Archive for February, 2010

Paperwork for Terrorists

10 February 2010

According to The Raw Story, South Carolina now requires “subversives” to pay a fee and register with the state:

Terrorists who want to overthrow the United States government must now register with South Carolina’s Secretary of State and declare their intentions – or face a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. The state’s “Subversive Activities Registration Act,” passed last year and now officially on the books, states that “every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States … shall register with the Secretary of State.” There’s even a $5 filing fee.

That’ll teach ’em! Terrorist organizations back by kazillionaires from Saudi Arabia will never be able to afford the $5 filing fee, because we all know that only poverty causes people to turn to terrorism! Although this gives one the mention image of some terrorist Ibn al-Capone being jailed for failing to file the correct paperwork, what it actually does is allow the state of South Carolina to add additional state penalties to any captured terrorist above and beyond whatever other crimes he is charged with – useful if the federal government declines to prosecute them to the fullest extent of its laws, granted, but also adding to the idiocy of making terrorism even more of a civilian crime rather than a act of war. However, that’s not the only problem…

By “subversive organization,” the law means “every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States [or] of this State.”

How long do you think it will take before this is used to harass Tea Party protesters, or any organization which the party in power of South Carolina at the time doesn’t like? This is, at a fundamental level, a completely unconstitutional assault on people who hold the wrong opinions (Thought crime! Hate crime!) or who just happen to be associated (and we all know about reptilian six degrees of guilt by association) with people who hold the wrong opinions. Whereas “advocating the overthrow of the US government” can cost you a security clearance or a federal job (except in the current Presidential administration) it is not illegal. It comes under the heading of “free speech”. If said individuals or organizations act to try to bring about these goals, then by all means prosecute them under existing laws. But criminalizing thought, speech, and association without any actual deeds (a.k.a. crimes) occurring? Not only unconstitutional, but a nightmare depending upon who determines who should be targeted by this law… Because I think we can all assume that it won’t be applied even-handedly. Look at Canada and Europe, where anyone who criticizes Islam can be tried for “hate speech”, but muslims are never restricted from their own actual hate speech against gays, Jews, the government whose welfare system supports them, etc.

A PDF of the registration form can be found here, courtesy of FitsNews.

“Outline fundamental beliefs. If applicable, attach a copy of the bylaws or minutes of meetings from the last year.” That’s one way to gather intelligence, if the minutes from the meetings include the planned attacks for the next year. “Please name all other members of the organization located in South Carolina.” Thank you, Senator McCarthy.

While the intention of the law is apparently aimed at Islamic terrorists, it’s unclear in the law’s wording whether it can be applied to right-wing militias, some of whom have reputedly called for the overthrow of the US government. The law states that “fraternal” and “patriotic” groups are exempt from the law, but only if they don’t “contemplate the overthrow of the government.”

File your paperwork and pay the five dollars before you fire on Fort Sumter.

Obama: Still With the Two Faces

9 February 2010

According to Federal Eye, President Obama – who, during his exceeding brief stay in Congress, in between voting “present” and running for higher office, placed holds on at least three Bush administration nominees (since holds can be placed anonymously, the number could be higher) – is now raging against that very same practice being applied to his nominees by Republicans. (This, by the way, is the same hypocrisy which made Democrats suddenly turn against independent prosecutors when a Democrat – Bill Clinton – was the one being investigated; the same hypocrisy is also in play as Democrats and the MSM – but I repeat myself – are floating trial balloons about the “obsolete” and “undemocratic” filibuster, now that it may be used against them and their unconstitutional plans.)

“We’ve got a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified, nobody has a specific objection to them, but end up having a hold on them because of some completely unrelated piece of business,” Obama said at a question and answer session during the Senate Democratic Conference at the Newseum in Washington.

Please. There is absolutely no such thing – especially in the current environment – as a person “unanimously viewed as well qualified,” to whom “nobody has a specific objection.” That’s simply impossible, and so self-evidently so that the President’s teleprompter is obviously lying. Time to break out the world’s smallest violin again…

Addendum: “All indications are that President Obama will utilize the upcoming congressional break to make one or more recess appointments”, so let’s see what Obama had to say about recess appointments in 2005, such as John Bolton’s appointment to the UN by President Bush:

“To some degree, he’s damaged goods,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”

We’ll see whether or not his own appointments are treated and described as “damaged goods.” It’s already a safe bet that they are.

The House in Play?

