Teapot Tantrums

Jon Voight: Stop the False Prophet, Obama

Way to go, Mr. Voight!

First Amendment Right For All? Think Again!

As Michelle Malkin says on her blog, this is the camel's nose under the tent. It starts out as what lobbyists can say, but the Obama Administration's trying to expand it to "anyone else exerting influence on the process."

~~~~~~~~~

White House pushing to gag stimulus critics

By Michelle Malkin  •  May 30, 2009 10:03 AM

Caution: Obama gangland tactics at work.

In keeping with his past campaign tactics to shut critics up through brute force, the White House appears to be taking steps to crack down on critics of the trillion-dollar porkulus law.

Is anyone surprised? Mark Tapscott at the Examiner reports:

A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus project has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn. It’s a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.

Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Writes Tapscott:

The key passage is the reference to expanding regulation from registered lobbyists to “anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.”

This is the Camel’s nose under the tent…

Ever use the phrase, "The last time I looked, *this* was America!" ...?

Well, I don't know about you, but with the ever-increasing heavy-handed tactics by the Obama Administration, it seems like America is morphing in front of my eyes into something more and more resembling a totalitarian state ... it's just a matter or time.

I hardly recognize America anymore.

One Step At a Time

Sent to me via email from my mom today, I think you'll get a kick out of this. Apparently it first appeared in February '09.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT

American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
 
We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
 

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood ..

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag. 

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you can’t answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, &
Jane Fonda with you.

P. S. S.  And we won't have to press 1 for English.

Socialism and Secularism Suck

At least that's what Dennis Prager says in the following article, which was forwarded to me by our very smart Uncle Stan.

Socialism and Secularism Suck Vitality Out of Society

by Dennis Prager
Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Outside of politics, sports, and popular entertainment, how many living Germans, or French, or Austrians, or even Brits can you name?

Even well-informed people who love art and literature and who follow developments in science and medicine would be hard pressed to come up with many, more often any, names. In terms of greatness in literature, art, music, the sciences, philosophy, and medical breakthroughs, Europe has virtually fallen off the radar screen.

This is particularly meaningful given how different the answer would have been had you asked anyone the same question between just 80 and 120 years ago -- and certainly before that. A plethora of world-renowned names would have flowed.

Obvious examples would include (in alphabetical order): Brecht, Buber, Cezanne, Chekhov, Curie, Debussy, Eiffel, Einstein, Freud, Hesse, Kafka, Mahler, Mann, Marconi, Pasteur, Porsche, Proust, Somerset Maugham, Strauss, Stravinsky, Tolstoy, Zeppelin, Zola.

Not to mention the European immortals who lived within the century before them: Mozart, Beethoven, Dostoevsky, Darwin, Kierkegaard, Manet, Monet, Hugo and Van Gogh, to name only a few.

What has happened?

What has happened is that Europe, with a few exceptions, has lost its creativity, intellectual excitement, industrial innovation, and risk taking. Europe’s creative energy has been sapped. There are many lovely Europeans; but there aren’t many creative, dynamic, or entrepreneurial ones.

The issues that preoccupy most Europeans are overwhelmingly material ones: How many hours per week will I have to work? How much annual vacation time will I have? How many social benefits can I preserve (or increase)? How can my country avoid fighting against anyone or for anyone?

Why has this happened?

There are two reasons: secularism and socialism (aka the welfare state).

Either one alone sucks much of the life out of society. Together they are likely to be lethal.

Even if one holds that religion is false, only a dogmatic and irrational secularist can deny that it was religion in the Western world that provided the impetus or backdrop for nearly all the uniquely great art, literature, economic and even scientific advances of the West. Even the irreligious were forced to deal with religious themes -- if only in expressing rebellion against them.

Religion in the West raised all the great questions of life: Why are we here? Is there purpose to existence? Were we deliberately made? Is there something after death? Are morals objective or only a matter of personal preference? Do rights come from the state or from the Creator?

And religion gave positive responses: We are here because a benevolent God made us. There is, therefore, ultimate purpose to life. Good and evil are real. Death is not the end. Human rights are inherent since they come from God. And so on.

Secularism drains all this out of life. No one made us. Death is the end. We are no more significant than any other creatures. We are all the results of mere coincidence. Make up your own meaning (existentialism) because life has none. Good and evil are merely euphemisms for “I like” and “I dislike.”

Thus, when religion dies in a country, creativity wanes. For example, while Christian Russia was backward in many ways, it still gave the world Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tolstoy, and Tchaikovsky. Once Christianity was suppressed, if not killed, in Russia, that country became a cultural wasteland (with a few exceptions like Shostakovich and Solzhenitsyn, the latter a devout Christian). It is true that this was largely the result of Lenin, Stalin and Communism; but even where Communism did not take over, the decline of religion in Europe meant a decline in human creativity -- except for nihilistic and/or absurd isms, which have greatly increased. As G. K. Chesterton noted at the end of the 19th century, when people stop believing in God they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything. One not only thinks of the violent isms: Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Fascism, Maoism, and Nazism, but of all the non-violent isms that have become substitute religions – e.g., feminism, environmentalism, and socialism.

The state sucks out creativity and dynamism just as much as secularism does. Why do anything for yourself when the state will do it for you? Why take care of others when the state will do it for you? Why have ambition when the state is there to ensure that few or no individuals are rewarded more than others?

America has been the center of energy and creativity in almost every area of life because it has remained far more religious than any other industrialized Western democracy and because it has rejected the welfare state social model.

Which is why so many are so worried about President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s desire to transform -- in their apt wording -- America into a secular welfare state. The greatest engine of moral, religious, economic, scientific, and industrial dynamism is being starved of its fuel. The bigger the state, the smaller its people.

Another Type of "Frog In the Pot"??

Per the 5/8 edition of FoxNews' Political Grapevine –

"Broadcast network execs are said to be furious that Obama’s primetime news conferences have cost them about $30B in ad revenue. The Hollywood Reporter says that they are quietly hoping that Fox Broadcasting Company’s refusal to air the most recent one has set a precedent. “The Fox decision gives us cover to reject a request, if we feel there is no urgent breaking news.” Fox aired the first two primetime news conferences, but the second one pre-empted “American Idol”, costing the company millions. So executives passed on the 4/29 event. Now other networks may follow suit. “The millions of ad dollars the President is costing us could help us keep some people working.” President Obama’s last news conference drew about 20M fewer than his first. While the Fox Broadcast did not air it, it of course was available here on the Fox News Network and on the Fox Business Channel.”

Is it just me, or does it seem that this may be part of the bigger political scheme of things …

1. Speak out too often at a huge cost to the people airing it

2. Get the people de-sensitized to these news conferences via the bully (bullying?) pulpit

3. Wait for complacency to take over

... all the while planning to finally announce something we *should* be concerned about when no one cares to listen anymore?

Preferably late on a Friday afternoon, maybe ........?

Didn't Want to See the Hippos??

My good friend, Lisa, recently went to the zoo and shared this story:

Well, we went to the zoo with (son) and (daughter). Usually we spend quite a bit of time in the Gorilla/Hippo area which are part of the same exhibit (outdoor gorilla exhibit is behind the mini hippos and the indoor is right beside).

(Daughter) declares loudly though that she doesn't want to go to see Hippo Chrissy cause the hippos are stupid. Since when did (Daughter) start calling one of the hippos by name - especially when none of them are named Chrissy?????

Well, we were stumped. I asked her again why she didn't want to see the hippos cause she usually really likes them. Nearby, a docent had been listening and (kinda arrogantly) comes by to talk (Daughter) into seeing the hippos. She starts talking to (Daughter) and daughter tells her that she doesn't like the hippos anymore cause they aren't very nice and lie about stuff.

WHAT????? So, now the docent is looking at us like we're really strange and I can see in her mind that she thinks (Daughter) is not quite firing on all cylinders (silly witch). So, I step in ('cause ain't nobody gonna make my baby feel stupid, ya know?), and asked her to explain because mama was confused.

Well, short explanation is that she overheard us talking politics and social lunacy in the car on the way to the zoo, but was wearing her headphones listening to her iPod so she only heard part of the conversation. She thought she overheard us talk about the Hippo Chrissy (hypocrisy) of the whole Obama administration and decided she didn't like Chrissy anymore.

The docent assured her (while glaring daggers at us) that none of their hippos were named Chrissy and that they only had 'good' hippos that liked to help people (how the hell do hippos help people???). Daughter then said, "OK, as long as none of them listen to Obama."

ROFLMAO!

I dang near choked I was laughing so hard. Docent walks off muttering to other docent about we "must be some of those crazy Republicans and we had already ruined the kid."

Well, that was the gist of it - oh, and I did stop in to the zoo office to let them know that I didn't appreciate their docent (Kelly) insulting us and gossiping about us in a negative and hateful manner to the other docent. My parting shot was that if I didn't know better, that I'd think they were harboring a bunch of social terrorists and I was afraid it might not be safe to bring my conservative children there. After all, it *was* still America, wasn't it and technically we're still allowed to be conservative?????

She came out from behind the counter to stop me leaving (and shut me up) and explain how they were probably just confused and didn't understand what (Daughter) meant and was trying to help her understand what Obama was *really* trying to do.

Bullshit

I told her that daughter was right. Hypocrisy *was* truly alive and well there at the zoo.

Also told her that, thankfully, it was still my job as her mother to make sure she knew exactly what Obama was about and that I would do just that, thank you very much and have a nice day.

Freakin' kool-aid drinkers.

Thanks, Lisa, for letting me share that. It's priceless!

Obama: Conservatives the Party of NO! (Well, Not Exactly....)

From the bright people at NetRightNation.com comes this thought-provoking post by Quin Hillyer:

Emmanuel's Story Line is Fishy

Written by Quin Hillyer

Wednesday, 22 April 2009 12:45

From the Washington Examiner: White House Chief of Staff and partisan hit-man-in-chief Rahm Emanuel wouldn’t know a real idea if was served up to him on a fish platter. On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Emanuel had this to say about President Barack Obama’s critics on the right: “When you're the party of no, when you're the party of never, when you're the party of no new ideas, that's not constructive&hellip. The challenge will be: Will the Republicans come to the table with constructive ideas?” Emanuel, a foul-mouthed would-be tough guy best known for having sent a decomposing 30-inch fish to a pollster he didn’t like, clearly doesn’t even want to pay attention – because conservatives have been pushing innovative ideas for just about every issue of national importance. To show just how readily available those ideas are, here’s a list that I am literally writing off the top of my head, without even doing a shred of new research, much less needing to search high and low as if conservative ideas are difficult to find. Start with health care, reforms of which Obama repeatedly and falsely claims will solve most of the nation’s budget problems. First, pilot projects for Health Savings Accounts are working like a charm. Conservatives want to expand them; Obama says no. Second, Arizona’s U.S. Rep. John Shadegg proposes allowing consumers to buy health insurance across state lines. Why should the citizens of some states be stuck with higher insurance bills because of costly mandates imposed by their state governments? If they want cheaper insurance from another state, they should be allowed to buy it – and the citizens of that other state should have the right to shop in the state with the costly mandates if the mandates make the whole package seem more attractive. Third, health insurance should no longer be funneled through employers as a matter of government policy; instead, tax credits should go directly to the consumer. For a small but significant reform of how the entire government operates – and one which surely would save oodles of taxpayer money – Shadegg again is the idea man, annually proposing that all federal legislation carry a clause identifying which part of the Constitution allows the federal government to carry out the bill’s activity. On entitlements, Rep. Paul Ryan last year wrote a well-received column for the Wall Street Journal. One of his best ideas was to allow Medicaid to be turned, by consumer choice, into a tax-credit option rather than a bureaucratically controlled one. On taxes, conservative columnist Deroy Murdock is one of the lead popularizers of an alternative tax filing system: Taxpayers would have the choice between trying to “game” today’s complicated system or, instead, use a single postcard to send in a fixed percentage of their incomes with no deductions. Of course, it is Emanuel’s allies who long have fought against flatter, simpler taxes. For more accessible energy, House Minority Leader John Boehner advocates the “all of the above” plan of allowing widescale domestic production of oil and gas while also promoting newer forms of energy. Instead, the Obama administration repeatedly has been shackling domestic production. On the budget, the answers are out there: An absolute two-year moratorium on porky earmarks combined with a commission to completely revamp (and severely limit) earmarks going forward. Add that to an absolute freeze, for one year, on the total amount of domestic discretionary spending (with some shifting around in budget sub-categories allowed). Plus, again, look to Rep. Ryan for a host of other suggestions. Conservatives also would push major regulatory reforms, and undo some of the horrendous mistakes of the Pelosi Congress such as the hyperactive anti-lead laws which have caused libraries to take children’s books off the shelves, forced thrift shops to close, and harmed charitable fund drives nationwide. And all that is just a start – again, off the top of my head. If there were space in this column, I similarly could cite innovative suggestions on immigration, on education, on legal-system reform, and on other issues. But to all these ideas, it is Emanuel and Obama and their allies who say “no, never.” The fish rots from the head down.

Is the Nation's Electrical Grid Vulnerable? You Don't Really Want to Know!

I subscribe to an interesting publication called TechRepublic, which furnishes me with everything from information way over my head to stuff I can share with my co-workers on how to use Microsoft Office more effectively.

Then, once in a while, there's the odd bit of information that might make your tummy start churning, like this one:

Could cyber attackers bring down the U.S. electrical grid?

This is a guest post from Larry Dignan, Editor in Chief of ZDNet, TechRepublic’s sister site. You can follow Larry on his ZDNet blog Between the Lines (or subscribe to the RSS feed).

Spies have reportedly been probing the U.S. electrical grid for months and planting software that could be activated at a future date, according to The Wall Street Journal. The report highlights the latest vulnerabilities facing U.S. power infrastructure.

The Journal notes that the spies are from China, Russia and other countries. While the news isn’t that surprising—given how vulnerable U.S. infrastructure is—it is notable because electrical grids were initially thought to be somewhat hacker proof until recently. Why? Grids run on an old mish-mash of software, which is often proprietary.

However, recent events indicate that so called SCADA systems—(Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition), which collect data from sensors and machines and send them to a centrally managed repository—are also at risk. To wit, last June Core Security detailed how SCADA systems were vulnerable. And even silly electronic road sign pranks show how SCADA systems are vulnerable.

How bad is it? According to the Journal report, a SCADA attack may be a disaster waiting to happen. The ability to hack into electric grids isn’t new–you can find reports here, here and here—and the usual techniques such as social engineering, exploits and other hijinks work well. In addition, the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology had a big hearing on electric grid threats a year ago and the General Accountability Office has also highlighted the issues in a report on network controls.

In a report, the GAO found the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federal corporation and the nation’s largest public power company, “had not consistently implemented significant elements of its information security program.” Meanwhile, the TVA’s corporate network “lacked key software patches and had inadequate security settings, and numerous network infrastructure protocols and devices had limited or ineffective security configurations,” according to the GAO.

