A Director of National Intelligence report on congressional briefings about enhanced interrogation techniques conflicts with House Speaker Nancy Pelos

.... The report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, indicates that a classified CIA briefing of Mrs. Pelosi included specific details of the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," or EITs, on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaydah. ....

.... Republicans have warned that any investigation of Bush administration officials should also look at the approval of top Democrats in Congress, who they say had been briefed on what the CIA was doing but kept silent until it was politically opportune to denounce the practices.

.... "There are still terrorists around the world who are committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life. A number of those terrorists are being held at the prison in Guantanamo Bay right now," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "If the administration is allowed to proceed, they won't be there for long. In fact, they may be right here, in the United States."

US threatens military force against hackers

Cyber espionage and attacks from well-funded nations or terror groups are the biggest threats to the military’s computer networks, a top US officer said.

Gen Kevin Chilton, who heads US Strategic Command, said he worries that foes will learn to disable or distort battlefield communications.

Chilton said even as the Pentagon improves its network defences against hackers, he needs more people, training and resources to hone offensive cyber war capacity. At the same time, he asserted that the US would consider using military force against an enemy who attacks and disrupts the nation’s critical networks.

“Our job would be to present options. I don’t think you take anything off the table when you provide options” to the president, in the wake of an attack, whether the weapon is a missile or a computer program, he said.

Chilton’s comments shed the most light to date on the Pentagon’s ongoing debate over how to beef up its abilities to wage and defend against cyber warfare. And they came as the military is planning to set up a new cyber command at Fort Meade not far from Washington that would report to Strategic Command.

Chilton said that his biggest fear is that enemies hack into military battlefield systems, and when an American commander sends out an order that says forces should go left, it is changed to say forces should go right. While most systems are classified and walled off, he said there are often ways to cross into those networks.

The other worry is more internal. When a soldier or sailor sits down at a computer, Chilton said “it’s like he’s stepping to the guard gate at his base,” and can open the digital gate and let adversaries in.

Obama will make his big speech to the Islamic world from Cairo

by Robert Spencer

Cairo has been chosen as the site of the President's promised major address to the Islamic world. Brace yourself.

Obama to Coptic Christians and Egyptian pro-democracy dissidents: drop dead. "Obama will travel to Egypt to address Muslim world," by Margaret Talev for the McClatchy Newspapers, May 8 (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will go to Egypt on June 4 to deliver a long-planned major speech aimed at Muslims worldwide.

The speech is expected to be delivered in Cairo, historically the Arabic center of intellectual thought in the Muslim world, but a location has not been finalized, according to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Gibbs called Egypt "a country that in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world" and said the speech was not aimed at Muslim leaders so much as the populace. It represents "a continuing effort by this president and this White House to demonstrate how we can work together to ensure the safety and security and the future well-being through hope and opportunity of the children of this country and of the Muslim world," Gibbs said.

The Egyptian government, led by 81-year-old Hosni Mubarak, is widely criticized for its repressive regime and poor human rights record, issues that Obama must finesse in his remarks....

Radical Islam By Any Other Name...

(Compiler's note: I, for one, have mentioned before that political correctness or "PC" will get us killed. It would appear that Mr. Salvato agrees.)

by Frank Salvato

Honesty and transparency in government are rare commodities, especially in the United States. While some information is legitimately kept from the public for reasons of national security, still other information – and quite a lot when the information flow from the Obama Administration is concerned – is either kept from the public or manipulated for the public's consumption, having been so for ideological and/or political purposes. The subject of radical Islam and the terrorism that jihadis use as their chief tactic to bring about political “change” is not immune from these politically and ideologically opportune manipulations. Because of this the majority of the public is illiterate in the seriousness of the global challenge that faces Western Civilization.

Upon ascending to the office of the presidency, Barack Obama assembled a cabinet that understood the value of controlling information. Even during his campaign, his staff guarded information and controlled the message. Politically, it is a winning formula even if it raises many legitimate questions when the candidate is less than forthright about his past, influences, associations, intentions, motives and loyalties. Today, as President Obama exits the “honeymoon period” that every president enjoys, he and his staff are still executing a “control the message campaign,” and doing so with a vicious effectiveness, aided by a complicit mainstream media. But is this serving the best interest of the public? Is this acting in the best interests of the country?

Shortly after Hillary Clinton was named Secretary of State, the Obama Administration issued a declaration that the term “global war on terror,” erroneously coined by the Bush Administration, would cease to be used in an official capacity. In a memo issued to Pentagon staff members by the Office of Management & Budget, the Executive Branch agency that reviews the public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered, it was ordered:

"...this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.'"

The conflict with aggressive and violent radical Islamist ideology (a correct description), was put through the process of information manipulation so as to soften the concept for the public, the electorate, those to whom President Obama promised he would end “the war.”

In his classic – and eerily relevant – book, 1984, George Orwell wrote about the concept of “newspeak” and “doublethink”:

“...Winston thinks again about the idea of ‘doublethink,' or in Oldspeak, ‘reality control.' It means to be able to think two contradictory things at once without being aware of the contradiction. In other words, one is conscious of telling the truth while telling lies, forgetting whatever one needs to forget and then remembering it when needed, only to forget again. Doublethink is essential for political orthodoxy.”

When one listens to the declarations made by fundamentalist Islamist leaders from around the world – and we would have to believe that the Obama Administration is competent enough to understand the value of “listening to our enemies” seeing as they believe there is value in “talking with our enemies” – it becomes clear that the Obama Administration's penchant for word manipulation – or use of “newspeak” and “doublethink” – has spilled over from their goal of achieving political superiority into their Constitutional duty to protect the citizenry.

Sufi Mohammed, the 78-year old leader of the pro-Taliban group behind the now defunct peace agreement between the Pakistani government and the Taliban, declared the democratic system of government “un-Islamic,” saying there was no need for a constitution in Pakistan. “All those who believe in democracy are infidels,” he declared in an interview with a private Pakistani television channel.

Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, said in January of 2009, “Israel is our enemy and the enemy of our nation. It will remain as such even if some make peace with it. The US administration fosters Israel and protects it, so this administration will remain our enemy and the enemy of our nation...”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran has stated repeatedly and emphatically, that he quests for the elimination of the nation of Israel as he pontificates on the evils of the West and the United States:

"Israel must be wiped off the map...The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world...The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land... You [the United States], who have used nuclear weapons against innocent people should be tried as war criminals in courts... "They [the United States] think they are the absolute rulers of the world."

And no less than Osama bin Laden has declared:

“To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.”

The idea that the Obama Administration played fast-and-loose with manipulating words to affect “change” for political gain is a valid one. The American people are compromised in their ability to employ critical thinking skills where matters of politics and world affairs are concerned. A glad-handing politician armed with hollow promises of “hope” and “change” – and facilitated by an agenda-driven, one-world Progressive-Left mainstream media – easily entranced (or should I say enchanted) a citizenry that hadn't formulated a respect for the seriousness of the threat posed by fundamentalist Islamists.

