I am America

America's new culture war: Free enterprise vs. government

Arthur C. Brooks had a column in yesterday's Washington Post (?!?).

Read it. Print it out. Email it to your friends. He nails it!

Money quotes:

"When it comes to support for free enterprise, we are essentially a 70(for)-30(against) nation.

"Free enterprise brings happiness; redistribution does not. The reason is that only free enterprise brings earned success."

"The 70 percent majority, meanwhile, believes that ingenuity and hard work should be rewarded."

"What matters most to Americans is the commitment to principle, not the exercise of power. The electorate did not repudiate free enterprise in 2008; it simply punished an unprincipled Republican Party."

Reason TV: I Am Free Enterprise

A reminder of what the creeping corporatism of the regime will destroy:

Day by Day: Declarative

Chris Muir tries Bill's challenge to write out the words of the Declaration of Independence by hand:


You are reading Day by Day, well, day by day, aren't you?

CA: What is CIFTA, and why you should care.

The Blogger Formerly Known As MuscleDaddy has done another of his detailed analyses of what Big Brother wants to do forto you. This time, it's about the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms (CIFTA) treaty. Why does it matter? Because if it is signed and ratified by the US, it will make a lot of US citizens criminals, for the "crime" of reloading their own ammunition, even if it's only for their own personal use, and they never sell it to anyone. What with legislators laughing at the very idea of reading bills before they're voted into law, there's a huge risk that this beast.

I can't really do it justice by pulling quotes. Get over there and read the whole thing. But not too close to dinnertime.

Reading (Bills) is Fundamental

By now, everyone who pays attention to how the US Congress operates knows that many bills are passed into law without most Congressmen having actually read what they voted for. I was listening to KMBZ's Scott Parks explaining why Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO5), being one of the few members of Congress who is not a lawyer, might have to rely upon a staff member who is one, to read bills on his behalf and tell him what they mean.

I was gobsmacked. Cleaver has a Master of Divinity degree and is an ordained minister. That means he has more education than the average US citizen. If the laws enacted by Congress are impossible for such a man to understand, how can the rest of us, who must obey those laws, understand them well enough to do so? The entire point of a "government of laws, not of men" is that the law will be well known and understood by the people it governs, so that those people can live their lives free of the threat of force being imposed upon them.

Just as our constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws (which criminalize past acts, which were legal when they were committed) and Bills of Attainder (which legislatively declare guilt, without benefit of a trial), I believe legislation beyond the reading comprehension required of those expected to obey it is unconstitutional. The constitution also protects the right to trial by jury, which at the time it was adopted would have implied a random selection of people of the community in which the crime is alleged to have taken place. The Framers were well aware of the jury in Zenger nullifying a law they considered unjust. I believe it is a reasonable assumption that a jury so empowered would also acquit someone charged with violating a confusing law.

Unfortunately, judges and prosecutors conspire to deprive jurors of their inherent power. Perhaps an amendment is in order. I'd prefer one explicitly enumerating jury nullification, but I'd take this as a consolation prize: No law may be enacted that is beyond the comprehension required of high-school graduates, except if it only applies to certain industries, in which case it might apply technical language that is common knowledge in those industries.

Declaration of Dependence

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

This Representative Republic allows for too many States' rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed,



No other signatories needed

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

H.R. 1966: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


H.R. 1966: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act


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

Let’s Review:

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

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

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


Section 2: Findings

Congress finds the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…me too.

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

‘Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

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

‘(b) As used in this section--

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

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

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

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

If the definition of “communication’ is:

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


And if the definition of “electronic means” is:

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


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

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


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


Television and Radio.


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

Only a tiny bit of extra effort.

But they didn’t.


- MuscleDaddy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(like the 'Katrina' reference?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The President shall establish or designate a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel.

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

“Other appropriate organizations” - outside of those listed?

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

SEC. 5. STATE AND REGIONAL CYBERSECURITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Why am I uncomfortable with that?

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

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

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

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


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

How’s that for a disturbing feedback-loop?


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

SEC. 6. NIST STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT AND COMPLIANCE.

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

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

Um…

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


Uh-oh.

d) COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT- The Director shall--

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

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

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

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


Can I get a “NO!” in here?!?


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

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

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

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


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

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

SEC. 14. PUBLIC-PRIVATE CLEARINGHOUSE.

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

(b) FUNCTIONS- The Secretary of Commerce—

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

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


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

SEC. 15. CYBERSECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT.

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

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

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

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


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

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

The President—

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

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

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

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

Let's Review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


- MuscleDaddy

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

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

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

Napolitano stands by risks report

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh-huh...

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

- MuscleDaddy

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

Obama to allow travel, money transfers to Cuba

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

Real-Quick, here:

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

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

- it's just money leaving our economy

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

*sigh*

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

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

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


But now I see.


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

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

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


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

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


More. Comfortable.


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

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


Right?


- MuscleDaddy

Ramussen Poll shows more than Economic Preference

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

So sayeth the Ramussen Phone Poll...

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

Let's Review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay - enough fun - looking back:

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

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

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

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

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

- more than one wrote "My Parents".

