Sunday, May 31, 2009

Cracking the Whip-- Obama Restrictions on the First Amendment

This is straight from the HORSES MOUTH, (a 1920 expression, meaning this expression alludes to examining a horse's teeth to determine its age and hence it's betting worth) or in our blog meaning holy omg caca! we actually found this head shaking WTF! info at the "White House President Barack Obama", whose middle name, never to be spoken, is HUSSEIN. And it makes sense. When you are the boss of bosses and running a successful political machine, not only do you have to take care of the servants behoden to the ObamaMan, the Young Pharaoh, but you have make sure that those few future trouble makers, not part of the machine, begin to get the CORRECT word. Therefore, lets drink to that and receive the word from theTHE Blog, the White House Blog, (click on the link you unbelievers) you are hereby notified that until further notice there will be "restrictions" on your First Admendment Rights here is :Another update from Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, in the spirit of transparency as always:
"First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program."

You got that! "in the spirit of transparency as always" : Too late to shovel, boys, grab your hip boots and run! I just love that bullshit of "this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program." Don't you?
We are only thinking of you. We're only thinking of you! You are the reason we are doing this....you want the stimulus program to work don't you? And of course you are too dumb to have read Hayek's , The Road to Serfdom. Of course, to all my dumbshit liberal friends, who thought I was howling for the mothership to come get me when I warned them the end of Our Constitution was near....HOW DO YOU LIKE HIM NOW!

Belated Birthday Greetings to Sgt Daniel Thornhill From the CSquare

Sgt Thornhill had a birthday May 17 recuperating in Fisher House after being wounded in Iraq. He lost both legs above the knee and suffered burns over 30% of his body. His mom and brother are with him and he is doing Ok. Send him a birthday card and a Texas Howdy at this address:

SGT Daniel Thornhill

Fort Sam Houston Fisher House
3623 George C. Beach Rd
Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Palin at work in Ak


Governor Sarah Palin with Ron Siebels,
Department Commander of the Alaska Chapter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, after the Purple Heart presentation ceremony at VFW Post 10252.

You Might Be Too Dumb To Run a Newspaper If....

You pass on and publish a classified ad without noticing the historical connection between "Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy!" Humm. What could these four U.S. Presidents have in common. Warren Times Observer Publisher John Elchert currently apologizing profusely here. Dinosaurs newspapers. All of them. Dollars to doughnuts says those miserable hardys don't even read their own paper much less history books.

Friday, May 29, 2009

The Fix is in---The Chicago Way--Takes Care of His Own



The Washington Times reported today that Obama toadies overruled DOJ lawyers and let Black Panther Thugs intimidating votes go free as a bird:

"Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident — which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube — had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms."

The purpose of the Obama administration is not to help American citizens but to reward the servants who maintain the political machine. A little payback here and there, even at the cost of a couple outraged bloggers is not going to hurt the reelection efforts and will go a long way making sure the word on the street gets out; Obama takes care of his own.



Thursday, May 28, 2009

Innovate, Innovate, Innovate--Orcs Improvise and Attack Army Base

Orcs, wrapped in outdoor camping space blankets to cancel out the thermal imaging cameras, climbed a 400 foot escarpment in the dark right up to helicopter pad to fire their RPG greetings into Fort Margha, and disappear "like ninjas into the night." Fort Margha may keep its troops safe but does squat for the people in the valley below. Down there the Orcs rule by day and night. Philip Smucker writing for the McClatchy Newspapers has the entire bullshit rules story.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

LGF-the Fail Issue and Attitude From Bitter Gun-Clingers

"To me, the issue is very simple — almost blindingly simple, in fact: openly wishing for political opponents to “FAIL!” is horrendously bad politics." Charles LGF response to Ace of Spades What Has Happened to Little Green Footballs?

So simple I still don't get it. First of all:Politics is a contact sport. Last of all: Politics is a contact sport. What part of CONTACT don't you understand. Wishing your political opponents to "Fail" never bothered Democrats when they Borked Bork or clothesline Clarence Thomas or ridiculed Palin. When Democrats spouted their version of “I want you to fail!” song and dance routine it sure as hell wasn't a giant turn-off to a large segment of the American population. Shoot. You'd think it would have, at the very least cost them the black vote at the sight of the white Senate Judiciary Committee doing the Rodney "can we all get along" King tap dance on Thomas. But no, it sure was not just bad politics — or stupid, self-defeating politics considering who is in the White House now because , of course, The Young Pharaoh ran on a "platform of sheer positive messages.
Wonderful light and love messages like this:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Huffington Post
Yead buddy. Bitter church attending Gun clingers like moi will continue to openly wish Obama and his Supreme Court nominee, Puerto Rico's own Sotomayor, the very best “fail” and if that makes us bitter clingers, mean-spirited, negative, and hands ammunition to our political enemies, well, then just get the hell out of our way. I , for one, do not intend to go politely into that dark fascist night when the yankee government lets the common folk own their own business but then dictates the size of your paycheck on Friday. Nope. I am with Ace on this one:

The Young Pharaoh Must Fail.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Netanyahu:Gird your loins, O'Israel " Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one."

