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.

White House Apologizes For NYC Military Fly-By

Pakistani Intelligence: Osama Is Dead

by Bill Roggio

As Pakistan wrestles with the Taliban takeover of large swaths of its territory and the encroachment on Islamabad, its Inter-Services Intelligence agency tells us that Osama bin Laden is dead.

President Asif Ali Zardari said Monday that Pakistani intelligence believes Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is dead but acknowledged they had no evidence.

"The Americans tell me they don't know, and they are much more equipped than us to trace him. And our own intelligence services obviously think that he does not exist any more, that he is dead," Zardari told reporters.

"But there is no evidence, you cannot take that as a fact," he said. "We are between facts and fiction."

Zardari was responding to reports that Pakistani Taliban in the troubled Swat valley have said they would welcome bin Laden if he wants to visit the former Pakistani hill resort which is now in the hands of Taliban.

"The question is whether he is alive or dead. There is no trace of him," the president said.

If you can't trust the ISI to give you accurate information on al Qaeda and the Taliban, who can you trust? Considering the ISI orders suicide attacks on embassies in Kabul, supports terror attacks on major cities in India, and conducts resupply missions to Taliban forces as they fight U.S. soldiers in eastern Afghanistan, who else is better suited to know the inner machinations of al Qaeda?

The timing of this report is interesting, given the pressure being placed on Pakistan to tackle the Taliban sanctuaries that have blossomed in the northwest. U.S. officials have also been highly critical of the Paksitani Army and the ISI. Pakistan's military and intelligence services clearly are looking for ways to deflect criticism and divert attention from the collapse in their country.

What You Need to Know About Swine Flu

by Lauran Neergaard who covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.

WASHINGTON -- A never-before-seen flu strain _ a mix of pig, human and bird viruses _ has turned killer in Mexico and is causing milder illness in the United States and elsewhere. While authorities say it's not time to panic, they are taking steps to stem the spread and urging people to pay close attention to the latest health warnings. Here's what you need to know:

Q: How do I protect myself and my family?

A: For now, take commonsense precautions. Cover your coughs and sneezes, with a tissue that you throw away or by sneezing into your elbow rather than your hand. Wash hands frequently; if soap and water aren't available, hand gels can substitute. Stay home if you're sick and keep children home from school if they are.

Q: How easy is it to catch this virus?

A: Scientists don't yet know if it takes fairly close or prolonged contact with someone who's sick, or if it's more easily spread. But in general, flu viruses spread through uncovered coughs and sneezes or _ and this is important _ by touching your mouth or nose with unwashed hands. Flu viruses can live on surfaces for several hours, like a doorknob just touched by someone who sneezed into his hand.

Q: Is it treatable?

A: Yes, with the flu drugs Tamiflu or Relenza, but not with two older flu medications.

Q: Why are people dying in Mexico and not here?

A: That's a huge mystery. First, understand that no one really knows just how many people in Mexico are dying of this flu strain, or how many have it. Only a fraction of the suspected deaths have been tested and confirmed as swine flu, and some initially suspected cases were caused by something else.

Q: What are the symptoms?

A: They're similar to regular human flu _ a fever, cough, sore throat, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people also have diarrhea and vomiting.

Q: How do I know if I should see a doctor?

A: Health authorities say if you live in places where swine flu cases have been confirmed, or you recently traveled to Mexico, and you have those symptoms, your doctor can decide whether you need treatment or to be tested.

Q: Did last winter's flu shot protect me?

A: Probably not. Even though it did protect against the Type A family of flu viruses that this new swine flu belongs to, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ran some preliminary tests and doesn't think it offered any cross protection.

Q: Why are people calling it swine flu if it's not just from pigs? Did it really come from pigs?

A: Pigs do spread their own strains of influenza and every so often people catch one, usually after contact with the animals. This new virus is a mix of human, pig and bird viruses but the name, for ease, was shortened to swine flu _ and unlike typical swine flu, it is spreading person-to-person.

Q: So is it safe to eat pork?

A: Yes. Swine influenza viruses don't spread through food.

Not NSA. AP:

by Laura Rozen

The National Security Agency did not place a wiretap that reportedly intercepted phone conversations made by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., the top U.S. intelligence official said Monday.

Dennis Blair, the national intelligence director, declined to say which agency requested the reported wiretap and oversaw the information gleaned from Harman's conversations. Blair was speaking at the dedication of a new intelligence research facility.

The only other agency that has authority to place wiretaps on calls inside the United States is the Justice Department. It requires court approval.

Media reports have suggested the California congresswoman was overheard in an NSA wiretap seeking lenient treatment for two former pro-Israel activists. The activists were later indicted on federal charges of unlawfully possessing and disclosing classified information.

Harman has asked the Justice Department to release a transcript of the intercepted phone conversation, which occurred before 2006.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi confirmed last week that she was informed by U.S. government officials that Harman had been overheard on a wiretap.

Pelosi said she did not tell Harman. Harman has said she first learned of the wiretapping last week from a reporter who had knowledge of the transcript of the recording.

Why are sources to CQ and NYT seemingly dissembling on this?

