4 Dead in apparent attempt on Dutch Monarch

(This one is still developing, so by the time you read this the numbers may already be off - MD)

Royal Motorcade: Four Dead As Car Hits Crowd

At least four people are reported to have been killed and around 13 hurt in The Netherlands after a car careered into spectators watching a royal motorcade.

People were flung through the air after the car swerved across police railings

A photographer said the small car appeared to be deliberately driving at high speed toward an open-top bus carrying Queen Beatrix and her family in the western Dutch town of Apeldoorn.

As I said above, this is still developing (anyone out there who's ever been a first-responder knows that 5-hours can pass in a flash and is not enough time to sort things out) and the casualty-count jumped by 2 while I was reading - there is nothing more known in any specific way other than that this has happened.

That said...

Within-the-fold, you'll find some stills and a link to a video shot as-it-happened (they're disturbing - one of the victims is apparently a little girl - , so don't click-in unless you're sure).








Link to the Video

[Click HERE to see the visuals.]

A couple of points:

1) As is plain by the pics and video - that car was moving fast (enough so that the front was already smashed-in when it ran through the last spectators and into the statue on the corner)

2) Holiday/Government-Event-Motorcades operate pretty much the same way everywhere - slowly, and with a great effect on travel-speed of the surrounding roads.

Based on these two data-points, I'm going to have to agree with the above-quoted photographer and say that this had to have been deliberate - there simply would have been no opportunity for that kind of speed otherwise.

So what you've got is a lone male, approximately in his mid-to-late 20s, who made a 'kamikaze run' at the Dutch Queen's motorcade bus, through a crowd.

That may not be quite enough to assign blame to the Netherlands' recent Geert-Wilders-and-Spreading-Islamic-Violence problem...*definitively*.

But, if I were a betting man...

- MuscleDaddy

FAA Aware of "possibility of public concern" in buzzing NYC with a 747

Amateur-Hour, ClownShoes, or my favorite: "Felony Stupidity" (jump ahead to 2:48)

- Take your pick.

FAA Memo: Feds Knew NYC Flyover Would Cause Panic

Now, of course - the official statements are that Obama is "furious" and "investigating", etc., etc., blah, blah.

At the end of the day, the White House 'Military Office' took Air Force one out for a spin @ almost building-top-level, circling and buzzing NYC with what any reasonable person would have identified as a pair of "chase" F-16s closely tailing the bigger plane.

Who could possibly have predicted that people would be upset by such a thing?

Ah,... well... it turns out the answer to that question is "Pretty Much Everyone".

Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and a 747 from the presidential fleet to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public.

In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD, the Federal Aviation Administration's James Johnston said the agency was aware of "the possibility of public concern regarding DOD aircraft flying at low altitudes" in an around New York City.

But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor's office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.

Okay, so they knew that the people of New York haven't completely forgotten 9-11 (the election of The One notwithstanding) and that, as such, buzzing lower Manhattan with a commercial airliner would likely have people evacuating buildings in anticipation of a potentially horrific, fiery death.

At least we can take solace in the knowledge that this office of the White House must have had a Very Good Reason for doing this, right?

And the 'Total Secrecy' over the operation that prevented anyone from saying "Nothing to Be Alarmed About, Folks" to the citizens of New York - that was for Security reasons - to keep the POTUS safe, right?

Ummm....yeah - about that...

The flyover -- apparently ordered by the White House Office of Military Affairs so it would have souvenir photos of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty in the background"

Souvenir. Photos.


Uh, Okay - my two-cents here:

If this is the alternative, please go back to cheap-DVD-sets and iPods.



BTW,

- An AirForceOne joy-ride,
- White House threats of 'Federal Sanctions' against the NYPD,and the Mayor's Office
- Two F-16 fighter jets,
- A combined cost of about $328,000 for the 2-hour-tour

And O's response is "I didn't know"?

If this had been GW, do you think the whole of the MSM would have led-in with "Stupid", "Incompetent" or "Evil" first?


Oh, and here's a good bit too:

"The NYPD was so upset about the demand for secrecy that Police Commissioner Ray Kelly vowed never to follow such a directive again and he accused the feds of inciting fears of a 9/11 replay.

Uh-Oh, Mr. Kelly...

