Chaos-In-Motion

Siezing Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

2011-12-21T09:00:00.002-05:00

I'm not liking any choices in the GOP today. Not that there is any in the Democrats party.

Newt is doing his best to bring in controversy he doesn't need at the last minute. I've heard conjecture that he's trying to keep his name in the news with his courts argument, but I think more likely he's tossing grenades into kindergartens without thinking as is his normal method of politics. He has some real points if he'd just calm down. Andrew McCarthy points out where he's right. You should take a second to read that. Newt is getting bad press on this and he deserves it, but the issue really is that he's fouling the water on an issue that is fixable and which needs redress.

Steyn discusses him as well. I have to say that his statement on the joke that is the NH primary is spot on.

Instead, what’s left of Romney’s softening lead in the Granite State will vanish as legions of nominal “independents” flood the Republican primary to vote for the candidate they figure will be easiest to beat in the general — as happened in 1996, when more than a few of my liberal neighbors figured why waste your vote renominating Clinton when you can cross over, boost Pat Buchanan, and sabotage Bob Dole.

I used to support the NH first primary spot, but at this point the rules of the race have more "independents" disguising Democrats who are just salting the political grounds when they are allowed as an independent to change their affiliation at the polls and vote republican. (and yes I'm well aware that the independents who are republicans are doing the same thing.) The combination of the ability to change and the first primary make the NH voting pretty much a complete waste of time. (I live in NH and this pisses me off to no end.)

Cain melted down, Bachmann has crashed with her nutcase views on Gardisil and the like. Ron Paul has some good stances on the libertarian front, but his Blame America First and the rest of his foreign policy stances are just loony. I can't see Perry getting anywhere and if he does Obama will slaughter him in any debate they have. Whose left, oh Santorum and Huntsman. Yeah there's a pair of non-starters. I won't even discuss Mitt "miracle of Massachusetts" Romney.

What a chance the GOP had to actually win easily with a decent candidate and this pile of dung we're offered is just pathetic.

Christopher Hitchens RIP

2011-12-16T06:38:00.003-05:00

Wasn't expecting this. Really sad. I didn't agree with a lot that Hitchens had to say, but he was completely honest in his assessments of many topics which made him refreshing in the world of opinion.

UPDATE: Hitchen's memorialized at Hot Air.

Hitchens being Hitchens, I wonder which he anticipated more eagerly — the end of the pain or finally knowing if he was right about you know what. I suspect he was right. I hope we’re both wrong.

LEO Tank Division

2011-12-07T10:15:00.001-05:00

Why does this strike me as a particularly BAD idea?

Through its little-known “1033 program,” the Department of Defense gave away nearly $500 million worth of leftover military gear to law enforcement in fiscal year 2011 — a new record for the program and a dramatic rise over past years’ totals, including the $212 million in equipment distributed in 2010.

The surplus equipment includes grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles and armored vehicles.

and

“The trend toward militarization was well under way before 9/11, but it’s the federal policy of making surplus military equipment available almost for free that has poured fuel on this fire,” Tim Lynch, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s project on criminal justice, told The Daily.

Thanks to it, cops in Cobb County, Ga. — one of the wealthiest and most educated counties in the U.S. — now have an amphibious tank. The sheriff of Richland County, S.C., proudly acquired a machine-gun-equipped armored personnel carrier that he nicknamed “The Peacemaker.”

Military provisioning does NOT aid in protecting the public. It may aid in protecting the police in extremely rare instances and more often giving police the tools to violate citizen's safety and rights.

I'm just trying to imagine officer 5-cupsofCoffee driving that amphibious tank in to serve a warrant on some poor sucker who happens to own a couple of guns. No doubt the internal affairs will continue to find that amount force justified irrespective of how badly misused these armaments may be.

I would think this would require local government to stop this. Here in New England I'd think you'd be best served by requiring any military grade acquisitions be approved by a vote at a public meeting. Only level of control when the police single you out for offending their authority.

EU Insanity

2011-11-19T20:19:00.002-05:00

I don't get this.

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.

Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.

He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.

“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.

I just can't see how they came to the conclusion that drinking doesn't help control dehydration. Just more stupidity brought to you by your local bureaucrat. And we want to move toward this why?

9-11 and How We Have Gone Soft

2011-09-11T11:15:00.003-04:00

Mark Steyn:

Waiting to be interviewed on the radio the other day, I found myself on hold listening to a public-service message exhorting listeners to go to 911day.org and tell their fellow citizens how they would be observing the tenth anniversary of the, ah, “tragic events.” There followed a sound bite of a lady explaining that she would be paying tribute by going and cleaning up an area of the beach.

Great! Who could object to that? Anything else? Well, another lady pledged that she “will continue to discuss anti-bullying tactics with my grandson.”

Marvelous. Because studies show that many middle-school bullies graduate to hijacking passenger jets and flying them into tall buildings?

Go read the rest. The Sheep can wait.

Walid Phares describing what we've failed to do:

Here are some realities:

Afghanistan: Bringing down the Taliban regime was a smashing victory for the U.S., NATO and the Afghan people particularly for women and minorities.

Defending the country against the return of the jihadi militias and containing their incursions from inside Pakistan’s enclaves were the right strategic choices. But the U.S. and NATO failed to engage civil society groups, women, and secular wings to help launch a democratic revolution in the country instead of spending billions on asphalt, construction, and futile unproductive projects.

Al-Qaida: The long relentless campaign against the top entity of the jihadists bore results over 10 years. They lost the sole regime that backed them openly in Kabul, retreated to Pakistan, lost more of their commanders by the years, and eventually lost their leader Osama in 2011. But multiple other tentacles of the organization have grown bigger and longer in reach.

Still operating and killing in AFPAK, franchises opened in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, North Africa, and their cells hit in India, Russia, and Europe. Al-Qaida today is 10 times larger in global reach than the old one headed by bin Laden.

Al-Qaida: The long relentless campaign against the top entity of the jihadists bore results over 10 years. They lost the sole regime that backed them openly in Kabul, retreated to Pakistan, lost more of their commanders by the years, and eventually lost their leader Osama in 2011. But multiple other tentacles of the organization have grown bigger and longer in reach.

Still operating and killing in AFPAK, franchises opened in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, North Africa, and their cells hit in India, Russia, and Europe. Al-Qaida today is 10 times larger in global reach than the old one headed by bin Laden.

Homeland security: The terrorists who brought down the twin towers were foreign-born aliens who penetrated America’s defenses killing thousands. However their ideology penetrated America, producing homegrown cells. Moreover, a more lethal type is expanding within our borders: the jihadi lone wolves. No spectacular acts since 2001 but an army is brewing inside the country.

The U.S. is losing on all these fronts, and so are democracies and free people around the world. The real debate should be about what is being missed. We must focus on the enemy’s ideology.

Unfortunately over the past 10 years, Washington and its companions in Europe have lost the mother of all wars: the war of ideas. If American leadership persists in dodging the ideological battle with the jihadists, by 2020 not only we would have missed a precious opportunity with the Arab Spring but most likely lost a vital shot at bolstering national security.

This strikes me as accurate, but maybe a touch too pessimistic. Al Qaeda is very likely larger now. But I'd note that it is probably more nebulous with less high level knowledge or organizational abilities available. The Iraq and Afghan wars have definitely pulled some of the most effective teeth. No doubt there are more, but I find it likely the damage to their infrastructure, as nebulous as it was, was probably profound.

The Arab spring is also likely draining resources from Al Qaeda as groups in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood try to seize power. Should they succeed we will likely see an escalation of issues, though not through Al Qaeda. The more subtle attacks on our society by the likes of CAIR and the Islamic lobbyist structures will likely start causing damage beyond what they already have. The fact that the PC BS that the government has been playing with in the LEO is a telling sign that should really concern us all. TipToe around the Islamists while vilifying the citizenry is continuing.

In some ways, such as the Dept. of Homeland (in)Security and the TSA are erosion of freedom that are partial wins for the terrorists. The impact on the public is far from minor, and with the TSA trying to set themselves up for roaming scans of people in public places I see them becoming an extension of the problem as any government agency is. Is this a win for the Jihadi's? I'd say yes.

Don't forget those "National Security Letters" as well. No probable cause, no judicial oversight? What ever happened to the 4th amendment? From reports they sound as though they were highly abused for quite a few years and are finally tapering to a lower level of use. With no oversight and no review from a publicly available committee, it will be impossible to know if these were ever of any value or just how extensive the abuses were. Is this a win for the Jihadi's? I'd say yes.

Are we safer? I'd say yes. Have we lost something? Definitely.

Post Office Follies

2011-08-12T13:10:00.002-04:00

The postal unions have layoff protections. WTF!? How in the hell do you run a business....Oh yeah.

Of course the unions are all against losing their collective bargaining benefit (not a right). And they seem to be upset that the postal service wants to be actually solvent. No surprises there.

I'd say the should cut back to 3 delivery days a week with weekend service centers. They can spread the delivery personnel to multiple routes spread to different days and keep them full time while reducing overall personnel required. Processing facilities would still require a higher level of manning, but that would even see reductions.

Insurance cuts/realignments would be wise, especially if they believe they can do it. Retirement funds would be the same, though you can't get around funding retirements in real time. No ponzi schemes with someone's benefits.

A little message to the unions, Welcome to the world the rest of us live in.

Doctors, Guns, and Laws

2011-08-12T09:04:00.002-04:00

Pretty moronic law, and an even more stupid response from the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Calling the law "an unprecedented intrusion into the patient-physician relationship," the authors write in the Journal of the American Medical Association that Florida set a dangerous precedent.

First, the law is a reaction to doctors making an unnecessary intrusion into patients lives. From personal experience a majority of doctors don't have a clue about firearms usage or the statistical risks associated with ownership. If they are querying about risky behavior, why don't they ask if you own a pool or a bath tub or ride motorcycles or sports cars? Behavior with risks come in multiple forms and asking just about firearm ownership is of no value unless you are asking about all risky behavior. Statistically gun ownership isn't nearly as hazardous as most of those things listed.

Of course, if you are a gun owner you should already know not to tell a doctor anything about your ownership and you should have made it clear to family that this is not a discussion to have with anyone beyond the immediate family.

Personally I've never been asked. But I do know that I will probably lie if I am asked and will probably cop an attitude if that is all they ask about.

Where is the Special Proscutor?

2011-07-07T07:51:00.002-04:00

Just saying this smells vile. You can't honestly say that this doesn't sound like a major work of CYA by these political appointees.

Facebook

2011-06-09T07:00:00.002-04:00

I recently joined Facebook, and now I'm wondering if my original resistance wasn't justified. I originally didn't participate due to privacy issues, but the title article link has some better reasons overall.

That said, there is new concerns with "features" that Facebook is adding or has added. Like this:

After testing on a select group of US accounts (privacy laws aren’t so strict here), Facebook is officially rolling out a new feature that recognizes people’s faces and offers to tag them automatically in photos uploaded to the social network.
So, besides the fact that Google abandoned similar technology due to privacy concerns, why is this bad?

Well, let’s say your friend Becky adds a few photos to her “Druunnkkk!!1!” album and you’re seen making an ass of yourself in several of them. All Becky has to do is click “yes” – which is great for her since she doesn’t have to tag each individual picture of you – and every shot you’re in will be marked accordingly.

Also, and I’m not trying to get all “Big Brother” here, but Facebook is host to over 90 billion images with 200 million being uploaded every day! That’s one hell of a database. How soon until someone can just snap a picture on the street and suddenly know everything about you?

Lovely thought there. I'm thinking the idea that privacy is a dead issue is probably being brought to fruition by the likes of these guys, and the useful idiots that throw money at them.

Gurkas

2011-06-04T20:35:00.001-04:00

Damn.

'That incident happened in the middle of my tour and after that I thought nobody can kill us now - when we met the enemy I wasn't scared.
'I thought the Taliban did not have the capacity to fight with us.'

Cpl Pun, an acting sergeant during his Afghan deployment, was on sentry duty at the time of the attack when he heard a clinking noise outside the small base.
At first he thought it might be a donkey or a cow, but when he went to investigate he found two insurgents digging a trench to lay an improvised explosive device (IED) at the checkpoint's front gate.
He realised that he was completely surrounded and that the Taliban were about to launch a well-planned attempt to overrun the compound.
The enemy opened fire from all sides, destroying the sentry position where the soldier had been on duty minutes before.
Defending the base from the roof, the Gurkha remained under continuous attack from rocket-propelled grenades and AK47s for more than a quarter of an hour.
Most of the militants were about 50ft away from him, but at one point he turned around to see a 'huge' Taliban fighter looming over him.
The soldier picked up his machine gun and fired a long burst at the man until he fell off the roof.
When another insurgent tried to climb up to his position, the Gurkha attempted to shoot him with his SA80 rifle. But it did not work, either because it had jammed or because the magazine was empty.
He first grabbed a sandbag but it had not been tied up and the contents fell to the floor.
Then he seized the metal tripod of his machine gun and threw it at the approaching Taliban militant, shouting in Nepali 'Marchu talai' ('I will kill you') and knocking him down.
Two insurgents were still attacking by the time the heroic Gurkha had used up all his ammunition, but he set off a Claymore mine to repel them.
At this point his company commander, Major Shaun Chandler, arrived at the checkpoint, slapped him on the back and asked if he was OK.
In total he fired off 250 general purpose machine gun rounds, 180 SA80 rounds, six phosphorous grenades, six normal grenades, five underslung grenade launcher rounds and one Claymore mine.
The only weapon he did not use was the traditional Kukri knife carried by Gurkhas because he did not have his with him at the time.

These guys always amaze me.

The Race

2011-04-29T08:56:00.003-04:00

Krauthammer's odds. I came up with something pretty similar lately in an email conversation. I didn't put numbers though. Best part:

Donald Trump: He’s not a candidate, he’s a spectacle. He’s also not a conservative. With a wink and a smile, Muhammad Ali showed that self-promoting obnoxiousness could be charming. Trump shows that it can be merely vulgar. A provocateur and a clown, the Republicans’ Al Sharpton. The Lions have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl.

Trump is a liability to the small government movements. I understand that he's liked for his willingness to confront Obama, but that isn't what we need for president. We need someone whose less self serving. I just don't trust Trump (Kelo is a litmus test he failed appallingly) and I don't expect he'll be much more than a metrocon at best.

Trump is calling him names, but that just validates Krauthammer in my view.

I like Pawlenty for what I have found, but Ryan would be my perfect candidate at this point.

Ron Paul? Not a chance. We don't need more of the Ross Perot nutcases running.

Palin is damaged goods and will never get fair press from the lame stream media.

Gingrich is smart, but I don't think he can play the political game at that level. We need leadership, not fights. Bolton falls in this category as well.

Romney is too liberal for my tastes and the fact that he approved RomneyCare in Massachusetts, not mention just having been governor of Massachusetts, is a finisher.

Cain? Yeah, I like what I've heard him say in just about every venue. From the Islamist issues to smaller government. I'd like to hear more though just so I know where he really is. I know he'd have the race card played against him, but that would just be the norm from the left.

Anyhow, read Krauthammer. He's looking at the smaller field, but he looks to be spot on.

Egypt Heading the Way of Iran?

2011-01-31T09:57:00.002-05:00

I certainly hope Egypt doesn't turn into Obama's Iran, but as Barry Rubin discusses, he isn't doing much differently from what the Carter Administration did.

But Obama’s rhetoric – the exact opposite of what it was during the upheavals in Iran which he should have supported – seems dangerously reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter in 1978 regarding Iran.

He has made it sound – by wording and nuance, if not by intention – that Washington no longer backs the Egyptian government.

I really hope that doesn't become the case. Egypt does have a similar Islamist overtones in the Muslim Brotherhood. Andrew McCarthy discusses them here.

From what I'm seeing, there may not be a good path out of the problems that the US has supported for too long.

Imam Caught Entering from Mexico

2011-01-28T09:45:00.003-05:00

Interesting. Especially since it doesn't seem to be getting much press time.

From the Daily Mail:

U.S. border guards got a surprise when they searched a Mexican BMW and found a hardline Muslim cleric - banned from France and Canada - curled up in the boot.
Said Jaziri, who called for the death of a Danish cartoonist that drew pictures of the prophet Mohammed, was being smuggled into California when he was arrested, along with his driver Kenneth Robert Lawler.

Now why would you think he'd be coming into the country illegally? No doubt it is all an innocent error. Can't wait to see where this leads.

New Black Panther Party and the DOJ - Now the Facts

2011-01-28T09:29:00.002-05:00

Jennifer Rubin goes into the details of the final report.

The statements indicate several points: 1) the New Black Panther Party case brought by career Justice Department employees was meritorious on the law and the facts; 2) there is voluminous evidence of the Obama administration's political interference in the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party case; 3) there is ample evidence that the Obama administration directed Justice Department employees not to bring cases against minority defendants who violated voting rights laws or to enforce a provision requiring that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud; 4) the Justice Department stonewalled efforts to investigate the case; and 5) vice chairman Abigail Thernstrom has, for reasons not entirely clear, ignored the evidence and tried to undermine the commission's work.

That's just wonderful. Hope the GOP gets on this quickly. Maybe they can pound the MSM into actually reporting accurately on this. Well we can hope.

A lot more details at the title link.

While you're at WaPo read Krauthammer's latest.

NH NEA - Educated Imbeciles

2011-01-26T09:01:00.003-05:00

Fools in the Teachers union continue to miss the little fact that a criminal wouldn't be stopped from bringing a gun to the statehouse when legal carry was disallowed. Now they think it's a shooting gallery.

A New Hampshire teachers' union is defending its cancellation of a traditional Dr. Seuss reading at the State House, saying the recent removal of a ban on guns there raises safety concerns for participating fourth-graders.
The decision involves the Read Across America program that the National Education Association-NH has held with state senators for 12 years. It's a one-day event, unrelated to the several thousands of school children who visit the State House every year.
"We lock down schools if there is a gun within the neighborhood," NEA-NH President Rhonda Wesolowski said. "But to send them to a place where they specifically are allowed is a bit of a different story. We keep children, our most precious resource, safe in the school system. Why would we take them to a place where they say it's OK to have guns.
Wesolowski called it "ridiculous" that allowing guns in the State House is a potential learning opportunity.
"We understand what is out there in the real world," she said. "I'm sure the parents of Christina Taylor Green didn't think for a moment their child was in any danger when she went to see the congresswoman in Tucson."

Emphasis mine. Of course that's not true about the lock down. There is no such thing as a gun free school zone. I still find it fascinating that people like this choose a party line rather doing any investigation, or simple use of logic, to understand that laws don't stop criminals. They only stop law-abiding citizens.