Simply put, the fact the grid is wide open for malicious hackers isn’t news. What’s different is the Journal is naming names (at least countries).

The Journal notes that:

• The Chinese have attempted to map the U.S. electrical grid;
• The espionage is pervasive and not targeted to any one company or region;
• The companies in charge of the infrastructure—remember most of the U.S. networks are in private hands—never knew of the intrusions;
• Intelligence agencies discovered the intrusions;
• Water, sewer and other systems are at risk;
• And the intelligence gleaned through these intrusions will be critical in the event of war.

The good news is that the Obama administration is about to complete a cybersecurity review and Congress had approved $17 billion in funds to protect government networks under the Bush administration.

Also see: TechRepublic resources on SCADA security

GAO report on Tennessee Valley Authority’s security weaknesses

House hearing on electric grid vulnerabilities

However, throwing money at the problem may not help all that much.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation told its members that utilities need to step up security procedures. In the letter, Michael Assante, chief security officer of the group, wrote:

NERC is requesting that entities take a fresh, comprehensive look at their risk-based methodology and their resulting list of CAs (critical assets) with a broader perspective on the potential consequences to the entire interconnected system of not only the loss of assets that they own or control, but also the potential misuse of those assets by intelligent threat actors.

Assante outlines the grid’s conundrum:

Most of us who have spent any amount of time in the industry understand that the bulk power system is designed and operated in such a way to withstand the most severe single contingency, and in some cases multiple contingencies, without incurring significant loss of customer load or risking system instability. This engineering construct works extremely well in the operation and planning of the system to deal with expected and random unexpected events. It also works, although to a lesser extent, in a physical security world. In this traditional paradigm, fewer assets may be considered “critical” to the reliability of the bulk electric system.

But as we consider cyber security, a host of new considerations arise. Rather than considering the unexpected failure of a digital protection and control device within a substation, for example, system planners and operators will need to consider the potential for the simultaneous manipulation of all devices in the substation or, worse yet, across multiple substations. I have intentionally used the word “manipulate” here, as it is very important to consider the misuse, not just loss or denial, of a cyber asset and the resulting consequences, to accurately identify CAs under this new “cyber security” paradigm. A number of system disturbances, including those referenced in NERC’s March 30 advisory on protection system single points of failure, have resulted from similar, non-cyber-related events in the past five years, clearly showing that this type of failure can significantly “affect the reliability (and) operability of the bulk electric system,” sometimes over wide geographic areas.

Taking this one step further, we, as an industry, must also consider the effect that the loss of that substation, or an attack resulting in the concurrent loss of multiple facilities, or its malicious operation, could have on the generation connected to it.

The good news so far: It doesn’t appear that these intrusions have led to any attacks. But as grids become smarter via technology, they’re likely to be easier to hack. It’s only a matter of when, not if, the grid—and other key infrastructure—gets hacked.

Update: I’d also like to point out the following user response:

I am a retired engineer, formerly employed by 2 electric utilities - one of them a very large utility within the U. S; Department of Energy. In that job I was the project manager for a large SCADA/Energy Control System. So I (think) I know a little about SCADA systems and how they operate.

EVERY SCADA system that I have ever seen use its own dedicated communication network to carry data between the Master Station (the “base”), and the substation Remote Terminal Units (RTU’s) and with the powerplants. The Master Station is manned 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 52 weeks per year. In other words, ALL THE TIME. So if something happens, the knowledgeable, experienced operator can take immediate steps to counteract the event. One example: many years ago, a light airplane flew into a high voltage transmission line in Northern Arizona. The electric system “alarmed”, and a dispatcher in a Phoenix control center shut down that line and rerouted power so as to minimize outages to customers until the cause of the alarm had been identified and corrective measures taken.

Another Western US utility’s management decided to “economize” by combining the SCADA functions with the company’s corporate functions in a single computer. And, of course, there was a “firewall” between the SCADA and corporate functions. And when the firewall failed, it took down the company’s entire power grid. Needless to say, nobody in electric utility management today sees this as a way to economize.

Oh yes, did I mention that SCADA systems almost always use redundant computers, so that in the event that one fails, an automatic “failover” to the backup computer occurs?

Remember the late 1990’s, and the widespread fear that the rollover to year 2000 would cause widespread failures in the electric power grid, because microprocessors and computers had not been designed to recognize dates beyond 1999? And that once the grid crashed, taking out all electric power in North America, it would be impossible to restart, because electric power was needed just to start up a generator, etc. As the person who designed the data communications protocol for use between our Master Station and the several (hydro and steam) powerplants we had under control, I knew that the prognosticators of doom were wrong. And, remember what happened on New Year’s Day, 2000: NOTHING. The electric system continued to function, just as before. The doom-sayers were WRONG.

So, considering that utilities use dedicated, private (usually microwave) communications for their SCADA systems, and that the data communications use various coding and security methods, I, for one, will not lose any sleep worrying that the Chinese or Russians are going to tap into our country’s SCADA systems and crash the power grid.

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and Editorial Director of TechRepublic. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

More on the Power Grid Vulnerability

And then it was followed up by this one:

AT&T fiber outage shows how easily attackers could wipe out our communications

This is a guest post from Larry Dignan, Editor in Chief of ZDNet, TechRepublic’s sister site. You can follow Larry on his ZDNet blog Between the Lines (or subscribe to the RSS feed).

The fiber-optic outage—actually sabotage—in the Bay Area on Thursday reveals a dirty little secret: Our infrastructure is ridiculously vulnerable and it only takes a few vandals (or terrorists) to bring communication to its knees.

While it’s unclear what exactly happened, AT&T is offering a $100,000 now $250,000 reward to find the vandals that cut into fiber optic wires and whacked everything from hosting centers—including a few of our own—911 calls and other communication (Techmeme). Sam said it best: No matter how advanced we get we’re still hooked up to a big wire somewhere.

That’s not going to change. The big question: How are we going to protect those big wires?

Barrett Lyon asks whether it’s possible to destroy the network with a hacksaw. In a word: Yup. It happened yesterday. AT&T used Twitter—home of the Fail Whale—to communicate with customers. Anyone see the irony in that one?

What’s truly scary is that we’re not just talking about the Internet here. The electric grid is vulnerable. Our transportation grid is vulnerable. Our infrastructure in the U.S. is a big sitting duck. The grid and the Internet are top of mind today, but I’m reminded of the overall infrastructure vulnerability every trip into Penn Station. Every once in a while you’ll see heavily armed police with their K-9 dogs in Penn Station’s lobby. It’s a common sight. However, if you really wanted to bring down the train station and subway it’s nothing a stray backpack couldn’t take care of.

Simply put, it’s impossible to completely secure all of the infrastructure out there. And everyone knows it. In 2003, a student dissertation raised national security concerns. It’s not rocket science to map infrastructure and cook up scenarios.

So what can we do?

Surely, it makes no sense to put armed guards at every manhole cover, fiber optic hub, power line and transportation grid. However, there may be a few things we can do:

• Seal the manholes: It’s relatively easy to pop one and clip a line or two.
• Smart sensors: Is there the equivalent of a car alarm for fiber optic lines?
• Better surveillance: Critical national infrastructure—like the places the AT&T fiber optic lines were cut—mostly resides in private hands. Is there a way to hook these areas up into a national security monitoring network?
• Improved fail-over processes. Sure, the Internet is set up to reroute traffic, but it’s not perfect. Can we build in more resiliency?

There is a big plan from the Department of Homeland Security about protecting national infrastructure. The 188 page tome can be boiled down to this graphic.

In the end, I’m not hopeful that any of these infrastructure assets can be secured because there’s a real herding cats problem among all the vested parties. And that fact casts a pall over some of our grand tech visions.

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and Editorial Director of TechRepublic. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

"The Dissertation" ... the One They're Keeping Under Wraps

In case you didn't follow the link to the student dissertation (see above post), which outlines grid vulnerabilities, I thought I'd post the article in its entirety ...

Dissertation Could Be Security Threat

Student's Maps Illustrate Concerns About Public Information

By Laura Blumenfeld

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 8, 2003; Page A01

Sean Gorman's professor called his dissertation "tedious and unimportant." Gorman didn't talk about it when he went on dates because "it was so boring they'd start staring up at the ceiling." But since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Gorman's work has become so compelling that companies want to seize it, government officials want to suppress it, and al Qaeda operatives -- if they could get their hands on it -- would find a terrorist treasure map.

Tinkering on a laptop, wearing a rumpled T-shirt and a soul patch goatee, this George Mason University graduate student has mapped every business and industrial sector in the American economy, layering on top the fiber-optic network that connects them.

He can click on a bank in Manhattan and see who has communication lines running into it and where. He can zoom in on Baltimore and find the choke point for trucking warehouses. He can drill into a cable trench between Kansas and Colorado and determine how to create the most havoc with a hedge clipper. Using mathematical formulas, he probes for critical links, trying to answer the question: "If I were Osama bin Laden, where would I want to attack?" In the background, he plays the Beastie Boys.

For this, Gorman has become part of an expanding field of researchers whose work is coming under scrutiny for national security reasons. His story illustrates new ripples in the old tension between an open society and a secure society.

"I'm this grad student," said Gorman, 29, amazed by his transformation from geek to cybercommando. "Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined I'd be briefing government officials and private-sector CEOs."

Invariably, he said, they suggest his work be classified. "Classify my dissertation? Crap. Does this mean I have to redo my PhD?" he said. "They're worried about national security. I'm worried about getting my degree." For academics, there always has been the imperative to publish or perish. In Gorman's case, there's a new concern: publish and perish.

"He should turn it in to his professor, get his grade -- and then they both should burn it," said Richard Clarke, who until recently was the White House cyberterrorism chief. "The fiber-optic network is our country's nervous system." Every fiber, thin as a hair, carries the impulses responsible for Internet traffic, telephones, cell phones, military communications, bank transfers, air traffic control, signals to the power grids and water systems, among other things.

"You don't want to give terrorists a road map to blow that up," he said.

The Washington Post has agreed not to print the results of Gorman's research, at the insistence of GMU. Some argue that the critical targets should be publicized, because it would force the government and industry to protect them. "It's a tricky balance," said Michael Vatis, founder and first director of the National Infrastructure Protection Center. Vatis noted the dangerous time gap between exposing the weaknesses and patching them: "But I don't think security through obscurity is a winning strategy."

Gorman compiled his mega-map using publicly available material he found on the Internet. None of it was classified. His interest in maps evolved from his childhood, he said, because he "grew up all over the place." Hunched in the back seat of the family car, he would puzzle over maps, trying to figure out where they should turn. Five years ago, he began work on a master's degree in geography. His original intention was to map the physical infrastructure of the Internet, to see who was connected, who was not, and to measure its economic impact.

"We just had this research idea, and thought, 'Okay,' " said his research partner, Laurie Schintler, an assistant professor at GMU. "I wasn't even thinking about implications."

The implications, however, in the post-Sept. 11 world, were enough to knock the wind out of John M. Derrick Jr., chairman of the board of Pepco Holdings Inc., which provides power to 1.8 million customers. When a reporter showed him sample pages of Gorman's findings, he exhaled sharply.

"This is why CEOs of major power companies don't sleep well these days," Derrick said, flattening the pages with his fist. "Why in the world have we been so stupid as a country to have all this information in the public domain? Does that openness still make sense? It sure as hell doesn't to me."

Recently, Derrick received an e-mail from an atlas company offering to sell him a color-coded map of the United States with all the electric power generation and transmission systems. He hit the reply button on his e-mail and typed: "With friends like you, we don't need any enemies in the world."

Toward the other end of the free speech spectrum are such people as John Young, a New York architect who created a Web site with a friend, featuring aerial pictures of nuclear weapons storage areas, military bases, ports, dams and secret government bunkers, along with driving directions from Mapquest.com. He has been contacted by the FBI, he said, but the site is still up.

"It gives us a great thrill," Young said. "If it's banned, it should be published. We like defying authority as a matter of principle."

This is a time when people are rethinking the idea of innocent information. But it is hardly the first time a university has entangled itself in a war. John McCarthy, who oversees Gorman's project at GMU's National Center for Technology and Law, compared this period to World War II, when academics worked on code-breaking and atomic research. McCarthy introduced Gorman to some national security contacts. Gorman's critical infrastructure project, he said, has opened a dialogue among academia, the public sector and the private sector. The challenge? "Getting everyone to trust each other," McCarthy said. "It's a three-way tension that tugs and pulls."

When Gorman and Schintler presented their findings to government officials, McCarthy recalled, "they said, 'Pssh, let's scarf this up and classify it.' "

And when they presented them at a forum of chief information officers of the country's largest financial services companies -- clicking on a single cable running into a Manhattan office, for example, and revealing the names of 25 telecommunications providers -- the executives suggested that Gorman and Schintler not be allowed to leave the building with the laptop.

Businesses are particularly sensitive about such data. They don't want to lose consumer confidence, don't want to be liable for security lapses and don't want competitors to know about their weaknesses. The CIOs for Wells Fargo and Mellon Financial Corp. attended the meeting. Neither would comment for this story.

Catherine Allen, chief executive of BITS, the technology group for the financial services roundtable, said the attendees were "amazed" and "concerned" to see how interdependent their systems were. Following the presentation, she said, they decided to hold an exercise in an undisclosed Midwestern city this summer. They plan to simulate a cyber assault and a bomb attack jointly with the telecommunications industry and the National Communications System to measure the impact on financial services.

McCarthy hopes that by identifying vulnerabilities, the GMU research will help solve a risk management problem: "We know we can't have a policeman at every bank and switching facility, so what things do you secure?"

Terrorists, presumably, are exploring the question from the other end. In December 2001, bin Laden appeared in a videotape and urged the destruction of the U.S. economy. He smiled occasionally, leaned into the camera and said, "This economic hemorrhaging continues until today, but requires more blows. And the youth should try to find the joints of the American economy and hit the enemy in these joints, with God's permission."

Every day, Gorman tries to identify those "joints," sitting in a gray cinderblock lab secured by an electronic lock, multiple sign-on codes and a paper shredder. No one other than Gorman, Schintler or their research instructor, Rajendra Kulkarni, is allowed inside; they even take out their own trash. When their computer crashed, they removed the hard drive, froze it, smashed it and rubbed magnets over the surface to erase the data.

The university has imposed the security guidelines. It is trying to build a cooperative relationship with the Department of Homeland Security. Brenton Greene, director for infrastructure coordination at DHS, described the project as "a cookbook of how to exploit the vulnerabilities of our nation's infrastructure." He applauds Gorman's work, as long as he refrains from publishing details. "We would recommend this not be openly distributed," he said.

Greene is trying to help the center get federal funding. ("The government uses research funding as a carrot to induce people to refrain from speech they would otherwise engage in," said Kathleen Sullivan, dean of Stanford Law School. "If it were a command, it would be unconstitutional.")