- Anger @ the White House?
- A vow not to bend to Federal control?
- Negative-conjecture and accusations against government motive?

Looks like the NYC Police Commissioner just made The List.

Welcome to the ranks of Right Wing Extremism, Ray - glad to have you.


- MuscleDaddy

Obama's Galactic Missteps...

They're everywhere you want to be.
This from Stoutcat over @ Grand Rants:



That closing shot positively gave me chills.

- MuscleDaddy

Arlen Specter admits to what we've long known...

Specter To Switch Parties

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Switch? Oh, right – he still *technically* has an “R” following his name

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

Obviously he sees that, having betrayed the trust of his base and (perhaps permanently) damaged the Conservative movement in Government to the fullest extend he would be allowed from his current position – this is the only he would be able to continue pounding nails into America’s coffin – Well played, Sir.

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

Nope...Leaving the low-hanging-fruit for Anderson Cooper…
(aw dang, there’s a phrase and a name we’ll never be able to use together again..eww)

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

“…the Republican Party has moved far to the right”?

Apparently, Obama’s not the only one who has been “unaware” of the over half-million citizens protesting at Tea Parties around the country.

NewsFlash, Sparky:
The reason you’d have the proverbial “snowball’s chance” if you ran as a Republican in 2010 is because (following your stellar example) your party has become almost indistinguishable from the Opposition.

If you think that constitutes a shift to ‘the right’, then clearly it’s time for your handlers to up-the-voltage.

Specter as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania as he was expected to face a difficult primary challenge next year from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The only announced Democrat in the race is former National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella although several other candidates are looking at the race.

I can just envision how that conversation went…

“So, Arlen – here’s the thing: This Toomey-guy ain’t much, but he also didn’t tank his credibility by crossing-the-aisle to vote for the Great Generational Theft Act the way you did either.

“You an’ me been friends for a long time so I’m gonna tell you straight:
You’re Done. Screwed. Fini - Drop-the-curtain, stick-a-fork-in-you, It's Over."

I mean really, at this point you’d have a better chance running as a Demo… hheeeeyyyy….”

The precariousness of Specter's political position -- a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state -- was on display earlier this year when he was one of three GOP Senators to back President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan. That vote was strongly condemned by conservative Republicans and Toomey used that vote as the launching pad for his candidacy.

Nnnoooo… what was on display was his complete lack of spine, conservative-chops or ability to look ahead farther than 6 months into long-term repercussions.

Because of the shrinking Republican vote in the state, Specter was seen as a dead man walking politically in the primary with polling showing him trailing Toomey by ten or more points.

That statement is just nonsensical – “Fewer-Republicans-Voting” is the reason “More-Republicans-Would-Vote-For-Toomey”?

Someone needs to check his math… then work on that ability to find his own nose.

The bar for Specter to run as an independent was also extremely high due to the rules governing such a third party candidacy.

Because an independent candidacy would make all of the requisite palm-greasing much more difficult.

That left a Democratic candidacy as Specter's best option if he wanted to remain in the Senate beyond 2010.

Being the only way for a person without any firm personal positions to get elected – clearly, it’s the best way for him to go.

The "MD-Take" ?

ANYONE who changes their political affiliation while in office should be immediately recalled.

Period.

- MuscleDaddy

A Quick Joke for the weekend:

Two Senators walk into a bar...

The third one ducks.


- MuscleDaddy

(know what makes that a joke? - Senators don't really learn from mistakes.)

Uh oh

Yeah, I know it was on Drudge, but this is some scary s**t.

The first case was seen in Mexico on April 13. The outbreak coincided with the President Barack Obama’s trip to Mexico City on April 16. Obama was received at Mexico’s anthropology museum in Mexico City by Felipe Solis, a distinguished archeologist who died the following day from symptoms similar to flu, Reforma newspaper reported. The newspaper didn’t confirm if Solis had swine flu or not.

Lady sings the news...

Meet Anne McKinney, tax lawyer from the great state of Tennessee. She says she relieves the stress of dealing with the tax code by writing parodies. Well this is a lovely one! Enjoy.

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

Waterboarding, Torture and ‘Not Letting a Good Crisis Go to Waste’.

Okay – this isn’t going to be a long one (by my standards), mostly because I don’t feel it needs to be.

