BO Stops No Bucks

White House apologizes for low-flying plane - CNN.com

The BO media love fest is truly amazing to watch. Gee, I wonder who it is that would have been responsible had one of the AF-1 747's been dispatched over lower Manhattan for a "photo op" during the Bush administration???


So why are BO's popularity numbers high? EVERYTHING at this point that can be cast in some sort of a positive light is attributed to his brilliance, and NOTHING that is "stupid, ham-handed, or just flat out a human error, made by all" is attributed to his worshipfulness.

Again, **IF THE TREATMENT OF BOTH PARTIES WAS THE SAME** this level of treatment for a story would be fine by me -- report it, blame the staffie that did it and the the FAA, and just "move on". Were the shoe on the other foot though, responsibility would be driven to the top (where it always is, but can never be fully covered because we really do put humans in those positions). I'd bet dollars to donuts if the shoe were on the other foot we would have to be talking about "how much did this cost" -- and "is this a campaign expense, or a legitimate government expense?".

I can't imagine it being useful for anything but a campaign expense -- but I'll bet it isn't being charged that way by BO, and no doubt after the hullabaloo got over, it would have to be by a Republican. A Republican President woudl lose the WEEKS news cycle on this and come out -- "how did it happen", "when did you know", "what was the purpose?", "what did it cost and who is paying"?, "will there be reimbursement of the companies that lost work hours for people having to leave the office?" ... lawsuits for pain and suffering for those that were there on 9-11 ... the list would just go ON and ON and ON ... until even most moderates would just be SICK of it.

However, to follow what happened in the Bush administration, such things leave a "bad taste in your mouth" even if you generally agree with the President's politics and even him personally -- seeing stuff like this drug through the media for a week, or weeks is just "unseemly", it adds "the patina of incompetence". Were the shoe on the other foot, I may well be unhappy primarily with the media, but I would be "unhappy" -- and clearly would realize that if someone in the WH had not made a mistake, there would be no coverage.

BO Throwing In Towel on Assault Weapons Ban?

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban - The First 100 Days- msnbc.com

Were that it were true. My bet is that once they get their 60 in the Senate they will try at least SOMETHING.

The Truth

100 days in office, Obama coronated Messiah

Imagine if they were "having fun" with the image of Mohamed! I love the title of the image; "The Truth". Reference to "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"?

As I saw this, I was thinking of the BO symbol

I was wondering who the last leader was to have a symbol of their own?

Buy an Assault Weapon!

Op-Ed Contributor - What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? - NYTimes.com

If Jimmy Carter is against it, then I'm for it, and it must be important for America -- I'm not going to be a slave to that rule like the Statist's were against W, but it isn't a bad starting position. The best use of his writing is to see how a Statist argues:

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

This is a CLASSIC Statist argument. The ONLY people who would want an Assault Weapon are people that:
1). want to kill policemen
2). what to go to a school or workplace and stack up victims / commit suicide

A conservative person looking at a point wants to understand BOTH sides. So here is the other side. No real need to run off there. EVERY major hunting gun is rooted in a military gun -- it is simply much easier to take whatever the current military platform is and adapt it to civilian hunting use. NONE of the guns banned by the "assault weapons ban" are in fact "assault weapons", because none of them have the selector switch to shoot full auto. That was made illegal in the '30s. If Carter is referring to anything at all, he is referring to a STYLE of gun -- black, collapsible stock, shrouded barrel and large magazines. They are often referred to as "black guns" -- unsurprisingly, because they are almost always painted black.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

Let's similarly look at these "arguments"; Those numbers of deaths. How many of those were due to assault weapons? Apparently Jimmuh wants us to believe a large number, but we all know that is not true -- as does Jimmuh! See above, the ONLY people that buy Assault Weapons are those that want to kill cops or mass murder. His stats are of course COMPLETELY idiotic, because they INCLUDED murder and suicide, which are ALREADY ILLEGAL. Assault Weapons are used in < 1% of all crime. Crime went DOWN when the Assault Weapon ban went off. Banning Assault Weapons is has no purpose relative to crime or consumer safety.

I've covered the "Mexican Issue" elsewhere -- classic Statist argument to claim "ONLY" some group supports it. So what? That has no effect on truth or falsehood. Truth isn't determined by poll numbers. If Jimmuh thinks it is, then he ought to clearly be very quiet since Reagan completely trashed him in '80, so the definition of "truth" is "poll says", then Jimmuh is a loser. The guns used in Mexico drug wars are FULL AUTO -- those are ALREADY ILLEGAL HERE !!!! Everyone is entitled to their opionion, but not to their own facts.

