens (or, more specifically, a majority of the citizens) come to a point where they no longer understand what freedom is then the mob-rule of a democracy can slide into a tyranny every bit as complete as any central-planning dictatorship (think: Socrates' suicide, forced by the “democracy” in Athens.)

The United States of America is, and has always been, a Republic – bound by the charter of the United States Constitution which, by its design, limits the amount and type of power the government may wield over the individual.

This is where the understanding has been “lost” among our elected officials, who have either fallen to the siren-cries of mob-rule or (and infinitelty worse) are using its cacophony to mask their own intended movements.

Examples of this abound, but two of the most glaring and blatant examples have intersected with current events in just the past several days.

Consider H.R. 1388 – the camouflage-named “GIVE Act”.

I wrote about this one the other day – pointing out that while none of its provisions are specifically “Mandatory” in themselves right now it is, at best, economically coercive - and very plainly lays all of the necessary groundwork and installs the necessary infrastructure to open the door to making its form of “volunteerism” mandatory in the future.

But, however “good” it might make a democratic-majority majority “feel” to pass into law a bill that so prominently speaks of “volunteerism”, the merest suggestion – the slightest hint – of making any form of work “Mandatory” for American citizens should have seen this piece of legislation squashed… by the binding charter of our country:

United States Constitution
Amendment XIII
Section 1.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

“Mandatory Volunteerism” makes no provision for a person’s desire (or lack of) to volunteer – it is simply “mandatory”, and as such goes directly against the country’s binding charter of the United States Constitution and our Republic (by design) has no power to impose it.

Here’s another…

Consider H.R. 1586 – the so-called Bonus Tax bill.

Aside from all of the finger-pointing-outrage of who may have “allowed” the situation at AIG to develop as it has, the form and function of this proposed law (and make no mistake, tax-law is LAW) is writ plainly on its cover:

March 18, 2009

To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.

“..certain TARP recipients” - plainly singling out specific individuals, and when combined with the last line of the bill:

g) Effective Date- This section shall apply to disqualified bonus payments received after December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such date.

…again, leaves it in such direct opposition to our nation’s binding charter of the United States Constitution, that it never should have seen the light-of-day:

United States Constitution

Article I, section 9, clause 3:

“No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

In the context of the Constitution, a "Bill of Attainder" refers to a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (say, a specific group of people from a specific handful of companies) – while ‘ex post facto’ naturally refers to making a law against a specific act or situation after it has already occurred, so that it may now be made subject under the law “after the fact” (say, enacting a law today that makes subject an act or occurrence from 3 months ago).

However “justified” the outrage of the mob, waving their signs and shouting their chants in the streets, may be,

However badly our elected officials may want “do-overs” for their own mistakes or malfeasance,

However fair-or-unfair it may be spun-up by the media to seem at the time...

None of that matters when exerting the authority and power of government.

We Are Still A Republic.

…not just when we like the outcome – not only when the media-led public outrage agrees.

We Are Still A Republic.

…and we follow our own rules for a reason.

“Now I may sound like a Bible beater yelling up a revival at a river crossing camp meeting, but that don't change the truth none. There's right and there's wrong. You got to do one or the other. You do the one and you're living. You do the other and you may be walking around, but you're dead as a beaver hat.”

- John Wayne

When the man's right, he's right.

- MuscleDaddy

Murray at AEI: The Happiness of the People

Yesterday I shared Mark Steyn's characterization of the Obama Administration's program as Eurofication; today let us turn to Charles Murray's observations. He recently spoke at the American Enterprise Institute (accepting its 2009 Irving Kristol Award) on the subject of The Happiness of the People, in which he explains why Leftist prescriptions to make various people's lives easier, to whatever extent they actually succeed in doing so, make them less happy. He explains whence comes happiness (in the Aristotlean sense) and how the European model of "Social Democracy"

To become a source of deep satisfaction, a human activity has to meet some stringent requirements. It has to have been important (we don't get deep satisfaction from trivial things). You have to have put a lot of effort into it (hence the cliché "nothing worth having comes easily"). And you have to have been responsible for the consequences.

