Time to Throw Da Bums Out!

(Compiler's note: This is a must read - see item)

On Saturday I (Alan Keyes) gave the keynote speech at the Pittsburgh Tea Party Event where several thousand people gathered to protest the spending frenzy in Washington, the leap into socialism and the destruction of our constitutional liberty. Ted Voron was good enough to post video of the speech on YouTube, embedded here below, in four parts.

Pirates seize Belgian ship, while NATO forces free detained pirates due to lack of legal framework for holding them

"I'll be seeing you, in all the old familiar places..."

"Pirates seize Belgian ship; NATO frees 20 hostages," by Katherine Houreld and Tom Pittman for the Associated Press, April 18: ....

Interrogation Memos Released By Obama: See The Complete Documents

Click on the above title to see the memos being discussed.

Obama's Dog and Pony Show in Mexico

by Jim Kouri

"Rather than deal with the problem of illegal aliens – many with criminal records – entering the U.S., Obama and his minions are worried about contraband being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico.” ....

Interrogation Memos Released – Is Need for ‘Transparency’ Greater than Security?

by Pam Meister

Memos detailing the Bush administration’s legal guidance for the interrogation of terror suspects were released yesterday, despite the CIA’s concern that national security may be compromised.

According to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the decision to release the memos was related to Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU, which argued that officials should be held accountable for “torture” of terrorism suspects. Of course, there will be redactions, yada yada, and – wait for it – President Obama will take yet another opportunity to use his teleprompter to make a statement. (I hope he pays that teleprompter well.)

Maybe the Obama administration could just hold an Open House in Washington, similar to the open houses held at public schools each fall. However, instead of featuring students’ work for proud parents to look over, they could just spread out all of the memos from the Bush administration for anyone with an interest to look at while serving cookies and punch. Beats smuggling them out of the National Archives in your socks.

So let’s see: In less than three months in office, President Obama has apologized to the world for American arrogance; bowed down to the Saudi king; is considering dropping a key American insistence that Tehran shut down its nuclear facilities in order to get Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the tea table; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has blamed Mexican drug cartel violence on Americans’ “insatiable need” for drugs; DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano now refers to terrorism as “man-caused disasters;” and the War on Terror – an incorrect moniker to begin with – is now being referenced to as an “overseas contingency operation.” Overseas contingency operation? Couldn’t they come up with anything snappier, like “American imperialist domination”?

Meanwhile, the National Security Agency has been intercepting phone calls and e-mails made by Americans at a rate that goes beyond limits set by Congress last year. Interestingly enough, news of this “’over-collection’ of domestic communications of Americans” comes during the same week we learn of a report by the DHS that warns law enforcement officials that “right wing extremists” might be recruiting and planning. It’s most likely a coincidence, but not one that inspires confidence.

Back in Bush’s day, this was called “warrantless wiretapping” and “domestic spying.” Today it’s the “over-collection of domestic communications.” And where are the civil rights protesters who salivated over Bush’s actions? What a difference an election makes.

My title asks if the need for transparency is more important than our security. Perhaps the question should be, is political expedience more important than our security?

Kentucky Fried Chicken is famous for jealously guarding the secret recipe for its “finger lickin’ good” chicken, which represents the company’s stock in trade – but to the Obama administration, our national security secrets merit less care than the Colonel’s Original Recipe chicken. Pass me a leg, mashed potatoes with gravy and one of those biscuits, please. I could use some comfort food about now.

Colonel slams Obama's release of Bush memos It's 'bad form, bad tactics, bad strategy until this war is over'

Government won't give up Haditha prosecution -- Chessani charges already dismissed, and affirmed on appeal

By Bob Unruh

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessan

A public-interest legal group says it has been notified that the U.S. government – which watched the disintegration of its case against a Marine accused by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., of murder in Haditha, Iraq – is refusing to give up.

The Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., has been defending Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who saw the government's charges against him dismissed because of unlawful "command influence." The decision was affirmed on appeal.

"The way our government has treated this true American hero is outrageous," said Richard Thompson, president of the center. "After spending over 20 years in loyal service to his nation and considered one of the best combat officers in Iraq, the government is giving Jeffrey Chessani less legal consideration than it is giving the terrorists held at Guantanamo."

The group said government prosecutors filed a motion late Thursday with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals asking that the unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel in favor of Chessani be reconsidered by all nine judges.

In order to continue the prosecution, and assuming the three judges don't change their decisions, the government would have to convince five of the six additional judges of the worthiness of its case.

It was on March 17 when the three-judge panel unanimously vindicated the ruling by Col. Steven A. Folsom, USMC, dismissing all charges against Chessani on the grounds of "unlawful command influence."

In dismissing the charges against Chessani, Folsom described "unlawful command influence" as the "the mortal enemy of military justice."