WOW, a class of firearm DESIGNED to only kill ONLY policemen and civilians??? But wait! Why would cops carry them??? Do they want to just kill each other and civilians??? Like what happens? You point the Assault Weapon at a "criminal" and the bullets go seek out cops or innocent bystranders??? I've shot a few thousand rounds at paper targets with my Assault Weapon, and so far no bystanders or police killed -- does that mean that all the folks at the gun range when I was shooting were criminals, and thus saved??? I mean Jimmuh is a Nobel Prize winner -- just like Al Gore and Yassir Arafat, so he MUST know what he was talking about.

BO's "Pantywaist" Global Standing

Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly? :: Gerald Warner

Ah yes, the Brits. Sometimes it takes someone from across the pond to note the nakedness of the emperor:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

Remember when any foreign criticism of a US President was trumpeted from the MSM as if it had been handed down from God Almighty? Bush just HORRIBLY "reduced the standing" of America "in the world" -- well yes, in the eyes of the French cheese eating surrender monkeys, or the German engineering Saddam reactor sales team, but like most opinions, it is VERY unlikely that the WHOLE world was in one accord with our brilliant MSM. They certainly aren't now!

President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya's administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

Yes, BO is a hero to enemies of America both here and abroad. He is fast on the track to seeing if he can't start rounding up some of those awful political enemies on the right with the Homeland Security shock troops. Based on his books, he hates America because it has a lot of white folks in it, and he doesn't like them very much. They are all RACIST you know -- I think that is why they elected him President, they had a lot of guilt and self-loathing and thought it would be cathartic to have a Black racist destroying their nation.

Liberty and Tyranny

Subtitle: A Conservative Manifesto, by Mark Levin. I've never read anything by this guy, I've barely heard his name, but ran into the book recommendation off Amazon due to earlier purchases. I didn't learn a lot new since I pretty much keep it with this stuff, but it MAY be a useful "summary book", although I'm not sure it is going to go very far at resonating with any "moderates" yet until the nation descends a whole lot farther.

I like his designation of the "liberal" as "statist". I've talked a number of a times about the difficulty with the term "liberal", since it is anything BUT "liberal" in all of the cases but a narrow band of largely morality related to sex. "Fascist" or "Totalitarian" would be closer to the truth than "liberal", and while I like the Sowel term "un-constrained" even better, the amount of education required to make that term meaningful to enough people is too large. "Statist" is short, and I think gets the critical point across well enough.

I'll start with his Reagan quote at the end of the book:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same , or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free".

Mark's comment is "We conservatives need to get busy", which is hard to disagree with, but after reading the book, one can easily despair. To be a conservative is to accept this reality in as much truth as we can muster and maybe most of all to accept the flawed and limited capacites of ourselves as humans within the reality. For most conservatives, we pray for the strength of a higher power/reality to help us do that.

Mark draws a quote from Washington's farewell address:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and m0rality are indespensible results -- and let us wtih caution indulge in the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion"

Levin goes on to say:

"How can it be said, as it often is, that moral order is second to liberty when one cannot survive without the other? A people cannot remain free and civilized without moral purposes, constraints and duties. What would be left but relativism manifesting itself as anarchy, followed by tyranny and brute force?"

He says this on the issue of judicial precedent relative to the Supreme Court:

"If words and their meaning can be manipulated or ignored to advance the Statist's political and policy preferences, what then binds the allegiance to the Statist's words? Why should today's law bind future generations if yesterday's lawy does not bind this generation? Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?"

One of the things this book does a good job of is showing just how far we have already strayed what is the obvious intent of the Constitution, and how perilous that makes our hold on ANY remaining liberty. While I fear we are a LONG way from getting the kind of control that would be needed to move court rulings back to original intent, I find his arguement extremely persuasive.

He provides this excellent FDR quote on the subject of FICA:

Those taxes were never problems of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll taxes there so as the give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program".

There is arrogance, and then there is universal and perpetual narcissim of the the FDR and BO sort. The separation of "means" (economics) from "politics". As Burke put it: "What is the use of discussion a man's abstract right to food or medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and adminstering them. In that deliveration I shal always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics". Once could easily add, "also before the politician, lawyer, or academic.

The book does a good job of exposing the Ponzi scheme of FICA and medicare, and the fact that all the politicians that promulgated them were well aware that the programs were ruiniousin the future, but sure to be popular in the present. I believe what even the most cynical supporters of the programs underestimated was the insidius ways which they instituted a general irresponsibilty for investment for old age, the idea that it is "OK" or somehow even "virtuous" to fail to pass anything on the the succeeding generation, save debt and ever greater future obligations. The spirtual and moral rot of FICA and subsequent "entitlements", along with the bold faced lies promulgated by their supporters went a very long way to creating the culture of a corrupt "spend it today, have someone else pay it tomorrow" US attitude.

