Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Red Tape Rising: A 2011 Mid-Year Report


Red Tape Rising: A 2011 Mid-Year Report

By James Gattuso and Diane Katz
July 25, 2011

SHARE

Abstract: Following a record year of rulemaking, the Obama Administration is continuing to unleash more costly red tape. In the first six months of the 2011 fiscal year, 15 major regulations were issued, with annual costs exceeding $5.8 billion and one-time implementation costs approaching $6.5 billion. No major rulemaking actions were taken to reduce regulatory burdens during this period. Overall, the Obama Administration imposed 75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011, with annual costs of $38 billion. There were only six major deregulatory actions during that time, with reported savings of just $1.5 billion. This flood of red tape will undoubtedly persist, as hundreds of new regulations stemming from the vast Dodd–Frank financial regulation law, Obamacare, and the EPA’s global warming crusade advance through the regulatory pipeline—all of which further weakens an anemic economy and job creation, while undermining Americans’ fundamental freedoms. Action by Congress as well as the President to stem this regulatory surge is essential.

The Hidden Tax

Most Americans are all too familiar with the income, property, and sales taxes that shrink paychecks and increase the cost of most every product and service. Just as significant—although less visible—are the ever-increasing costs of regulation. Every facet of daily life, including how Americans heat their homes and light their rooms, what food they buy and how they cook it, the toys that occupy their children and the volume of their television commercials, are controlled by government’s ballooning compendium of dos and don’ts. The attendant costs of each one constitutes a “hidden tax.”
Many people may think that regulatory costs are a business problem. Indeed, they are, but the costs of regulation are inevitably passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices and limited product choices. Basic items, such as toilets, showerheads, lightbulbs, mattresses, washing machines, dryers, cars, ovens, refrigerators, television sets, and bicycles, all cost significantly more because of government decrees on energy use, product labeling, and performance standards that go well beyond safety—as well as hundreds of millions of hours of testing and paperwork to document compliance.
There is no official accounting of total regulatory costs, and estimates vary. Unlike the budgetary accounting of direct tax revenues, Washington does not track the total burdens imposed by its expansive rulemaking. An oft-quoted estimate of $1.75 trillion[1] annually represents nearly twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year.[2]

Increased Burdens in 2011

The cost of new regulations, however, can be tracked, and it is growing substantially. Following record increases in fiscal year (FY) 2010, regulatory burdens have continued to increase in 2011. Overall, from the beginning of the Obama Administration to mid-FY 2011, regulators have imposed $38 billion in new costs on the American people, more than any comparable period on record.
In total, according to the Government Accountability Office, 1,827 rulemaking proceedings were completed during the first six months of FY 2011 (between October 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011). Of these, 37 were classified as “significant/substantive” or “major,” meaning they each had an expected economic impact of at least $100 million per year.
Fifteen of those rulemakings increased regulatory burdens (defined as imposing new limits or mandates on private-sector activity).[3] No major rulemaking actions decreased regulatory burdens during the first half of fiscal 2011.
The annual costs of the 15 new major regulations total more than $5.8 billion, according to estimates by the regulatory agencies. In addition, the regulations impose nearly $6.5 billion in one-time implementation costs.[4]
It should be noted that the additional costs include $1.8 billion annually for compliance, and one-time implementation expenses of $5.2 billion, stemming from new emissions limits on industrial and commercial boilers and incinerators. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced it would reconsider these rules, and postponed their effective dates pending that reconsideration. But the rules remain on the books. The postponement will extend until judicial review is concluded or the agency completes its reconsideration, whichever is earlier.[5]While the reconsideration of these costly rules is welcome, the continuing uncertainty constitutes a significant cost, as businesses are constrained from undertaking expansion, developing new products, or making efficiency improvements.
The totals also include five sets of complex regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to control financial institutions. While the SEC estimated the costs imposed by these rules at just over $180 million, that figure only reflects a minuscule portion of the total burden. For example, costs related to the staff time required to comply with three of the regulations are not included in the SEC’s estimate, although that may constitute three-quarters of the total man hours required to comply. Specifically, the SEC calculated the costs of “outside” professional services needed to fulfill three of the new regulations, but did not include costs for the 317,926 hours of “internal” work that regulatory compliance requires. Perhaps more important, the figures do not include reductions in efficiency or forgone innovation, the costs of which could dwarf the direct compliance burden.[6]
Other notable new rules include expansion of the Americans with Disabilities Act, restrictions on the expenditures of health insurers, and increases in minimum wages for immigrants.