And while it was easy for Obama to demonize the hard choices and actions taken by President George W. Bush in the conflict with radical Islamist aggression when he was running for office, when all he had to do was take issue with President Bush's approach to the conflict, today the hard choices are his to make.

As we stand at a moment when Iran has most likely acquired nuclear capability, when al Qaeda and the Taliban are waging violent jihad just 60 miles from the capitol of Pakistan – a nuclear nation and as Sharia law is encroaching on people's liberties in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Indonesia and around the world, it is now painfully obvious that we have to formulate a definitive plan for defending not only the United States but Western Civilization itself. To pay this conflict “lip service,” to apply “doublethink” and “newspeak” to this most graven of issues, is to abdicate Constitutional responsibility to defend the American people. It is to place the country and her citizens in grave danger.

Mr. Obama, diminishing the severity of the words used to describe the threat of radical Islam doesn't make those who champion the violent and oppressive ideology any less lethal.

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" – George Orwell, 1984.

Newly Formed Sovereignty Caucus on Capitol Hill Urges Review of Harold Koh’s Nomination for Legal Advisor

The Legal Advisor must protect and defend the rights of American citizens. Is Harold Koh capable of doing this? ....

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'

By Paul Kane

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.

In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations.

"As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman.

Pelosi's statement did not address whether she was informed that other harsh techniques were already in use during the Zubaydah interrogations.

In December 2007 the Washington Post reported that leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees had been briefed in the fall of 2002 about waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and other techniques, and that no congressional leaders protested its use. At the time Pelosi said she was not told that waterboarding was being used, a position she stood by repeatedly last month when the Bush-era Justice Department legal documents justifying the interrogation tactics were released by Attorney General Eric Holder.

The new memo shows that intelligence officials were willing to share the information about waterboarding with only a sharply closed group of people. Three years after the initial Pelosi-Goss briefing, Bush officials still limited interrogation technique briefings to just the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Four in the intelligence world.

In October 2005, CIA officials began briefing other congressional leaders with oversight of the intelligence community, including top appropriators who provided the agency its annual funding. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and an opponent of torture techniques, was also read into the program at that time even though he did not hold a special committee position overseeing the intelligence community.

A bipartisan collection of lawmakers have criticized the practice of limiting information to just the "Gang of Four", who were expressly forbidden from talking about the information from other colleagues, including fellow members of the intelligence committees. Pelosi and others are considering reforms that would assure a more open process for all committee members.

NewsBusted: Gitmo Terror Suspects Get Hotel Rooms

Attorney General Eric Holder says some Gitmo detainees will be released into hotels. Obama's new slogan: "We'll Leave the Light on for Ya, al-Qaida." Click on the title above.


For additional information == President Obama should consider the contents of this video - click here.

Top Intelligence Republican: Obama: 'Ready, Fire, Aim'

(Compiler's note: A must read - see 6 minute video interview. Click on the title above)

Michigan U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra tells Newsmax.TV why Obama's national security policies, including releasing classified CIA information, shutting down Guantanamo Bay and abandoning missile shields are jeopardizing America's national security. ....

‘Empathy’ versus law, Part IV

(Compiler's note: Must read article.)

by Thomas Sowell

While President Barack Obama has, in one sense, tipped his hand by saying that he wants judges with "empathy" for certain groups, he has in a more fundamental sense concealed the real goal -- getting judges who will ratify an ever-expanding scope of the power of the federal government and an ever-declining restraint by the Constitution of the United States.

This is consistent with everything else that Obama has done in office and is consistent with his decades-long track record of alliances with people who reject the fundamentals of American society.

Judicial expansion of federal power is not really new, even if the audacity with which that goal is being pursued may be unique. For more than a century, believers in bigger government have also been believers in having judges "interpret" the restraints of the Constitution out of existence.

They called this "a living Constitution." But it has in fact been a dying Constitution, as its restraining provisions have been interpreted to mean less and less, so that the federal government can do more and more.

For example, the Constitution allows private property to be taken for "public use"-- perhaps building a reservoir or a highway -- if "just compensation" was paid. But that power was expanded by the Supreme Court in 2005 when it "interpreted" this to mean that private property could be taken for a "public purpose," which could include almost anything for which politicians could come up with the right rhetoric.

As for "just compensation," that is often about as just as "separate but equal" was equal. As for "empathy" for the less fortunate, it is precisely lower income and minority neighborhoods that are disproportionately bulldozed to make way for upscale shopping and entertainment centers that will bring in more taxes for politicians to spend to get themselves re-elected.

This process of "interpreting" the Constitution (or legislation) to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean, no matter how plainly the words say something else, has been called judicial activism. But, as a result of widespread objections to this, that problem has been solved by redefining "judicial activism" to mean something different.

By the new definition, a judge who declares legislation that exceeds the authority of the legislature unconstitutional is called a "judicial activist."

The verbal virtuosity is breathtaking. With just a new meaning to an old phrase, reality is turned upside down. Those who oppose letting government actions exceed the bounds of the Constitution-- justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas-- are now called "judicial activists." It is a verbal coup.

Not only politicians like Senator Patrick Leahy, but also law professors like Cass Sunstein and many in the media, measure how much of a judicial activist a judge is by how many laws that judge has declared unconstitutional. Professor Sunstein, incidentally, is among those being mentioned as a possible nominee for a post on the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court in 1995 declared that carrying a gun near a school was not "interstate commerce," there was consternation and outrage in the liberal press because previous decisions of the Supreme Court in years past had allowed Congress to legislate on virtually anything it wanted to by saying that it was exercising its authority to regulate interstate commerce.

When the Supreme Court decided by a narrow 5 to 4 vote that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce, it was saying something that most people would consider too obvious for words. But it was considered outrageous that the Supreme Court recognized the obvious and refused to rubberstamp the sophistry that allowed Congress to pass laws dealing with things that the Constitution never authorized it to deal with.

Incidentally, carrying a gun near a school was something that states had the authority to deal with, and the great majority of states had already banned it.

What is at stake in Supreme Court nominations is the power of the federal government. "Empathy" is just camouflage, a soothing word for those who do not look beyond nice-sounding rhetoric.

Saudi Arabia may take Gitmo inmates

Saudi Arabia is considering a US proposal to accept the transfer of almost 100 Yemeni inmates from the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

An arrangement to put prisoners through a Saudi Arabian rehabilitation programme for Islamic radicals would overcome the main obstacle to President Barack Obama’s drive to shut Guantanamo’s prisoner camps by next January. ....

White House moves on contractor workforce cuts

White House officials today proposed cutting the number of contract workers at the Defense Department and collecting delinquent taxes from federal contractors more quickly as part of a plan to save $17 billion next year. ....

DHS asks for nearly $1 billion to protect critical networks, systems

The Homeland Security Department requested about a 15 percent increase in funding for fiscal 2010 to defend the nation's critical infrastructure such as the electrical grid and financial sector, and for cybersecurity to protect government systems, according to the administration's budget released on Thursday. ....

Click here for additional information.

