New Tizona Post

A huge victory for the cause of freedom: a Federal court has ruled that cops can no longer treat videoing them in the course of executing their duties as a criminal offense.

Like I couldn't have guessed it

I was shocked -- SHOCKED -- to find out that Leftists are behind the big push for Net Neutrality. [/sarcasm]

Documents made public yesterday by Judicial Watch describe extensive collusion by Federal Communications Commission officials with a left-wing advocacy group in a campaign to expand government regulation of the Internet.

The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch in a December 2010 Freedom of Information Act request, were created after Democrat appointees solidified their 3-2 control of the agency in March 2009.

The coordination between FCC officials and Free Press, the advocacy group, supported a proposal for the agency to regulate access to the Internet as if it were a public utility, in the interest of ensuring "Net Neutrality."

Proponents said doing so would assure equal access for all Internet users by barring companies from offering preferred rates for higher delivery speeds. Other users, especially in communities with limited Internet access, would be forced to accept poorer service.

But critics said the proposal would actually give the FCC a tool to regulate content, and they argued that the FCC has no authority over the medium in the first place. It would be akin to forcing FedEx and UPS to treat all packages the same way the U.S. Postal Service does.

Anyone with half a brain knows that (1) any effort to regulate the interwebs, regardless of stated purpose, is an attempt to regulate content, and (2) Leftists are the primary movers and shakers behind any effort to restrict speech.

Next thing you know someone will report that Leftists are behind efforts to ban handguns, or some other piece of obvious information.

The Echo Chamber Effect

One of the reasons I have concern for the future of our world is a little something known as the echo chamber effect. Briefly, this is the tendency of people to gravitate towards sources of information that will reinforce their own beliefs regarding events or topics of interest to them.

The echo chamber effect is hardly a recent phenomenon. In what perhaps may be an apocryphal quote, Pauline Kael is supposed to have said regarding the landslide victory of Richard Nixon over George McGovern in 1972, "I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anybody who voted for him".

New media gets accused of fomenting echo chambers, but old media has them as well. Fox News is a comfortable echo chamber for people with Neocon leanings. MSNBC is a comfortable echo chamber for those who feel that King George the Dim is the cause of all the world's problems, as well as for those who think that Big Dick Cheney is the cause of said problems.

But new media - particularly blather radio and blogs - are especially susceptible to the echo chamber effect.

I started to ruminate on this subject late last week because of my recent experiences over at Caput Penitus Culus. Talk about your echo chamber!

There are basically three types of people at that site, besides the loathsome reptile who hosts it: female authoritarians who want to force their worldview on others; bigots; and the willfully stupid (yes Stamp, that would be you). Each of these archetypes enters the blog with a worldview they desperately want to reinforce. Each comes away with exactly what they wished for - EXCEPT when some "troll" like me comes along questioning certain aspects of their beliefs.

Troll. It's an interesting concept. The textbook definition of a troll is someone who shows up uninvited at your site to argue for the sake of arguing, a disruptor, an agitator. What a troll is in practice is someone who shows up at an echo chamber with a different viewpoint than that of the denizens of the site. You can tell a lot about a site and its proprietor by the tolerance shown to alternative viewpoints; at Caput Penitus Culus, FLDS Texas, and other like sites, you're likely to have your comments deleted and your access to enter comments blocked.

Partly because of my libertarian political leanings, but also because I've seen it demonstrated masterfully at Vox Popoli during the 7+ years I've been reading that blog, I think I've managed to a large extent to avoid hosting yet another echo chamber. But (and this is an important concept to grok) I can't be the judge of that; only those who read this blog and other blogs with differing viewpoints can accurately say whether I've been successful on that count or not.

Okay, what's the point, Vulture? The point is this: our nation used to have a tradition of tolerance for opposing viewpoints. Now, with the echo chamber effect, we're not inclined to hear, let alone respect, differing viewpoints. This is unhealthy intellectually, and it's unhealthy for the continuing health of a Constitutional republic.

But what do I know? According to the Caput a Palos, I'm not too bright. Then again, considering the source, I might just be an effin genius...

Mr. Wilson goes to Washington

At last there's someone in Washington who'll say what we're all thinking! Joe Wilson, come on down!

