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?!?

RTC: Dog Whistles and Golf-Ball-Stealing Monkeys

Is this a racist story?

The story is told of a golf course in India. Apparently, once the English had colonized the country and established their businesses, they yearned for recreation and decided to build a golf course in Calcutta. Golf in Calcutta presented a unique obstacle. Monkeys would drop out of the trees, scurry across the course, and seize the golf balls. The monkeys would play with the balls, tossing them here and there.

At first, the golfers tried to control the monkeys. Their first strategy was to build high fences around the fairways and greens. This approach, which seemed initially to hold much promise, was abandoned when the golfers discovered that a fence is no challenge to an ambitious monkey. Next, the golfers tried luring the monkeys away from the course. But the monkeys found nothing as amusing as watching humans go wild whenever their little white balls were disturbed. In desperation, the British began trapping the monkeys. But for every monkey they carted off, another would appear. Finally, the golfers gave in to reality and developed a rather novel ground rule: Play the ball where the monkey drops it.

It appears to have originally been told in a book by an Episcopal minister, and used a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks in a sermon at Cincinnati's First Congregational Church (UCC):

Needless to say, on Tuesday, 9-11, the monkey dropped the ball in the worst possible place in all of our collective memories.

Now Congressman Roy Blunt (R-MO7) has retold the tale to the Values Voters Summit over the weekend (Story starts at 1:13 if you want to skip the preamble):

Apparently, this story is an example of "dog whistle" racism. My ears aren't good enough to pick up on the racism. Maybe it's because I still remember eight years of George W. Bush being "Chimpler". Or maybe it's just because I'm not losing my fracking mind.

If there were any doubt that The Card is thoroughly played out, this should be it.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Why I voted Democrat...

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever
I want. I've decided to marry my boat.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a
gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job
of spending the money I earn than I ever would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is
offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad
guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I
know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and
thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it
will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in
ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of
millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed
to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest
away to the government for redistribution as IT sees fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite The
Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would
never get their agendas past the voters.

I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my rear that it
is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.


A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own.

And no, I did NOT really vote Democrat!

United Breaks Guitars

As a guitar player, this whole scenario gives me nightmares; which is why I don't fly with any of my guitars. [I don't fly United and try not to fly through O'Hare either, but that's beside the point.] But to have United show total indifference when their baggage handlers are the cause of a $3,500 Taylor guitar getting trashed makes my blood boil.

The full story can be found on the News page of Taylor's web site.

So, for your listening enjoyment, here is Canadian singer/songwriter Dave Carroll singing the first of three songs he has vowed to write and release about this event.



Dave says that he has been contacted by United and offered compensation. This is his online reply:

Visual Aid

Thanks, Don!

Oh, that Joe!

They told me if I voted for Sarah Palin to be Vice President, we'd have an idiot in the job. And they were right:

Vice President Joe Biden, well-known for his verbal gaffes, may have finally outdone himself, divulging potentially classified information meant to save the life of a sitting vice president.

According to a report, while recently attending the Gridiron Club dinner in Washington, an annual event where powerful politicians and media elite get a chance to cozy up to one another, Biden told his dinnermates about the existence of a secret bunker under the old U.S. Naval Observatory, which is now the home of the vice president.

The bunker is believed to be the secure, undisclosed location former Vice President Dick Cheney remained under protection in secret after the 9/11 attacks.

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

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

- Take your pick.

FAA Memo: Feds Knew NYC Flyover Would Cause Panic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Souvenir. Photos.


Uh, Okay - my two-cents here:

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



BTW,

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

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

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


Oh, and here's a good bit too:

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

Uh-Oh, Mr. Kelly...

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

Looks like the NYC Police Commissioner just made The List.

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


- MuscleDaddy

Obama's Galactic Missteps...

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



That closing shot positively gave me chills.

- MuscleDaddy

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

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

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

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

Maybe. Not.

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

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



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

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

‘(1) UNITS TO BE ASSIGNED TO CAMPUSES- ’;
(ii) by striking ‘in camps’ and inserting ‘in campuses’;
(iii) by striking ‘camp’ and inserting ‘campus’; and
(iv) by striking ‘in the camps’ and inserting ‘in the campuses’;

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

‘(e) Distribution of Units and Campuses- ’;
(B) by striking ‘camps are distributed’ and inserting ‘campuses are cost-effective and are distributed’; and
(C) by striking ‘rural areas’ and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ‘rural areas such that each Corps unit in a region can be easily deployed for disaster and emergency response to such region.’; and...

(So - they want their 'Camps' distributed in 'rural' flyover-country...away from population centers? )

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


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


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

‘(a) Required National Service Corps- The recipient of a grant under section 121(a) and each Federal agency operating or supporting a national service program under section 121(b) shall, directly or through grants or subgrants to other entities, carry out or support the following national service corps, as full- or part-time corps, including during the summer months, to address unmet educational, health, veteran, or environmental needs:

And oh, that list does go on – follow THIS LINK, there really is too much to post here.
(make sure anything near to hand isn’t too heavy, hard or sharp for safe throwing)

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

“Section 1508 – Authorized Benefits for Corps Members”

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

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

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

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

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

(and there’s more)

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

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

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

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


Okay....


