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.'"

Gates takes reform agenda to military officers

By Katherine McIntire Peters

Defense Secretary Robert Gates this week is lobbying what is arguably his most important constituency to accept his reform agenda as embodied in the Obama administration's 2010 defense budget proposal -- the men and women who will lead troops on tomorrow's battlefields.

"These recommendations are less about budget numbers than they are about how the United States military thinks about and prepares for the future," Gates told officers at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, on Wednesday. The officers are students at the Air War College, Command and Staff College, and School of Advanced Air and Space Studies.

Gates' budget proposals would significantly reprioritize investments in major weapons programs; increase spending on programs that benefit troops, notably in medical research, health care and family support; and reform contracting.

Fundamentally, the proposals reflect how Gates believes military leaders should prepare for future warfare and care for troops and their families. They would institutionalize support for the men and women on the battlefield, and compel the services to work together to buy the most effective weapons, he said.

"These are just the kind of basic questions you will be dealing with as you go on to staff and command positions," he told the audience. For that reason, Gates said he was visiting each of the service war colleges to explain his decision-making and address questions officers might have.

Gates said his budget decisions reflected his frustrations as Defense secretary during the past two years: "Whether the issue is fixing outpatient care, getting better armored vehicles or sending more [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] capability into the theater, I kept running into the fact that the Department of Defense, as an institution which routinely complained that the rest of government wasn't at war, was itself, not on a war footing, even as young Americans were fighting and dying every day."

The needs of combat troops were not much championed at the Pentagon, especially in comparison with the services' conventional modernization programs, which too often took precedence in the department's budget, according to Gates. The needs of combat troops were relegated mostly to supplemental funding requests to Congress, he said.

"One of the things I've learned since entering government 43 years ago is that the best way to ensure that an organization really cares for and fights for something, as a lioness does for her cubs, is to put that thing in its base budget," Gates said.

As such, he has moved funding for many items into the Pentagon's base budget that formerly were paid for through supplemental funding requests -- things such as medical research and brain injury and psychological health treatment programs. Likewise, investments in helicopters, transport aircraft for moving troops and equipment on the battlefield, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance -- resources that are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan -- will be shifted from supplemental funding to the Pentagon's base budget under Gates' proposal.

Shaping Gates' thinking about what weapons programs to cut or accelerate was his conviction that the old definitions of conventional and irregular war are no longer useful. "We face a more complex future than that," where nation-states will be as apt to employ irregular tactics as terrorists, and where nonstate actors may have weapons of mass destruction. "This kind of warfare will require capabilities with the maximum possible flexibility to deal with the widest possible range of conflict," he said.

That is the reason behind Gates' decision to halt the Air Force's F-22 fighter program at 187 aircraft in 2010. "The F-22 is, in effect, a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios," he said. Instead, Gates wants to accelerate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a cheaper, multiservice fighter, eventually purchasing more than 2,400 of the aircraft. While the F-22 is a more sophisticated aircraft, the F-35 will provide strength in numbers and be suitable for a broader array of missions.

Gates' remarks were "very well-received," said Maxwell spokesman Phil Berube. A transcript of the event showed a number of officers expressed appreciation for Gates' decisions and his explanation of them. It was the Defense secretary's first visit to the service's premier officer training school since June 2008, when he flew there to explain his unprecedented decision to fire Michael Donley and Michael Mosley, who were Air Force secretary and chief of staff at the time, because he had lost confidence in their leadership, Berube said.

Gates conducted similar briefings at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia and the Army War College in Pennsylvania. He planned to visit the Naval War College in Rhode Island on Friday.

I Am an Extremist

(Compiler's note: Alarming, folks. This is a must read item. The fact that DHS published such a biased and shoddy analysis alone causes me to question our leadership, but that our President has not rejected it speaks loudly. We should be concerned about the part I have highlighted below about ‘Internet chatter’. Thanks to a fellow Marine for sharing. In case there is any doubt, by Ollie’s definition below, I too am a right-wing extremist, and am equally proud of it.
Semper Fidelis)

by Oliver North

According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian -- and meet regularly with other Christians to study God's word. My faith convinces me the prophesies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, frequently shoot them, buy ammunition and consider efforts to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt.