"And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth." The future foretold for Iran although Netanyahu did not name Iran he did say:
Israel is not like other countries," Netanyahu told his Likud faction in a meeting which came one week after his meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House. "We are faced with security challenges that no other country faces, and our need to provide a response to these is critical, and we are answering the call." "My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel ... the leadership's job is to eliminate the danger. Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one."


"These are not regular times. The danger is hurtling toward us?The real danger in underestimating the threat," Netanyahu said, addressing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.Haaretz

VPOTUS Dick Cheney Speech at the AEI

On May 21, 2009, former vice president Richard B. Cheney, on the AEI's Board of Trustees, spoke at AEI on terrorism and the Obama administration stance toward victory For America.

Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It's good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I'm looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.

I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don't think I missed much.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I'm an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen--a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I'm not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush administration who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President's understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America . . . and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

9/11 caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact--crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least--but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat--what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We'd just been hit by a foreign enemy--leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn't know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass--a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day--word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I've heard occasional speculation that I'm a different man after 9/11. I wouldn't say that. But I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations: the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program. It's required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan--and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive--and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we're left to draw one of two conclusions--and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event--coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn't invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn't serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission." Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see--including the enemy--let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed--the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about "values." Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned, one lead that goes unpursued, can bring on catastrophe--it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term "war" where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we're advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, "Overseas contingency operations." In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, "man-made disaster"--never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, "enemy combatants," as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn't change what they are--or what they would do if we let them loose.

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists. So what happens then? Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland, and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President's own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we've captured as, quote, "abducted." Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It's one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we're no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it's the policies that matter most. You don't want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want--just don't bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a "recruitment tool" for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America's moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion, our belief in equal rights for women, our support for Israel, our cultural and political influence in the world--these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the nineteen recruits who boarded those planes on September 11, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world--for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences--and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for--our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It's almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won't let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I've formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It's worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations--and I am not alone. President Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration--the missing twenty-six words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn't change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. 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."

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it'll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs--on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history--not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward--the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of "hubris"--my mind always goes back to that moment.

To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office--which was to be another 2,689 days--there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris--it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.

Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation's power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would "include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success." We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs--none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country's service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own--all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.

For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Thank you very much.

Richard B. Cheney, the forty-sixth vice president of the United States, is a trustee of AEI.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Memorial Day 2009


"Memorial Day Order"

General Orders No. 11, Grand Army of the Republic Headquarters.

I. The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form or ceremony is prescribed, but Posts and com­rades will, in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.
We are organized, Comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers sailors and marines, who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than by cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead? We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security, is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.
If other eyes grow dull and other hinds slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain in us.
Let us, then, at the time appointed, gather around their sacred remains, and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledge to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon the Nation's gratitude—the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan.

II. It is the purpose of the Commander‑in‑Chief to inaugurate this observ­ance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to call attention to this Order, and lend its friendly aid in bringing it to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.

III. Department commanders will use every effort to make this Order effective.

By Command of:

John A. Logan
Commander in Chief May 5, 1868

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Clifford Asness Is Looking for a Few Good Men and Women Who Believe in Capitalism

So far, Clifford Asness is the only prominent business owner in the million dollar league who has publicly said hell no to the President's attempt to cow American business into the socialist corral. Everyone else seems to have hunkered down in their foxholes too worried about losing careers that will not stand The Wrath of Obama.

Asness money quote:""This is America," Asness concludes. "We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails, it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the Oval Office to be scolded for disobedience by the president."

Peter Robinson, a research fellow at Hoover Institution and a contributor to Robinson and Long has a question today in his column:The Protest of a Patriot-Forbes.Com.

"Is no one willing to join him?"

Saturday, May 23, 2009

POTUS Obama, Our Accidental Fifth Columnist, Slams Cheap Shot at Bush in Weekend Memorial Day Address

On our day of remembrance for the sacrifice and service of our men and women who daily go in harms way for the protection of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness against the ever increasing Evil Orcs, POTUS Obama lead off his wish list for veterans by getting off a no class sandbag shot at our former CIC-POTUS George W. Bush during his Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address Saturday, May 23, 2009:

"Our fighting men and women – and the military families who love them – embody what is best in America. And we have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us.

And yet, all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve. That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear – and all who have worn – the proud uniform of our country."



How low can Obama go? To include a cheap political shot, as part of the nation's Memorial Day Observance to wit "That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear – and all who have worn – the proud uniform of our country." speaks volumes of the character of this man.

