The Chart Obama Does NOT Want You To See

The MSM will be pointing at a fractional reduction in one measure of "unemployment" that conveniently doesn't count the people who have been out of work so long they no longer qualify for unemployment insurance payments. This is the Bureau of Labor Statistics' chart showing the percentage of people over 16 who have a job:

Firewall: Fast and Furious

In the latest Firewall, Bill is furious about Fast and Furious. As always, it's recommended viewing.

Capital Games: Buffet BS.

The new proposal to "close loopholes" that allow "rich people" like Warren Buffet to pay a lower (capital gains) tax rate than his secretary pays (on current earned income) offers an enlightened Republican response that is not only reasonable, but ought to be supported by a broad base of the electorate.

The problem with comparing long-term capital gains apples to other income oranges is that the former treats purely paper "gains" as if they were real. Let's try a hypothetical example to flesh this out:

Suppose that ten years ago, I bought shares in a European company at €100/share. On the exact same day, a German citizen also bought shares at that same price. (Over the intervening years, we may or may not have gotten dividends from the company, in which case we'd have paid taxes on those dividends. Whether we did or not has no real bearing on the rest of this.) Today, we each sell our shares, at exactly €100/share. We didn't make any long-term capital gain on our shares, but we didn't lose any either.

But wait. In the intervening decade, the US Dollar lost value against the Euro. My broker puts $150 into my account for every share I sold. (A "low" inflation rate of just over 4% is all it takes to erode 50% of the purchasing power of a unit of currency in just ten years.) And now the IRS tells me I have to pay tax on that $50/share "profit". Never mind that $150 today isn't worth any more than $100 ten years ago.

Why should I be taxed for my $50/share "profit" when I have not really profited at all. My German counterpart pays no tax for two reasons: First, the Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Federal Central Tax Office) would not consider him to have made a profit by selling for precisely what he'd originally paid for the asset. Secondly, Germany taxes capital gains at the rate of ZERO.

Now, my proposal is not to calculate capital gains in Euros or any other currency that gains and loses value. Instead, I propose that real capital gains on assets held over a year be taxed at the same rate as any other income, but that the calculation of what actually constitutes a "gain" in the first place.

A slight increase in complexity of calculating the profit/loss for an asset held over a year is required: The taxpayer should be allowed to refer to a published table of an appropriate inflation index (such as CPI) to calculate what tax codes call a "stepped-up basis" in the asset: The taxpayer would be allowed to subtract the value in current dollars of their original investment.

What would the effect be of this proposal? For assets held just a few years that appreciate very quickly, the effective tax rate could actually go up a bit from what people are currently paying, but for assets held for a longer time, it will go down or even be eliminated in the case of assets that do not gain any real value. I don't know whether it would be revenue-neutral, but it would be a fairer way to tax capital gains, and it would encourage people to make long-term investments, which should be good for the economy.

I do know this: it would deprive the Left of one of their big class-warfare weapons. They could no longer point to "special loopholes for rich people" to gain votes. It would also deprive the government of the perverse incentive to print too much money, debase the currency, and get to collect tax on inflationary "gains".

And because Warren Buffet makes a lot of money on capital gains, he ought to get his wish, and pay a higher rate.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Firewall 10: SOTU Response

Bill is back with another Firewall:


Threely for this post: http://3.ly/Firewall10

Postrel: Obama is Glamorous; Palin isn't

Labour hid ugly truth about National Health Service (NHS)

Interesting article in the Times Online about the uncovering of three reports (took a freedom of information request) commissioned by Lord Darzi from international consultancies to assess the progress of the NHS as it approached its 60th anniversary in 2008.

Money quote: “The risk of consequences to managers is much greater for not meeting expectations from above than for not meeting expectations of patients and families.”

And this is one of the models for Obamacare?!?

A Rock Star in the White House?

I was grabbing a bite of lunch yesterday in a little barbecue joint that has Fox News on the TV, so when they broke in to go live to Obama's comments on the economy I watched while I finished eating. Now the sound was turned down so I couldn't hear what was being said, but what I saw was amazing. Obama was bouncing around shaking hands. Then he bounced up on stage, went by the podium, hugged a woman and then stepped up to began.

"My God" I though. "I've finally figured it out. He thinks he's a blooming rock star!"

Now I don't know if Obama and his handlers didn't realize that the cameras were on....or they just don't care how he looks; but what I saw was in no way Presidential or dignified. The man has no clue what kind of image he is projecting. And I probably would not have caught it if the sound had been turned up because I would have tuned it out and not have been paying attention.

Interestingly a friend who I told about this went to the Fox News website and tried to find the clip.....and said that he couldn't. So I don't know if Fox didn't save it or just has not posted that portion of the clip. But I would like someone else to see this and tell me if I'm imagining things. Because for all his faults, and they were many, I never saw Bill Clinton behave that way. And certainly not W or Reagan.