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

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

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

TITLE VI--CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION ON CIVIC SERVICE
(as there’s a fair amount of intro-pablum, I’m going to skip around a little)

SEC. 6103. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is established in the legislative branch a commission to be known as the ‘Congressional Commission on Civic Service’ (in this title referred to as the ‘Commission’).

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

(b) Specific Topics- In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:

(this is where the creepy parts really get going)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet.

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


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

So, what do we do now?


- MuscleDaddy

So Let’s Review

What happens when your nation’s “Leader”…

- Moves overtly to offend and alienate your allies,

- Starts Nationalizing your public companies,

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

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

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

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

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

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


Well – what else?

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

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


…and, right on cue…


Medvedev orders large-scale Russian rearmament

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

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

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

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

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


At G20, Kremlin to Pitch New Currency

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

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

The Kremlin has persistently criticized the dollar's status as the dominant global reserve currency and has lowered its own dollar holdings in the last few years. Both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have repeatedly called for the ruble to be used as a regional reserve currency, although the idea has received little support outside of Russia.

(until now, no doubt, with the dollar circling the drain)


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

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

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

(Yeah, I know – “You Won”)

 - MuscleDaddy

Obama Still Plans to Make Vets Pay...

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

"A final decision hasn't been made yet,"

Well, guess what?

Obama refuses to Budge on making Vets Pay

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

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

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

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

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

- Abraham Lincoln

See that part in "Bold"?

Those words by Abraham Lincoln became the VA's motto back in 1959...

"To care for him who shall have borne the battle"

Thus have Lincoln's words stood from that time to this... until now.

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

"There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

"Unconscionable" - indeed - but that is an appellation that can only carry weight with someone who possesses a conscience.

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

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue."

So that's it - America can continue to meet her moral and avowed obligation to care for her wounded soldiers, so long as Barack Obama can make up the $540MM on his budget sheet.

No.

This cannot be allowed to stand.

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

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

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

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

- MuscleDaddy

Obama doubles-down, Doubles-back

The headline reads:

"Obama plans small-business lending boost"

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

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

"The Obama administration announced Monday that the 21 largest banks receiving government money must report monthly on how much lending they do to small businesses."

All the better to find you with my dear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay,.... but...

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

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

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

..."Tax Cuts for the Rich"?


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

Just askin' is all.

- MuscleDaddy

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

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

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

Private. Insurance.

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

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

"Hearing the plan was under consideration"?

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

Wrong.

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

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

Built. Into. The. Budget.

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

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

He identified exploding health-care costs as the chief culprit behind rising federal deficits during a bipartisan "fiscal responsibility summit" convened to discuss ways to restore fiscal stability without deepening the recession.

There we go - true to his word, this is merely a 'cutting of health-care costs'.

Quick comparison:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


This has to end.

This has to be stopped.

Snowball cannot be allowed to send Boxer away. Again.

- MuscleDaddy

She just can't stand prosperity.

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

Madame Speaker,

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

Don


REVEALED: PELOSI'S 'AIR RAGE'

By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
Nancy Pelosi

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

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

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

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

MALKIN: 'AIR NANCY': PLANE OUTRAGEOUS

POWERS: LABOR'S LOVE LOST?

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

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

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

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

Looks like "NeoCons"...

.. aren't the only ones who think that to "meet without preconditions" with terrorist regimes - is a bad idea.

(okay, I know it's late and this is more posting than a normal day, but seriously, this guy is comedy-gold!)

Taliban say Obama's call on moderates "illogical"

"Afghanistan's Taliban on Tuesday turned down as illogical U.S. President Barack Obama's bid to reach out to moderate elements of the insurgents, saying the exit of foreign troops was the only solution for ending the war."

"This does not require any response or reaction for this is illogical," Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a purported spokesman for the insurgent group, told Reuters..."

"The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy...I do not know why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means?"

"If it means those who are not fighting and are sitting in their homes, then talking to them is meaningless. This really is surprising the Taliban."

When Obama first announced that he would "reach out to moderate elements in the Taliban" - It was (for me) one of those moments to wonder if he had been cognizant of anything concerning the international politics that have made major impacts at any point during his life.

I'm about the same age as The One, and I vividly remember that the very reason we backed/trained/supplied/funded the Taliban against the Soviets (doubtlessly the greater of two evils at the time) - was because there were no moderates among them, and they could be absolutely counted on to fight to the last man.

What - did he think that the ensuing years of soft living and soy-lattes would have changed that?

- MuscleDaddy

So now that we've 'Marked Biden's Words'...

Look at that - it's like the man's a genius or something!