They had a shaky case no one would sign off on and now are leaking wiretaps Goss ordered of a political enemy. Hard not to wonder if the agenda of the sources is not far more suspect than those they were wiretapping.

Iranian Weapons Ship Sunk near Sudan

Egyptian weekly says missiles fired by 'unidentified boat which may have been Israeli or American'

(IsraelNN.com) An Iranian ship was destroyed off the coast of Sudan while transporting weapons to Gaza, according to the Egyptian daily Al-Usbua. The paper named Israel and the United States as likely suspects in the attack.

The ship was to dock in Sudan, where the weapons would have been unloaded and transported by land to the northern Sinai Peninsula. From there, they would be smuggled into Gaza to be used by Hamas.

The ship was destroyed by missiles fired from an unidentified second vessel, Sudanese sources said. The crew was killed in the attack, and the cargo was destroyed, they said.

The sources said Iran had attempted to hush up the incident.

One month ago, the U.S. station CBS reported that Israeli planes had carried out an attack in Sudan in January, demolishing a convoy bringing weapons from Iran to Hamas.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in either strike.

PETER ROFF — THE FIRST 100 DAYS: An Administration Filled With Far-Left Extremists

Longtime conservative leader Morton Blackwell, a Reagan administration alumni and once the youngest Goldwater delegate at the GOP convention, is perhaps best know as the originator of the phrase “Personnel is policy.”

Blackwell’s observation speaks a great truth about American government. Since no one man or woman can do it all, alone, we have followed the French in the development of bureaucratic systems that allow for power and authority to be delegated to subordinates who are responsible, on a daily basis, for the administration of public policy. It is these people, even more than the president, who directly impact the way policies are developed and carried out.

Almost everywhere you look in the Obama administration you can find appointees whose beliefs are clearly outside the mainstream.

The people chosen to fill positions within an administration, no matter how minor those positions might be, matter; they matter because they are being handed the tools with which to make real decisions that have an effect on the American people, the American economy, our legal system, our national defense and just about any other issue you can name on a day-to-day basis.

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama presented himself to the American people as a change-oriented centrist, slightly to the left of the middle of the road. The way he has governed over his first 100 days, however, shows him to be anything but the image he projected, particularly where many of his appointments are concerned. And it is these appointments that will determine the direction of policy in his administration over the next four years.

Some of the names and some of the circumstances are already familiar. Obama may have a Cabinet that, to borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton, “looks like America.” But they certainly don’t pay taxes like the rest of us. Several of his most high level appointees, chief among them Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have been exposed as having failed to pay the taxes they owed at the time these should have paid them.

Then there is Attorney General Eric Holder, who prior to his appointment may have been best known for helping fugitive financier Marc Rich obtain a pardon in the waning days of the Clinton administration. Since coming into office, however, he shocked the nation when, during a presentation to mark Black History month, he called America a “nation of cowards” on the issue of race. Writer Joe Klein, who is generally sympathetic to the liberal point of view, denounced Holder for his remarks, saying they provided “absolutely no acknowledgement of the incredible progress that has been made over the last 40 or 50 years.”

Janet Napolitano, who leads the Department of Homeland Security, similarly came under fire after her department released a report on so-called rise of right-wing extremism in America that lumped returning veterans and anti-abortion activists into the same group as white power organizations and Timothy McVeigh, who helped mastermind the 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Embarrassed, she met with veterans groups in Washington on Friday and gave what an American Legion representative characterized as a “heartfelt” apology.

But it’s not just the apples at the top of the barrel that are reason to be suspicious that a leftward drift is underway. There are plenty of secondary appointments, not all of which are subject to the Senate’s advice and consent, which make up the new administration’s gallery of liberal rogues.

White House Science Advisor Dr. John P. Holdren is a noted alarmist where the idea of global catastrophes is concerned. In 1971, he predicted that “some form of eco-catastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” That same year Holdren also claimed that “population control, the redirection of technology, the transition from open to closed resource cycles, the equitable distribution of opportunity, and the ingredients of prosperity must all be accomplished if there is to be a future worth living.”

More recently, in 2006, Holdren suggested that global sea levels could rise by 13 feet by the end of this century. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report suggests a potential sea level rise of just 13 inches.

Another Obama appointee clearly outside the mainstream of American thought and values is Harold Koh, the Yale Law School dean whom Obama tapped be the State Department’s legal adviser.

Koh is, as columnist Andy McCarthy has written, “a radical trans-nationalist.” His view is that the United States is not, in essence, an independent nation with a natural right to govern its own national security. Rather Koh’s view is this country should be governed by a “trans-national jurisprudence” that “assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system.” In Koh’s world, U.S. law should be subordinate to some kind of international code.

Then there is Rosa Brooks, who has been tapped to be a key adviser to the undersecretary of defense for policy. A former columnist with The Los Angeles Times, Brooks once compared the work product of Bush’s Office of Legal Counsel to “the so-called Big Lie theory of political propaganda, articulated most infamously by Adolf Hitler.” In 2007, according to various sources, she characterized Al Qaeda as “little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs, well financed and intermittently lethal but relatively limited in their global and regional political pull.” And she once wrote “George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn’t be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment…. Because they’ve clearly gone mad.”

