Obama: The Grand Strategy

(Compiler's note: Growing older - perhaps your parents are still living? You really must read this opinion article.)

By Charles Krauthammer

Unified theory of Obamaism, fifth (final?) installment:

In the service of his ultimate mission -- the leveling of social inequalities -- President Obama offers a tripartite social democratic agenda: nationalized health care, federalized education (ultimately guaranteed through college) and a cash-cow carbon tax (or its equivalent) to subsidize the other two.

Problem is, the math doesn't add up. Not even a carbon tax would pay for Obama's vastly expanded welfare state. Nor will Midwest Democrats stand for a tax that would devastate their already crumbling region.

What is obviously required is entitlement reform, meaning Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. That's where the real money is -- trillions saved that could not only fund hugely expensive health and education programs but also restore budgetary balance.

Except that Obama has offered no real entitlement reform. His universal health-care proposal would increase costs by perhaps $1 trillion. Medicare/Medicaid reform is supposed to decrease costs.

Obama's own budget projections show staggering budget deficits going out to 2019. If he knows his social agenda is going to drown us in debt, what's he up to?

He has an idea. But he dare not speak of it yet. He has only hinted. When asked in his March 24 news conference about the huge debt he's incurring, Obama spoke vaguely of "additional adjustments" that will be unfolding in future budgets.

Rarely have two more anodyne words carried such import. "Additional adjustments" equals major cuts in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Social Security is relatively easy. A bipartisan commission (like the 1983 Alan Greenspan commission) recommends some combination of means testing for richer people, increasing the retirement age and a technical change in the inflation measure (indexing benefits to prices instead of wages). The proposal is brought to Congress for a no-amendment up-or-down vote. Done.

The hard part is Medicare and Medicaid. In an aging population, how do you keep them from blowing up the budget? There is only one answer: rationing.

Why do you think the stimulus package pours $1.1 billion into medical "comparative effectiveness research"? It is the perfect setup for rationing. Once you establish what is "best practice" for expensive operations, medical tests and aggressive therapies, you've laid the premise for funding some and denying others.

It is estimated that a third to a half of one's lifetime health costs are consumed in the last six months of life. Accordingly, Britain's National Health Service can deny treatments it deems not cost-effective -- and if you're old and infirm, the cost-effectiveness of treating you plummets. In Canada, they ration by queuing. You can wait forever for so-called elective procedures like hip replacements.

Rationing is not quite as alien to America as we think. We already ration kidneys and hearts for transplant according to survivability criteria as well as by queuing. A nationalized health insurance system would ration everything from MRIs to intensive care by myriad similar criteria.

The more acute thinkers on the left can see rationing coming, provoking Slate blogger Mickey Kaus to warn of the political danger. "Isn't it an epic mistake to try to sell Democratic health care reform on this basis? Possible sales pitch: 'Our plan will deny you unnecessary treatments!' . . . Is that really why the middle class will sign on to a revolutionary multitrillion-dollar shift in spending -- so the government can decide their life or health 'is not worth the price'?"

My own preference is for a highly competitive, privatized health insurance system with a government-subsidized transition to portability, breaking the absurd and ruinous link between health insurance and employment. But if you believe that health care is a public good to be guaranteed by the state, then a single-payer system is the next best alternative. Unfortunately, it is fiscally unsustainable without rationing.

Social Security used to be the third rail of American politics. Not anymore. Health-care rationing is taking its place -- which is why Obama, the consummate politician, knows to offer the candy (universality) today before serving the spinach (rationing) tomorrow.

Taken as a whole, Obama's social democratic agenda is breathtaking. And the rollout has thus far been brilliant. It follows Kaus's advice to "give pandering a chance" and adheres to the Democratic tradition of being the party that gives things away, while leaving the green-eyeshade stinginess to those heartless Republicans.

It will work for a while, but there is no escaping rationing. In the end, the spinach must be served.

Entire GE CEO Confrontation!

"Factor" producer (and GE shareholder) Jesse Watters attended the annual GE shareholder meeting on April 21 in Orlando, Florida. During the Q&A period, Watters asked Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt about the recent ugly comments by Janeane Garofalo on MSNBC. Here is how Immelt - and the room full of stockholders - responded to the confrontation.