We are not the school of Hellas when the world can witness that America can produce a man who takes advantage of our nation's observance of Memorial Day to score low life political points over the wounds and dead of our veterans. We are the school of Obama, cheap shot artist and "accidental" fifth columnist.

Friday, May 22, 2009

DAM SUPPORT UNIT 2nd and 3RD PLTs, B CO, 4TH LAR BN APPROVED NAVY UNIT COMMENDATION (NUC)


Concrackerwackerpackers to DSU Dam Security Unit AKA Bravo Co 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance LAR. Job well done.
Date Signed: 5/20/2009
MARADMIN Number: 0320/09
UNCLASSIFIED//
MARADMIN 0320/09
MSGID/GENADMIN/CMC WASHINGTON DC MRA MM//
SUBJ/ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPROVED NAVY UNIT COMMENDATION (NUC)//
REF/A/MSGID:DOC/SECNAV /22AUG2006//
REF/B/MSGID:DOC/CMC MMMA/13APR2009//
NARR/REF A IS SECNAVINST 1650.H, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AWARDS MANUAL. REF B IS NAVMC 2922, MARINE CORPS UNIT AWARDS MANUAL.//
POC/J. A. WHITEN/SSGT/UNIT:HQMC MMMA/-/TEL:703-784-9206 /TEL:DSN 278-9206/EMAIL:JOVAN.WHITEN@USMC.MIL//

GENTEXT/REMARKS/1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MARADMIN IS TO PUBLISH THE LISTING OF UNITS AND PERSONNEL ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NUC. THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY APPROVED THE NUC IAW REF A TO RECOGNIZE I MARINE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (FORWARD) FOR ACTIONS IN OIF FROM 28 FEB 06 TO 09 FEB 2007.

2. AS OUTLINED IN REF A, PERSONNEL PERMANENTLY ASSIGNED OR ATTACHED TO I MEF (FWD) WHO WERE ACTUALLY PRESENT IN IRAQ AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE UNIT WAS CITED ARE AUTHORIZED TO WEAR THE AWARD. ELIGIBILITY IS DETERMINED BY EVIDENCE IN SERVICE RECORDS OR OTHER OFFICIAL RECORDS THAT SUPPORT THE SERVICE MEMBER'S ASSIGNMENT TO A PARTICIPATING UNIT CITED IN PARA 7 BELOW AND DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN THE ACTIONS CITED. UPON DETERMINATION OF SERVICE MEMBER'S ELIGIBILITY, COMMANDERS ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE APPROPRIATE UNIT DIARY ENTRIES.