Unprecedented Growth in Red Tape in the Obama Era

The new regulations continue a multiyear trend of heavier burdens placed on the U.S. economy and the American people. This trend did not begin with the presidency of Barack Obama; the Administration of George W. Bush, for example, generated more than $60 billion in additional annual regulatory costs.[7]
However, the rate at which burdens are growing has accelerated under the Obama Administration. During its first 26 months—from taking office to mid-FY 2011—the Obama Administration has imposed 75 new major regulations with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion. During the same period, six major rulemaking proceedings reduced regulatory burdens by an estimated $1.5 billion, still leaving a net increase of more than $38 billion.
The actual cost of the new regulations is almost certainly higher, for several reasons. First, the reported totals do not include “non-major” rules, i.e., those deemed unlikely to cost $100 million or more annually. Moreover, as agencies estimate the impacts of their own rules, costs are routinely minimized. Nor do agencies always analyze the costs of proposed rules. Twelve of the 75 major regulations adopted by the Obama Administration through the end of March 2011 did not include quantified costs.
The regulations imposed include fuel economy and emission standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, with an annual cost of $10.8 billion; energy conservation standards for lightbulbs, with an annual cost of $700 million; constraints on “short sales” of securities, at $1.2 billion; and a slew of other costly regulations related to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation statute and Obamacare health regulations.
No other President has burdened businesses and individuals with a higher number and larger cost of regulations in a comparable time period. President Bush was in his third year before new costs hit $4 billion. President Obama achieved the same in 12 months.

More Regulators, Bigger Budgets

In addition to the costs imposed on the private sector, regulations swell the government workforce and fatten the federal budget. According to a report by the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy and The George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center, regulatory staff at federal agencies (full-time equivalents) increased about 3 percent between 2009 and 2010, from 262,241 to 271,235, and is estimated to rise another 4 percent—to 281,832—in 2011. Federal outlays for developing and enforcing regulations are also expected to grow by 4 percent this year, from $46.9 billion in 2010 (in constant 2005 dollars) to $48.9 billion.[8]
More Costly Regulations Looming. The torrent of new regulation will not end any time soon. The regulatory pipeline is chock full of proposed rules. The spring 2011 Unified Agenda (also known as the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda) lists 2,785 rules (proposed and final) in the pipeline. Of those, 144 were classified as “economically significant.” With each of the 144 pending major rules expected to cost at least $100 million annually, they represent at least $14 billion in new burdens each year.
This is an increase of 15.2 percent in the number of economically significant rules in the agenda between spring 2010 and spring 2011. Moreover, in the past decade, the number of such rules has increased a whopping 102 percent, rising from 71 to 144 since 2001.[9]
More Regulations in the Pipeline
Timid Regulatory Review. In January, responding to criticism that the regulatory burden had grown too onerous, and acknowledging the need to eliminate ineffective and harmful regulations, President Obama issued an executive order calling for an agency-by-agency review of existing regulations. On May 26, the Administration released preliminary results from that review, identifying numerous regulations that could be eased. Among them:
  • Modification of an EPA regulation that defined milk as an “oil,” thus requiring dairy spills to be treated as hazardous. According to the agency, exempting milk from the regulation will save dairies around $1.4 billion over the next 10 years.
  • Elimination of an EPA requirement that gas stations maintain gas vapor recovery systems, which is redundant with air pollution controls on cars today. Estimated savings: $67 million per year.
  • Modification of a Department of Transportation (DOT) requirement that railroads only maintain automated anti-collision systems in areas where they are actually needed. Savings: up to $400 million in implementation costs.
Overall, the Administration claims that the changes identified, if implemented, could reduce regulatory costs by about $1 billion per year.
But it is too soon for Americans to breathe a collective sigh of regulatory relief. The promised burden reductions are still only a fraction of the new burdens being constantly created. Moreover, many of the reforms identified are the low-hanging fruit of regulatory excesses which should have been plucked long ago. The milk regulation has been in place since the 1970s, and a request to eliminate dairies from the regulations had been submitted to the EPA four years ago. Similarly, the problems with the anti-collision systems mandated by the DOT have long been known. In fact, the DOT was sued over the issue more than a year ago by the railroad industry, and the agency only committed to reforming the mandates as part of a legal settlement.
Lastly, it should be noted that independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (considered by many to be the most powerful regulatory agency yet established), did not participate in the initial review process.[10]
The Administration’s review of unnecessary regulations is a step in the right direction, but it should be more serious and comprehensive than what has been offered thus far.