Hardly the calm, rational and reasoned approach one has every right to expect from a senior Pentagon adviser.

Almost everywhere you look in the Obama administration you can find appointees whose beliefs are clearly outside the mainstream, who are, in a word, extremists. David Ogden, the nominee for the No. 2 job at the U.S. Department of Justice, who, according to FOXNews.com once filed a brief on behalf of a group of library directors arguing against the Children’s Internet Protection Act. The act ordered libraries and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene sites. But Ogden’s brief argued that the act impaired the ability of librarians to do their jobs. He called it “unconstitutional,” though the Supreme Court later disagreed with him and upheld the act.” He also “argued, on behalf of several media groups, against a child pornography law that required publishers of all kinds to verify and document the age of their models (which would ensure the models are at least 18). The provisions were struck down. — Ogden was quoted at the time saying the potential reach of the law was ‘mind-boggling’ and even ‘terrifying.’”

And then there’s Dawn Johnson, who was nominated to be assistant attorney general and head of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, who has written that “abortion restrictions reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers” and who has opposed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion.

Rather than an administration of centrists, the Obama presidency is shaping up to be one in which the dominant voice is that of the American far-left. Right before our eyes, based on the appointments thus far, we are seeing “Changing we can believe in” being transformed into “Change we can’t believe.”

George Soros Says China Can Help Replace U.S. Consumer

Iraqi government rushes to defend Iranian-backed jihadists

from JihadWatch

"I always knew my man Nouri would carry my water for me"

The Iraqi Democracy Project, which I thought was doomed even before it started, was always liable to create a Shi'ite client state for the benefit of Iran, since the Shi'ites have the numbers on their side in Iraq. The whole thing was predicated on a misapprehension of the importance within Islam of the imperative to impose Sharia. Now, in any case, the Shi'ites and Iran are clearly in the driver's seat.

"Iraq: US raid 'crime' that breaks security pact," by Brian Murphy for AP, April 26 (thanks to Maxwell):

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's prime minister denounced a deadly U.S. raid on Sunday as a "crime" that violated the security pact with Washington and demanded American commanders hand over those responsible to face possible trial in Iraqi courts.

The U.S. military, however, strongly denied that it overstepped its bounds and said it notified Iraqi authorities in advance — in accordance with the rules that took effect this year governing U.S. battlefield conduct.

The pre-dawn raid in the southern Shiite city of Kut ended with at least one women dead after being caught in gunfire and six suspects arrested for alleged links to Shiite militia factions....

The fallout marks the most serious test of the security pact so far and could bring new strains during a critical transition period....

A statement from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — in his role as commander general of Iraqi forces — called the raid a "violation of the security pact."

He asked the U.S. military "to release the detainees and hand over those responsible for this crime to the courts," according to an Iraqi security official who read the statement to The Associated Press.

The cascade of protests and questions began just hours after the sweep into Kut, which the U.S. military said targeted suspected backers of Shiite militias believed to have links to Iran.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered at the mosque in Kut, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad, to decry the American action and demand an investigation....

U.S. Declares Public Health Emergency Over Swine Flu Outbreak

By CAM SIMPSON

WASHINGTON -- Federal officials declared a health emergency on Sunday, as they confirmed 20 cases of swine flu in five states, mobilized medicine stockpiles, and warned the public that the number and severity of incidences were likely to increase.

The officials urged calm, saying the declaration was largely meant to free up resources and precautionary in nature. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, appearing with other officials at a news conference at the White House on Sunday, compared it to the kind of alert that goes up before officials know how severe a gathering storm might become. ....

Gates to Nominate NSA Chief to Head New Cyber Command

By SIOBHAN GORMAN

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to nominate the director of the National Security Agency to head a new Pentagon Cyber Command, which will coordinate computer-network defense and direct U.S. cyber-attack operations, according to a draft memo by Mr. Gates.

The move comes amid rising concern in the government about attacks on U.S. networks. The command will run military cybersecurity operations and provide support to civil authorities, according to the memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.....

Joint Chiefs Chmn. Adm. Mullen: Islamic Takeover in Pakistan 'Closer'

WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said in an interview broadcast Friday that he was "extremely concerned" about the Taliban's recent moves closer to Pakistan's capital of Islamabad.....

Pentagon to Release Hundreds of Detainee Pics

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon will soon release "hundreds" of photographs showing alleged abuse by US personnel at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration, a US official said Friday.

"I think it will be in the hundreds," said the Pentagon official, speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, referring to the number of photos to be released for the first time.

The Defense Department confirmed the Pentagon had agreed to release a "substantial" number of photographs by May 28 in response to a long-running Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the New York-based rights group, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The photographs come from more than 60 criminal investigations from 2001-2006 of military personnel suspected of abusing detainees, the defense official said.

But the Pentagon rejected the portrayal of the photos by the ACLU as showing widespread abuse of detainees.

"What this demonstrates is that we have always been serious about investigating credible allegations of abuse," spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters. ....

Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview.....

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.'"