There aren't many activities in life that can satisfy those three requirements. Having been a good parent. That qualifies. A good marriage. That qualifies. Having been a good neighbor and good friend to those whose lives intersected with yours. That qualifies. And having been really good at something--good at something that drew the most from your abilities. That qualifies. Let me put it formally: If we ask what are the institutions through which human beings achieve deep satisfactions in life, the answer is that there are just four: family, community, vocation, and faith. Two clarifications: "Community" can embrace people who are scattered geographically. "Vocation" can include avocations or causes.

It is not necessary for any individual to make use of all four institutions, nor do I array them in a hierarchy. I merely assert that these four are all there are. The stuff of life--the elemental events surrounding birth, death, raising children, fulfilling one's personal potential, dealing with adversity, intimate relationships--coping with life as it exists around us in all its richness--occurs within those four institutions.

Seen in this light, the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. And that's what's wrong with the European model. It doesn't do that. It enfeebles every single one of them.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
I'm not as optimistic as Murray on how science will prove the fundamental tenets of leftism false; maybe that's because I've had enough "scientific consensus" on Gorebal Warming, thank you very much. But you owe it to yourself to read the whole thing and hear his arguments.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Steyn: Prime Minister Obama

When Mark Steyn writes, you really ought to read, just on general principles. If, therefore, you've already read this one, read it again. If you haven't, then read it twice, so that you can truly appreciate what lies in store for Western Civilization (if we fail to heed the warning).

We've been told for years how despised we are by the European elites, who in contrast loved then-Senator Obama. Why the Germans seem to love him even more than they do David Hasselhoff! Steyn takes us through what it will mean to transform the American Republic into a European-style Social Democracy under "Prime Minister Obama":

It’s interesting that it never occurred to the IMF that anyone would be loopy enough to try their study the other way around — to examine the impact on America of Europeanization. For that, we had to wait for the election of Barack Obama. Which brings us to the third problem of Europeanization: What are the consequences for the world if the hyperpower embarks on the same form of assisted suicide as the rest of the West?

Oath Keepers

I don't know if you all are aware of it, but there are many (and increasingly more, I think...) active duty military, veterans, and peace officers who take the oaths they swore very seriously:

Oath Keepers
(From the site) "Oath Keepers: Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT 'just follow orders,' will stand for liberty, and will save the Republic, so help us God."

You should pay particular attention to their "Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey."

Saturday, March 21, 2009

We're havin' a Tea Party

Thursday, March 19, 2009

H.R. 1388... is "Arbeit Macht Frei" too strong?

Maybe. Not.

H.R. 1388 has already passed the House –
yesterday, in fact.

The breakout of ‘yeas’ and ‘nays’ tells a story all its own:

Now, in spite of the text changes that had to be made again and again to whitewash the recurring references to “camps” and such throughout this Bill on “Invigorating Volunteerism"...

(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ‘superintendent’ and inserting ‘campus director’; and
(ii) by striking ‘camp’ and inserting ‘campus’; and

(ii) by striking ‘in camps’ and inserting ‘in campuses’;
(iii) by striking ‘camp’ and inserting ‘campus’; and
(iv) by striking ‘in the camps’ and inserting ‘in the campuses’;

(ii) by striking ‘A camp may be located’ and inserting ‘A campus must be cost-effective and may, upon the completion of a feasibility study, be located’;

‘(e) Distribution of Units and Campuses- ’;
(B) by striking ‘camps are distributed’ and inserting ‘campuses are cost-effective and are distributed’; and
(C) by striking ‘rural areas’ and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ‘rural areas such that each Corps unit in a region can be easily deployed for disaster and emergency response to such region.’; and...
(So - they want their 'Camps' distributed in 'rural' flyover-country...away from population centers? )

…anyone who supports this Bill is going to tell you “It’s just about supporting volunteer organizations that already exist!” (seriously, the “nuthin’ to see here – move along” crowd is hard at work on the boards) – and will heatedly insist that there’s "Nothing Mandatory” about any of it.

And that’s true – as far as that goes...