By now, you’ve been hearing the hue & cry over the latest developments in ‘Waterboarding-Gate’.

Last Thursday, President Barack Obama de-classified and released CIA memos detailing the techniques of ‘enhanced interrogation’ used on three captured terrorists, referring to it as “a dark and painful chapter in our history”

On Monday, Rahm Emmanuel said that the people responsible for using ‘enhanced techniques’ to extract information from terrorists (all 3 of them, btw) would not be prosecuted by the Obama Administration.

Asked Sunday on ABC's "This Week" about the fate of those officials, Emanuel said the president believes they "should not be prosecuted either and that's not the place that we go."

On Tuesday, Barack Obama said that he was leaving the possibility of prosecution open – and would be abdicating the actual decision-making to AG Eric “Nation of Cowards” Holder.

"With respect to those who formulate those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that. ... There are a host of very complicated issues involved there."

I’ve already made it pretty clear where I stand on the ‘Selective Transparency’ that Obama is playing at with his last “Look, Pretty-Shiny!” distraction.

In my last post, I stated :

“If the release of this information is so vitally important, then so is the release of an accounting of the terrorist operations that were successfully disrupted as a result of said interrogation.”

Looks like former Vice-President Cheney agrees with me:

DICK CHENEY: “One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.”

“I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

Today, we learn from Obama’s own National Intelligence Director (despite much initial Whitehouse memo-redaction) that those much-debated ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ were actually very effective, yielding “High Value Information” – information that actually led to authorities thwarting a 9-11-esque attack on Los Angeles ... which is the sort of thing you’ve already heard before.


Now, I’m not even going to get into what an insanely-bad precedent it would set to have a current administration start prosecuting members of a previous administration for things they didn’t agree with – that would be pointless, since punishing the people responsible for protecting us from another terrorist attack would be the perfect capping-off to Obama’s ‘2009 America-Sucks World Tour’ – and nothing I say is going to change his decision regarding that.


I just want to briefly point out that all of the whining, hand-wringing, slippery-slope arguments...
...are Crap.


All over talk radio this morning, the ‘America Sucks’ crowd is suddenly doing an about-face, claiming that we are too ‘morally-advanced’ a nation to resort to “the end justifies the means”.

Of course “The End Justifies The Means” – are these people stupid? "The End Justifies the Means" is exactly how any of us gets through anything we find unpleasant or objectionable.

It’s commonly referred to as “Adult-Judgement-Making” – realizing that something simply must be done; that there can be things and circumstances that are bigger and more important than your pride in your sense of your own inherent ‘goodness’. The only hard part is being sure that the "End" is worth it.

Are you opposed to killing someone?

Are you opposed to committing violence against another person?

Can you imagine a scenario in which a deadly threat to either you or someone you care about could make you set those reservations aside and do it anyway – despite the strong moral conviction you might feel against it?

Now multiply it by thousands of people, in dozens of places across the country – people with parents and wives and husbands and children – people who would die suddenly and horribly while just going about their daily routine… and remember, this isn’t a theoretical or academic argument anymore – we know it’s real.

Could you set aside your moral oppositions to save them, if that were all that was left to you in the time allowed?

I could.

I could do it for any one of you reading this right now – I could knowingly undertake to carry that mark on my soul for the whole-damned-rest of eternity and be content to know that I had done the right thing.

Could you?

Would the "End" result of saving those lives be 'worth it'?

Welcome to “The End Justifies The Means”.


- MuscleDaddy

p.s. – in fairness, I’d be adding that mark to a collection...

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano: ‘Veterans are weak-minded, Selective Transparency is Good and Illegals aren’t criminals’

No, seriously.

In an interview with CNN’s John King, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano continued to defend the indefensible, heap on the insulting insinuations and take a revisionist approach to U.S. Immigration law.

King helpfully (and as predictably as the rising sun) set the defensive-field for Napolitano – effectively telling her where the soft-pitch would be going:

KING: Fourteen years ago today on this morning, Americans were shocked by a tragedy in Oklahoma City. The first time -- there was no Department of Homeland Security -- the first time many Americans used the term or heard the term "homeland security." And people in that city will gather today, and I believe we have a live picture of it, for a commemoration marking the 14th anniversary.