One of the most persistent conservative concerns about health care legislation is that it will provide health care to illegal immigrants -- and the heated claim spilled onto the floor of President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress this evening, where one Republican member called the president a liar for denying it.

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," President Obama said.

A loud voice from the Republican side of the hall answered, "You lie!" -- my colleague Glenn Thrush reports it was Rep. Joe Wilson (R - S.C.) -- drawing a second "It's not true," from Obama and a shake of Nancy Pelosi's head.

Team Elephant leadership: take notes and take note. THIS is how you battle radicals like Il Duce. Not by acting like prissy parliamentarians. Not by playing by the Marques de Queensbury rules. No, defeating Saul Alinsky tactics takes Saul Alinsky tactics.

Banks, Automobiles,...the Internet?!?!?

Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία; megalo-, meaning large, and mania) is a historical term for behavior characterized by an obsession or preoccupation with wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence - often generally termed as delusions of grandeur or grandiose delusions.
From Wikipedia.

---

Has there ever been an individual outside of Hitler, Stalin, or Bonaparte who fit the profile of megalomaniac as completely as Il Duce? Wait until you hear about this latest attempted power grab before you answer that questions.

CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

The passage of this bill, coupled with the FCC imposing the "Fairness Doctrine", would create an environment wherein the President could shut down the dissemination of any information he deems "threatening", which, no doubt, would include criticism of him and his administration.

One more thing. What exactly are the "cybersecurity professionals" going to be charged with? Will they be informers to the government as to who might be a potential "threat"?

Obama may not be the worst President we've ever had (give him time, he'll get there), but he's clearly the most dangerous.

Wiener of the Week

Jane Velez-Mitchell has issues. And, no, I'm not referring to the dopey name of her insipid show Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell. And it's not just the fact that she SCREAMS throughout here entire show (xfloggingkylex says you can hear her even after you press the Mute button). Nor is it the fact that her show is a formulaic ripoff of Nancy Grace's show, which, itself, after a fine start, gradually because a formulaic stultifying nightmare.

No, the issues to which I refer have to do with a failure to think.

The evening after that loser in Pittsburgh shot up a gym (Deadeye's comment to me was, "See. That's why I don't work out."), Jane hosted a panel of guest "experts" to discuss this heinous, cowardly act.

There were positive moments in the exchange, mostly provided by criminal profiler Pat Brown, who correctly categorized the shooter as a sociopath, NOT a psychopath. And Velez-Mitchell scored a correct answer when she categorized his attitude as "[A] victim mentality...Everybody's to blame but him. OK, he is not to blame."

But the rest? To quote my Jewish brethren, "Oy, vey!"

The following are excerpts from the transcript.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Apparently, he was using -- Jeanne, he was using 30-round ammo clips that were illegal before the assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004. And those ammo clips allow you to kill a lot of people very quickly, right?

Translation: 30-round clips - once illegal - make it "easier to kill people", so we should ban them again.

If this statement alone isn't worth of a WotW, I don't know what is! Bringing back the ill-conceived (and unconstitutional) Assault Weapons ban wouldn't have saved those people, you stupid cow!

[Dr. Judy] KURIANSKY: ... then guns are often that kind of a sexual acting out, because a gun is like a sex organ. And when men are extremely frustrating and frustrated, they can end up taking all that aggression out with a gun.

Translation: Guns are a substitute sex organ, and shooting them off relieves aggression just like an orgasm.

Again, a statement worthy of a WotW on it's own merits. This is quack pop psychology at it's worst.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Brad, you`re the defense attorney. Do these women who were injured and the families of the dead have a lawsuit, and if so, against whom?

[Attorney Bradford] COHEN: It`s definitely -- it`s something that they should consider. And it`s probably against L.A. Fitness for some sort of lack of security. He went there once before, and he was fully armed. I don`t know, in terms of what kind of security they have, if there is that kind of appropriate security that`s in place. But I`m sure, believe me, with civil attorneys around, there`s definitely going to be someone who`s going to be filing a civil lawsuit.

Translation: Can they sue? You're damn right! Let's start looking for deep pockets right now!

I thought my head was going to explode at this point. Are you kidding me? You're talking lawsuits? For WHAT?!?!? It's a gym, asshats! You don't have security at a gym! Nor should you! Memberships are expensive enough as it is! And the idea that the gym is responsible for a sociopath shooting up the place is absolute nonsense. This exchange alone is grounds for tort reform!