Defense Department to Release Photos Showing Detainee Treatment in Iraq, Afghanistan The Department of Defense announced late Thursday that at least 4

from FoxNews

.... The images were part of the military's investigation of potential abuse of detainees by U.S. personnel at facilities other than Iraq Abu Ghraib, though the photos apparently aren't as shocking as those that set off a prisoner abuse scandal in 2004, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Even so, Defense officials say they worry that the new release of photos could set off a backlash in the Middle East against the United States, the Times reports.

The Bush administration had refused to disclose the images after the ACLU's request made in 2003, claiming that the public disclosure of such evidence would generate outrage and would violate U.S. obligations towards detainees under the Geneva Conventions.

The decision to release images comes on the same day that congressional aides said President Obama resisted pressure from Democrats to investigate Bush-era interrogation techniques, though Obama also has been under fire since last week from Republicans and former Bush advisers for releasing memos from 2002 and 2005 justifying the interrogation techniques used by the CIA. ....

FAA: Bird Strikes More Than Double at Major U.S. Airports

WASHINGTON — Airplane collisions with birds have more than doubled at 13 major U.S. airports since 2000, and New York's Kennedy airport and Sacramento International report the most incidents with serious damage, according to Federal Aviation Administration data released for the first time Friday.

The FAA list of wildlife strikes, published on the Internet, details more than 89,000 incidents since 1990, including 28 cases since 2000 when a collision with a bird or other animal such as a deer on a runway was so severe that the aircraft was considered destroyed. ....

Iraq Progress 'Fragile and Reversible' After Bombings, Petraeus Warns

Gen. David Petraeus says the U.S. military is nevertheless set to withdraw from Iraq on schedule.

Progress in Iraq is still "fragile and reversible," Gen. David Petraeus warned Friday after back-to-back homicide bombings killed nearly 80 people one day earlier in Iraq's deadliest day in more than a year.

But the U.S. military is nevertheless set to withdraw from the war-torn country on schedule, he told a House appropriations subcommittee.

Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, addressed the lingering extremist threat in Iraq as he outlined his approach to the escalating campaign against extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. ....

Petraeus says Pakistan should focus on Taliban

By LARA JAKES

Pakistan's leaders should focus on the looming threat posed by a stronger Taliban and extremists within their nation's borders, instead of their rivalry with India, a top U.S. military official said Friday. Gen. David Petraeus urged Congress to approve $3 billion in aid to Pakistan for training its troops to fight insurgents in tribal areas.

"The most important, most pressing threat to the very existence of their country is the threat posed by the internal extremists and groups such as the Taliban and the syndicated extremists," Petraeus told a House panel Friday. Petraeus is the top U.S. commander overseeing troops in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Pakistani military needs to fight extremists "rather than strictly focus on the conventional threat that has been traditionally the focus of the military, to their east, which is India," he said.

Pakistan and India have fought three wars over the Kashmir border region, and their continuing enmity has been the dominant factor affecting foreign policy for both nuclear-armed rivals. ....

Border incursions rocket 359% 'Our agents are being attacked and our sovereignty violated at alarming rates'

from WorldNetDaily

Foreign government incursions into the United States rocketed 359 percent from 2007 to 2008, and the nation is under attack in San Diego, according to a new report from Judicial Watch.

"These new Homeland Security documents indisputably show there is a crisis on our border with Mexico," said Tom Fitton, president of the Washington watchdog organization.

"Our agents are being attacked and our sovereignty violated at alarming rates," he said.

The public interest organization that investigates and prosecutes government corruption said the new 2008 report from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, "BorderStat Violence, FY 2008 Year in Review," reveals a sharp increase in violence on the U.S. border with Mexico.

The violence has been highlighted in the news recently, with armed Mexican drug armies battling it out on a daily basis, leaving bodies strewn throughout border cities in Mexico and even extending their impact into the U.S.

Judicial Watch said the Obama administration was forced to release the document through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.

The report, linked on the Judicial Watch website, includes these highlights:

• The largest increase in assaults on U.S. agents and officers was in the San Diego district, where attacks rose 48 percent from 2007 to 2008.
• There were 147 incursions at or between ports of entry for Customs and Border Protection components in 2008, up from 32 in 2007, an explosive rise of 359 percent.
• There were 1,325 incidents of violence occurring at or between the Ports of Entry against CBP agents and officers, resulting in a 23 percent increase from 1,073 in FY 2007.
• Ninety-seven percent of all incidents of violence against CBP agents and officers occurred on the southwest border.
• There were 227 assaults against CBP officers at the Ports of Entry in FY 2008 as compared to 85 in FY 2007, an increase of 167 percent.