As we reflect on that day 14 years ago, it is your job now to keep that from happening again. Are we at a greater risk of domestic terrorism events like that today or lesser?

Aaand … Step-two-three-four, remember-to-watch-the-feet-on-the-floor…

NAPOLITANO: I think we're at a greater state of readiness. The threat of terrorism, whether from a foreign source or domestic sources, is now just -- it's with us. We have to acknowledge that. We have to minimize the risk of it and we have to be ready to deal with it. And I think, with the Department of Homeland Security, all the changes that have occurred since Oklahoma City, since 9/11, there has been improvement.

(See that last bit? Any bets on whether CNN buries that before someone realizes she’s talking about “improvements in Homeland Security during the Bush Administration?)


King winds up, checks for the ‘Go-sign’ from Napolitano, and lobs it across…

KING: As you know, a recent report from your department raised a lot of eyebrows (chopping this “question” for brevity – you already know what he’s talking about – if not, go HERE - MD)….

Is being replicated today? You have active intelligence that tells you people coming back from Iraq, coming back from Afghanistan, who might be mad at the military, who might simply have post-traumatic stress disorder are being actively recruited by extremist groups?

NAPOLITANO: Certainly. And our department is not the only department that has made that comment. The FBI has made the same comment; other groups have made the same comment.

Indeed – the FBI ‘launched’ their ‘nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," – outlining their initiative back in February, but careful to included reference to “focusing on Veterans” back in December, so that some part of it can be said to have occurred during the Bush administration – that both the FBI initiative and the rushed-past-the-lawyers DHS report both came into existence within the ‘First 100 Days’ are, of course, pure coincidence.


Keep in mind that whenever you hear Napolitano nebulously refer to “other groups” in this context, she’s referring to the Southern Poverty Law Center – a group that considers the American legion to be a greater evil than illegal immigration – so as they say, ‘consider the source’


Oh, but wait – here’s the part where Napolitano tries to shift away from being anti-conservative/military…

NAPOLITANO: Here is the important point. The report is not saying that veterans are extremists.

Far from it.

What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that.

OOoooh, I see…

So it’s NOT that veterans are extremists!

It’s that they’re weak-minded rubes who are likely to be lured into committing violent acts against the same country they’ve foolishly volunteered to defend in the past!

Of course! “Targets”! Soft-headed victims!

After all, coming from the military, it’s already obvious that they’re that special blend of “explosion-addicted-thrill-killer” and “chronic-follower” that would just be floating adrift among their civilian-betters , just waiting for someone to give them the ‘Green Light’ for another ‘Oklahoma City’.

Right?!?

Asshat.

*************
As a quick aside – in the face of all of the recurring “this is just like the 90’s” theme, someone (a great many ‘someones’ in fact) seems to have left out that the most glaring similarity between then and now is the election of a president with both an extremely low opinion of the US military and a desire to enact draw-downs in spite of increasing global threats to our country from abroad.

I may be out here on my own with this, but I find it …strange… that such stellar ‘experts’ in link analysis should miss that one.
************


Another favorite:

NAPOLITANO: That's why the Obama administration wants to work with returning vets and make sure they've got healthcare, education opportunities, job opportunities, all the like so that they do not become a target of these extremist groups.

‘Because the-FSM-knows that the military doesn’t afford education or the kind of experience that would parlay into job opportunities!’

I can’t decide whether I’m impressed or disappointed that she left out “bitterly clinging to their guns and religion.”


Okay – I’ve got several really good Napolitano-isms from this interview, and The Monster is already going to be vexed with me over ‘going long’ so, moving on - here’s the next one.

KING: Who are these groups? Do you have active investigations of anti-immigration groups or anti-abortion groups, you believe that they are preparing to conduct terrorist attacks?

NAPOLITANO: Well, without going into ongoing work, let's just point out to history. And we'll take the abortion, for example. Of course, people have different points of view about abortion. The last thing the Department of Homeland Security is about is infringing on anybody's constitutionally protected rights. On the other hand, at the very edge of the debate, at the very edge are the extremist groups that have committed violent crimes. They've committed bombings and the like.

Okay leaving aside that she doesn’t *EVER* seem to be able to give a straight answer to this question, no matter how many times it’s asked… Whatever happened to ‘abandoning the politics of fear’ – “They’ve committed Bombings”?