The Statistical Analysis of Islamic Doctrines

(Compiler's note: Long, but still a must read article. Just click on the title above.)

The most unique aspect of Islamic doctrine is dualism. The Koran, Sira (Mohammed's biography) and Hadith (his traditions) hold contradictory positions on many points of doctrine that confuse kafirs. Much ink is wasted on questioning which side of the contradiction is right and which is wrong. However, Islamic dualism allows both sides of a contradiction to be true at the same time. The only way to determine truth in any multi-state system is to use statistics. Here in a Frontpage Magazine interview with Moorthy Muthuswamy, who shows how simple statistical reasoning allows us to see the total truth of Islam. ...

Records suggest Pelosi, others were told of harsh interrogations

Information released by the White House describes dozens of briefings for congressional leaders on CIA methods, including waterboarding and the planned destruction of interrogation videotapes. ....

Congressional Report Warns U.S. Underestimating Iran's Nuclear Progress

WASHINGTON -- Congressional investigators say some foreign intelligence analysts believe U.S. intelligence is underestimating Iran's progress toward designing a nuclear warhead before Tehran halted its program in 2003. ....

Are You an Obama Winner? Or an Obama Loser?

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

by Newt Gingrich

If there was one feeling that inspired almost a million Americans to come out for the Tax Day Tea Parties last month it was this: That our government, supposedly created of the people, by the people and for the people, is busy picking winners and losers.

The feeling that our politics are increasingly rigged against us didn’t begin with President Obama. Deciding to bailout Wall Street rather than let deserving companies go bankrupt began under President Bush.

But the Obama Administration has elevated rewarding some Americans and punishing others to a governing philosophy.

And as he has expanded the size and the scope of government, President Obama has only increased his ability to reach into our businesses, our communities, and even our homes to separate Americans into two groups: Those who will benefit from the new order, and those who will pay the bills.

What follows is just a partial list of the winners and losers of the Obama Administration so far, organized by the government policies that will decide their fate:

The Chrysler Bankruptcy Pt. 1: From the Rule of Law to the Rule of Politics

Winners: The United Auto Workers

Loser: The Rule of Law

Bankruptcy was once a legal process in which an insolvent company, an impartial judge and creditors voting in good faith worked together to make the best of a bad situation.

Under the Obama Administration, the Chrysler bankruptcy has become a political process in which government has bought off some creditors, demonized others, and predetermined a favorable result for an important political constituency.

What happened last week with Chrysler was an unprecedented case of executive branch involvement in a bankruptcy proceeding. The Obama Administration bullied smaller investors to fall in line with TARP-funded creditors in a deal that ultimately benefited the union bosses who bear so much of the responsibility for Chrysler’s downfall to begin with. In the end, the losers weren’t just the secured creditors and the taxpayers who have footed the bill for all these bailouts, but the rule of law itself.

The Chrysler Bankruptcy Pt. 2: America, Get Ready for the “Model O”

Winners: The People Who Are Evading Responsibility for Chrysler’s Bankruptcy

Losers: Consumers Who Want to Buy Good American Cars

The end result of the rigged Chrysler bankruptcy is that two political entities whose priority is winning votes (the Federal Government and the UAW) now have majority ownership of a commercial entity whose priority should be making good cars.

And despite his protestations that he wants to get out of the auto business, President Obama has some definite ideas about what kind of cars Chrysler should make. Announcing the bankruptcy, he blamed Chrysler’s troubles, not on its uncompetitive labor costs, but on its “failure to make the fuel-efficient cars like its foreign competitors.”

Politicians, not businessmen and women, are calling the shots at Chrysler. America, get ready for the Model O.

Cap and Trade: Punishing Americans With High Energy Taxes

Winners: Government Favored “Green Industries”

Losers: Anyone Who Heats a Home, Drives a Car or Has a Job

I’m in favor of doing all we can to protect our environment, but I have a fundamental difference with Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House: I believe in incentivizing Americans to produce the innovations that will protect our environment, not punishing Americans with taxes, regulation and litigation.

The Administration’s cap and trade legislation makes losers of the American people by imposing a $1 trillion-$2 trillion energy tax on an already struggling economy. And the winners? They’re the lobbyists for favored special interests and “green” industries who are already lining up in Washington to collect the spoils.

Closing Gitmo: Terrorists from Guantanamo Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You

Winners: Terrorists and Anti-Americanism Worldwide

Losers: The New Neighbors of Terrorists and The American Tax-Payers

You may have missed it in all the news of the week, but the Administration has a truly mind-boggling idea about how to solve the problem of the terrorists left homeless by closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay: Send them to a neighborhood near you.

That’s right. As many as 30 detainees at Guantanamo are slated for release into the United States, including a group of Chinese, al Qaeda-trained jihadists who are reportedly being encouraged to settle in Northern Virginia.

And not only is the Obama Administration releasing these terrorists into the United States, it’s proposing that the U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.

Here’s how Dennis Blair, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, rationalizes their plan for welfare for terrorists: "If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life," Blair said last month. "You can't just put them on the street."

Picking a New Supreme Court Justice: Playing Favorites Through the Courts

Winners: Anyone the President Deems Deserving of Judicial “Empathy”

Losers: Everyone Else

President Obama has announced that his criteria for picking a Supreme Court Justice to replace the retiring David Souter are jurists with the proper “empathy” and those who don’t regard justice as “abstract legal theory.”

Empathy for the less fortunate should have a central place in our public policy. But feeling the people’s pain is the job of the people who make the laws. The job of judges is to interpret the laws without regard to the race, color, creed or station of the individuals involved.

When we start picking judges based on their “empathy” for certain groups, the rights of favored groups inevitably collide with the rights of others. That’s why we have – or should have – equal justice before the law.

Demonizing Wall Street: Putting Talent and Resources Where Washington Wants Them

Winners: Professional “Community Organizers” and Other Government Activists

Losers: Young Americans Who Want to Chose Their Own Careers

President Obama frequently urges young Americans to emulate him by making the choice to forgo a lucrative career in finance or law and choose public service instead. But now he’s put the full power of the federal government behind his favored career path for young Americans.

Speaking last week to the New York Times, President Obama said that his anti-business, high-taxing, and high-regulating crusade against Wall Street “means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy. I actually think that’s healthy."

The message will not be lost on young Americans: Do what the President thinks is “healthy.” Be an Obama winner, not a loser.

What is at Stake Isn’t Just Tax Dollars and Jobs But Freedom

The list could go on and on.

What is at stake isn’t just the tax dollars, the jobs and the opportunities of those Americans who come out on the losing side of the Obama Administration’s policies -- as important as these things are.

What is at stake are moral issues of fairness and freedom. As Arthur Brooks, the President of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote last week, it’s immoral for the government to “confiscate more income from the minority simply because the government can. It's also a moral issue to lower the rewards for entrepreneurial success, and to spend what we don't have without regard for our children's future.”

Americans don’t mind working hard and competing to win. We don’t even mind losing sometimes.

What we mind is government making the call. That was the real message of the Tea Party movement, and it’s one President Obama and his aides would do well to hear.