Apparently, all this makes me a "rightwing extremist." At least that's what it says in the April 7, 2009 "Assessment" issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The nine-page report, titled, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is full of warnings about American citizens who share any of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I have ever read.

Evidently neither you nor I were ever supposed to read this "Assessment." At the bottom of the cover page is a warning that it is "not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know." We're Americans. We have a need to know what's going on in our government -- especially in an administration that promised to be "transparent." A full copy of the report is posted at www.freedomalliance.org.

The "Assessment" purports to alert law enforcement officials that "rightwing extremists" -- the term is used more than 35 times -- are intent on exploiting Americans who have strongly held beliefs on everything from Christian faith to rising unemployment, U.S. sovereignty and the 2nd Amendment. It vilifies those of us in these categories by references to neo-Nazis, racists, militias, white-supremacists, and other "hate groups." Notably, the report includes a warning that Rightwing Extremism "may include groups or individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Though the report proffers a passing reference to the First Amendment, it is replete with bias against conservative thought, writing and communications. On page 3, law enforcement authorities are warned, "Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived (emphasis added) loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures."

This is a frightening acknowledgement that political speech is being monitored in America. It is also wrong. It's not "perception." It is fact. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the manufacturing and construction sectors have lost 161,000 jobs and 126,000 jobs, respectively, in the last month alone.

In its "Key Findings" the DHS manuscript boldly charges "rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues" and warns that "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

Under the heading "Disgruntled Military Veterans" the report alleges, "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists -- including lone wolves or small terrorist cells -- to carry out violence." These unsubstantiated claims are followed by reminders that Timothy McVeigh -- the 1995 Oklahoma City bomber -- was a military veteran. Omitted is any reference to the fact that McVeigh was simply one of more than 40 million law abiding veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Thirteen lines after this egregious, unconscionable slander against those of us who are military combat veterans, DHS makes the stunning charge that, "lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."

According to this DHS "Assessment," the most dangerous threat we face here at home isn't from radical imams preaching violence in U.S. mosques and madrassas, Islamists recruiting in our prisons, Somali terrorists enticing young immigrants to become suicide bombers or Hamas, Hezbollah or al Qaeda operatives plotting mass murder. No, according to DHS, the real threat comes from what our government labels "rightwing extremist ideology."

Mr. Obama should publicly disavow this report and fire the officials responsible for issuing it. Those who prepare his remarks for the occasion should insert in the teleprompter Sen. Barry Goldwater's words on the subject: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Are you licensed to reload that ammo?

Alarm raised over treaty provision to ban activity ....

Blair: 'High Value' Information Obtained in CIA Interrogations

Obama's national intelligence director says in a private memo that information obtained from harsh interrogations resulted in "a deeper understanding of the Al Qaeda network." ....

Disturbing New Development in Obama Birth Certificate Issue: Listen Now

How has the Obama administration reacted to attorney John D. Hemenway's birth certificate lawsuit? Hemenway's interview on 610 WTVN gives all the disturbing details.

Click here to listen.

Islamists and the Left Working Together in Muslim-majority Countries?

Daniel Pipes

Recently, there have been several signs of rapprochement between Islamists and the Socialist left in countries where Muslims are in the majority. This should concern us greatly. ....

Video: Dick Cheney declassification of intelligence legal memos

by : Nancy George on April 22, 2009

Video: Congresswoman Caught on Wiretap Brokering Deal with Suspected Israeli Agent

by : Nancy George on April 22, 2009

Is Janet Napolitano Up to the Task of Keeping Americans Safe? (Part One of Two)

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

Dr. Robin McFee

Secretary Napolitano – weak on security and immigration enforcement, strong on appeasement. How can we defeat terrorism when we can no longer name it?....

U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Announces Expanded ‘Coalition’

Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report

By constructing “coalitions” of its own front organizations, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood gives a false appearance of more broad-based support than it actually enjoys. ....

Texas lawmakers consider telling U.S. gov't to 'cease and desist'

By ANNA M. TINSLEY

AUSTIN -- Note to Washington, D.C.: Texas is a sovereign state.

After Gov. Rick Perry's recent comments about some Texans talking secession from the union made national news, legislators are considering issuing a "cease and desist" order to the federal government.