Eric Rudolph, last time I checked, was the quintessential ‘lone-gunman’ – I don’t recall the Feds chasing a ‘terrorist group’ into the Appalachian mountains.

In fact, while the past 30-odd years since Roe v. Wade has certainly had its share of anti-abortion violence, each and every instance has been committed by lone whack-jobs, acting on their own initiative – in fact, unless you’re referring to the “Army of God” (the fake-anthrax-letter-threatening terrorist group) ...

Or the “American Coalition of Life Activists” (the non-specifically-threatening-website terrorist group), I’d really like it if someone would chime in and point out some abortion-focused domestic terrorist groups…. It’s okay, take your time – I’ll wait.


From the Department of Homeland Transparency…

KING: A controversial decision this past week to make public top-secret memos from the Bush administration about the interrogation tactics, about waterboarding, about slamming people into walls, tactics that make you recoil when you read them. There's a big debate, though. Even the current CIA director, Leon Panetta, did not want them made public. He thought that was not fair to the people in the intelligence community. You were in those meetings. What was your vote, and do you see any harm in releasing them?

NAPOLITANO: Well, I think the content of those meetings is for the actual participants. But I think the release of them is very consistent with what President Obama said during the campaign and how he is conducting his government. It's about transparency. It's about accountability. And he released them.

I’m not going long here about the obvious problems with this, or even about how the release of these memos, at this time, is so obviously a ploy at ‘Look! Pretty-Shiny! Be Distracted!’

All I’m going to say is this: “If the release of this information is so vitally important, then so is the release of an accounting of the terrorist operations that were successfully disrupted as a result of said interrogation.”

If ‘comprehensive transparency’ is so important – then give us ‘comprehensive transparency’ – don’t throw out sparkly baubles and call it ‘transparency'.


I know I’m going on here – but this interview is just a treasure-trove of enlightenment in the form of non-answers to straight-forward questions, like “Are we more, or less, safe?”:

KING: Vice President Cheney, … said, because of the changes your boss, the president of the United States, is making in anti-terror policies and that you are implementing, that the American people are less safe, in his view.
Can you look the American people in the eye this morning and say not only is he wrong, which I assume the administration would say, but that the Americans are more safe because of the changes?

NAPOLITANO: I can look you in the eye, I can look the American people in the eye and say, every day we think about the safety of the American people. We think about protection from terrorist acts abroad, we think about protection from terrorist acts internally. We believe that you don't need a Guantanamo to improve the safety of the American people and to minimize the risk of terrorist acts.

I’m pretty good at this reading-comprehension thing, but for the life of me, I just can’t find the answer to his question in there – and I would think that any Obama-appointee would jump at the chance to shout “Cheney’s Wrong!”

... but she won’t.


Wrapping it up now – and with my favorite anti-illegal-immigration guy: Sheriff Joe Arpaio

KING: A lot of Democrats in Congress want to you investigate him. They think he is over the line. He says he is just enforcing the law and the problem is the federal government.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren't enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

So we have a Secretary of Homeland Security who either thinks that illegally “crossing the border is not a crime per se.” OR is really, truly gifted at word parsing.

Let’s Review:

US Code – Title8, Chapter12, SubCh2, Part8 § 1325. Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who

(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

Last time I checked, a legal punishment of “Imprisonment + Fines” = “Crime”

Although, if you strictly apply her phrasing – she could technically be correct.

“Crossing the border” is not a crime per se…

Crossing the border “to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
attempting to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact”

… now that is a crime.

Conveniently, she didn’t say that though, did she?


Most. Transparent. Government. Ever.


God help us.

- MuscleDaddy

An Inconvenient Truth of Antarctic Ice

The GoreBull WarmingClimate Change hysterics love to point to ice falling from West Antarctica as proof that The Sky Is Falling. But one part of one continent does not a "globe" make. The far larger East Antarctica is showing signs of ice thickening there:

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years.

The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

Don't expect the MainScream Media to cover anything that might call into question the "settled scientific consensus".

A Symbol...

I was listening to a Raleigh, NC talk radio show last Thursday (Bill LuMaye on WPTF) as Bill and a woman caller discussed the Raleigh Tea Party. The lady said that "we" needed some kind of "symbol" so that other like-minded folks could identify kindred spirits.