All this is a bit heavy for Gorman, who is in many ways a typical student. His Christmas lights are still up in July; his living room couch came from a trash pile on the curb. Twice a day, Gorman rows on the Potomac. Out on the water, pulling the oars, he can stop thinking about how someone could bring down the New York Stock Exchange or cripple the Federal Reserve's ability to transfer money.

On a recent afternoon, he drove his Jeep from the Fairfax campus toward the river. Along the way he talked about his dilemma: not wanting to hurt national security; not wanting to ruin his career as an academic.

"Is this going to completely squash me?" he said, biting his fingernail. GMU has determined that he will publish only the most general aspects of his work. "Academics make their name as an expert in something. . . . If I can't talk about it, it's hard to get hired. It's hard to put 'classified' on your list of publications on your résumé."

As he drove along Route 50, he pointed out a satellite tower and a Verizon installation. Somewhere in Arlington he took a wrong turn and stopped to ask for directions. It has always been that way with him. He's great at maps, but somehow he ends up lost.

Even the Appearance of Impropriety - Well, You Know the Rest ....

From the folks at NetRightNation.com comes this interesting tidbit.

Feinstein’s Husband Cashes in on Crisis

Tuesday, 21 April 2009 12:39p

Written by the Washington Times

From Fox News

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms, the Washington Times reported on Tuesday.

Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.

Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.

Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as "even the appearance of a conflict of interest." Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband's firm.

Continue reading at the Washington Times

Be Careful What You Wish For ... You *Know* Why!

Courtesy of the folks at The Daily Grind comes this excellent article, explaining why banks “accepting” TARP funds may not be been in their best interest after all …. Any why it may just inch us quietly ever closer to socialism.

More Than They Bargained For

By Isaac MacMillen and Robert Romano

It's a little late to say, “We told you so.” But nonetheless…

Since the bailouts began last March, 2008, culminating in the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program last October, and further expanded under the Geithner Treasury's more than $2 trillion Financial Instability Plan, critics across the spectrum have warned that participants in these federal programs would be signing up for more than they bargained for.

They warned that those “loans” would come with strings attached. And, of course, they did. Certainly, one might think that things couldn't get worse for the banks with the very public, so-called “stress tests” soon to be unveiled. But, as they are quickly learning, things can always get worse the more powerful the central government becomes under the Obama regime.

The danger was accentuated when Barack Obama fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner as a condition for further assistance. It was also demonstrated anew, as ALG News has previously reported in “Endgame”, by major financial institutions being from repaying TARP loans, even though they were ready, willing, and able to repay them in full.

Now we know why. Over the weekend, the Administration informed the media of yet another condition under which they can block TARP loan repayment: National economic interest. According to the Financial Times article, “Strong banks will be allowed to repay bail-out funds they received from the U.S. government, but only if such a move passes a test to determine whether it is in the national economic interest, a senior administration official has told the Financial Times.”

Said the official, “Our general objective is going to be what is good for the system.” However, it is unclear who, exactly, gets to determine what is “good.” Or what meets up with the “economic national interest.” Though one can make a pretty good guess as to what the “system” is—and it has already been tried (and failed) in the Soviet bloc.

Indeed, a transparency watchdog group was forced to file a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request just to obtain the names of the Treasury officials responsible for handing out the TARP funds. According to the article, “Less than half a dozen people are responsible for making the final decisions about which banks get part of the $700 billion in bailout money available through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to Department of Treasury officials. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by the Sunlight Foundation in January for the members of the TARP Investment Committee, a FOIA officer recently responded with just four names…”

What is less clear is by what process they determine who should receive—and now, who should be allowed to pay back—TARP “loans.” Are they even following any duly enacted law passed by Congress and signed by the President? What limits, if any, are being applied to the powers wielded by the Treasury?

To make matters worse, the Obama Administration has announced that it will stretch the remaining billions of last fall's $700 billion TARP funding by converting its bank loans into stock. In short, by sleight of hand, the government will be able to convert its relationship with the banks from that of “creditor” to “part-owner.” This is a travesty. And the nation will rue the day.

And once those taxpayer dollars are invested in the banks, the government by definition obligates itself to ensure the companies' survival forevermore—just as it did for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they failed—so as to keep the welfare program, whether it be a housing program or otherwise, afloat.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, it actually takes an efficient business model to make a profit. And it is already with gross incompetence that the federal bureaucracy is overseeing the banks, increasing the chances of the government will bury these institutions, and erase any incentive for private capital to form the basis of the financial sector. And that applies whether they use the Amtrak, post office, or Social Security models for government efficiency.

This is a quiet nationalization, but it is nationalization to be sure. The feds are expanding the amount of taxpayer dollars in the coffers of banks, till the banks become no more than de facto federal agencies.

At which point, American taxpayers will have zero hope of ever seeing their money back, for that can only happen so long as the banks remain in private hands. And that is an increasingly long shot, for as it stands now, firms attempting to repay loans are being turned away by a government that refuses to let go of its tyrannical leverage.

So how will a bank avoid finding itself under the iron hand of government control? The easy answer would be to repay the TARP loans and thus remove the government's boot from the bank's throat. Unfortunately, that may be easier said than done.

With both JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs now publicly expressing their desires to repay the TARP loans, the federal government is reacting by throwing an entire obstacle course in their way. With tactics as simple as not telling the CEOs whom to write the check to, to schemes as elaborate as announcing a “stress test” (to be unveiled in May—giving the government enough time to make it as complex as possible, no doubt), the feds are doing their best to avoid relinquishing their hold on the nation's financial institutions.

And, yet, its no wonder that these banks want to be free from government influence. The Wall Street Journal quoted financial analyst Peter Cohan, who stated that those banks who repay government funds could have a market advantage. “It could cause business to flow toward the banks that paid TARP back and away from those who haven't,” he stated.

It's little wonder, then, that despite the government's insistence that its market interference is for the common good, many Americans are beginning to question the government's level of involvement in their daily lives. A new poll reveals that 52 percent of Americans are concerned that the government will do too much in reaction to the economic situation, the highest percentage since last October.

And just last week, hundreds of thousands of Americans joined together on Tax Day to register their opposition to the continued government hegemony over the economy. With slogans such as “keep your hands off my bank,” they protested the bailouts, national debt, and wasteful spending that has so characterized “Obama's America.”

In spite of attempts by the mainstream media to paint them as a fringe movement, Americans had a “favorable” view of the tea parties by a 51-33 percent margin, with only 15 percent unsure. Tellingly, only 13 percent of the “political class”—an attitudinal term used by Scott Rasmussen—had a favorable view. According to Rasmussen Reports, “Those in the Political Class tend to have more confidence in political leaders and less trust in the wisdom of the American people.”

The success of the tea parties has made it clear that the government's continued forays to pillage and plunder private enterprise are at their own risk, and are increasingly unpopular. And with the crypic way this supposed “open” and “transparent” government has been operating, that is no surprise.

Despite the promises of transparency and openness, the Obama Administration has been icily secretive about how the bailout money is being spent and who is spending it.

Even their political allies in Congress have complained about how tight-lipped the Administration has become, with the TARP oversight committee chairwoman complaining that the lack of transparency is hurting her ability to fulfill her mission. And the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee added his frustration: “You can't measure effectiveness when you don't know what the goals and objectives of a program are, or how the program is being run.”

Of course, none of this should be surprising. Once the government gains any amount of control, it is loath to lose it. And it is likely to abuse it. Having poured, lent, and pledged more than $13 trillion of taxpayer dollars into the teetering financial system, the federal government is now flexing its muscle at its pigeons' expense.

To avoid relinquishing control, it is moving the goal posts just beyond reach to perpetuate the crisis, making those conditions so difficult that the banks will be “encouraged” to “choose” to stay under its iron wings—just as the Russian satellite states “chose” to join and then “remain” with the USSR. And this is nothing short of brutal coercion.

In the end, the banks who accepted the TARP loans will realize—all too late—that their offer to play by the rules was not enough to satiate the feds. They made a loan of cow; now they want the farm. And they are willing to take it by the force of law.

Somehow, a “we told you so” just doesn't quite cut it—especially since those upon whose ears it would fall are already paying with their liberty for an unwelcome lesson.

ALG CTA: The Geithner Treasury is reaching the final stages of its bank nationalization plans. If banks are prevented from paying back the TARP loans prior to the so-called “stress tests” being unveiled, it is likely that the central bank will use those “tests”—built using their own criteria—to mandate permanent government assistance and never let the “loans” be paid back. Coupled with their plans to convert loans into stock, this is nothing short of tyrannical coercion by the Treasury to seize control of the financial institutions. Call Timothy Geithner and tell him to keep his hands off your bank at (202) 622-2000.

Isaac MacMillen is a Contributing Editor of ALG News Bureau. Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of ALG News Bureau.

The Next Revolution?

I couldn't have begun to say it better than this lady:

Maybe He Was Just Doin' the Hopey Pokey? (or "Bow WOW??")

OK, explain this to me. Obama's doing his "I'm King of the World" tour (or its it the "I *want* to be king of the world" tour?) and while standing before the Saudi King, he ... bows .... yeah, the leader of the free world puts himself in a position of submission to a foreign leader. Not only does he spend part of the week talking down America and apologizing for America, and telling the world that not only is America arrogant, we're also not that mad at Muslims and we aren't a Christian nation .... nope, he also chose to *bow* before the Saudi King. (the audio is in Spanish)

An "unidentified spokesman" for the White House claims that it was a double-handed grip-type handshake and that because of the "height differential", Obamao adjusted his height out of respect.

The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Washington Times called the alleged bow a  "shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate" and said it violated centuries of American tradition of not deferring to royalty. The Weekly Standard, meanwhile, noted that American protocol apparently rules out bowing, or at least it reportedly did on the occasion of a Clinton "near-bow" to the emperor of Japan.

Interestingly, a columnist in the Saudi-backed Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat also took the gesture as a bow and appreciated the move.

"Obama wished to demonstrate his respect and appreciation of the personality of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, who has made one of the most important calls in the modern era, namely the call for inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue to defuse the hatred, conflict and wars," wrote the columnist, Muhammah Diyab.

The video shows Obama dipping toward the king as G-20 leaders greet one another at the ExCel Centre in London.

LIAR!

Courtesy of TheAmericanThinker.com come these two screen shots from the video that prove Obama and him Obaminions are lying.

And this one

And then there's this commentary from TheAmericanThinker:

So why would the White House lie, instead of just admitting that the President made a gaffe? Well, for one thing, history teaches us that bows between official representatives of nations are a rather serious matter.

We live in an age of a Clash of Civilizations (in Samuel Huntington's words), with many in the Islamic world convinced that Western Civilization, ascendant for the last few centuries, is about to be humbled by Islam, the once and future dominant force in the world. No Caliph exists today as head of the entire Islamic world, but the number two slot is amply occupied by King Abdullah, as guardian of Mecca and Medina, Islam's two holiest cities.

Over three hundred years ago, another world civilization accustomed to being the largest and richest on earth, faced a challenge which turned into a clash, which turned into a fall. China, the Middle Kingdom, unquestioned as the dominant nation of East Asia, came into regular contact with the Western nations. At the time, the only pattern of diplomatic relations recognized by the Son of Heaven (China's emperor) and his court was that of tributary emissaries to the Middle Kingdom. Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and the other nations of East Asia understood and accepted that China was dominant, and when their representatives came to Beijing, they performed the required prostration acknowledging their (and their rulers') subordinate place in the pecking order. They also brought "gifts" to the Son of Heaven, and were sent home with "gifts" from the Imperial Court, amounting to trade, disguised as nothing so crass as commerce, but rather as a sign of supplication from them and benevolence from the Emperor.

In plain English, if you wanted to be received and recognized as legitimate at the Imperial Court, you had better bow down before the Emperor in a kow tow (叩頭), prostrating oneself before the glorious ruler, and touching the head to the floor.

This was not an idle matter of protocol, and everyone knew it, especially the emissaries of European rulers who made their way to Beijing, in search of trade relations: tea, silk, porcelain, and other products of China that were of finer quality than anything available elsewhere.

One of the most famous incidents in China's history of contact with the West occurred in 1793, when the Earl of Macartney came to Beijing as an emissary of the King of England, carried to Tientsin (the port city for Beijing) on a warship. The Chinese officials deemed the presents he brought to the Emperor from King George III as "tribute", putting the Macartney mission in the context of traditional tribute relatons.

But when it came to the kow tow, Macartney refused. In the words of the acknowledged dean of American China historians, the late John K. Fairbank of Harvard,

[Court officials] urged Macartney to practice the performance of the kowtow. This he stoutly refused to do, and he only went down on one knee before the Chien-lung [the Emperor], as he would have done to his own sovereign. The emperor issued an edict commending King George III for his "respectful spirit of submission" but pointing out that "our celestial empire possesses all things in prolific abundance"...

Ben Smith noted a somewhat analogous response from Saudi Arabia, following the fateful bow:

Interestingly, a columnist in the Saudi-backed Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat also took the gesture as a bow and appreciated the move.

"Obama wished to demonstrate his respect and appreciation of the personality of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, who has made one of the most important calls in the modern era, namely the call for inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue to defuse the hatred, conflict and wars," wrote the columnist, Muhammah Diyab.

Alas for the Son of Heaven and his nation, the Opium War followed a few years after the demi-prostration of the  British envoy, and it was established that China was subordinate to the cannons, guns, and warships of the Western powers, who proceeded to help themselves to China's wealth, sending opium [over China's feeble objections] in return for what they desired. 

President Obama voluntarily bent his knee and bowed his head before the most important ruler in the Islamic world. Let us hope that it does not require a war to right this insult to American sovereignty.

Did anyone see him "bow" or "double-handshake" Queen Elizabeth? Nope. So is he a kiss ass just to muslims, or is he a mysogynist, too? (One can only hope she "moved the handbag" in a signal to "get this creep away from me NOW!")

Or maybe they're just doing the Hopey Pokey.

.... but, yeah ... they denied that, too.

A Brief History of the World

This is currently making the rounds on email and I just had to share when I got it:

For those that don't know about history . Here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals, and
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can was invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservative provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food is standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history:

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately
to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off.

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your position.

White House Looking for Muslim Staffers ... mmmmmmK

During the 2008 presidential campaign season, much hay was made of Barack Obama having grown up in the Muslim faith, which he never really denied. It was said that he could say/sing the Koranic prayers "beautifully". He was listed as a Muslim on his school registration in Indonesia, but professes to be a Christian. (I'm sorry, but a "Christian" who professes that Christianity is "only one path to spiritual enlightenment" is anything *but* a true Christian.)

And then there was his interview with George Stephanopolous in which he claimed he was "being good" by telling the press to leave Sarah Palin alone (while we know he didn't say any such thing to his staffers), and made the famous freudian slip about "my muslim faith", which Stephanopolous immediately "corrected" for him.