"This state prefers, to the greatest extent possible, to control our own destiny," said Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Keller, one of several members co-sponsoring the measure. "We prefer that federal government limit the amount of federal mandates it forces upon the people of Texas."

House Concurrent Resolution 50, which claims sovereignty for Texas under the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, was one of several proposals to go before the House State Affairs Committee late Tuesday.

Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, filed the bill, saying that more than a dozen states have proposed similar efforts amid concern that the federal government may be overstepping its boundaries.

"From restrictions on gun and ammunition sales, to freedom-of-choice issues, to the Real ID Act, the federal government is passing laws that limit a state's ability to govern itself," Creighton has said. "Texas simply wants to send the message that we want to govern ourselves and decide for ourselves how our money is to be spent."

Under this resolution, the 81st Legislature "hereby claim[s] sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

"This serve[s] as notice and demand to the federal government ... to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

Rep. Mark Shelton, R-Fort Worth, also signed on as a co-sponsor.

"Texans should have the right for their representatives in Austin to decide what is best for Texas," Shelton said.

Perry -- who stirred a firestorm last week with secession talk -- said he supports this bill, especially since the federal government "has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state." "I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our union."

Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, said that he initially considered serving as a co-sponsor as well but that he changed his mind because of Perry.

"The concept has been corrupted by gubernatorial politics," he said.

Taliban Tighten Their Grip on Pakistan's Northwest

ISLAMABAD — Taliban militants have extended their grip in northwestern Pakistan, pushing out from a valley where the government has agreed to impose Islamic law and patrolling villages as close as 60 miles from the capital.

Police and officials appear to have fled as armed militants also broadcast radio sermons and spread fear in Buner district, just 60 miles from Islamabad, officials and witnesses said Wednesday.

Pakistan's president signed off on the peace pact last week in hopes of calming Swat, where some two years of clashes between the Taliban and security forces have killed hundreds and displaced up to a third of the one-time tourist haven's 1.5 million residents.

Critics, including in Washington, have warned that the valley could become an officially sanctioned base for allies of Al Qaeda — and that it may be just the first domino in nuclear-armed Pakistan to fall to the Taliban.

"The activities in the Swat do concern us. We're keeping an eye on it, and are working daily with the Pakistan military," Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker told Pentagon reporters in a 35-minute videoconference call from Afghanistan.

Supporters of the deal say it will allow the government to gradually reassert control by taking away the militants' rallying cry for Islamic law. Many residents are grateful that a semblance of peace has returned. A handful of officials are back in Swat.

The agreement covers Swat and other districts in the Malakand Division, an area of about 10,000 square miles near the Afghan border and the tribal areas where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have strongholds.

The provincial government agreed to impose Islamic law in Malakand, and the Taliban agreed to a cease-fire that has largely held.

In recent days, the Swat militants have set their sights on Buner, a district just south of the valley, sparking at least one major clash with residents. The moves indicate the militants want to expand their presence beyond Swat to other parts of Malakand at the very least, under the guise of enforcing Islamic law.

Many in Buner are now too frightened to speak to reporters. However, a lawmaker from the area told The Associated Press that the militants had entered the district in "large numbers" and started setting up checkpoints at main roads and strategic positions.

"Local elders and clerics are negotiating with them to resolve this issue through talks," Istiqbal Khan said.

The militants in Buner also are using radio airwaves to broadcast sermons about Islam, and have occupied the homes of some prominent landowners, said a police official who insisted on anonymity because he was afraid of retaliation. He said the militants have also warned barbers to stop shaving men's beards and stores to stop selling music and movies.

The militants have established a major base in the village of Sultanwas and have set up positions in the nearby hills, the police official said. Militants also have taken over the shrine of a famed Sufi saint known as Pir Baba, he said.

The Taliban move into Buner left the Swat deal hanging from a thread, said Rasul Bakhsh Rais, professor of political science at Lahore University of Management Sciences.

"If the Taliban continue to expand in different directions and establish fiefdoms as they did in Swat, then probably the deal is not going to work and the government will be forced to scuttle that deal and go back to operations" by security forces, Rais said.

The provincial government's chief executive said authorities were prepared to use force if the Taliban didn't "pack up and go home" from Buner. But Haider Khan Hoti also pleaded for patience and rejected Western calls for a more aggressive approach.