DAVID SCHWARTZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know what the bottom line is, Jane? What are we going to do to prevent this in the future? You know, there needs -- we need to spend more money as a society on mental disease and defects. This is something very serious.

Translation: MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!

That's right. We're already blowing out unrepayable debt into the third and fourth generation of our grandchildren. Let's spend some more money on...what? What exactly are you going to do? Screen for sociopaths? Who will do it? The government? Oh, THAT'S not a recipe for persecuting political enemies of Der Staat or anything! Assclown!

SCHWARTZ: We need more -- the insurance companies also...

Translation: Make the insurance companies pay!

Not content with mere government spending, Mr. Schwartz wants to FORCE insurance companies to spend more money on...what? Again, the act of spending more money does not a solution make.

KURIANSKY: No question that in this -- in this whole time of health care...[crosstalk]...we need to pay more attention to mental health care here. And there`s another important issue that`s very psychological that has to do with bystanders. Because there have been real-life bystanders who stand by when people get murdered and don`t want to get involved. And now it`s turned to the Internet and the responsibility that people have to notice what people are blogging about. And who are they going to report to? That`s what we need to pay attention to now.

Translation: Anyone who suspected this act has to pay!

So...if someone read the rantings of this loser prior to him going on a rampage (which, it turns out, wouldn't have been possible, since he posted the entire "diary" just prior to the event), they are guilty, too? What is this, the USSR? We're supposed to rat out people based on rantings?

I've spent a lot of time around teenagers. They go off on rants where they say they're going to do this or going to do that. If you're not familiar with teenagers, you'd be alarmed. If you are familiar with teenagers, you'll shrug. Why? Because it's all bluster. There are exceptions to be sure, like the Columbine teenagers. And that begs the question: if you can't separate the bluster from real threats, and you're "required" to "report threats", how long will it be before every little childish threat becomes a crime?

DAVID SCHWARTZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jane, it does take an intervention. I have had plenty of cases where there have been psychopaths who have had this intervention.

This guy went 49 years without killing anyone. There needs to be an intervention; it does take a village sometimes. And I guarantee you the writing was on the wall. If you sent Tom Ruskin out there to that gym to do an investigation, I guarantee you in five minutes he would find people that would come out and say that the writing was on the wall in this particular case.

Translation: It takes a village. Sing Kum Ba Ya everyone.

No further comment necessary.

Megapoints to criminal profiler Pat Brown for this scathing comeback to an insipid Velez-Mitchell comment.

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Well, I would agree with you Jane, if I believed that this was actually necessarily true.

But the part about getting help; again psychopaths do not seek help because they don`t think they need any because it`s everybody else`s fault. You cannot help them. They wont -- they will lie to their therapists and that won`t go anywhere.

What we need to do is work with children who are small. To teach them that they`re not entitled to everything that -- the selfishness that they`re being brought up with where they just get everything they want and think they can have everything.

No. You have to bring up children to realize that you have to earn things and that sometimes it takes time. You have to wait for things. And this guy apparently didn`t grow up with that, so he thinks that he should get what he wants and he`s is not willing to do the work.

In other words, he could probably get a lady in his life if he treated them nicely. If he stopped looking for a cheerleader type of 20-year-old instead of perhaps a nice 50-year-old librarian, a little overweight, who he was sweet to. He could have somebody in his life. But he has chosen not to do that.

Pat Brown, you've made a fan of me.

But Jane Velez-Mitchell? You're the Wiener of the Week.

Bad Law - Update

I received an email from a gentleman named Simon Owens who runs a blog called Bloggasm. He pointed me to an article he wrote in which he interviewed one of the lawyers who is defending four of the anonymous commenters (see previous post) whose identities Der Staat is attempting to subpoena.

Please check out the linked article; excerpts don't really do it justice.

And Simon: thanks for the heads up. The more people aware of this miscarriage of justice the better.

Bad law (and the Culusotti who love it)

I'm sure that the crowd over at Caput Penitus Culus will love this one. Or not.