Critiquing the Speech: Mandates

I subjected myself to President Obama's health care speech, and some things really struck me about the illogic he tried to foist upon us. I'll zero in on a single issue here: Mandates

President Obama said this about mandates:

If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits.
...
There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

This defies logic.

Those people who can afford coverage are the ones willing and able to pay for their health care out of their own pockets, reasoning that they'll pay less that way than if they buy insurance. Only if they're among the few people who have more paid out in benefits than they pay in as premiums will they come out ahead by buying the insurance. They're gambling that it won't happen to them if they go without any health insurance at all, and the odds are on their side.

Some people, (like Whole Foods employees) purchase low-premium, high-deductible policies that are unlikely to pay a dime for an individual employee in any given year. That way they're covered if they're in the group that actually runs up more bills than premiums over the long term, saving themselves from financial ruin if they're unlucky. But the President's proposal would take that choice away. It will force people to spend money on insurance they have rational reasons not to buy.

This is just the opposite of what insurance is supposed to be for. We buy insurance to cover events that are rare and very bad for our finances, like the untimely death of a parent with children to support. We know that insurance companies make profits, and their employees earn salaries, their suppliers need to be paid, etc. We buy insurance knowing that in the long run we're likely to lose a little money, to protect against the risk that we lose far, far, more.

It is stupid to purchase insurance for things that are relatively likely to happen, but not particularly expensive. For those things, we should budget our money, saving up so we can afford to pay for them. But managing our own finances wisely is too much like personal responsibility, anathema to community organizers who insist on "social responsibility".
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Of course you can keep your coverage...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what's in 100(c)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Unions Attack... Each Other

Robbing from some workers to pay other workers...

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock revealed this week that his state’s police and teacher pension funds have lost millions of dollars in the Chrysler ‘restructuring.’ Indiana’s State Police Fund and Major Moves Construction Fund, which finances roads and bridges, together lost more than $1 million. And the Teacher’s Retirement Fund ’suffered, at a minimum, a loss of $4.6 million due to the action of the Federal government,’ reports Mr. Mourdock. Far from being speculators, these funds represent retired public employees, including cops and teachers. The funds paid a premium to buy ’secured’ status, only to discover that they were politically outranked by the United Auto Workers in the White House hierarchy. ‘In the past, to be secured meant an investor was first in line in the event of a bankruptcy and ‘non-secured’ creditors would receive value after secured-creditors were paid,’ Mr. Mourdock says. ‘In the Chrysler bankruptcy, however, secured creditors received $.29 on the dollar even as non-secured creditors [the UAW] received higher values and ended up with a 55% ownership of the new company, which is fundamentally wrong and a dangerous precedent to the capital markets.’

All of those public employee unions who voted for Obama must be really thrilled at how well he looks out for union members. And the new majority owners of Chrysler are suddenly thrust into a novel situation. Now they are both management and labor; when their "brothers" on the line are slacking off, and costing the company money, they might have a whole new attitude about that.

Visual Aid

Thanks, Don!

The message of the $328,000 photo

It seems like a lot for one photograph, but that’s what the Obama White House is admitting to as the sole release from the “Scare Force One” debacle on April 27th.

Here’s the third-of-a-million-dollars picture.



Now, being of a somewhat ‘artistic’ bent myself, I like to think that I have a pretty good eye for visual composition – what draws the eye to a particular focus, balance in telling the visual-story, etc.

When I first saw this picture, my first thought (after: “doesn’t hardly seem worth it”) was that it was just a really bad picture – that it was failing to tell the story.

But maybe not… maybe it was just me trying to see the message that I would have expected to see, and so not being able to see the story actually being told.

Victor Massad at American Thinker has a different take on the image-as-released and, unfortunately, it makes more sense than trying to tease my pro-American expectation out of what’s been placed in front of us.


The Visual Subtext of the Statue of Liberty Fly-by Photo


While fairly short, this one isn’t a “light read” by any means – I encourage you to go forth to AT and grok-in-fullness, but here are a couple of the pieces that leap off the page.

"The figure is an aircraft that serves as Air Force One, representing the Messianic omnipotence of the Obama presidency.

Below it, part of the background -- a small and less relevant thing in comparison to the aircraft -- stands the Statue of Liberty, representing the individual freedoms that Americans have come to treasure and enjoy."

"The message and its purpose could not be clearer: we must reset our priorities.

Now that the democracy is at last headed by this magnificent and elegant man, we must put the federal government and its needs ahead of our paltry individual freedoms.

Of what value, after all, is the property Americans have spent their lifetimes to acquire, or one's right to defend oneself with a firearm, or even the privilege of living in an upwardly mobile society that used to be the envy of the rest of the world, in comparison to the Leader's magnificently powerful icon, glistening like a phoenix in the sun?"