Children live in a world where their parents and neighbors own guns. That doesn't make the non-school world a constant war zone. I love them dancing in the blood of the Tuscon shooting. Because god only knows that the NH statehouse is exactly the same as a safeway parking lot.

Not that they are playing political games:

"I am disappointed that the NEA is using New Hampshire fourth-graders as political pawns," he said. "I have participated in Read Across America for a number years when there was no gun ban in effect and they never raised the issue. This is clearly a political move."
Bragdon said there has been no change of rules regarding deadly weapons in the Senate Chamber. Unlike the House, which specified where and how weapons can be carried around Representatives Hall, the Senate does not address the issue in any way, he said.
The joint House-Senate Legislative Facilities Committee voted this month to repeal a year-long ban on weapons in buildings at the State House complex. The new policy leaves it to Senate and House sergeants-at-arms to enforce rules in their respective chamber. New House rules allow members and citizens to carry weapons anywhere in the State House. Except for law enforcement officers, weapons cannot be displayed in areas immediately adjacent to Representatives Hall. Senate rules are silent on the issue.

Interesting. Why are they protesting now if the ban was only in place a year and pretty much didn't change anything? Oh, because they are trying to enforce their distrust of responsible citizens who choose to protect themselves.

Personally, I say to hell with the reading program. If they want to hold it hostage to petty stupidities that have no relevance to an identical reality from only two years ago, so be it. But don't blame the legislature, the cause is their own.

Transparency - And a Tracking List

2011-01-17T10:17:00.002-05:00

This is an interesting story from the AssPress. Interesting that it ever saw the light of day as far as I'm concerned. I'll give them the credit of putting it out there though. This should be noted as the action of the administration that was supposed to be the "most transparent evah!" From the looks of the report they are behaving as all the other administrations. Maybe worse, but that's hard to tell.

The Associated Press reported in July that for at least a year, Homeland Security had sidetracked hundreds of requests for federal records to top political advisers to the department's secretary, Janet Napolitano. The political appointees wanted information about those requesting the materials, and in some cases the release of documents considered politically sensitive was delayed, according to numerous e-mails that were obtained by the AP.

The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to ensure the quick public release of requested government documents without political consideration. Obama has said his administration would emphasize openness in providing requested federal records.

According to Issa's letter, Homeland Security's chief privacy officer and FOIA official told committee staff in September that political appointees were simply made aware of "significant and potentially controversial requests."

So what are the political advisers doing with all those names? And when the list is done, what is being done with it?

Guess I'm glad they are having congressional oversight on this. At least it will get some airing and the public will get to see more details of how Obama is running his administration. Not that I expect more from the MSM, but you can always hope.

Rep. Peter King - Stupid Legislation

2011-01-14T08:22:00.002-05:00

I find this proposal bafflingly stupid. I'm still wondering who the security experts are that he spoke with. Do they honestly believe a 1000 ft. zone would stop anyone intent on murder? Or will this further exacerbate the harassment of lawfully acting citizens in public places? This is security theater at it's most pathetic.

I have to say I'm glad NRO did this article. It really leaves you wondering why they can't realize that making a law that will be difficult to enforce and difficult to interpret is worth the effort.

Here's a great start:

King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, acknowledges that his legislation, if it had been on the books, might not have prevented the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.) and others. “Maybe not in this case, but in others it could be prevention,” he argues

Prevention? I find that highly unlikely. I can't see someone just randomly deciding to off a congresscritter because they just happen to be walking by with a gun. If there are such people I'm betting they are very rare. My bet is on the perp generally planning out the whole thing and knowingly ignoring all the laws against murder before they even think about any law about carrying a gun within 1000 ft of a politician.

What about a situation where a gun is fully concealed and law-enforcement officials are unable to spot anything suspicious? “In that case, then this wouldn’t work, but there can be cases where it will. Would it work in five percent of cases? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Thirty percent? I don’t know, but I do believe it would certainly work in some instances. I don’t see the downside.”

He doesn't see the downside. Obviously because he isn't thinking. How much will cops be forced on trying to detect concealed weapons rather than actually watching for odd behavior. Or, how many cops will be looking for the concealed carrier? What about events with no LEO involvement? What about the person who didn't know that a political master was in the area and came out of a shop with a gun, would they be breaking the law? Do concealed carry permit holders have to run searches to find where the politicos are and map ways around them to ensure they don't break the law? The point is this legislation would make criminals out of most law abiding citizens for just living normally.

This bit is the saddest:

In Tucson, onlooker Joe Zamudio was armed when he witnessed the developing scene in the parking lot. Zamudio, within seconds, had his hand on his gun, ready to shoot, in case Loughner was not subdued. Does King think citizens have the right to be armed, and respond, during unexpected violent outbursts in public?

“It’s more helpful if you had security in the area,” King replies. “If something did start, and police were firing, I would not want a civilian firing at the same time. When we balance the equities, I’m saying there is a greater good to be obtained by keeping weapons out of that thousand-foot zone.”

Ok, what if there aren't any police in the area? Not to mention I can't recall an instance where a CCW holder got into the fight when the police were involved. And I'm betting when it has occurred it has been extremely rare.

Then there is the enforcement angle.

Enforcement, King admits, would be tricky, so “reasonable exceptions” will be detailed in the legislative language. “I don’t think the federal government has the right to keep someone from bringing a gun to a state or local event,” he says. “We will have to make exceptions, for example, for storeowners who have guns in their store for protection; it’s their right to have them there.”

Another exception may be making the so-called ‘bubble’ around public officials only applicable at public events — enabling neighbors of public officials who may own firearms to not be bothered. “It would be primarily about public events,” King says. “Again, laws should be interpreted reasonably and we will write it to allow reasonable exceptions.”

You have to love that part. How complicated will the law be when you add all exceptions? What if you miss something reasonable? This bill will quickly turn into the law that forgot that people lead varied lives and just because a politico couldn't think of all exceptions that are reasonable for everyone's life doesn't mean that the law abiding citizen should now be the criminal.

Just a very clueless politician.

Guns in the MSM

2011-01-13T11:25:00.001-05:00

Very funny piece trying to let the MSM talk intelligently about guns even when they are obviously wrong on the topic.

As a gun owner and hunter, and as someone who’s spent a fair amount of time thinking and writing about the legal and empirical debates that surround guns, I’m here to help. Here are some quick and easy tips for anti-gun columnists — if you follow them, you’ll still be wrong, but at least you won’t sound so ridiculous.

Read it. it's worth a laugh.

Revelations from Tuscon

2011-01-13T11:13:00.003-05:00

Have to say that the killings themselves taught us that there needs to be change with how we deal with the mentally ill. Not sure myself what the solution is.

The reactions to the event taught us that the left is willing to go to total war to continue their power.

There has been a great effort this week to come to grips with the American left's reaction to the Tucson shooting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times and its editorial page, George Packer of the New Yorker, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and others, in varying degrees, have linked the murders to the intensity of opposition to the policies and presidency of Barack Obama. As Mr. Krugman asked in his Monday commentary: "Were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"

The "you" would be his audience, and the answer is yes, they thought that in these times "something like this" could happen in the United States. Other media commentators, without a microbe of conservatism in their bloodstreams, have rejected this suggestion.

So what was the point? Why attempt the gymnastic logic of asserting that the act of a deranged personality was linked to the tea parties and the American right? Two reasons: Political calculation and personal belief.

And

The divide between this strain of the American left and its conservative opponents is about more than politics and policy. It goes back a long way, it is deep, and it will never be bridged. It is cultural, and it explains more than anything the "intensity" that exists now between these two competing camps. (The independent laments: "Can't we all just get along?" Answer: No.)

The Rosetta Stone that explains this tribal divide is Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter's classic 1964 essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Hofstadter's piece for Harper's may be unfamiliar to many now, but each writer at the opening of this column knows by rote what Hofstadter's essay taught generations of young, left-wing intellectuals about conservatism and the right.

After Hofstadter, the American right wasn't just wrong on policy. Its people were psychologically dangerous and undeserving of holding authority for any public purpose. By this mental geography, the John Birch Society and the tea party are cut from the same backwoods cloth.

"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds," Hofstadter wrote. "In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority."

I think the left has missed the point for all their denigration of the tea parties. Calling them names and insulting them doesn't get you more votes, it gets you less. I doubt they will learn anything from the elections of 2010 and no doubt will not learn anything from their reactions to the events in Tuscon.

Stuxnet Worm

2010-09-30T09:22:00.002-04:00

Interesting bit of work this worm. Being called "military grade" in a lot of places. I just enjoy the fact that the title article actually seems to think it may have succeeded in damaging the Natanz uranium enrichment facility.

On July 17, 2009 WikiLeaks posted a cryptic notice:

Two weeks ago, a source associated with Iran’s nuclear program confidentially told WikiLeaks of a serious, recent, nuclear accident at Natanz. Natanz is the primary location of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. WikiLeaks had reason to believe the source was credible however contact with this source was lost. WikiLeaks would not normally mention such an incident without additional confirmation, however according to Iranian media and the BBC, today the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, has resigned under mysterious circumstances. According to these reports, the resignation was tendered around 20 days ago.

A cross-check with the official Iran Students News Agency archives confirmed the resignation of the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

According to official IAEA data, the number of actually operating centrifuges in Natanz shrank around the time of the accident Wikileaks wrote about was reduced substantially .

Very interesting.

According to DEBKAfiles the Iranians are in a panic to get someone to fix it since apparently their own efforts not only failed, but made things worse. I'm not certain of the veracity of the site, so read on your own and decide.

Tehran this week secretly appealed to a number of computer security experts in West and East Europe with offers of handsome fees for consultations on ways to exorcize the Stuxnet worm spreading havoc through the computer networks and administrative software of its most important industrial complexes and military command centers. debkafile's intelligence and Iranian sources report Iran turned for outside help after local computer experts failed to remove the destructive virus.
None of the foreign experts has so far come forward because Tehran refuses to provide precise information on the sensitive centers and systems under attack and give the visiting specialists the locations where they would need to work. They were not told whether they would be called on to work outside Tehran or given access to affected sites to study how they function and how the malworm managed to disable them. Iran also refuses to give out data on the changes its engineers have made to imported SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) systems, mostly from Germany.
The impression debkafile sources gained Wednesday, Sept. 29 from talking to European computer experts approached for aid was that the Iranians are getting desperate. Not only have their own attempts to defeat the invading worm failed, but they made matters worse: The malworm became more aggressive and returned to the attack on parts of the systems damaged in the initial attack.

One expert said: "The Iranians have been forced to realize that they would be better off not 'irritating' the invader because it hits back with a bigger punch."

I really hope that report is accurate. And I really hope no one helps them. This could be very good news.

As to the worm's creator. They're going on pretty slim evidence.

Deep inside the computer worm that some specialists suspect is aimed at slowing Iran’s race for a nuclear weapon lies what could be a fleeting reference to the Book of Esther, the Old Testament tale in which the Jews pre-empt a Persian plot to destroy them.

That use of the word “Myrtus” — which can be read as an allusion to Esther — to name a file inside the code is one of several murky clues that have emerged as computer experts try to trace the origin and purpose of the rogue Stuxnet program, which seeks out a specific kind of command module for industrial equipment.

Not surprisingly, the Israelis are not saying whether Stuxnet has any connection to the secretive cyberwar unit it has built inside Israel’s intelligence service. Nor is the Obama administration, which while talking about cyberdefenses has also rapidly ramped up a broad covert program, inherited from the Bush administration, to undermine Iran’s nuclear program. In interviews in several countries, experts in both cyberwar and nuclear enrichment technology say the Stuxnet mystery may never be solved.

Personally, I think it was the Israelis. They have the ability and the motive. The US does as well, but this doesn't sound like something the ONE would have allowed. I'd be proud of him for the first time if he did.

Schneier posted on it being impressive as well.

WW1 Ended On September 26, 2010

2010-09-29T11:14:00.002-04:00

Yep, reparations are finally done. Took them 92 years, well, with a big war that those reparations caused.

I'll stick with Keynes on this one:
"Germany will not be able to formulate correct policy if it cannot finance itself."

Makes one wonder about where the US debt will lead.

Sibelius Thuggish Rule

2010-09-14T09:55:00.002-04:00

This bothered me extremely the first time I heard it, but then I realized that in 2014 when this all is supposed to happen there is a chance that she won't actually be there. And if she is, I expect that the lawsuits will become a tsunami.

'As a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that's going to increase our costs—we knew that," President Obama said at his press conference Friday in response to a question about rising health spending.

That wasn't how he sold the plan, but, anyway, that's a truism. Here's another: The White House was always going to blame insurance companies for any cost increases, even when its own policies cause them.

Witness Kathleen Sebelius's Thursday letter to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group—a thuggish message even by her standards. The Health and Human Services secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to ObamaCare and warned that "there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."

Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They're more subtle than this in Caracas.

What Ms. Sebelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats. ObamaCare includes a slew of mandated benefits for next year, such as allowing children to remain on their parents' plans until age 26 and "free" preventative care (i.e., no direct out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers). The tone of Ms. Sebelius's letter suggests that she doesn't understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.

In a lot of ways I'd love to see the Dems lose all control of the House and Senate, but on the other side of the argument, they'll then be able to blame the Repubs for all the problems when they conflict with the desires of the ONE. Frankly, a slight majority in both houses for the Dems would ensure Obama would be restricted to only one term and end this BS.

ObamaCare gives Ms. Sebelius's regulators the power to define "unreasonable" premium hikes, which will mean whatever they decide it will mean later this fall. She promised to keep a list of insurers "with a record of unjustified rate increases" and then to bar them from ObamaCare's subsidized "exchanges" when they come on line in 2014. In other words, insurers must accept price controls now or face the retribution of a de facto ban on selling their products to consumers four years from now.

The usual way of governing. Don't bother to define what the law actually means, just leave it so vague as to allow the career bureaucrats to make up the rules. This Obamination really must be terminated.

Ground Zero Mosque - More of What it Means

2010-09-13T08:13:00.003-04:00

This is an interesting little bit of an article that no doubt will be ignored. Caught this linked at Wizbang.

Here's the interesting bit of historical perspective.

Should there be a mosque near Ground Zero? In fact, what is pro posed is not a mosque -- nor even an "Islamic cultural center."

In Islam, every structure linked to the faith and its rituals has a precise function and character. A mosque is a one-story gallery built around an atrium with a mihrab (a niche pointing to Mecca) and one, or in the case of Shiites two, minarets.

Other Islamic structures, such as harams, zawiyyahs, husseinyiahs and takiyahs, also obey strict architectural rules. Yet the building used for spreading the faith is known as Dar al-Tabligh, or House of Proselytizing.

This 13-story multifunctional structure couldn't be any of the above.
.
.
.
In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat -- literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.

The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word "raid"). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat -- or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.

It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).

Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American "Great Satan," this would be of great symbolic value.

Further evidence that this isn't a place to put the Mosque. It is clearly worse than insulting to place it at Ground Zero since this is not only an insult to those who were murdered there, but it is as though they are planting a flag of conquest over the site intentionally. If that isn't a propaganda coup for them, I'm not sure what you would call it.

But, I doubt you'll hear any of this in the MSM, since it doesn't go along with the narrative they wish to proclaim about moderate Islam. Nor will you hear this discussed by any politician since it would be a clear eyed understanding that Moslems don't choose to live as we do in the US, they want to turn us all to dhimmi or eliminate us and our culture completely.

And if you haven't caught the discussion of dawa related to all this you should read Andrew McCarthy's writing on the subject.

Media Morons

2010-08-27T07:51:00.002-04:00

Ah, the elitist pricks of the press, having failed to convince conservative knuckle draggers of their superior intellect and the divinity of the One have now gone to the methods of calling us stupid. No real surprises here. Seeing that they expect to lose sufficient control of congress to get it back to at least being under control by grid lock the punditry come out and tell anyone not on the band wagon what exceptional morons they are.

Read Hindraker's analysis. He does a fine job of bleeding the idiot with his own evidence. I won't link to Egan's moronic petulance. No need to help out a paper that I wouldn't wipe my ass with.

Then there is the old reporting method of speculating who is the criminal with no evidence. Another one of those making up the facts as you go. The Daily Caller has this one in hand. I suppose it is a blog after all, but I guess he should expect to get a lot of ugly responses if you want to stick your finger in the eye of a very large group of people. This does tread into that realm where I don't like blogs. You have to pull this turd out as being a jokester who can't take the heat when people don't find him funny.

Political Correctness or Just Plain Stupid?

2010-08-11T14:17:00.003-04:00

At first I was surprised, then I realized is makes perfect sense.

A group of high school students from around the country learned that lesson the hard way on June 25 when they sang the “Star Spangled Banner” at the Lincoln Memorial. A United States Park Police officer told them to pipe down because their singing was considered an illegal demonstration, as Fox News reports. The students, who are members of the Young America’s Foundation, were visiting the city for a conservative leadership conference.
What law, exactly, was being violated? According to Fox News:
U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain ‘completely content neutral.’”
Evan Gassman, who was one of the attendees, says of the episode:
This is a perfect example of political correctness run amuck. I would hope that displays of patriotism would be encouraged, not censored.

Personally, I think this is a perfect activity for a tea party event. Get a couple thousand tea partiers to fill the Lincoln, and any other memorial, and sing the national anthem.

I still can't figure out exactly how they have defined the Lincoln memorial as a "completely content neutral" site. I suppose Martin Luther King would be arrested today if he made his "I have a dream" speech there. Or maybe the present class of public servant thinks that the Gettysburg address is content neutral.

This is a regulation that should be violated on a regular basis and bludgeoned out of existence.

Then there is the Public Servant Widget giving us his opinion:

“We need to make certain that all other visitors that don’t want to be a part of that or just choose to be tourists are able to do so in the same light that probably President Lincoln wanted – which is completely content neutral,” he said.

I truly doubt that a man who was CinC during the bloodiest conflict on our nation's soil would believe everything should be content neutral. If that had been his belief during the war there would have been no war at all.

WikiLeaks - Activism Not Journalism

2010-07-27T10:02:00.002-04:00

I have to agree with Andrew Exum here. Wikileaks revealed pretty much nothing that wasn't already common knowledge to anyone who reads the newspaper or watches the news. The real damage is the release of NATO and US troop procedures and protocols, which in the end will likely get our people killed. But, Hey, don't stand in our way of getting out the truth while ignoring the consequences.

The Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel did nothing wrong in looking over the WikiLeaks documents and excerpting them. Despite the occasional protest from the right wing, most of the press in the United States and in allied nations takes care not to publish information that might result in soldiers’ deaths.
But WikiLeaks itself is another matter. Mr. Assange says he is a journalist, but he is not. He is an activist, and to what end it is not clear. This week — as when he released a video in April showing American helicopter gunships killing Iraqi civilians in 2007 — he has been throwing around the term “war crimes,” but offers no context for the events he is judging. It seems that the death of any civilian in war, an unavoidable occurrence, is a “crime.”
If his desire is to promote peace, Mr. Assange and his brand of activism are not as helpful as he imagines. By muddying the waters between journalism and activism, and by throwing his organization into the debate on Afghanistan with little apparent regard for the hard moral choices and dearth of good policy options facing decision-makers, he is being as reckless and destructive as the contemptible soldier or soldiers who leaked the documents in the first place.

I wonder how this weighs in the concept of sedition.

McChrystal's Mouth

2010-06-22T18:22:00.004-04:00

I keep hearing that, McCrystal made a very poor choice, but I'm not so sure. I think BlackFive has the best round up of some of the better blog discussions.

He quotes Daniel Foster on the thought that McChrystal is tired of the whole mess and is falling on his sword about the Afghanistan mess struck me as having some probability. I guess I don't know enough about McChrystal to make that judgement,

Blogs of War have a discussion as well with loads of quotes.

I guess my biggest push to believing that McChrystal is either trying to shove the administration of amateurs into doing the right thing comes from comments by the press moron for the POTUS.

PETER MAER, CBS RADIO: Robert, you spoke a couple of times about what's owed to the people who are serving over there. What should people put in harm's way make of their commander taking these kinds of shots at the commander-in-chief and -- and the comments made by his close aides about the vice president, about General Jones, about Ambassador Eikenberry, and others?

GIBBS: Look, we -- I think anybody that reads that article understands, as Secretary Gates talked about, what an enormous mistake this was, given the fact that mothers and fathers all over this country are sending their children halfway across the world to participate in this. They need to know that the structure -- the structure where they're sending their children is one that is capable and mature enough in prosecuting a war as important as Afghanistan is to our national security. I think that is one of the things that the president will look to discuss tomorrow …

TAPPER: Can I just follow up on a question? You've said that -- you've said that the -- the parents of soldiers need to be sure that the command structure in Afghanistan is capable and mature enough to lead. Did I hear you correctly? You're -- so you're questioning whether General McChrystal is capable and mature enough to -- for this job he has?

GIBBS: You had my quote right.

Wow. I'd have to say putting them on a scale comparing maturing and capability would find the President and his amateurs wanting.

Wasting Our Time in Afghanistan

2010-06-21T06:39:00.003-04:00

This is from a George Will piece in the WaPo that I caught linked at VodkaPundit.

Torrents of uninteresting mail inundate members of Congress, but occasionally there are riveting communications, such as a recent e-mail from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) serving in Afghanistan. He explains why the rules of engagement for U.S. troops are "too prohibitive for coalition forces to achieve sustained tactical successes."

Receiving mortar fire during an overnight mission, his unit called for a 155mm howitzer illumination round to be fired to reveal the enemy's location. The request was rejected "on the grounds that it may cause collateral damage." The NCO says that the only thing that comes down from an illumination round is a canister, and the likelihood of it hitting someone or something was akin to that of being struck by lightning.

Returning from a mission, his unit took casualties from an improvised explosive device that the unit knew had been placed no more than an hour earlier. "There were villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties" and "two suspicious individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home." U.S. forces "are no longer allowed to search homes without Afghan National Security Forces personnel present." But when his unit asked Afghan police to search the house, the police refused on the grounds that the people in the house "are good people."

This is obviously not the way to run a counterinsurgency. Someone is missing the basics, and that someone in the President. The timeline is a joke and complete proof that he has no intention of actually finishing the job. I doubt his military commanders agree with him on that one, and I'd bet most counterinsurgency experts do either.

You do have to be more cautious with collateral damage, but this is ridiculous. There are other examples in the piece that are frankly quite sad. I wonder how many deaths can be easily attributed to playing too soft on such events.

I have to say the conclusions that George Will comes up with are farcical at best:

Obama has counted on his 2011 run-up to reelection being smoothed by three developments in 2010 -- the health-care legislation becoming popular after enactment, job creation accelerating briskly and Afghanistan conditions improving significantly. The first two are not happening. He can decisively influence only the third, and only by adhering to his timetable for disentangling U.S. forces from this misadventure.

First, there is no way to get out of Afghanistan by the time of the mid-terms. Sticking to the time table will just have the US pulling out of the situation as an assured failure. He's setting the US up for another guaranteed Vietnam scenario. The Taliban know and understand that he's bailing out of the counterinsurgency and so do the Afghan people. The attrition that the Taliban fighters are seeing may have some minor effects in the short term, but they do nothing in the long term. A secured and stable Afghanistan is what is needed.

The fact that Afghanistan appears now to have vast mineral resources should be an encouragement to the administration to actually try and succeed. If they can even marginally clean up the Afghan government they could get the world to invest in Afghanistan's resource development and provide the people with wealth and stability. With those two together they would likely stand firmly against the Taliban. Especially if they are given security while the resources are developed. Many have lived under the Taliban and understand that there will be no wealth if they return to power. Poverty can be a strong influence to stand against an oppressive power.

Well, unfortunately, the President doesn't seem to think about those things. He's just out there to push a political agenda that has reached all time unpopularity and he's slowly sinking below the Jimmy Carter level of incompetence.

Being a realist I won't say Obama is the worst president ever, but he certainly is much worse than Bush ever was.

Groucho Politics

2010-06-16T06:35:00.002-04:00

Why isn't there a modern day Groucho?

Steve Green (vodkaPundit) isn't Groucho, but his drunk blogging definitely helps you get through the LOUSY speeches by the ONE. Green embedded the above clip in his drunk blogging of Obama's speech and all his comments made me hear Groucho.

Pathetic speech, but at least Green made it a bit easier to listen too. I'd enjoy seeing him do an MS3K version of the President's speeches. I'm betting it would be pretty difficult, but still would be hilarious.

Oh, and while watching that Marx Brother's clip, I realized that they were far ahead of their time. Groucho would make a killing today as a political satirist.

D-Day Memorial and Stalin

2010-06-08T06:30:00.002-04:00

Stunning. I pretty much don't get this. Usually you put up memorials to honor the dead, don't you? If this had been a memorial to the Stalinist atrocities it would be one thing, but this is a memorial to the veterans of Normandy.

From a link seen at Instapundit:

Eastern Europeans in embassies and communities around the capital region are upset today that Virginia's new D-Day memorial monument, unveiled in a ceremony this past week, contains a statue of the head of notorious Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

I'm just not sure of why the designer of the monument, not to mention those who approved and paid for the damn thing, would think Stalin should be enshrined in a monument in the USA.

From the header link:

The president of the D-Day Memorial Foundation, William McIntosh, did not return three calls from The Washington Times. He has told reporters that the foundation merely sought to mark Stalin's role in the war.
Joe Fab, who co-directed and wrote a recent documentary on the story of the soldiers of Bedford, titled "Bedford: The Town They Left Behind," said he understood from an artistic standpoint why one might include a Stalin icon, adding that he likes to "try to keep an open mind" about such things.
"All kinds of art have dimensions and complexity," he said. "If it leads to thoughtful reflection and provokes discussion, then it may have a purpose."
Mr. Edwards said the foundation tried to deflect some of the criticism by installing the bust at a private ceremony last week and by adding a plaque that describes Stalin both as a wartime leader and as a genocidal dictator.

Thoughtful reflection? Yeah, I'm pretty sure most of that thoughtful reflection regards "who the hell was the moron that thought this was a good idea?" You want to incite thoughtful reaction about the monsters of the world? How about doing it on its own and not desecrate the memorial to our veterans and the sacrifices they made?

But hey, we're the country that is letting a Mosque be placed at the site where the largest terrorist act in the USA was performed, by people who were Moslems. It almost seems like the US is run by people who want to rub our faces in the feces of our enemies contempt.

Good Bye Helen, We Won't be Missing You

2010-06-08T06:19:00.002-04:00

The Hag Harpy of the POTUS news room has shuffled her way to the edge of the roof, stumbled and fell off. No doubt she intended to continue her anti-Semitic rants except for the little issue of her opening her mouth and proving she was an idiot.

From Mark Steyn:

The departure in ignominy of Helen Thomas has been commented on below, and I don't have much to add, except how pathetic is this?

The Hearst website is temporarily down, thanks to the traffic hitting the site.

Helen Thomas was an unreadable and unread columnist, and the only time she generates so much traffic that it crashes the site is the announcement that her career's self-destructed. That tells you a lot about American newspapering right there. Good thing two columnists didn't say something dumb or the site could have been out for weeks.

and

A guy with a flip camera just took out one of the most storied names in American journalism. Presumably US newspaper managements have been assured by Obama, Pelosi, Frank et al that that bailout's a-comin' any day now. The alternative is that they're inept timeserving mediocrities too dullwitted even to know they're going over the falls.

I love my flip camera. I love the existence of them. It allows people to prove that things actually happened and that idiots really did say stupid things. Oh and for the Liberals out there, it lets people prove things didn't happen, you know like all those racist tea-partiers screaming nigger at black congressmen.

Well I'm glad she's gone. Her incoherent rants during press conferences was something that was tolerated for far too long.

Establishment Dumping

2010-05-19T06:10:00.002-04:00

Looks like the message is getting louder. Now, will the morons in the Republican party start listening. I'd ask the same question of the Dems, but they truly don't have a clue and don't seem to want one.

In quick succession Tuesday night, the jittery inhabitants of Washington's marble halls found three more reasons to worry about their staying power. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, the Senate's patron saint of resilience, was turned out in a Democratic primary in favor of an unwanted rival, Representative Joe Sestak, who had neither major union support nor White House support. In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln, a model of southern Democratic moderation, was forced into a primary runoff by a self-styled outsider, Bill Halter, challenging from her left. And in Kentucky, the Washington establishment's chosen Republican Senate candidate, Trey Grayson, fell to the son of a libertarian outlier who carried the flag of another party. "I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We've come to take our government back," declared Rand Paul, son of Representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, upon winning by a double-digit margin.

Makes me wonder if Arlen has figured out that it isn't about the public being irritated by grid lock in Washington. If they had grid lock they'd probably wouldn't be ousting some of these guys. Specter shot himself in the foot when he changed parties and his constituents are making him pay.

Apparently Time thinks that the Dems continued control of the Murtha seat is a win for Obama. I read the description they themselves lay out and I don't see it.

This anti-incumbent mood pervades both parties, leaving open the possibility that the same wave that brought Obama into office in 2008 will undo his governing majorities in 2010. The one bright spot for Obama was a special election Tuesday night in Pennsylvania's 12th district, where Democrats held on to a seat in a conservative district previously held by John Murtha, the big spending defense appropriator who died earlier this year. The seat was won by Mark Critz, a pro-life, pro-gun former Murtha staffer who opposes health care reform and overcame significant Republican spending. The victory demonstrated that Democrats still have hope for making Congressional races local, not national, affairs in the fall.

Hmm. A conservative Dem who is against health care reform doesn't exactly sound like a Obama supporter. Of course we'll all get to see how he votes and the next election will see if he stays. Of course, voting Critz in doesn't mean they'll get getting all those juicy military contracts at the levels they are used to, but that won't have any effect on the "local" level of races.

Tea Partiers are having a big effect, and if that isn't obvious to the establishment, then they will be removed. Can't be any worse than what Washington has been for the past 20 years.

Clinton's Memory

2010-04-19T18:36:00.004-04:00

I have to say I find Slick-Willy a bit obtuse. He decries the the partisan times and whines loudly about how such partisan times leads to violence. I just don't quite understand how he seems to come off all innocent when the trigger to the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City happened to be the Governments destruction of the Waco Compound of the Branch Davidians. No doubt nut jobs go over board, but they don't typically act without stimulus.

Was McVeigh's actions wrong? No shit, of course they were. Were the FBI actions wrong at Waco? You betcha.

I just can't quite figure what his point is with this:

We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time. We are more connected than ever before, more able to spread our ideas and beliefs, our anger and fears. As we exercise the right to advocate our views, and as we animate our supporters, we must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged.
Civic virtue can include harsh criticism, protest, even civil disobedience. But not violence or its advocacy. That is the bright line that protects our freedom. It has held for a long time, since President George Washington called out 13,000 troops in response to the Whiskey Rebellion.

Is he really trying to push the tea party into the cause of any disaster that does happen? I think so. It strikes me as pretty obvious, even if he doesn't clearly state it. Of course, I didn't think he would come out and say it straight.

Note that Clinton does not have the guts to say outright that people who criticize the government too harshly have blood on their hands. Instead he strongly suggests it, then retreats to the position that criticism is OK, though violence isn't, as if anyone were suggesting otherwise. Still, he wants to draw a line between "criticizing a policy or a politician," which is "part of the lifeblood of democracy," and "demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws," which encourages mass homicide. But since he offers no examples of either, it's hard to know what sort of speech he considers beyond the pale. For example, if I call Clinton a state-worshiping crybaby who equates opposition with sedition, is that legitimate criticism or demonization?

Must be demonization, because it doesn't follow the talking point of the Liberal administration that is standing as the victim in all things at present. I think the tea party should watch the governments actions very closely now. Things can become really ugly really fast with very little cause, especially if they are set up by some far left fanatic trying to twist the politics of today to what he really wants.

UPDATE: Stephen Green (VodkaPundit) talks on this in his Hair of the Dog this week.

AgitProp

2010-04-02T07:07:00.002-04:00

I guess I have to agree with everything in this article. I'm glad the tea party goers have learned to video everything as many times as possible. This makes the MSM look foolish in a massive way, and the commentators like Olberman look more foolish than ever.

In composing it, I checked with my source on the scene, Greg Farrell, to get a timeline on the passage of the Black Caucus members from the Cannon Building to the Capitol and back. According to Farrell, they left the Cannon Building about 2:30 PM on March 20^th and returned about 3:15 PM. He had no reason to exaggerate.

I asked because at 4:51 that same day, McClatchy reporter William Douglas posted an article on the McClatchy website with the inflammatory headline, "Tea party protesters scream 'nigger' at black congressman."

Go watch the video and any others if that one isn't good enough for you.

Hopefully the tea partiers will all carry video and when anyone tries to stop them filming, everyone will start to film. It will keep the police honest, and will prove as this does that not only is the MSM pushing an agenda, but they are openly lying to the public.

No doubt many of the MSM are seeing those little video recorders and youtube as being double-plus-ungood.

Don't Quit Your Day Job

2010-04-02T07:01:00.002-04:00

I honestly can't tell from his delivery if he's trying to be funny, but if he is, he really needs to work on his delivery.

On April 1, anything suspiciously bizarre or interesting is to be taken with a shaker full of salt. Still, a recent comment from (D-GA) has many wondering if he's misguided on gravity and geography or just a very gifted deadpan comedian.
At a March 25 meeting of the Armed Services Committee, of which Rep. Johnson is a member, the esteemed congressman had an interesting discussion with Robert Willard, commander of the United States Pacific fleet. The topic: Guam. Specifically, how an influx of Marines and their families may cause the tiny island to "tip over and capsize."

I guess I'd disagree with the gifted adjective. Gifted would be if he were doing this comedy line in say a comedy venue and not in a congressional committee meeting. This is just foolish.

National Health Service - Maybe Congress Should Read These Reports

2010-03-11T06:45:00.003-05:00

Informative article out of the UK on the NHS. Suppressed by that managerial overlords to ensure their little fiefdom is unaffected no doubt.

DAMNING reports on the state of the National Health Service, suppressed by the government, reveal how patients’ needs have been neglected.
They diagnose a blind pursuit of political and managerial targets as the root cause of a string of hospital scandals that have cost thousands of lives.

The harsh verdict on the state of the NHS, after a spending splurge under Labour between 2000 and 2008, raises worrying questions about the future quality of the health service as budgets are squeezed.

One report, based on the advice of almost 200 top managers and doctors, says hospitals ignored basic hygiene to cram in patients to meet waiting-time targets.

Oh it gets better, read for yourself.

And this is the health care system that the liberals think we should emulate here? Nice.

Just the Facts

2010-01-28T06:36:00.002-05:00

AP fact checking Obama's SOTU. I found this interesting:

OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."
THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

Makes you wonder when the Congress will get upset with Obama grabbing at their responsibilities.

This is good too:

OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008."
THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.

I guess I can give him the credit on that one. Not that it matters really. His dawdling around doing anything in Afghanistan did more damage than his drones have done good, so maybe he'll now let the generals actually do their jobs.

Oh, and one very poorly covered fact, that the ONE didn't bother discussing is Iraq.

December was the first month since the beginning of the Iraq war in which there were no U.S. combat deaths, the U.S. military reported.
There were three noncombat fatalities.

"That is a very significant milestone for us as we continue to move forward, and I think that also speaks to the level of violence and how it has decreased over time," said Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Must be related to the Iraqi's stepping up and taking the casualties in Harry Reid's "lost war."

November recorded the lowest casualty figures for Iraqis since the U.S.-led invasion, with 88 civilians killed and 332 wounded. In addition, 12 Iraqi soldiers died in November and 44 were wounded. Among Iraqi police, 22 died and 56 were wounded.

Previously, January 2009 had the lowest Iraqi civilian casualty figures since 2003. Since then, figures had been fluctuating, with August being the deadliest month for Iraqi civilians in more than a year.

Now just imagine a world where Obama would give at least the military credit for getting it right.

McCain-Feingold Reversed

2010-01-21T15:53:00.002-05:00

Looks like the McCain-Feingold suppression of political speach law has been seriously reversed.

The ruling represents a tremendous victory for free speech and a serious blow to proponents of campaign-finance “reform,” who have roundly denounced the ruling and have all but predicted the downfall of the Republic as a result. But the reformers’ rhetoric is just that; the Court’s ruling will simply result in a more diverse mix of political speech, and that is a good thing for American democracy.

The ruling in Citizens United is a straightforward application of basic First Amendment principles: “When Government seeks to use its full power . . . to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

I have to say, I really am fascinated at just how many of the Dems are coming down against this. Especially telling is the fact that all the liberal justices dissented from most of the findings. So much for those bastions protecting your rights. I just don't see why the politicos on both sides can't realize that those rights were codified because they were of extreme value. Get Obambi's whine:

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. ... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision." - President Barack Obama.

What forceful response would you like? And what response would not be unconstitutional? It's a victory for everyone, not just big companies.