Secretary of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano, already under fire for a department report condemning those who oppose abortion, worry about lax border security or support the 2nd Amendment as "extremists," recently turned down an offer for increased funding from the Senate Committee on Homeland Defense to address the problem of violence on the southern border, Judicial Watch said.

The Obama administration also rejected an appeal from Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to deploy 1,000 National Guard troops to help quell border violence, the organization reported.

"When will the Mexican government be held to account for its purposeful incursions into our sovereign territory?" asked Fitton.

WND previously has reported on such incidents, including when Mexican army soldiers invaded U.S. territory and held a member of the U.S. Border Patrol at gunpoint.

"Unfortunately, this sort of behavior by Mexican military personnel has been going on for years," a statement from Local 2544 of the National Border Patrol Council said at the time.

The 2007 documentation revealed dozens of armed incursions by Mexican soldiers and police into the U.S. during fiscal year 2007.

U.S. plans to accept several Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo: he Uighurs would be the first detainees from the prison to settle in America. Challenge

Reporting from Washington -- The Obama administration is preparing to admit into the United States as many as seven Chinese Muslims who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in the first release of any of the detainees into this country, according to current and former U.S. officials. ....

CDC says too late to contain U.S. flu outbreak

WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Friday it was too late to contain the swine flu outbreak in the United States.

CDC acting director Dr. Richard Besser told reporters in a telephone briefing it was likely too late to try to contain the outbreak, by vaccinating, treating or isolating people. "There are things that we see that suggest that containment is not very likely," he said. He said the U.S. cases and Mexican cases are likely the same virus. "So far the genetic elements that we have looked at are the same." But Besser said it was unclear why the virus was causing so many deaths in deaths in Mexico and such mild disease in the United States.

(Reporting by Maggie Fox, editing by Patricia Zengerle)

Remote Murtha airport lands big bucks from Washington

By Jim Acosta and Janet Rodriguez

JOHNSTOWN, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Located outside a small Pennsylvania city, John Murtha airport may not see many passengers. But it's seen plenty of arrivals of tax dollars from Washington, most recently economic stimulus funds.

he airport offers three commercial flights. In between the arrivals and departures, airport officials admit there are few faces around the facility.

"When the flights are coming in, there are people. Other than that, it's empty," said Scott Voelker, manager of the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport.

But one face is everywhere. Rep. John Murtha, the airport's namesake, is hard to miss.

Considered one of "the kings of pork" on Capitol Hill by taxpayer watchdog groups, the 19th-term Pennsylvania Democrat has piloted almost $200 million from Washington to Murtha airport. Much of the funding has come in the form of legislative earmarks that are attached to bills before Congress.

Taxpayer watchdogs have said earmarks -- often derided as "pork-barrel" spending -- are designed to fund congressional pet projects.

"[Murtha's] dumped in nearly $200 million into this project that has virtually no passengers. It's practically a museum piece," said Steve Ellis with the Taxpayers for Common Sense. Watch why critics say the airport is wasteful »

Murtha declined CNN's request for an interview. His staff issued a statement saying Murtha airport is vital infrastructure designed to "attract additional business" to the Johnstown area.

On his House Web site, Murtha strongly defends earmarks, saying it's his "job" to direct federal funds to his district.

Earlier this year, the airport found a new revenue stream, receiving $800,000 from the stimulus to repave a crosswind runway that's used as a backup to the facility's main landing runway.

Even though Voelker said the runway is perfectly safe, he said he believes the stimulus project "makes a lot of sense." He noted the runway hasn't been repaved since the 1980s. "Asphalt and concrete need to be replaced," Voelker added.

In December, Murtha made a direct appeal to the Federal Aviation Administration to fund the runway project. The request was rejected. At the time, the airport did not meet FAA criteria for funding because the facility had fewer than 10,000 passengers.

But earlier this year, the FAA notified Murtha airport officials the facility had been approved for stimulus funding. The FAA said Murtha did not request the stimulus money.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said Murtha airport received stimulus money because it was "shovel-ready." It "met all of the requirements for the use of the stimulus money," Brown said.

Murtha airport is not the only remote airport landing stimulus funds. According to the FAA's Web site, hundreds of big and small airports across the country are slated to receive $1 billion in stimulus upgrades. Many of the airports are in such far-flung places as U.S. territories Guam and American Samoa. Even King Salmon, Alaska, (population 447) is expecting $9.7 million, according to FAA records. See the records

Taxpayer watchdogs said they wonder if some of that's pork.