9 February 2010

When Rep. John Murtha died yesterday, some people in the media (so you know what to expect) commented that this would not have any effect on the Democrats’ control of the House (and, specifically, the ability to pass ObamaCare) because of the “large majority” the Democrats have in the house – seeking to draw a distinction between the upcoming election for Murtha’s seat and Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts which removed the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority (which was originally gained by the theft of a seat by Al Franken). While that is partially true, a number of House Democrats voted against ObamaCare the first time around; it only passed by 220 to 215 votes. That means that all it would take for the reconciled ObamaCare to fail when it returns to the House is the loss of three votes to the opposition. Ignoring for the moment all of the Democrats who claimed that they’d vote against the final version if it contained provisions they didn’t like (government-funded abortion, obscene backroom deals hammered out by the Senate), because the Democrats quite simply can’t be relied on to keep their word or abide by the wishes of the electorate (or by the Constitution which they swore to uphold and defend) – just look at how every last Democrat in the Senate was willing to toss aside their scruples and their claims to be “moderate” over a big enough payoff – AllahPundit said last night that “Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of passing ObamaCare in House.”

Back in November, the House passed its health care bill by a narrow 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, the one Republican who voted for it — Joseph Cao — has indicated that he would not support the bill a second time around given the weaker language on abortion in the Senate version. In addition, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler already retired prematurely. Factor in Murtha’s death today, and Pelosi is down to 217 votes — one short of passage.

AllahPundit has somehow failed to recall an additional lost vote, Democrat-turned-Republican Parker Griffith of Alabama.

To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she’ll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill. … While there’s been talk that Pelosi had some votes in reserve the first time around…

It’s actually a common practice, when an unpopular bill has more than enough votes to pass, for some Congressmen who support the bill to vote against it, just to shore up their support and re-election prospects back home. Odds are that once Pelosi had enough committed votes to pass this abomination the first time through, that some of the so-called moderate Democrats in purple (or red) states voted against it; knowing that it would pass, but allowing them to posture against it. This is known as “having your pork and eating it too.” However, given the upswell of opposition to ObamaCare, and how much rage will be directed against any “turncoats” who change their votes in favor of ObamaCare now (look how Ben Nelson is faring), some of those “reserve votes” that Pelosi claimed to have may just evaporate.

Bizarrely, just three weeks after Scotty B shocked the world in Massachusetts, we’re now looking at a re-run of that race in PA-12. It’s a special election to fill out a nationally recognized legislator’s term, and the winner stands to cast the deciding vote on O-Care in his chamber. Expect the Republican nominee to run hard on that point, especially since his opponent is bound to run on the fact that, with the Dems in power, he can deliver more earmarks for Murtha’s district than a Republican could.

Will the Democrat attempting to replace Murtha run on Murtha’s ticket of “all you voters are racist”?

That Was Quick

8 February 2010

The Democrats couldn’t wait twenty-four hours… not even twelve hours… before dragging John Murtha out to defend the health care hostile takeover. “I think people want health care reform,” says Senator Cohen – Maybe, but unless you’ve seen a poll that’s not privy to the rest of us, the people do not want what you’re peddling. (H/T: Squatch)

No One Left to Tax

8 February 2010

In this short clip from Wednesday’s House Committee on Business and Labor hearing, Rep. Michael Schaufler, D-Happy Valley, made an emotional off-the-cuff statement about how jobs are being killed in this state and how we have “no one left to tax.” He was the only Democrat to vote against the tax bills that were later referred to voters as Measures 66 and 67. Later that afternoon, Schaufler apologized to the House for making this speech while in committee, calling it out of order. On the contrary, perhaps some of his colleagues owe the people of Oregon an apology for not admitting that what he said is all too true.

From Oregon (H/T: JCM).

A Kennedy-Free Congress?

8 February 2010

Professor William A. Jacobson, over at Legal Insurrection, has selected a new target in the wake of Scott Brown’s (R-MA) election to the Senate: Patrick Kennedy Must Go.

Patrick referred to Scott Brown’s swearing-in as a “joke,” which has sparked the inevitable “the joke is on Patrick” comments in light of a recent poll showing Patrick with high negatives and in a vulnerable position. Most people, however, do not go much beyond Patrick’s caricature in understanding his long history of arrogance, abuse of his family’s power, and generally nasty demeanor towards opponents. … Patrick has come to symbolize the arrogance of power in which one can verbally abuse airport screeners, trash a boat, get into an argument with a female companion such that the police were called, and almost kill a Capitol policeman while driving under the influence, yet get away with no punishment either in the judicial system or at the polls. … We cannot let the First Congressional District in Rhode Island turn into “the Kennedy seat.” Not with this Kennedy.

A Congress free of Kennedys… “Can you even imagine it?” they’re asking at HillBuzz. “It’s easy if you try,” in the words of John Lennon.