Barack Obama "My Muslim Faith" @ Yahoo! Video

I'm sorry. I still think the guy's a closet muslim. I believe he's practicing the age-old muslim concept of "taqiyya":

Within the Shia theological framework,^[1] the concept of Taqiyya (تقية - 'fear, guard against', also taghiyeh)^[2] refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.^[3]

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "dissimulation." ^[4]

So, what's got the hairs on the back of my neck standing up?

Well, it seems that Dear Leader has put out a search for the cream of the crop of Muslims for staffing at the White House. To what purpose, you ask? Well, could it possibly be that he likes what he sees happening in Britain, where steps are being taken to institute Sharia law right beside English law? Oh, right now, it's supposed to help address the legal concerns of practicing muslims, but how long 'til it's being mingled in with English law for non-muslims, or cases where one of the participants is muslim ... but the other isn't ... and a non-muslim finds him/herself tried by Sharia law? and how long 'til it replaced English law?

Well, that could be a possibility, but I think the final paragraph (bolded) of this World Net Daily article pretty much sums it up better than anything else.

Obama seeks Muslims for White House posts
45 Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 execs,government officials submitted for look

---

Posted: March 28, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Keith Ellison taking oath of office

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama is conducting his own affirmative action program to get more Muslims in the White House.

The move began with Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn, who took his oath of office with a hand on the Quran, to solicit the resume

of what he considered to be the nation's most qualified adherents of Islam.

According to the Denver Post, when White House officials heard about the program, it was put on overdrive.

So far, 45 Ivy League grads, Fortune 500

executives and government officials have been submitted for consideration.

J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, sifted through more than 300 names as part of the search.

"It was mostly under the radar," Williams said. "We thought it would put (the president) in a precarious position. We didn't know how closely he wanted to appear to be working with the Muslim American community."

Ellison is serious about his faith. He made the pilgrimage to Mecca with the sponsorship of the Muslim American Society, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In 1991, Mohamed Akram wrote a memo for the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood that explained its work in America as "a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

Too Many Protestors "A Problem" in Florida??

Social Narcoleptics ... It's time to WAKE UP!!!!

The Scenario:

A protest is planned on a specific day, one that means a lot to "the masses" ... but now authorities are concerned that "too many protestors" might show up. Authorities have decided to pull the permit for the protest.

The ACLU is bound to get involved and help out the protestors, right? After all, they're all about supporting the application of the First Amendment's guarantees to free speech and freedom of assembly, right?

Well, that might be true if it were a *LIBERAL* group doing the gathering and protesting. Not so if it's a less-than-liberal group ...

What's happening is that a Tea Party rally protesting the bailouts and excessive government involvement in our lives and giving of taxpayer dollars to poorly managed/mis-managed corporations deemed "too big to fail" has been scheduled for Tax Day (April 15) in Cape Coral, FL. The problem is that local officials are now concerned that too many people might show up for said protest.

Do I have any doubt that this would not be an issue if the protest were being held by Liberals *against* a Republican president??? Do I have any doubt that the ACLU would be jumping all over this if it were a protest being held by *Liberals* against a *Republican* president???

What this screams to me is that the local officials are afraid that the news media might actually be paying attention to so many Tea Party-style protests being scheduled around the country for the same day and might get their town some little-appreciated attention, and they don't want to help the less-than-liberals get any attention that might help wake up the rest of the country to what's really going on. Maybe they don't want to help Atlas wake up enough to Shrug.

Someone in Cape Coral needs to forget about trying to get the ACLU involved, 'cause they seem to only be concerned about the rights of Liberals. Someone needs to call the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice) and get them involved. They will actually support the rights of all people, even those they may disagree with, if the Constitution is being violated.

The Red State blog posted a great article by Warner Todd Houston about it here. I've posted the entire article here in case you don't feel like clicking the link, but consider going there to read the comments.

Want to protest your government by going to a Tea Party event? DENIED!

Posted by Warner Todd Huston (Profile)

Sunday, March 29th at 4:38AM EDT

Remember this report from our nation’s history?

CNN (Continental News Network) Boston, 1773: The city of Boston canceled a proposed protest over tea taxes today, citing the fear that too many people dressed as Indians would be gathered near the wharves. Organizers expressed sadness over the cancellation, but meekly returned to their homes fearful of upsetting the officers of the Crown. Taxmen breathed a sigh of relief as the tar and feathers were put away not to be used this day.

You don’t remember that pre-revolutionary history? I should say you shouldn’t, because it didn’t happen. But flash forward a few hundred years and you’ll find it is happening today in Cape Coral, Florida where city officials canceled a tax day tea party gathering because they “feel too many people could show-up.”

That’s right, folks, the God-given, long-held American right to assemble and protest the actions of our government has been canceled due to too much popularity of the protest.

And what does it come down to? Money. You see, the city officials want an insurance policy taken out so that organizers can cover any loss that might occur as a result of the rally. And those insurance policies cost hundreds of dollars.

The tea party organizers of Cape Coral, though, aren’t the only ones to find this restriction of their free speech and rights to assemble. Tea party organizers all across the country have begun to find out just how difficult, if not impossible, it is to be “allowed” to exercise their God-given right to speak their minds against government excess and criminality. City governments all across the country are charging fees for “permits,” forcing organizers to pay out huge sums for “insurance policies,” and binding tea party organizers in all sorts of government red tape.

In many instances, organizers are being told that they aren’t “allowed” to hold rallies on government property. Imagine that? We, the taxpayers of the city/state/federal government aren’t “allowed” to gather on property that our own taxes paid for.

And then there are the “permits” required to reserve the day, arrange the police protection, and clean up afterward. Often those “permits” can only be applied for at certain times a year, precluding any spontaneous assembly. Also, these “permits” can be denied with no reason stated quashing at birth any plan to exercise the right of assembly.

Here one might wonder how it is that we so often see those lefties appearing on our TV sets engaging in their many organized protests? Don’t the flotsam and jetsam of the far left seem to have large protests all the time? One might be drawn to imagine that the government is involved in some sort of grand conspiracy to allow those with anti-American sentiment, the moonbats of the left, to march with impunity. But, hold the tinfoil hats, won’t you? Because the wackjobs of anti-war ilk and the shrill, circus acts of the Code Pinkos are expected to cut through the same red tape the tea party organizers have been confronted with. The lefties are just better at it.

You see, contrary to popular conception, the far left has some deep-pocketed backers (your George Soros types, unions and even government funds) and a raft of organizations that do “protests” as a full time job. Their protest marches and rallies are far from spontaneously organized. These groups are thoroughly knowledgeable about the red tape and governmental hoops through which they must jump to carry off a successful protest assembly. After all, the hatemongers of the left are intimately intertwined with city governments all across the country. They understand what needs to be done because, by and large, city officials used to belong to, or belong still to the sorts of groups that plan lefty protests. Your new president is one of them. Being part of government, these leftie protest marchers help write the rules, being intimately associated with government they are quite well informed about what is required and how to get around or satisfy those rules.

But the obstacles are coming as a shock to the average citizens that love this country. For their whole lives peace-loving, work-a-day Americans have taken for granted that there exists the freedom to assemble completely unaware that those rights have been eliminated by stealth regulation by governments all across the land.

And now the folks in Cape Coral, Florida have learned their lesson.

Americans do not have the rights they always thought they did. There is no right to protest government. There is no right to assemble. The people have no rights at all to voice their displeasure. Shut up people. Go home. Nothing to see here. Go quietly back to your IPods and DVDs. Big daddy government will take care of you. The Obemmessiah will decide what’s best for you. Don’t worry your little heads. Oh, and thank you for your payments on April 15th.

Put away the tar and feathers, won’t you? There’s a nice fella.

I thought this was a particularly good point ....

And what does it come down to? Money. You see, the city officials want an insurance policy taken out so that organizers can cover any loss that might occur as a result of the rally. And those insurance policies cost hundreds of dollars. ... And what does it come down to? Money. You see, the city officials want an insurance policy taken out so that organizers can cover any loss that might occur as a result of the rally. And those insurance policies cost hundreds of dollars. ... You see, contrary to popular conception, the far left has some deep-pocketed backers (your George Soros types, unions and even government funds) and a raft of organizations that do “protests” as a full time job. Their protest marches and rallies are far from spontaneously organized. ... But the obstacles are coming as a shock to the average citizens that love this country. For their whole lives peace-loving, work-a-day Americans have taken for granted that there exists the freedom to assemble completely unaware that those rights have been eliminated by stealth regulation by governments all across the land.

Can't you just imagine that, should Conservatives come up with the bucks to pay the insurance on these gatherings, the Leftists within their communities (and without, too, no doubt) would take that as an invitation to disrupt, invade, infiltrate ... and cause as much destruction as possible, so's to make the Conservatives look bad? You know Conservatives would never do that, but with the Black Bloc, you know it would be pretty likely.

Yep, we spend our days being productive, working our jobs, making a living, paying our taxes. We don't have the time or the inclination to become "professional protestors and agitators" as so many Liberals are wont to do. Maybe it's time for the more wealthy among our ranks to start bankrolling conservative protests / protestors ... oh, but wait ... if Liberals got wind of that, it would suddenly be all over the news about how Conservatives with deep pockets were doing that, even though they would never publicize how Liberals do it.

Well, Liberals have been touting the "patriotism" in civil disobedience for decades, haven't they? Perhaps it's time for Conservatives to wise up and use the tactic to their own benefit for a change.

G.I.V.E. = Conscription/Slavery (& no religion allowed)

People, if this doesn't wake you up to the obvious comparisons to Obama's regime and the Nazi regime, what exactly will it take?

Enforced "volunteerism" is nothing short of conscription and/or slavery. Wait 'til we have enforced charitable contribution (which I've heard referenced as SHARE Act), which will be nothing short of theft and/or even more taxes.

Gateway Pundit has it posted here but I'm posting the majority of it for you. Be sure to go there and read the comments section.

Obama's Hitler Youth Will Not Be Allowed to Express Religious Beliefs

March 25, 2009
(Bumped)
The House passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act on Monday. The bill includes language indicating young people will be forced to participate in mandatorya mandatory part
That doesn't sound much like "volunteerism" does it?

The Hitler Youth Plan was just passed by the US House this week.

German youth praising Hitler.

The mandatory youth plan requires America's youth to participate in mandatory service youth programs.
But that's not all.
The mandatory youth plan also forbids members from attending religious services and forbids youth from witnessing their religious beliefs.
The Voice Magazine reported, via Free Republic:

national service programs. The bill also states that "service learning" will be of the youth curriculum.

Is this the change you really voted for? President Obama has only been in office for two months. Now we have HR 1388. The Bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) with 37 others. The Bill was introduced to the floor of the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. Next it goes to the Senate for a vote and then on to President Obama.

This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it.

The Bill would forbid any student in the brigade to participate in “engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.” That means no church attendance or witnessing.

Again, is this what America voted for? Here is part of the HR1388 Bill’s wording:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
…

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Hat Tip Mike Moseley

Previously:
House Passes Hitler Youth Bill

More... Beto Ochoa reminds us that this bill directly goes against the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Not that this bothers the Democrats.

UPDATE: It looks like Democrats may already have their training video for the youth service group.
Hat Tip Gregory of Yardale

Will Someone Please Explain the News To Me?

Sometimes it seems like politicians and those in the media use doublespeak straight out of "1984". I half expect someone in the news to describe someone they dislike as "double plus ungood".

Sometimes it seems like the people who are supposed to be "in the know" are really just using big words they think the audience doesn't understand and talking in circles (or at least out of both sides of their mouth) in order to confuse everyone, keep from saying anything they can be blamed for later, and possibly alienating their campaign donor base.

Others, including our sitting POTUS, seem to be in perpetual campaign mode. We need someone to explain things!

Well, about a year ago, my boss's hubby introduced me to someone who's very good at explaining what's going on, and from a unique perspective that even the young 'uns can "get". Let me introduce you to "Uncle Jay."

More Dangerous Than "Hardening of the Arteries"

The following was recommended by a good friend, and I thought it was very thought-provoking, so I wanted to share it with y'all. Although I'm not Catholic, I have to agree with the author, Abbot Joseph. There is a hardening of the heart, and at times it seems to be nearly epidemic. Although I believe God can soften the hardest of hearts, I believe there will come a day (perhaps in my lifetime?) when God chooses *not* to soften hearts ... allowing some to make the ultimate, for-all-time choice. For those people, there will be no turning back, no hope of escaping the ultimate, awful judgment.

The Hardening

I learned something recently. Actually, it has been a long process of growing awareness, but it has suddenly become clearer. I think it’s something that I didn’t really want to believe, but if I’m to be honest, I have to acknowledge the evidence.

In the Letter to the Romans, St Paul declares: “a hardening has come upon a part of Israel…” (11:25), and he says this is a mystery we need to understand. Now I don’t wish to talk about Israel here, because I think that the hardening has come upon the whole world—not every individual, of course, but upon many. The hardening is that of the heart, in biblical terms, which results in a refusal to recognize the truth, even when it is clearly and unmistakably set before them. It is a willful rejection of that for which there is plentiful and often irrefutable evidence—just because they have some other reason for believing a lie.

In my naiveté, I had always thought that those who rejected the truth did so because of ignorance, of not having all the facts or evidence, or of some other impediment or incapacity that was not (entirely) their fault. The presumption was that if an ordinary, rational human being were presented with clear evidence or cogent arguments, especially if the evidence or the logic were manifestly unassailable, he would naturally accept the truth that was shown him. But this is not so when dealing with a hardened heart.

St Paul said this of the pagans who refused to believe in Christ: “they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart…” (Ephesians 4:18). Thus their ignorance is culpable. Hardness of heart alienates one from God, and hence from truth and love.

Here’s an example that helped tip the scales for me. “Emile Zola went to Lourdes for the purpose of condemning the whole enterprise. But unexpectedly he witnessed a striking miracle before his very eyes. An eighteen-year-old girl was suddenly cured of three apparently incurable diseases: advanced lupus, pulmonary tuberculosis, and large ulcerations on her leg. Zola himself described the girl’s face as being eaten away by the lupus: ‘The whole was a frightful distorted mass of matter and oozing blood.’ She went into the bath and ‘emerged completely cured.’ Zola was present. And the cure was permanent, because sixteen years later she remained in perfect health. But there was no change in Zola’s mind” (Thomas Dubay, The Evidential Power of Beauty, emphasis added). Someone who can witness such a dramatic and undeniable miracle and walk away unmoved, unconvinced, can only be said to have hardened his heart.

One cannot reason with people like that; one cannot show them compelling evidence and expect them to accept it; one cannot assume that they will call white white and black black, but in fact may do just the opposite. Those who have hardened their hearts seem to be increasing in number, and they hold influential positions in the media, the government, and even in the Church—and especially in lucrative enterprises like the abortion industry. You really have to have a hard heart to be able to cut little babies into pieces every day, and then take home a nice paycheck without looking back. And there are many who are complicit in this evil, who don’t actually do the dirty work.