Steps for Congress

To protect Americans and the economy against runaway regulators under any Administration, additional oversight is necessary. Specifically, Congress should take several steps to increase scrutiny of new and existing regulations to ensure that each is necessary, and that costs are minimized. Congress should:
  1. Require congressional approval of new major rules promulgated by agencies. Under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress has the means to veto new regulations. To date, however, that authority has been used successfully only once. Under legislation introduced in the House by Congressman Geoff Davis (R–KY) (H.R. 10) and in the Senate by Senator Rand Paul (R–KY) (S. 299), the review process would be strengthened by requiring congressional approval before any major regulation takes effect. Such a system would ensure a congressional check on regulators, as well as ensure the accountability of Congress itself.
  2. Create a Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis.Congress needs the capability to review proposed and existing rules independently, without reliance on the Office of Management and Budget or the regulatory agencies. A Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis, modeled on the Congressional Budget Office, would provide an important backstop to, and check on, the executive branch’s regulatory powers. Such an office would also help Congress better evaluate the regulatory consequences of the legislation it enacts. While it is easy to blame regulators for excessive rulemaking, much of the problem stems from overly expansive or ill-defined statutory language. A congressional office to review legislation before adoption could help address the problem.
  3. Establish a sunset date for federal regulations. While the President has asked agencies to review their existing rules and eliminate those that are unnecessary, these requirements are insufficient. Even the best plans for periodic review will fall short if there are no consequences when an agency fails to adequately scrutinize the regulations it has imposed. The natural bureaucratic tendency is to leave old rules and regulations in place, even if they have outlived their usefulness. To ensure that substantive review occurs, regulations should automatically expire if not explicitly reaffirmed by the agency through a notice and comment rulemaking. As with any such regulatory decision, this re-affirmation would be subject to review by the courts.

Conclusion

Despite the weak economy, the Obama Administration has continued to increase the regulatory burden on Americans in the first half of FY 2011, with 15 new major regulations imposing $5.8 billion in additional annual costs, as well as $6.5 billion in one-time implementation costs.
From the beginning of the Obama Administration to the end of March 2011, a staggering 75 new major regulations, with costs exceeding $38 billion, have been adopted. While the President has acknowledged the need to rein in regulation, the steps taken to date have fallen far short. The President cannot have it both ways—having identified overregulation as a problem, he must take real and significant steps to rein it in. At the same time, Congress—which shares much of the blame for excessive regulation—must step in, establishing critical mechanisms and institutions to ensure that unnecessary and excessively costly regulations are not imposed on the U.S. economy and the American people. Without such decisive steps, the costs of red tape will continue to grow, and Americans—and the U.S. economy—will be the victims.
James L. Gattuso is Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, andDiane Katz is Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute, at The Heritage Foundation.

Appendix A

Data on the number and cost of rules are based on rules reported to Congress by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) pursuant to the Congressional Review Act of 1996. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Rules Database, athttp://www.gao.gov/legal/congressact/fedrule.html (July 19, 2011).
Rules included are those categorized as either “major” or “significant/substantive.” Rules which do not involve regulations limiting activity or mandating activity by the private sector were excluded. Thus, for instance, budgetary rules which set reimbursement rates for Medicaid or conditions for receipt of agricultural subsidies were excluded.
The GAO database includes rulemakings from all agencies, including independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which are not required to submit analyses to the Office of Management and Budget for review. If an agency did not prepare an analysis, or did not quantify costs, no amount was included, although the rule was included in the count of major rules.
Cost figures were based on Regulatory Impact Analyses conducted by agencies promulgating each rule. The agencies’ totals were then adjusted to constant 2010 dollars using the GDP deflator. Where applicable, a 7 percent discount rate was used. Where a range of values was given by an agency, costs were based on the most likely scenario if so indicated by the agency; otherwise the mid-point value was used. The date of a rule was based, for classification purposes, on the date of publication in the Federal Register. Rules after January 20, 2009, were attributed to the Obama Administration.
In a number of cases, reported costs differ from those reported in previous versions of “Red Tape Rising.” Such changes were made as a result of refinements to our analysis, or to correct errors. The most substantial change was the addition of a rule expanding the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although this rule was published in the Federal Register on September 15, it was not reported to the Government Accountability Office until March 15, after our FY 2010 estimates were published.
As this report focuses on the cost of major rules, rather than the cost-benefit trade-off, no benefits or “negative costs” were included in this study. We believe an awareness of the total costs of regulation being imposed is itself a critical factor in regulatory analysis, in the same way that accounting for federal spending is a critical factor in expenditure analysis. Inclusion of a rule in our totals, however, is not meant to indicate that a particular rule is justified. For actions reducing regulatory burdens, we used estimates provided by agencies that described the savings to consumers or society from the action.

Appendix B

Major Regulations that Increase Private-Sector Burdens
October 2010–March 2011

October 2010

  • October 14, 2010, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, “Regulation and Enforcement: Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf.”Cost: $183.1 million annually
    The interim final regulation amends drilling regulations related to well control, well casing and cementing, secondary intervention, unplanned disconnects, recordkeeping, well completion and well plugging for oil and gas exploration, and development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
  • October 20, 2010, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, “Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans.” Cost: $384.4 million annually
    The final regulation requires the disclosure of certain plan and investment-related information, including fee and expense information, to participants and beneficiaries in participant-directed individual account plans.
  • October 20, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Reporting of Security-Based Swap Transaction Data.” Cost: $50.3 million annually; $6.2 million start-up
    The interim final temporary regulation requires specified counterparties to pre-enactment security-based swap transactions to report certain information to a registered data repository or to the SEC.