3. MEMBERS OF THE FORWARD PARTIES WHO DID NOT DEPLOY ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM PARTICIPATION IN THIS AWARD.
4. THE NUC INCLUDES NUMEROUS U.S. ARMY COMMANDS. TO DATE, THE MARINE CORPS HAS NOT RECEIVED U.S. ARMY CONCURRENCE TO ALLOW THESE UNITS TO ACCEPT THE NUC. CONTINGENT UPON CONCURRENCE, THE MARINE CORPS WILL PUBLISH A SEPARATE MESSAGE WITH A LIST OF U.S. ARMY UNITS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE.
5. THE NUC ALSO INCLUDES DESIGNATED UNITS OF THE BRITISH MILITARY. THE ACCEPTANCE, RETENTION AND DISPLAY OF THIS AWARD ARE FUNCTIONS OF BRITISH LAW AND REGULATION.
6. UNITS THAT ARE NOT LISTED THAT BELIEVE THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR PARTICIPATION IN THIS NUC MAY SUBMIT A LETTER VIA THE CHAIN OF COMMAND UNDER WHICH THEY OPERATED DURING THE PERIOD CITED IN THIS AWARD. UPON RECEIPT OF A FULLY ENDORSED CHAIN OF COMMAND RECOMMENDATION TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL UNIT(S), THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CMC FOR ENDORSEMENT. IF APPROPRIATE, THE PACKAGE WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE SECNAV FOR DECISION. ANY ADDITIONAL UNITS AUTHORIZED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS AWARD WILL BE PUBLISHED IN FUTURE AWARDS UPDATE MESSAGES.
7. ADDITIONAL PARTICIPATING UNITS:
COMMAND ELEMENT, I MEF (FORWARD)
I MHG (-)(REIN), I MEF
1ST INTEL BN(-)(REIN)
2ND INTEL BN(-)(REIN), II MHG
1ST RADIO BN(-)(REIN)
2ND RADIO BN(-)(REIN), II MHG
9TH COMM BN(-)(REIN)
1ST ANGLICO(-)(REIN)
2ND ANGLICO(-)(REIN), II MHG
TRUCK CO(-)(REIN), HQBN, 1ST MARDIV
1ST FORCE RECON CO(-) (REIN)
DET, HQ BTRY, 10TH MAR, 2ND MARDIV
DET, HQ BTRY, 11TH MAR, 1ST MARDIV
DET, HQ BTRY, 12TH MAR, 3D MARDIV
DET, HQ BTRY, 14TH MAR, 4TH MARDIV
6TH CIVIL AFFAIRS GROUP (6TH CAG)
3D CIVIL AFFAIRS GROUP (3D CAG)
4TH CIVIL AFFAIRS GROUP (4TH CAG)
BTRY E, 2ND BN, 11TH MAR (PROV MP)
5TH BN, 14TH MAR (-)(REIN), 4TH MARDIV
HQ BTRY, 5TH BN, 14TH MAR
N BTRY (REIN)
O BTRY (REIN)
C BTRY, 1ST BN, 14TH MAR
TOW PLT, 3RD BN, 15TH MAR
MP CO (REIN), 1ST MARDIV
MP CO, 4TH MARDIV
DET, 4TH FORCE RECONNAISSANCE
1ST BN, 14TH MAR (-)(REIN), 4TH MARDIV
HQ BTRY
DET MILITARY WORKING DOGS (SPECIAL SEARCH DOGS & EOD DETECTION DOGS)
DET, CUSTOMS
DET, CID
A BTRY, 1ST BN, 14TH MAR
B BTRY, 1ST BN
H BTRY, 3RD BN
T BTRY, 5TH BN, 11TH MAR, 1ST MARDIV
C MP CO, 2ND MP BN, 2ND MLG
DET, CORRECTIONS CO, MCB CAMLEJ
DET, CORRECTIONS CO, MB CAMPEN
3RD BN, 14TH MAR (-)(REIN), 4TH MARDIV
HQ BTRY
G BTRY
I BTRY
F BTRY, 2ND BN, 11TH MAR, 1ST MARDIV
E BTRY, 2D BN, 10TH MAR, 2ND MARDIV
MP CO, HQ BN, 1ST MARDIV
5TH MARINE REGIMENT (-) (REIN), 1ST MARDIV
HQ CO (REIN)
BTRY B, 1ST BN, 11TH MAR
BTRY G, 2ND BN, 11TH MAR
BTRY I, 3D BN, 12TH MAR, 2ND MARDIV
CO A, 2ND TANK BN, 2ND MARDIV
CO C, 2ND TANK BN, 2ND MARDIV
CO D, 2ND TANK BN, 2ND MARDIV
CO A, 2ND AAV BN, 2ND MARDIV
CO B, 2ND AAV BN, 2ND MARDIV
CO D, 2ND AAV BN, 2ND MARDIV
CO C, 2ND CEB, 2ND MARDIV
CO B, 1ST CEB
CO C, 1ST CEB
3D BN, 5TH MAR
1ST BN, 1ST MAR
3D BN, 2ND MAR, 2ND MARDIV
2ND BN, 8TH MAR, 2ND MARDIV
2ND BN, 6TH MAR, 2ND MARDIV
1ST BN, 24TH MAR, 4TH MARDIV
1ST BN, 25TH MAR, 4TH MARDIV
1ST RECON BN(-), 1ST MARDIV
2ND RECON BN, 2ND MARDIV
3D RECON BN, 3D MARDIV
7TH MARINE REGIMENT (-)(REIN) 1ST MARDIV
HQ CO (REIN)
BTRY A, 1ST BN, 11TH MAR
BTRY C, 1ST BN, 10TH MAR, 3RD MARDIV
BTRY L, 3RD BN, 12TH MAR, 2ND MARDIV
CO E, 2ND BN, 8TH MAR
CO A (REIN), 1ST TANK BN
CO B (REIN), 1ST TANK BN
CO C (REIN), 1ST TANK BN
CO B, 3RD AAV BN
CO C, 3RD AAV BN
CO D, 3RD AAV BN
CO A, 2ND CEB
CO C, 1ST CEB
CO C, 4TH CEB
1ST FORCE RECON CO (-) (REIN), (2 X PLT)
4TH FORCE RECON CO (-) (REIN), (2 X PLT)
1 X INF CO AZERBAIJAN
DAM SECURITY UNIT (DET, 4TH AAV BN, 4TH MARDIV)
1ST LAR BN (-)(2 X CO)
2ND LAR BN (-), 2ND MARDIV (2 X CO)
3D LAR BN (-), 3RD MARDIV (2 X CO)
2ND BN, 3D MAR, 3D MARDIV
2ND BN, 4TH MAR
1ST BN, 7TH MAR
3RD BN, 1ST MAR
3RD BN, 3RD MAR, 3RD MARDIV
3RD BN, 6TH MAR, 2ND MARDIV
3RD BN, 4TH MAR
3RD BN, 7TH MAR
C CO, 2ND CEB, 2ND MARDIV
TRUCK PLT, HQBN, 2ND MARDIV
E CO, 2ND BN, 4TH MAR
F CO, 2ND BN, 4TH MAR
DAM SUPPORT UNIT 2ND PLT, B CO, 4TH AA BN
DAM SUPPORT UNIT 3RD PLT, B CO, 4TH LAR BN