"The problem is you're not getting the multiple bang for your stimulus buck that you're looking for," Ellis said.

He added, "when you see deadbeat airports getting cash so they can do their second runway, it really feeds cynicism around the country about the stimulus and about the projects."

Brown defends the use of stimulus money for other remote airports such as Guam.

"Guam is a U.S. territory and is part of the U.S. economy as far as I know," she said.

Murtha airport's manager said taxpayer money is going to waste at his facility, but not on the runway project.

He points to an unstaffed $8 million air traffic radar system installed in 2004.

"It's been sitting over there, and that radar has been spinning for all those years with no purpose. Just sitting there," Voelker said. Voelker said he has brought the matter up with both the FAA and Pennsylvania Air National Guard, which uses the air traffic control facility.

But he said nobody can explain why the radar system hasn't been staffed.

Congress Knew About the Interrogations: Obama should release the memo on the attacks prevented.

(Compiler's note: This is absolutely a must read.)

By PETER HOEKSTRA

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair got it right last week when he noted how easy it is to condemn the enhanced interrogation program "on a bright sunny day in April 2009." Reactions to this former CIA program, which was used against senior al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003, are demonstrating how little President Barack Obama and some Democratic members of Congress understand the dire threats to our nation.

George Tenet, who served as CIA director under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, believes the enhanced interrogations program saved lives. He told CBS's "60 Minutes" in April 2007: "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

Last week, Mr. Blair made a similar statement in an internal memo to his staff when he wrote that "[h]igh value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country."

Yet last week Mr. Obama overruled the advice of his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and four prior CIA directors by releasing the details of the enhanced interrogation program. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has stated clearly that declassifying the memos will make it more difficult for the CIA to defend the nation.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

Last week, Mr. Obama argued that those who implemented this program should not be prosecuted -- even though the release of the memos still places many individuals at other forms of unfair legal risk. It appeared that Mr. Obama understood it would be unfair to prosecute U.S. government employees for carrying out a policy that had been fully vetted and approved by the executive branch and Congress. The president explained this decision with these gracious words: "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." I agreed.

Unfortunately, on April 21, Mr. Obama backtracked and opened the door to possible prosecution of Justice Department attorneys who provided legal advice with respect to the enhanced interrogations program. The president also signaled that he may support some kind of independent inquiry into the program. It seems that he has capitulated to left-wing groups and some in Congress who are demanding show trials over this program.

Members of Congress calling for an investigation of the enhanced interrogation program should remember that such an investigation can't be a selective review of information, or solely focus on the lawyers who wrote the memos, or the low-level employees who carried out this program. I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques.

Any investigation must include this information as part of a review of those in Congress and the Bush administration who reviewed and supported this program. To get a complete picture of the enhanced interrogation program, a fair investigation will also require that the Obama administration release the memos requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney on the successes of this program.

An honest and thorough review of the enhanced interrogation program must also assess the likely damage done to U.S. national security by Mr. Obama's decision to release the memos over the objections of Mr. Panetta and four of his predecessors. Such a review should assess what this decision communicated to our enemies, and also whether it will discourage intelligence professionals from offering their frank opinions in sensitive counterterrorist cases for fear that they will be prosecuted by a future administration.

Perhaps we need an investigation not of the enhanced interrogation program, but of what the Obama administration may be doing to endanger the security our nation has enjoyed because of interrogations and other antiterrorism measures implemented since Sept. 12, 2001.

Mr. Hoekstra, a congressman from Michigan, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The Clinton-Bush-Obama sellout

(Compiler's note: This is a must read!)

We found out this week that computer spies, who experts suspect are from China, have infiltrated the production process of the F-35 fighter jet. It turns out, according to a story in the Wall Street Journal, that part of the production process for the F-35 takes place in Turkey. Our new Muslim ally. The same country which just a few weeks ago Barack Obama visited. Remember when he went to the mosques in Turkey and took off his shoes? You know, that Turkey.

Now when George W. Bush tried to give the port contracts for the United States of America to the Kingdom of Dubai, I Michael Savage told you that they would try to use that position to infiltrate security and get at national secrets. I knew at that time there was a serious threat that they could sneak a Trojan Horse through the port security system.

Well, thanks to the alert members of The Savage Nation, the Dubai Ports fiasco was defeated. But now it looks like the Chinese have snuck a Trojan Horse through our computer security system. And how did they manage to do it? If the information from the Wall Street Journal this week is correct and Turkey now makes many of the components for the F-35 fighter, it seems very likely that the Muslim Trojan horse, which was stopped during the Dubai ports scandal, has now found a way to penetrate our systems through the auspices of our good Muslim allies in Turkey.