November 2010

  • November 15, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers With Market Access.”Cost: $112.9 million annually; $114.4 million start-up. 
    The final regulation requires brokers or dealers trading securities on an exchange or an alternative trading system to establish, document, and maintain a system of risk management controls and supervisory procedures.

December 2010

  • December 1, 2010, Department of Health and Human Services, “Health Insurance Issuers Implementing Medical Loss Ratio Requirements Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”Cost: $948.3 million annually; $48.1 million start-up
    The interim final regulation implements the requirements of Obamacare for insurers to spend a government-regulated ratio of premium revenue on medical care.
  • December 28, 2010, Consumer Product Safety Commission, “Safety Standards for Full-Size Baby Cribs and Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs; Final Rule.” Cost: $387 million start-up
    The final regulation adopts new safety standards for baby cribs.

January 2011

  • January 19, 2011, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Ejection Mitigation; Phase-In Reporting Requirements; Incorporation by Reference.” Cost: $511.8 million annually
    The final regulation establishes a new federal motor vehicle safety standard to reduce the partial and complete ejection of occupants through side windows in crashes, particularly rollover crashes.
  • January 19, 2011, Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, “Wage Methodology for the Temporary Non-agricultural Employment H-2B Program.” Cost: $847.4 million annually. 
    The final regulation amends regulations governing the certification for employment of nonimmigrant workers in temporary or seasonal non-agricultural employment. It also revises the methodology by which the Department of Labor calculates the prevailing wages to be paid to H-2B workers and others in connection with a temporary labor certification.
  • January 25, 2011, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Issuer Review of Assets in Offerings of Asset-Backed Securities.” Cost:$8.4 million annually. (The cost figure only reflects “outside” professional assistance, and not the costs of an additional 6,968 “internal” burden hours.) 
    The final regulation implements a Dodd–Frank provision requiring any issuer registering the offer and sale of an asset-backed security to perform and disclose a review of assets underlying the offering.
  • January 26, 2011, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Disclosure for Asset-Backed Securities Required by Section 943 of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform.” Cost: $2.2 million annually, plus $23 million in one-time up-front costs. (The cost figure only reflects “outside” professional assistance, and not the costs of an additional 286,016 “internal” burden hours.) 
    The regulation implements a Dodd–Frank provision requiring securitizers of asset-backed securities to disclose fulfilled and unfulfilled repurchase requests. It also requires “statistical rating organizations” (credit agencies) to divulge a variety of information about asset-backed securities in any credit rating provided in connection with an offering.

February 2011

  • February 2, 2011, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation and Golden Parachute Compensation.” Cost: $7.8 million annually. (The cost figure only reflects “outside” professional assistance, and not the costs of an estimated 24,942 additional hours of “internal” work.) 
    The final regulation implements a Dodd–Frank provision requiring a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve executive compensation. It also requires companies soliciting votes to approve merger or acquisition transactions to provide disclosure of certain “golden parachute” compensation arrangements and, in some circumstances, to conduct a shareholder advisory vote to approve the golden parachute compensation arrangements.

March 2011

  • March 21, 2011, Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers.” Cost: $545 million annually. 
    The final regulation sets national emission standards for emissions for two “area source” categories: industrial boilers and commercial and institutional boilers.
  • March 21, 2011, Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.”Cost: $1.8 billion annually; $5.2 billion start-up
    The final regulation establishes emission standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters at “major sources” requiring application of the maximum achievable control technology.
  • March 21, 2011, Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units.” Cost: $285.3 million annually; $719.2 million start-up. 
    The final regulation establishes new source performance standards and emission guidelines for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units.
  • March 25, 2011, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, As Amended.” Cost: $121.5 million annually. 
    The regulation and interpretive guidance implements the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The effect of the changes is to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability.
Show references in 