Also, the disclosure and disclaimer parts of the bill are still standing. If anything this is the part that will aid in transparency and detection of corruption.

** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.

** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter as the Court upheld those requirements.

I understand the finding is very large, so it will be interesting to see what comes out in the analysis.

Global Warming Demonstrably Disproven - Hell Freezes Over in MA

2010-01-20T06:00:00.002-05:00

OK, I am still having problems with this. I'm quite pleased, mainly because I can't wait to see the Democratic leaderships head exploding. I'm even stunned that Coakley is reported to have conceded. At lest the BoGlob said so. Very strange times.

Now let's see how Deval can try to delay Brown's taking the seat, if he dares.

Then there is the play of the Senate Dems to get in a vote before he's seated. Or if that fails they can use the nuclear option. But I'm sure they won't choose that. They think this is bad, they play that game and 2010 regular elections will be a catastrophe. And personally, I don't want to see the Republicans with a super majority either. Well, unless the Dems do rush healthcare "reform" through. Then I could live with it for just long enough to repeal that abomination.

Another Government Meddling Mess

2010-01-10T16:26:00.002-05:00

I'd be surprised if this didn't cause a mess. As usual the politicians put in place a foolish law and its results are warping the economy and damaging industry. This is a Bush mess that was brought to you by a democratically controlled congress.

It sounded like a good idea: Provide a little government money to convert wood shavings and plant waste into renewable energy.

But as laudable as that goal sounds, it could end up causing more economic damage than good -- driving up the price of raw timber, undermining an industry that has long used sawdust and wood shavings to make affordable cabinetry, and highlighting the many challenges involved in decreasing the nation's dependence on oil by using organic materials to create biofuels.

In a matter of months, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program -- a small provision tucked into the 2008 farm bill -- has mushroomed into a half-a-billion dollar subsidy that is funneling taxpayer dollars to sawmills and lumber wholesalers, encouraging them to sell their waste to be converted into high-tech biofuels. In doing so, it is shutting off the supply of cheap timber byproducts to the nation's composite wood manufacturers, who make panels for home entertainment centers and kitchen cabinets.

Imagine if politicians just did nothing for a while. Things would go so much more smoothly.

Obama's EO and that Inconvenient Constitution

2010-01-01T18:53:00.002-05:00

This is startling.

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Go and read it. INTERPOL can now arrest anyone in the country and completely ignore our constitution. No fourth amendment protections. Makes you wonder how many CIA and Military personnel will now be hauled off to the ICC for war crimes by the definition of those fuckers.

Top 10 Corrupt Politicians

2009-12-29T17:51:00.002-05:00

Bruce linked this at No Looking Backwards.

Read the details. These scumbags no doubt will have a long and successful career in politics.

Chris Dodd (second year on the list)
John Ensign
Barney Frank
Timothy Geithner
Eric Holder
Roland Burris/Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Barack Obama (third year on the list if you ignore dishonorable mention)
Nancy Pelosi (third year on the list)
John Murtha (dishonorable mention a couple of times)
Charles Rangel (second year on the list)

I wonder how Reid, Conyers and Feinstein got off the list. Or maybe this list has gotten that much scummier. I guess Hillary finally got off the list because she's an appointee now and not an official political scumbag.

Obama's Xmas Present to Fannie and Freddy Execs

2009-12-28T19:40:00.002-05:00

Did we just hear about what bastards the Wall Street guys or the Bankers were for paying out big bonuses, even when they were contractually required or just deserved? Well, apparently Obambi is now throwing money bonuses at Freddy and Fannie execs. Well that and handing them huge wads of money to accelerate their destruction of the economy.

Best of all, he hides it by handing it all out on Xmas eve.

The Obama administration pledged Thursday to provide unlimited financial assistance to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an eleventh-hour move that allows the government to exceed the current $400 billion cap on emergency aid without seeking permission from a bailout-weary Congress.

The Christmas Eve announcement by the Treasury Department means that it can continue to run the companies, which were seized last year, as arms of the government for the rest of President Obama's current term.

But even as the administration was making this open-ended financial commitment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disclosed that they had received approval from their federal regulator to pay $42 million in Wall Street-style compensation packages to 12 top executives for 2009.

The compensation packages, including up to $6 million each to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's chief executives, come amid an ongoing public debate about lavish payments to executives at banks and other financial firms that have received taxpayer aid. But while many firms on Wall Street have repaid the assistance, there is no prospect that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will do so.

But hey, don't worry, he's and his lackies are only hear to try and help the little guys.

Can't Give a Straight Answer

2009-12-28T10:43:00.002-05:00

This baffled me when I saw it and I still can't figure out how she made the statement. It is obvious that the system failed terribly.

Making the rounds of the Sunday news shows, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared, "One thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked."

That drew the fire of Republicans and other critics, who said a tragedy had only been narrowly averted.

On morning news shows today, Napolitano sought to clarify her remarks, saying she was referring to the system of quickly notifying other flights and law enforcement on the ground.

"Our system did not work in this instance," she said on NBC's "Today" show. "No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way."

Of course the Republican critics were wrong as well. It wasn't averted, the attack failed. Averted would mean that someone did something to stop it. At the point anyone did anything the device was a failure.

Napolitano should be angering people with such statements. Be truthful right from the beginning. Don't choose what you meant the answer to be. Answer directly.

Of course the terrorists succeeded. The flight the next day to Detroit had the crew freaking out about a guy who was sick. Not to mention all the changes to the internal monitoring, that had nothing to do with the issue in the first place.

Obama's Afghan Policy

2009-12-03T06:56:00.002-05:00

You can find the speech and transcript at Small Wars Journal.

Looks like it's not popular. The military types don't like it, putting it mildly, and the loony left, better known as "the base" don't like it either. James Taranto has a decent piece discussing some points. (title link) I especially enjoyed reading Rumsfeld's response that he linked to. I'm oh so very tired of hearing about how someone else buggered it up while the ditherer in chief delayed for months.

I personally preferred the drunk blogging of it. Stephen Green makes it easier to swallow especially with a martini (or bucket of vodka) chaser.

A couple of entries at Blackfive gives some taste of what military types are thinking.
Uncle Jimbo has this bit. Though I am a bit pained by the Palin quote he starts the discussion with.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin makes an interesting statement.
At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.

I'm sorry did I miss something? He never said he was gonna do COIN and he certainly didn't say anything about "clear, hold and build". He didn't articulate any strategy at all. He had a goal of knocking back the Taliban, but didn't mention what our troops were going to do. Let me know if I missed something.

He also has a short bit here.

McQ (usually at QandO) has this piece.

Robert Haddick at SWJ has an interesting piece on the strategy. Here's a pretty damning bit that he starts off with.

The most controversial feature of President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan is his decision to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from the country in July 2011. This feature (no doubt aligned with his re-election plans – why else withdraw troops at the start of the Afghan summer fighting season?) is a fatal flaw and makes it very likely that little will go right for his Afghan strategy. Indeed, it negates the point of hastily adding over 30,000 U.S. and European soldiers in 2010.
Over the past three months President Obama and his team have analyzed the Afghanistan problem from first principles. Yet in spite of this effort, their solution is not likely to make the problem go away. Regrettably, the next few years are likely to reveal that America still lacks a winning strategy for modern irregular conflict.

Yep, I pretty much read this all as only politics. No doubt it ends up outside of politics, but the calculations only came up with a strategy that will help him get re-elected. Anyone surprised?

Lots of other links, but I have to go to work.

Shoe Based Karma

2009-12-01T17:36:00.001-05:00

Heh, this kills me:

PARIS (Reuters) - An Iraqi reporter imprisoned for throwing his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush found himself on the receiving end of a similar footwear attack in Paris on Tuesday.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, whose flare-up against Bush last December turned into a symbol of Iraqi anger, was speaking at a news conference to promote his campaign for victims of the war in Iraq when a man in the audience hurled a shoe at him.

Now that's karma.

Not So Stimulating

2009-11-30T16:40:00.002-05:00

Niall Ferguson in Newsweak. Not sure what they are doing publishing Niall's commentary since it is definitely NOT supportive of Obamanism, but hey, maybe they had a troubled conscience. Or not.

This bit pretty much validates what I am continually arguing is the fact.

Meanwhile, let's consider the cost of this muted stimulus. The deficit for the fiscal year 2009 came in at more than $1.4 trillion—about 11.2 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That's a bigger deficit than any seen in the past 60 years—only slightly larger in relative terms than the deficit in 1942. We are, it seems, having the fiscal policy of a world war, without the war. Yes, I know, the United States is at war in Afghanistan and still has a significant contingent of troops in Iraq. But these are trivial conflicts compared with the world wars, and their contribution to the gathering fiscal storm has in fact been quite modest (little more than 1.8 percent of GDP, even if you accept the estimated cumulative cost of $3.2 trillion published by Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz in February 2008).

I think a lot of people are still in denial over this stimulus and its affects. Most people I work with seem to think the stimulus is going swimmingly and deny that this is an unprecedented spending spree.

Well, read it all. It's long, but he makes some outstanding points on the whole economic mess we're living in.

Six Bills to be Worried About

2009-11-22T14:05:00.002-05:00

I heard of S. 1619 from a Trifecta show at PJTV. I hadn't heard of it anywhere else and for good reason. I tried googling it under news and came up with the title link only. No other analysis or reporting. None.

I'm only going to briefly discuss S. 1619. It does read like a bill only a government could love. Too much of it relates to how the government can incentivize people to live in more urban settings. No doubt the intent by the sponsors who all are Democrats and all who come from states whose majorities are in large urban settings.

Look at this section on Mortgage definitions.

(A) the term ‘energy-efficient mortgage’ means a mortgage loan under which the income of the borrower, for purposes of qualification for such loan, is considered to be increased by not less than $1 for each $1 of savings projected to be realized by the borrower as a result of cost-effective energy-saving design, construction, or improvements (including use of renewable energy sources, such as solar, geothermal, biomass, and wind, super-insulation, energy-saving windows, insulating glass and film, and radiant barrier) for the home for which the loan is made; and

(B) the term ‘location-efficient mortgage’ means a mortgage loan under which--

(i) the income of the borrower, for purposes of qualification for such loan, is considered to be increased by not less than $1 for each $1 of savings projected to be realized by the borrower because the location of the home for which the loan is made will result in decreased transportation costs for the household of the borrower; or
(ii) the sum of the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance due under the mortgage loan is decreased by not less than $1 for each $1 of savings projected to be realized by the borrower because the location of the home for which the loan is made will result in decreased transportation costs for the household of the borrower.

Wonderful that. Giving out mortgages based on peoples decisions to meet the definitions not on their ability to pay. Sound like part of the problem that caused the housing bubble?

What about the "interagency councils?" I'm not quite certain about the executive director. Is this a position requiring confirmation? Or is this just an appointee without oversight? And is this a position that you really want your opposition filling at a later date? Because there is little doubt that the Republicans will be back in power at some point, so how wise is it to create such a position? Sounds in total like another agency run to tamper with existing agencies. Just another layer of bureaucracy that makes things less efficient and more cumbersome.

They also start with $100M of appropriations for the grants. Nice way to start something with really vague definitions. Makes you wonder what the oversight will be like for all that money. Nothing in the bill describes the oversight though. No corruption will be involved though, no doubt. Not that we don't have any worries like we have with ACORN.

Read the bills, and be concerned.

Give Me My Goddamn Nuclear Hot Shower...

2009-11-22T11:33:00.002-05:00

First go watch the Trifecta show at PJTV. The title of this post is Bill Whittle quote from the end of the show. I don't usually expect his statements like that one, but it cracked me up.

Now, to the climatologist Liars. I guess this is documented evidence of my contention that scientists have no moral or ethical standing above the normal citizen. Go read these emails and other documents and you'll be amazed that they conciously and intentionally h

id evidence rather than open it to scientific debate.

This justifies the debate and the doubts of anyone questioning the "data" that is used for the supposed scientific "consensus" on human caused global warming.

And for those that think this indicates that I discount all of the science, you are wrong. I'm not of the opinion that all the science is wrong, I have found justification for questioning the results and the scientists who have found religious level belief in their own results.

Unemployment Crest

2009-11-12T06:28:00.002-05:00

Not a pleasant overview of the economy. James Pethokoukis quotes Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg. There are 12 points, but the last is the most disturbing, at least to me.

12. After all, the recession ended in November 2001 with an unemployment rate at 5.5% and yet the unemployment rate did not peak until June 2003, at 6.3%. The recession ended in March 1991 when the jobless rate was 6.8% and it did not peak until June 1992, at 7.8%. In both cases, the unemployment rate peaked well more than a year after the recession technically ended. The 2001 cycle was a tech capital stock deflation; the 1991 cycle was the Savings & Loan debacle; this past cycle was an asset deflation and credit collapse of epic proportions. And economists think that the unemployment rate is in the process of cresting now? Just remember it is the same consensus community that predicted at the beginning of 2008 that the jobless rate would peak out below 6% this cycle.

Great. Hope & Change is doing so very well. Another stupid belief that the government could actually affect this recession by throwing money at it. Let's not forget that they throw the money at the wrong people as well.

Barry's Peace Prize - Consent

2009-10-28T06:40:00.002-04:00

I knew there was a restriction in the constitution. I didn't know there was a law. But I'm still waiting to see if Obama will prove his constitutional credentials or his contempt for the law.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Rep. Cliff Stearns, and Rep. Ron Paul say “no,” and have sent a letter to the President asking him to request congressional consent, which they expect would be speedily given. They point to the example of President Theodore Roosevelt, who created a committee, including the Chief Justice, to hold Roosevelt’s Nobel Peace Prize money in trust until he left office. After leaving office, Roosevelt asked for congressional consent to disburse the money to particular charities.

Article I, § 9, clause 8, of the Constitution states that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

When Roosevelt won the Peace Prize, there was apparently no controlling statute. Today there is: 5 USC § 7342 (titled “Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations”) sets out the conditions under which foreign gifts can be accepted without a separate action of Congress. The statute applies to an “employee,” which includes “the President and the Vice President.”

A “foreign government” includes ” any agent or representative of any such [foreign] unit or such organization, while acting as such.” Since the Nobel Peace Prize committee is, as the Representatives note, appointed by the Norwegian Storting (the legislature), it would seem to be within the scope of the statute.

A “gift” is “a tangible or intangible present (other than a decoration) .” A “decoration” includes a ” medal, badge, insignia, emblem, or award.”

By the statute, Congress explicitly consents to employee receipt of gifts of “minimal value,” which is “means a retail value in the United States at the time of acceptance of $100 or less.” The statute authorizes the Administrator of General Services to make regulations to adjust “minimal value” to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, beginning in 1981, and reflecting CPI changes in the previous three years. Roughly speaking, $100 in 1978 is about $327 today.

A Peace Prize laureate receives a diploma, a 196-gram gold medal, and a large check (10 million Swedish crowns in 2007). The spot price of gold is $33 a gram, so the medal and the check obviously do not qualify for the “minimal value” exception. The diploma, as a piece of paper, could, although not if it were delivered with an expensive frame.

In the statute, Congress also formally “consents” to an employee receiving and keeping “a decoration tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee.” The diploma and the medal both fit within the definition of “decoration.” As President, Obama is the head of his own “employing agency,” and therefore can approve his receipt of the medal and the diploma.
The check is not a “decoration” and is of much more than “minimal value.” Employees may not accept gifts of more than minimal value. However, there are various exceptions, and the relevant one is that a gift may be accepted “when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except that– (i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon acceptance, shall become the property of the United States.” It would seem to be within the foreign policy discretion of President Obama to determine that refusing the Nobel check could cause offense, embarrassment, or an adverse effect on foreign relations.

Then, “Within 60 days after accepting a tangible gift of more than minimal value,...an employee shall– (A) deposit the gift for disposal with his or her employing agency; or (B) subject to the approval of the employing agency, deposit the gift with that agency for official use.” Accordingly, it would appear that President Obama must turn the check over to the United States government, for official use. I have not researched whether there are regulations detailing precisely how gifts which a President receives are to be disposed. It would appear that President Obama cannot personally give the Nobel money to charity.

Thus, it seems clear that the statute already supplies the constitutionally-required congressional consent for President Obama to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, and no further action by Congress is needed, provided that President Obama signs the check over the government, as the statute requires.

Makes you wonder if the check will be signed over to the government.

In a lot of ways this is more about what Obama will do with regards to the law rather than the money. But, it does appear to be something that should be noted as a real world indication of what he does rather than says.

Crime and Criminilizing the Citizen

2009-10-20T07:07:00.002-04:00

I've been reading a bit on this topic and have to admit this does scare me. I don't even know if I would understand what laws I'd be breaking if this is accurate, and from what I've been reading, it sounds to be.

Fear makes for easy politics. It both wins votes and primes us to give government more power at the expense of personal liberty. And that's certainly true when it comes to crime. With the possible exception of an incumbent mayor, politicians only benefit from exaggerating the threat of violent crime. Senators, Congressmen, and even governors are rarely held responsible when the crime rate goes up. But they do win votes by proposing new powers for police and prosecutors to bring it down.

The result has been a one-way ratchet effect on crime policy. We're perpetually expanding police and prosecutorial power, a process only occasionally slowed by the courts. Congress and state legislatures rarely take old criminal statutes off the books, but they're always adding new ones. A 2008 report from the Heritage Foundation estimates that at the federal level alone, Congress has been adding about 55 new crimes to the federal criminal code each year since the 1980s. There are now about 4,500 separate federal crimes. And that doesn't include federal regulations, which are increasingly being enforced with criminal, not administrative, penalties. It also doesn't include the increasing leeway with which prosecutors can enforce broadly written federal conspiracy, racketeering, and money laundering laws. And this is before we even get to the states' criminal codes.

In his new book, the Boston-based civil liberties advocate and occasional Reason contributor Harvey Silverglate estimates that in 2009, the average American commits about three federal felonies per day. And yet, we aren’t a nation of degenerates. On the contrary, most social indicators have been moving in a positive direction for a generation. Silverglate argues we're committing these crimes unwittingly. The federal criminal code has become so vast and open to interpretation, Silverglate argues, that a U.S. Attorney can find a way to charge just about anyone with violating federal law. In fact, it's nearly impossible for some business owners to comply with one federal regulation without violating another one. We're no longer governed by laws, we're governed by the whims of lawyers.

Just more reasons to avoid the police. And people wonder why LEO jobs are so hard. People don't want to talk to police because you could innocently be stepping into a felony arrest that you neither understand nor can avoid.