A hardening has come upon many who attack the Church, whether from without or within. It is clear what the Church teaches; read the Catechism and papal documents. But many try to reject, deny, distort or otherwise make them into something that fits their own preference or agenda, and then denigrate those who uphold her teachings! Why? If they don’t like what the Catholic Church teaches, there are plenty of others who accommodate their brand of error quite willingly; they can join them! But no, a hardened heart has reasons that reason would shudder to know.

I think we have to accept that there are many with whom we will get nowhere by reasoning, clear argumentation and documentation, or any other form of normal, rational dialogue. They will not see or hear the truth because somewhere deep within they have already decided to reject it at all costs. What they stand to gain—economically, politically, socially—is more important to them than what is true, good, and beautiful. For them the only thing we can do is pray and sacrifice, so that the Holy Spirit will somehow reach them from within, overturning their chosen obstacles to truth and righteousness, shining a clear and divine light within them.

Then perhaps a “softening” will occur, and hearts and minds will open to the truth, will abandon arrogance, greed, self-aggrandizement and the “malignant narcissism” that is at the core of many of today’s hardened hearts. Don’t expect to soften a hardened heart with words. Go to the Lord instead with words of supplication, pleas for mercy—and then from his heart rivers of living water will flow, to wear away all hardness and to bring new life. This may take a long time, for a hardened heart is the most difficult thing to heal, more so than ravaging diseases of the body. The girl at Lourdes was instantly healed of those, but Emile Zola walked away still bearing his hard heart. Let us trust that with God all things are possible, and begin praying in earnest.

Steelers to Lose Super Bowl Trophies

No, I don't know who wrote this, but it's making the rounds, to I thought I'd share:

Steelers to lose Super Bowl Trophies

Pittsburgh, PA

The Super Bowl XLIII Champion Pittsburgh Steelers, the only team to win six titles, will soon be losing half of those trophies. After a meeting between NFL Commissioner Rodger Goodell and President Barack Obama, Obama decided to redistribute half of their Super Bowl victories and trophies to less fortunate teams in the league.

"We live everyday in the country that invented the Super Bowl." said Obama "We are not about to lose this Great American tradition in the wake of these difficult times." Obama’s plan calls for the Steelers, who are a successful NFL team, to give half of their Super Bowl trophies to teams that are not successful or have not been as successful as the Steelers. "The Detroit Lions are just as much a part of the same fiber of the NFL as the Steelers and they should, no rather will, be entitled to a Super Bowl Trophy as well." Obama explains in his plan that he has imposed on Goodell and the NFL.

The Pittsburgh Steelers, who by virtue of hard work, excellent team play, stellar draft choices, responsible investing of free agents, careful hiring of coaches and excellent community service and commitment to their fans, have prospered greatly during the past 30 years and have won six Super Bowl Trophies. But President Barack Obama’s plan calls for the Pittsburgh Steelers to carry the larger burden of the NFL’s less successful teams. Obama went on to further proclaim, "In these difficult times we are all in this to work together. We must reclaim the NFL Championship Dream for every team, for every city and for every fan."

"My plan will not affect 31 of the 32 teams in the league." Obama assures. That’s over 95 percent of the teams in the NFL will not have to worry about losing any Super Bowl Trophies. "The worst teams in the NFL and the teams that can’t seem to get a break and win a championship will no longer have to worry about going without a title." Obama promises. "We are a country and league of hope. We all need to make a change. It does not matter the color of the teams uniforms, the personal decisions that the teams make or their performance but rather if they are a member of this great American league."

The Super Bowl XLIII trophy will be redistributed to the 0-16 Detroit Lions. Through no fault of their own incompetence, the Lions could not manage a victory all season and this trophy will help ease the pain of their lack of performance and give them hope once again.

The redistribution of Super Bowl XL trophy will go directly to the Steelers’ division rival the Cincinnati Bengals. The Bengals who also have fallen on hard times have never won a Super Bowl. This victory will bring a smile to hundreds of Bengal fans all over the world as they can now celebrate. Finally, one of the Steelers’ two Super Bowl victories over the Dallas Cowboys will go back to the Cowboys since the league needs to provide hope in the face of difficulty and provide hope in the face of uncertainty. This is a heavy burden for the Steelers but together we can all prosper.

All hope is not lost for Pittsburgh fans; Barack Obama has another plan in place. Obama has met with MLB Commissioner Bud Selig on a similar plan. The New York Yankees will redistribute two of their World Series trophies to the Pittsburgh Pirates as a supplement to their 16 straight and counting losing seasons. This plan will help stimulate the Pirates and enable them to regain the American Dream. Barack Obama will be meeting with the NHL and Michael Phelps in the upcoming weeks as this issue is high on his agenda for "Hope and Change."

Conservatives Are the Problem, Right? Think Again!

***UPDATED 3/22/09***

I've conferred with my counsel and agreed it was a *bit* rash to give Commenter on "Badge of Honor" post's complete name and IP address on this blog post. I have retained a copy of the original information in case it becomes necessary to follow up the harassment in her local jurisdiction.

In addition, after careful consideration of the well-thought out comments by "Unkind Mind", and having had conversation with Dannette, I have decided to remove Dannette's rather hasty and inflammatory remarks. In claiming the high ground, I truly shouldn't have let them stand as long as they did, but I am still incensed at the reasoning that liberals get to say any nasty thing to conservatives that they want, but if a conservative says anything even *remotely* snarky back (yes, I admit, this was more than simple snark), it gets jumped on like the snarky one was the Antichrist ... or for the liberal translation ... George W Bush or someone like that.

Unkind Mind ~ I appreciate your well-reasoned second comment, and have achived it as a reminder to myself that I must strive even harder to remain consistent in application of which comments stand and which do not. I stand before the blogosphere, humbled and convinced more than ever that I am *not* perfect, nor will I ever be.

However, I am removing your comments and Dannette's in the hope of keeping the flames to a minimum.

~ MizDi

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow … unbelievable …. Sometimes I check my personal email during lunch, and sometimes I get notifications of comments to the blog. Unless they’re truly inflammatory, disgusting or, in the words of many individuals on Ravelry who don’t know any better, “vile” I let them stand. I prefer to let Liberals show themselves for what they are.

What I didn’t realize, however, is that Liberal trolls really hate to be ignored. Y’see, there’s this one individual from Ravelry that used to cause us no end of grief in the Bunker because she was obsessed with us … simply couldn’t leave us alone. No amount of trying to get members to just ignore the woman would work, because she’d just keep harping at us to get *someone* … *anyone* to respond.

So, Thursday I got notification of a comment posted. I didn’t recognize the name (I don’t *know* her y’see) and it wasn’t “vile”, so I let it stand. “I’m still here,” she said, which I took to mean something like “Nyah, nyah … I play by Rav rules so I’m still here while you’ve been banned.”

Ah, another of my favorite weiners -- I mean whiners. You know, after reading this page, you have my vote for sainthood. Rarely does one come across someone of the blessed innocence of Mother Theresa, yet here were a whole 600 of you, and we all failed to understand. Certainly all our correspondence was full of the milk and honey of human kindness.

The only solace I can offer is that you, and all those other saints who were viciously and maliciously expelled from the invective-flinging fiber society, will have special seating in the Rapture section, where God Himself will be able to judge the absolute veracity of your claims.

Good luck with that. Oh, and BTW... I'm still there.

Posted by: Commenter on "Badge of Honor" post | Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 02:55 PM

Hmmm …. So I check today’s comments and there’s another from her (which shows above this entry) … the first one wasn’t much, but when put with this second entry, it made me pause a little.

Dear MizDi,

I have a problem. A lady who claims to believe in free speech keeps taking my perfectly reasonable posts off her site, just because I am a liberal. Gosh, I have a RIGHT to free speech ANYWHERE I WANT, right? So why are you taking my posts off? It couldn't be that you recognize that troublemakers aren't wanted, could it? It couldn't be that you know, down in your heart of hearts, that the situation isn't as saintly as you present it...

Anyway, I just wanted to say that Ravelry was less fun without you there, but now that I know how to find you, life is back to wonderfully screwy.

Your friend,

Me

Posted by: Commenter on "Badge of Honor" post | Friday, March 20, 2009 at 03:47 PM

(Apparently she didn’t know that my blog only shows a certain number of comments on a page until you have to press the little chevron button thingie above the box where you post comments … whatever … oh, and remember that I don't know this woman ... I've seen her "ravatar" and have avoided engaging with her when I saw what a pain in the tuckus she was to fellow Bunker members.)

But that was only a little less freaky and sad … until I opened my email account and saw that this woman simply *refuses* to be ignored.

<<<The email that was formerly posted here, which I felt was threatening, has been removed. It has been archived for use if it should need to be turned over to law enforcement.>>>

Even though she claims I've been deleting her comments, I think the best way to give this woman her free speech is … oh, I don’t know … let all of her harassing comment posts to my blog stand and let my readers decide what’s what.  Let me clarify ... posting a person's harassing email is a *bad* idea ... don't do this. Her comments, though, were posted of her own free will.

So, let me make this clear-–

The Constitution gives us the First Amendment, which does indeed give you to the right of free speech. However, that said, it does not give you the right to be heard or the right to be read. Additionally, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that by giving you the right to say what you want it compels me to put up with a threatening or abusive tone, nor does it abrogate my freedom to determine with whom I choose to communicate or decline said communication. As the owner of this blog, it is my right to determine whether you will be given a place to air your views.

If you’d like to take your “issues” to the nearest “free speech plaza” or “hate free zone”, you are perfectly welcome to do just that, and I would invite you to do so.

Poster & Emailer, what you have begun is nothing short of a pattern of harassment, which is clearly a direct by-product of the site administrators of Ravelry keeping available, for all to see, their misleading, inflammatory, disingenuous, and libelous accusations against members of the former Ravelry Bunker group and now the off-site Bunker group. (Let me remind you that the site admin expressed appreciation and approval for an off-site venue, in an attempt to keep confrontations to a minimum.) By labeling a group of people as “dangerous to our community” when he’s actually just unwilling to admit publicly that he disagrees with them to the extent that he’d prefer they weren’t around, he’s fanned a lot of unwarranted flames, and unwarranted “flames”, too.

My counsel advises that I remind you that your IP address can be traced right to your home if it becomes necessary and that, should you choose to continue, we will inform the proper local authorities in your jurisdiction, file a formal complaint of harassment and stalking (that’s a crime, remember), and let them take you in hand and school you about what’s ok and what’s not.

So, please accept my invitation to just go away and keep to sites where you can contribute something positive, mmmK?

Badge of Honor -- Too Conservative for Ravelry?

**Updated 3/16/09**

I would never have self-identified as someone who was 'too outspoken' ... outspoken, yes, but *too* outspoken? I would never have pegged myself as someone to be viewed as a threat of any kind. I try to treat others with kindness, encouragement, and love. I try to treat others as I'd prefer to be treated. However, if someone treats me unkindly, that doesn't mean I respond with anger and vitriol. I prefer to let respond with kindness or at least civility and then let those people alone. I don't need to add to their misery and suffering, because there's obviously something like that under the surface.

So it was a shock for me to find out I'm too radical for Ravelry.

Oh, how to begin?

Yesterday I got up with the pups ... fed 'em, gave Vi her pill (she's up to 1.5 in the a.m. and 1 in the evening to keep her seizures at bay) and sat down to do some blogging. Did that, then went to check with my friends at The Bunker. But first, I logged onto Ravelry.com, which was commonplace ... I check both places daily. But there was a problem when I went to log on at Ravelry ... I was redirected to an error page that said simply: 

Error 403 - Forbidden

No warning, no nuthin' .... I'm too conservative for Ravelry, but that's OK with me. I'll wear it as a badge of honor. I was getting more and more disillusioned with the cesspool anyway.

For those that haven't been keeping up, Ravelry used to be just a fiber arts community-type website. It has morphed into a site with "groups" for everything from people who like certain TV shows, to those who have particular affection for their pets or their pet cause, to people proud of their ethnic, religious, or political affiliations ... to those that proudly proclaim themselves to be Lazy, Stupid & Godless (a.k.a. "LSG") ... their parents must be ever so proud. There's even a group that calls themselves "Ravelry Rubberneckers" (a.k.a. "RR") who supposedly try not to antagonize people in other groups by actually participating in said groups ... instead, they direct their friends and co-horts to whatever groups has come to their attention through various means ... and then they make fun of the people involved in their own group's discussion pages. Nice, huh?.

The Bunker wasn't originally "The Bunker" ... it was originally a group started on Ravelry.com started by good friend and Bunker Babe EllieJane, who'd been "textually harassed" in a supposedly conservative group by moderators who were supposedly conservatives but preferred to side with liberal trolls over active *truly* conservative members ... they are the ones that chased me out of the group, too. I tried to blend in at the GOP knitters group, but it wasn't a very active group, and I refused to go back into the Conservative Knitters group because it had been made clear to me that I just didn't belong there ... I guess I wasn't the right brand of conservative for them. Y'see, I'm what I call a "triple-threat" conservative ... I'm a political, fiscal and social conservative. Some people are uncomfortable with that, and I let 'em be. But they didn't let me be, and they didn't let EllieJane be, so she started up her new group and invited me over to play.

Our new group (which later became The Bunker) was devoted to supporters of John McCain in his (failed) bid for the presidency. Many of us had supported others, but when it became apparent that McCain had the blessing of the Republican "powers that be", we decided to do what we could to support the man ... mostly because we knew what a disaster Barack Obama could/would be, and it was apparent that the way was being made clear for Obama....McCain was going to need all the help he could get.

In EllieJane's McCain group, we started getting other people joining ... some who'd been dissatisfied with the Conservative Knitters, some who enjoyed the GOP Knitters but were also looking for a more active group to play in. Some members came to us who'd initially been Obama supporters ... until they started to really *listen* to what he was saying ... some had been Hillary Clinton supporters, but became dissatisfied with the Dems because they treated her so but treated Obama as if he were (to quote AllyKatt) a 'special snowflake'. MyDailyFiber quickly made a name for herself in our group and endeared herself to all members not only with her wit, common sense and unique perspective, but also her ability to churn our pro-McCain "Ravatars". She also became the second Moderator pretty quickly, and was such a help to EllieJane that I can't even describe it.

(For those unaware of "avatars", those are the little pictures that often get associated with a username, so people can connect a "face" with a "name" even though you're likely using a nickname instead of your real name and most people don't put their real faces out there for security and/or self-esteem reasons -- many use pictures of our pets, a favorite TV character, a symbol, or something that means something to us.)

When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his choice for the VP bid, we were *very* enthusiastic, and gained members in droves! Soon we became a haven for over 600 members. We also became a convenient target for "trolls" ... those who naturally disagreed with us, but who felt the need to "educate" and "enlighten" us ... we poor, unfortunate, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, McCain supporters ... we were often painted with the broad brushes of fascism, Nazi-ism, neo-con-ism, bigotry/racism, class-ism, and just about any other "ism" you could name.