IRAN's NUKE PROG DAMAGED: Stuxnet unleashes malware warfare


Stuxnet unleashes malware warfare

Virus in binary text
(Source: iStockphoto)
Let me tell you about a new form of warfare. Electronic computers have been around since the end of Second World War. Computer viruses have been around since 1971.
In 2009, somebody (and we still don't know who they are) unleashed a very cunning computer virus. It was called Stuxnet, and it successfully attacked nuclear facilities in Iran.
A computer virus is a computer program that, like a biological virus, makes copies of itself and spreads itself from one computer to the next. It can spread via the global internet, a local network, or even a USB memory stick.
Today, the term 'computer virus' is a fairly vague term, so let's use the word malware, where 'mal' means bad.
Malware may or may not be able to reproduce. Malware includes computer viruses, computer worms, spyware, adware and Trojan horses.
A Trojan horse is a program that seems harmless, but has a hidden and evil function. For example, it might use your internet connection and your computer to send out millions of spam emails, while you are peacefully sleeping in your bed.
Other malware might include a program that records all the keystrokes that your fingers do on the keyboard and, whenever you do any online banking, it sends the keystrokes off to someone wicked.
One amazing thing about Stuxnet, and even today we don't know who wrote it, is that it used what is called a 'zero-day vulnerability'. (A vulnerability is a security flaw in your software that will let an outsider in.)
What makes it a zero-day vulnerability is that neither the software manufacturer, nor the anti-virus makers, know that this security flaw exists. Only the person who found it knows about it.
So zero-day vulnerabilities are very powerful.
Even if you have all your recommended patches and updates installed, even if you have disabled the auto-run facility, even if you are operating in a restricted low-level user account and not a high-level administrator account, and even if you have specifically disabled the execution of any programs from a USB memory stick, if you are hit by a zero-day vulnerability in some computer malware, your machine will get infected.
Zero-day vulnerabilities are very powerful, but they are also very rare.
Every year, about 12 million pieces of new malware are released by the forces of darkness. And each year, fewer than twelve of them are zero-day vulnerabilities.
So if a zero-day vulnerability turns up, it can sell on the black market for $100,000.
It's very rare for a piece of computer malware to use even a single zero-day vulnerability.
But Stuxnet had four zero-day vulnerabilities incorporated into it! That is absolutely unprecedented. Whoever made Stuxnet wanted to be darn sure that it would hit its target.
To be even more sure, Stuxnet also used a digital certificate. A Digital Certificate is kind of like a passport. It proves who you are.
In a computer program, it's an encrypted string of bits that prove that the program is legitimate. So when you download an updated version of a program, or an updated driver for a printer, it comes with this digital certificate.
Before Stuxnet, forged or bogus digital certificates had been used. They're a bit like an underage person using a fake ID to get into a bar.
But Stuxnet was the first computer malware to use a genuine, but stolen, digital certificate. So any computer would see this genuine digital certificate and accept that the accompanying program was genuine.
In fact, just to be extra sure, Stuxnet used not just one genuine stolen digital certificate, but two of them!
They were stolen from two companies, RealTek and JMicron, that have their headquarters in the same Hsinchu Science Park in Taiwan.
The Stuxnet malware is huge: 500 kilobytes rather than the usual 10–15 kilobytes. This 500 kilobytes is not wasted on a big image or picture, nor in loose and inefficient coding.
No! Instead, Stuxware is a very dense and efficiently coded ensemble of data and commands. It's all neatly compartmentalised to allow easy updates and modifications, as the target, the Iranian nuclear program, tried to eradicate Stuxnet.
The Iranian nuclear program had, what they call in the trade, an 'air gap'. None of the internal computers in the nuclear program were connected to the internet.
So how did Stuxnet get in? I'll talk about that, and how it got its vaguely malevolent name, next time.

Speak out against Islamic terror? Not at this U.S. hotel

1ST AMENDMENT UNDER FIRE

Speak out against Islamic terror? Not at this U.S. hotel

Author warns future of constitutional republic is in serious jeopardy


Posted: October 18, 2011
8:48 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

AHyatt hotel in Sugar Land, Texas, has abruptly canceled a previously scheduled tea-party event at which author andAtlas Shrugs founder Pamela Gellerwas scheduled to speak on the dangers of Islam.
Geller said the decision came about because the hotel was "intimidated" into censoring her planned speech by "CAIR thugs," referring to the controversial Islamic advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations.
She accused the Hyatt Place of enforcing Islamic law, or Shariah, under which no criticism of Islam is allowed. In Muslim nations, it can be a death penalty offense, Geller noted.
She said pressure from Islamic interests ultimately pressed the hotel to cancel her address to tea party members who had set up the event.
Tea-party backers, then, were forced to find another location, the Sugar Land Community Center, on virtually no notice, Geller said.
"Free speech, the cornerstone of our constitutional republic, is in serious jeopardy," Geller reported today after being informed of the sudden change. "Under the Shariah, criticism of Islam is blasphemy (punishable by death in Muslim countries). This is the death of free speech in the continuing Islamization of America."
A Hyatt employee in Sugar Land, who identified himself only as Brandon, told WND the abrupt change was a "business" decision. But when asked about the links between CAIR and terror, he slammed the phone down.
(Story continues below)
   

Jamie Zimmerman at the company's corporate headquarters issued a statement that said, "In light of the business disruptions anticipated with this event, it has been moved to an alternate location. The hotel thanks the organizers of the event for their cooperation in relocating the event."
And the company refused to answer the question that WND submitted: "Is Hyatt Place Houston aware that CAIR – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – is tied to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic terror organizations, according to federal prosecutors and the FBI, and has been judged in federal court to be a co-conspirator in funding terrorism?"
The company also refused to respond to other questions, such as "What specifically changed between the time Hyatt accepted the reservation and when Hyatt canceled the event?" "Were there outside comments that influenced the decision?" and "What do you mean by 'business disruption?'"