Thomas More said despite the solid legal basis for the ruling, the government appealed the decision.

In seeking a reconsideration by the entire panel, government prosecutors now argue that the three-judge panel misunderstood the difference between an officer's rank and his job.

"Essentially, the government argues that a full colonel in the Marine Corps could not unlawfully influence a lieutenant colonel if they held similar billet (job) positions," the legal group said.

Thomas More now has a week to respond to the government's motion. If the review is not granted, the government still has the option to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and even the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chessani is the senior-most officer criminally charged as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described "Haditha massacre" in Iraq after Murtha publicly accused the troops of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood."

A military investigation of the Nov. 19, 2005, Haditha firefight found "no indication" that the Marines had "intentionally targeted, engaged and killed noncombatants."

As WND reported, the case against Chessani was originally dismissed when Folsom ruled the charges were tainted because of improper closed-door meetings with investigators that gave credence to the defense's argument that Chessani was made a "political scapegoat" for the highly publicized Haditha incident.

The government had accused Chessani, who wasn't present at Haditha, of improperly investigating actions of Marines under his command and covering up details of the firefight.

The counts against Chessani were triggered following a house-to-house, room-by-room battle his enlisted Marines engaged in after they were ambushed by insurgents.

The firefight resulted in nearly two dozen Iraqi deaths, including 15 civilians caught in the crossfire, and 14 Marine casualties, including one death.

Defense lawyers have reported the insurgents deliberately attacked the Marines from hiding places, where they surrounded themselves with civilians to use as shields.

Eventually eight Marines were charged, but cases against Lance Cpls. Stephen Tatum and Justin Sharratt, Capts. Randy Stone and Lucas McConnell and Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz were dropped. First Lt. Andrew Grayson was acquitted, leaving only the Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich case pending and Lt. Col. Chessani's case in appeals.

The enlisted Marines were charged with murder and the officers accused of failing to investigate the deaths.

The case developed only after Murtha publicly accused troops of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood."

Radio talk show host Michael Savage has supported Chessani and the Thomas More Law Center's work on the case.

Chinese spies may have put chips in US planes

from The Times of India

WASHINGTON: The Chinese cyber spies have penetrated so deep into the US system — ranging from its secure defence network

, banking system, electricity grid to putting spy chips into its defence planes — that it can cause serious damage to the US any time, a top US official on counter-intelligence has said.

“Chinese penetrations of unclassified DoD networks have also been widely reported. Those are more sophisticated, though hardly state of the art,” said National Counterintelligence Executive, Joel Brenner, at the Austin University Texas last week, according to a transcript made available on Wednesday.

Listing out some of the examples of Chinese cyber spy penetration, he said: “We’re also seeing counterfeit routers and chips, and some of those chips have made their way into US military fighter aircraft.. You don’t sneak counterfeit chips into another nation’s aircraft to steal data. When it’s done intentionally, it’s done to degrade systems, or to have the ability to do so at a time of one’s choosing.”

Referring to the Chinese networks penetrating the cyber grids, he said: “Do I worry about those grids, and about air traffic control systems

, water supply systems, and so on? You bet I do. America’s networks are being mapped. There has also been experience of both Chinese and criminal network operations in the networks of some of the banks”.

Pastor beaten, Tasered for defending his rights But Supreme Court grants agents exception to obeying Constitution

By Drew Zahn

An Arizona pastor – Tasered, bloodied by broken glass and sporting 11 stitches in his head – claims his injuries came from being stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint 75 miles inside the U.S. and then being battered by police for refusing to allow agents to search his vehicle.

The incident earlier this week highlights tension between constitutional rights, the issue of border security and a controversial Supreme Court ruling that grants an exceptional level of police authority near the Mexican border.

Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe claims he did nothing to deserve his eventual arrest and believes that when he refused to allow the search of his car he was simply standing up for his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect him against unreasonable search without a warrant.

Anderson further questions why the Border Patrol is allowed to stop and search cars at a checkpoint along Interstate 8, 75 miles inland of where the highway nears the Mexican border at Yuma, Ariz.

"I was in the United States! I had crossed no international border!" writes Anderson in commentary accompanying a video he made about his experience.

"I didn't have any drugs; I didn't have a human beings in my car," he claims in the video itself. "Why is this happening in the United States of America?"

Pastor Anderson's video explaining his side of the controversy and his rough treatment at the hands of police officers can be seen here:

The U.S. Border Patrol, however, explained to WND that Anderson misunderstood his constitutional rights and that because a drug-sniffing dog alerted to Anderson's rental car, the pastor was wrong not to allow the agents to search his vehicle.

Ben Vik, a supervisory Border Patrol agent for the Yuma sector, further told WND that the Supreme Court and federal law permit the Border Patrol to establish checkpoints up to 100 miles inside the U.S. and that with probable cause the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to searches of automobiles.