Fiddling While Rome Burns

by Michael Sall

How long will we sit by while the education of literally millions of children is trashed in the wake of the teachers unions? In schools where, if children are taught at all, they are taught politically correct garbage - a fantasy of some radical liberal having nothing to do with the real world – leaving American kids with third world education levels, preparing them for nothing productive?

How long will we sit by while our State Department engages in imaginary fixes for the threats that face America and her allies? While Obama says the actions of North Korea have consequences, North Korea continues with impunity to arm itself and other rogue nations. While Rahm Emanuel says disarming Iran can be accomplished only if Israel moves forward with the "peace" process, the Palestinians continue to plot to drive the Jews into the sea, and Iran rockets forward with their nuclear program, threatening the entire world, and hiding behind propaganda that ridiculously claims Palestinian grievances as their motive.

How long will we sit by while Obama destroys the rule of law, the latest example being the threats to the senior debt holders in Chrysler who refused to allow the administration to force them to take less money than their contracts call for? Before that, this administration tried to pass a law that would allow judges to abrogate mortgage obligations. It is as if the administration is saying, "We don't care what your contract says, we don't care what the law says, we will do what we want (for the 'greater good' of course)." Activist judges unconstitutionally continue to write law with tortured logic, while Obama applauds. They even have the temerity with convoluted logic to try to undo many purely democratic and Constitutionally-passed ballot initiatives.

How long will we allow the liberals to undermine our security, our lives and our limbs? On the home front they restrict guns, thereby creating the perverse situation where criminals are armed and law abiding citizens are not. They expose secret and successful programs that have made us safer from terror, yet the traitors go unpunished. They treat terrorists sworn to our destruction as if they were shoplifters, inventing "rights" and privileges for them that never existed and don't exist now.

How long will we allow fictions like global warming to go unchallenged? The supposed universal agreement on its very existence is a myth promoted by a group of political extremists, the media, and a few scientists, many of whom were bought and paid for through grants and tenure. This theory is as much proven science as its predecessors - nuclear winter, the population bomb, and the imminent exhaustion of the world’s commodities - all of which were safely discredited and are now resting on the trash heap of history.

How long will we allow the nonsense of universal health care to be taken seriously, even as we move closer and closer to that goal? There are 46 million uninsured. 10 million are illegal aliens. 10 million can afford it but choose not to buy, and 10 million already qualify for government-paid programs but are too dysfunctional to enroll. The health care quality in America is so far superior to what it is anywhere in the world or what it would become that any thinking person should dismiss the idea as an idiot’s rant. Those who doubts this can just look around the world where government health care has been mandated (to a country it is a disaster), rather than listen to the continuing stream of lies from the left.

How long will we sit by and allow the government to take over the economy? In varying degrees the government currently controls Citi Bank, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama proposes nationalizing health care (one sixth of the economy), and imposing a cap and trade energy tax that will effectively give the bureaucrats control over the energy sector. This has been tried before and failed. See the old Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea for details.

When are we going to stop the growth of federal regulations governing everything we do, and thereby snatching the very freedoms guaranteed to us under the Constitution? Don't people understand that laws, by definition, are direct restraints on our freedom and, although we need laws to take us out of "a state of nature" as Hobbs said, extending legal controls as broadly as we are doing today will surely result in a Soviet-style society.

When are we going to give God the same status in the public square that we give the other religion, atheism? Those unfortunate enough not to know God should be given a voice, but those of us who embrace Him are entitled to speak out as well.

Our friends at the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan and others remind us that we must accept some of this garbage on the theory that 51 votes in a Senate comprised of 20 John McCains and Olympia Snows is better than 30 votes made up of all Jim DeMints and John Kyls. I disagree. If we run only genuinely conservative candidates, we will get our chance to govern, and then we have at least a chance of doing it right. Bush senior and junior slowed the pace of the race towards socialism, but allowed it to continue. Reagan was the only President since Eisenhower to even attempt to stop the growth of government. The 30/20 mix of Republicans will only delay our decline, not arrest it.

For those who doubt that an all-conservative coalition will get a chance to govern, I would suggest that governments are almost always voted out, not voted in. During the Depression every ruling party in every democracy, liberal and conservative alike, was voted out. Obama didn't win nearly so much as Republicans lost. I predict that this fantastic surge towards Socialism, this vast overreaching, will usher in a new government in a very few years. The question is: will it be the party of Reagan, or of Obama lite?

History demonstrates to us that, when either party moves more to the right, they win.

U.S. Importing Somali 'Pirate-Jihadists'

By: David A. Patten

The Obama administration is preparing to reinstate a fraud-riddled immigration program that has brought over 36,000 Somalis into the United States under questionable circumstances, including two dozen Minneapolis men that the FBI fears may be planning a terrorist attack.

The FBI has launched an “aggressive” manhunt for the men, who have “gone to ground” and have mysteriously disappeared, terrorism experts tell Newsmax. Authorities fear the men may have been recruited by extremists to carry out suicide attacks inside the United States, or abroad.

Critics of the State Department programs that brought the Somalis to America express grave concerns about the practice of admitting refugees from failed nation-states known to harbor extremists. It can be difficult or impossible to verify a person’s identity in such a country, let alone obtain knowledge of their past associations, several experts tell Newsmax.

One Somali refugee who vanished in early November, Shirwa Ahmed, re-emerged in northern Somalia in February behind the wheel of a truck packed with explosives.

Ahmed, whose family immigrated to the Minneapolis area in the mid-1990s, drove his truck into a crowd and triggered a massive explosion that left some 30 persons dead. Ahmed’s case marked the first known suicide bombing conducted by an American citizen, according to FBI director Robert S. Mueller III.

“It appears that this individual was radicalized in his hometown in Minnesota,” Mueller told the Council on Foreign Relations, warning that in the past two years, about two dozen Somali men have disappeared from their residences near Minneapolis.

Authorities say the men may have been recruited by al-Shabab, a terrorist group believed to have ties to al-Qaida. There has been speculation the men were radicalized at mosques in the area.

Ahmed’s recruitment and training, and the subsequent suicide attack, is especially worrisome for the FBI because of the other missing Somali-Americans. “It raised the question of whether these young men will one day come home, and, if so, what might they undertake here,” Mueller said.

Fox 9, a Minneapolis television station, reported that eight local refugees left the Twin Cities area on August 1, and 10 more departed on Nov. 4. The men’s families later found flight itineraries for travel from Dubai to Nairobi and on to Kenya. From there, it is believed they most likely entered Somalia by boat.

Counterterrorism experts worry that operatives who are already familiar with U.S. society and culture would be much more difficult to stop, if they were employed to attack the U.S. homeland.

Terrorism analyst Daveed Gartenstien-Ross recently told CBN: “There’s a concern that … they’re going to training camps and receiving the kind of training they would need to carry out some kind of mischief in the United States.”