Author Pamela Geller

Asked by WND to answer some of the questions, the company expanded on its earlier statement, with:
Hyatt Place Houston/Sugar Land respects the various opinions expressed by our guests and visitors. In this particular situation, the changing security needs required for the safety of our guests and others on the hotel property and to avoid business disruption prompted us to ask the organizers to move it to an alternate location. We are pleased that the organizers were able to identify a venue better equipped to provide services to ensure the safety and well-being of everyone involved with the event.
"I will never stay at a Hyatt Place again. Ever,"wrote Geller.
"Hyatt Place Houston/Sugar Land received a couple of threatening calls and they surrendered to Islamic supremacists without even firing a shot," she said.
Geller believes that kind of surrender is characteristic of "dhimmitude,"  the second-class status of non-Muslims under Islamic rule.
She explained that "dhimmitude" is "the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word 'dhimmitude' as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. The word 'dhimmitude' comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning 'protected'. Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination."
Robert Spencer added at JihadWatch.orgthat Hamas-linked CAIR "and other Islamic supremacist groups are conducting an ongoing campaign to discredit and marginalizeeveryonewho dares to stand up against the jihad and Islamic supremacism."
"Central to this campaign is pressure against any organization or venue that dares to host a freedom fighter – hence Hamas-linked CAIR's efforts to intimidate the FBI and the military into dropping invitations to me and other counter-jihadists, and its pressure on universities and private groups that host events featuring pro-freedom activists," Spencer said.
"Hamas-linked CAIR and its Islamic supremacist and Leftist allies are open enemies of the freedom of speech, and they're relentless in bringing pressure on any individual, group or venue that dares to step out of the political correct dhimmi lockstep. … Wherever they succeed in intimidating a group or venue into dropping a talk by a freedom fighter, we have to bring just as much pressure to bear for the cause of justice, and let that group or venue know that we do not appreciate their failure to stand up for constitutional principles when challenged," he said.
Also featured there will be Spencer, Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, William J. Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, Christopher Holton of Center for Security Policy, Zelenik, Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values Coalition, James Lafferty of Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force, Barrister Paul Diamond of the United Kingdom, Father Keith Roderick, Bishop Earl. W. Jackson, actor Fred Grandy and Wafa Sulton.
The opposition to Geller's address is not the first time revelations about CAIR and Shariah have been targeted by Islamic activists.The authors of "Muslim Mafia" also have been taken to court by CAIR over the revelations it contains.
The CAIR legal attack on WND's author is far from over.WND needs your help in supporting the defense of "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR's lawsuit. The book's revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can't do it without your help. Pleasedonate to WND's Legal Defense Fundnow.


Read more:Speak out against Islamic terror? Not at this U.S. hotelhttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=357653#ixzz1bEttLfl8

DANGEROUS & SCARY CHANGE AT DOJ WEBSITE



This is scary. Go to the website and look at the quote at the top of the page. We are losing 'In God We Trust' because the silent majority is not making its voice heard. November 2012 will be an important election. Don't forget or we will surely be headed for disaster.


U.S. Department of Justice
W E B S I T E C H A N G E - I M P O R T A N T!
Little by little the subtle changes come until one day we will wake up and be the United Socialist States of America will be gone . 2012 is just around the corner so get and stay engaged as if our nation depended on it because it does!!!!!

U.S. Department of Justice
ditches red, white, and blue stars and stripes.
Well, how interesting! It seems the U.S. Department of Justice has changed its web site.
Gone are the colorful red, white, and blue U.S. Flag decorations on the page,
Replaced by stark black and white. And at the top of the page, is a rather interesting quote:"The common law is the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people."
Catchy, huh? Just one tiny little (too small to be relevant obviously) point --
the quote is from C. Wilfred Jenks, who in the 1930's was a leading proponent of the "international law" movement, which had as its goal to impose a global common law and which backed 'global workers' rights.'
Call it Marxism, call it Progressivism, call it Socialism -- under any of those names, it definitely makes the DOJ look corrupt in their new website with Marxist accessories to match.

See for yourself at:
http://www.justice.gov/ <http://www.justice.gov/>
How very interesting that 'they' couldn't find a nice quote from one of our Founders. People, we have lost our Republic. This is an example of the slow, methodical misuse of power our current government is doing as they lead us to socialism, and destroying our republic as we have known it.
Get ready for 2012-
*******************************************************
Bring back the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA------
Please-----pass this on to 10 to 20+ people
on your e-mail list ASAP!
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak.
Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
Winston Churchill
In God We Trust!