I looked long and hard at what my friends and I were tarred with, but you see, I didn't think it could stick, because the "isms" thrown at us seemed to me to be a classic case of psychological projection ... in which the person hurling the invectives is doing the very action of which they're accusing you ... except you're not the one engaged in the objectionable action ... but they can't be honest and admit it's them doing it, so it must be the horrible "other".

At one point, EllieJane had to go on vacation or some such thing, and she asked me to step up and be one of the substitute moderators while she was gone. She never removed me from Mod status, but I rarely got to "see any action" ... the other moderators ranged from Eastern time to Central time, and here I was out in the lovely Pacific North-Wet ... sometimes it would be just TammyKnits and me keeping the board "active" at 8:30 and later (Pacific time) ... and we'd shout out to AllyKatt who would be up at 10:30 our time (12:30 hers) ... I still don't know how she could keep those hours and function, but then again, I feel like I'm getting old.

Anyway, on to 'seeing action' ... As the campaign season wore on, we got more and more troll activity. EJ, MDF, AllyKatt and the others instituted the best possibly policy in dealing with trolls ... the theory is, if someone comes into your living room and (pardon me) craps in the middle of the floor, you don't just leave it there to stink up the place ... you clean it up and move on. Likewise, our moderators simply deleted troll posts. They tried not to engage trolls in any way ... just delete, ignore, and move on.

Trolls don't like this. They are special snowflakes and mustn't be ignored when they so much with which to beat you over the head enlighten and educate you. "Resistance is futile," they seem to think. "You *will* be assimilated, whether you agree with us or not, so just give in already!"

I tried to check in most mornings before work (yep, it caused me to get there closer and closer to 8:00 instead of 7:45 as I normally did). I often tried to check in during lunch (eating at my desk, ducking behind it if I saw a client coming up the walk --- no, wait, we're closed at lunchtime outside of tax season), and I spent many evening hours.

Because I'm on Pacific time, however, and the huge majority of our members seemed to be from the other three time zones, by the time I checked in at lunch, trolls had been taken care of, drama-poo had been dealt with and cleaned up, and I got to see the aftermath.

As the election cycle came to a close, we got more and more negative attention. Now let me set this straight....for the most part, our members refrained from most profanity ... the majority of us don't care for it, and our membership respected that. We were not, however, politically correct. Political correctness is the anathema of free speech. We did NOT allow racism, sexism, or what most people with common sense would consider hateful. We did, however, allow our members to equate BHO with a socialist, as his own words and actions had confirmed this to us. We did allow our members to speculate and lament on the fact that BHO has spent in the realm of $1M in covering up whether he's a natural-born citizen ... it would've cost less than $20 for a duplicate of the "vault copy" of his birth certificate ... you can figure that one out on your own, I'm sure. We did allow our members to be sassy, sarcastic, and lean toward "snark" ... I'm sorry, but polite drawing room conversations concerning "the weather and everyone's health" (c'mon, what movie is that from?) just didn't suit a group geared to discussing politics ... after all, in polite conversation don't you avoid religion and politics?

As we got more and more unwanted attention from "opposition groups" such as LSG & RR, we got unwarranted "flags" on posts, claiming bigotry, racism, hate speech ... I saw the posts that were flagged, and I saw the "reasons" for said flags ... apart from a couple (mostly from new members who didn't "get" the group yet and hadn't read our rules) they were spurious at best ... anything truly flag-worthy was deleted and the member who'd posted it was "talked to" by a moderator. We continually cautioned our members about "feeding the trolls" we tried to self-censor as best we could without stifling conversation and reasonable free speech. Many of us had left the Conservative Knitters group under more and more stringent dictates of "you can't say that", and we didn't want the same thing happening in the McCain group.

Actually, we asked for help before the election was ever over. Because of some of the vile and offensive pictures that showed up on ravatars (boob fondling, crotch shots, nekkid parts ... and this on a site where someone's children might walk up behind them at any moment, not to mention the minor-age members, and see this stuff -- not a family friendly site ... oh and the language on some of the boards would make sailors and truck drivers embarrassed!... but I digress) the site owner *finally* gave the users tools to hide offensive ravatars, including simple hiding of the picture or a "green" cover with which you could replace the ravatar of those with whom you disagree (which we gave the term "disagreening"). During the last two weeks of the election cycle, the owner actually took away rights to click on "buttons" indicating "love", "disagree", "funny", "educational" and "interesting" because of the drama it caused ... we actually had trolls pile on, clicking "funny" in droves, when a member talked about her mother's death. Nice. Right.

And then Barack Hussein Obama was elected.

Yep, we lamented, cried, sighed, complained and shared with our members. The same people who couldn't "get over it" when Bush won two elections now screamed, cajoled, nagged and berated us to 'get over it, already' and embrace Barack Obama. We wouldn't and continued to discuss amongst ourselves our fears, concerns, and suspicions and decided that the group should be renamed. (Well, McCain lost, so The McCain Ravelry didn't fit anymore, now did it?)

We decided to "hunker down" and retreat to the safety of the bunker, similar to what the president would do when faced with danger. The McCain Ravelry was renamed "The Bunker".

... and the trolls came out to play.

"That's a Nazi reference" was the accusation ... apparently these people didn't get out much or read much more than Mother Jones, The Nation, The Rolling Stone or whatever communist rag is printed in their local towns. They simply didn't get the idea that a "bunker" is a place of safety.

Could we ever be left in peace? Nope! We were no longer touting our support (albeit reluctant, in some cases) for John McCain, and wished the trolls would just leave us alone. That's really all we wanted. We wanted to be left alone to enjoy each other's like-minded company. We (and by the collective "we", I mean the other moderators) begged help from Ravelry's owner to keep the trolls at bay. We asked for tools to ban trolls who spuriously flagged posts, or to at least restrict non-member use of the buttons. 

Nuthin' ... no help at all ... the site owner was getting angrier and angrier at "the time he had to spend" on issues surrounding The Bunker ... little did we know that the LSG & RR groups were going to him directly, complaining about ever little perceived non-infraction, making his life hell. But *we* were blamed for taking up his valuable time. We tried to remain calm, cool, and collected when dealing with the site owner ... we were polite and diplomatic, offering to help out as best we could. There were times, however, when we moderators (in a moderator-only section of our group) would express our disagreement for a decision or express offense at some of the unfair comments that were made about us off the top of his head, many of which he apologized for when he gave the issue more thought. For the most part, we were nothing but conciliatory, trying to help keep things going smoothly in our group.

In January of this year, things started getting hairier and hairier ... there were times when I dreaded checking in at lunch time, dreading seeing the number of PMs (private messages) which nearly always signaled some troll-caused drama. Sometimes a few of the PMs would be from members who asked me to clarify what was going on ... y'see, while the other Mods dealt with trolls, I often got to be "mom" to some that trusted me ... and I got to be "mom" when I saw statements by members that needed to be modified. I'd PM the member and ask them to edit their posts and give reasons why, including "PLEASE don't give them any ammunition to use against us!" I also would publically remind members not to make blanket statements against "all liberals" because several of our most treasured member had been quite liberal at one time and still had liberal leanings, but that we'd all come together out of concerns for more conservative values than what Barack Obama espoused. Yep, no drama for me, but peace making ... works for me. But because I missed the troll-post deletions I often wondered what had happened, and sometimes felt like I wasn't a 'real' moderator. Oh well ... enough about me.

In mid-February, after a particularly "dramatic" couple of weeks, I signed on at lunch, not more than 20 minutes after the site owner had given *one* moderator (AllyKatt, our most active moderator) notice that The Bunker would be shut down in 24 hours and that those of us who'd been moderators in The Bunker would no longer be allowed to Mod *any* politically-themed group. He was done with us, tired of fighting with us and those that simply couldn't let us alone, and was dispensing with the drama. Of course, I'm paraphrasing ... but instead of blaming it on the content of the group and our expressed opinions, he blamed it on the moderators, saying we didn't take care of problems fast enough, allowed our members to use hate speech, etc.

(Explain to me how someone saying Sarah Palin should be raped with a hockey stick and that President Bush and Vice President should be shot, hung, or pushed over cliffs is *not* hate speech, but mentioning a scarf Obama was wearing *was* hate speech ... because the individual who made the comment about the scarf was from Mississippi!!! Let me be clear about this ... we have many members from many varied ethic groups, and none of them complained about racism or hate speech, and they *knew* they could take *anything* to the moderators and listened to seriously...if they didn't have a problem with the speech there, there *was* no problem with the speech there. But again, I digress...)

.......

Update:  I received clarification of the "scarf incident" from the person who made the original comment:

To clarify, I made the comment and it was NOT about a scarf Obama was wearing.  Obama was not mentioned or even alluded to, at all.  It was a reference to a thread in one of the "Big Six", entitled "Inagural Scarves", on inauguration day.  When I saw that title, I mistakenly assumed it was about some sort of KAL [knit along] of scarves that people were going to do during the day-long inauguration television fest.  That thread was, in fact, comments on some of the pretty scarves that were televised on people at the inauguration -- Michelle O's mother was one, I think.  (I didn't open the thread until later to take a look.)  I didn't open any Big Six threads to read that day, because we were all hunkering down, depressed, in the Bunker -- to console each other.  I didn't watch the inauguration, so I haven't a clue as to what Obama or anyone wore -- scarf or no scarf.

 

While talking in the Bunker I made the comment, and even prefaced it with the clarification that it was HUMOR, saying something like, "On a humorous note," at the beginning.  Then I said I unbelievably saw a thread title in the big six that said "Inaugural Scarves".  My comment was that we called them nooses".  NooseSSSS... plural.  The reference, which obviously was lost on some people, was that WE were sick enough over his election to hang ourselves.  How can PLURAL nooses be construed as a lynching threat on the president?

 

The comment, which I now sorely regret (you have no idea!) has been so twisted that I think our own Bunkermates forget that it originally was NO reference to Obama or anything he was wearing.  I kept my eyes and ears  OFF the inauguration that day, so I neither heard nor saw Obama.

 

Anyway, just wanted to clarify that to you.  I'm sure I'll be doing this sort of thing til the day I die...

....

So, we said our goodbyes, verbally hugged each other, "friended" each other (that's the only way some less active members realized something was up, when they received six to ten friend requests within an hour's time), expressed our sadness (some expressed outrage ... and none too kindly), and we Mods tried to keep things calm. Trolls came in to gloat, gleefully poking at the open wound, expressing "the king is finally dead, hurrah!" kind of sentiments you'd expect to have come from the peasants during the French Revolution.

Why were we such a threat? Did we really worry them that much? Were they so concerned that someone might actually look at current events without looking through the liberal filter and maybe get an inkling that not all's green in Oz? We had had several people who came in seriously looking to understand where we came from ... and left with a new perspective to consider. The majority of non-members came in with the threats of playground bullies ... some came in with relief at finally finding a "safe haven on Ravelry" where they could talk with like-minded ladies (mostly) without having to walk on verbal eggshells for fear of getting piled on by the liberals on that board.

So ... our group got dissolved ... the Great Bunker Eviction ... some of us looked to other more conservative groups on the site and were told in not so many words (and in some cases *in* so many words) that we and our attitudes and expressions weren't wanted. Sometimes it was because the "flavor" of the group tended toward the more genteel discussion and expressions, which is fine and understandable (the Bunker had it's own flavor, too) but sometimes it was expressed more as a concern that we'd bring the trolls with us ... some of those trolls are cyber stalkers, don't ya know ... and cause them to get shut down. Some of the members of the other boards didn't want false rumors started about them (someone started a rumor that one of our members had threatened the life of the site owners' dog ... which the site owner has confirmed to AllyKatt, one of our members, that said threat was actually a bogus rumor -- but he refuses to make that particular bit of information public "because the incident was on an off-site venue") and some were concerned that they'd become the objects of scorn and threats (EllieJane, our group's founder, received a threat against her children from someone who'd done their research and found out where she lived).

MyDailyFiber had the forethought to start an off-site board where we could go to express our more controversial opinions (read, troll magnets, opinions not welcome by the liberal majority on Ravelry). She paid for it out of her own funds. When it was mentioned to the site owner, he expressed that he was glad we had someplace where we could express ourselves without opposition groups getting involved. When we were Evicted, someone had the grace to give me an invitation to join there.

We re-grouped and tried to figure out how we could gather on Ravelry, hang out together and stay under the radar. Many/most made pledges to stay away from *any* of the political groups.

AllyKatt made a group where we could discuss the read-along of "Atlas Shrugged", which she had been recommending for some time, and which I've heartily recommended here myself.

One member made a group called Dutch's Reading Room, which was to be strictly a site where we could post links to articles on both a national and state scale for things we found concerning ... and on which we could read some of the great quotes made by Ronald "Dutch" Reagan.

One member made a group in which we expressed our appreciation for The Noodle (a.k.a. KnittinNoodle, one of our sassiest and most outspoken members).

Someone else (I think it was AllyKatt) made a group for fans of Alfonzo Rachelle, a.k.a. Machosauce. She was told that she couldn't moderate that group. It wasn't a political group. It's fans of a conservative individual, but the site owner stripped her of her moderator status there, too.

What happened in these groups, you ask?'

The Conservative Knitters, GOP Knitters, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity fan groups got a sudden uptick in troll activity, which I assume died down when Bunker Babes forced themselves to sit on their hands and *not* participate.

Lessee ... Dutch's Reading Room was mostly left alone, 'cause people didn't really express many opinions in there.

The Noodle group was immediately infiltrated by trolls who couldn't leave well enough alone ... but "just happened" to find a group filled with former Bunker Babes ... no, they don't stalk conservatives/Bunker Babes, now do they?

The "Atlas Shrugged" discussion group, "Galt's Gulch", was immediately infiltrated by trolls who just *had* to become members in a group filled with Bunker Babes ... no, no stalking there. AllyKatt had the presence of mind to lock the group, delete all the troll posts and wait it out until she could figure out specific group guidelines (rules). Only through direct negotiations was she able to keep her moderator status on this group.

So, that pretty much brings us up to yesterday when I was banned ... along with almost all the other Bunker Babes ... because many of us had changed our usernames and avatars, we rarely knew when we were in the presence of a "friend", so someone on the off-site board suggested we add a designation to our ravatars so we'd recognize each other.

Within a week, we were booted. Some people got the 403-Forbidden screen, and others were taken to a screen that said "Your account has been suspended until further notice. Contact legal@ravelry.com." Later in the day, some of those initially suspended had been further redirected to the 403-Forbidden screen. Personally, I'm thinking that we'll all be permanently banned, and that being "suspended" is only temporary until they can get everyone's accounts permanently banned. The site owner cites this as his reasoning:

A group of users have been organizing together on another website and visiting Ravelry directly from it, disrupting normal site activities. All users of that particular site have had their Ravelry accounts (including any duplicate accounts) suspended until further notice. This is a serious action that we felt needed to be done to protect the Ravelry community.

All inquiries can be directed to legal@ravelry.com.