Obama’s Invite to GOP

8 February 2010

Obama, reeling from the election of Scott Brown (R-MA) and the loss of the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, has finally come up with a new con: a bipartisan summit with the GOP, televised, where they can discuss a compromise. (The GOP’s idea of a compromise is to trash the behemoth currently locked away in Reid and Pelosi’s offices and start from scratch, but that will never happen.) Some see this as an obvious trap.

But it’s more than just a trap, and a chance for the Dems to do some CYA PR against “The Party of NO”. It’s a joke and a scam, because the House ans Senate Democrats are continuing to hammer out their final, reconciled bill; the bill with absolutely no Republican support or input, and nothing the Republicans say or do at this “summit” will change that bill. (It can’t, because even the slightest change would destroy all of the compromises, back-room deals, and bribes that have gone to build that house of cards bill in the first place.) “The President has made it clear that he’s adamant about passing comprehensive reform similar to the bills passed by the House and the Senate,” one official said. That being the case, why should the GOP play this snake oil peddler’s game? At the very least, they should lay down ground rules for the summit which include NO TELEPROMPTERS. See how well the Wizard of Uhs does with his PR attack then.

Obama Kiss of Death

8 February 2010

Not only are the candidates for whom Obama campaigns losing, but he even endorsed the losing Superbowl team. The “Obama Kiss of Death” has become a joke or cliché among many bloggers, who are pleased to hear that the President is going to campaign for Senator Reid (D-NV) – right after Obama pissed off Las Vegas for the second time – because that just adds to the odds that the unpopular, ineffective, and downright idiotic Senate Majority Leader will lose big.

Unfortunately, it’s not a joke anymore when the “Obama Kiss of Death” becomes the literal truth. Not only is he, along with the Democratic Congress (including the so-called moderates who have shed their sheep skins), trying to destroy the health care (and thus, the health) of America (and various rich and politically-connected Canadians and other foreigners who can’t get prompt and proper care under their own socialist coverage), but he has frozen HIV spending in Africa. Even egotistical moonbats like Bono and Bob Geldorf have had to give George Bush credit for the lives he saved in Africa (and the Africans give him credit, too).

“George W. Bush is a hero in this country,” said Peter Mugyenyi, who heads Uganda’s Joint Clinical Research Centre, a leading AIDS treatment clinic. Uganda received 929 million dollars (678 million euros) from PEPFAR between 2003-2008 and used much of those funds to provide some 150,000 people with Antiretroviral therapy.

Apparently, the Obamessiah who was supposed to heal the world and make them all love us again has found a new continent to screw over. Currently, the only continent on which he has yet to reduce America’s prestige is Antarctica. Give him time.

Let It Snow, Let It Snow

7 February 2010

Since the DC area is still digging itself out (and littleoldlady just told me more is on the way), here are more snow and related links. Another snowball fight broke out in DC (video). Fortunately, this one wasn’t attacked by a rogue cop with a gun. Obama, never one to let a crisis go to waste, is using a “blizzard of opposition” metaphor as he pledges to continue fighting for his Health Care hostile takeover that America doesn’t want.

Fifteen months ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went on about how the warm DC winter was a sign of drastic climate change – yeah, I got your global warming right here. Look to see some backtracking in the weeks ahead, along the usual line that all warming is proof of climate change, and all cooling is a local anomaly. Finally, break out the world’s smallest violin again for Professor Phil Jones, who’s seeking sympathy and a change-of-subject by claiming that contemplated suicide after being revealed for the fraud that he is. The linked article uses weasel words (“Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work“) to help portray Jones as a victim, because it’s all about victimology.

And Another One

6 February 2010

Since I was in the mood…

The liberal definition of “bipartisanship”: Shut up and do it our way.

Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

6 February 2010

This is the question asked today (tomorrow, actually, according to the date on the article) in The Washington Post of all places. It’s a good read.

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension. It’s an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation – as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a “Bolshevik plot” – and the country’s failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. “We were so busy just getting stuff done … that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are,” the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives). …

Liberals: They don’t just disagree with us. They think we’re evil and need to die.

Breitbart to MSM: “You Suck”

6 February 2010

Andrew Breitbart raised the roof at the National Tea Party Convention this morning in Nashville, Tennessee. Speaking to the dozens of reporters assembled in the back of the room, Andrew said this: “It’s not your business model that sucks, it’s you that sucks.”

Andrew finished his speech with this warning to the media: “If you don’t start reporting the truth I will organize a protest in New York City on Madison Avenue and you won’t be able to escape to the Hamptons for the weekend.” (H/T Gateway Pundit)