War on Drugs Gets Bitten

2009-10-15T07:10:00.003-04:00

This is a bit old (Dec. 2008) but I still find it remarkable.

Right up front I think the war on drugs has become a farce if it wasn't one to begin with. The institutionalization of the tactics and the laws that allow the various travesties of justice are astounding if one takes the time to view how often the innocent get bitten. I have no doubts that power proves irresistible in many of the cases and police forces tend to have a lot of people who go into crusader mode when they think there is an issue. No knock raids killing LEO and citizens isn't highly common, but it is far too common for what should be some basics in investigations. Police forces profiting from drug arrests and seizures just feeds into corruption.

Now a TeeVee program in Texas bites back. I am just astounded at the cajones of the guys who did this. In fact, I'd love to see this performed more broadly throughout the country.

"KopBusters rented a house in Odessa, Texas and began growing two small Christmas trees under a grow light similar to those used for growing marijuana," claims a release from NeverGetBusted.com "When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house. Instead of conducting a proper investigation which usually leads to no probable cause, the Kops lie on the affidavit claiming a confidential informant saw the plants and/or the police could smell marijuana coming from the suspected house."
"The trap was set and less than 24 hours later, the Odessa narcotics unit raided the house only to find KopBuster's attorney waiting under a system of complex gadgetry and spy cameras that streamed online to the KopBuster's secret mobile office nearby.

"The attorney was handcuffed and later released when eleven KopBuster detectives arrived with the media in tow to question the illegal raid. The police refused to give KopBusters the search warrant affidavit which is suspected to contain the lies regarding the probable cause.

"It is not illegal to grow plants under a light in your home but it is illegal to lie on an affidavit and plant drugs on a citizen. This operation was the first of its kind in the history of America. Police sometimes have other police investigating their crimes but the American court system has never dealt with a group of citizens stinging the police. Will the police file charges on the team who took down the corrupt cops? We will keep you posted."

I wonder if they have any grounds to get the original affidavit. No doubt the police will keep it out of public view because it's an ongoing investigation, but I do think there are legal actions to be taken around this.

And note, I don't blame the police for using the tools that the politicos have handed them, but on the reverse, it is about time that citizens fight back with those tools that they have. If our society is to be truly free then all portions of the legal system has to be open to review and change. This is especially true of those that people rarely dare challenge alone.

Michael Moore - Capitalist Whiner

2009-10-02T06:29:00.002-04:00

The Fat Fuck From Flint is whining that capitalism did nothing for him. This is just too funny considering the amount of money he has. But then it appears that his point is that is was hard.

CNSNews.com asked: “Critics may say, when they see this movie, Michael Moore has amassed a fortune of over $50 million, some have said and –”

Moore said: “Really? Are you kidding me? Seriously? Wow. Where did it go?”

CNSNews.com then asked Moore: “Critics would say he’s [Moore] been very successful under a capitalist system. How would you justify making a movie where you paint capitalism as evil?”

Moore said: “Well, capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film.”
“You know, I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal,” he said. “The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there.”

“In fact, in Fahrenheit 9/11 if you remember, capitalism, the Disney Corporation, tried to kill that film--tried to make it so that people couldn’t see it,” said Moore. “My book Stupid White Men--Harper Collins tried to kill that book so that people couldn’t see it. It's only because I put the light of day on it and told people what was going on did people get the chance to see these things.”

According to Fortune Magazine, Moore’s films have grossed over $300 million worldwide. His highest grossing film was “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which critiques the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq and earned over $200 million worldwide.

Moore reportedly was paid $21 million by Disney for producing, directing and creating the film.

Moore also earned 50 percent of the profits of his 2007 film “Sicko,” totaling $25 million plus DVD sales, according to Vanity Fair.

"Oh no the capitalists tried to kill my movies and books, but yet went on to produce them for me and then gave me huge quantities of money. Those evil bastards."

What a fucking hypocrite. Imagine Michael Moore in China or the USSR. He'd have been allowed to shovel snow and never would have made a rubel, but no doubt he'd have had great health care and no worries about guns.

Fucking idiot.

Fools

2009-09-24T06:43:00.002-04:00

Interesting articles from the past couple of days that frankly just fall under the heading of fools.

Let's start off with another of the Czars. This one isn't nearly the Prat that VanJones was, but then, this is a bit hard to swallow from a government official without reading an underlying tinge of threat. You can determine the amount of threat for yourself.

Mr. Lloyd said in a formal statement provided to the Washington Times through the FCC that his comment was being misinterpreted.
"The point I was trying to make was that there was dramatic social change in places like Rwanda and Venezuela and that media played an important part in that. I am not a Chavez supporter. I do not support any political leader other than the president of the United States. I do believe all Americans would benefit from more opportunities to participate in media and that the answer to ugly speech is not censorship, but more speech."
At another conference, Mr. Lloyd spoke about the need to remove white people from powerful positions in the media to give minorities a fairer chance.
"There's nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions," he said.
"And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."
He added: "There are few things, I think, more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men. Here I am."

Emphasis is mine. Note that Lloyd is a politico of undetermined power since he isn't in a defined position and we don't know what he will be allowed to set policy on. Statements like that clearly indicate that he believes that someone can push aside executives of private companies in order to meet some diversity plan. We've seen how they've pushed out execs in the major car companies. Could this be an extension of that?

If you want diversity in the media, it should come from the free market and not from some forced conception of what is fair. I doubt you'll be seeing many MSM execs jumping off the pier to make way for diversity.

The article has a bunch of other interesting info on Lloyd. Have fun.

Then there is Joe Scarborough. This fool thinks Glen Beck is bad for conservatism. I'd like to point out to Joe, SO WHAT? Beck may posture as a clown, but deprecating humor aside, he is asking questions and demanding the viewer figure it out. These people apparently don't listen to what he says. That's quite obvious when you get to the point where they demand to know how he's going to take responsibility for what happens. Well, so far I think he's done a very good job of keeping it peaceful and has forced a lot of people to actually do a lot of due diligence on topics he's handled.

I think Joe should stop pissing himself and realize that conservatives have pissed off far too much of the population in recent years. Now the Dems are doing the exact same thing, only difference is that they took the republican's irresponsible spending to the next level. Both groups miss what the middle/majority really want. But please Joe, continue attacking Beck with the Progressives. It will just make his points appear more valid to more people.

And lastly there are the fools in the UN. I'm just going to skip the general BS that is flying about. But there is an interesting point here:

One of the lead authors of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute, has admitted the Earth is entering a one to two decade cooling period. You haven't seen this reported in the mainstream media because they are too interested in shilling for the global warming crowd. They don't want to report this "inconvenient truth." BBC blogger Tom Feilden brings it home in this excerpt.

The global warming narrative - that mankind's addiction to burning fossil fuels is rapidly changing the climate - may be about to go seriously off message.

Far from suggesting the planet will get warmer, one of the world's leading climate modellers says the latest data indicates we could be in for a significant period of steady temperatures and possibly even a little global cooling.

Professor Mojib Latif, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, has been looking at the influence of cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. When he factored these natural fluctuations into his global climate model, professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt.

"The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted. Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm".

With apologies to Al Gore, professor Latif's finding is something of an "inconvenient truth" for the global warming debate.

Nothing like having your main support scientist suddenly shouting out that the UN politicos of the IPCC don't have a clue.

MSM to Become the Ministry of Truth

2009-09-21T06:34:00.003-04:00

So Obama thinks this is worthwhile.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called "Newspaper Revitalization Act," that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations. That bill has so far attracted one cosponsor, Cardin's Maryland colleague Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D).

Hmm. I wonder if there are any impediments placed on such groups for political speech. Well, I suppose they could overlook such restrictions being that they are only reporting the truth and not opinion as they constantly remind us.

But of course Obama thinks this all wonderful.

Obama said that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy," but expressed concern toward growing tends in reporting -- especially on political blogs, from which a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged during the presidential election.

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.

Hmm. Funny that he doesn't seem to be reading any of the criticism of the papers. No doubt he honestly believes that the NYTimes isn't carrying his water, or that of liberals in general. I suppose that is all "good" journalism since many media outlets failed to bother reporting his associations with radicals or corrupt political groups like say ACORN.

It may not be 1984, but there certainly are a lot of things that smell fouly with regards to this idea.

Vacation Pictures

2009-09-15T18:22:00.007-04:00

These first are the nicer pictures of some of the places we went on Mount Desert Island. This first is the Witch Pond Bridge. I think it is the finest of the bridges that Rockefeller placed on the island.

The rocky coast. I think this was somewhere near Otter Cliff.

Sunrise on Mount Cadillac. Damn cold and windy. Well, it was pretty.

Somme Sound fjard. I guess it doesn't quite qualify as a fjord, but it was interesting.

And this one really pissed me off. Look at the word "America" at the bottom right of the plaque.

Town Hall Security

2009-09-15T07:03:00.002-04:00

I couldn't get to the original article quoted, but this one will do. Seems the local Sheriff decided to pull up some rather big crowd control devices from the town hall meetings. I'm still wondering why he thought this level of device would be necessary considering that no town hall meeting in the US has come to an actual riot.

Rep. Susan Davis-D Calif. and Rep. Darrell Issa-R Calif. held town halls that exceeded capacity (10,000+ total attendees) and prompted the Sheriff’s Department to have Long-Range Acoustic Devices(LRADs) standing ready.
Both town halls took place without incident; however the use of the military device concerned San Diegians. The LRAD crowd control is primarily used in Iraq to control insurgents and can cause serious and lasting harm to humans.
According to the manufacture, American Technology Corporation, the LRAD provides “military personnel the capability to transition through the rules of engagement to determine a target’s intent and also provides greater assurance that innocent lives on both sides of the device are not lost due to miscommunication.”
That being said why would local law enforcement feel the need to have such drastic measures on standby? Did the Sheriff Department have reason to believe a catastrophe was in the making?
In an interview with East County Magazine, Sheriff Gore answered a couple of questions. When asked about the use of sonic cannons directing a deterrent sound and the fact they are used in Iraq, Sheriff Gore replied; “That’s a precaution in case you need it.”

Well, hell, where are the flame-throwers and tanks then? You know just in case. What an imbecile.

Got to love this perspective as well.

At a Sheriff’s debate Gore was asked directly (by this writer) why he felt the need to place such heavy-handed piece of military equipment at two area town halls.
“The LRAD was purchased as a crowd dispersal unit,” Sheriff Gore explained. “It was held in reserve in both Susan Davis-D CA. and Darrell Issa-R CA/Duncan Hunter-R CA. events should there be any problems. We could use the LRAD in place of pepper spray.”
Although Gore said the LRAD was held in reserve, a photo taken at the town hall proves otherwise, said a Department of Defense Security Contractor source close to the story.
Gore continued to add that the devise is a non-lethal piece of equipment.
However that couldn’t be further from the truth. Sheriff candidate Jay LaSuer said, “I dispute this answer. It’s a very, very lethal weapon and they (LRAD) have no place in law enforcement.”
“Why would you use a LRAD when members of Congress invited people to talk about health care? The majority of the attendees are probably on Medicare. Are we going after terrorists on walkers now?” LaSuer said.
Spokesperson, Joe Kasper from Congressman Hunter’s office had this to say.
“We were not aware of any type of technology being used to monitor the event at which the Congressman appeared. Law enforcement always stands to benefit from more advanced equipment but, regardless of the system, these tools should be utilized in a manner that is both safe and responsible. More importantly, there are certain systems that should only be used when absolutely necessary, so I think it’s reasonable to question the practicality of this particular technology in this situation.”
Numerous calls made to Congresswoman Davis’s office went unreturned.
Further disputing the call to place military weaponry at town hall events came from a military insider who has been to Iraq and was a part of the testing of the LRAD in San Diego.
“Let me be real clear, this weapon can cause serious injury to the inner ear or result in death if utilized improperly within 30-feet. Furthermore, the LRAD requires explicit training so not to accidentally deploy the weapon which causes hearing loss as well as death,” the DOD source said.

Lovely. I'm sure using such a device in a huge crowd filled with the elderly wouldn't have been dangerous, not even taking into account the misuse of such a device.

If the Sheriff thought this was appropriate, then someone may want to reconsider his appropriateness for filling that post.

Merge the Databases, and Privacy Be Damned

2009-09-03T06:35:00.003-04:00

No doubt the rush to get health care reform through during an unassociated economic crisis is the legitimizing factor to place huge risks in the privacy of all the proletariat.

One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." (Here's our CBS News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

Interesting, but the journalist in this case seems to not be convinced of the threat. Note to self, never take security or privacy advice from a journalist.

I'm not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy's Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's privacy policy in Canada.)

A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.

It's true that if the legislative branch chooses to create "affordability credits," it probably makes sense to ensure they're not abused. The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of preserving individual privacy.

He adds an update that EPIC condemns the bill. I just find it fascinating that he is willing to weight fraud prevention equally against opening everyone's records to bureaucrats at the state and federal level. No doubt there won't be any abuse anything like what happened to "Joe the Plumber." The more people have open and free access to information, the more probable abuse will become. Legislating this with no limitations on access is asking for abuse.

Wonder why he won't mention that little things like databases can be accessed by programs to determine whether the person can receive benefits. If the program is in the IRS and will provide a simple yes or no answer to the query then there would be no reason for anyone to have full and open access. But hey, let's just open it all up instead of thinking about implementations.

UPDATE: In timely fashion here is a Schneier post that aids my point.

Those Poor Unfortunate Federal Workers

2009-09-01T06:29:00.002-04:00

This makes me feel so bad for them:

Citing the current economic recession -- and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks eight years ago -- President Obama says he will use emergency powers to cut the programmed across-the-board January increase in federal employees' pay from 2.4 percent to 2.0 percent, according to a letter he sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Monday.

The move was not a surprise, as Obama telegraphed a 2 percent increase in the budget he proposed earlier this year. But it's certainly not welcome news for federal employees, whose unions protested when Obama's budget was released.

Let's see, I took a 10% pay cut this summer and haven't had a raise in 3 years, yeah I'm sympathetic with them getting a RAISE!

Jackass. Missing the economic situation and his out of control spending, he's still handing out raises. Nice responsible government.

Just Not Getting It

2009-09-01T06:03:00.002-04:00

Jim Jones is Obama's National Security adviser, and frankly is a clueless git.

In an interview with ABC News, Jones said Obama's efforts to reach out to world leaders and improve relations with law enforcement agencies had made it easier to track and kill terrorists than during the Bush administration.

"We have better human intelligence. We know where the terrorists are moving," Jones told ABC.

"Because of the dialogue and the tone of the dialogue between us and our friends and allies ... the trend line against terrorism is positive," he added.

and

While noting that he was not keeping tallies of enemy combatants killed and captured under Obama and Bush, Jones said the numbers were going up as a result of good intelligence.

"We are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders and a kind of a global coming-together by the fact that this is a threat to not only the United States but to the world at-large," he said.

and

Jones did not, however, counter Cheney's argument that Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to investigate suspected CIA prisoner abuses could have a chilling effect on the work of the intelligence agency.

"I think it is something we have to address," Jones said. "I think anybody who works in a law enforcement agency ... have to know clearly what the rules are."

So let's get this straight, the increased intelligence and success in taking down terrorist leaders is due to Obama being nice to foriegn leaders, not the fact that the intelligence systems had been put in place (by the Bush administration) and are now being focused on in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region. Fascinating that he can take credit for doing nothing. No evidence is provided that would actually show how the Obama administration's change in tactics demonstrably has caused this.

And you have to love the last quote about the CIA. They are most certainly NOT an LEO. It is primarily an INTELLIGENCE gathering department that also does covert activities. They aren't enforcing laws. He may actually want to read the National Security Act of 1947. This bit being relevant:

(d) HEAD OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. - In the Director's capacity as head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director shall -

(1) collect intelligence through human sources and by other appropriate means, except that the Agency shall have no police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions;

Pretty plain wording. Too bad Jones doesn't know what his own intelligence services are required to do.

Carol Ché -Porter - Time for Change

2009-08-31T06:19:00.002-04:00

I'm not a constituent, but when you pull this bull-shit in NH you deserve to be booted from office.

From Now Hampshire:

In four short years Carol Shea-Porter has evolved from a rabble-rousing, town hall disrupting anti-war activist who once had to be forcibly removed from a President George Bush event in Portsmouth to a Member of Congress who instructed armed security guards to remove a frustrated voter from her own town hall event in Manchester on Saturday.

In the appended video, Shea-Porter can be seen instructing security to remove a man for standing to ask a question without a ticket. Shea-Porter previously held a lottery to determine who could ask questions . She can also be heard taunting the man on his way out by saying, “I do hope the movie theater can be a little quieter for you.”

Nice, Gotta love the taunting of the constituent. No doubt that will be on a campaign commercial in the next election.

And you have to love the fact that she's apparently forgotten completely where she started. Not only has she completely failed to meet with the constituents in anything but a hyper-controlled and small meeting, but she's denigrating those who are using her former tactics. (h/t Hot Air)

She chose what sounded like a derogatory reference to opponents, some of whom sprang from the Tea Party rallies across the country against Obama's fiscal agenda.

"They walked around me and they're videotaping me," Shea-Porter said at the Spring Street home of an Obama supporter, according to Foster's Daily Democrat.

"I chose to go there because I wanted to talk to them about what this is really about. And I ask you to do that also. Don't be so divided and so put off that you don't feel like you can have a conversation."

That's fine and admirable, but this is when it got a little unhinged.

"Find those tea-baggers who don't like the idea of this and talk to them. You won't get all of them, but I think when they realize we're still going to be an employer-based insurance system in this country, and that it is a choice – one choice among many choices – it takes away that sense of fear, that sense that they're losing control over their lives.

and

The irony is, of course, that Shea-Porter used to be a "tea-bagger'' on the left. She stalked then-congressman Jeb Bradley at town hall-style meetings the 1st District Republican incumbent held throughout his district.

Time for a Chénge.

Canadian Medical Association Says Canadian Healthcare Broken

2009-08-17T07:01:00.002-04:00

Here's statements on the Canadian Healthcare System being broken. Not much details though.

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
...
His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."
In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.
He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

I hadn't realized that hospitals were paid in lump sums. That sounds like a guarantee for inefficiency. There isn't any incentive to do anything more than the minimum. Also makes you wonder how they pay their staffs and improve facilities. Not that they need to go overboard like hospitals in the US with massive luxury hotel style improvements, but every facility requires repair and updating periodically.

Apparently they are looking for a solution, but don't want what the US has either.

Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.
"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."
"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

Can't blame them for trying to find what works, but from what I see here, they aren't going to find it.

