Just Call Me Lone Wolf

Well, I guess I am an official "right-wing extremist" now!

A report from the Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremists as the following:

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

Columnist Michelle Malkin described the report as one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda I’d ever read out of DHS. I couldn’t believe it was real.

According to this document, if you are concerned about the economic downturn, economic hardship, illegal immigration, threats from other countries, or restrictions on the Second Amendment, you might be a right-wing extremist!

If you are a Christian -- or worse -- a returning military veteran, you might be a right-wing extremist!

Why, the report cites 10 people who have been arrested over the past 10 to 15 years for plotting in the name of right-wing extremism. Save for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the report cites not one actual incident.

Unlike the left-wing extremist groups in this country who for decades have been actively involved in domestic terror, violence and being a general pain in the ass. Such as the Animal Liberation Front; the Earth Liberation Front (sorry about the color); PETA; among others.

Many of us warned long ago that the Obama Administration and it's allies on the left and in the news media would paint any opposition to Obama and his policies and racist and hate-mongering.

But now, it appears, we are threats to national security!

Huzzah for me!

Obama; Socialism, the Dream of Our Forefathers

Without having the time -- or the intestinal stability -- to fully digest President Obama speech on the economy just yet, his closing line is one for the ages.

He claims that his economic spending proposals are the rock upon which the new economy will be built, and will create an America that our forefathers envisioned. Or something like that.

Trillion dollar deficits, multi-billion dollar bailouts, government ownership of private businesses, government encroachment or takeover of the health care industry.

A huge, socialist-leaning government that solves all its problems by spending money it doesn't have to solve problems that don't exist.

Exactly what the framers of our Constitution had in mind when they sat down with pen and paper more than 200 years ago.

The Good News Continues

Maersk Alabama: Time to Send in the Seals!!

It is time for America to act and dispense with this nuisance of the radical Muslim pirates who took an American hostage.

Send in the Navy Seals to sneak up on the 28-foot lifeboat the pirates and their hostage are on and take care of business.

Would this be risky to the Alabama's captain? Yes. But if the French can do it, I should think the U.S, can too:

The French government has sent in their forces to free hostages:

— In September 2008, France dispatched elite commandos on a night operation to free two French hostages from their captured sailboat. The 30-some soldiers, wearing night-vision goggles, boarded the ship and in about 10 minutes killed one pirate, captured six others and pulled the French Polynesian couple to safety.

— The first such rescue by French troops was in April 2008. The helicopter-borne French troops swooped in on Somali pirates, capturing six of them, after the hijackers released dozens of hostages who had been held on a yacht.

Or is Obama too concerned -- yet again -- with what the "world" might think of us to do something that could end this standoff, potentially rescue an American, and perhaps make these people think twice before attacking another U.S.-flagged ship.

It is appalling that there appears to be no plan for dealing with a situation that has been going on for months, and getting worse.

Since January, pirates have staged 66 attacks, and they are still holding 14 ships and 260 crew members as hostages, according to the International Maritime Bureau, a watchdog group based in Kuala Lumpur.

If this is how Obama deals with a relatively minor crisis, how will he handle a major catastrophe inside this country?

The time for action is now, Barack. The longer this goes on, the weaker we look to our enemies. DO SOMETHING!!

Maersk Alabama Has Lessons For Obama

I'll Tell You Where the Buck Stops After the Security Council Meets Next Month just doesn't have the same ring, does it?.
The capture of the cargo ship Maersk Alabama by Isamist terrorists off the coast of Somalia can provide lessons that the Obama Administration should heed.

1. You can't negotiate with terrorists.
Obama has frequently touted his plans to negotiate with Iran and North Korea over their nuclear weapons programs and to tak with "moderate" Taliban members to sway the away from the Dark Side.

Problem is, these people are murderers and criminals. They has no regard for laws or for human life. Their ends are worth any means. The leaders of Iran and No Ko are not as interested in how the world views them as Obama. These are not people for whom a hearty handshake means much. Case in point, the Alabama:

The ship's second mate, Ken Quinn, later told CNN that the crew thought it had negotiated an exchange _ Phillips for the captured pirate. But when the Americans released their captive after 12 hours, the Somalis failed to release the captain, he said.

The sailors made an agreement with the pirates; the sailors kept their end of the bargain, the pirates did not.

A template that can be applied to any situation involving Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea's Kim Jong Il, and terrorists anywhere in the world.

Their word is not worth very much.

