Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Where are all the jerks who were upset over the Valerie Plame case? Where is their outrage here?

And the leaks continue on…..wonder who’s leaking it?

As the secrets about the CIA’s interrogation techniques continue to come out, there’s new information about the frequency and severity of their use, contradicting an 2007 ABC News report, and a new focus on two private contractors who were apparently directing the brutal sessions that President Obama calls torture.

According to current and former government officials, the CIA’s secret waterboarding program was designed and assured to be safe by two well-paid psychologists now working out of an unmarked office building in Spokane, Washington.

Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, former military officers, together founded Mitchell Jessen and Associates.

Both men declined to speak to ABC News citing non-disclosure agreements with the CIA. But sources say Jessen and Mitchell together designed and implemented the CIA’s interrogation program.

Anyone wonder why the leaks are coming?

In speaking to reporters Wednesday, Holder also said it is possible the United States could cooperate with a foreign court’s investigation of Bush administration officials.

Oh, and they found another FORMER agent who thinks pouring water on someone’s face is torture….idiots.

From this day forward our intelligence services can be considered neutered and our nations security at greater risk then ever before.

Can we consider Obama and his henchmen treasonous yet?

also:

Obama Administration Releases New Terrorist Interrogation Training Film

This will make the bad guys talk!

And one more time…. We only waterboarded THREE terrorists and thousands of American lives were saved as a result!

Finally:

Obama Won’t Declassify Memos Which Prove Waterboarding Saved Lives!

Suddenly, he rediscovers the need to protect secrets!

Obama’s press conference last night has been likened more to beauty pageant questioning than serious journalism. However, in between softball questions such as how “enchanted” President Obama was with his new job, there were a few significant issues addressed. Jake Tapper of ABC News brought up the subject of waterboarding and torture.

In response we got a classic rambling Obama answer which reminds me of the 4 hour speeches Fidel Castro used to deliver.

The money quote from Obama’s answer came when he suggested that his “no torture” policy would:

“Make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a — in a position where we can still get information. In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.”

It’s that “may be harder” part that really should stand out in the minds of every American. Especially those who work in tall buildings.

In a follow-up by Mark Knoller, Obama was asked if he had read the memos which former Vice President Cheney described which document the information we learned from enhanced interrogations which saved lives? Obama admitted he had read the memos but refused to go into detail about the information learned and the plots they stopped. No mention was made on whether he would release these memos for all to see.

Don’t hold your breath.

The Obama Administration found it easy to release memos which they knew would cause a backlash against the prior Administration. They won’t find it so easy to release the memos which show how vital Bush Administration enhanced interrogations were to saving American lives.

Somehow they’ll claim protecting national security prevents them from declassifying those memos.

All I can say is THANK GOD FOR PRESIDENT BUSH! He so decimated Al Queda’s ability to attack the U.S. that it might even save us from the inexperienced, naive and foolish Obama!

But if we are attacked again, it may be because Obama preferred to play politics with national security and pander to his left wing base rather than govern like an adult.

From Red Maryland

-by Richard E. Vatz

Last night’s presidential press conference, held on Barack Obama’s 100th day in office, was representative of what we already knew about the Chief Executive: he’s rhetorically brilliant (by which I mean persuasively efficacious) – perhaps, if too early to say with certainty, the most brilliant rhetorician in the modern presidency. Furthermore, he is up on all issues — rarely, it seems, does he appear uninformed. Unfortunately, these qualities do not mean that his policies will turn out well.

He was asked 13 questions in this press conference, and a word or two should be said about the quality of the questions. One expects top media representatives to ask significant questions, and some did, and some did not.

The most inane question was asked by THE NEW YORK TIMES reporter on the president’s list. Jeff Zaleny asked, “During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?”

When a president is rhetorically brilliant, he hits the softballs out of the park, and President Obama did not disappoint on any of them. Most representative: what “enchanted” him the most? He answered, “When I meet our servicemen and women, ‘enchanted’ is probably not the word I would use — but I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They’re really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country. And, you know, the more I interact with our servicemen and women, from the top brass down to the lowliest private, I’m just — I’m grateful to them.”

You cannot find me a better, more reassuring Democratic presidential answer to a softball question.

The exceptional questions – some of the best I have ever heard in a presidential press conference – came together, four in a row, by Jake Tapper of ABC, Mark Knoller of CBS Radio, Chuck Todd of NBC, and Jeff Mason of the BOSTON GLOBE. They asked important questions about critical long-term foreign policy: What if the United States’ alleged “torture” is critical to getting information about a hyper-destructive enemy? What is the likelihood of the Pakistani Taliban acquiring that country’s nuclear weapons? Would the violence in Iraq change your timetable for withdrawal (unreferenced: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s saying we’ll never abandon Iraq)?