I could go on. He has decent coverage of the Sub-Prime debacle, environmentalism, unions, and other topics, but those were some highlights. I recommend the book -- at some point I likely ought to check into other items that Levin has written.

Pelosi on a Rope?

PRUDEN: Steady descent into third world - Washington Times

Conservatives essentially have nothing left to lose, so a couple of us were reduced to noodling on the thought that if BO can manage to let North Korea get BOTH nukes and ballistic missiles, potentially San Francisco would be a target of choice. So, assuming that Pelosi is home for the weekend, would that be a bad thing?

The point is essentially moot, since we have 100% Democrats in charge, so we can of course rest completely easy, as can Nancy. Only fools would not have complete faith in BO and his talented minions to keep this nation completely safe.

We do notice the increasing movement toward a "3rd world Amerika". If Bush's lawyers need to attend a necktie party, it seems that Nancy from the Intelligence Committee that was fully aware of the "torture" would need to be an active bouncing broken neck participant! As long as we are supposed to start enjoying conversion of policy decisions to criminal proceedings, ti seems that BO could get a lot more right wing support if he just left Nancy swinging from a rope until all that was left was her bleached bones.

No reason to apologize for that kind of thinking, seems like it would be right in line with the perspecitive from the BO Luo tribe!

Krugman's America has a Soul?

Op-Ed Columnist - Reclaiming America’s Soul - NYTimes.com

Wow, Paulie is a pretty strong leftist, I always thought he would have been a strict "randomness is god" materialist. Why would nature, let alone a nation, suddenly develop "a soul", and what would it look like?

Well, certainly not the Constitution to Paulie -- I've not seen any limits on what he finds acceptable for confiscation of private property, let alone the power of the federal government. He seems to be very sure of himself though.

No, it isn’t, because America is more than a collection of policies. We are, or at least we used to be, a nation of moral ideals. In the past, our government has sometimes done an imperfect job of upholding those ideals. But never before have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for. “This government does not torture people,” declared former President Bush, but it did, and all the world knows it.

Never? Golly. Like what "moral ideals"? Hatred for Republicans? BJs for all in the oval office and perjury is cool as long as you are a Democrat? Buying votes with other peoples money? Avoiding putting caterpillars on terrorists?

Slick Willie was doing foreign renditions, and it was the CIA that asked for the ability to use "enhanced interrogation", not the Bush administration. Anybody want to take a guess how Slick might have handled any request for executive guidance on interrogation methods? I'm thinking "don't ask, don't tell" was probably a really important Slickster policy for a lot more than what we know about.

For the fact is that officials in the Bush administration instituted torture as a policy, misled the nation into a war they wanted to fight and, probably, tortured people in the attempt to extract “confessions” that would justify that war. And during the march to war, most of the political and media establishment looked the other way.

WOW, that is quite a paragraph -- first of all, Paulie knows "facts". He has defined the line for torture for starters, and there is no need to write any memos trying to figure it out. Writing memos is beside the point -- the fact that the previous 4 CIA directors as well as the current one did not want even the memos released is a "non-point". It was BUSH that INSTITUTED the "torture policy" -- the fact that the CIA REQUESTED it has nothing to do with it. What is more, Pauli knows WHY! It was to extract "false confessions" to justify the war!! Man, that is really amazing -- how come both the Senate and the house, including most Democrats voted for the war WITHOUT any such confessions at all??

How mushy does one's head have to be to listen to this guy? I would love to see Pauli spend say "15 min" pointing out his "vision of the soul of America" to old General US Grant and General Sherman in a nice Union camp after one of the major battles. Suppose they ever had any captured rebel soldiers that needed to be asked a few questions? Suppose they wrote a lot of "memos"?

My guess is that Pauli would pee his pants the first instant Grant or Sherman focused his attention on him. His inflated ego would just start folding in on itself as he realized that America really did have a soul, but it was once so real and powerful that just being exposed to a couple of embodiments of it would be too much for the sort of maggot that now infests the rapidly decaying carcass of our once great nation.

Freddie Foster?

Freddie Mac's Acting CFO Found Dead - WSJ.com

As soon as I heard about this "apparent suicide", I thought back to the Clinton years. For some strange reason, Democrat administrations seem to have a lot of "tragic events" -- the Vince Foster "suicide" was one of the marque events of the Clinton regeime, but there were plenty of others -- Ron Brown dying in a plane crash, a plane crash with a bunch of Secret Services guys on it coming back from a Presidential vacation in Jackson hole are a couple that come to mind.