A Nevada newspaper says it has been served a federal grand jury subpoena seeking information about readers who posted comments on the paper's Web site.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Tuesday that its editor, Thomas Mitchell, plans to fight the request, which the newspaper received after reporting on a federal tax fraud case against business owner Robert Kahre.

The subpoena seeks the identities and personal information about people who posted comments on the story. The newspaper said prosecutors told the judge in the case that some comments hinted at acts of violence and the subpoena was issued out of concern for jurors' safety.

Mitchell said anonymous speech is "a fundamental and historic part of this country." The newspaper would consider cooperating if specific crimes or real threats were presented, he said.

If the Review-Journal is unsuccessful in fighting this unquestionably unconstitutional request, it spells curtains for the entire concept of protected free speech. Because, as you know, Der Staat can find just about ANY reason to justify ANY action once "precedent" (or case law) has been established. Right, Culus?

On the one hand, you would think that the law fetishists at Caput Penitus Culus would be overjoyed at the prospect of law being defined. It's how they get their jollies, apparently. But there's a small problem with this particular issue: everyone, from the Caput a Palo to the n00biest commenter, posts at that site under cloak of anonymity (or at least pseudonymity). The lame-ass excuse offered by the Caput a Palo himself for not associating his real name with his blog was that he was afraid of the FLDS. Seriously? I'm MUCH more afraid of Culus and his proto-authoritarian jack-booted Hitler youth than I would EVER be of the FLDS. What are they going to do? Bore me to death with Book of Mormon readings?

Object lesson, Culusotti! Just because something becomes case law doesn't make it right, just, or constitutionally valid. Perhaps having a legal issue decided in a way that harms your precious anonymity might open your eyes to that fact.

Eh, probably not. They're not terribly bright over there...

In case you needed further proof

"The terrorists hate us for our freedoms". That was King George the Dim's favorite saying. What a putz! The LAST thing we are is a free people.

Don't believe me? Then check out how San Diego deals with that pesky 1st Amendment.

A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.

Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"

The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.

Okay, let's review, shall we?

• A small prayer meeting held weekly in a private residence.
• They pray. They say 'Amen'. They praise the Lord.
• San Diego County wants to shut them down.

This is the sort of thing for which we (rightly!) condemn Communist China. Only now it's happening -- openly -- in Police State Amerika.

Remind me again about those 'freedoms' we're hated for...

A racist, anti-freedom horror show

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is Il Duce's nominee for the Supreme Court to take the place of that moron David Souter. As one would expect, only the finest legal expert, selected on the basis of merit, not quotas, would be Il Duce's first Court nominee. NOT AT ALL.

Sonia Sotomayer represents all that is wrong with our judicial system. Her demeanor in the courtroom is that of a tyrant and a bully. She is anti-freedom, ruling against both freedom of speech and the Second Amendment.

But the one thing about Sotomayor that stands out? That would be her racism.

Oh, come on, Vulture! You really can't use one throw-away paragraph in one speech to label a person as a racist! But that's the thing: I don't. I couldn't care less about that speech. When I speak of Sotomayor as a racist, I'm talking about more important, more substantial things, like this:

As an undergraduate at Princeton, this nominee to the Supreme Court wanted the government to require the school to hire more Hispanic faculty members. At Yale Law School, she bemoaned a court ruling against racial quotas. She hasn't seen nearly enough affirmative action to please her, and as a judge has repeatedly cited her own special understandings as a Latina as a reason for putting more Hispanics on the bench.

So what's wrong with any of this? Nothing, if all she was doing was calling for an end to ethnic, gender or racial discrimination against people who are imminently qualified as faculty members or judges or whatever. Instead, she was calling for preferential treatment on the grounds that there is something better about one group than another, much the same philosophy once used to justify slavery, lynchings, segregation and all kinds of injustices against blacks in this country.

That's not enough for you? Try this: Sotomayor belongs to La Raza, Spanish for "The Race". Last I heard, excessive racial identity was a prime element of racism. And La Raza is an anti-American organization as well.

La Raza was condemned in 2006 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.

Hey! I have relatives in Aztlan! And they don't speak Spanish! [/sarcasm]

And let us not forget Sotomayor's prominent position in the case of the firefighters denied promotion because no minority candidates passed the test.