Critics of the program that grants immigrants their refugee status, even when their past activities and associations cannot be thoroughly documented, point out that since 1991 Somalia has exhibited the same type of failed-nation status associated with the rise of Islamic extremism in Afghanistan. That nation provided al-Qaida with a safe haven prior to 9/11.

They cite the spate of piracy off the Horn of Africa, including the dramatic rescue of Captain Richard Phillips -- who was freed after U.S. Navy SEAL sharpshooters shot and killed three Somali pirates -- as evidence that Somalia is a dangerous hotbed of extremism.

Experts disagree over the level of cooperation between the pirates and Somalia’s radical Islamic warlords. A recent Der Spiegel report warned: “The pirates are increasingly working hand-in-hand with Islamists, who are allies of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. It’s a terrifying alliance: the Pirates supply money and arms, while the Islamists have troops and the power on land.”

Jane’s Intelligence Review reports the pirate-Islamist alliance is “fragile.” In some cases, the pirates pay a percentage of their ransom money to al-Shabab units, in return for protection against land-based attacks on their bases.

Jane’s Intelligence also states that pirates have paid for military-style training at the hands of al-Shabab, conducted in terrorist boot camps.

Conservative foreign-policy expert Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, is among those who perceives a definite link between Somali’s pirates and its violent Islamic extremists.

“Shariah-adherent Somali pirates are a threat to the world's shipping,” Gaffney tells Newsmax. “Their refugee counterparts being dumped into American communities are a threat to our country and its people. It adds insult to potentially enormous injury that, as the State Department has acknowledged, 80 percent of those refugees are here on the basis of fraudulent family-reunification grounds.”

Gaffney says the State Department “imports pirate/jihadist types into this country.”

One major concern: The pirates’ statements following the freeing of Phillips appeared to be couched in jihadist terms. They identified America as their “No. 1 enemy,” and one pirate leader told The Associated Press: “In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying.”

Don Barnett, a fellow with the Center for Immigration Services, tells Newsmax that it is clear some young refugees of Somali extraction have been recruited by extremists, and could now be working with al-Qaida or al-Shabab.

“I think that really should cause us to look at taking any refugees from Somalia with a much more fine magnifying glass,” Barnett says.

There are about 150,000 Somalis now living in the United States, and law-enforcement officials consider the vast majority of them to be peaceful and law-abiding.

Once resettled, the refugees are free to relocate and live anywhere they like.

A State Department official who asked not to be identified says refugees receive U.S. papers that identify them and their status. They are eligible to apply for a green card after residing in the United States for one year. Five years after receiving green cards, the source says, refugees are eligible to apply for American citizenship.

There are three State Department programs that vet and process refugees for admittance:

The Priority One (P-1) program provides a means for individuals from Somalia and other nations to immigrate to the United States based on referrals from the United Nations, from a U.S. embassy, or from a non-governmental organization (NGO). The Priority Two (P-2) program gives refugee status to all members of a specific, persecuted group. In 1999, for example, the State Department granted blanket refugee status to some 12,000 persecuted Somali-Bantus who had been driven from their native country to Kenya. The Priority Three (P-3) program awards refugee status specifically for the purpose of family reunification with other refugees already legally residing in the United States. When a family or individual qualifies for the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, a Department of Homeland Security agency, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), conducts an interview with the “refugee applicant” to verify their eligibility and establish they are “otherwise admissible to the United States,” according to a State Department fact sheet about the program. One of the purposes of USCIA is to ensure “that no one is admitted who is a threat to public safety,” according to its Web site. The P-3 program was suspended in October, after reports of fraud led the State Department and DHS to conduct DNA testing on 3,000 applicants. Those tests revealed that as many as 80 percent of the family-reunification claims were false and did not involve relatives. Officials suspended the program until new procedures -- such as DNA testing -- could be developed to verify claims of a family relationship. The P-1 and P-2 programs continue to be in effect. Barnett tells Newsmax that the State Department is prepared to resume the troubled P-3 program in June. He also criticizes the P-1 program, due to U.N. refugee programs he describes as “one big long running fraud.” He adds: “The U.N. referral program itself has been subject to bribery and fraud.” The State Department spokesman tells Newsmax it is unclear if the P-3 program will be reinstated by June, adding, “We do anticipate that the program will restart. A little later this year, we will have this program reinstated.” Most critics of the program recognize that some resettlement in the United States is inevitable and probably beneficial. The problem, they say, comes when large numbers of immigrants arrive from chaotic nations known to harbor extremists. It is very difficult or impossible to review the backgrounds of people living in such countries, they say, because documentation and even birth certificates may be nonexistent. Advocates for refugees, on the other hand, point out that those are the very situations where resettlement may be most urgent. Fred Burton, vice president of counterterrorism and corporate security for Stratfor, a global intelligence firm based in Austin, Texas, tells Newsmax: “Across the spectrum, when you attempt to vet the identify of that person, you have nothing to cross reference it to.” Burton participated in the arrest of 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef, and says the lack of intelligence about Somali extremists is quite serious. “Whenever you have a suspected intelligence operative, whether it be from an espionage side or the terrorism side -- and it’s more foreboding from the terrorism side -- you really get a sense of dread, not knowing what he is up to,” he says. Burton says the FBI is sparing no effort to locate the men who have gone missing in Minneapolis, but adds that it may be difficult. “Knowing how the process works from a domestic terrorism perspective, there is no doubt the FBI is looking for the individuals involved, and probably very, very aggressively,” Burton tells Newsmax. “But then you go back to what has always been the Achilles’ heel in the counterterrorism business, your lack of human intelligence to tell you where that person is, because you lack the human sources to identify him.” Burton states “I would certainly say the program appears to be a failure at this juncture.” He says verifying identity is essential before admitting any refugee into the United States, and adds: “Having participated in several of those State Department meetings for many years, I would say, ‘Well, I’m sure we followed whatever process is in place, but what guarantees do we have that this process is not broken?’”

House GOP Introduces Keep Terrorists Out of America Act

Legislation Aims to Stop World’s Most Dangerous Terrorists Held at Guantanamo Bay Prison from Being Imported into the United States

House Republicans today introduced the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, legislation aimed at stopping the transfer or release of terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison into the United States.....

Absolutely the funniest joke ever- not really

(Compiler's note: An interesting editorial shared with me by a friend. See what you think.)

Absolutely the funniest joke ever......ON US !!!

· Let it sink in.

· Quietly we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY .... . during the Carter Administration?

· Anybody?

· Anything?

· No?

· Didn't think so !

Bottom line .. we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency ... the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember.

Ready???????

It was very simple … and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate...

The 'Department of Energy' was instituted on 8- 04-1977

TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.



Hey, pretty efficient, huh?????

AND NOW IT'S 2008,

31 YEARS LATER ...

AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS



NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR

o IT HAS

· 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY

· 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES

o

o AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!

THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY

o 'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'

Ah, yes, good ole bureaucracy...



And NOW we are going to turn the Banking System, health care & the Auto Industry over to them?

God Help Us !!!

Your Tax Dollars at Work (Airport Pork)

This is another outrage. This is helping to kill our country.