Friends and neighbors...we've got one:

Image courtesy of Chris Whitten

Dating back to 1775, the coiled rattlesnake on a yellow background has stood for resistance to tyranny. It is thought that Benjamin Franklin saw the emblem painted on drums carried by American Marines and, writing as "An American Guesser", observed that the rattlesnake is found in "no other quarter of the world besides America" and that the rattlesnake also has sharp eyes and "may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance".

But Franklin's name isn't attached to the flag which bears the rattlesnake emblem. That is reserved for Christopher Gadsden, a leader of the Sons of Liberty in South Carolina who was later made a Colonel in the Continental Army. Being in Philadelphia in 1775 representing his home state in the Continental Congress, he could have read "American Guesser's" musings and might have seen the emblem on the drums of the Marines. In any event, the coiled rattlesnake on a yellow background is know as the "Gadsden Flag".

Now there are numerous places you can purchase Gadsden Flags on the web. Ruffin Flag Company in South Carolina is one that I've used before but there seems to be a problem with their web site. There is also Flagline.com, For stickers and magnets try Gadsden and Culpeper.

There are folks out there coming up with wonderful new emblems for this "take back America" movement, the upside down teapot being one of the best I've seen so far. But being the history nut that I am (along with being a "Right Wing Extremist"), I'm in favor of using something that has meant the same thing for better than 300 years: Leave me ALONE!

Post late and avoid the rush

Fox-9 reported 2000 attending in St. Paul, as did the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. My guess is more like 6000 to 8000. But what do I know.

Iowahawk: The Mary Hamsher Moore Show

Iowahawk delivers another masterpiece. Go catch up on all your favorites, including Managing Editor Lou Soros, Anchorman Ted Olbermann, Head Writer Murray Emmanuel, and Mary's neighbor Rhoda Madow. As usual, some of the funniest stuff is in the commercials.

The Domestic Extremists that DHS isn't writing about

By now, you’ve either read or heard about the recent reports alerting local law enforcement authorities to the burgeoning threats of “right-wing-extremists” and “dangerous militia groups”.

If you’ve read through the pages of breathless “analysis” of both DHS’ “Rightwing Extremism Report” and the MIAC “Modern Militia Movement Report” , then you’ve been fully informed that Law Enforcement at Federal, State & Local levels are charged with keeping a vigilant eye out for such potentially dangerous indicators as:

- Being a military veteran

- Being opposed to ever-greater government control over the lives of individuals

- Being dedicated to such ‘single issues’ as opposition to abortion or illegal-immigration, or support for your individual Rights as recognized in the U.S. Constitution.

- Displaying ‘Ron Paul’ or ‘Bob Barr’ bumper-stickers

You would also think, by the metronome-drumbeat of “Timothy McVeigh – Timothy McVeigh” coming from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, that ‘disgruntled right-winger military vets’ are the greatest threat to domestic security since The One took Office – particularly since “…the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”

But that involves an awful–lot of ‘could’, ‘might’, ‘may’ and ‘nothing specific’.


What about actual terrorist groups – actually in training camps right now – who are dedicated to the death of Americans right now…

…all operating inside the United States?

Join me below-the-fold, and we’ll take a look at:

Who doesn’t rate a “threat assessment report” from the Department of Homeland Security?


Terrorists training in North America

Though you’re not likely to hear about this from anyone in the Obama administration, there are known Islamic terrorist groups operating and training within the United States.

Most recently, you would have heard about this on Sean Hannity’s show on FNC , where he reported “35 Compounds” within the US – which is about as close to the MSM as the story is likely to get – CBS ran a story about the “Homegrown Jihad” video released by the Christian Action Network , but apparently for the purpose of panning it, as they leaned heavily on an ‘official’ quote:

“Officials describe the film to CBS News as "sensationalistic" and without any real foundation. According to one official, it is strictly designed to upset and inflame people and does not present a true picture of any so-called “homegrown Jihad” danger. No current intelligence exists to suggest any threat connected with this group, which officials describe as “wannabes” and not terrorists.

The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are aware of the movie and have no plans at this time to issue any new alerts or bulletins.”

'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain', I guess - but...