U.S. missile attacks on militant targets in the northwest were undermining Pakistan's efforts to find a peaceful solution, he said.

"This is our country, we will have to look at our own priorities and our own interests," Hoti said. "We should not enter any friendship at the cost of our own destruction."

Since the provincial government agreed to the deal in February, Taliban fighters had adopted a lower profile and stopped openly displaying weapons in Swat as part of a cease-fire.

But on Tuesday, upon the radio-broadcast orders of Swat Taliban chief Maulana Fazlullah, the militants began roaming parts of the valley with rifles and other weapons. An AP reporter saw the patrols in Mingora, the valley's main city.

Residents from nearby towns in Swat said militants were setting up checkpoints on several roads. The residents requested anonymity out of fear for their lives.

Fazlullah ordered his fighters to withdraw again in a broadcast on Wednesday. He didn't explain why.

Swat Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan could not be reached for comment.

Khan said recently that Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden and other militants aiming to oust the U.S. from Afghanistan would be welcome and protected in Swat — a statement the government condemned.

He also said the militants want to see all of Pakistan under Islamic law — a cry echoed by several other Islamist firebrands. sharia

Rais, the professor, said there was concern that Islamists may have concluded from the Swat deal that authorities will cave in to violent demands for Islamic law elsewhere.

"They have natural allies in the religious political parties in other parts of the country. They have social and religious networks that have support their suicide attacks and attacks against the security forces," Rais said.

"It is about the identity of Pakistan and the future direction that Pakistan can take

Probes of Bush Officials Loom

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama raised the possibility of prosecuting Bush administration lawyers who approved so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on terror suspects.

Mr. Obama, speaking to reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office, also laid out the parameters for a bipartisan commission to examine government tactics used in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, although he was careful to say he wasn't endorsing such a panel.

Together, the remarks put the president squarely in the center of a growing battle between liberals who want to hold Bush administration officials accountable for what they call torture, and conservatives who say Mr. Obama has damaged national security by revealing interrogation secrets.

White House reporter Jonathan Weisman discusses the shift in the Obama administration, which has now signaled they may prosecute Bush-era lawyers who approved the CIA's harsh interrogations.

The president last week overruled objections from Central Intelligence Agency officials and released documents that described such interrogation tactics as waterboarding, slamming prisoners against walls and confining them in cramped spaces -- sometimes populated with insects -- to induce fear.

Mr. Obama drew a distinction Tuesday between those who carried out the interrogations and those who argued for them, reiterating that he didn't think those who followed legal guidance should be prosecuted. "With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general, within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that," the president said.

The CIA memos, he said, "reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings."

The comments were a marked contrast with the tone set by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who said Sunday that the people who formulated the Bush policies wouldn't be subject to prosecution. On ABC's "This Week," Mr. Emanuel said, "It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back in a sense of anger and retribution."

Even Mr. Obama's director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, defended the harsh practices. He wrote in a letter to colleagues last week that "high-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

The letter also expressed some sympathy for Bush administration officials operating in the months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

'Dr Doom' predicts further shocks in the market Stock market bulls have got it wrong, warns Nouriel Roubini

By Nick Clark

Nouriel Roubini, the so-called "arch bear" economist who predicted the current financial crisis in 2006, added further gloom yesterday after he wrote off recent rises in global stock markets as no more than a dead cat bounce.

While an increasing number of analysts have in recent weeks urged investors to go back into equities, Mr Roubini, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business who has emerged as one of the most respected economic voices in the wake of the credit crunch, warned yesterday that he didn't yet see a buying opportunity.

He holds little faith in the recent market rallies, which prompted some to suggest a recovery was underway. "I'm still cautious and bearish," he said. "I believe we are closer to a bottom in the stock market than a year ago, but this is a bear market rally."

Anthony Bolton, fund manager at Fidelity International, said last month that a bull phase had started, while analysts at Goldman Sachs have argued in recent weeks that "we are past the low point in the economic cycle".

However, Mr Roubini, dubbed "Dr Doom" for his warnings about financial meltdown, said there would be more bad news in the next few quarters.