2. The "world" can't do anything without a leader

Another of Obama's visions seems to be that the U.S. should be equal with all other countries in the world. We are just one of twenty, I believe he told the world at the G20 summit last week.

The Somali Islamist pirates have been trolling the waters for victims for a couple of years now. No one in the world has stood up to them. No country has taken the intiative to stop the scourge of piracy. (More efforts are paid to piracy when it involves the X-Men Wolverine movie.)

If the world were such an potent force for good, this piracy would have been stopped long ago.

The world needs a leader; the world needs someone to echo those famous words: "The Buck Stops Here." Take leadership, President Obama; don't sit back and wait for the slow diplomacy of the U.N. or the E.U. After all, I'll Tell You Where the Buck Stops After the Security Council Meets Next Month doesn't have the same power.


Take leadership in the world, President Obama, as so many of your predecessors have. The world will be amuch safer place if we do.

Biden: U.S. Safer Under Obama; Tell That To The Crew of the Maersk Alabama

Vice President Biden assures us that we are safer now than we were under President Bush.

"[O]ur interests are more secure today than they were any time during the eight years," Biden said. "Not just at home, but around the world."

Well Joe, tell that to the crew of the Maersk Alabama, a 17,000 ton U.S. container ship that was seized by Somali pirates off the coast of that African country. 21 Merchant Marines are being held hostage by radical Islamist pirates.This is the first time in 200 years that a U.S. ship has been seized by pirates. Clearly, the pirates didn't get the message that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. Or maybe they heard the apology-ridden speeches and were emboldened.

We can only hope and pray that this does not become a repeat of the Pueblo Incident, when North Korea captured a U.S. Navy ship and held the sailors hostage for 11 months. Then-President Lyndon Johnson did nothing, electing to negotiate with the NoKo's for the return of the sailors.

President Lyndon Johnson resisted (bombing North Korea), noting that bombing North Korea would not bring our hostages home. So the U.S. tried full-bore diplomacy. It was frustrating, slow and not wholly successful...

An understatement to be sure.

There was a time when no one wouldn't dare take a U.S. ship hostage; those times are over. Change has come, indeed.

We have "cyberspies" from China, Russia, and other countries hacking into our national electricity grid.

Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security officials.

Authorities investigating the intrusions have found software tools left behind that could be used to destroy infrastructure components, the senior intelligence official said. He added, "If we go to war with them, they will try to turn them on."

Likely can't blame Obama for this one, but do you feel safer knowing this?

We have North Korea launching test missiles that can reach the U.S. West Coast; Iran continuing to build its nuclear capabilities, increased fighting in Pakistan/Afghanistan; the Russians telling us to take down our missile shields; Al-Qaida laughing at Obama's plan to court "moderate" Taliban.

We have an Administration that wants to forget terrorism exists by changing its name to man-made-disasters. No mentions of terrorism anymore. No more enemy combatants.

We have Obama pitching a defense budget that will slash spending, including some very weapons we may now need more than ever:

Programs under review also include Boeing’s ground-based and airborne-laser missile defense programs...

But, brighter days are ahead as we get to await the possibility of terrorist inmates at Guantanamo Bay being released right here in the U.S.. That can only make us safer having a real-live terrorist living in the three-decker next door.

Biden told us months ago that Obama would be tested. Are these the tests he was alluding to? Or is there worse to come?

Feel safer yet?

Iowa: Is Opposite-Sex Marriage Wrong Because Gay People Don't Like It?

If I am reading this finding correctly, the Iowa Supreme Court seems to be saying that Iowa's opposite-sex marriage law is unconstitutional because a gay person would find marrying someone of the opposite sex unappealing.

Before I get too far into this, let me announce that I am a supporter of same-sex marriage, for myriad reasons. I am pleased to see that the Vermont legislature voted same-sex marriage into law. I am uncomfortable with state courts, comprised of a handful of people, making the decision for everyone. To me these findings are activist judicial maneuvers to skirt the legislative process.

I read the Iowa decision closely, and can only infer that the justices are striking down the requirement that married couples be of the opposite sex because a gay or lesbian person does not want to marry someone of the opposite gender.

Looking past the fact that this case was in the bag for gay marriage supporters from the start. The drafter(s) of the decision start with a pollyannish description of each person who filed the initial legal action:

Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities... Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto.

The twelve plaintiffs comprise six same-sex couples who live in committed relationships. Each maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa. (page 7)

While I cannot dispute a word, to me, this loaded introduction would be as appropriate as a criminal court judge starting a finding by saying: But, he's a nice boy from a good family.

