Thursday, April 16, 2009

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

Raleigh TEA Party

We're havin' a party...

Went down to Raleigh, NC to party with the other "Right Wing Extremists" at the TEA Party. I'm not going to try and estimate the number of people there [Update: "several thousand" per John Hood of the John Locke Foundation. State wide participants exceeded 17,500], but since they are doing renovation work on the old Capitol building, we were crammed onto the South lawn. Undoubtedly the most orderly crowd I've ever seen. And people from all walks of life were there. This is NOT a lower and middle class phenomena. I spoke to a Director of Human Resources whose parents had escaped the Soviet Union under Stalin. His comment? "I don't know what these people (in DC) are thinking!"

Favorite sign:



Second favorite:


Protest babe:


I'm detecting a thyme here:




"So simple, like the Jitterbug, it plumb evaded them:"


The cops appear bored:


A few of the signs:


As I left it appeared that a good time was being had by all:


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

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

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.

Monday, April 13, 2009

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

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Requiem for a Tree

I did not hug the tree, nor am I going to change my name to Moonbeam Rainbowcatcher, but on this Easter Weekend, I hope you enjoy the photo essay below the fold.

BTW: Clicking on any of the pictures will take you to the full size version.

At the edge of our subdivision, there used to be a little strip of woods.


It was a cool place, both figuratively




and literally, as the temperature under the canopy was several degrees cooler during the heat of the summer.
For city kids like mine, it was a place of mystery



adventure,



and beauty.




It gave them a sense of being "in the wild" while walking a quarter of a mile in any direction would lead to "civilization".

When my son got his first air rifle, we went to the woods searching for squirrels, or rabbits, or beer cans to shoot. (We didn't see either of the former but we found LOTS of the latter)

In the middle of the woods was a HUGE magnolia tree.



I'm awful at estimation but it had to be at least 50 feet tall.




The blossoms were as big as my head.



The area under it's canopy was as big as my house. And, like all magnolias, it was easy to climb.



The woods and the tree are gone now.



I will miss them.

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

Happy Easter!

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Your Tax Dollars at Work - Pt. whatever

Photobucket
Click to biggerify.

These things absolutely infuriated me.
Leaving aside, for a moment, that the word "Race" is meaningless when applied to Homo Sapiens; consider these facts.

1. I am third generation red-neck Texan
2. My wife was born in Mexico
3. Her Grandmother was full-blood Incan (or the descendants, thereof)
4. Her Grandfather was a blond, blue-eyed Spaniard.
5. Both my Maternal Grandmother and Paternal Grandfather were born in "Indian Territory" so odds are better than even there's some "Native American" in there somewhere.

So what "Race" does this make my kids? Does one drop of "Hispanic" blood make them Hispanic like one drop of African blood used to make someone "Black"?

And this line just frosts my cookies. "If you decline to provide this information, please be aware that the USDE requires school districts to use observer identification as a last resort for collecting the data for federal reporting."

Whiskey!?!
Tango!?!
Hotel!?!


So why even bother to ask if you'll just make something up? So my lighter skinned kids get to be "White" while the darker ones get to be "Hispanic"? And just who, pray tell, is observing the observers?

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.)

ZoNation:Affirmative Action and Socializing the Big Three


I wonder what fellow PJMer Charles Johnson will have to say about 'Zo comparing Obama to Hitler. He's none too happy with Glenn Beck for doing it.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

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

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

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

Monday, April 6, 2009

Obama Embraces Islam

The Capitulation Heard 'Round the World:



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

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



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

...particularly the perps from The List.


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

"It's only a small percentage"

"It's only the Fundamentalist Radicals"

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

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



But Consider This:

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

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

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

Naturally, You Would.


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

Of course not.

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


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


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

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

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

Haven't we already seen that movie?


Apparently, France still remembers how it turned out.

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



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


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



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

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

- Will break our country's financial back,

- Capitulate to those who seek our destruction, and

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


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


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

- MuscleDaddy


Friday, April 3, 2009

If 10 percent is good enough for Jesus...

Well dang! I do believe that Brother Ray is on to something here! Have a listen.

"The Takedown" Deconstructs Propaganda

The hypocrisy of Jon Stewart's attack on Jim Cramer, and the larger problem of an electorate that is "informed" by biased media, is laid bare for all to see in this 4-part video.

Set aside about 40 minutes to watch it. Quick, before it gets taken down.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Obama Lacks the Authority...

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

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

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


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


Let's Review...


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

"House Majority Leader(D)"?

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

How about fellow Class-Warrior Chris Dodd?

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

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

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


Okay, but wait - that's TARP money!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Not. Legal.

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

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

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

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


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

- MuscleDaddy

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

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

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



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

- MuscleDaddy

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

Just in case you weren't clear on this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

No financial institution... may,

... make a compensation payment...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, wait... 

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

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


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


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

(3) REPORTING REQUIREMENT-

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

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

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

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

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

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

- MuscleDaddy

Monday, March 30, 2009

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

Just to get this part out of the way:

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

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


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

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

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


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

SEC. 9. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED.

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

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

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

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

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

So there it is, right?

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

...Well,...not quite.


Enter Senator Dick
“Americans are Nazis” Durbin


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Looking at the money-quotes there:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


In short:

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

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



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

So now what do we do?

- MuscleDaddy

Gorebal Warming Agenda Revealed

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

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

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

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

Saturday, March 28, 2009

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

Take the time - watch & listen closely.

You may not see its like again.



"I fear for our Republic." 

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

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


- MuscleDaddy

I Love FedEx!

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

Money quote emailed to Neal from a FedEx worker:

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