In particular, the economist warned of further dangers ahead for the financial services industry in the US. "I see financial shocks in the months ahead. Some financial institutions are in so much trouble we may have to take them over," he said, before adding that losses in the industry could rise from $1 trillion to as high as $3.6 trillion.

Firms from across financial services will go out of business or be taken over, he said, particularly focusing on the bleak future for hedge funds.

Mr Roubini also disagrees with more optimistic forecasts for the US economy. In an interview published on Forbes.com yesterday, he said that the prediction of a 2 per cent growth rate next year was far too bullish...

He blamed weak recovery, deflation which would dog the US for the next two years, and financial shocks for the lower-than-expected growth...

Click here for addition information -- see interview

Reverse: Now Obama open to prosecution, probe of interrogations

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

By JENNIFER LOVEN

President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Obama also said he could support a congressional investigation into the Bush-era terrorist detainee program, but only under certain conditions, such as if it were done on a bipartisan basis. He said he worries about the impact that high-intensity, politicized hearings in Congress could have on the government's efforts to cope with terrorism.

The president had said earlier that he didn't want to see prosecutions of the CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, so long as they acted within parameters spelled out by government superiors who held that such practices were legal at the time.

But the administration's stance on Bush administration lawyers who actually wrote the memos approving these tactics has been less clear and Obama declined to make it so. "There are a host of very complicated issues involved," Obama said.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview over the weekend that the administration does not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy." Later, White House aides said that he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.

The president took a question on the volatile subject for the first time since he ordered the Justice Department to release top-secret Bush-era memos that gave the government's first full accounting of the CIA's use of waterboarding _ a form of simulated drowning _ and other harsh methods criticized as torture. The previously classified memos were released Thursday, over the objections of many in the intelligence community. CIA Director Leon Panetta had pressed for heavier censorship when they were released, but the memos were put out with only light redactions.

Far from putting the matter in the past, the move has resulted in Obama being buffeted by increased pressure from both sides.

Republican lawmakers and former CIA chiefs have criticized Obama's decision, contending that revealing the limits of interrogation techniques will hamper the effectiveness of interrogators and critical U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services.

The release also has appeared to intensify calls for further investigations of the Bush-era terrorist treatment program and for prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture.

Obama banned all such techniques days after taking office. But members of Congress have continued to seek the release of information about the early stages of the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror under former President George W. Bush. Lawsuits have been brought, seeking the same information.

Obama said an investigation might be acceptable "outside of the typical hearing process" and with the participation of "independent participants who are above reproach." This, he said, could help ensure that any investigation would be a tool to learn, not to provide partisan advantage to one side or another.

"That would probably be a more sensible approach to take," Obama said. "I'm not saying that it should be done, I'm saying that if you've got a choice."

The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.

"As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back," Obama said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."

Feinstein and husband exposed as crooks

Feinstein and husband exposed as crooks (Washington Times) Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to an agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract ...

She knows what the 2nd amendment is really all about

Texas state representative, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, whose parents were killed by an insane gunman while her gun was out in the car, gives very moving and bold testimony about the REAL reason that the second amendment was designed to protect our God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Just click on the title of this article and watch.

Pentagon official blames U.S. for al-Qaida attacks Worked for George Soros, argued for government control of media

By Aaron Klein

Rosa Brooks

She believes al-Qaida was an "obscure group" turned into a massive threat due to U.S. policies.

She's referred to former President Bush as "our torturer in chief" and a "psychotic who need(s) treatment" while comparing Bush's arguments for waging a war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler's use of political propaganda.

She's worked on behalf of George Soros' philanthropic foundation.

Meet Rosa Brooks, the Obama administration's new adviser to Michelle Fluornoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, a position described as one of the most influential in the Pentagon.

"I prefer to think of (my new position) as my personal government bailout," Brooks wrote in a departing piece at the Los Angeles Times, where she served as a regular columnist.....

Ex-CIA Director: Obama Compromised National Security with Memo Release

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

from NewsMax

Click here for the interview video on FoxNews.

WASHINGTON - A former head of the Central Intelligence Agency insisted Sunday that harsh interrogation techniques widely condemned as torture had succeeded in battling Al-Qaeda and saving American lives, something he characterized as "an inconvenient truth."