"The Supreme Court found that only minimal intrusion existed to motorists at reasonably located checkpoints," said Vik. "The Supreme Court found that the very brief detention of motorists at a well-marked and identified immigration checkpoint did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure."

Vik's statement, however, doesn't apply to typical law enforcement agencies, but – thanks to a controversial ruling – only to "immigration" checkpoints established by the Border Patrol.

The courts have typically ruled against "suspicion-less" stops and searches of vehicles at police checkpoints, such as the one that detained Anderson. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Indianapolis vs. Edmond that police cannot establish roadblocks staffed by dogs to randomly search automobiles for drugs.

"We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing," the Supreme Court majority wrote in Indianapolis vs. Edmond. "The [Indianapolis] checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment."

The 1976 United States vs. Martinez-Fuerte decision, however, created an exception allowing the Border Patrol the unique power to establish checkpoints for seeking illegal immigrants, with the secondary purpose of finding drugs. So while Yuma-area police cannot operate a K-9, or drug-detecting dog, checkpoint without violating the Fourth Amendment, the Border Patrol can.

A second exception was also created for drunk driving checkpoints under 1990's Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz, but some – including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – do not believe the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment are warranted.

"I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided," Thomas wrote in an opinion on the 2000 Indianapolis vs. Edmond decision. "Indeed, I rather doubt that the framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered 'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing."

Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Law Reform Project in Santa Cruz, Calif., told the Phoenix New Times that an immigration checkpoint is "thin justification" for sniffing random cars for drugs without a warrant.

"Even if somebody has no sympathy for a marijuana user," Boyd says, "you should still be concerned that the U.S. government is saying the border is an area where the U.S. Constitution is suspended."

Senior Patrol Agent Vik assured WND that even in the checkpoints, citizens do maintain certain rights limiting officers' actions.

"Border Patrol immigration checkpoints don't give Border Patrol agents carte blanche to automatically search persons or their vehicles," Vik explained. "To conduct a legal search under the Fourth Amendment, agents must develop an articulable probable cause to conduct a lawful search."

In Anderson's case, the pastor claims the K-9 dog made no bark or indication that his rental car was tainted with drugs, while Vik insisted to WND that the dog did alert agents to drugs, thus granting probable cause for the search.

Both Anderson and Vik confirm that no contraband was discovered on the vehicle.

As for the Tasering and other alleged rough treatment by police, Vik told WND that Anderson was extracted from his car and arrested by Arizona Department of Public Safety officers, not the Border Patrol, a statement Anderson confirms in his video.

The Arizona DPS told WND that an investigation into the officers' actions is ongoing and no comment can be made until it is complete.

Anderson spent the evening of his arrest in jail and is awaiting a formal arraignment at which he intends to plead "not guilty."

Bipartisan team stunned by 'extremism' allegations 'Veterans, families should not be viewed as a threat'

By Bob Unruh

Members of both sides of the aisle in Congress are expressing outrage and seeking an investigation into a new Department of Homeland Security report on "extremism" that targets U.S. military veterans, opponents of abortion and supporters of other conservative causes.

U.S. Rep Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., was horrified at what he described as a "shoddy, unsubstantiated" document that was delivered to law enforcement across the nation.

"I am concerned at what appears to be a shoddy, unsubstantiated, and potentially politicized work product that has been disseminated to the Intelligence Community, and law enforcement as a finished intelligence product," he wrote to DHS chief Janet Napolitano. "The report appears at best sloppy and unprofessional and at worst a representation of political bias being passed off as intelligence analysis by DHS."

According to the Washington Times, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said he was "dumbfounded" that the report was, in fact, released.

"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans – including war veterans," Thompson told Napolitano in a letter.

"As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans – whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Thompson said.

He said he was disappointed and surprised the report would be issued. And he demanded to know what types of further activities DHS had planned regarding the issue.

The federal agency's report is called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

It already has generated a lawsuit by talk radio host Michael Savage.

As WND reported, a public-interest legal group submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the DHS demanding to know why it calls Americans who support the 2nd Amendment and dislike lax immigration "extremists."

Now Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is offering his criticism and demanding to know why, as ranking member of the committee, "which is responsible for authorizing funding for this office," he was not given a copy of the report but had to obtain it from open sources on the Internet.

"I would appreciate clarifications as to why this report was not provided to the committee and an understanding of what other reports DHS may be failing to provide to the committee," he wrote.

He also wanted some clarifications:

"The report purports to analyze 'rightwing extremism' without defining the term or specifying by name a single group that falls into this category," he said. "According to the imprecise analysis contained in the report, 'rightwing extremists' could include groups dedicated to opposing abortion or illegal immigration as well as those who may not agree with the new administration's 'perceived' stance on several issues including illegal immigration and restrictions on firearm ownership.

