FRIDAY MORNING AT THE PENTAGON

(Compiler's note: Absolutely must read.)

By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY

Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.

This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who recently completed a year long tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.

Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the Army corridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.

"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.

This hallway, more than any other, is the Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew their friendships.

Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area. The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares.10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outer most of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building.. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.

A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence.He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating.. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.

Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden. Yet.

Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel. Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt.. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30. Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.

They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade.

More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.

These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

Did you know that? The media hasn't yet told the story. And probably never will.

CAIR Exploits Terror Case to Thwart FBI Intelligence Gathering

Steven Emerson

A potentially significant terrorist case in California is being exploited by radical Islamist groups to mount a campaign against the FBI. .... Rather than praising law enforcement for rooting out a would-be terrorist from their community, Islamist groups are casting FBI efforts - the use of an informant inside mosques – as an assault on the civil liberties of all Muslim Americans. ....

Taliban Raids Christian Neighborhood, Murders Two

By Mike Pechar

(Karachi, Pakistan) With swaths of territory now being ceded to the Taliban, the fundamentalists apparently believe they have been given free reign to harass and kill Christians everywhere. On the night of April 21, more than 100 masked Taliban entered a Christian community in Karachi and raided homes.

Going door to door, the armed Taliban terrorists grabbed the elderly and women by the hair, pulled them into the streets and ordered them to convert to Islam. The women were beaten with clubs and whips and sexually assaulted. Homes were set on fire.

Two Christians who resisted were murdered, execution-style, in front of their families.

It's expected that more and harsher incidents of violence against Christians will occur as long as the world keeps smooching Taliban tail. (more) Sharia

Dick Cheney's Daughter Takes on MSNBC

(Compiler's note: A must read - see)

The UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty Is Back – This Time with a Friend in the White House

(Compiler's note: A must read.)

J. D. Longstreet

The leftists of the world have been encouraging the United States to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which was rightly vetoed by President Reagan decades ago and rejected by American Presidents, both Democrat and Republican

, ever since. Now, with President Obama, the treaty has a friend in the White House.

It ought to scare the living daylights out of you. Why? Let's look at some reasons why the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is important to you as an American.

By asserting UN authority over seven-tenths of the Earth's surface, LOST would be the largest territorial conquest in history.

In principle, the treaty would assert UN jurisdiction over U.S. territorial waters, and eventually over waterways within our country.

It would create a huge bureaucratic entity called the "Enterprise," which would regulate and tax all commercial uses of the high seas.

By taxing all efforts to develop the wealth of the seabed, the UN would be given a huge revenue stream, independent of national governments to push its agenda for international socialism.

The treaty would require the redistribution of cutting-edge technology from the U.S. to all governments in the "developing world," including extremely repressive governments.

Get the picture? It's that "One World Government," or "Global Governance" our current President is so fond of. You know... it is the "Globalists" at work.

So, where do we stand today on LOST? Not good, I'm afraid.

The last time this treaty came before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, they passed it by a vote of 17-4. If the committee approves it again it will go before the entire Senate for ratification.

The National Center for Public Policy Research provides educational resources on the Law of the Sea Treaty (also known by the acronyms LOST and UNCLOS). National Center Vice President David Ridenour has said:

"The Law of the Sea Treaty is a terrible deal for the U.S. It would threaten our sovereignty, place a significant portion of the world's resources under the control of a UN-style body, and complicate our efforts to apprehend terrorists on the high seas by subjecting our actions to review by an international court unlikely to render decisions favorable to the U.S."

Ridenour went on to say:

"The Law of the Sea Treaty would help radical environmentalists achieve what they haven't been able to achieve through legislation. Greenpeace has said 'the benefits of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea are substantial, including its basic duties for states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to conserve marine living species.' The Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the Navy's use of 'intense active sonar,' arguing that it violates the treaty by posing a danger to marine life. The Navy ultimately agreed to scale back use of this technology. The Law of the Sea Treaty has also been used by Australia and New Zealand in an attempt to shut down an experimental blue fin tuna fishing program and by Ireland in an attempt to shut down a plant on land in England."

The United National Law of the Sea Treaty Information Center contains a collection of research papers, commentaries and blog entries about LOST from a variety of think-tanks, scholars, opinion writers and bloggers.

"Although the Law of the Sea Treaty has been around for decades - the National Center for Public Policy Research first worked on it in 1982 - relatively few people know much about it," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty Information Center website is designed to help correct this."

And for even more information on this proposed treaty, I urge you to go here.

It is more important than ever before to contact your senators and urge them to educate themselves about the realities of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

This is serious stuff, and we are not hearing about it in the MSM. Why not?

Let’s Declassify Obama’s Birth Certificate Along With the ‘Torture’ Memos

U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net 'Fairness Doctrine' Cass Sunstein sees Web as anti-democratic, proposed 24-hour delay on sending e-mail

Source: WorldNetDaily

.... "It's hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein," he says. "Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that 'limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.' If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online – right down to our personal e-mail communications – would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government."

Should U.S. flee Afghanistan?

(Compiler's note: A must read.)

Analysts are raising questions – just as President Obama has committed another 17,000 U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan – whether instead the goal should be to pull its military out of that battle, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The conflict highlights the question of just what are the strategic interests of the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan and what course of action does the Obama administration contemplate to fulfill those interests? The obvious key question: is it necessary to be in Afghanistan at all?

Such ideas are being raised in Congress and among foreign policy experts who see a rapidly deteriorating situation in both countries. Is it wise, they ask, for the U.S. to seek extrication from Iraq just to land in another similar – or worse – quagmire in Afghanistan.

The overall situation is further complicated by the increasing threat presented by the Taliban insurgency to the leadership in neighboring Pakistan and a resurgence in Afghanistan.

Concerns are being raised as to why the United States is sticking around in Afghanistan considering the corrupt Afghan government unable to defend itself against the Taliban while neighboring Pakistan finds itself on the brink of caving to the Islamists.

It also raises the question of why the U.S. should commit more troops. Some experts suggest the U.S. should get out of Afghanistan altogether. The situation in the region is quickly coming to a head as to what the U.S. strategy should be. The options are not all that favorable.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

Meantime, the United States' NATO allies, who have some 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, want them out as soon as possible, making the prospect of Afghanistan yet another "American War."

The U.S. contingent is almost three times that size, plus the 17,000 more promised by Obama. What NATO troops there are in Afghanistan mostly are located away from the southern region where the fiercest fighting is occurring near Pakistan's tribal areas. On the other hand, that is where most of the U.S. forces are located.

The U.S. may perceive that its overarching interest for the area is to curb the growth of the insurgent movement that seems to be spawned in Pakistan and Afghanistan and poses a worldwide threat. U.S. policymakers believe that threats to the U.S. emanate from the growing insurgent movement comprised of Taliban and al-Qaida in both countries.

President Obama sought to define U.S. policy in a March 2009 news conference.

"The situation is increasingly perilous. It's been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power yet war rages on and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghanistan government has risen steadily. And, most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces. Many people in the United States and many in partner country that have sacrificed so much have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? Of so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer. So let me be clear. Al-Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can. The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaida and its extremist allies have moved across the border to remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al-Qaida's leadership, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, and communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world. But this is not simply an American problem, far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order."

Given the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, concern also is mounting over the possibility they could land in the hands of the insurgents should that government fall. At this writing, however, that prospect appears to be marginal, if certain actions are taken now.

Assuming that it is in the strategic interest of the U.S. to be in Afghanistan and to prop up the Pakistan government, then a strategy needs to be devised that offers a combined political and military solution.