So how on earth did it happen that key components for one of our top military projects got outsourced to a Muslim nation? Nobody seems to know. Although maybe the fact that George W. Bush, the good conservative, pushed for closer trade relations with Turkey. For George W. Bush apparently it was all about the bottom line.

Not our national line of defense. In the 1940s Arthur Miller wrote a play called "All My Sons." It depicted a corrupt war profiteer who knew he had manufactured a set of faulty aircraft parts, but sent them to the Air Force to be put in airplanes anyway. As a result, the airplanes crashed, killing American troops. But truth is stranger than fiction. In the story the corrupt war profiteer gets his just desserts, but in this case, it seems that the villains got only rewarded. George W. Bush, who opened up close trade relationships with Turkey, has now retired to Texas where he lives in luxury off of speaking fees and will get Secret Service protection for the rest of his life.

What do we get? What does the citizens of the United States get? We get compromised security. We get a fighter jet that the Chinese can take out at any time because of their intimate knowledge of it. We get a bill for a 3 or 4 trillion-dollar bailout. And we get to kiss the behind of our so-called Muslim allies in Turkey to thank them for helping the Chinese destroy our national security. In short, we get screwed. We get sold out. All for the bottom line. The same bottom line that Clinton sold us out for by signing NAFTA. The same bottom line that Bush sold us out for when his cronies gobbled up the profits from Turkey. The same bottom line that Obama is selling us out for when he takes his shoes off in the mosque of the country that stabbed us in the back.

Another Fine Anti-Terror Mess

by Melanie Phillips

Britain continues to fumble in the fight against Jihadist terrorism. Will the U.S. take note of their mistakes? ....

How Control of Major Banks and Financial Institutions Means Socialism

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

President Obama showed his hand this week when the New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country's banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock

.

If Obama gets his way, it means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism. ....

Show Me the Leadership – Why Is Obama Still Voting ‘Present’?

by Pam Meister

While Obama dithers, precious opportunities involving our national security are frittered away. Did we elect a leader or a political opportunist? ....

Importance of being judgmental

(Compiler's note: This is a must read article.)

by Alan Keyes

Another question asks about God's forgiveness of sin. God's reply: "I do not forgive anyone because there is nothing to forgive. There is no such thing as right or wrong and that is what I have been trying to tell everyone, do not judge people. People have chosen to judge one another and this is wrong, because the rule is 'judge not lest ye be judged.'"

I received this report of the contents of books in the Neale Walsch series "Conversations with God" from one of my e-mail correspondents. (Reportedly, Walsch's work is one of Oprah Winfrey's particular favorites.) I was struck by the self-evident contradiction that has Walsch's god saying, "There is no such thing as right or wrong" in one breath, and "this is wrong" in the next. Obviously Walsh's god has no problem applying a concept while declaring that it doesn't exist.

I'd be tempted to think Walsch meant this as a joke, but this kind of silliness is typical of the shallow nonsense that passes for spirituality with the Oprah/Obama set. Mere mortals such as I have a hard time understanding how it's possible to recognize something as wrong when there's no such thing as right or wrong. Like eating a cake that's no longer there, it's a trick that can apparently be mastered only by the glamorous few.

Anyone who asserts that people should not be "judgmental" and then decries racism or "homophobia" is guilty of the same illogic. The word "judgment" traces its roots to Latin, jus dicare, meaning to say or pronounce what is right. Judgment assumes that right exists and can be recognized as such. If someone decries racism as an injustice (a word that also includes the reference to right or jus), they are invoking a concept or standard of right that makes it so. If "there is no such thing as right or wrong," this standard cannot exist. Their opposition to racism (or any other injustice) is groundless emotionalism. It has no more claim to respect than the opposite view – that racial superiority legitimizes oppression of those who are inferior.

This careless illogic barely disguises the reassertion of the law of the jungle (might makes right; superior force creates legitimacy), a form of fatalism that encourages submission to whomever happens to enjoy success at the moment, with no standard to inspire opposition to their will except the promise of superior power. Though the Oprah/Obama crowd poses as compassionate people who care about the weak, it represents the reassertion of a purely power-based order in human society, a concept of law and government most fully codified under ancient Roman rule.