President Obama fudged the torture question, eliciting a follow-up question by a second reporter (questioners usually could not ask their own follow-ups), Knoller, regarding the claim of its alleged established success in acquiring information to forestall military disaster. The President claimed without evidence that such information can be obtained in other, unspecified ways, and that Vice President Cheney’s evidence of effectiveness of intelligence so obtained was classified (which he, the President, incidentally could declassify). The President’s confidence ebbed from beginning to end on the Pakistani Taliban nuclear safety question. Finally, he alluded to none of the difficulties regarding guaranteeing a withdrawal from Iraq, which is why such announcements can be problematic.

The nature of the unbridled euphoria of the first 100 days of a president’s term comes from what the late political scientist, James David Barber, used to call an “active-positive” presidency, the hyper-legislative activity of liberal presidents.

The more serious and sober analysts realize that one has to wait to find out if the policies work.

There was an absence of questioning about the projected deficits, especially after four years, as a consequence of this administration’s hyper-spending. In Sunday’s “60 Minutes” Lesley Stahl could not even raise the matter after establishing that Vice President Joe Biden claimed they will have cut the deficit by the end of this administration’s first term.

President Jimmy Carter’s statement in 1979 that the Soviet Union’s attack on Afghanistan gave him insight into that country’s intentions that he had not previously acquired showed he was not ready for a primetime presidency. Even more so, his feckless handling of the Iranian hostage-taking in the last year of his presidency showed why the country was eager to go to a President Ronald Reagan.

So far, President Obama, good rhetoric and good feelings all around, but as some good questioners in your 100 day-in-office press conference implied, we need to wait perhaps for days 1361-1461 in office to find out whether your presidency is good style, but failed substance.

Professor Vatz is professor of political rhetoric at Towson University

R 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009
Please send this to everybody on your list… this is Obama gun control by secrecy.

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.
We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program.
Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because it is flying under the radar.
To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.

Basically this “little” piece of legislation would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

.It is registered
.You are fingerprinted
.You supply a current Driver’s License
.You supply your Social Security #
.You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
.Each update – change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 (more…)

By Barry Rubin

Congratulations, the conflict is over! Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn’t a radical, aggressive Islamist and Holocaust denier but a peacenik! Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is against war and terrorism!

How do we know this? They told us?

Well, no, they didn’t actually tell us. What happened is that they told us they would go on being radical, aggressive, and terrorism-sponsoring. They just did it in a way that a lot of people engaged in wishful thinking-and who fervently believe that no one could actually be radical or luxuriate in political violence-heard something different.

Case Number 1: Iran

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an interview to George Stephanopoulos of ABC. He knew what he was saying but others want to insist on refusing to understand him.

First the relevant exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two state solution, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD: Nobody should interfere, allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide….

STEPHANOPOULOS: If they choose a two state solution with Israel, that’s fine.

AHMADINEJAD: Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel’s existence, Iran will as well?

AHMADINEJAD; Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’ll ask them. But I’m asking you if Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, would Iran support that?….

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD: Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well.

And how did the Israeli online service of Yediot Aharnot newspaper, YNet News, play this? Here’s the headline: “”Ahmadinejad ‘fine’ with two-state solution.”

Well, not exactly. He refused to say that. All Ahmadinejad said was that he would support what the Palestinian people decided. What does that mean?

First, he personally believes that they would never accept a two-state solution so there’s nothing to worry about in that respect.

Second, of course, he knows that Hamas would never agree to such a thing and Hamas already controls how people vote in the Gaza Strip. One might presume that if a referendum was held there, the vote would be “100 percent” against a two-state solution. In addition, Hamas and others opposing a two-state solution would get between 30 and 70 percent of votes in the West Bank. A lot of Fatah supporters would also vote against it. The exact numbers aren’t important because whether the number is the higher or lower figure such a proposition would always be defeated.

Third, any two-state solution would only be made by Fatah. Iran supports Hamas. If Fatah and the Palestinian Authority were to make a deal with Israel, Tehran would still back Hamas in overthrowing that government, using the deal to portray its rival as treasonous. Once Hamas took over the state of Palestine, it would tear up all the agreements and invite in the Iranian military.