Michael Hayden, who was replaced as CIA chief earlier this year by President Barack Obama, assailed Obama's decision last week to release "Top Secret" memos detailing the interrogation techniques as "really dangerous" for US intelligence efforts.

"What we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an Al-Qaeda terrorist. That's very valuable information. By taking [certain] techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult -- in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine -- for CIA officers to defend the nation."

Speaking on the "Fox News Sunday" program, Hayden rejected claims by critics that methods like extreme sleep deprivation, waterboarding and the use of insects to provoke fear had proved ineffective in getting information from top members of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network.

"Most of the people who oppose these techniques want to be able to say: 'I don't want my nation doing this' -- which is a pure honorable position -- and 'they didn't work anyway'," Hayden said.

"The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer, it really did," Hayden said.

"It's what I'd call, without meaning any irreverence to anybody, 'a really inconvenient truth.'"

Hayden specifically rejected a weekend report in The New York Times citing CIA officials saying that waterboarding and beating of a top Al-Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, yielded no more information than softer interrogation techniques.

"We stand by our story. The critical information we got from Abu Zubaydah came after we began the EIT's, enhanced interrogation techniques," he said.

Hayden said Abu Zubaydah had "clammed up" after providing some "nominal information" under initial questioning.

But under harsher interrogation he "gave up more valuable information," including tips that led to the capture of another senior Al-Qaeda agent, Ramzi Binalshibh, he said.

Hayden also dismissed Obama's controversial promise not to seek prosecution of CIA agents or former officials under President George W. Bush who authorized or carried out the harsh techniques the government now condemns.

"Oh, God no, it's not the end of it," Hayden said, warning of possible civil lawsuits or congressional probes targetting CIA agents who relied on the Bush-era memos to carry out harsh interrogations.

"There will be more revelations. There will be more commissions. There will be more investigations," he said.

"And this to an agency, again I'll repeat, that is at war and is on the front lines of defending America."

Hayden also said Obama's own CIA director, Leon Panetta, as well as three other former CIA chiefs had warned the White House against releasing of the memos outlining US interrogation techniques.

"At the tactical level, what we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an Al-Qaeda terrorist. That's very valuable information," he said.

Janet Napolitano, Obama's homeland security minister, defended the decision.

"When you look at the great public need for accountability and responsibility and transparency here, and when you look at our desire to close the book on this regrettable chapter and move the country forward, it was imperative, really, that the reports be released," she said on CNN.

How Obama actually delayed pirate rescue SEAL team deployment stalled 36 hours, hampered by limited rules of engagement

(Compiler's note: A must read item.)

The following is adapted from an exclusive report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin

WASHINGTON – While Barack Obama is basking in praise for his "decisive" handling of the Somali pirate attack on a merchant ship in the India Ocean, reliable military sources close to the scene are painting a much different picture of the incident – accusing the president of employing restrictive rules of engagement that actually hampered the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips and extended the drama at sea for days.

Multiple opportunities to free the captain of the Maersk Alabama from three young pirates were missed, these sources say – all because a Navy SEAL team was not immediately ordered to the scene and then forced to operate under strict, non-lethal rules of engagement.

They say the response duty office at the Pentagon was initially unwilling to grant an order to use lethal force to rescue Phillips. They also report the White House refused to authorize deployment of a Navy SEAL team to the location for 36 hours, despite the recommendation of the on-scene commander.

The White House also turned down two rescue plans offered up by the Seal commander on the scene and the captain of the USS Bainbridge.

The SEAL team operated under rules of engagement that required them to do nothing unless the hostage's life was in "imminent' danger.

In fact, when the USS Bainbridge dispatched a rigid-hull inflatable boat to bring supplies to the Maersk Alabama, it came under fire that could not be returned even though the SEAL team had the pirates in their sights.

Many hours before the fatal shots were fired, taking out the three young pirates, Phillips jumped into the Indian Ocean with the idea of giving the snipers a clear target. However, the SEAL team was still under orders not to shoot.

Hours later, frustrated by the missed opportunities to resolve the standoff, the commander of the Bainbridge and the captain of the Navy SEAL team determined they had operational authority to evaluate the risk to the hostage, and took out the pirates at the first opportunity – finally freeing Phillips.