Roman imperial rule epitomized the human social order based on self-legitimizing power. As advocates of a moral understanding that implies returning to this social order, the Oprah/Obama crowd profoundly rejects the moral understanding Jesus Christ asserted against it. The biblical Creator God is the transcendent, absolute power who provides the basis for a concept of right that limits the claims of every human power, whatsoever. However powerful or successful any human or humans become, the weak and powerless have recourse to this standard of justice as a rallying point against the claim of the more powerful to rule without respect for any will but their own. This standard becomes the basis for the idea of "limited government," not just as a particular matter of fact, but as the conceptual test of just government as such. This means that any government not intrinsically constrained to respect the right established by God's will has no legitimacy.

It's no accidental coincidence that this return to the ancient Roman understanding of power involves promoting the false notion that personal liberation mainly involves the free play of sexual and other physical passions. In fact, the paradigm of such liberation is the wealthy drug addict's freedom to get high – a condition that, in fact, involves a degrading form of subjection and slavery. Moreover, as the capacity for self-control in the face of passion erodes, so does the ability to control fear (which is, after all, a physical passion) when confronted with danger. This reinforces the ability of the more powerful to cow and manipulate those less well endowed.

Christian faith proved to be an effective antidote to this preparation of the will for tyranny. The image of Christian martyrs singing hymns as they faced wild animals in the Roman arena testifies to its ability to rouse their courage. Thanks to Christianity, the virtues usually reserved for trained warriors, like the Spartans, were made available to all kinds of people, including those previously regarded as naturally weak and, therefore, inferior.

As contemporary elites strive to recreate the inegalitarian forms of government and society that remove all constraints from their vainglorious ambitions, Christianity therefore poses an infuriating obstacle. The conviction that any individuals who put their faith in Christ have access to the wisdom and power of the Creator God defeats the psychologically intimidating effect of physical superiority, thereby depriving the superior few of their most important advantage. Jefferson was right when he swore eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. Unconstrained rule by the superior few becomes impossible when many people are imbued with the mental independence derived from a faith that makes the greatest power imaginable the reliable ally of their right actions (rights).

The Oprah/Obama crowd may pose as champion of the masses, but it serves an agenda that must ultimately reinstate the routine oppression of the many by the few. Before the meaning of Christ's incarnation was accurately translated for the benefit of the common people, such oppression was characteristic of societies everywhere. I believe that the American republic has been the primary and most successful result of that translation. As it now faces what may be the last crisis of its existence, its fate heavily depends on whether those who profess to be Christians will understand the indispensable role that must be played by the courage their faith makes available to all. This may be the most important practical prerequisite of the equality America's founders asserted on behalf of all humankind.

'Put al-Qaida in room with Hillary'

By Bob Unruh

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

A lawyer

who has been a watchdog on Washington for two decades has suggested a replacement for the so-called "torture" techniques used by the U.S. to obtain critical information about pending attacks from captured terrorists: Put them in a room with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

After all, the lawyer said, that treatment prompted former President Bill Clinton to confess his misbehavior with Monica Lewinsky.

The suggestion comes from Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch. He started out his watchdog work with the organization Judicial Watch then left to pursue a seat in the U.S. Senate and subsequently launched Freedom Watch.

In a statement released today, Klayman said it's "politics as usual in the corrupt cesspool of Washington, D.C." He commented on President Obama's decision to release to the public some of the previously classified memos regarding "enhanced" interrogation techniques such as waterboarding that were used during the administration of President Bush.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has called for the release of other documents he says would verify the value of the information received from the enhanced techniques. One of the plots defused reportedly was a massive attack on Los Angeles.....

Pelosi briefed on waterboarding in '02 [UPDATED]

(Compiler's note: Stop the spin already! Must read.)

by Glenn Thrush

Nancy Pelosi denies knowing U.S. officials used waterboarding — but GOP operatives are pointing to a 2007 Washington Post story which describes an hour-long 2002 briefing in which Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques in graphic detail.

Two unnamed officials told the paper that Pelosi, then a member of the Democratic minority, didn't raise substantial objections.

Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen wrote:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

UPDATE: A Pelosi spokesman passes along her response to the article when it first appeared, claiming that Pelosi's successor on the intel committee -- Yep, Jane Harman -- lodged a protest with the CIA when she learned waterboarding was in use.

"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.

I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

Lower down in the article, the authors and their sources acknowledge Pelosi & Co. were severely constrained in what they could do with the information — and had no way of knowing how the techniques would ultimately used or abused in a pre-Abu Gharaib era.

Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"