With all of the heat generated from that dopey quote from that dopey speech Sotomayor gave in Berkeley, Il Duce's consigliere was called upon to set the ground rules for opposition.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a pointed warning to opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination Wednesday, urging critics to measure their words carefully during a politically charged confirmation debate.

"You have a nice face. It would be a shame if something happened to it..."

Face it, Il Duce has produced exactly the kind of Court nominee Team Elephant was screaming about during the 2008 Elections. Of course, in the interest of fairness, I have to point out that McCommie wouldn't do much better. Maybe we'd get "son of Souter" from him, if we were lucky.

Wiener of the Week

This is one installment of WotW that you're gonna just love. I know I do. It seems that an attempt to smear Christians and supporters of third-party candidates has come back to bite the state of Missouri in the ass.

The Missouri Highway Patrol this week retracted a controversial report on militia activity and will change how such reports are reviewed before being distributed to law enforcement agencies.

The Highway Patrol also will open an investigation into the origin of the report, which linked conservative groups with domestic terrorism and named former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

---

[I]t suggested that domestic militias often subscribed to radical ideologies rooted in Christian views and opposition to immigration, abortion or federal taxes. The report also stated that it was "not uncommon" for militia members to support third-party political candidates.

Let's see. We have "radical ideologies rooted in Christian views" (whatever that means). We have a blanket painting of third-party supporters as militia members (and, as such, as right-wing extremists. What more could we ask for?

The state's Lt. Governor had more - much more.

Before Keathley’s memo was released Wednesday, Kinder criticized the report for suggesting that only issues championed by conservatives motivated domestic terrorists. The report "slanders" opponents of abortion and critics of illegal immigration, he said.

"Under the guidance of the present director, who apparently must think it is Nixon’s secret service, the Department of Public Safety has taken on the new and sinister role of political profiling," Kinder said.

Also troubling, Kinder said, the report makes no mention of Islamic terrorists or those who might subscribe to ideologies associated with liberals, such as environmental radicals.

I'd like to second that last thought. Google up ALF (Animal Liberation Front) or ELF (Environmental Liberation Front). These are bona fide terrorist groups - not a phantom menace like Christian supporters of third-parties!

What's extraordinary about this story is that it took a major s*** storm for Missouri to disavow the report! Their initial reaction was this:

[T]he information analysis center released a statement reaffirming its "regard for the Constitutions of the United States and Missouri" and expressing regret that "any citizens or groups were unintentionally offended by the content of the document."

Yeah! Don't get your panties in a ball! We're protected by the First Amendment, so you can kiss our collective asses!

They're not talking so tough now, are they? And you wonder why schadenfreude is such a major part of who I am...

So, Missouri: Congrats! You're the Wiener of the Week.

Vulture Droppings - Amateur Hour

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

You may have noticed that Vulture Droppings has been more "semi" than "regular" lately. Mainly that's because there has been a dearth of the kind of seminal events that occasioned the creation of the feature in the first place -- things like political conventions, the 2008 election campaigns, etc. Hopefully, I'll be able to go to the 'droppings' well a little more often in the future. It is one of my favorite features.

---

President Obama - "King Obama, the Media's Anointed One" is too large a moniker for regular use - has now been president for one month. It's been a scream. I speculated in the days after the election as to what kind of president Obama would be. I broke it down into four archetypes, each personified by a past president: Carter, Clinton, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson. Silly me! I left out Gerald Ford! If Mr. Obama's first month on the job is any indication, his destiny seems more Ford than any of the other four.

The ruthlessness I saw during the election cycle (Wilson) seems a thing of the past. The imperiousness and openly Socialist Obama of the campaign (FDR) also seem to be missing. The rush to do great things at the risk of overstepping (Clinton) has been there, but mostly via passive-aggressive hints and stealth riders in the phony Stimulus bill. And the pious holier-than-thou attitude and hubris (Carter) have been beaten down by Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi, who seem to be poised to make Obama their bitch.

But Gerald Ford...ah, there's a match. So far the Anointed One has tried to exit a press conference through a window he thought was a door. He has banged his head getting into Marine One (Air Force One is the President's airplane, Marine One is his helicopter). I'm waiting for him to fall tuckus over teakettle down the stairs next, only to rise from the floor and proclaim, "Live from New York! It's Saturday Night!"