The Democrats have a lot of Union and Mob ties, and I often wonder if any of those are "contributors" to any of these tragic events. The MSM has been keeping the fact that Democrats were driving the easing up of all the credit restrictions since the '70s, and especially that all of these finanacial firms have been pouring money into the democrat party by the bucket load since at least the early 2Ks. Why?

"Follow the money" is a standard MSM line when the Republicans have any power, but right now there seems to be much less concern in doing that.

Would BO, Dodd and Barney Frank be willing to have someone killed that might be going to something stinky that linked some of the "wrong people" to the pure and shining Democrat party of the people? Nah, of course not. To even consider that, one has to be so foolish to think that Global Warming is questionable, nations might not become prosperous by just running humongous deficits and not everyone will be nice to you just because you bow to them and apologize for existing.

We don't have any time for that radical thinking today. Everything is fine.

Barocky Road

In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: "Barocky Road."

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes.

The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient.

The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.

The cost is $100.00 per scoop.

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful waffle cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you.

Thus you are left with an empty wallet, no change, holding an empty cone, with no hope of getting any ice cream.

Are you feeling stimulated?

BO Knows Better

RealClearPolitics - The Interrogation Memorandums

One of the terrible things about Bush was that he was "arrogant", which is another way of saying that he didn't kneel to the left on every issue (only massive spending and prescription drugs). Well, that is sinful, you have to agree with those lefties 100%, they don't believe in diversity of thought.

The four most recent CIA Directors-John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden-all recommended against the release of these memorandums. President Obama's own newly appointed Director of CIA, Leon Panetta, also recommended against releasing the documents. Yet President Obama, in a seemingly relentless effort to discredit his predecessor, George W. Bush, made the memorandum available to the public anyway.

See, BO, the failed Community Organizer from Chicago knows more about gathering intelligence than the previous 4 CIA directors (2 of them appointed by Clinton) as well as his own current director, Leon Panetta. BO must be a joy to work for -- if you aren't going to take the advice of the folks you hired to do a job on a self-inflicted wound like the release of these memos, it is hard to imagine how you will have any working relationship at all when the time comes where other forces are dictating the game, lives are on the line, and outcomes are uncertain. Not surprising though, BO has never led anything in his life, he has probably never learned "you need to dance with the one you brung".

BO is obviously still a WHOLE lot more interested in defeating Republicans than al Quaeda. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome of his actions is going to be a lot of dead Americans. I'm not sure if he figures "we deserve it" and he will just do more aopology tours after a major city is a cinder, or we are burying 100's of K smallpox dead in trenches, or what. I guess as long as he can win the "torture" PR campaign, his position is "whatever".

Dear Mr President

Dear Mister President:

Thank you for helping my neighbors with their mortgage payments.You know the one's down the street who in the good times refinanced their house several times and bought SUV's, ATV's, RV's, a pool, a big screen, two Wave Runners and a Harley.

But I was wondering, since I am now expected to pay my mortgage and theirs, too, could you arrange for me to borrow their Harley now and then?

They also need help with their credit cards, when will you expect me to start making those payments for them too? I operate with a balanced budget, something neither you nor they seem to understand, but it requires planning and matching income to outflow.

P.S. I almost forgot - they told me they didn't file their income tax return this year. Should I go ahead and file for them or will you be appointing them to cabinet posts?

"Agressive" Interrogation Works?

Bush-era interrogation may have worked, Obama official says - CNN.com

Tell me it isn't so. I thought everyone knew that:

1. The Bush Administration used TORTURE
   
2. It was COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE!! (and they knew it)
   

Now the media generally didn't go all the way to telling you WHY they would continue doing this, but the answers seemed obvious to me:

1. They were stupid
2. They were evil
   
3. Most likely both.
   

But wait, now we find out that "torture" was "something that didn't leave a mark". Putting a fuzzy caterpillar on your terrorist that was afraid of bugs, THAT was acceptable! (but not if it was a stinging caterpillar). In the Clinton administration we pretty much established that it wasn't sex unless pregnancy and multiple births ensued. Now in the BO administration we have discovered that little kids at picnics are regularly torturing their friends if they put a fuzzy caterpillar on them? What's more, the evil lawyers that tried to claim that such was NOT torture ought to be PROSECUTED for their opinion.

I stand corrected, I guess under THIS definition of "torture", it IS really rampant in America -- at summer camp, in the back yard, EVERYWHERE. I've heard that some of the kids (no doubt destined to become evil Republicans) will even make the claim that the caterpillar bites/stings to try to terrorize their victims more! The SADISTS!!