So, this basically acts as a continuation of Friday's "What IS he trying to do?" - post.

Now that the world has seen the complete & utter incomprehensible incompetence of The One in relation to the domestic American economy, any ability to relate to the will of the American People, and now have a good sampling of his clumsy, club-footed and largely spineless forays into what should have been fairly straight-forward foreign policy matters....

Some of the larger and more immediately-scary players on the world stage have decided to take Joe Biden's advice and test our "overwhelmed" Commander-in-Chief.

First it was the Chinese deciding that this would be a good time to start playing 'chicken' with US Naval ships.

"...one of the Chinese ships came within 25 feet (7.5 meters) of the USNS Impeccable, a surveillance vessel designed to support anti-submarine warfare, and that the Chinese crew tried to snag the cables that tow the ship's underwater sonars."

Naturally when the inevitable protests came, the Chinese fell back on that old chestnut that has worked so well all over the world - "It's America's Fault"

"Ma said U.S. naval ships must ask China's permission anytime they sailed within its exclusive economic zone, a 200-nautical-mile zone off its shores. The claim amounted to an assertive attempt to bar U.S. Navy vessels from approaching China's shores, even affecting transit of the sensitive Taiwan Strait."

...and why not?  

After all, given Obama's grovelling apology to terrorist-supplying Muslim countries during the first post-inauguration-days, Ma has to figure that his approach runs at least even-odds of being successful - maybe even to the extent of getting The One to throw Taiwan under the bus in a Carter/Panama-Canal-esque reflex action.

But, in the sense of "If Some is Good, then More is Better"...

Smelling buffoonery in the water - the North Koreans have now queued-up for their helping of whatever -else-will-be-given-away...

"North Korea on Monday cut its military hotline to Seoul and put its million-man army at battle stations, ratcheting up tensions as South Korean and US troops began war games that Pyongyang warned could spark open conflict.

North Korea’s official KCNA news agency quoted an army spokesman as saying: “It is nonsensical to maintain the normal channels of communication when the South Korean puppets are in a frenzy about these military exercises, levelling their guns at fellow countrymen in league with foreign forces.”

Now, the whole point-of and motivation-for all of this should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.

China and N.Korea, having watched (along with the rest of us) Obama begin systemic capitulation to Iran AND initiate the alienation of our closest allies AND take the necessary steps to ensure that the US economy will soon render us unable to continue defending our neighbors and allies - have decided to belly-up to the bar to see what sort of fire-sale bargains they can rattle or threaten out of us.

Makes sense, really - it's not like he's given them any reason to believe it won't work.


... and I might be wrong, but I don't think "I Won" is going cut it.


- MuscleDaddy

P.S. - Note to the BDS-afflicted: This same sort of business that has Obama 'overwrought' and trying to find his own ...ahem... with a flashlight?

Same stuff that George W. dealt with - every day...

Just sayin' is all.

Another jolt of Perspective...

...try this one on for size.
(H/T - Pops in FL)

Full Government Ownership of Citigroup to Commence

President Barack Obama said Wednesday he had “determined the necessity” of the nationalization of the remaining holdings of the U.S.-based banking giant Citigroup and is considering the same for similarly-embattled Bank of America.

"This process is already begun with Citigroup through repeated bailout payments," he said in a press conference in which he accused the company of investing in specialized forms of equities in an attempt to evade the tax increases of his upcoming budget.

The president called the company's practices "a flagrant violation of everything that we have been doing."

Mark Klein, a spokesman for Citigroup, said the New York-based company "is committed to providing banking and investment services that comply with all laws and regulations."

He said the specially-structured equity investment cited by Obama "was designed exclusively for investors who want a slower, more secure gain over a longer period of time, which the company has provided in the US for the last seven years and elsewhere in the world for 13 years."

Klein added, "Citigroup expects the opportunity to clarify the situation with the government and is respectful of President Obama’s arguments."

Citigroup, which is publicly traded, has been doing business since 1812, with operations ranging from personal banking and international finance, and reaching into every aspect of finance worldwide.

It has over 200,000 employees in nearly every country in the world, according to its Web site.

About Bank of America, Obama said, "The extensive width and breadth of their need for a bailout clearly demonstrates a system too unstable, left for too long in the wrong hands. There will be lawyers and arguments saying that this is a governmental overreach and a violation of the constitution. Well, it's not about the government, it's about the good of the people!"

Horrifying.
... with negative repercussions to be felt for years to come.

But surprising?

If you opened the New York Times tomorrow and saw this story, would you be all that surprised?
(consider your answer carefully, and be honest)

And now consider what your answer says about how far toward real Big-"S"-Socialism our country has slid in an amazingly short time, ...

...when I tell you that this is actually a story about Hugo Chavez nationalizing Cargill in Venezuela...

...retouched with only a woefully light hand.

- MuscleDaddy

(apologies to any caught in a 'War of the Worlds' - loop by this exercise)