You won’t believe what you see!!!!

Go to: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=13140642

Obama - Smoking gun finally found?

(Compiler's note: Must read. This country may yet discover the details of a terrible mistake made with this most recent presidential election. And then we start down the path that every "presidential" decision and act Obama has made is illegal. "A constitutional crisis is a comin." THE TRUTH IS OUT REGARDING BARRY SOETORO'S CITIZENSHIP. And the London Press will give it more coverage than U.S. media.)

On Tue, 4/28/09, UCT wrote:

Interesting concept Obama opposes :: United States Justice Foundation ...
Subject: Smoking gun finally found?

April 1, 2009

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report stating that this was obviously another attempt by a right-wing conservative group to discredit the president and undermine the administration’s efforts to move the country in a new direction.

Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned”, leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K.

In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

http://www.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=537

====================================

GOOGLE: Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President

====================================

BORN AGAIN AMERICAN....
http://www.bornagainamerican.org/

FLU OUTBREAK MAP:
http://outbreaks.globalincidentmap.com/home.php

AP Article says Obama released his Occidental College ...
Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry ... students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. ...
MORE:>>

Fulbright Association
1100 G Street, N.W.
Suite 525
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 347-5543
Fax: (202) 347-6540
http://www.fulbrightalumni.org/olc/pub/FBA/cpages/about_us/about_us.jsp

Originally Posted by Brianroy View Post
Why do We Need Real Documents

April 26th, 2009
Due to the fact that Obama arrogantly refuses to unseal his vital records and uses his attorney Robert Bauer as a tool to harass and initmidate law abiding citizens and attorneys; there are numerous rumors on the internet about those records.
Recently I received an e-mail, stating that Obama has received a Fullbright scholarship, while at Occidental. Fullbright is given to foreign students.

[ Expensive tuition Occidental prides itself in being a Fullbright Scholarship "producer", which means: an aggressive social action College enabling qualified "foreign" applicants to attend undergraduate studies there...producing the fees/costs to attend via financial aid loans, grants, scholarships...in order that the be able to school feed/sustain itself.
"(Occidental is one of the country’s top producers of student Fulbright Award winners)."
"...Roughly three quarters of students receive financial aid..."
http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities/CA/Occidental_College.html

When 73% of your students are on Financial Aid for what is now
$34,000 a year base tuition before expenses...compare Harvard
at about $2,000 less annual tuition, and its break down the comparable costs there at:
http://www.collegecrunch.org/school-profiles/harvard-university/


AND YET Obama is likely enabled to attend on perhaps a full scholarship because of his mother's associations with the FORD Foundation to encourage being sponsorship from his father's country of Kenya...meaning he needs a Kenyan passport, in addition to his Indonesian one .

But WHO QUALIFIES for the Fullbright Scholarships?:

http://www.cies.org/about_fulb.htm

The Fullbright scholarship either BRINGS FOREIGN STUDENTS TO THE UNITED STATES to learn and be educated to receive/obtain a college/university undergraduate degree, or it will ONLY sponsor existing College/University US CITIZEN GRADUATES (prefereably Master's Degree and above) to go abroad.

http://us.fulbrightonline.org/thinking.html

Since Obama was then 18-20 yr. old Barry Soetoro...Obama was AT THAT TIME , defined by the Financial Aid terms of the Fullbright Scholarship in 1979, 1980, 1981...as a NON-US CITIZEN and "foreign national".
-- Brianroy]

...Obama needs to provide original vital records or certified copies of such records, as computerised documents might be photoshopped. This is particularly important, as representative of Hawaii health department, Dr. Fukino has only released a statement, that the Hi Health department has A document on file. She did not elaborate, what document.

Since HI statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates (as it was reportedly obtained for Obama’s half sister Maya Soetoro, born in Indonesia) and those can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only, such as grandmother or grandfather (which of course can be biased), it is imperative that the courts hear those cases on the merits and that the law enforcement and judges finally start doing their job and sign subpoenas for all of Obama’s vital records.

If you have certified copies of any original documents, please mail them to my office

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ,
26302 La Paz, ste 211
Mission Viejo , CA 92691.

Obama Pushes for Anti-Gun Treaty That Could Subject American Citizens to Extradition and Trial in Foreign Courts

(Compiler's note: Absolutely must read!)

The Treaty is called the INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS

‘Eleventh Hour,’ ‘24’ and ‘CSI’ - Want to See the Future Played Out Today? These are the Shows to Watch!

by Dr. RB McFee

OK, you’ve made it past the title and right about now are wondering why one of Family Security Matters’ bioweapons experts is talking about TV. Right?! Well sometimes fiction is instructive. Consider the following:

Prions, nano-technology, DNA sequencing, applying chemistry to solve crime or cure disease, the Constitutionality of an outsourced shadow government – are these the topics being taught in your children’s science classes? Probably not; but they are the stuff of prime time television

. And in the process, perhaps we have turned an important corner when TV, beyond the Public Broadcasting System, can provide educational or at least mind stimulating programming – mind numbing reality shows notwithstanding. ....

TEAM OBAMA MAY SEEK DISBARMENT OF BUSH LAWYERS...

WASHINGTON — An internal Justice Department inquiry into the conduct of Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations has concluded that the authors committed serious lapses of judgment but should not be criminally prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on a draft of the findings.

The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask that state bar associations consider possible disciplinary action, including reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said. ....

Taliban to target nuke production? Weapons stockpile protected, but other links vulnerable

The international community, alarmed over the deteriorating conditions in Pakistan and worried whether the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons could fall into Taliban hands, has been assured by both Pakistani and U.S. officials that's unlikely at this point, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

But there have been no such assurances regarding the research and production facilities where materials are processed and bombs are assembled.

Pakistani officials have asserted that physical security of their nation's nuclear arsenal is very tight and U.S. officials have echoed the sentiment, since U.S. efforts have helped strengthen it, with physical security reportedly subject to U.S. monitoring.

In fact, security experts claim that the threat to these facilities is low unless the Taliban forcibly take over the reins of power in Islamabad.

However, these same sources say, the Pakistani Taliban may attempt attacks in other areas of nuclear and strategic concern – Pakistani nuclear weapons research and development sites, facilities for the production of plutonium and uranium enrichment, including those to manufacture the weapons themselves. ....

Murtha-inspired charges against Marine collapse But congressman, media 'remove one of our most effective combat commanders'

from WorldNetDaily

The government has decided to give up on an existing case that had subjected a Marine commander to a criminal trial for his supervision of a team of soldiers attacked by insurgents in Haditha, Iraq, in 2005.

But it remains possible the case will be re-filed against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, according to lawyers with the Thomas More Law Center, which has been working on his defense.

WND reported just days ago when the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals denied without comment the government's motion to reconsider the case against Chessani. The decision followed a ruling from a three-judge panel there that unanimously endorsed a decision by Col. Steven A. Folsom dismissing the case against the officer.