---

President Obama's first month has been enlightening. As I mentioned earlier, it appears that Senate Majority Leader (and planet's biggest flaming a-hole) Harry Reed and House Majority Leader (and single most imperious, hypocritical, and corrupt politician outside of Hugo Chavez) Nancy Pelosi have set out to make Obama their bitch. The two of them wrested control of the Stimulus bill from the President and made it apparent through their actions that he needed to sit down, shut up, and let the REAL politicians handle this.

Obama needs to put those two in their place -- and soon -- if he wants to have any chance at all at a successful presidency. It will be a long 4 years if he doesn't.

---

I am truly thankful that Obama has shown little of the Wilson-like ruthlessness I saw in him shortly after the election. That said, he and his Team Donkey cohorts seem bound and determined to ram a raft of socialist BS down our throats, recession/depression be damned!

There is also the little matter of the Fairness Doctrine. The Dems and the President seem to be taking baby steps -- mostly through veiled statements, hints, and posturing -- towards reimplementing this patently anti-First Amendment POS in order to shut out opposition voices. Will it happen? Sure! These people are not just ruthless, they're megalomaniacal. But -- and it's a big "but" -- I'm convinced that it won't survive a Court challenge...at least for now. If Obama can be patient and wait for one of the more conservative Justices to retire.........who knows? It's not like the Courts actually enforce the Constitution as written any more.

---

Political pundits make it a game to "grade" a President. "His grade for the first [n] days is...". I'm not going to go there...at least not in the traditional sense. I don't grade a President for "effectiveness", as Big Media (the BM for short) would. I grade a President on how his policies and leadership affect the lives and liberties of the American people.

For his first month in office, I give The Anointed One a D. His grade reflects the following negatives.

1. The feelers he's put out about the Fairness Doctrine
2. His (hijacked by Reed/Pelosi) phony Stimulus bill.
3. The new "Health Effectiveness Czar" position created in the Stimulus bill; it's the 'camel's nose' into the tent of socialized medicine.
4. His pre-selection of which White House reporters will be allowed to ask questions at press conferences.

He didn't get an F. Why? Because, as of the moment, he hasn't imposed any new enslaving burdens on the American people. It's something to hang your hat on, I suppose. He's ahead of King George the Dim, who gets an 8-year grade of F.

---

Look for His Holiness to be more aggressive in the next month or so, as the "Amateur Hour" effect starts to dissipate. Who knows? He may shed Jerry Ford and take on one of the other four presidential personalities by then. I hope not. Jerry Ford I can live with.

---

Vulture Droppings - catching up

Vulture droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

The past month it's been pretty hard to keep up with all of the stuff happening out there in the world. It's coming at us fast and furious, and it's not showing any signs of let up. As such, I wanted to 'drop' a bunch of items here so that I could clear some of the backlog.

---

I've made the big time. I've been added to the Voxologisti - the blogger links on Vox Popoli, Vox Day's blog. Okay, so there are about 100 other blogs featured there. But I'm one of them!

BTW, I can't recommend Vox Popoli strongly enough. He's always got a strong take on the issues, and it's always a great read.

---

Mark has a beef with Obama's early proclamations.

Subject: Gas

Heard on the news last night that one of Obama's 1st acts as pres. will be to overturn Bush's efforts to explore and drill for more oil & natural gas. Hello $5.00 gasoline and higher utility rates!! Boy I love Lefties!!!

I hadn't heard about this. I did a quick web-blast, and found stories saying that BHO was "considering" overturning this edict of the Rex Americana. To me, it seems that BHO is following in the footsteps of the Clintons by sending up trial balloons to see exactly what he can get away with. If there isn't a general public outcry about a particular "balloon", he'll know that it's something he can get away with.

Another trial balloon floating about is in regards to the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. I want to emphasize in the strongest possible language that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine, coupled with the extraordinary powers now vested in the Office of the President thanks to King George the Dim, could very likely spell the end of freedom of speech in this country. Don't think that the Lefties will limit its implementation to just TV and radio -- the Internet will be included, too -- maybe not right away, but eventually.

For a guy who's supposed to be a visionary and a uniter, he's sure quick to embrace (a) rule by edict, (b) sneaky Clintonista tactics, and (c) suppression of Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

Whether it's King George the Dim doing it, or BHO doing it, rule by Executive Order runs contrary to everything our founding fathers believed in. The fact that he's already deciding which edicts he will issue two months before he takes office leads me to believe that he'll follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and use the Constitution as toilet paper.