“No current intelligence exists to suggest any threat connected with this group” – is not what you find when you look beneath the press release…

Jamaat ul-Fuqra

In 2005 the National White Collar Crime Center issued a report entitled “Identifying the Links between White-Collar Crime and Terrorism”, which dealt primarily with the Crime/Terrorism connections uncovered in a multi-state investigation of the very same group currently being identified by both Sean Hannity and the Christian Action Network video.

From the report:

"It is believed that over thirty-five (35) Jamaats have existed in the U.S. since 1980, in addition to more than a dozen “covert training compounds” in Colorado, Texas, New York, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, California, Oregon, Washington, Maryland, Alabama, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Tennessee (see Map of Selected Fuqra Activities).
In 1991, Canadian authorities also discovered a 232-acre compound in Ontario that housed at least sixteen Fuqra members.

Reportedly, the group has openly supported Muslim Kashmiri separatists against the Indian government and has indirectly been involved in the Sihhalese conflict in Sri Lanka.

Over the past few decades, it is believed that the U.S. Fuqra has been preparing for and engaging in a holy war (Jihad) against individuals and groups they perceive to be their enemy. These enemies include Israel, the Nation of Islam, Hindus, Ansar Muslims, East Indians, Jews, the Jewish Defense League, Hare Krishnas, Buddists, and the U.S. government. Since the formation of Fuqra in the U.S., it is suspected that Fuqra members and associates have been involved in at least thirteen murders and sixteen bombings. (See Appendix B for partial Listing)"

Helpful soul that I am – here’s Appendix B – and a map of compound and activity locations:





NOTE:
As you continue through this little walk down domestic-terrorist-lane, keep in mind that the NW3C report refers to enormous, multi-state investigations, involving dozens of law enforcement agencies – surely the kind of thing that DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis should have picked up on… if they were of-a-mind – or allowed-to.

While I personally have more than enough experience with the NW3C to believe and respect their scholarship on this matter, they are by no means the only ones who’ve been ringing this bell.

- The Canada Free Press did an excellent job on the same matter back in 2007
(with another compound-map ... I love maps)



- The Northeast Intelligence Network (a group of professional investigators, analysts, military affairs specialists and researchers) have been investigating this very matter since 2004


- “Politics of CP” (another blogging investigator) started delving into Domestic Islamic Terrorism back in October of 2005 – Go peruse his links-list on the topic.
(and I thought I was obsessed!)

So now that we’ve fairly established that the threat of Domestic Islamic Terrorism is REAL and HERE and KNOWN by various state law enforcement agencies (having conducted fruitful raids and arrests), it’s time to ask:

*WHY* the Department of Homeland Security is burning precious resources to release “Threat Assessment” (non) reports, identifying “Red Flags” that will have Law Enforcement scrutinizing nearly anyone who didn’t vote for Obama in November?

*WHY* does a search of “Jamaat ul-Fuqra” on the DHS.gov site return ‘No Results’?


*WHY* does reference to “Jamaat ul-Fuqra” ONLY appear on the FEMA site, suggesting that they know they’re going to have to deal with this after-the-fact eventually?


Why?


Personally (and given everything laid out here) I’m going to have to agree with former FBI special agent John Guandolo

“Guandolo worked in the FBI since 1996, including nine years as a member of its SWAT team. After 9/11, he worked in the Bureau's Washington Field Office's Counterterrorism Division, developing expertise concerning Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood organizations and the Islamic movement in the U.S.

He now works with Stephen Coughlin, former Islamic Expert for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to advise leaders at the federal level and also brief local law enforcement about the Islamic threat at home.

…Guandolo said that federal leadership is reluctant to act against these Islamic organizations due to political correctness and the threats of lawsuits.

Also presented was a viewing of the documentary "Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around the U.S.", produced by the group Christian Action Network (CAN).

CAN also wants to have Jamaat ul-Fuqra placed on the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization Watch List, which would shut down the camps.

Guandolo said that "cowardess" has prevented officials from taking action about the camps scattered across the country.

"We see at the local and state level, a lot of anger towards the federal government, and that anger is well placed."

Indeed – for here we are, and Secretary Napolitano would have us checking bumper-stickers and campaign-signs for the next possible blond-haired, blue-eyed, active-duty example of ‘Domestic Terrorism’ ...