"On their face, these statements may appear to cast legitimate viewpoints – in fact some viewpoints that recently constituted administration policy – in a suspicious light. Without any specific reporting to support such vague statements it is easy to see how they are offensive to many people," he wrote.

A spokesman for the federal agency told WND today that the DHS would refuse to identify the actual authors of the report. The agency also would not comment on any procedures or actions it may take in response to the controversy over the report.

But to the Associated Press, a DHS official confirmed there were concerns by the agency's office of civil rights about some of the language in the report.

It was issued anyway, the agency said.

Napolitano earlier described the charges in the report as assessments, "not an accusation."

Hoekstra called on the ombudsman for the office of director of National Intelligence to investigate the report itself.

"Our nation's veterans and hardworking families that may be facing tough times should not be viewed as a threat and neither should citizens who oppose out-of-control federal spending and tax hikes," he wrote.

The congressman, who has sponsored a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of parents to raise their children, also was disappointed by the report's assertion without substantiation that unemployed parents may foster "rightwing extremist" beliefs in their children.

"Beyond apologizing for its obviously offensive references, the administration needs to get to the bottom of how and why a report like this was written, and put standards in place to keep it from happening again," Hoekstra said.

"I would also appreciate an explanation of the assertion, which is somehow tied to 'rightwing extremists,' that there is a 'perception' that illegal immigrants were taking away jobs from Americans in the 1990s because they were willing to work for lower wages," the congressman wrote.

"Regardless of one's view on immigration policy matters, it cannot be seriously disputed that the protection of the American workforce

is one of the driving considerations for the current structure of U.S. immigration law. For DHS, which is charged with administering the immigration laws, to apparently not understand this core principle is shocking," he added.

"When may we expect the office to start consistently producing quality intelligence products?" he wondered.

Savage teamed up with the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., to file a lawsuit against Napolitano over the report.

"It is a civil rights action brought under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, challenging the policy, practice, and custom of the United States Government that targets for disfavored treatment those individuals and groups that are considered to be 'rightwing extremists,'" the complaint said.

According to the federal government, characteristics of members of the suspect group of people include those who:

• Oppose restrictions on firearms
  
  
• Oppose lax immigration
  
  
• Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
  
  
• Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
  
  
• Oppose same-sex marriage
  
  
• Has paraonia of foreign regimes
  
  
• Fear Communist regimes
  
  
• Oppose one world government
  
  
• Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
  
  
• Is upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

The case seeks a declaration that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, a court order permanently enjoining the policy and its application

to the plaintiffs' speech and other activities, and the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe

By CAM SIMPSON and GARY FIELDS

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued on April 7 by the Department of Homeland Security.

Disclosure of the DHS memo this week has sparked controversy among some conservatives and veterans groups. Appearing on television talk shows Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the assessment, but apologized to veterans who saw it as an accusation.

"This is an assessment of things just to be wary of, not to infringe on constitutional rights, certainly not to malign our veterans," she said on NBC's Today Show.

The documents outlining Operation Vigilant Eagle cite a surge in activity by such groups. The memos say the FBI's focus on veterans began as far back as December, during the final weeks of the Bush administration, when the bureau's domestic counterterrorism division formed a special joint working group with the Defense Department.

Associated Press

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, pictured this month in Mexico, defended the assessment Thursday but apologized to veterans.

A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an "increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups."

The FBI said in the memo that its conclusion about a surge in such activities was based on confidential sources, undercover operations, reporting from other law-enforcement agencies and publicly available information. The memo said the main goal of the multipronged operation was to get a better handle on "the scope of this emerging threat." The operation also seeks to identify gaps in intelligence efforts surrounding these groups and their leaders.

The aim of the FBI's effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to "share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat," according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.

Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.

"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups.

Mr. Ward said that the FBI's general counsel reviewed the operation before it began, "to make sure any tripwires we set do not violate any civil liberties."

Some Republican lawmakers, talk-show hosts and veterans groups complained this week after the internal DHS assessment cited the potential for the same extremists groups to target returning combat veterans for recruitment. The Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, also echoed the concerns.

The separate DHS assessment, leaked this week after being sent to law-enforcement agencies, said the "willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." Veterans could draw special attention, the report said, because of their advanced training.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said Wednesday he was offended that veterans were characterized as potential domestic terrorists.

Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman, said Thursday the report was issued before an objection about one part of the document raised by the agency's civil-rights division was resolved. She called it a "breakdown of an internal process" that would be fixed.

The FBI documents show the bureau was working with investigators inside the nation's uniformed services "in an effort to identify those current or former soldiers who pose a domestic terrorism threat." The other agencies working with the FBI are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Documents detailing the operation are unclassified, but were meant for internal distribution only.

—Evan Perez contributed to this article.