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

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

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


Sorry, what's that you say?

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

Not really, as it turns out.

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

Death of the Grown-Up

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

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


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


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

- MuscleDaddy

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

Obama Extends Central-Planning Grasp?

Senate legislators approve law eroding authority of Alaskan Governor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is our country coming to?


- MuscleDaddy

Obama Embraces Islam

The Capitulation Heard 'Round the World:

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

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

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

...particularly the perps from The List.


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

"It's only a small percentage"

"It's only the Fundamentalist Radicals"

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

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


But Consider This:

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

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

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

Naturally, You Would.


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

Of course not.

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

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


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

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

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

Haven't we already seen that movie?


Apparently, France still remembers how it turned out.

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



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


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



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

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

- Will break our country's financial back,

- Capitulate to those who seek our destruction, and

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


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


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

- MuscleDaddy

Obama Lacks the Authority...

...to do many of the things he's been doing apparently.

The One got on TV the other day, and went on a bit about how he doesn't want to run the auto companies.

"Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM," Obama said.

But, while he wants to 'make one thing perfectly clear' - some people may have been having a little trouble getting his words to line up with his actions.


Let's Review...


After the bailout monies got passed around Obama started doing things that (certainly to the untrained eye) made it look like "running the auto companies" was exactly what he was doing:


- He 'fired' the General Motors CEO, Rick Wagoner - as well as most of the board
(yes, yes, "suggested their resignations" - whatever, Obama pulled the trigger)

- He has PUSHED Chrysler (a PRIVATELY-HELD company, btw) into merging with Italian car company, Fiat - making it clear to Chrysler that their continued existence depends on the success of said merger.

- He is currently DEMANDING that they start making the "more fuel efficient cars" that HE wants them to build.


Now, I've been looking at all of this as simply incredible - that the President of the United States somehow has the authority to order US Companies to build what he wants, employ who he wants - and merge with foreign companies, all on his say-so?

The President of the United States has that kind of authority?

Congress has Voted and GIVEN HIM this extra-constitutional power?


...as it turns out... No. He Doesn't - And They Haven't.

Barack Obama has No Legal Authority to Direct the Restructuring of GM or Chrysler.

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that he does not know where President Barack Obama gained legal authority to oversee a restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler."

"House Majority Leader(D)"?

And guess who else can't figure where Obama's authority is coming from?

How about fellow Class-Warrior Chris Dodd?

"Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), meanwhile, toldCNSNews.com he was somewhat surprised that the administration did not consult with him at all about its auto industry plan despite his key committee chairmanship and that he had “been reading about it in the papers basically."

Dodd also said he had questions about the president’s proposal regarding Chrysler.

“One piece that has me somewhat perplexed is whether or not we are providing funds to Chrysler in order to make their position attractive to Fiat,” Dodd said. “That’s going to raise questions in people’s minds.”

Okay, but wait - that's TARP money!

If anything has been well-established thus far, it's that the law (however unconstitutional it may be) clearly states that if you take TARP money then the government owns you!

Chris Dodd finds that part to be something of a head-scratcher too...

Dodd, like Hoyer, expressed uncertainty when asked where the president got the authority to further fund the auto industry and oversee its restructuring given that TARP only authoriz[es] federal aid to financial institutions

Oh, wait.... these are Car Companies, aren't they?

The TARP law specifically says, “The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘TARP’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.”

“The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.”

But... that would mean that Obama couldn't use those "the-world-is-going-end-right-now-if-you-don't-give-us-this-money-without-strings-or-oversight" TARP funds to bailout, restructure or otherwise threaten automakers with in the first place!

Apparently, I'm not the only one who sees that:

Using TARP money to finance a government-driven restructuring of GM and Chrysler as announced by Obama would not be legal without a congressional authorization, said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

“No, it’s not legal without congressional approval,” Franks told CNSNews.com. “The language is clear. The money is directed toward financial institutions. But that may be the least of our challenge.

"The notion that government could specify what vehicles to make is ridiculous.”

Not. Legal.

So does that make the whole to-do into "Obama's Illegal War on American Corporations"

... it certainly has a certain ring to it, and Orin Hatch seems to agree too:

Hatch told CNSNews.com. “But I do not want the federal government dictating who runs corporations in this country. Now there is no question there is a lot of leverage with the federal funds. But it’s a very troubling thing that people think politicians can fire a leader of a company.”

Indeed - some people might even consider such a thing... "Unconstitutional".


"We The People" need to do something about this, before I end up using that word so many times in this "First 100 Days" that it loses its meaning.

- MuscleDaddy

We may be on the 'Losing Side' - ain't convinced that's the 'Wrong Side'

Take the quiz and then go man your station:
Here's mine:



Seems to only make sense - seeing how many of us 'Aim to Misbehave'.

- MuscleDaddy

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

Just in case you weren't clear on this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No financial institution... may,

... make a compensation payment...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, wait... 

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

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


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


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

(3) REPORTING REQUIREMENT-

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

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

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

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

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

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

- MuscleDaddy

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.

SEC. 9. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED.

(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:

``SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
``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.

``SEC. 303B. CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL POWERS.

``(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

- ...to 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