As I read it, this finding comes down to precedent based on an 1894 case, which established that a civil marriage includes the comfort and happiness of the parties to the marriage contract (page 28 of the finding). And because a gay or lesbian person could not be "comfortable and happy" marrying someone of the opposite gender, the person's civil rights are being violated.

By purposefully placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals, the ban on same-sex civil marriages differentiates implicitly on the basis of sexual orientation. (page 33)

Here, I presume, outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals means that they wouldn't like being married under the current Iowa definition of marriage.

To reach this conclusion, the justices placed as high a threshold on the county as possible.

...the issue presented by this lawsuit is whether the state has “exceedingly persuasive” reasons for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples, not whether state sanctioned, heterosexual marriage is constitutional. (page 51)

The justices took into account what they perceived as a History of discrimination against gay and lesbian people.

The long and painful history of discrimination against gay and lesbian
persons is epitomized by the criminalization of homosexual conduct in many parts of this country until very recently. (page 37)

While this assessment is likely true, it smacks of a bias on the part of the justices before this case was even heard to base their decision on laws created in the other states.

In sum, this history of discrimination suggests any legislative burdens placed on lesbian and gay people as a class “are more likely than others to reflect deep-seated prejudice rather than legislative rationality in pursuit of some legitimate objective.” (Pages 38/39)

Again, a likely true sentiment, but it is exactly that, sentiment, opinion, conjecture, not established legal fact.

In addition, the court decided that a person's sexual orientation does not bear on his ability to contribute to society. First off, who said it did; and second what does it have to do with marriage? A brother and sister can each contribute to society, but they cannot get married.

The justices also decided that the immutability of homosexuality should be considered, meaning that because homosexuality is an accident of birth, and sexual orientation is highly resistant to change, extra consideration should be paid to this factor. Again, a brother and a sister are related through accident of birth and involved a relationship resistant to change. No one is working to hard to see that siblings can get married.

In sum, the finding by the Iowa Supreme Court that opposite-sex marriage rules are discriminatory because gay and lesbian people don't want to participate is specious at best. Further the argument that civil marriage inherently includes the comfort and happiness of the participants is simply wrong.

By this definition, simply stating that one's no longer takes comfort and happiness from the marriage should invalidate the compact instantly. But this is not the case. Dissolving a marriage is a difficult and lengthy process.

It is quite legal to marry someone who does not make you comfortable and happy: pre-arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, "shot-gun" weddings, and marriages for money are all legal marriages in this country. Love has nothing to do with civil marriage.

With similar decisions in Massachusetts and Connecticut, more states are likely to overturn "traditional" marriage laws as unconstitutional. This is unfortunate, as the logic behind these cases is flawed and wrong.

My hope is that state legislatures thoughough the country finally tackle this issue directly by introducing legislation that explicitly permits same-sex marriage, as did Vermont. To me, the fact that a legislature debated and considered the issue would give far more legitimacy to same-sex marriage in the eyes of the general public than judicial fiats.

Same-sex marriage should be legalized because it is the right thing to do, not because a couple of judges twist logic enough to satisfy themselves.

G-20: We Will Determine How Much You Get Paid at Your Job

As I previously noted, President Obama wants to cap the salaries of executives in the financial industry.

It gets worse!

Now we learn that Obama has agreed to allow the rest of the world to decide how much "bankers" can make!

The Group of 20 also agreed on new global rules to cap the pay and bonuses of bankers...

Assuming the decision-making power to set these salaries and bonuses stays within the G20 nations, representatives of the following countries will be able to control what a private company in the United States pays to its own employees:

• Argentina
• Australia
• Brazil
• Britain
• Canada
• China
• France
• Germany
• India
• Indonesia
• Italy
• Japan
• Mexico
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Turkey
• United States
• European Union

I know you lefties don't care how much those evil rich bankers make, but in a moment of honesty, don't you think it a bit dangerous to allow someone form Indonesia, Turkey or South Korea set anybody's salary here in the U.S.?

I do.

And what will happen if the International Monetary Fund gets involved in setting salaries.

Guess what? Your salary will be next. Mark my words, and Barney Frank's:

(Frank) said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

...the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government.

So, the world will set the pay for executives at banks; the rules that apply to executives at banks could apply to all employees of the banks; the rules for bank employees could apply to ALL employees in ALL companies.

You do the math....

Do You Really Trust These People to Spend YOUR Money??

One of the major premises of the Obama "stimulus" plan is that the government can spend your money more wisely than you.