But there most assuredly are
“requirements” attached to being a recipient of ‘Grants’:

‘(a) Required National Service Corps- The recipient of a grant under section 121(a) and each Federal agency operating or supporting a national service program under section 121(b) shall, directly or through grants or subgrants to other entities, carry out or support the following national service corps, as full- or part-time corps, including during the summer months, to address unmet educational, health, veteran, or environmental needs:
And oh, that list does go on – follow THIS LINK, there really is too much to post here.
(make sure anything near to hand isn’t too heavy, hard or sharp for safe throwing)

And not to be overlooked is the incongruity of this piece – in a Bill on ‘Volunteerism’:

“Section 1508 – Authorized Benefits for Corps Members”

Now this only makes reference to language-revisions for this section of the Bill, but THIS LINK will take you to the ‘Benefits’ section itself – to wit:

(a) In general
The Director shall provide for members of the Civilian Community Corps to receive benefits authorized by this section.

(b) Living allowance
The Director shall provide a living allowance to members of the Corps for the period during which such members are engaged in training or any activity on a Corps project. The Director shall establish the amount of the allowance at any amount not in excess of the amount equal to 100 percent of the poverty line that is applicable to a family of two (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 9902 (2) of this title.[1]

(c) Other authorized benefits
While receiving training or engaging in service projects as members of the Civilian Community Corps, members may be provided the following benefits:

(1) Allowances for travel expenses, personal expenses, and other expenses.
(2) Quarters.
(3) Subsistence.
(4) Transportation.
(5) Equipment.
(6) Clothing.
(7) Recreational services and supplies.
(8) Other services determined by the Director to be consistent with the purposes of the Program.
(and there’s more)

So – Wages, Housing, Subsistence (food), Transportation & Clothing.

Now, over the years, I’ve built a couple of ‘Habitat’ houses, done pro-bono Legal Advocacy for the local domestic violence shelter and volunteered with a small-town migrant-farm-worker association.

But reading through THAT list of ‘Benefits’, what has become clear is that I’ve apparently lost track of where “Volunteering” ends and where “Working on the Government Collective” begins…. Or is it just me?

Please - anyone - if my idea of ‘Volunteering’ is completely off, chime in and let me know...


Despite the ‘People’s Collective’ theme - again – nothing “Mandatory” in the strictest possible sense – as long as you (or your respective education departments or school districts) don’t take any Grant-money,

But… (‘cause you knew there was going to be one)

The most troubling parts of this are, as such things tend to be, aaalllll the way at the bottom:

(as there’s a fair amount of intro-pablum, I’m going to skip around a little)

There is established in the legislative branch a commission to be known as the ‘Congressional Commission on Civic Service’ (in this title referred to as the ‘Commission’).

SEC. 6104. DUTIES.
(a) General Purpose- The purpose of the Commission is to gather and analyze information in order to make recommendations to Congress to--

(b) Specific Topics- In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:
(this is where the creepy parts really get going)

(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

(7) The need for a public service academy, a 4-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders. (because once the service is mandatory... - MD)

(8) The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary school students, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness of existing incentives.

(9) The effectiveness of establishing a training program on college campuses to recruit and educate college students for national service.

(11) The constraints that service providers, nonprofit organizations, and State and local agencies face in utilizing federally funded volunteer programs, and how these constraints can be overcome. (I'm thinking 'Mandatory' would 'overcome' - MD)

(12) Whether current Federal volunteer programs are suited to address the special skills and needs of senior volunteers, and if not, how these programs can be improved such that the Federal Government can effectively promote service among the ‘baby boomer’ generation.
(so that elderly-social-productiveness can be made mandatory - once the preceding points are stipulated - MD)

So – No, nothing in the current Bill, in its current form is ‘Mandatory’.


But it does yeoman-work in laying down all of the infrastructure needed for an eventual slide toward ‘Mandatory’ – if that were the intention...

Which, according to the Commission’s “Specific Topics” – pretty clearly is exactly the intention.

So, what do we do now?