Ethics for the Intelligence Officer

2009-08-14T07:57:00.003-04:00

Interesting piece that Schneier quotes. I can't get to the article, but the quote is the point.

Draft Statement of Ethics for the Intelligence Community
Preamble: Intelligence work may present exceptional or unusual ethical dilemmas beyond those of ordinary life. Ethical thinking and review should be a part of our day to day efforts; it can protect our nation's and our agency’s integrity, improve the chances of mission success, protect us from the consequences of bad choices, and preserve our alliances. Therefore, we adhere to the following standards of professional ethics and behavior:

First, do no harm to U.S. citizens or their rights under the Constitution.
We uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law; we are constrained by both the spirit and the letter of the laws of the United States.
We will comply with all international human rights agreements that our nation has ratified.
We will insist on clarification of ambiguities that arise between directives or law and the principles of this code. We will protect those within our institutions who call reasonable attention to wrongdoing.
Expediency is not an excuse for misconduct.
We are accountable for our decisions and actions. We support timely, rigorous processes that fix accountability to the responsible person.
Statements we make to our clients, colleagues, overseers and the U.S. public will be true, and structured not to unnecessarily mislead or conceal.
We will resolve difficult ethical choices in favor of constitutional requirements, the truth, and our fellow citizens.
We will address the potential consequences of our actions in advance, especially the consequences of failure, discovery, and unintended or collateral consequences of success.
We will not impose unnecessary risk on innocents.
Although we may work in secrecy, we will work so that when our efforts become known, our fellow citizens will be proud of us and of our efforts.

Interesting in that I find this hard to stomach when the operative is answerable to the politician who doesn't have to meet these requirements.

Missing His Own Lesson

2009-08-11T18:48:00.002-04:00

Obama in Portsmouth on the Government Insurance option.

Now, the only thing that I have said is that having a public option in that menu would provide competition for insurance companies to keep them honest. Now, I recognize, though, you make a legitimate -- you raise a legitimate concern. People say, "Well, how can a private company compete against the government?" And my answer is that if the insurance -- private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning, taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums, and providing good services and a good network of doctors just like any other private insurer would do, then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time.

(APPLAUSE)

I mean, if you think about it, you know, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. I mean, it's the post office that's always having problems. So, right now, you've got private insurers who are out there competing effectively even though a lot of people get their care through Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA. So, there's nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace as long as -- and this is a legitimate point that you're raising -- that it's not set up where the government is basically being subsidized by the taxpayers. So that even if they're not providing a good deal, we keep on having to pony out more and more money. And I've already said that can't be the way the public option is set up.

OBAMA: It has to be self-sustaining.

So does he really want to use the USPS as an example of a program that competes with private enterprise? I can see his point in a twisted sort of way, that private health insurace should be able to compete against the governments plan, but what about those people who don't get the choice? If your company dumps your insurance policy and you can't get a non-government plan what are you getting? And how would a government plan save the economy and help the deficit if it works as well as the postal service?

Daniel Hannan on HealthCare Reform

2009-08-11T07:24:00.002-04:00

I saw this on Beck last week. Hannan is quite informative on the British NHS and provides some interesting information about its history that many people seem to forget.

HANNAN: Listen, our system, our NHS came out of a peculiar time, we were basically under full mobilization when we invented this, right? It was.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNAN: It's Word War II, 1944. So, it was a time when we had food rationing, when everything had been nationalized, when he had hugely high taxes, you know, because everything had been conscripted into the war.
That was the product — that was the thinking that led to the state health care system.

I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system in peacetime and massively expanding the role of the state when there's no need.

BECK: Because they would say that this is going to save us money.

HANNAN: Well, you know it is the single biggest item of our government budget. And, it's — you know, the state generally doesn't do things as efficiently as the market does. Of course, it doesn't. If you know that you're getting the same treatment without paying for it, you have no incentive to keep costs down.

The NHS came out of a time when Britain was not only broke, but almost broken. The NHS was a great thing at the time because it ensured that people would at least be capable of getting the minimum health support for regular lives. That's not the problem today in the USA. Why would we choose to strap on a system that all examples show ends in inefficiency and red tape?

And the truly disturbing point:

HANNAN: We have 1.4 million people employed by the National Health Service. It is the third biggest employer in the world after the Red Army in China and the Indian National Railways. Most of those 1.4 million people are administrators, that the managers outnumber the doctors and nurses. And that is the electoral bloc that makes it almost impossible to get rid of.
So, if you do this thing, if — you know, you're going to decide.

That bothers me to no end. If we become like the Brits, our version of NHS will be disturbingly powerful just as an electoral bloc. Imagine how the Unions are salivating over that bit of gold that they can pack into their coffers. Power in that combination will be destructive to everyones detriment.

Good for Them

2009-08-11T07:09:00.002-04:00

Saw this linked at Insty. I'm rather glad that they feel this way. Now if they can get the Congresslime to listen.

The White House disagreed this afternoon with the contention by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, that the disruptions at town hall meetings are "un-American," as the Democratic congressional leaders contended in a USA Today op-ed this morning.

"I think there's actually a pretty long tradition of people shouting at politicians in America," White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton told reporters on Air Force One when asked about the comments.

"The President thinks that if people want to come and have a spirited debate about health care, a real vigorous conversation about it, that's a part of the American tradition and he encourages that, because people do have questions and concerns ...And so if people want to come and have their concerns and their questions answered, the President thinks that's important. Now, if you just want to come to a town hall so that you can disrupt and so that you can scream over another person, he doesn’t think that that's productive. And as a country, we've been able to make progress when people actually talk out what our problems are, not try to shout each other down."

I agree that it isn't very productive, but that method of protest is very common on the left, including in Obama's own support organizations. I just would like the meetings to have sufficient civility that it wouldn't happen. No doubt the SEIU bullying people out of the room as has been seen at several of the town hall meetings is sufficient proof of their own tactics.

At his town hall meeting in Portsmouth, NH, tomorrow, Burton said, President Obama "thinks that we're going to be able to have a constructive conversation tomorrow and he'll continue to do that at the town hall later in the week and throughout this effort."

No doubt Obama will have a nice supportive meeting in Portsmouth. Seeing that it is probably the most liberal city in the state it would be surprising that it isn't just loaded with his supporters and union storm troops. I'd be surprised if the seats are already all occupied for the event.

I wonder how many Free Staters are going to try to get in. Should be interesting.

The Specter of Tort Reform

2009-08-10T07:29:00.002-04:00

No not related to the Obamacare fiasco, rather a little gift Arlen (D) wants to hand out to the bar.

Arlen Specter became a Democrat this year, but there’s one party we’re confident the Pennsylvania Senator will never abandon—the trial bar. He’s recently introduced legislation to repeal two important Supreme Court business rulings in order to create a new lawsuit bonanza.

In Stoneridge v. Scientific Atlanta, five Justices ruled in 2008 that companies can’t be sued merely for doing business with another firm that commits fraud. This followed the 1994 precedent in Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, in which the Justices limited liability claims against alleged “aiders and abettors.” Both decisions undermine “scheme liability” suits, which are the kind of elastic legal claim that gives U.S. civil justice a bad name.

Enter Mr. Specter and Rhode Island’s Jack Reed, who say the decisions deny fraud victims their day in court. Their bill would amend the 1934 Securities Exchange Act specifically to authorize a private right of action for aiding-and-abetting liability. The two Supreme Court rulings interpreted the law narrowly to apply only to primary offenders, who can still be sued by genuine—and even not-so-genuine—victims of fraud.

Nice that he thinks so much of those poor lawyers that he want to help them make even more money against the fair decision by the SCOTUS.

Spending Like Barney Frank on Meth

2009-08-10T06:35:00.002-04:00

This is disturbing. I was irritated when they were proposing four new planes which the Military didn't request, now they've jumped the number to eight.

WASHINGTON -- Bipartisan opposition is emerging in the Senate to a plan by House lawmakers to spend $550 million for additional passenger jets for senior government officials.

The resistance to buying eight Gulfstream and Boeing planes comes as members of both chambers of Congress embark on the busiest month of the year for official overseas travel. The plan to upgrade the fleet of government jets, which was included in a broader defense-funding bill, has also sparked criticism from the Pentagon, which has said it doesn't need half of the new jets.

"The whole thing kind of makes me sick to my stomach," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) in an interview Sunday. "It is evidence that some of the cynicism about Washington is well placed -- that people get out of touch and they spend money like it's Monopoly money."

Several other senators said they share the concerns and will work to oppose the funding for the jets when the legislation is taken up by the Senate in September, including Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.,) Jack Reed (D., R.I.), Richard Burr (R., N.C.), Christopher Bond (R., Mo.) and John Thune (R., S.D.).

The funding for new planes is "a classic example of Congress being out of touch with the realities of deficit spending," said Mr. Thune.

Nice to see that at least there is issues with this in both camps. This is completely out of control. They want to, allegedly, reduce the deficit, and pay for all these new entitlements, yet they still seem to think that spending more on toys for their own use is a good idea.

This makes the cash for clunkers spending seem responsible.

MaineCare the Smell of Obamacare

2009-08-09T13:55:00.001-04:00

Here's something you should be interested in. Just think of this as the end game when it gets to the national level.

A hospital in Maine lost its challenge to a state law requiring all hospitals to provide free, unlimited health care to low-income families after the 1st Circuit sided with a lower court and tossed the complaint.
Franklin Memorial Hospital in Farmington, Maine, is a nonprofit hospital with a "tradition of voluntarily providing free and reduced price medical care to low income families," according to the ruling. It sued state officials, alleging that the free-care laws were tantamount to unconstitutional takings of property.
The hospital further argued that "there is no difference in the government occupying a room or the government ordering that a room be made available to someone it designates."
But the Boston-based federal appeals court sided with a district judge in dismissing the complaint, noting that the hospital "is not required to serve low income patients; it may choose to stop using its property as a hospital, which is what makes it subject to Maine's free care laws."
Maine has required hospitals to provide free, unlimited medical services to low-income patients without reimbursement since 1989. Maine pays for some treatment through its Medicaid program known as "MaineCare," but reimbursements are often well below the hospitals' actual cost.

Fascinating eh?

We Should Follow California Why?

2009-08-09T13:00:00.001-04:00

Saw this at Q&O.

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - Small businesses that received $682 million in IOUs from the state say California expects them to pay taxes on the worthless scraps of paper, but refuses to accept its own IOUs to pay debts or taxes. The vendors' federal class action claims the state is trying to balance its budget on their backs.
Lead plaintiff Nancy Baird filled her contract with California to provide embroidered polo shirts to a youth camp run by the National Guard, but never was paid the $27,000 she was owed. She says California "paid" her with an IOU that two banks refused to accept - yet she had to pay California sales tax on the so-called "sale" of the uniforms.

Now that is audacity at its most brazen. Where is the shame?

Why Not Fix the Parts That Are Broken

2009-08-07T15:26:00.002-04:00

Krauthammer puts it in plain wording. Fix it first.

An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals -- amounting to about 25 percent of the total -- solely as protection from lawsuits. Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant -- $20,000 for a family of four -- to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance).
What to do? Abolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries giving away lottery prizes at the behest of the liquid-tongued John Edwardses who pocket a third of the proceeds.
The pool would be funded by a relatively small tax on all health-insurance premiums. Socialize the risk; cut out the trial lawyers. Would that immunize doctors from carelessness or negligence? No. The penalty would be losing your medical license. There is no more serious deterrent than forfeiting a decade of intensive medical training and the livelihood that comes with it.
(2) Real health-insurance reform: Tax employer-provided health care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.
There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.

Read it. It's at least a logical way to start and would be in everyone's best interest. Well except for the lawyers.

The Reasoned Discourse Continues

2009-08-07T15:09:00.004-04:00

Hmm. I wonder who called out the SEIU brown shirts? Oh, that would be Obama.

At a townhall last night in St. Louis, Kenneth Gladney, 38, a local conservative activist said he was attacked by Obama supporters, one of whom used a racial slur against him before the attack. From the emergency room at St. John’s Mercy Medical Center, Gladney, who is black, told the St. Louis Dispatch: “It just seems there’s no freedom of speech without being attacked.” In Tampa, Florida, protester Barry Osteen was pushed in the face by Democratic Club Treasurer Karen Miracle, and union members allegedly assaulted another concerned citizen. Both of the events were organized by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Asked about the possibility of people concerned about Obama showing up at their event, in Tampa, SEIU spokeswoman Kim Diehl told the St. Petersburg Times: “We’re prepared. We have strategies to deal with it if it should come up.”

And what did the Obamateur say?

Senior White House adviser David Axelrod and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina told senators to focus on the insured and how they would benefit from “consumer protections" in the overhaul, such as ending the practice of denying insurance based on preexisting conditions and ensuring the continuity of coverage between jobs.

They showed video clips of the confrontational town halls that have dominated the media coverage, and told senators to do more prep work than usual for their public meetings by making sure their own supporters turn out, senators and aides said.

And they screened TV ads and reviewed the various campaigns by critics of the Democratic plan.

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting.

So much for rule of law. They should be very careful. They are inciting violence and the SEIU has started it. No doubt the nut jobs on the right will start showing up looking for a fight. And they will be prepared for more than this poor guy was.

If Obama really wanted civil discourse he wouldn't have been advising them to punch back twice as hard. This only will lead to escalation. Don't be surprised when it happens. But if you're there don't start anything and bring a video camera.

Note: When I did a google search of this incident I only got 18 hits on the victims name. I wonder where the Ministry of Truth has been.

Jeanne Shaheen - Coward

2009-08-06T21:57:00.002-04:00

She makes me nauseous.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) on Thursday issued a harshly worded press release condemning the Tea Party Coalition “and other groups opposed to health care reform” for protesting staff office hours on Wednesday and Thursday.
“Protesters were present at office hours held today in Grafton and yesterday in Hampstead,” the press release states.

“It’s a disgrace for an organization to deliberately try to prevent people from getting help from their elected representatives,” said Shaheen. “The people who come to my office for help are veterans needing assistance with the VA, senior citizens who need help with Social Security, and small business owners who are having trouble in our tough economy. New Hampshire citizens have a right to get the help they need from the federal government. Their rights have been trampled on.”

“These are not town hall meetings but rather office hours that we host in Town Halls across the state in order to make our caseworkers available to New Hampshire citizens who need help,” said Shaheen. “The organizations that staged these protests knew these weren’t town hall meetings because we called them to tell them so. I recognize the right of people on both sides of the aisle to protest, but impeding the ability of New Hampshire citizens to get the help they need is a line that shouldn’t be crossed. They should be ashamed.”

Ah yes thank you Jeanne. Please now provide us with the details of the "organization" that you keep blaming, but you seem unable to name. I really really think your constituents need to know who this evil enemy is.

Oh and don't forget that Jeanne isn't having any face to face town hall meetings that I've been able to find. It appears she's doing them in meetings where you have to phone in. How quaint. Can't even face the constituents that may be displeased. Coward.

Can't take the heat, maybe you should stay the hell out of politics.

White House Snitch Line

2009-08-05T16:40:00.002-04:00

I've been mulling this over for a bit. This article gets to the point that I have been pondering.

So what has the White House told supporters to do when you run across those who spread "disinformation" about the new attempt by the Obama administration to install the anti-competitive practices of a "public option" into a federalized universal health care initiative?

Report them.

Whether its communicated through e-mail, web sites, blogs, or even casual conversation the executive branch of the federal government is asking you to make them aware of this "disinformation" because they can't keep track of all of the dissenters themselves.

From Tuesday's White House blog entry:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Pardon me for asking such an obvious question, but what concern is it to the president or his administration if private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of his proposed take over of the health care industry?

Last I checked I had the constitutional right to do so.

Do you find it disturbing that the White House is collecting information from citizens on those that oppose them? I do. Where does it lead? Terrorist watch list? Do you get a visit from the Secret Service or the FBI? Especially if you are making an impact?

There could likely be many good reasons for the White House to set up an e-mail address "flag@whitehouse.gov." -- Like reporting a suspicious truck parked in a place it's not supposed to be. Or the systematic movement of people that seek to attack the nation. Or even a suspicious piece of baggage that should not be left unaccompanied.

But reporting your neighbors for simply disagreeing on the unknown outcomes of a federally controlled, centralized universal governmental control of health care is not an acceptable use of such an effort.

Perhaps it would be different if we felt the administration was dealing with us honestly. At this point, they've all but admitted that they will have to raise taxes on the middle class. That cheery news, coupled with catching significant personalities on video--i.e. Barney Frank, Jan Schikowski, and President Obama -- all opining about their desire for a new "public option" to lead to a single payer system, gives the nation pause and little confidence to think that what the president says at prime time press conferences is genuine.

So what should our response be?

Greater demands for free speech...

Louder volumes at town hall meetings...

Bigger belligerence the tighter they squeeze...

In short, when free speech is threatened, screeching screams of volition are the only thing preventing the mandated, manhandled, chokehold of silence.

So go ahead... report me... I will shout louder!

Hmm. Probably a good idea. Probably also a situation to start applying the Rules for Radicals. Shouldn't we be making a new rule #4?

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

Think on this, if they have a snitch program, start using it. Find where the populists vary from the elitists and report them. And then report the elitists as well. Report newspapers who report even moderate disagreements with the Administration. Report the CBO.

Now how do I get some group to actually ask its members to do this?

My Guess is Simon Jester

2009-08-04T17:20:00.007-04:00

Heh, this is pretty funny.

The Obama-Joker poster shows President Obama with white face paint, dark eye shadow and smudged red lipstick and also has the word "socialism" printed in bold, dark letters under the image of his face.

It's unclear who created the image and who is posting it across the city. No one has taken credit so far.

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.

Hutchinson is challenging the group or individual that put up the poster to have the courage and decency to publicly identify themselves.

"Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery," says Hutchinson, "it is mean-spirited and dangerous."

What a shame that it bothers him so much. I guess I can post the image.

This is something that Simon Jester would definitely do.

UPDATE: Been googling this stuff and found that Vanity Fair did this to Bush. Though I have to say that this representation on Obama is a bit more sinister. (Obviously Bush was EVIL and Obama is the ONE.)

And does this fall under Rule #5?

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

I wonder why the tea party organizations don't use more of Alinsky's rules? Turn about is fair play.

Troubling Restriction of Rights

2009-08-03T18:07:00.002-04:00

I'm a bit fascinated that this is the Administrations position.