Now the law firm said it has been notified by the government it will not file an appeal with any higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Lt. Col. Chessani devoted over 20 years of his life to his country and the corps he loved. His reward: criminal prosecution and ridicule by the mainstream media," said Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the firm.

"Sadly, insurgents, with the complicity of the media, were able to remove one of our most effective combat commanders in Iraq by unfounded allegations of a 'massacre.' The immeasurable damage to America by the prosecution of this loyal and patriotic Marine officer can never be rectified. Nevertheless the decision not to engage in any further appeals is welcome news. We hope that the commandant will now say 'enough is enough' and allow Lt. Col. Chessani, his wife, and six children get on with their lives."....

124 congressman demand audit of Federal Reserve Support multiplying for scrutiny of nation's money controllers

A bill calling for the comptroller general of the United States to audit the private Federal Reserve is gaining widespread support in Congress, as 124 representatives have added their names to its growing list of co-sponsors. ....

SIBEL EDMONDS: In Congress We Trust...Not

(Compiler's note: A long and complex, but interesting must read article.)

by Sibel Edmonds

I have been known to quote long-dead men in my past writings. Whether eloquently expressed thoughts by our founding fathers, or those artfully expressed by ancient Greek thinkers, these quotes have always done a better job starting or ending my thoughts - that tend to be expressed in long winding sentences. For this piece I am going to break with tradition and start with an appropriate quote from a living current senator, John Kerry: "It's a sad day when you have members of Congress who are literally criminals go undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken."

The people do indeed look at Washington and know that this city is 'badly' broken, Senator Kerry. The public confidence in our Congress has been declining drastically. Recent poll results highlight how the American people's trust in their Congress has hit rock bottom. A survey of progressive blogs easily confirms the rage rightfully directed at our Congress for abdicating its role of oversight and accountability. Activists scream about promised hearings that never took place - without explanation. They express outrage when investigations are dropped without any justification. And they genuinely wonder out loud why, especially after they helped secure a major victory for the Democrats. The same Democrats who had for years pointed fingers at their big bad Republican majority colleagues as the main impediment preventing them from fulfilling what was expected of them.

The recent stunning but not unexpected revelations regarding Jane Harman (D-CA) by the Congressional Quarterly provide us with a little glimpse into one of the main reasons behind the steady decline in the integrity of Congress. But the story is almost dead - ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media's insistence on burying 'real' issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation's continuous downward slide. In this particular case, the 'thank you' should also be extended to certain blogosphere propagandists who, blinded by their partisanship, myopic in their assessments, and ignorant in their knowledge of the inner workings of our late Congress and intelligence agencies, helped in the post-burial cremation of this case.

Ironically but understandably, the Harman case has become one of rare unequivocal bipartisanship, when no one from either side of the partisan aisle utters a word. How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar. Others may still feel the heavy baggage of their own party's tainted colleagues; after all, they have had their share of Abramoffs, Hasterts and the like, silently lurking in the background, albeit dimmer every day. Some on the left, after an initial silence that easily could have been mistaken for shock, are jumping from one foot to the other, like a cat on a hot tin roof, making one excuse after another; playing the 'victims of Executive Branch eavesdropping' card, the same very 'evil doing' they happened to support vehemently. Some have been dialing their trusted guardian angels within the mainstream media and certain fairly visible alternative outlets. They need no longer worry, since these guardian angels seem to have blacked out the story, and have done so without the apparent need for much arm twisting...

Hastert Redux

I am going to rewind and take you back to September 2005, when Vanity Fair published an article, which, in addition to my case and the plight of National Security Whistleblowers, exposed the dark side of the then Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and the corroborated allegations of his illegal activities involving foreign agents and interests.

Vanity Fair printed the story only after they made certain they were on sure footing in the face of any possible libel by lining up more than five credible sources, and after triple pit-bull style fact-checking. They were vindicated; Hastert did not dare go after them, nor did he ever issue any true denial. Moreover, further vindication occurred only a month ago. On April 10, 2009, The Hill reported that the Former Speaker of the House was contracted to lobby for Turkey. The Justice Department record on this deal indicates that Hastert will now be "principally involved" on a $35,000-a-month contract providing representation for Turkish interests. That seems to be the current arrangement for those serving foreign interests while on the job in Congress --- to be paid at a later date, collecting on their IOU's when they secure their positions with 'the foreign lobby.'

In a recent article for American Conservative Magazine, Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer stationed in Turkey, made the following point: "Edmonds's claims have never been pursued, presumably because there are so many skeletons in both parties' closets. She has been served with a state-secrets gag order to make sure that what she knows is never revealed, a restriction that the new regime in Washington has not lifted."

And then, he hits the nail on its head: "In Hastert's case, it certainly should be a matter of public concern that a senior elected representative who may have received money from a foreign country is now officially lobbying on its behalf. How many other congressmen might have similar relationships with foreign countries and lobbying groups, providing them with golden parachutes for their retirement?"

Congress went mum on my case after the Vanity Fair story, with, of course, the mainstream media making it very easy for them. They turned bipartisan in not pursuing the case, with the same zeal as they have, so far, not pursued the Harman case. Similarly, the mainstream media is happily letting it all disappear.

I was not aware that during the publication of the Hastert story in Vanity Fair, Jane Harman's AIPAC case was already brewing in the background. Moreover, one of the very few people in Congress who was notified about Harman was none other than Hastert --- the man himself. The same Hastert, who in addition to being one of several high-ranking officials targeted by FBI counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, was also known to be directly involved in several other high profile scandals: from his intimate involvement in the Abramoff scandal, to the Rep. William Jefferson scandal; from his 'Land Deal' scandal - where he cashed in millions off his position while "serving", to the 2006 House Page scandal.

All for One, One for All?

How does it work? How do these people escape the consequences of accountability? Are we talking about the possible use of blackmail by the Executive Branch against Congressional representatives, as if the days of J. Edgar Hoover were never over? Cases such as NSA illegal eavesdropping come to mind, when Congressional members were briefed long before it became public, yet none took any action or even uttered a word; members of both parties. Or is it more likely to be a case of secondhand blackmail, where members of Congress watch out for each other? Or, is it a combination of the above? Regardless, we see this 'all for one, one for all' kind of solidarity in Congress when it comes to criminal conduct and scandals such as those of Hastert and Harman.

Although at an initial glance, based on the wiretapping angle, the Harman case may appear to involve blackmailing --- or a milder version, exploitation of Congress by the Executive Branch --- deeper analysis would suggest even further implications, where Congressional members themselves use the incriminating information against each other to prevent pursuit or investigation of cases that they may be directly or indirectly involved in. Let me give you an example based on the Hastert case mentioned earlier:

In 2004 and 2005 I had several meetings with Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) investigative and legal staff. Two of these meetings took place inside a high-security SCIF, where details and classified information pertaining to my case and those involved could be discussed.

I was told, and at the time I believed it to be the case, that the Republican majority was preventing further action - such as holding a public hearing on my whistleblower revelations. Once the Democrats took over in 2006, that barrier was removed, or so I thought.