- MuscleDaddy

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

So Let’s Review

What happens when your nation’s “Leader”…

- Moves overtly to offend and alienate your allies,

- Starts Nationalizing your public companies,

- Acts decisively to tank your economy into debt and inflation for well beyond the foreseeable future,

- Announces his intention to precipitously withdraw your military from successfully prosecuted conflicts abroad,

- Announces his plan to pile more debt on-top-of debt for his plan to take your country away from the economic system that has made it a world power for two centuries – and toward the historically-proven failure that is Socialism,

- Discards common-sense stances concerning your country’s approach to people who call for both your death and that of your allies.

- And demonstrates a heretofore unseen level of incompetence at even the most basic tasks of his office

... all the while making bold, radical moves to undermine any sense of trust between the nation’s government and its military?

Well – what else?

When someone demonstrates an inability to lead – and as spectacularly as this – someone else is ALWAYS going to step in and exploit that weakness.

To expect something different to happen now, well – the “Definition of Insanity” leaps to mind.

…and, right on cue…

Medvedev orders large-scale Russian rearmament

"President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday announced a "large-scale" rearmament and renewal of Russia's nuclear arsenal, accusing NATO of pushing ahead with expansion near Russian borders.

Meeting defence chiefs in Moscow, Medvedev said he was determined to implement reforms to streamline Russia's bloated military and stressed Moscow continued to face several security threats needing robust defense capacity.

"From 2011, a large-scale rearmament of the army and navy will begin," Medvedev said.

He called for a renewal of Russia's nuclear weapons arsenal and added that NATO was pursuing a drive to expand the alliance's physical presence near Russia's borders.

...and, while we're at it...

At G20, Kremlin to Pitch New Currency
The Kremlin published its priorities Monday for an upcoming meeting of the G20, calling for the creation of a supranational reserve currency to be issued by international institutions as part of a reform of the global financial system.

The International Monetary Fund should investigate the possible creation of a new reserve currency, widening the list of reserve currencies or using its already existing Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, as a "superreserve currency accepted by the whole of the international community," the Kremlin said in a statement issued on its web site.

The Kremlin has persistently criticized the dollar's status as the dominant global reserve currency and has lowered its own dollar holdings in the last few years. Both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have repeatedly called for the ruble to be used as a regional reserve currency, although the idea has received little support outside of Russia
(until now, no doubt, with the dollar circling the drain)

Welcome back to the Cold War – looks like we’ve been away too long.

… did we ever really understand how tenuous that victory was – how vigilant we needed to be in order to keep it?

Looks like we do now – thanks for that, President Obama.

(Yeah, I know – “You Won”)

 - MuscleDaddy

Guns on a plane, oh my!

The Chosen One has decided to endanger the flying public in the name of an anti-gun ideology. This Editorial details how this last week the Chosen One's administration secretly diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program and plans to hire more "supervisory staff, who will engage in more field inspections of pilots". The editoral goes on to say that "This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency."

Remember that until the early '60s, pilots on any flight that carried US mail were required to carry handguns. So the idea of armed pilots is nothing new.

Money quote: "Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?"

Edit: Day-um! I think we beat Insti on this one.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Obama Still Plans to Make Vets Pay...

Remember a couple of days ago, when I pointed out that Obama's Veterans Affairs Secretary - Eric Shinseki had said that, despite the fact that Obama's plan to make Vets pay for their own service-related treatment was already baked-into his 2010 budget - somehow,...

"A final decision hasn't been made yet,"
Well, guess what?

Obama refuses to Budge on making Vets Pay

Since last time, Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion has actually had a meeting with The One, and came out of it with news of the largest shafting American Servicemen have ever received from their Commander-In-Chief.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

Now, that The One would dismiss a Moral Obligation practically goes without saying - his adherence to a personal policy of moral-expediency has been on display since well before the election and evinced with every person or 'closely-held-belief' to have gone under-the-bus at the slightest provocation or inconvenience....

But let's look at that "Government Avowed" part for a minute:

“With malice toward none, with charity for all,
with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right,
let us strive on to finish the work we are in,
to bind up the nation’s wounds,
to care for him who shall have borne the battle
and for his widow, and his orphan
to do all which may achieve and cherish
a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

- Abraham Lincoln

See that part in "Bold"?