Earlier this year, at Supreme Court oral argument in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the government raised eyebrows by arguing that it believed that it can constitutionally ban the publication of books (if, as is always the case, the publisher is a corporation) that contain even one line arguing for the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office. The government based its belief on the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld a blanket ban on corporate political spending in order to prevent "distortion" of campaigns. Faced with the full constitutional ramifications of Austin — for the government's position flows naturally from Austin — the Supreme Court asked the parties to reargue the case on September 9, to consider whether Austin should be overruled.

Austin was based on the assumption that the government could limit some speech in order to enhance the voices of others, although the case tried not to frame it that way. Rather, the Austin Court argued it was dealing with a "different type of corruption, the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth... ." To most people, that sounds like an egalitarian argument, not one about "corruption." Which would be fine — it is perfectly acceptable to favor things on egalitarian grounds — except that the First Amendment to the Constitution appears to forbid the government from making such determinations. As the Supreme Court stated in in the landmark case Buckley v. Valeo, "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed "to secure 'the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,'" and "to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people."

Worrisome in how this could spread. Could this move to stifle blogs since they are published by large corporations? Just because a corporation is the means of the free speech does that mean that you have no right to use that mechanism?

Please read all of the article. It has more perspective.

Health Care "Rights"

2009-07-29T06:49:00.002-04:00

This bit is very important:

The interesting thing is that it seems Americans have discovered that talk of health care as a “right” doesn’t mean expanding their own freedom. It means, at best, expanding the options of others at the expense of the middle class and, naturally, “the rich.”

Polling by the centrist think tank Third Way finds that the pivotal question for Americans is, “What’s in it for me?” And it seems President Obama hasn’t answered that to their satisfaction. Sixty percent of Americans think Obama’s health care plan will help someone other than them.

That isn't an opinion so much as a fact. It will be those that pay taxes subsidizing those that don't. And getting less themselves in the long run.

The discussion focusing on the rationing should also make another point that no one wants or seems to be pondering, where will the benefits creep? You'll ration the things that lots of people require like heart surgery and cancer treatments, but what about those things that people don't require? Plastic surgery because your shrink says you need it for your mental health, or a sex change operation. Massachusetts requires that insurance pay for fertility treatments, which you well understand is extremely expensive. Will this make its way on to the required coverage? What about ED drugs? Or the pill for that matter. Or abortions.

Who makes the decision on what is required to cover and what isn't? And, what will those writing the rules now say when an opposition party is in power and changes the rules that they so covet? Should we even mention that the rules can be changed by amendments to laws having nothing to do with healthcare and slip by because no one actually reads these giant tomes of bills?

Do we really want a politician deciding what medical treatments we need?

Over at the Munchkin Wrangler he has a similar discussion on the "right" to health care.

Quick Lesson on why We Shouldn't Follow California

2009-07-26T17:13:00.002-04:00

Nice bit from Reason magazine on the Climate Change bill that will slowly strangle California's economy.

The study projects that Californians will offset higher electricity and gasoline bills by driving more fuel efficient cars, by adjusting their thermostats to 68 degrees in winter and 78 degrees in summer, and by using energy efficient appliances at home. The idea is that while electricity will cost more, Californians will do things like switching from incandescent bulbs to energy thrifty compact fluorescent bulbs to reduce their energy usage.
But are these projections accurate? The study's economic peer reviewers don't think so. For example, UCLA economist Matthew Kahn warned that the cap "is presented as a riskless 'free lunch' for Californians." He noted that California's electricity prices are projected to increase by 14 percent, yet manufacturing employment is also supposed to increase by 0.4 percent. "This is a surprising finding," writes Kahn. "The micro-econometrics literature has concluded that increased energy prices retards manufacturing employment growth." He cites studies showing that cities with high electricity prices lose manufacturing jobs. Another peer reviewer, Harvard University economist Robert Stavins, bluntly states that the study's analysis is "systematically biased (and remarkably, internally inconsistent) in ways which lead to potentially severe underestimates of costs."

No one denies that energy prices will go up. Successful implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act requires that 33 percent of the state's energy come from renewable sources by the 2020 deadline. Recent research finds that when states establish renewable portfolio standards for electricity, they pay on average 2 cents more per kilowatt-hour more than states that do not have such standards. That might not sound like much, but it's an 8 percent increase. California already ranks seventh in the nation based on how much California businesses, on average, spend for electricity. Only businesses in three very hot southern states and three very cold northern states spend more.
California gasoline taxes amount to 63.9 cents per gallon, the highest in the nation. Gasoline costs more in the Golden State than anywhere else in the lower 48 states. It is true that California is the fourth lowest state in per capita energy consumption. While some of the lower energy usage can be attributed to higher residential energy efficiency standards, substantially higher than average residential and commercial electricity rates also depress demand. The new mandates would add to the heavy regulatory burdens under which California businesses already groan. The Small Business Survival Index ranks California 49th among all states for business friendliness, just beating out New Jersey as the least business friendly state in the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council's annual rankings.

Imagine this in states that don't have the wealth basis that California already has. They'd dry up and blow away in a very short period.

Time to stop following California's lead since they have yet again proven they don't know what they are doing.

ObamaCare for the Elderly

2009-07-26T17:08:00.003-04:00

An interesting article from the WSJ. I just don't understand why AARP is supporting this.

Since Medicare was established in 1965, access to care has enabled older Americans to avoid becoming disabled and to travel and live independently instead of languishing in nursing homes. But legislation now being rushed through Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.

The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.

The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.

I can understand why my parents are nervous about stuff like this. I also wonder what isn't being told to the public in general. These mammoth bills that no one actually reads hands the interested parties whatever they like and unless someone catches them, they just cruise on. I really hope that no bills get to a vote this week, though a house vote would be very informative.

Also you may wish to checkout the possibility that you won't have any ability to purchase any private health insurance that doesn't have the governments seal of approval. You can follow the links from the discussion at Q&O.

And here's a bit of distraction from Mark Steyn on the ObamaCare distraction.

Furthering the Taste of Post-Racial Shoe Leather

2009-07-24T06:41:00.002-04:00

So the President continues his self justifications on his post-racial response to a question. He appears now to be chewing on his ankle.

“I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don’t need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who is in his own home,’’ he said in an interview that aired last night on ABC’s “Nightline.’’
Despite his “extraordinary respect’’ for police work, the president told ABC News, “my suspicion is that words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr. Gates’’ and anger got the best of them. Obama said he understands that Sergeant James M. Crowley, the white Cambridge police officer who arrested Gates, is an “outstanding’’ officer, but ultimately “it doesn’t make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he’s not causing a serious disturbance.’’
Earlier yesterday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that while the president did not regret the remark, he wanted to clarify that Obama did not insult Crowley. “Let me be clear, he was not calling the officer stupid,’’ Gibbs told reporters as Obama landed in Cleveland for two healthcare events.

Well, apparently Obama still hasn't bothered to get any information, readily available from the MSM, on the topic. A good break down of the reports is in this opinion piece by Ann Woolner.

You also have to love listening to Gibbs. How can anyone with the least amount of intelligence come to the conclusion that Obama didn't call the officer stupid? He didn't say it literally, but the statement was they acted stupidly. No doubt Obama's buddy Skip was the completely rational and reasonable. Of course, the newspaper reports must be wrong on his actions.

Then there is this entertaining demand that Crowley apologize to Gates.

"I think he owes me an apology for what he did," Gates told NewsCenter 5's Liz Brunner in an interview Tuesday night. "He should look into his heart and know that he is not telling the truth and he should beg my forgiveness."

What an asshole.

It would be nice if they would actually release the police recordings of the incident so we can hear for ourselves if Gates is justified or not. My guess is that we'll never hear those tapes. Can't besmudge the ONE's opinion no matter how foolish it may have been.

Our "Post-Racial" President

2009-07-23T07:26:00.003-04:00

You really have to love Obama's reaction to this. Best comes with his admission that he didn't know all the facts yet condemns the police as stupid racists.

What's been reported though is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house. There was a report called in to the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so... (laughter) ... it probably wouldn't happen. But let's say my old house in Chicago. (laughter) Here, I'd get shot.

I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.

I'm still trying to figure out how the profiling part is relevant. In fact he had enough information to know that the police were reacting to a call not driving around profiling.

The linked Wizbang article even links to pictures and witness reports that Skip was behaving unreasonably. I agree with Kevin that if I had acted as the good professor had I would have been arrested as well.

This had nothing to do with racism and the fact that the President played it that way really should make people question his claims to being a "post-racial" president.

UPDATE:
Arresting officer teaches racial profiling classes at the police academy.

So the president gives himself the big distraction to his health care plans. Who's stupid here?

Salt Marsh Harvest Pork

2009-07-16T07:25:00.002-04:00

I've read about this a bit. I have to laugh at the Dems ingenuity of denying that they did anything for the Harvest Mouse and then fund it none the less. It's a bit of prestidigitation on their part no doubt. Smoke and mirrors are probably in there as well.

Remember the salt marsh harvest mouse? We wrote about the mouse here and elsewhere. When the "stimulus" bill was being debated, Republicans charged that among the absurd pork that the bill would fund was a pet project of Nancy Pelosi's: protecting the habitat of the salt marsh harvest mice in the San Francisco Bay area. At the time, Democrats vigorously denied the charge and pointed out that the mouse was not named in the bill.

True enough: that was one of the major problems with the bill. It allocated enormous amounts of money to be spend on a department by department basis without specifying what the money was to be spent on. The real intent was mostly sub rosa. Thus, Republicans have been reduced to using Google to try to identify local government units and others that have received "stimulus" money.

Now, notwithstanding the Democrats' outraged denials that the mouse was one of the objects of their largesse, it turns out that the Republicans' suspicions were correct after all:

Frankly, I don't mind some funding for pet projects and no doubt it will be stimulative for a short period. But the stimulus money really should have been used for more long term employment. All these pay-and-pave projects are blips on the economy. They do nothing more than FDR did with his CCC, WPA or PWA. Temporary stimulus will not cause recovery.

The unfortunate side effect is that you can't make long term employment from this type of stimulus. So maybe we really should just stop throwing money at things and denying that they aren't stimulative. But then, you have to watch out, because big brother doesn't like you when you question his methods.

A Republican proposal to halt spending on federal stimulus projects has prompted a partisan dustup this week in Arizona, where defeated GOP presidential candidate John McCain has waded into the fight with his old Democratic rival, Barack Obama.
The conflict began after Arizona's junior senator, Republican Jon Kyl, who has called President Obama's economic recovery plan ineffective, wrote on his Senate website last week that the government should "cancel the rest of the stimulus spending." Kyl repeated the suggestion during a talk show appearance Sunday.

The Obama administration responded Monday with letters from four Cabinet secretaries to the state's GOP governor, Jan Brewer, outlining the transportation, housing, education and other projects that would be canceled in Arizona if stimulus spending came to a halt.

"If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, please let us know," wrote Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a fellow Republican and former House member.

If that isn't a threat to a state to force conformance of a political opposition member, I'd really like to know what it is. Four separate letters from four cabinet secretaries is a definitive threat.
[Oh and just because LaHood is a Repug doesn't mean he isn't a shill for the Administration. ]

The flap underscores the dangers for both sides in the debate over the $787 billion stimulus package, which has come under increasing attack from Republicans as the unemployment rate continues to climb. But many Republicans who voted against the package have also sought to take credit for projects in their own states, and the White House has become increasingly aggressive in pressing its case.

Hmm. Why should there be any threat at all? Each state should be entitled to stimulus at least based on what they put into the pot originally. Kyl's proposal struck me more as a call for a stop to what the administration themselves state isn't working. So how is it reasonable to call for shutting down a state because their political representative is calling for a reasonable end to a disfunctional program?

Health Care Public Option

2009-07-14T06:27:00.002-04:00

A glimpse at the Mitt Romney abomination in The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts law, which was championed by former GOP Governor Mitt Romney, imposed an individual mandate, requiring nearly all residents to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty. (The exceptions are those who qualify for the state's public program.) This was supposed to cover everybody and save money too. We've written before about how costs have exploded, but it also turns out that consumers have other ideas.

For 15 years Massachusetts has also imposed mandates known as guaranteed issue and community rating -- meaning that insurers must cover anyone who applies, regardless of health or pre-existing conditions, and also charge everyone the same premium (or close to it). Yet these mandates allow people to wait until they're sick, or just before they're about to incur major medical expenses, to buy insurance. This drives up costs for everyone else, which helps explain why small-group coverage in Massachusetts is so much more expensive than in most of the country. Mr. Romney argued -- as Democrats are arguing now -- that the individual mandate would make that problem disappear, since everyone is always supposed to be covered.

Well, the returns are rolling in, and a useful case study comes from the community-based health plan Harvard-Pilgrim. CEO Charlie Baker reports that his company has seen an "astonishing" uptick in people buying coverage for a few months at a time, running up high medical bills, and then dumping the policy after treatment is completed and paid for. Harvard-Pilgrim estimates that between April 2008 and March 2009, about 40% of its new enrollees stayed with it for fewer than five months and on average incurred about $2,400 per person in monthly medical expenses. That's about 600% higher than Harvard-Pilgrim would have otherwise expected.

The individual mandate penalty for not having coverage is only about $900, so people seem to be gaming the Massachusetts system. "This is a problem," Mr. Baker writes on his blog, in the understatement of the year. "It is raising the prices paid by individuals and small businesses who are doing the right thing by purchasing twelve months of health insurance, and it's turning the whole notion of shared responsibility on its ear."

Nice. Makes you wonder what federal laws exist that will pile on the mess that the Dems are presently proposing in the US system. The MA system is frankly insane. I wonder how the insurance companies share those costs out. Sooner or later this will end up with insurance companies refusing to do business in MA. And no doubt businesses will start dumping their employees on the public option because it will be cheaper than paying insurance fees to support people who are allowed to play the system and get a free ride.

Karl Rove had an interesting article a month ago on the arguments against a public option.

The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits.

That's an interesting bit that isn't seen often in the MSM. I would have thought it would have cost more than was estimated, but it is fascinating that it actually cost substantially less.

There are four other reasons that you can read for yourself.

Rule 1: Would You Give this Power to the Opposition Party?

2009-07-11T10:57:00.002-04:00

Apparently Alcee Haystings is up to more vague legislation that would hand the present administration sole power to define who is a terroroist. Mark Tapscott from the original article discussed at HotAir.

Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states' rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: "This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as 'extremists.'"

This obviously doesn't pass the basic sniff test. Just think in the simplest terms, would you want your opposition party having these powers? What would have been said if Bush and the Repugs had provided this bit of legislation?

And don't forget the most basic of considerations, should anyone be given the sole ability to make these definitions without oversight? Should any bureaucrat be given this level of discretion or is it more intelligent to have those voted in by the people be the ones to make those definitions? At least you can hold the politicians liable for their actions.

There are a couple other interesting, it illegitimate bills discussed in the article. Please read.

Critiques of the Obamateur in Russia

2009-07-09T18:20:00.002-04:00

I think from what I've read he's gotten a failing grade. No shock there.

In his Moscow speech, Obama delivered what is by now familiar as his trademark mix of historical omissions and revisions, sweeping statements about the "arc of history" and phrases of hope, change and moral equivalency. He brought up, yet again, America's "imperfections," dismissed as outdated the brand of American moral certitude and leadership that brought victory in World War II and called for collaboration, convergence and partnerships forged on common ground and progress toward a shared future. Call it Brotherhood 2.0.
Were it not for such obstacles as history, vast vested interests and human nature, it's a vision that just might work. But in the real world, as a basis for state policy, this is a time-tested recipe for disaster. There may be no venue better suited to underscore that lesson than Russia, home during most of the last century to a colossal and devastating experiment that began with fraternal ideals of communism and led to the gulag, mass deprivation and aggressive expansion. To this day, the ruinous inheritance of Soviet communism lingers on, from Cuba to China to North Korea, to the Soviet-tutored terrorist incubators of the Middle East, to the despotic currents running deep within Russia itself.
In Obama's version of history, Soviet communism (which he referred to not by name but as "old political and economic restrictions") came to an end through some sort of brotherly mass movement: "The change did not come from any one nation," he told an audience of Russian students. "The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

Whew, talk about missing the realities of the recent past. It wasn't because the people of Russia wanted it to be peaceful, it's the fact that their socio-political and economic solution failed dramatically, not to mention devastatingly. Far too much of it came from a weapons race that bankrupted the country that demanded that communism worked better than capitalism.

Then there is this article about the retreat of the Obamateur.

Obama had a chance to redeem himself with a speech to the New Economic School, a college funded by Westerners to teach Russians something real about business policy. But the speech positively dripped with equivocation and weakness. Here’s how he chose to warn Russia not to invade Georgia for a second time this summer, as many worry Putin plans to do:

State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is true for Russia, just as it is true for the United States. Any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy. That’s why we must apply this principle to all nations — and that includes nations like Georgia and Ukraine. America will never impose a security arrangement on another country. For any country to become a member of an organization like NATO, for example, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; they must be able to contribute to the Alliance’s mission. And let me be clear: NATO should be seeking collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.

An extraordinary amount of doubletalk, surmounted by the ominous use of the term “collaboration.” Not simply cooperation but collaboration, Mr. President? Are we going to collaborate with Russian if it moves soldiers back into Georgia, or into Ukraine, or launches another brutal cyber war against them or against Estonia? If Georgia has the “right to borders that are secure,” then doesn’t that mean Abkhazia and Ossetia must be returned from Russian annexation? Obama’s equivocation makes it very difficult to say.

Yike. I'm fascinated that he honestly wants NATO to collaborate with Russia. Maybe we could collaborate on more is they would start collaborating on some things of importance, say Iran. But since they are selling so much technology into Iran I doubt they have any interest in harming those sales for a country who doesn't appear to have Moscow as a primary target.

Well, I'm just cynical in thinking that you should be wary of the Russian bear. No doubt Obama is much more full of hope and change than I could be.

TSA Loses Mission Creep Lawsuits

2009-07-09T16:59:00.002-04:00

Schneier has this on his blog. After reading his entry all I could think of was how TSA is showing the usual mission creep. Then I read the WSJ linked article and got a chuckle in that is what they discuss.

But two court cases in the past month question whether TSA searches—which the agency says have broadened to allow screeners to use more judgment—have been going too far.

A federal judge in June threw out seizure of three fake passports from a traveler, saying that TSA screeners violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Congress authorizes TSA to search travelers for weapons and explosives; beyond that, the agency is overstepping its bounds, U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley said.

“The extent of the search went beyond the permissible purpose of detecting weapons and explosives and was instead motivated by a desire to uncover contraband evidencing ordinary criminal wrongdoing,” Judge Marbley wrote.