Twittergate: social media Marxofascism by progressives, Part 1

October 26, 2010
The strategy behind Neal Rauhauser's Twittergate: social media Marxofascism by progressives, Part 1
By Arlen Williams

"I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time....

"I mean we really have to think about these things as a society; I'm not even talking about the really terrible stuff, terrorism and access to evil things..."

"...we know roughly who you are, roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are." Google also knows, to within a foot, where you are.

"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."

— Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, as referenced by the Wall Street Journal, August 14, 2010




What if a cynical political entity gained such information about its opponents? — and its own foot-soldiers? What if that became the dominant power? Well, what would Big Brother do (WWBBD)?

To understand this article, it is necessary to know what is in the "Twittergate" video — right down to the malicious and obscene depths of Internet harassment that includes funding abortion(s) as an intimidation/extortion tactic against a pro-lifer's use of Twitter (i.e., the video may be disturbing). It was previously shown with comments in Gulag Bound's "Daily Inspection" item, this October 11th.



Video, 10/6, "Twittergate — Democrats Hire Twitter-Thug"

This Part 1 consists largely as excerpts of Neal Rauhauser's own words about his social media strategy, along with a bit of analysis. And, for the sake of any attorneys, the entirety of this series of articles represent the "I think" opinion of this writer, as directly obvious as any or all of the facts and their implications may be.

We are now in the burgeoning "Internet 2.0" social media world, which the "progressive" strategy in question seeks to exploit, manipulate, and control — and maliciously so, if one thinks deviously baiting opponents into whatever behavior may be deemed material for a libel suit or even criminal prosecution is malicious.

But this strategy extends far beyond the persecution of Tea Party patriots and into a realm that Trotsky, Lippmann, Gramsci, and Goebbels would, one thinks, love for its new technology contest of both a propagandists' means and the rewards of it ends.

Enter Mr. Rauhauser and the political ops firm, Progressive PST as they seek this ring of power. Also enter nine-plus Progressive politicians who would be its ring lords. The long version of this firm's name is Progressive Politically Strategic Campaigns for Twitter, as disproportionate as this may at first seem, for a 140-character-at-a-time social media. (Link to their inaugural announcement in Daily KOS.)

Background

Rauhauser wears the earmarks of a Soros and Moulitsas bootlicker; he seems plugged in to the Sorosian spin of the moment, tweeting messages often found at the same time or shortly thereafter in sites such as Media Matters, MoveOn.org, and the Huffington Post.

Rauhauser also writes items at Daily KOS and seems to have learned from the splash created by the Markos Moulitsas himself, consisting of the latter's famous "Google bombing" manipulation of that tech-imperialist search system in the 2006 election cycle. You may recall, it forced search results negative to conservative office seekers to appear, top of page, when searching their names. Perhaps the eccentric upstart, Rauhauser, wants to make his own splash of even greater Progressive proportion, through social media.

The "netroots" activism of the Obama campaign is seen as failing against the throw-weight of the Tea Party conservatives, very much including their (our) use of the Internet. Surely, the amoral neo-Marxists discuss what they can do about it. Marxists must control. Witness such proposals Net Neutrality, theregistration of bloggers, and even perhaps, the use of the Internet kill switch.One may also recall the selective hyper-enforcement of copyright laws, as strings were pulled against YouTube publishers of key videos that have exposed the Marxist left, such as TheMouthPeaceNakedEmerorNews, and even the publisher of the "Twittergate" video, preventing access to these videos, for their using music deemed proprietary, while leftist videos skate free.

One discussion of the Marxist exploitation of Internet 2.0 social media was found in the August 2009 Harvard Business Review article by one Umair Haque, "Ten Rules for 5G Warfare." There Harvard Haque explained that we are in the midst of a true information war and recommends various kinds of attacks, but especially through the instant communications of Twitter.

So now, what of the hand that Rauhauser has tipped?

Discovered

...a series of diary-like blog items that together comprise a manifesto for clandestine and even automated Big Brother activities the accomplishment of which would bring America's social media under a thugocracy.

In his own words we see Rauhauser, under the screen name "StrandedWind," posing, posturing, and imagining mayhem which he might use (emphasis, mine)...

...in an August 31, 2010 entry entitled "Social Media's Neighborhood Watch."

    There is a brewing problem with right wing extremism on Twitter. This has escalated in recent days with the election coming on — stalking and intimidation attempts have been reported by several Progressive figures. [Ed, no examples were given.]

    I'm going to outline a community based strategy that will provide evidence for civil and criminal proceedings. We're not talking temper tantrums, bluster, and account suspension like we see from the right. I want us to get up inside their network and collect actionable information.