Yes, we've been gathering at another website, and yes, we sometimes clicked a link to see what a member had taken issue with ... but there have rarely been more than 20 Bunker Babes on our off-site board at any one time. Even if those 20 people clicked on a given link, how could those 20 hits "disrupt" anything? Don't website owners normally *want* more hits on their site, driving up their stats??

"This is a serious action that we felt needed to be done to protect the Ravelry community."

From what??? From independent thought, from people who refrain (for the most part) from the profanity, licentiousness, glee in perversion that our "opposition" expressed??? Give . Me . A . Freaking . Break!!! 

The problem is that, while some of our members didn't get banned, some innocents were swept up in this dragnet along with the rest of us. It seems to have been people from whose computer a member might've logged onto Ravelry. In some cases, it's a family member who's also been a "Raveler" and shares a wireless hub on a home network, but has never been to The Bunker. In some cases, it's been paying advertisers. In some cases it's been designers who sell their fiber arts patterns. In some cases it's grandmothers whose granddaughter was a Bunker Babe.

The site owner has prevented members from getting onto Ravelry and deleting their personal information. In some cases, there were purchases pending, and the seller has no idea if she will get the money. We're talking about intellectual property being held hostage ... if it were a conservative site that had done this to liberals, you *know* there would be Hell to pay! There would be such a hue and cry that it would be all over the Net and the Lamestream media.

The Hubby made a good observation ... E-Harmony.com was forced to accommodate gays & lesbians that wanted to use the matching service. Shouldn't a site like Ravelry.com try to remember the lessons learned there. Yes, it's a free site, which constitutes "his sand box" ... but if you're going to allow free speech, shouldn't *all* speech be acceptable, not just that with which one agrees?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The site owner claims to have over 300K members on Ravelry ... of course, this doesn't account for duplicate accounts (which are supposedly forbidden, but which are very prolific) or those accounts that have gone inactive because the site owner refuses to delete them because he "doesn't have the tools to do that" ... some of those inactive users left because of disgust at the behavior and language exhibited ... some left because the site just wasn't for them/wasn't a good fit ... but have the membership numbers been changed to reflect this? I doubt it ... perhaps he's hoping to sell the site to some investor when it "comes out of beta" ... would an investor want to buy a site with inflated member numbers? I don't know that's the case, but if I were an investor or an advertiser, I'd look long and hard at whether this was a good place for people to hang out. I'd hate to be an advertiser and suddenly not have access to the site.

Parents, take heed and protect your underage fiber enthusiasts from what they will see on this site without warning. And if you are interested in using Ravelry yourself, be aware that objectionable content can/may/will pop with no warning whatsoever. If you're easily offended, this site is not for you. If you don't mind nekkid/obscene yarn creations, foul language, celebration of just about everything under the sun (and I mean *everything*), then you're welcome to it. I won't be going back. There are plenty of other places to find crochet patterns & supplies ... and I have plenty of Bunker Babe friends who either dye and spin yarn or who have friends that do. I'll be fine.

As you were ........

Other posts regarding the Banning of the Big Bad Bunker Babes are listed below (I forgot to write everyone's names down as I cut & pasted the blog addresses ... sorry, ladies!):

Our Side of the Story -- EllieJane

Apparently -- Kidyquat

More Ravelry Censorship -- KnittyHorse

Ravelry.com -- DogwoodDreams

Woo Hoo, I'm a Bad Person! -- Chrisknits

Well, This Is a New Experience for Me

Goodbye, My Friends

Suspended From Ravelry

Censorship in America -- Whimzee

Ravelry - Bren

Former Bunker Members Banned from Ravelry? -- YarnKandy

President Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Ride Again

Could really, possibly be that words and actions have consequences?

Throughout the recent presidential campaign we heard nuthin' but "hope" and "change" from now-Prez Barack Hussein Obama. Oh wait ... there was something else ... there was also that bit about how people wouldn't be "allowed" to drive what they want, eat what they want, and keep their homes at the temperature they desired ... and have the rest of the world "be ok with that."

Oh, and there was that bit about America wasn't what she should be. And then there was the part about race and class .... and then I started hearing Charlie Brown's teacher's voice (Wahh Wahh Waahh Wahh) as he proceeded to denigrate everything I love about this country. He spoke of some of our freedoms as though they were temporary and given to us by the state.

And the economy began to fall. Did anyone notice how it really started to get "iffy" last February, when this guy ... this teflon friend of Tony Rezko ... was able to slough off scandal by playing the race card, and nothing that, had it touched a Republican, would've meant quick political death (No, I am *Not* advocating harm to the president, so don't start with your nasty comments!!!) ... but any scandal that touched BHO rolled right off his back like water on a duck?

And as it became more and more evident that his associations with Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, "Frank the socialist poet", Father Fleger (sp?) and others

... and as concerns about his growing up around socialists, and his travels on various passports, and his questionable nationality (did he become an Indonesian citizen via his step-father or not ... and was he actually born in Hawaii or was his Kenyan birth just *recorded* there, as was allowed at the time)

 ... and when he wouldn't release school records, university papers written, etc . .... did anyone else notice how the stock market and the economy got wigglier and wigglier?

And then last September, when it became *really* evident through his big "celebration" of his nomination (for which he still hasn't paid the City of Chicago, to the tune of at least $2M) ... complete with it's temple-like setting, reminiscent of the grandeur insisted up on a certain 1930s dictator in Europe, with that one's fascination with mythical gods, etc. ... the market really began to slide ...

... and while John McCain (who was my default nominee) went back to Washington DC to do the job the people had elected him to do, BHO said, "call me if you need any help" ...

And when BHO's tune morphed from "hope and change" to doom & gloom ... people finally started noticing ... well, ok, maybe the people who started noticing were the "conservatives" who'd "had enough of Bush" and those that wanted to "teach the Republican party a lesson" and voted for BHO because he couldn't be "all that bad" ... those might be the ones that started noticing, because those (and the people who never voted for him in the first place) started taking their money out of the market and stuffing it in their mattresses ... ok, maybe it was more like hiding it in other places, or putting it into more tangible things than "the stock market" ... but the market started to tank, with the willing accomplice known as "the media."

... and when he actually became (le sigh) our president (le sigh) with yet another lavish extravaganza paid for by taxpayers (his contributors knew they were funding his campaign, but I wonder if they knew they were going to fund extravaganza after lavish fete) he began to show his true self to those of us who had been looking at a "nekkid emperor" all along. While his supporters were exclaiming their relief that he'd won because now they wouldn't have to pay their mortgages or car payments or rent, the rest of us said "oh shit, here it comes" and listened to him start spouting things that to the trained ear sound like socialism, and to the liberal (comatose) ear sounded like relief from obligations and personal responsibility.

And the market tanked in a big way ...

... and Obama, who took office less than 3 months ago, has struck down one by one conservative values that had been preserved one by one by President Bush ... and Obama did it with victory in his voice and glee and vindication in his eye ...

... and the market continued to tank.

And BHO said that Wall Street and capitalists are greedy and must be more generous, and that aid should be given to people who take no responsibillty for their lives, and that "everyone who makes under $250K/hr" will be given a tax cut ... 'course, that number kept changing throughout the campaign season to where it finally reached under $100K, so we don't know where that will actually end up, do we? And if you give "tax cuts" (also known as "income credits") to people who dont pay taxes, isn't that more of a combination of welfare and confiscation?

... and the market continued to tank.

And then we had TARP1 and TARP2 and the "Spending Stimulus Package" and the Omnibus bill ... these were supposed to stimulate the economy, but when money you've thrown at a situation ends up being the same amount lost by the people whose company you were throwing it at, well, that's a nice example of pearls before swine, now, isn't it?

And there's talk of yet *another* "stimulus" package looming ... even though the huge majority of economists say it's not necessary. Let's talk turkey here ... these 'stimulus' bills are just a way for the Democrats in Congress (that's both the House *and* the Senate, remember) to get money for their constituents back home, a.k.a. keeping their jobs 'cause they don't know how to do an honest day's work anymore.

And then, when he *finally* recognizes that the constant drumbeat of doom & gloom coming from so many sources is actually hurting the stock market because he and his administration make investors *very nervous*, BHO changed his tune Thursday, 3/12

Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is “not as bad as we think” and his plans will speed recovery.

Challenged to provide encouragement as the nation’s “confidence builder in chief,” Obama said Americans shouldn’t be whipsawed by bursts of either bad or good news and he was “highly optimistic” about the long term.

And then Friday 3/13 China's leadership made a speech in which BHO & Congress are admonished to be responsible with our economy and not devalue the dollar too much because they have invested so heavily in us.

At the NPC meetings, Premier Wen Jiabao expressed concern over $1 trillion of U.S. assets held by China, and called on the U.S. to guarantee its “good credit.” From the Washington Post:

Wen’s remarks, which were made at the close of the annual National People’s Congress meeting in Beijing, echoed those that have been made by other high-ranking policymakers and bankers over the past year since the subprime crisis devastated the value of the mortgage-backed securities that made up a large chunk of China’s U.S. holdings.

“We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried,” Wen said.

At a number of diplomatic meetings since then, Chinese officials have raised the issue of U.S. Treasuries and have sought assurances the United States that it will do everything possible to maintain the stability of its economy. On Friday, Wen called on the Obama administration to “maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets.” 

So Saturday, 3/14 Obama's Mr. Sunny again.

President Barack Obama on Saturday downplayed divisions between the U.S. and Europe over how to tackle the world's financial crisis and said China should have "absolute confidence" that its sizable investments in the United States are safe.

In a conversation focused heavily on the economy, Obama met in the Oval Office with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. It was the latest in a series of talks the president has had with his counterparts around the world before a pair of international meetings where the economic crisis will dominate.

Both leaders will attend the Group of 20 countries summit in London on April 2, and the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad in mid-April.

Obama said the notion that the U.S. and Europe are already taking sides, with America pushing for more stimulus spending and European nations favoring tighter regulation of the financial industry, is a "phony debate."

"I can't be clearer in saying that there are no sides," Obama told reporters after the meeting. He said a full range of approaches, including stimulus spending such as his own recently enacted $787 billion package, and financial regulation, are needed to help revive the global economy.

Financial regulation "is front and center" among the issues he wants to deal with, he said.

"In my mind, at least, there is no conflict or contradiction between the positions of the G-20 countries and how we're going to be moving forward," Obama said, adding that differences in details were being worked out. "I expect to have a productive meeting."

...

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao had said Friday he was concerned about the safety of the estimated $1 trillion his country has invested in U.S. government debt. China is Washington's biggest foreign creditor, and Obama's administration is counting on the Chinese to help pay for the $787 billion economic stimulus package by buying U.S. bonds.

"Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."

Wen - and other investors - needn't worry, Obama said.

"There's a reason why even in the midst of this economic crisis you've seen actual increases in investment flows here into the United States," Obama said. "I think it's a recognition that the stability not only of our economic system, but also our political system, is extraordinary.

"I think that not just the Chinese government, but every investor, can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States," he added.

Vice President Joe Biden on Saturday said he believed there were signs that the public's confidence is growing in the administration's ability to tackle the financial crisis. He credited the "Obama factor."

"There is no doubt in our minds and there is no doubt in the president's mind that in fact we will overcome this. We will climb out of this hole," Biden told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "It just takes some real perseverence and you've got to have a guy as gutsy as the president who's willing to make some really tough decisions."

Biden, who was in Little Rock on Saturday night to help Sen. Blanche Lincoln kick off her re-election bid, said he believed the economy was showing some signs of hope.

"Consumer confidence is slightly up. The market is slightly up," Biden said. "It'll go down again, but the people are beginning to figure out that the president's got a plan and he believes we can work our way through this."

During his appearance at the White House, Silva said the crisis gives world leaders an "extraordinary opportunity" to demonstrate to their people that they are capable of handling major issues. He said it was critically important to create jobs, create incomes and boost consumption.

"We are in a large ship and water is leaking," Silva said, speaking through a translator. "Now is the time to fix the leaking and make the economy go back to the tracks."

Only time will tell, but I'll bet Obama's mouth is getting tired from talking out both sides of it.

Some Dems Don't Actually Travel Lock-Step With Their Party

How refreshing that Sen. Bayh can come out in the open and say the $410 Omnibus Spending Bill shouldn't (have been) signed ... it's too bad so many other Dems are either too narcissistic, stupid or afraid to stand up and say the same thing.

Uncle Stan Speaks

Uncle Stan is a very witty guy with a dry sense of humor, but he makes observations that are right on the mark. I really value his perspective and have recently received permission to share his missives (or parts of them, anyway) with friends. I thought this was worth sharing with y'all:

From Friday in TN:

I have a very open agenda today. I plan to get (granddaughter) from school and go to the (gym). Beyond that I may just stare at a wall or the TV. The TV depresses me, however, especially the news. News reporting seems to focus on two themes. One is the inhumanity of humanity towards each other, from local shootings to national wars. That makes a case for the truth that no life form one earth is so irrational as that life form that possesses the highest rational powers. I wish that were a paradox, but I fear it is a true contradiction. The other theme is the policies and perspectives on governing from our President and Congress. They tell me I am incompetent, stupid, weak, dependent, and impotent. Therefore, I need them to bail me out, to entitle me, to give to me what others have earned or take from me what I have earned and give to others. Nothing on the news makes sense in the long run. But, who keeps the end in mind? Perhaps the answer to all this is to buy a bigger and more comfortable chair for watching TV, a larger TV, and a beer cooler next to my chair and keep it fully stocked daily. Is that not the end of government kept morons? I may live that way, just as soon as B. H. Obama makes it legal for me to buy beer with my food stamps!  :))

No, he's not really on food stamps ... there's that wit and dry sense of humor.

Judge Roy Moore's Poem

Remember Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who was removed from the bench for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall? Well, my friend Bonnie forwarded me a reminder about this awesome judge and the poem he wrote. I think you might appreciate it.

America the beautiful,
Or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride;
I'm glad they'll never see.

Babies piled in dumpsters,
Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty;
Your house is on the sand.

Our children wander aimlessly
Poisoned by cocaine
Choosing to indulge their lusts,
When God has said abstain

From sea to shining sea,
Our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love
And a need to always pray

We've kept God in our Temples,
how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool,
And Heaven is His throne.

We've voted in a government
that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges;
Who throw reason out the door,

Too soft to place a killer
In a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
Before he leaves the womb.

You think that God's not Angry,
that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait
Before His judgment comes?

How are we to face our God,
From Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do,
But stem this evil tide?

If we who are His children,
Will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face
And mend our evil way:

Then God will hear from Heaven;
And forgive us of our sins,
He'll heal our sickly land
And those who live within.

But, America the Beautiful,
If you don't - then you will see,
A sad but Holy God
Withdraw His hand from Thee..