In the second case, Steven Bierfeldt, treasurer for the Campaign for Liberty, a political organization launched from Ron Paul’s presidential run, was detained at the St. Louis airport because he was carrying $4,700 in a lock box from the sale of tickets, T-shirts, bumper stickers and campaign paraphernalia. TSA screeners quizzed him about the cash, his employment and the purpose of his trip to St. Louis, then summoned local police and threatened him with arrest because he responded to their questions with a question of his own: What were his rights and could TSA legally require him to answer?

Mr. Bierfeldt recorded the encounter on his iPhone and the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in June against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, claiming in part that Mr. Bierfeldt’s experience at the airport was not an anomaly.

“Whether as a matter of formal policy or widespread practice, TSA now operates on the belief that airport security screening provides a convenient opportunity to fish for evidence of criminal conduct far removed from the agency’s mandate of ensuring flight safety,” the ACLU said in its suit.

Nice to hear the ACLU actually doing something worthwhile.

I'd read about Bierfeldt's issue when it happened. I was surprised the TSA took such a antagonistic reaction to his question. I doubt I would have asked it, but it wasn't an unreasonable question.

“TSA agents don’t get to play cops,” says Ben Wizner, an attorney who filed Mr. Bierfeldt’s suit. The ACLU has heard an increasing number of reports of TSA agents involved in what he called “mission creep,” he says.

TSA spokesman Greg Soule says airport screeners are trained to “look for threats to aviation security” and discrepancies in a passenger’s identity. TSA says verifying someone’s identity, or exposing false identity, is a security issue so that names can be checked against terrorism watch lists. Large amounts of cash can be evidence of criminal activity, Mr. Soule says, and so screeners look at the “quantity, packaging, circumstances of discovery or method by which the cash is carried.”

Questioning travelers is part of TSA’s standard procedures, and the agency gives its employees discretion. “TSA security officers are trained to ask questions and assess passenger reactions,” Mr. Soule says. “TSA security officers may use their professional judgment and experience to determine what questions to ask passengers during screening.”

I would really like to know how much training TSA officers get on law and policing. Do they get as much training as a street police officer in a regular town? It doesn't sound like it, but it would be something to look up.

Schneier made a very good point about searches performed by TSA.

The Constitution provides us, both Americans and visitors to America, with strong protections against invasive police searches. Two exceptions come into play at airport security checkpoints. The first is "implied consent," which means that you cannot refuse to be searched; your consent is implied when you purchased your ticket. And the second is "plain view," which means that if the TSA officer happens to see something unrelated to airport security while screening you, he is allowed to act on that.

Both of these principles are well established and make sense, but it's their combination that turns airport security checkpoints into police-state-like checkpoints.

The TSA should limit its searches to bombs and weapons and leave general policing to the police - where we know courts and the Constitution still apply.

I have a bit of snark related to the last sentence that I'll keep to myself, but the rest is very important. You can't mix the two exceptions without making such a search an unreasonable act in the spirit of the fourth amendment.

The Constitution is Obviously Just Words

2009-07-06T06:51:00.002-04:00

This is fascinating.

With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.
"The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified," said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. "If we're not able to do that, we'll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty."

Samore said administration lawyers are exploring the "different options that are available. One option is that both sides could agree to continue the inspections by executive agreement; that would work on our side. On the Russian side, as I understand it, that would require Duma approval."

The fact that the administration is preparing for such an extraordinary measure shows just how much pressure the two administrations are under to arrive at an agreement before the 18-year-old treaty expires. While resident Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are expected to announce progress tomorrow on a nuclear arms reduction treaty – nicknamed “New START” -- to take effect in just five short months, many sticking points that remain unresolved.

I'm sure this political appointee just mispoke. I'm amazed that this report is still on line. No doubt it will be clarified and neutralized shortly.

It appears that Obama is living up to the FDR comparison. No doubt he'll be willfully bypassing more and more of the Constitution and being cheered on by the Ministry of Truth.

Obama's Honduran Adventures

2009-07-02T06:12:00.002-04:00

I caught this Bloomberg article from a commentary at Legal Insurrection.

I still don't understand why this isn't getting more play in the MSM. (Better known as the Ministry or Truth depending on your choice of realities.)

Honduras’s military acted under judicial orders in deposing President Manuel Zelaya, Supreme Court Justice Rosalinda Cruz said, rejecting the view of President Barack Obama and other leaders that he was toppled in a coup.

“The only thing the armed forces did was carry out an arrest order,” Cruz, 55, said in a telephone interview from the capital, Tegucigalpa. “There’s no doubt he was preparing his own coup by conspiring to shut down the congress and courts.”

Cruz said the court issued a sealed arrest order for Zelaya on June 26, charging him with treason and abuse of power, among other offenses. Zelaya had repeatedly breached the constitution by pushing ahead with a vote about rewriting the nation’s charter that the court ruled illegal, and which opponents contend would have paved the way for a prohibited second term.

She compared Zelaya’s tactics, including his dismissal of the armed forces chief for obeying a court order to impound ballots to be used in the vote, with those of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

“Some say it was not Zelaya but Chavez governing,” she said.

If Obama and his ilk are so concerned about the rule of law, why does he continue to ignore what appears to have been the lawful removal of a treasonous president?

And why does he put such effort into tampering with a country that is much less significant than say Iran, where rule of law appears to have been completely ignored?

What is his reasoning? I wish someone would ask him. But then you'd have to get past his crafted and controlled press conferences.

ABC's ObamaCare Informercial

2009-07-01T06:59:00.004-04:00

Caught this linked at Wizbang. It's the Cato Institute speaking to the infomercial that ABC provided for our entertainment.

Takes about 5 minutes and cuts to the points that should have been made.

I wonder how well this snake oil sale went.

Forbes has a list of Obama's Top Five Healthcare Lies. Pretty much a digest of what I've heard commented on in separate discussions.

Obama's Selective Tampering

2009-06-30T06:21:00.002-04:00

Funny how Obama was so very very sensitive to the Iranian elections not to tamper, yet when it comes to Honduras it's a completely different thing. Maybe he is more nuanced than I am. No doubt he'll talk them into giving their president his job back, or maybe he'll hold hands with Chavez as he invades their country.

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a "terrible precedent" of transition by military force unless it was reversed.
"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.

Strange thing is, I found in the WSJ a piece that makes it sound like it's not a coup:

Honduras's Supreme Court gave the order for the military to detain the president, according to a former Supreme Court official who is in touch with the court.
Later, Honduras's Congress formally removed Mr. Zelaya from the presidency and named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as his successor until the end of Mr. Zelaya's term in January. Mr. Micheletti and others said they were the defenders, not opponents, of democratic rule.

I would have sworn that usually a coup doesn't include official actions of the other branches of government against the president. Make one wonder what exactly he was up to.

"What was done here was a democratic act," Mr. Micheletti, who was sworn in as president Sunday afternoon, said to an ovation. "Our constitution continues to be valid, our democracy continues to live."
Mr. Micheletti is a member of Mr. Zelaya's Liberal party. But he had opposed his plans for a referendum that could have led to overturning the constitution's ban on re-election, allowing Mr. Zelaya to potentially stay in power past January, when his term ends.

Mr. Zelaya, a frequent critic of the U.S., has been locked in a growing confrontation with his country's Congress, courts, and military over his plans for the referendum -- planned for Sunday -- that would have asked voters whether they want to scrap the constitution, which the president says benefits the country's elites.
The Supreme Court had ruled the vote was illegal because it flouted the constitution's own ban on such referendums within six months of elections. The military had refused to take its usual role of distributing ballots. But Mr. Zelaya fired the chief of the army last week and pledged to press ahead.

I wonder why this hasn't gotten much press coverage.

The Telegraph has a quote:

"Today's events originate from a court order by a competent judge. The armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law," the country's highest court said.

I'm wondering how exactly this removal was illegal when, as reported, the courts and congress had him replaced because of his own disregard for the law.

Conyers in the News

2009-06-26T11:49:00.002-04:00

Well first there is Senator Corruption himself:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying "powers that be" put the kibosh on the idea.
Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style "protection" racket.

I'd like the list of who is the "powers that be" so we can taken them out behind the woodshed for a little discussion on ethics. No doubt we never will.

Then there is Mrs Corruption.

Detroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers pleaded guilty this morning to conspiring to commit bribery and is free on personal bond.

U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said, "The defendant now stands convicted."
The one count of conspiring to commit bribery is punishable for up to five years in prison.
No sentencing date has been set and it is not immediately clear if the plea deal requires Conyers to cooperate with the feds in the ongoing probe of city corruption.
Conyers, the wife of powerful Democratic congressman U.S. Rep. John Conyers, appeared before Cohn to answer charges in connection with the wide-ranging probe of wrongdoing at Detroit city hall.

I find it highly improbable that there is any connection, but you can bet that she'll never see a day of prison time. Not to mention if it were you or I we'd be in jail right now not on personal bond.

Nice to see that they both reached the news together.

Americorps IG Firing Causing a Stir

2009-06-17T06:47:00.002-04:00

No doubt the reader has seen the reports on the Americorps IG who was fired by Obama due to a "Loss of Confidence" which no doubt stems from his investigating one of Obama's big supporters. It is refreshing to see that the Congress is calling for more information and not just giving Obama a pass.

In a statement, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) says, "The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service. The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. ‘Loss of confidence’ is not a sufficient reason. I’m hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible."
McCaskill was the lead Senate sponsor on the Inspectors General Act of 2008 and is a loyal supporter and friend of President Obama. Her statement is the first significant sign of Democratic concern with this matter.

Well, McCaskill is showing concern. At least her concern is based on law, unlike the outrage over the Bush AG firings which was completely baseless.

Just Not Thinking

2009-06-15T06:13:00.002-04:00

So Insty links to an article related to a wheat fungus and then remarks:

Read the whole thing. It’ll probably hit America right after the “supervolcano” under Mt. St. Helens erupts (”These enormous eruptions can spew enough sunlight-blocking ash into the atmosphere to cool the climate by several degrees Celsius”), or something, in the middle of a Swine Flu pandemic. Oh, wait . . . .

Slight problem with his statement. This fungus is quite easily transportable, and could easily be brought and spread in the US by an enemy. Though more likely than not it will be brought here innocently and have major issues with the US wheat crop.

Or did Insty forget about little things like Dutch elm disease? It's not a matter of whether it will get into the US wheat crop as it is when.

DHS Support from McCarthyites

2009-06-12T07:06:00.004-04:00

Some nutcase white supremacist goes out for a little killing spree and now the left is going nuts.

Greg Sargent's reaction to the murder at the Holocaust Museum yesterday -- "it's time to revisit criticism of 'right-wing extremists' report" -- wasn't atypical. You could hear the same insta-reaction around the Web, as confirmation bias did its work and two or three crimes by far-right figures were transformed into something larger. Here's Andrew Sullivan: "That DHS report doesn't look so iffy any more, does it?" Markos Moulitsas: "Attempt by Cons to justify their critique of prescient DHS report are an extra special dose of stupid." Benjamin Sarlin at The Daily Beast writes that "a much-maligned Department of Homeland Security memo on right-wing extremism is looking more accurate by the day." Doug J. at Balloon Juice says, "How many acts of right-wing terrorism have to occur before DHS is allowed to start keeping track of it?"

Nice. Wonder what these bastions of bullshit would be saying if it had been ELF or some "progressive" type that did something of the kind.

Similar crap coming out of the extreme Right on any Islamic nut job attacking people. Only a bit of difference being that the recruiting station that had a couple of military people killed got a minor note by the MSM (aka Ministry of Propaganda) while the abortionist and the Holocaust Museum attacker got major and repeated coverage.

But lets get to the point on DHS.

Why did the DHS report come under such fire? It wasn't because far-right cranks are incapable of committing crimes. It's because the paper blew the threat of right-wing terror out of proportion, just as the Clinton administration did in the '90s; because it treated "extremism" itself as a potential threat, while offering a definition of extremist so broad it seemed it include anyone who opposed abortion or immigration or excessive federal power; and because it fretted about the danger of "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities." (Note that neither the killing in Kansas last month nor the shooting in Washington yesterday was committed by an Iraq or Afghanistan vet.) The effect isn't to make right-wing terror attacks less likely. It's to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right, just as the most substantial effect of a red scare was to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the left. The fact that communist spies really existed didn't justify Joseph McCarthy's antics, and the fact that armed extremists really exist doesn't justify the Department of Homeland Security's report.

DHS isn't there for politics, though you'd think otherwise having read anything reported on Napolitano's watch. The issue erupting from all of this will likely cause more issues for people who have nothing to do with violent actions. And with the governments well understood ability to entice (read as "entrap") individuals into actions they would not take without that stimulus, can we doubt that people will be going to jail because someone believed they could be a threat and not that they actually were?

CNN Tubing while Fox Ascending

2009-06-08T09:26:00.002-04:00

Ed Driscoll points out the Huffington Post entry from CNN's co-founder.

CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld tells the Huffington Post (huh, why would a CNN man go there to post?) that “seven months after Barack Obama’s victory, CNN’s ratings have gone down the drain”:

Nine years ago, when FoxNews sprinted past CNN to become America’s number one news network, I attributed its ratings gains to the election of George Bush and the triumph of Fox-watching conservatives. I figured conservatives would be savoring their victory while liberals were averting their eyes in disgust. For the next eight years, I measured political sentiment in the United States by comparing the size of the FoxNews audience with the combined size of the CNN/MSNBC audience. In this space, I even predicted, with reasonable accuracy, the percent by which Barack Obama won the election based on the split in the news audience.

Now, seven months after Barack Obama’s victory, CNN’s ratings have gone down the drain. From May of last year to May of this year, CNN lost 22% of its total primetime audience. MSNBC was down 2%, while FoxNews was up 24%. In the key advertising demographic (25-54), Fox was up 31%, CNN was down 37% and MSNBC was down 26%. In hard numbers, Fox had 109,000 more viewers than last year while CNN lost 113,000. CNN averaged fewer than 200,000 25-54 viewers in primetime. Even MSNBC averaged more viewers than that.

Total day was nearly as bad, with Fox up 24% and CNN down 7%. MSNBC was down 2% in total viewing. Fox is beating CNN almost two-to-one in most categories.

There’s no need to throw any more numbers at you–Fox is gaining, CNN is wilting. Why is this happening when the country still seems about 58-42 in favor of Obama? My best guess is the passion of those who detest Democrats, liberals, and in particular, Barack Obama.

You don’t think it could also have anything to do with moments such as this and this, do you? And as P.J. Gladnick of Newsbusters asks, “Maybe the TV audience is growing weary of the MSM treating Barack Obama as Sort of God and want some realistic news coverage of his administration.”

It is odd that they always want to posture their losses as to being something wrong with Fox veiwers. Fox obviously gained many veiwers when they started because the conservative half of the country didn't want to listen to the propaganda the MSM or MoP if you like, was forcing down their throats. Now that Fox is gaining even more, would you think maybe the change is more complicated than the old "they hate the One" theme these companies have been pushing?

Maybe the public is tired of the slanted and irresponsible reporting. Or maybe they want reporting that doesn't just carry a party line. (I'm not saying Fox doesn't carry a party line, I'm saying they report less of the party line than the others do.)

You'd think that the MSM would learn from trends and maybe do a better job at analysis rather than falling for these moronic whines.

Under the Bus, but Never Got on Board

2009-06-08T07:31:00.000-04:00

Amazing.

Mr. Mudd is a well-regarded career intelligence officer who has worked in senior positions at the FBI and CIA, including deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Mr. Obama nominated him on May 4 amid fulsome praise from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. But in a statement issued by the White House on the eve of a late spring weekend, Mr. Mudd said he was withdrawing so as not to become "a distraction to the president and his vital agenda."
The truth is that he risked being a distraction to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democrats, who suddenly don't want to talk about what they knew about the interrogation techniques they once endorsed and long funded but now denounce. So Ms. Pelosi doesn't have to answer any questions about her changing claims about her CIA briefings, but a foot soldier like Mr. Mudd who did what his country asked him to do to keep the country safe is blackballed.

Another wonderful start. Makes you wonder what Obama is willing to do to get his act together when he has to continue to solve conflicts with the liars in his own party.

Political Favors for Poll Place Intimidators

2009-05-31T13:36:00.002-04:00

Thanks Barry. Politics gets Black Panther poll intimidators off the hook. Wonder how he and Holder line this up with actually enforcing laws.

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

Just makes you thankful that the post-partisan post-racial president can over look partisan and racist acts. Oh wait, that's right, these guys were black so they couldn't possibly have been racist. Silly me.

Ethics of the Lawyers

2009-05-20T06:30:00.002-04:00

Well, I don't have much nice to say about lawyer's ethics, but in this case the discussion gives some perspective on the "torture" memos. (h/t Powerline)

Government lawyers in the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) appear to have leaked to the press parts of a confidential--and classified--draft report concerning the actions of Bush administration lawyers. The report calls for state bar associations to investigate, and perhaps discipline, attorneys who provided sensitive legal advice to President Bush's administration concerning the legal limits of coercive interrogation methods against high-level al Qaeda terrorists. That advice was, of course, controversial. It is now, in the current political climate, highly unpopular in certain circles. OPR has determined, apparently, that it was "unethical" to give it and that the lawyers involved should be punished.
How many things are wrong with this picture? From the perspective of legal ethics, constitutional law, and good government, I count at least five big problems.

You can read the rest for yourself.

Deflection or Perspective

2009-05-13T09:23:00.002-04:00

Apparently the Dems don't like the CIA releasing facts on their culpability with respect to the use or enhanced interrogation methods. I find this curiously funny.

Democrats charged Tuesday that the CIA has released documents about congressional briefings on harsh interrogation techniques in order to deflect attention and blame away from itself.

“I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others — that’s what I think,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was briefed on interrogation techniques five times between 2006 and 2007.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said he finds it “interesting” that a document detailing congressional briefings was released just as “some of the groups that have been responsible for these interrogation techniques were taking the most criticism.”

Asked whether the CIA was seeking political cover by releasing the documents, Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said: “Sure it is.”

Well, let's see, you are trying to get these people jail time for things they were told were legal, and you don't think they should have any right to defend themselves? How fascinating. Funny that these politicos are now trying to deflect this information as being for political purposes when in fact their initial attacks on these people were for political purposes. Irony?

Of course the article has a bunch of quotes as to who really requested the release, but no real facts. Just politicians and unnamed sources pointing fingers. Frankly, I wouldn't blame the CIA personnel involved for releasing this. Better now than when the congress starts their McCarthy-esque fact finding committees that can't seem to figure out that all information, including that of their own involvement, is relevant to the public opinion.