    As a civil outcome a suit penetrating the outer ring of crazy talkers, getting to their handlers, and then to the money men would be the final solution. Expanding a seemingly random right wing shooting episode into a conspiracy case leading to lengthy prison terms for everyone who incited the attack would also work wonders for cleaning up our virtual streets.
Two days earlier, Rauhauser set up the straw man, but implicated himself as one who would actually prompt potentially criminal behavior on the part of whatever unbalanced extremist he could find. In an August 29, 2010 entry entitled "Organized Intimidation? Ambush Time."

    There is a strong and growing Progressive presence on Twitter. I am aware of two other leaders besides myself who are subject to harassment and intimidation from the right. The timing of this makes it appear that this is another centrally initiated effort similar to the flood of female conservatives who arrived concurrent with Sarah Palin's "grizzly mom" prattle.

    My response to the threatening conduct has been to basically dare the person behind it to actually step up and do something.I am far more aggressive than most and would not expect the rest to follow my lead. An organized community response will be the best approach to beheading this nuisance before it gets any momentum.
Further along "Ambush" piece, he takes part in what seems to this writer, a psychological projection onto Tea Party activists, the behavior of his own malicious interests and those of a few of his comrades. Then he describes more of his tactics in treating those he would deem worthy of his treatment.

    Planting the idea (quite true) that some of their not so crazy sounding second and third tier players may be Progressive agents will amp up the paranoia and drive the entire community further to the fringe as they seek to weed out our people.

    People engaged in provocative online conduct feel insulated; they're in the comfort of their own home, if they've engaged in a little bit of caution they may feel completely anonymous, and this emboldens them. Specifying the strategy we'll use to break their anonymity won't permit any mitigation on their part without adjusting their behavior, which counts as a win for us. We're dealing with people who have likely had no interaction with the court system beyond a traffic ticket; the potential for a pro se litigant to force them into expensive, long distance, lengthy, discovery laden litigation doesn't seem to cross their minds. The reality of travel, or frightful expenses, or summary judgments needs to be made real. We probably need to make a very visible example of at least one of them before the rest understand.

    There is a small, but non-zero chance that the response to such activities might be violent. The recent interdiction of a mentally ill man, incited by Glenn Beck and on his way to shoot up the Tides Foundation, was a warning as to what our worst case might be.
Then, our self-designated agitator and psyops point man waxes moralistic:

    It's unfortunate that our nation has descended from rational discourse to demagoguery and incitement to violence, but we didn't start this. And that means we can end it using whatever means we find convenient, so long as we remain within the bounds the law provides. There are several remedies available and we need only the wit and will to apply them to the problem.
The Twittergate video shows targets found by Rauhauser & Comrades. This includes the now infamous His oddly telegraphed strategy may be the manifesto of one eccentric individual (via his Twitter account he has apparently described himself as having traits on the Autistic Spectrum...


...a subject about which he has written) but even if it is, his strategy has appeared bought-into and adopted, to a significant extent.

As shown, he was very overt in his desire to attack vulnerable individuals among American patriots, incite whatever mayhem he may, then use it against the Tea Party and liberty movement. Yet he, along with Larry Bruce and Beth Becker of the newly formed Progressive PST, were ostensibly hired by Democrat candidates, most or all apparently associated with Cap and Trade energy policy, itself such a corporatist/fascist opportunity for systematized corruption it has been labeled "Crime, Inc." by television's chalkboard dot connector, Glenn Beck.

Since the Twittergate scandal broke, Larry Bruce apparently ditched Progressive PST and is hiding out in the tall grass. And what of these Democrat candidates for November 2nd's election, that have publicly linked themselves to this group and its strategy?

To follow soon:

  • the Democratic Party candidates behind Progressive PST and Twittergate
  • a quick survey of the broader network of Marxofascist warriors in this warfare
  • the use of Twitter as a Progressive propaganda blaster akin to John Podesta's morning teleconferences with journalists during the 2008 campaign and the JournoList machine — but at light-speed
  • a brief timeline of the development of the greater Progressive attack strategy, of which Twittergate is a part
  • summing up this demented and potentially criminal modus operandi and pondering its implications for our (America's) future
© Arlen Williams

Monday, October 17, 2011

AMERICANS WHO FOLLOW OBAMA


A teacher asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans.
Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny. The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different..again.
Little Johnny said, "Because I'm not an Obama fan."
The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a fan of Obama?"
Johnny said, "Because I'm a Republican."
The teacher asked him why he's a Republican.
Little Johnny answered, "Well, my Mom's a Republican and my Dad's a Republican, so I'm a Republican."
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?"
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, "That would make me an Obama fan."

Featured Post

by Jm Moran 2025-11-12T13:45:57.000Z from Facebook via IFTTT from Facebook via IFTTT