~~Judge Roy Moore~~

The 10th & 11th stanzas are a direct reference to the scripture that I recently chose for my new email signature:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.­ -- 2 Chronicles 7:14

Don't Bother With Your Return ... The Gov't Will Do It **FOR** You??

Today the boss forwarded a newsletter she got and said "Read the "Say What?" Article!" (As soon as she reminds me what the newsletter was, I'll cite that source ... I did *not* write the following, but I wanted to be sure to pass it on to my friends):

Say What?? - Proposals for Government-Prepared Tax Returns

In November, then President-Elect Obama named Austan Goolsbee as Staff Director and Chief Economist of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Member of the Council of Economic Advisers.  In 2002, he wrote “The Turbo-Tax Revolution? Evaluating the Ability of Technology to Solve the Tax Complexity Dilemma.”  The paper argued that commercially available tax software programs would do little to simplify tax filing for the majority of taxpayers, and called for replacing 1040 EZ filings with “automatic return free filing through the employer.”  Goolsbee later refined the proposal in a Brookings Institution paper published in 2006, as “The Simple Return,” which “would have the IRS take the information about income directly from the employers and banks and, if the person’s tax status were simple enough, send that taxpayer a return prefilled with the information.”

Goolsbee’s thinking is aligned with other policymakers who are pushing for government-prepared tax filing.  This “thinking” is apparently also aligned with those who are purposely oblivious to the problems that the IRS has had in implementing current record-keeping and withholding requirements.  Could we please have some ice cream with our pie in the sky?

The proposal, and variations on it, would obviously entail a significant, even historic, change in federal tax policy, with serious implications.  Some thoughts immediately come to mind:

§  Having the IRS take over preparation of individual income tax returns would fundamentally alter the U.S. tax system.

§  Extending the proposal to cover all taxpayers would represent the largest change since the beginning of automatic withholding, shifting the system from voluntary compliance with taxpayers controlling their ability to claim legitimate credits and deductions to a confiscatory system with taxpayers appealing the government’s claims to their hard-earned money.

§  This shift in the burden of claiming legitimate deductions and credits could potentially subject all taxpayers to audit-like experiences just to claim money that is rightfully theirs.

§  The IRS’ past history of abuses, including those that required enactment the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, raise questions about granting the agency such far-reaching powers. 

§  Implementation of this system could lead to a stealth tax increase, if the system constrains the use of legitimate deductions and credits. 

§  The IRS has a troubled track record in maintaining and modernizing the technology needed to administer the current system. 

§  This concept has compiled a broad record of failure wherever it has been tried:

o   England: Systemic and catastrophic breakdowns that include the failure to deliver tax credits.

o   Canada: The government’s Netfile system crashed in 2008 and was offline for ten days preventing individuals from filing their taxes.  The Canadian Parliament has expressed concern about single points of failure in a system that would be vulnerable to cybercrime.   

o   California: The state’s “Ready Return” system had 11,000 users, far short of its goal of 2 million users. 

You can’t make this stuff up.  Why?  Because no one would believe that any individual with any degree of actual knowledge about the current state of our tax system would take this proposal seriously.

Can you just see the potential for governmental abuse, political power plays, and cybercrime???

The author says that no one would believe that any individual with any degree of actual knowledge about the current state of our tax system would take this proposal seriously ... but our elected officials often don't have any knowledge about what they vote on. Didn't they prove that with the recent spending "stimulus" plan? So they'll look to other countries that have done this as an excuse a good example of why we should try it. ...

And if the examples of England and Canada, who’ve tried this pre-filled returns thing and had such problems ….. never mind, our gov’t wants to go to socialist medicine with the apparent failures of England and Canada as a “good example”

One Mistake Per Day Isn't So Bad .... *Is* It???

A friend picked this up from Michelle Malkin's site, but I went right to the source, Don Surber's 3/12/09 blog post at Blogs.Dailymail.com to find this for your enjoyment:

52 days, 52 mistakes

Let me count them up, in no particular order. Some are big. Some are small.

We all make mistakes. Here’s his:

1. A do-over on the oath of office.
2. Tim Geithner.
3. Bill Richardson.
4. Tom Daschle.
5. Eric “Nation of Cowards” Holder.
6. Leon Panetta.
7. Arne “Cappuccino” Duncan.
8. Hilda Solis (OK, her husband has the tax liens).
9. Nancy Killefer.
10. Charles Freeman Jr.
11. Ron Kirk.
12. Adolfo Carrion.
13. Banning offshore oil again.
14. Letting Nancy Pelosi write the $787 billion “stimulus’ plan.
15. Relying on Tim Geithner to explain it.
16. It is a $13-a-week stimulus, or as his wife said of Bush’s plan: “You’re getting $600. What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn’t pay down every bill every month.”
17. Going to a press conference without a TelePrompTer. I… Uhh… Umm… Could you repeat the question?
18. Using a TelePrompTer at a press conference. Big boys don’t need training wheels.
19. “Good evening, everybody. Please be seated. Before I take your questions tonight, I’d like to speak briefly.” 1,228 words later he took his first question.
20. Going after Rush Limbaugh.
21. Going after Rick Santelli.
22. Going after Jim Cramer.
23. “Never waste a good crisis.”
24. Obama supporter Warren Buffett: “I don’t think anybody on December 7th would have said a ‘war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we’re going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things and — but we expect to — expect the other party to unite behind us on the — on the big problem.’ It’s just a mistake, I think.”
25. Writing a love letter to Vlad and Dmitry.
26. Putting Poland under the bus.
27. Putting Tibet under the bus.
28. Putting Israel under the bus.
29. Taking Cuba out from under the bus.
30. Having his tax cheat go after the tax cheats in Switzerland. Cognitive dissonance.
31. “Karzai has a bunker mentality.”
32. Iran has plans to Marine One helicopters.
33. “I won.”
34. BlackBerry singing in the middle of the night/ Take these golden secrets and learn to fly…
35. Obama: “If Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.” CEO: No. There will be more layoffs.
36. DVDs to Gordon Brown.
37. “You can’t take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime.” Vegas convention bookings nosedive.
38. Wagyu.
39. Reset/overcharge button given to Russia.
40. Taking a 4-day holiday weekend before signing “emergency” legislation.
41. “I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement — the prescription drug plan — without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word ’socialist’ around can’t say the same.”
42. Stiffing Chicago for nearly $2 million for that Election Night par-tay.
43. Caroline Kennedy.
44. Bombing Pakistan.
45. Sending the bust of Sir Winston Churchill back to the British.
46. Saying: “President Obama has accomplished more in 30 days than any president in modern history.”
47. A window is not a door.
48. Doctors must perform abortions.
49. Signing earmarks while denouncing them.
50. Adding signing statements while denouncing them.
51. Quadrupling the deficits, while denouncing them.
52. Missing the Gridiron Club dinner.

But be of good cheer. He has 1,409 days left to make up for his stumbles out of the starting gate.

UPDATE: Linked by Michelle Malkin. Thanks.

Linked by Glenn Reynolds. Thanks.

Also, from reading the comments, it seems as if I overloooked a few. They could replace a few of the lamer ones I cited. And please, read Anna’s comment.

53rd day, 53rd mistake. 

(Psssst ... that 53rd should make our men & women in uniform really unhappy....)

President Jekyll / Mr. Hyde

Barack Obama needs to learn how to keep his story straight. One day he's telling us that these are the worst days since the Great Depression (um, but they're actually not as bad as they were in the 70s when Jimmah Carter was prez), and then he tells us, "Wait....never mind."

From Michelle Malkin's site:

On February 5 she shared that Obama spake Doom-n-Gloom:

By now, it’s clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

Today we have news from Breitbart.com that's it's just not that bad:

Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is “not as bad as we think” and his plans will speed recovery.

Challenged to provide encouragement as the nation’s “confidence builder in chief,” Obama said Americans shouldn’t be whipsawed by bursts of either bad or good news and he was “highly optimistic” about the long term.

The president’s proposals for major health care, energy and education changes in the midst of economic hard times faced skepticism from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, as senators questioned his budget outlook and the deficits it envisions in the middle of the next decade.

But Obama, speaking to top executives of the Business Roundtable, expressed an optimistic vision and called for patience.

Richard Parsons, chairman of beleaguered Citigroup Inc., asked if Obama could offer some help in a national battle “between confidence and fear.”

“A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and ooohh , we’re down on the dumps,” Obama said. “And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment. I am the object in chief of this varying assessment.”

“I don’t think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say,” Obama added. “Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They’re not as bad as we think they are now.”

“And my long-term projections are highly optimistic, if we take care of some of these long-term structural problems.”

(Be sure to follow the links and read the whole articles.)

So ... which is it?? Is it the worst economy ever, ranking right there above the Black Death? Or is it roses, rainbows and unicorns? No, BHO didn't say everything's "all better now", but I'm getting dizzy and looking to go to the store to find a neck brace.

This reminds me of all the times that Libnuts kept cycling between saying that President Bush was alternately "Chimpy McBush, the simpleton that couldn't think for himself to the degree that Karl Rove made all his decisions for him" and "the evil BusHilter, the mastermind of the downfall of the world."

Maybe it's just me, but you can't have it both ways. When will the Twits That Be get that???

Will Atlas Shrug?

While I understand that Ayn Rand was very much the atheist, and heartily disagree with her there, I have to say that I agree with quite a lot of what she wrote about in her final novel, "Atlas Shrugged".

Some background ... a few years ago Maureen got interested in reading some dystopic novels, and asked me to read them at the same time so we could discuss them. So, for the first time, I read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and Orwell's "1984" ... I had read Orwell's "Animal Farm". It was amazing to me to see how of what had been written in these books has come to pass in our societal make-up.

Then, someone I worked with recommended "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. He said it "changed his life and how he viewed the world." I couldn't begin to understand how a novel could change a person's outlook on society. I picked up the book (and a copy for Mom, hoping we could do a "read along" like Mo and I had done), but I just couldn't get into the book. Ok, I have to say that part of the reason is that it's a 1,100-ish page book in about 8-point type .... these old eyes just don't want to work *that* hard. So I set it aside and decided that I'd "get to it some time" down the road.

Well, lately some friends have made references to it, and I got curious again. I looked at the book again and just couldn't bring myself to read type that small. But I've read a few posts/articles here and there and see that it ranks #2 to the Bible's #1 status as books that have changed the world.

So a friend from Ravelry suggested that a bunch of us do a "read along" and I really wanted to participate ... but having had the detached retinata several years ago makes it hard for me to read that small of type for very long ... so I came up with a solution ... iTunes.

I downloaded it and am now in the third of three 10-chapter sections. And it's astounding how much I can see from this dystopic novel that is paralleled in our society today. So many attitudes and "feelings" expressed in the text of the novel are commonplace in American society. So many abuses of "the system" and "government" are evident, as they were in the novel.

People are having "tea parties" around the country in protest of the current economic stimulus "remedies", and signs are showing up in photos saying things like "Atlas Will Shrug" and "It Work Worth It?"

It's interesting that bookstores are having the Dickens of a time keeping this book on their shelves. Libraries have waiting lists for this book that are several patrons deep, all clamoring for a chance to read the borrowed copy.

It's also interesting to find that while the new book "Pocket Obama" is showing up on Amazon.com at #175,052 in sales, "Atlas Shrugged" is showing up at #45.

"Atlas Shrugged" is also show up in more frequent articles lately, such as this one in the Wall Street Journal.

So my questions are:

1.  Have you read this book?

2.  What parallels did you see in the book that mimic today?

3.  Do you see this as a cautionary tale?

4.  Do you see this as a manual on how to re-make society to be more caring?

5.  The groups pointed out in the novel are the "Looters", "Moochers", and "Producers" -- which group will eventually win in our society?

(Of course, we know that God wins in the end, but the elements of this "Randian" society depicted in the novel is what I'm getting at...)

Obama = Urkel??

Ok, just 'cause I stumbled upon this at Michelle Malkin's site (which she linked from http://twitpic.com/1vb42):

And Now For Something Light

Because I've had about as much as I can stand about ObaMao and his Communist Slide plans for our country, I decided to post something totally unrelated. I'm really tired of my stomach clenching every time that man speaks and our stock market plunges.

As my daughter says: "The media is the wet nurse of hysteria!"

So, have fun with a little trivia to get your mind off the serious stuff for a minute, mmmmK?

Questions:

 

1.            Where did the Wright Brothers make the first successful powered flight in 1903? '

2.            How is the Jewish Day of Atonement better known?

3.            How many times does the letter “p” occur in the first line of the tongue twister abut Peter Piper?

4.            Which is the only common chemical compound to expand when it freezes?

5.            Which country’s name means “The Savior?”

6.            How many of Snow White’s seven dwarfs had beards?

7.            Which two elements are liquid at room temperature?

8.            Which amendment to the American constitution protects witnesses from self-incrimination?

9.            Who wrote “Tosca?”

10.          In the northern hemisphere, does water drain clockwise or counter-clockwise?

11.          What morbid coincidence links Mama Cass and Keith Moon?

12.          What is known in France as “mercredi des Cendres?”

13.          In which film did the song “Moon River” originally appear?

14.          Which composer conducted a performance of one of his works in Wanamaker’s department store in New York in 1904?

15.          In which sport do competing teams try to travel backwards and in opposite directions?

16.          What was the first national park in the U.S.?

17.          Where is the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury?

18.          After the White House what is the most visited home in the U.S.?

19.          A mother and father have five sons.  Each son has one sister.  How many people are there in this family?

20.          Which 1949 novel was originally titled the Last Man in Europe?

21.          How many feet are in a mile?

22.          Which note does an orchestra tune up to?

23.          What average speed did the winning car of the Indianapolis 500 exceed for the first time in 1925?

24.          A man jumps from a bridge into a river and swims for a kilometer upstream.  At exactly one kilometer, he passes a bottle floating in the river.  He continues swimming in the same direction for half an hour and then turns around and swims back towards the bridge.  The man and the bottle arrive at the bridge at the same time.  If the man had been swimming at a constant speed, how fast is the river flowing?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Answers:

1.    Kitty Hawk

2.    Yom Kippur

3.    Nine

4.    Water

5.    El Salvador

6.    Six

7.    Bromine and mercury

8.    Fifth Amendment

9.    Puccini

10.  Counterclockwise

11.  They both died at the same address (12 Curzon Place, Mayfair, London)

12.  Ash Wednesday

13.  Breakfast at Tiffany’s

14.  Richard Strauss

15.  Tug of war

16.  Yellowstone

17.  Graceland

18.  10 Downing Street (it is the title held by the British Prime Minister)

19.  Eight

20.  Nineteen Eighty-four

21.  5,280

22.  “A”

23.  100 mph

24.  1 km per hour

Google Fun

1.) Go to Google.

2.) Type "Chuck Norris Google" in the search bar.

3.) Press the "I Feel Lucky" button.

4.) Clean Off Your Keyboard.