…so as not to upset “The Boss”.


Are we doomed?

If we let these people continue to call the plays, maybe we deserve to be.


- MuscleDaddy

[Click here to see the full article.]

Houston Tea Party

They held the Local Insurrection at a place called Jones Plaza, downtown. It's basically a one block amphitheater. It was packed to overflowing. According to the website there were over 8000 people who signed in and you had to actually get into the plaza to reach the sign in sheets.




I seem to remember hearing that phrase some where before.


The cops didn't have much to do.



Still outside the arena.



We finally got inside.




Lest you think we were only there to bash Democrats.


Now this is a nametag!

A surprise visit.

Funny, I always thought he would be taller.

I think this guy won the sign contest


And what protest would be complete without a tale of bureaucratic genius. We brought flags instead of signs. When we got into the plaza they made us break the sticks. So now, instead of a flag on a two foot blunt stick, we had a flag on a one foot sharp stick. Brilliant!

I thought I had a picture of the guy handing out free copies of "Atlas Shrugged" but the camera must have eaten it. They were signing people up as they handed out the books. I should have found out where he was from but I'm new at this reporter thing.

[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
We only stayed a couple of hours. While we could hear the speakers I never got a shot of the stage.

Sorry folks - no pics.

I know I told a bunch of you that I'd be posting pics from the Denver Tea Party today - best-laid plans, and all that.

Yesterday, MuscleMommy had both cameras loaded-up-full with pics that she didn't want to move, and rather than either insisting or taking MuscleBaby's camera (which chews through batteries like jellybeans) - I used a friend's camera.

Zoomed-in / zoomed-out, pushed the button and heard the happy-little-camera-noises on what should have been some damned-iconic pictures - except that apparently, it was all a trick and the only pics in the camera this morning are two partial-crowd sections that could have come from anywhere.

Sorry about that - next time I'll know better.

- MD

Nothing to see here, move along.

By now, most of the Dextrosphere (including our own MuscleDaddy) has weighed in on the DHS Memo on "Rightwing Extremism" Those of the sinister persuasion, and even "moderates" like Jazz Shaw think we're all a-twitter about nothing.
His basic point seems to be this:

The only way this isn’t Fauxrage is if you you think these extremist descriptions apply to you. If you don’t, then you’re dancing with straw men to score cheap political points. If you do, then I hope the DHS catches up with you before you kill someone.

Hardly. The problem is not that I think the "extremist descriptions" apply to me, but that DHS may think so. After all, I'm a white male who has actually read the Constitution, and thinks that our national government far exceeds the authority it has been granted. Anyone who's heard my opinions on political issues (whether they like it or not) knows that I advocate repeal of several Amendments that have increased that authority (16, 17, and 23 right off the top of my head). I've opposed nearly everything the current administration has done (allowing SEALs the green light to pop pirates is the obvious exception). That makes me an "extremist" from the frame of reference of a typical government employee. Given the similar report in Missouri (located less than a mile from my home in Kansas City, KS), there's plenty of reason for concern that someone would think I'm one of those wack jobs.

In reading the DHS document, I found something that really chilled me. Under the final section of the report, entitled "Outlook", are these ominous paragraphs (emphasis mine):

(U//FOUO) A number of law enforcement actions and external factors were effective in limiting the militia movement during the 1990s and could be utilized in today’s climate.

— (U//FOUO) Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received after the bombing.
— (U//FOUO) Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary training, and militia frustration that the “revolution” never materialized.

...

Apparently I'm paranoid to connect the dots here. I see the Department of Homeland Security saying that either a successful Reichstagsbrand bombing of a government office building, or one which Law Enforcement happens to disrupt, but "link" to those extremist RethugliKKKan wingnuts, could be utilized in today's climate to effectively limit the "militia movement".

I'm told that the word "could" means they're just talking about a possibility here. They aren't actually planning to have an agent provacateur push some poor soul into plotting a terrorist act, and then either stop it before too many people get hurt, or let it actually happen to more effectively utilize the crisis. I'm completely nuts to think someone could want to do that:

"You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste" -White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel

Hey, if I'm paranoid to connect those dots and say that a government employee could want a pretext for a crackdown on political opposition, what does it make the DHS staffers who produced this report about what members of that political opposition could do?
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]