One of the arguments behind massive government spending vs. across-the-board tax cuts to pull out of a recession is that our elected leaders will do a better job spending the money than the regular citizens of the country.

But, can you really trust these people to spend tax dollars wisely?

Here are two cases that show you cannot. One story involves a governor spending precious tax dollars to hire friends and supporters into high-paying hack jobs; the second involves a mayor who won't spend money to protect an event that will draw a million tourists into his city.

(Massachusetts) Gov. Deval Patrick has stashed four staffers in big-bucks jobs at several of the quasi-public agencies he is now vowing to reform - including one post worth a jaw-dropping $190,000 a year, the Herald has learned.

These appointments come just days after the uber-Liberal Patrick tried to stuff a long-time supporter into a $175,000-a-year job that had been vacant for 12 years.

Outrage is sweeping Beacon Hill after Gov. Deval Patrick quietly slipped a $175,000 plum job to a political pal while squeezing taxpayers to pay more for less from the debt-ridden state government.

...(the state) while bracing for cuts of cops and teachers, Patrick awarded supporter Marian Walsh the pricey plum as assistant executive director of the state’s Health and Educational Facilities Authority.

MHEFA is an organization that 99.5% of Mass residents had never heard of until last week.

While we are talking Massachusetts hack-o-rama, consider the following:

Robert Rooney, a former $123,000-a-year deputy secretary of public works in the transportation office, is still working at the (Massachusetts Turnpike Authority) as a $122,000-a-year assistant chief engineer, Flagg confirmed last night. Rooney’s job was to help bring down the tolls on the Western Turnpike, a job that is no longer part of Gov. Deval Patrick’s transportation reform plans.

From this article, we can assume that Rooney is getting paid big bucks to engineer a project that won't happen?

On the other side of the tax coin is "esteemed" Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who is apparently refusing to pay for any city services to support the visit by the Tall Ships, an event destined to attract more than a million visitors to his city.

Menino is the guy in the middle in this photo, in case you don't know him.

Sail Boston officials said Wednesday the event that attracts millions of visitors to see the windjammers parade through the harbor will go ahead, even though they missed a deadline to give the city $2 million.

That angered Mayor Tom Menino, who told The Boston Globe that holding the event without city services could cause a "public safety crisis." He says he may ask the Coast Guard to bar the 50 ships from the harbor.

The notion that the mayor would actively consider preventing an event that will attract tourist into his city in July is mind-boggling.

(Menino) said he would withhold all city services for the nautical extravaganza - no police officers, no cleanup crews - even though nearly 1 million people are projected to descend on the city...

This (PDF) report indicates that Sail Boston 2000 would have a massive positive impact on revenues in Boston:

The results .... show that total economic activity in the Greater Boston region of the Sail Boston event will be $88.96 million (in year 2000 dollars). The majority of that activity - $64.66 million or 73% - will be in the city of Boston where the event takes place.

This report indicates that the city might lose money, as the expenses outstrip the tax revenues. But, in 2000, the small investment by the city was worth the significant business in Boston and surrounding communities received.

Why not this year? This is a year when businesses need the help, and most experts believe that fewer people will be going away for vacation, leaving a huge pool of people looking for something to do on a July weekend.

The one question that remains is whether Menino will try to get Ol' Ironsides to protect Boston Harbor once again from an incursion by an enemy fleet.

These are the people who Barack Obama considers better guardians of YOUR money than YOU, and know better how to spend YOUR money to repair this economy.

Forgive me, Deval, if I am a skeptic.

White House: Republicans' Budget Proposal is a "Joke"

So much for the bipartisanship and working together that Obama promised during his campaign and early in his administration.

The Obama administration's official response a Republican budget proposal: It's a joke.

After FoxNews anchor Jon Scott suggested that the GOP budget is simply smaller. Let's spend less. We just can't afford all of the things in the president's budget.

Rob Neighbors, the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, issued Obama's "fair and balanced" response by excoriating the Republican's plan:

It's ironic that this budget came out today, on April Fool's Day. Because this is a joke; it's a joke on the American people.

Whatever one thinks of the Republican proposal (and I know nothing about it), it is highly inappropriate for the president to treat our elected officials with such contempt and disregard, dismissing a legitimate proposal idea with a school yard taunt.

Not to mention, that if one agrees with the Repub's ideas, the Obama administration is calling you a joke by association.

Yet one more example of how Obama is no leader, and is totally clueless about how to run the country.

Just plan sad.