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Four American Muslim Converts to Islam Arrested for Home grown Jihad

James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen, of Newburgh were arrested Wed. for setting bombs at Jewish community centers in Riverdale, and Bronx, New York. The bombs were duds made by the FBI. The group also was trying to buy stinger missiles to shoot down military aircraft. Link

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

The Middle Ground-Well Understood ...By Orcs

From PDavidHornik's website is his quote from Gary Bauer:


Here is what Obama and the American Left do not understand. When you negotiate with Iran, you aren’t negotiating with a country – you are negotiating with a cause. Countries can be convinced to make concessions. But a “cause,” in this case the creation of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, does not make concessions or follow the rules of diplomacy. Ahmadinejad and groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad see themselves as warriors for Allah. To them, every Western concession is further proof that Allah is bringing them victory; it is further justification for terrorism and other barbaric tactics. Israel understands this. Sadly, our president does not.

So Now
what part part of middle ground mendacity do you NOT! understand?


Tuesday, May 19, 2009

All Hail and SALUTE A Man of the Truest GRIT: George McGovern


Who among us is 87 years old and can still kick ass, even his own political party, on PRINCIPLE! Count yourselves one of the lucky few if you voted for him and count again blessed that you can still see America still has the guts to shelter a man of principle. George McGovern is AGAINST! the union backed Employee Free Choice Act. This is the union's mega-bucks loottery ticket. Thats right, buddy, the word is spelled right:Loottery ticket. The gutless, godless union has backed their POTUS into the White House and right now they are looking for a little payback in the form of legislation, which would give Big Joe, the worker the "option" of joining a union by just signing his John Doe to a card instead of voting in a SECRET BALLOT! You understand, if your vote is a SECRET no thugs can sidle up to you while watching your kid play ball and say something appreciative, like, Gee Joe went by your house last week...you wasn't home...nice house...shame if something was to happen to it...you know...accident. Just Saying...you know. The Unions are gunning for McGovern.

George McGovern:Voting is an immense privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.

Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.








Monday, May 18, 2009

The Middle Ground Is For Cemeteries

The Middle Ground. Dollars to donuts says you think you know all about the middle ground. Sure. John Weaver knows. The Republican strategist who helped Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman gird his loins for a run for the presidency now says the Republican party is going to get its clock cleaned if it sticks with extremists like Limbaugh, Cheney and Palin. Major Blowout-Blue Meannies, says Mr. Strategist John Weaver: "If it's 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we're headed for a blowout," says strategist John Weaver, who advised Huntsman and was for years a close adviser to Sen. John McCain." Advised, once again as in used to advise two former POTUS wannabee losers : Huntsman, now packing his bags for China and calling Obama: Boss, and by the hey is going to be totally useless for a 2012 run for the White House cause who is going gauche and run against the BOSS of us all and Senator McCain, who in the previous election couldn't make up his mind to fish or cut bait. Either way, the these two resume enhancers are history no matter what Republican strategist John Weaver says about holding onto the middle ground with safe,don't make any sudden moves, middle ground candidates. Give me a break, already! Trust the middle ground says Weaver. Right. What we need here is a candidate who is a Democrat-Lite-Republican. You know, everyone gets sucked in by the supposed safety of the middle ground. Sure. Its understandable. Middle ground is American. It's mom's apple pie. This is America where everybody gets a second break or a third or a fourth or a fifth break. In Afghanistan, the military is also seeking the middle ground. The middle ground is a swamp. Think Brits in Basra. If you want a serious discussion about the middle ground you need to read Ralph Peters here where you find that his idea of the proper use for the middle ground is to let the Orcs use it for a cemetary: "Getting it right in Afghanistan -- and across the frontier in Pakistan -- means digging fewer wells and forcing our enemies to dig more graves." The " incisive, relentless elimination of terrorists by our special-ops forces: Killing works." Rule Number One: There is no middle ground in the War Against Orcs. HopeNchange is not a Plan.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Notre Dame Visit Cost U. 13.9 million in withheld donations-The Accidental Fifth Columnist Stumbles....



NOTRE DAME ALUMNI CONFIRM $13.9 MILLION

IN WITHHELD DONATIONS

Financial Penalty of Obama Invite Continues to Mount

DEARBORN, MI - (May 13, 2009) – Organizers of ReplaceJenkins.com, the online effort that asks alumni and donors to the University of Notre Dame to withhold donations, announced Wednesday that they have tallied nearly $14 million in withheld donations from alumni and donors who feel disenfranchised by the trend of Notre Dame’s leadership to abandon its Catholic identity.