Those words by Abraham Lincoln became the VA's motto back in 1959...
"To care for him who shall have borne the battle"
Thus have Lincoln's words stood from that time to this... until now.

That this should be a matter of common sense is simply a matter of... well,... common sense - and even if Obama is lacking in this virtue, the aforementioned meeting was preceeded by a letter of protest that stated quite clearly for the common-sense-impaired:

"There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."
"Unconscionable" - indeed - but that is an appellation that can only carry weight with someone who possesses a conscience.

The One has apparently made it clear that he neither cares-for nor respects those citizens who have fought and sacrificed on behalf of America - indeed, He has made it clear to those who have met with Him that they are nothing to him but entries on a ledger-sheet - an unacceptable financial drain to be rectified with the stroke of his pen...

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue."
So that's it - America can continue to meet her moral and avowed obligation to care for her wounded soldiers, so long as Barack Obama can make up the $540MM on his budget sheet.


This cannot be allowed to stand.

Nationalizing banks, Socializing our country, Driving us into Debt previously unimagined - and now this?

- the Commander-In-Chief abandoning America's obligations to those who have fought and sacrificed to keep safe both her and countless other peoples around the world?

No. This is enough. It is Too Much and must not be allowed to come to pass.

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

- MuscleDaddy

Monday, March 16, 2009

Obama doubles-down, Doubles-back

The headline reads:

"Obama plans small-business lending boost"

WooHoo! In the time it took to write this post, the AP has changed it to "Obama offers more aid to small businesses"
- (Double-Plus GoodSpeak!)

...but the first line may have been the more telling part:

"The Obama administration announced Monday that the 21 largest banks receiving government money must report monthly on how much lending they do to small businesses."
All the better to find you with my dear.

Toward the bottom of the story we find one of the ways that Obama hopes to have a couple of "small businesses" around after the upcoming budget-blood-bath, so that there's someone left to pay for all of the new entitlement programs:

The plan comes amid Republican efforts to cast doubt about Obama's ambitious budget, in particular the proposal to raise taxes, starting in 2011, on individuals earning more than $200,000 and on households earning more than $250,000. Those provisions also hit small businesses.

Geithner also ordered the Internal Revenue Service to issue a series of new rules for temporary but significant tax breaks, meaning that small businesses:

-That earn up to $15 million will be allowed to claim losses for the past five years in the current tax year;

-May write off up to $250,000 in investments this year.

-Can reduce estimated tax payments to 90 percent of the previous year's filing.

-Are allowed to take larger depreciation deductions within the first year of property purchases.

-And will see 75 percent of capital gains excluded for those who invest in small businesses.

Okay,.... but...

Didn't The One base his entire campaign on class-warfare and promises of "Eat the Rich" policies?

Hasn't he and his tireless and eternal PR division
(Hey, MSM-anchors - come on up here and take a bow!) made it abundantly clear that anyone who makes upward of $250,000 annually is, in fact, among the hated "Rich" who must be punished for their success and taxed disproportionately in order to keep the money flowing to the "entitled" - in the name of 'fairness'?

So... doesn't that really mean that Geithner's orders to the IRS are.. well...

..."Tax Cuts for the Rich"?

But - what about all that "We are the ones we've been waiting for" - ?

Just askin' is all.

- MuscleDaddy

Evan Sayet Heritage II: Hating What's Right

As many of my friends can tell you, I am a big fan of Evan Sayet's first Heritage lecture. Well, he's baaaack, reiterating much of the same territory, but expanding on it as well:

Fuzzy Zoeller was unavailable for comment

German frozen food manufacturer Sprehe is marketing fried chicken strips under the name "Obama Fingers".

You know Germans always make good stuff!

Friday, March 13, 2009

Global Warming: The New Temperance Movement?

This is the best fisking of Gorebal Warming I've ever seen. Princeton physics professor William Happer testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, systematically dismantling everything the AGW advocates. Here's a taste:

... Deeply sincere people thought they were saving humanity from the evils of alcohol, just as many people now sincerely think they are saving humanity from the evils of CO2. Prohibition was a mistake, and our country has probably still not fully recovered from the damage it did. Institutions like organized crime got their start in that era. Drastic limitations on CO2 are likely to damage our country in analogous ways.
But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated....