---

dw also chimes in, on a different theme. This was obviously written before I had a chance to review the game.

Subject: WTF VULTURE

A Monday night like no other. Yes, I am talking the 9ers. OMG, were they something else. Down to the last 4 seconds. Oh, I forgot, you Eastern sleepy heads were fast asleep while this loyal fan in AZ watched the whole firggin game. A disappointment - NO!! I love Singletary - He walks the sidelines with AUTHORITY! I like the Cards since moving here but THE 9ERS LIVE ON and on my walls. So sad to see the Vulture swooped right over that one. Hey Vulture, take time to smell the desert. Great game and actually some hope for my beloved 9ers!!!

dw, I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, the result of the game was disappointing. But you can see a palpable difference in the attitudes of the players. Their attitudes are starting to mirror the attitude of the Head Coach. Mike Singletary is a man among men, a giant, a legend of the game of professional football. I love what he is doing with the team. I think that, ultimately, after he's done making all of his rookie coaching mistakes, he'll end up being one of the top-notch Head Coaches in the league. Mark. My. Words.

The Niners, like the South, shall rise again!

---

Have you noticed the slew of articles pointing out that there is zero accountability over the financial bail-out money being distributed hither-and-yon to Friends of Henry Paulson, Inc? Have you noticed that, rather than purchasing the worthless mortgages from financial institutions, as Congress had promised they would do when they passed that steaming pile of legislation, they are, instead, purchasing stock in the financial institutions themselves? I wish I was making that up. I really do.

Fascist economics: Fascists believe in joint ownership of business/industry between private interests and the government, or private ownership with government oversight of said businesses.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

---

Last item: the people who are constantly telling us how bigoted and intolerant we are seem to think its okay to threaten and harass those whose viewpoints don't match their own.

Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

The temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was evacuated before a hazardous materials crew determined the envelope's contents were not toxic, said FBI spokesman Jason Pack.

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

Let's just imagine, if you will, that the roles were reversed. Let's imagine that Prop 8 had WON, and the Mormons were picketing and heckling the gays. Then a package of white powder is received by a gay organization, requiring evacuation of the building and perhaps immediate medical attention for the poor clerk who opened the package. Under those conditions, would the news story have been buried about 12 column inches down the page on the Drudge Report? Or would it have been the headline? Would it be completely ignored by the websites of ABC news, CBS news, and NBC news? Would it be ignored by CNN.com, and hidden in the 'US news' page on MSNBC.com? Because that's the treatment the story of the Mormon temples receiving white powder is receiving as of 2:30 EST today.

I'm just saying...

Rioting....for peace?!?!?!?

Well, it looks like I'm getting my Chicago '68 after all, complete with unwashed hippy(-like) maggots and cops in riot gear busting heads. I just thought it would be for the Team Donkey convention, not the Team Elephant convention. The irony of destructive violence as part of a protest for peace apparently hasn't crossed the cerebral cortex of these reptilians.

Police said Tuesday they arrested 286 people during Monday's event. Most of the estimated 10,000 people in the march were peaceful, but small groups that police said numbered about 200 broke windows, slashed tires and harassed delegates.

Harassed delegates? How about assaulted delegates.

Look, if you want to protest, protest. It's a Constitutionally protected right. But when you resort to violence against innocent persons, you've crossed a line.

Yes, it is an unjust war. Yes, we shouldn't be there. Yes, we need to stop playing policeman for the planet. Just try to get your message across like an adult, okay?

Ron Paul did.

The sheeple have spoken

Just when I thought I couldn't possibly get any more pessimistic about the restoration of our freedoms, I come across this little tidbit.

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary

---

31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary

Okay. I want you to focus on certain keywords.

Require.
Force.

Even with the words "force" and "require" (the same thing when we're talking about government), these empty-headed sheeple thought that speech limitation is a swell idea.

I can't believe there is one person who favors the limitation of speech via government coercion, let alone almost half the f'ing populous!!!

Good God.