The website ReplaceJenkins.com has received over 1,400 pledges from alumni and donors promising to withhold future donations. After more than three weeks since the website was launched, the addition of new alumni and donors on the site continues daily.

ReplaceJenkins.com spokesperson David DiFranco (Class of ‘95) commented: “Most of the donors were at least loosely aware of the University’s trend away from its Catholic identity. But the invitation of President Obama to speak and to receive an honorary degree, combined with the weak responses presented by Father Jenkins as a defense to those who have criticized the decision, is what drives most alumni to our site.”

“Unwittingly, Father Jenkins has brought national attention to a problem that is decades in the making,” DiFranco explained. “A shrinking percentage of Catholic faculty and the efforts of secular-minded board members has long been eroding the Catholic heritage and foundation that makes Notre Dame great. President Obama’s invitation represents the culminating scandal in this trend.”

Alumni and financial supporters of the University of Notre Dame launched the online effort in an effort to withhold donations from Notre Dame, until Rev. John Jenkins, CSC is replaced. The coalition website – www.replacejenkins.com - urges supporters to withhold all contributions to the Notre Dame General Fund until President Jenkins is replaced with someone who is committed to the authentic identity of Notre Dame, grounded in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

“We have discovered, in no uncertain terms, that alumni did not need our suggestion to withhold contributions. In nearly all cases, those who have contacted us had already decided to cease donating. Our website merely tallies the sum of their collective decision” said DiFranco.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

India Three Eight Marines In Bakwa

Story by Lance Cpl. Brian D. Jones


Marines, Afghan National Police stay vigilant in southern Afghanistan

BAKWA, Afghanistan – Through binoculars, a Marine spotted suspicious men in the distance. Over the radio, he passed the word. The security convoy circled around and pushed up to investigate. As they moved in closer, shots rang out from the ridge ahead, May 4.

The insurgents' rounds impact close to the Marines' vehicles. On the order, the Marines returned fire forcing the insurgents' retreat. The insurgents fled before a quick-reaction force and air support arrived. Afterward, the Marines dismounted and went up the ridge. They found no trace of casualties, just fresh tracks and probable bunkers that may have been used as outposts.

This was not a typical patrol for the Marines of Company I, 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment (Reinforced), the ground combat element of Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force – Afghanistan. They have successfully kept security under control in Bakwa, Farah Province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and such events are rare.

"None of them hesitated," said Cpl. Josh B. Reasbeck, the squad leader who led the patrol that day. "They were all employed the way they were supposed to be. They all did exactly what they were taught to do. I'm really proud of all them, and I have full confidence of their abilities."

Prior to alliance forces arriving in Bakwa, insurgent intimidation destroyed the community and pushed many people away. From testimonies of locals, the Marines know insurgents are still active in the area but have little influence.

"The security has increased tremendously with us being here and with the Afghan national police starting to step up," said Cpl. Chris L. Parra, a 3rd Civil Affairs Group non-commissioned officer attached to Co. I. "The people actually feel more secure now that they see the local government taking time to put in effort in providing security for the locals in the area."

The Marines of Co. I are operating from Forward Operating Base Bakwa and two combat outposts. They continually conduct mounted and dismounted security patrols, maintain quick reaction force teams and keep a 24-hour watch over the immediate areas.

"The threat out here is improvised explosive devices," said Reasbeck. "We don't really worry about direct fire so much."

Occasionally, the Marines will catch a local, who was persuaded by insurgents, planting an improvised explosive device in the road, said Reasbeck.

With security efforts going well, the Marines take time to focus on training an eager-to-learn ANP.

"They seem like they really want to do their job and be the protectors of Afghanistan," said Lance Cpl. Jacob A. Hutto, a team leader with Co. I.

Marines such as Hutto train the ANP with the help of interpreters to overcome the language barrier. The ANP are trained in basic formations, patrolling and weapons handling.

The ANP have made a considerable amount of progress from the time Co. I first arrived, said Hutto.

The Marines coordinate security patrols with the ANP, showing the local civilians that the U.S. and Afghan forces are working together, said Reasbeck.

With the ANP at their sides, the Marines visit villages to speak with locals. While in the villages, they take the opportunity to do assessments of what the people need and inquire about any activity in the area.

"Generally they're pretty happy and welcome us with open arms," said Hutto.

Reasbeck added that the locals are pleased to find that the Marines are willing to help with problems, such as ineffective wells. In return, the villagers are willing to share information.

"When I first got here, the people were very scared and very reluctant to come up and talk to us," Parra said. "Now they meet us and shake our hands in public. It's completely different now."