In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Rep. Waxman's staff people who felt responsible and conscientious enough to at least let me know that there would never be a hearing into my case by their office, or for that matter, any Democratic office in the House. Based on his/her account, in February 2007 Waxman's office was preparing the necessary ingredients for their promised hearing, but in mid-March the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called Waxman into a meeting on the case, and after Waxman came out of that twenty-minute meeting, he told his staff 'we are no longer involved in Edmonds' case.' And so they became 'uninvolved.'

What was discussed during that meeting? The facts regarding the FBI's pursuit of Hastert, and certain other representatives, were bound to come out in any Congressional hearing into my case. Now we know that Hastert and Pelosi were both informed of Harman's role in a related case involving counterespionage investigation of AIPAC. Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay off my case in order to protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous case? Was there a deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House to keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know the answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current state of our mainstream media.

And the victims remain the same: The American people who have entrusted their Congress with the role of ensuring oversight and accountability.

This kind of infestation touches everyone in Congress; one need not have a skeleton of his own to get sucked into the swamp of those infested. Does Waxman have to be a sinner to take part in the sin committed by the Hasterts and Harmans of Congress? Certainly not. On the other hand, he and others like him will abide by the un-pledged oath of 'solidarity with your party members' and 'loyalty to your dear colleagues.'

Rotten at its Core

Back to the enablers: How can we explain the continued blackout by the mainstream media, and/or, the logic-free defenses of the Harmans and Hasterts alike by the apologist spinners --- some of whom pass as the 'alternative' media? Some are committing what they rightfully accused the previous administration and their pawns of doing: cherry picking the facts, then, spin, spin, and spin until the real issue becomes blurry and unrecognizable. The conspiracy angle aimed at the timing; Porter Goss' possible beef with Jane Harman; accusing the truth divulgers, CQ sources, of being 'conspirators' with ulterior motives; portraying Harman as an outspoken vigilante on torture. And if those sound too lame to swallow, they throw in a few evil names from the foggy past of Dusty the Foggo man! If the issue and its implications weren't so serious, these spins of reality would certainly make a Pulitzer-worthy satire.

Let's take the issue of timing. First of all, the story was reported, albeit not comprehensively, by TIME magazine years ago. It took a tenacious journalist, more importantly a journalist that could have been trusted by the Intel sources to give it real coverage. It is also possible that the sources who leaked in the Harman case got fed up and disillusioned by the absence of a real investigation and decided to 'really' talk. After all, the AIPAC espionage case was dropped by the Justice Department's prosecutors within two weeks of the Harman revelations.

Same could be said about the Hastert story. At the time, many asked why the story was not told during the earlier stages of my case. It took three years for me and other FBI and DOJ sources to exhaust all channels; Congressional inquiry, IG investigation, and the courts. Those who initially were not willing to come forward and corroborate the details opened up to the Vanity Fair journalist, David Rose, in 2005.

We all can picture one of the President's men in the White House pulling an opposing Congressional member aside and whispering 'if I were you, Congressman, I'd stop pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain activities you've been engaged in.'

Now let's look at the 'blackmail' and 'Goss Plot' angles. Of course the 'blackmail' scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible. We all can picture one of the President's men in the White House pulling an opposing Congressional member aside and whispering 'if I were you, Congressman, I'd stop pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain activities you've been engaged in.'

We all can imagine, easily, a high-ranking Justice Department official having a 'discreet' meeting with a member of Congress who's been pushing for a certain investigation of certain department officials for criminal deeds, and saying, 'dear Congresswoman, we are aware of your role in a certain scandal, and are still pondering whether we should turn this into a direct investigation of you and appoint a special prosecutor…'

But, let's not forget, the misuse of incriminating information, for the purpose of blackmail, does not turn the practitioner of the wrongful deed into a victim, nor does it make the wrongful criminal deed less wrong. Instead of spinning the story, taking away attention from the facts in hand, and making Harman a victim, we must focus on this case, on Harman, as an example of a very serious disease that has infected our Congress for far too long. Those who have been entrusted with the oversight and accountability of our government cannot do so if they are vulnerable to such blackmail from the very same people they are overseeing…Period.

Those who have been elected to represent the people and their interests cannot pursue their own greed and ambitions by engaging in criminal or unethical activities against the interests of the same people they've sworn to represent, and then be given a pass.

As for far-reaching ties such as Harman's stand on torture, or a specific beef with former CIA Director Porter Goss, or wild shots from the hip in bringing up mafia-like characters such as Dusty Foggo; please don't make us laugh! Are we talking about the same Hawkish Pro-Secrecy Jane Harman here?! Harman's staunch support of NSA Wiretapping of Americans, the FISA Amendment of 2008, the Patriot ACT, the War on Iraq, and many other activities on the Civil Liberties' No-No list, is widely recognized by almost everyone, apparently, but the authors of the recent apologist spin.

And, let's not forget to add her own long-term cozy relationship with AIPAC, and the large donations she's received from various other AIPAC-related pro-Israeli PACs. To these certain 'wannabe' journalists, driven by far from pure agenda(s), shame on you; as for honor-worthy vigilant activists out there: watch out for these impostors with their newly gained popularity among those tainted in Washington, and take a hard look at whose agendas they are serving as a mouthpiece for.

Despite a certain degree of exposure, cases such as Harman's and Hastert's, involving corruption of public officials, seem to meet the same dead-end. Criminal conduct, by powerful foreign entities, against our national interest, is given a pass, as was recently proven by the abandonment of the AIPAC spy case. The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media seem now to have been almost universally accepted as a fact of life.

Pursuit of cases such as mine, via cosmetically available channels, has been, and continues to be proven futile for whistleblowers.

Therefore, you may want to ask, why in the world am I writing this piece? Because more and more people --- although not nearly enough --- are coming to the realization that our system is rotten at it's core; that in many cases we have been trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause.

I, like many others, believed that changing the Congressional majority in 2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought in to the promise of change, and thus far, they've been let down.

These experiences are disheartening, surely, but they are also eye-opening. I do see many vigilant activists who continue the fight. As long as that's the case, there is hope. More people realize that real change will require not replacing one or two or three, but many more. More people are coming to understand that the road to achieving government of the people passes through a Congress, but not the one currently occupied by the many crusty charlatans who represent only self-interest --- achieved by representing the interests of the few, rather than the majority of the people of this nation. And so I write.

Here I go again, rather than ending this in a long paragraph or two, I will let another long-gone man do it shortly and effectively: "If we have Senators and Congressmen there that can't protect themselves against the evil temptations of lobbyists, we don't need to change our lobbies, we need to change our representatives." - Will Rogers

==

Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and noted whistleblower who has been under a years-long "gag order", prohibiting her from discussing many details of her allegations of corruption and espionage gleaned during her time at the FBI, due to the continuing "States Secrets privilege" assertions by the Executive Branch. Her own story has been partially documented over the last several years in several different media outlets, including a lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes, a detailed feature in Vanity Fair and, over the years, in a number of exclusive articles here at The BRAD BLOG. She is the Founder and President of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.