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Are You ^&$*%^-ing Kidding Me?

(h/t Monopticus)
**Update: For the follow-up to this one, go HERE.**
Obama Proposes Making Vets Pay for Service-Related Medical Treatment
(I am shocked that CNN ran this story)

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Private. Insurance.

Private Insurance which they'd be able to get in the first place, with their "pre-existing conditions", Right?

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

"Hearing the plan was under consideration"?

Well, I guess that could mean that there's no real intent-to-commit, if that's all they're running on, right?


Turns out - all that 'Not-paying-for-servicemen's-medical-care' - savings is actually already baked right into Obama's 2010 Budget Proposal.

The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

Built. Into. The. Budget.

Behold - part of The One's plan to
"Reduce the Deficit by Half"

...and while we're here, let's get some perspective on what He said at the time:

He identified exploding health-care costs as the chief culprit behind rising federal deficits during a bipartisan "fiscal responsibility summit" convened to discuss ways to restore fiscal stability without deepening the recession.
There we go - true to his word, this is merely a 'cutting of health-care costs'.

Quick comparison:

- Run your multinational bank or car company into the ground through mismanagement and malfeasance?

Turn the money-valve fully to the "On" position!

- Catch and IED-blast or sniper-fire in service to your country?

Wow, too bad - hope you can pay for that!

And even when blatantly caught, red-handed, trying to exploit military personnel and violate a sacred trust between our country and those who lay their lives on the line for her - they still can't man-up and take responsibility.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."

"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.

Apparently "Final" enough to have baked it into The Messiah's budget, you pathetic, cowardly, weak, sad excuse for a pale shadow of a man.

This has to end.

This has to be stopped.

Snowball cannot be allowed to send Boxer away. Again.

- MuscleDaddy

More Federal Cradle-to-Grave Meddling...

(h/t - PopsInFL)

Okay, so if you don't know by now that The One managed to wedge a permanent Socialized Medicine Bureaucracy into an otherwise "supposed-to-be-temporary-Stimulus Bill" ... well, you're obviously not a regular Here.

So there we are - the Federal Government (which according to the founding principles of our nation has no business doing any such thing) will be 'overseeing' (read: applying an ROI-matrix-to) your healthcare, and punishing your doctors if they don't get in line...

..Cradle-to-Grave, ultimately making an ENTIRE GENERATION dependent-on and beholden-to the Federal Government.

Hope you didn't think that would be the end - after all, we're not through the first 100 days yet.

Obama wants to overhaul education from 'cradle to career'

...Because you can't make people 'okay' with this sort of thing, if you're not controlling what they learn in school...

President Obama began to flesh out the details of one of his signature campaign promises Tuesday, outlining his plan for a major overhaul of the country's education system "from the cradle up through a career."
We'll come back to that sentiment...

"We have let our grades slip, our schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short and other nations outpace us," Obama said in an address to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "The time for finger-pointing is over. The time for holding ourselves accountable is here."
Accountability? So we're done with the "I inherited this" mantra?

"The relative decline of American education is untenable for our economy, unsustainable for our democracy and unacceptable for our children, and we cannot afford to let it continue," he said.

Hm. Not fer nuthin' here - but it seems to me that there's a fairly obvious correlation between individual enthusiasm for education and, well... career prospects.

We can't all be lawyers, a major feature of Socialized Medicine is the ensuing
shortage of doctors, and with so many other careers having been 'outsourced' or NAFTA'd-away, what is the plan supposed to be?

Obama noted that the recently passed $787 billion stimulus plan includes an additional $5 billion for Head Start, a program to help low-income families.

Ah, so he's decided that some low-income families are deserving of his largesse - of course, Head-Start for the "little ones" is fine, as long as there's no chance of those 'low-income' children going to shool with HIS kids.

Echoing former President Bush's call to end "the soft bigotry of low expectations," Obama said states needed to stop "low-balling expectations" for students.