But wait! "aggressive interrogation" works! Wow, what a concept. It is like when the teacher comes into the classroom, sees an insult written on the board and asks "who did it"? According to what the BO administration has now figured out after careful study, if the teacher was to say "nobody leaves this room until I find out", that MIGHT have a better chance of working.

I hope we do a government study on that. Maybe they should try to figure out if people respond to incentives / disincentives in general? Finding out that they did would obviously be a huge piece of new information to the BO administration.

Memo's To Be Proud Of

The Case for the ‘Torture Memos’ by Rich Lowry on National Review Online

I've read a few of the dueling "torture books" -- on the left, the "horror" of any sort of treatment short of a comfy chair, nice bed and three squares a day is of course barbaric. The very idea that any sort of "coercion" at all would be used is simply unconscionable. If that is your standard and you want to accept the consequences of it, then so be it. I really hope they see the treatment of "right wing extremists" as being worthy of such high standards. They seem to be already calling for highly paid Wall Street types that they deem to be responsible for the financial meltdown to be "taken out and shot", "horse whipped", "hung", or some other not very nice sentiment. I'm certain those desires are meant to be figurative, but it is odd how much gusto they seem to be able to gather against those nasty Wall Street types. I wonder if it would help if they realized those folks are 90%+ Democrats and gave tons of money to both BO and the Democrat party to help get control of Washington?

Of course, the stogy issue from the right is to make "torture" almost boring -- we put our special forces guys through waterboarding to help them get familiar with the approach in case it is used on them. Most of them have likely had a couple "boo boos" already in their careers -- fractures, contusions, lacerations, hypothermia, deydration, sleep deprivation, etc, etc, so they have seen some of that more painful side of life. It seems that pain is pretty unavoidable for those that get away from the keyboard / tv / high horse from time to time, so the issue sort of becomes "how much pain" pretty quickly.

Thus, the memos -- "where is the line"? As Lowry points out, in all of human history, and even most all of the countries in the world today, any such thought process isn't even an issue. If one decides that they have a responsibility to their fellow citizens to protect them from folks intent on killing then by any means possible, then what one is interested in is methods that work within some boundary that makes sense. Perfection isn't even a consideration.

I'm reminded of surgeons -- no question, even today with anesthetic, they inflict some severe pain -- in civil war times, the pain often had to be beyond unbearable. They don't WANT to inflict pain any more than a US interrogator, but they know that to not to the surgery is going to be worse than doing it. So too an interrogator, they only want the information, the pain is just a side effect. One would think that your average liberal utilitarian "what provides the most good for the greatest number", and "man is the measure of all things" would not be so bothered. I'm not sure there is any pain that could be inflicted on a baby in a partial birth abortion that would even give them any pause at all, and that has no prospect of saving any lives, only of taking one.

So the memos drag on about using a caterpillar (did these folks ever go camping?), how far you can push the waterboarding, and using using special "walls" to make a loud noise so the person thinks they are hurt worse then they are. Now that BO has spoiled all the surprise, getting captured by the US must be at worst as scary as a fun house where you can sit and watch everyone come out the other side. Now our enemies know that US policy never did allow any "lasting injury", and the new policy appartently doesn't allow any detainees to feel more stressed than your average Carribean cruise.

I'm wondering if we are going to maintain this attitude when we lose a city, a stadium, or a few million people to germ or poison attack? One would have thought that 9-11 would be enough for a little "learning experience", but apparently not. Lessons are so quickly forgotten by some parts of our population. I can kind of understand forgetting 32-53 and 65-83, but 2001 is < 8 years ago. One would think we would have more national memory than that. "The short and the dead" I guess.

Those Nasty Christians

State retracts militia report | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader

Gotta love this.

Missouri Highway Patrol Superintendent James F. Keathley ordered the Missouri Information Analysis Center to "permanently cease distribution" of the Feb. 20 report, which labels fundamentalist Christians, members of third-party political movements, strict followers of the U.S. Constitution and people who oppose taxes, abortion and illegal immigration as possible members of militias.

Gee, I wonder if a state had profiled say "Muslims, Hispanics, and Blacks" as potential "terrorists, illegal aliens, and drug users" there would have been any outcry from Federal anti-discrimination and "hate speech" types? Suppose that would have lasted 2 months????

Oh wait -- Christians, Ron Paul followers, folks that believe the Constitution means something, think they are better judges of what to do with their money than the government DO sound like REALLY radical types!!!

Uh, wonder where the ACLU is on the profiling thing in this case???