"In psychology, this is referred to as the "perpiheral route to persuasion." It refers to the phenomenon whereby an audience is more affected by symbols in a message than by the logic of the message itself."

"In the case of "Air Farce One" the President's communications people may have reversed their former position to withhold the photo from public release under the logic that the peripheral persuasiveness of the photograph would ultimately prevail over the cognitive reasoning that the thing was a waste of taxpayer money.

And, given this president's success with peripheral persuasion, they may very well be right."

(Indeed, since it seems that The One has no problem panning for laughs on the very topic that had him so 'infuriated' 2 weeks ago)


It is ever-so-rare that I need someone to ‘pop’ me in the back of the head with a: “Duh - It’s right in front of you.”


Thank you, Mr. Massad, for showing us the forest.

- MuscleDaddy

A Letter to Attorney General Holder

Malkin provided the link, but I'm reposting this in its entirety, (w/small "format-de-globbing" & emphasis changes) because the National Review Institute's page is completely hosed-up - MD
======================================================

Andrew C. McCarthy

May 1, 2009

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.


The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.”

I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith.

Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States).

Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues.

I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct.

Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities.

This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case.

Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.”

Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

For what it may be worth, I will say this much.

For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated.

Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission.

Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals.But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing:

Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted.

We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year.

The President did this even though he and you

(a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility,

(b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and

(c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules.

Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried.

Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance.

I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees.

According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training.

Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States.

The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness.

But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York.

It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties.

It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States.

I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment.

In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology.

Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial.

It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,

/S/

Andrew C. McCarthy

cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

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

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

Napolitano stands by risks report

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh-huh...

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

- MuscleDaddy

Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremism” Setup

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

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


(Here’s the link to the .pdf)


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

“Where are you getting your information?”

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

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

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


Let’s Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, included under ‘Rightwing Extremism’ are:

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

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

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


…So much for ‘asterisks’.

Onward.

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

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

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

Very informative – Very Useful.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Oooh, I see.

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

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


Okay!

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


Followed Immediately By:

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

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

But seriously – “Returning Veterans”?

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

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

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


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

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

- MuscleDaddy

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

Nothing to see here, folks - move along.

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

Obama to allow travel, money transfers to Cuba

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

Real-Quick, here:

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

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

- it's just money leaving our economy

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

*sigh*

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

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

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


But now I see.


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

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

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


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

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


More. Comfortable.


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

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


Right?


- MuscleDaddy

Ramussen Poll shows more than Economic Preference

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

So sayeth the Ramussen Phone Poll...

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

Let's Review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay - enough fun - looking back:

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

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

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

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

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

- more than one wrote "My Parents".

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

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

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


Sorry, what's that you say?

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

Not really, as it turns out.

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

Death of the Grown-Up

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

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


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


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

- MuscleDaddy

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

White House Seeks Muslim Adherents for Government Posts

(I swear, this wasn't intended as a continuation of the last post - MD)


This one has been floating around for a while now - strangely, no one is picking it up.

Obama gets list of top Muslim Americans

"In a bid to get more Muslim Americans working in the Obama administration, a book with resumes of 45 of the nation's most qualified — Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 executives and public servants, all carefully vetted — has been submitted to the White House."

"The effort, driven by community leaders and others, including U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., was bumped up two weeks because White House officials heard about the venture, said J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, who sifted through more than 300 names."

Okay - covering some of the basic points:


- Yes, that's the same "Rep. Keith Ellison, (D-Minn)" who made his pilgrimage to Mecca with the sponsorship of the "Muslim American Society".

- Yes, that would be the same "Muslim American Society" that is the US arm of the "Muslim Brotherhood"

- Yes, that is the same "Muslim Brotherhood" who funds and supports terrorist actions across the world and whose mission in the U.S. (as handed down by its council) includes:

"The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means.

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

There - now that we're clear on that set of connections (and I'm not even taking the obvious shot at referring to Democrats in the same paragraph with the phrase "carefully vetted")

- let's move on to the more obvious and Ameri-centric questions.... Oh, like:


Why is the United States Government seeking applicants for White House posts based on their religion?


"Ivy-League-Fortune-500-blah-blah-blah" - while ladling-on the modifications, they're still being quite up-front about seeking out these people for their adherence to Islam, and considering any other qualifications second.


Umm.., I'm sorry for potentially summoning them but where, may I ask, are the usual "Separation Clause" suspects?

You know, the ones who regularly shovel money into the court system over such 'oppressive' displays of "Christianism" as "In God We Trust" or, that dream-killing "One Nation, Under God"?

Well - Let's take a look:



Wow.

Color me Shocked.

Okay, though - let's try a test-search..just to be sure:



Notice that last part there? "Objecting to Government Promotion of"

What do you think...

- would "Seeking out Muslims for White House positions" rate as "Government Promotion"?

Because I'm thinking it does.

"Hue & Cry", anyone?


- MuscleDaddy