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

POTUS, The Accidental Fifth Columnist Changes His Mind

NEVERMIND: POTUS Barack Hussein Obama is NOW going to BLOCK release of prisoner abuse photos by U.S. troops in Iraq because his fingerprints are over the photos. The presence of his finger prints will directly link POTUS Barack Hussein Obama to any deaths of troops and civilians caused by the release of new color glossy photographs depicting prisoner abuse. This prospect now gives him "pause" and a new found sense of heighten "concern for national security". The presence of His fingerprints will testify to his contribution for stoking Orc outrage and at the sametime arming the "bitter clingers" with pitchforks and rakes. To be sure, if there was a way in which he absolutely could not stop the release of the photos, say with a presidential executive order, the photos would be released. Instantly. This is the Age of Obama. Everything is expendable. Provided His fingerprints or DNA can not be traced. Anyone and anything can and will be thrown under the bus. The Constitution. Business. The economy. The American way of life, liberty, truth, Justice. You name it. It's History. link Politico

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

POTUS Obama: The Accidental Fifth Columnist Prepares To Kill American Troops

POTUS Barack Hussein Obama wants to kill American troops by releasing photos of prisoner abuse. He says his hands are tied by a court decision but, straight up, he WANTS to release the photos to piss off the Orcs. Pissed off Orcs kill Americans. Obama wants to piss them off. If he didn't want to release the photos he could simply issue an executive order: Let so be written. Let it so be done. The photos will not be released. POTUS Barack Hussein Obama's fingerprints are over this travesty. more at NRO

Now What! Navy's Runaway Defense Against Pirates Stinks on Ice

The recently lauded United States Navy simple plan against pirates off the Somali coast of putting the metal to the pedal, making warp speed and out running the skinny bastions of 18th century piracy has hit a huge reef. To put it mildly, the Navy has no appreciation of the 21st century capabilities of the enemy. Those skinny little buggers know exactly what they are doing. You would have to figure that with millions of dollars involved in heisting ships that there would be more to this story than the oft repeated lie of a couple of dozen lazy layabouts just trying to get some weekend party money. Right. Spanish Radio, Cardena Se, reports Somali pirates are in contact with agents based in London and get up to date, detailed info on the who, what, where intell on vessels, routes cargoes, and ETA's. Using, Satellite radios for intell and "sophisticated equipment to locate their targets" these pirates have surprised captured crews with the amount of detailed info on the ship and the crew and cargo. NewsDaily

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Its Official-Mainstream Media Is Running PR for Obama AND Has No Balls

Congrat's to Legal Insurrection for his boost in eyeballs to his site from 37,000 to 107,000 according to The Other McCain for daring to confuse the issue with facts in the Obama DijonGate Scandal. What could this be--I hear you say--well, its quite simple really, the former members of the Fourth Estate, once proud bulldogs in defense of liberty, truth justice and well, never mind, covered up for his Obamaness after he ordered (Gasp)! Dijon Mustard on HIS burger! OMG!! POTUS Obama put Dijon mustard on his all American burger ordered from Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington Va. Now everybody knows that all red blooded Americans have no truck with that frenchEfied Dijon mustard. So the boys of the press-now the lap dogs of the Obama Administration COVERED UP for him. Sorry. Him. YES, the lap dogs ate the vomit. The press ignored the dijon mustard point. NBC even edited their film. All the lap dogs were valiant. They carried on as if himself had not exposed himself as a real and true anti-American dijon mustard traitor. America. It's a great country.

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Navy Adopts Oddballs Defense From Movie Kelly Heroes


Back in 1970, Clint Eastwood came out with an off beat war flick about GI Joes fighting Germans who decided to get killed for something that really matters--like a bank full of 14,000 goldbars behind enemy lines. Kelly Heroes include Donald Sutherland who volunteers his tank and crew for the bank heist. Kelly is unimpressed and Oddball shows off the tank engine to prove they are up to the job.

Oddball
: This engine's been modified by our mechanical genius here, Moriarty. Right?
Moriarty: Whatever you say, babe.
[giggles]
Oddball: These engines are the fastest in any tanks in the European Theater of Operations, forwards or backwards. You see, man, we like to feel we can get out of trouble, quicker than we got into it.
This scene came to mind as I read the CNN story headlined : Navy Ship Out Runs Pirates
I kid you not. Check it out. Apprently, two skiffs of near brain dead Somali pirates decided to pull over and hold for ransom the USNS Lewis and Clark, a cargo and ammo supply ship in support of the Fifth Fleet. My god, I ask you, is there no end to this crap. Two boat loads of skinny malnourished Somali pirates chased the Navy supply boat for a hour,an hour, shooting off their AK's while the ship's security team issued stern CEASE AND DESIST! warnings over the ships megaphone. Life imitates art. How bitterly ridiculous. An hour of this ...excuse me, what do you say after an hour of this charade. Stop at once, I say. You'll be grounded until your father gets home, young man. What was the Captain doing all this time. Was he screaming Engine Room! More speed! Scotty! More speed! Captain! She won't hold together much longer. She's coming apart at the seams! Apparently Capt. Picard finally got tired of playing footsie with the pirates and ordered full warp drive and left the pirates far astern. Hoh, but this not the end of the story. Not by a long shot. oh no. Instead of setting of couple of Marine lance corporals at the fan tail with a couple of M-14 to take target practice at the chase boats the Ready Now Navy Higher Food chain is stating that this run away, run away defense is the number one, prime directive for pirates:

"The actions taken by Lewis and Clark were exactly what the U.S. Navy has been recommending to prevent piracy attacks -- for both commercial and military vessels," said Capt. Steve Kelley, commander of Task Force 53, assigned to the Lewis and Clark.

"Merchant mariners can and should use Lewis and Clark's actions as an unequivocal example of how to prevent a successful attack from occurring," he said.

Mother of god! Has it come to this? Is this the age of Barrack Hussein Obama? John Paul Jones is spinning like a whirling dervish.

Friday, May 08, 2009

You can see the bottom from here:The Death of the Dollar's Purchasing Power


From Zero Hedge-the chart the gangsta administration doesn't want you to see--dollar power down 94% and still tanking.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Its official: the white house press corps has no balls

Gangsta threats from the White House to Chrysler's secured lenders via Obama "Car Czar" Steven Rattner.


"What I failed to make clear was that, unlike the supposed experience of Tom Lauria's client, the tale of woe that has been passed to me does not have as its agent of malice the White House Press Corps, which, while certainly annoying, lacks a certain killer instinct and terror inducing reputation. Instead, the creditors to which I refer were purportedly threatened with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the fund whose tale I am privy to is allegedly not the only entity that was subject to such inducements. There are, according to my source, two others."
FineMrespice
the White House Press Corps, which, while certainly annoying, lacks a certain killer instinct and terror inducing reputation.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Clifford S. Asness:"This is America. We have a free enterprise system that is..not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience

This is America. Where, thank God, we still have men of true grit. Unlike the owned lackeys of the mainstream media who see nothing evil about POTUS Don Corleone and "I make him an offer he don' refuse. Don' worry. "

Unafraid In Greenwich Connecticut
from Zero Hedge
Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC

The President has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”

The responses of hedge fund managers have been, appropriately, outrage, but generally have been anonymous for fear of going on the record against a powerful President (an exception, though still in the form of a “group letter”, was the superb note from “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders” some of the points of which I echo here, and a relatively few firms, like Oppenheimer, that have publicly defended themselves). Furthermore, one by one the managers and banks are said to be caving to the President’s wishes out of justifiable fear.

I run an approximately twenty billion dollar money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President's comments (of course these are my own views not those of my company). Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called "Not Afraid Enough" as I am indeed fearful writing this... It’s really a bad idea to speak out. Angering the President is a mistake and, my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally “sacrifice” their money without their permission.

Here's a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It’s not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders' contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times.

The above is how it works in America, or how it’s supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice”, you would not be happy.

Let’s quickly review a few side issues.

The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

Let’s also mention only in passing the irony of this same President begging hedge funds to borrow more to purchase other troubled securities. That he expects them to do so when he has already shown what happens if they ask for their money to be repaid fairly would be amusing if not so dangerous. That hedge funds might not participate in these programs because of fear of getting sucked into some toxic demagoguery that ends in arbitrary punishment for trying to work with the Treasury is distressing. Some useful programs, like those designed to help finance consumer loans, won't work because of this irresponsible hectoring.

Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because
they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people's money. The President’s comments here are backwards and libelous. Yet, somehow I don’t think the hedge funds will be following ACORN’s lead and trucking in a bunch of paid professional protestors soon. Hedge funds really need a community organizer.

This is America. We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President.

I am ready for my “personalized” tax rate now.

Send Your Kid to College and Don't Forget to Pack His Heat

A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby.

“And I heard someone say, ‘Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,’” said a neighbor.

The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.

Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

POTUS:The Accidental Fifth Columnist At Work

Other Western intelligence services regard the Obama administration with contempt and rising concern, an officer of the DGSE, France's military intelligence agency, told my friend Jack Wheeler (the real life Indiana
Jones) last week.

"All of us in our little community are worried -- us, our friends in Berlin, London, Tel Aviv," the DGSE officer told Jack. "It is not like the barbarians at the gates. It is every barbarian horde in the world being told there are no gates." Jack Kelly--The CIA's Fight with Obama

Friday, May 01, 2009

A Man With True Grit:Andrew C. McCarthy Declines an Invitation to Be Used as a Prop

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,

/S/

Andrew C. McCarthy

cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section