Wiener of the Week

The WotW this week is a group of people that feels persecuted and hated. They're constantly whining about how the culture is being taken over by those who think differently than themselves. They take every display of this group's beliefs as a personal assault. And, no, I'm not talking about liberals. I'm talking about strident atheists.

Vox Day calls them "socially autistic". I'll buy that. These clowns think that the display of any Christian symbol anywhere is a direct threat to their person, and they're not afraid to be vocal about it.

Their latest crusade (ironic choice of words, no?) is to ban Christian-themed license plates.

You've seen the dopey "theme" plates. Penn State Alumna. Miami Dolphins. Save the bay. Choose life. It seems like every imaginable group is pushing to get its own particular personalization. And, trust me, if Maryland ever came out with a 49ers-themed plate, I'd be all over it.

I rather doubt that anyone thinks that by putting out a Miami Dolphins-themed plate the state of Florida is endorsing the Dolphins over any other football team. You don't see Tampa Bay fans panicking over that, do you?

But the autistic atheists think that one Christian-themed plate is one too many.

[T]he plates may constitute a state sanctioning of one religion over another, and that raises the ire of non-Christians and free speech advocates.

"Free speech advocates". Now there's an oxymoron!

These people don't want free speech for anyone but themselves. Express your love for Christ, expect to be shouted down by the "free speech advocates".

For putting their little tender sensibilities ahead of the free-speech rights of Christians, strident atheists are the Wiener of the Week.

Don't think it can't happen here -- part deux

Lest you think I was being alarmist last week when I wrote about the arrest of 2 preachers in Norway, here's something a little closer to home.

A priest is being investigated as a potential criminal under a federal "hate crimes" law for quoting from the Bible, and he's being targeted using a Canadian provision under which no defendant ever has been acquitted, according to a new report.

Pete Vere, a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist, has reported on the prosecution of Father Alphonse de Valk, a pro-life activist known across Canada, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission – "a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it" – at CatholicExchange.com.

"What was Father de Valk's alleged 'hate act'?" Vere wrote.

"Father defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman," he wrote.

So...all of this "tolerance" and political correctness is, what? Only for preferred groups? I mean, if an Imam had said the same things, would the reaction have been the same? Would the Ministry of Love...excuse me, the Human Rights Commission...be so quick to leap on that religious leader to make an example of him?

We're headed in the exact same direction that Europe and Canada traveled before us. Free speech is under attack on all fronts, not the least of which is religious free speech (provided it isn't Muslim religious free speech). Only a major stink from the populous will prevent this inevitability, and I'm not confident that the sheeple of this country are up for the task. Are you?

Don't think it can't happen here!

You hear about these things happening in China. In Saudi Arabia. In Pakistan. In Indonesia. In parts of Africa. But in Norway?!?!?

Two preachers, including an American who specializes in delivering the message of the Gospel in public places, have been arrested and face a July trial for carrying a sign telling people about Jesus at a freedom celebration in Norway.

We're talking about Norway, a country that has a long history of Christianity -- in fact, more than 1,000 years of history as a Christian nation. Norway's constitution is SUPPOSED to permit the free exercise of religion.

In Norway's case, the concept of being a "Christian nation" has to be defined legally, culturally and historically. Article 2 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway declares that:

All inhabitants of the Realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion.

And yet, when you read this article, you are saddened to see that Norway has become part of the post-Christian socialist morass that is modern EUtopia.

As recently as the early 1970's Norway was culturally Christian. Now Christianity is oppressed. Don't think it can't happen here. It's already on its way. They call it multiculturalism. I call it "divide and conquer".

Military Freedom(?) of Speech

I'm not sure why Admiral Mullen felt compelled to write this warning. But I know that the fact that he wrote it unnerves me somewhat.

The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the United States approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

"The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times," wrote Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway."

Is it just me, or is Admiral Mullen afraid of something beyond the scope of routine candidate support from among the troops? Like the writer said, this is a most unusual step by the JCS. I certainly don't recall ever seeing anything like this before.

How does one interpret this? Is the Admiral telling the troops that they cannot engage in Constitutionally protected activities (as one would surely be inclined to think given the wording of his warning)? Or...and I'm just pulling this out of my nether regions...is he afraid of what might happen to military funding if President Obama rightly perceives that the military rank-and-file are more disposed to Senator McCommie than to him? I'm just saying....