"The solution to low test scores is not lower standards; it's tougher, clearer standards," he argued.
You know - I wonder if anyone has told him that it's going to be ...difficult... make that happen without mucking about with Political-Correctness and Affirmative-Action quota guidelines

- I also wonder how long he'll hold onto that 'popularity' of his if he decides to go there.

At the same time, however, he urged states to develop standards "that don't simply measure whether students can fill in a bubble on a test but whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and critical thinking, entrepreneurship and creativity."

To help promote this goal, Obama said he would push for funding in the No Child Left Behind law to be more effectively tied to results. The Education Department, he said, would "back up this commitment to higher standards with a fund to invest in innovation in our school districts."

At the same time, however, the president warned that ineffective teachers should not be allowed to remain on the job.

"If a teacher is given a chance but still does not improve, there is no excuse for that person to continue teaching," he said. "I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences."

Umm..."Bailouts" ?

Okay - I can really stop right there, because we've come to the crux of my issue with this:

- Federal Government shovels-on the money.

- Federal Government takes complete control of 'Overhaul of Education System'.

- Federal Government sets educational standards.

And - just like in their
Socialist Takeover of Healthcare - The Federal Government will (purse-strings, people) become the final arbiter of what is "effective teaching".

Now maybe I'm just being a little over-cynical, but do you really think that a Federal Government that takes control of a country's Healthcare and Education systems is ultimately going to determine that "effective teaching" includes a strong emphasis on the aforementioned "problem-solving and critical-thinking"?

Wouldn't a grounding in 'entrepreneurial and creative' thinking make students see the deliberate hobbling of entrepreneurship,
via over-taxing and over-regulation?

And wouldn't that put the thought-processes of entire generations of kids completely at odds with the idea of ineffective (but total) and costly (on so many levels) government-control of areas of everyday life in which the Federal Government has no business meddling?

And once they've staggered through that simple bit of deduction...

What will the Federal Government decide is "effective teaching"?

- MuscleDaddy

She just can't stand prosperity.

Actually she doesn't act like she knows what prosperity is. But I figure it's just a matter of time until I get a visit from the Secret Service. So if I disappear some dark night, y'all come get me! See email below:

Madame Speaker,

Perhaps it's time you spent more time worrying about saving the people of the United States money and less time worrying about how you're going to fly. This is unacceptable! You work at our pleasure, not the other way around.



By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
Nancy Pelosi

Last updated: 7:57 am
March 11, 2009
Posted: 3:17 am
March 11, 2009

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gone from frequent flier to jet-aircraft connoisseur, with aides berating military officials to get the best planes, e-mails revealed yesterday.

Pelosi, who clashed with the military to get nonstop service when she flies home to California with police protection on government planes, revealed a particular fondness for Gulfstream's sleek G-5 - a plane glamorized in Hollywood films and rap videos.

"It is my understanding there are no G-5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable . . . The speaker will want to know where the planes are," a Pelosi aide wrote in an angry e-mail to the military.



In another, the same aide wanted the plane for a House delegation when the fleet was being used for senators and Cabinet members.

"This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset speaker," the e-mail said.

The military was offering up an Air Force version of a Boeing 737.

The e-mails were obtained from the government by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Hmm... I wonder if it was 'treason'...

...when James Carville was doing it?

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail

"On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced:
"Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

Naturally, the members of the "Media" heeled to their master.

"...even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail."

Fast-Forward to 2009:

"That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently.

So... but... now that's bad, Mr. Carville?

Rush, on the other hand, seems to think that any "harm" he might be doing to the republican Party (like they need help?) - is actually less important than speaking out against the very real harm being done to the country by BHO:

"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation.

This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation.

When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"

Who would have ever thought that Rush Limbaugh - media giant with the loudest microphone and tens-of-millions of listeners in the US alone...

...would one day become the 'lone voice in the wilderness'?

Socialism, Economy-tanking, Ally-insulting, Agreement-reneging, Terrorist-capitulating, Energy-obstructing, Enemy-Emboldening, Abortion-funding....

Every one, either an "accomplishment" or tenet of his administration & policy.

Let me be clear about this:

I want Barack Obama to fail - at everything he's done and everything he's stood for.

Just sayin' is all.

- MuscleDaddy