So in effect Ahmadinejad just said that he would never accept a two-state solution but why put that in clear words when the dumb Westerners can be left to interpret it as they wish.

But Ahmadinejad also put a little bomb in the interview which no one seems to notice. Let me repeat one of his answers: (more…)

by Peter Heck

As I was sitting in church waiting for the start of the service, my grandpa came walking towards me pointing his finger. No matter how old I get, and no matter how long he’s been out of the U.S. Navy, that’s still an intimidating sight. As he approached me, his voice quivered as he said, “We saved that continent twice…how dare my president apologize for this country’s arrogance.” My grandpa is right. Americans need not apologize to the world for their arrogance; rather, Americans should apologize to their forefathers for the arrogance of their president.

Barack Obama’s first foreign trip as President of the United States has confirmed the naiveté so many of us feared during the election cycle. But worse than that, it has also demonstrated that our president suffers from either a complete misunderstanding of our heritage and history, or an utter contempt for it. Neither is excusable.

Garnering cheers from the French of all people, President Obama declared, “In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe ‘s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance, been dismissive, and even derisive.”

Consider that Obama spoke these words just 500 miles from the beaches of Normandy , where the sand is still stained with 65-year-old blood of “arrogant Americans.”

Indeed, columnist Mark Whittington observes, “One should remind Mr. Obama and the Europeans how America has ‘shown arrogance’ by saving Europe from itself innumerable times in the 20th Century. World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the wars in the Balkans were largely resolved by American blood, treasure, and leadership. But all that appears lost on the president’s seemingly insatiable quest to mend fences he imagines have been tarnished by the bullish George W. Bush.

If Obama wishes to continue trampling the presidential tradition of showing class to former office holders and publicly trash Bush for his own personal gain, so be it. But all Americans should make clear that no man even if he is the president will tarnish the legacy of those Americans who have gone before us. Ours is not a history of arrogance. It is a history of courage, self-sacrifice, and honor. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Courtesy of the Republican Party (somehow…MSNBC wasn’t this critical)

Also:

Economy shrinks at worse-than-expected pace

Say it with me boys and girls,
“It happened on Obama’s watch”

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economy shrank at a worse-than-expected 6.1 percent pace at the start of this year as sharp cutbacks by businesses and the biggest drop in U.S. exports in 40 years overwhelmed a rebound in consumer spending.

The Commerce Department’s report, released Wednesday, dashed hopes that the recession’s grip on the country loosened in the first quarter. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters expected a 5 percent annualized decline.

The Labor Department on Wednesday said that all 372 metropolitan areas tracked saw their jobless rates rise in March from a year earlier. The rate in Indiana’s Elkhart-Goshen region soared to 18.8 percent, a 13 percentage-point increase that was the most in the country.

The national jobless rate is now at a quarter-century high of 8.5 percent and is expected to hit 10 percent by the end of this year. It will probably rise a bit higher in early 2010 before starting to slowly drift downward. Still, the Fed predicts unemployment will stay elevated into 2011, and economists don’t think it will return to normal — around a 5 percent jobless rate — until 2013.

Help me out here….
6-7million Americans out of work
Obama and Democrats’ pseudo-”stimulus” plan is sold as a way to “save or create” 2-3 million jobs.

Now, my math might not be as good as theirs, but that seems to leave juuuuust a little shortfall. No?

Also, how does killing the F-22 program (thereby killing another 100000 Lockheed jobs) and allowing GM & Chrysler to sink HELP the economy?

By Dick Morris

When the Obama administration crashes and burns, with approval ratings that fall through the floor, political scientists can trace its demise to its first hundred days. While Americans are careful not to consign a presidency they desperately need to succeed to the dustbin of history, the fact is that this president has moved — on issue after issue — in precisely the opposite direction of what the people want him to do.

Right now, Obama’s ratings must be pleasing to his eye. Voters like him and his wife immensely and approve of his activism in the face of the economic crisis. While polls show big doubts about what he is doing, the overwhelming sense is to let him have his way and pray that it works.

But beneath this superficial support, Obama’s specific policies run afoul of the very deeply felt convictions of American voters. For example, the most recent Rasmussen Poll asked voters if they wanted an economic system of complete free enterprise or preferred more government involvement in managing the economy. By 77-19, they voted against a government role, up seven points from last month.

And in the Fox News poll — the very same survey that gave Obama a 62 percent approval rating and reported that 68 percent of voters are “satisfied” with his first hundred days — voters, by 50-38, supported a smaller government that offered fewer services over a larger government that provided more.

By 42-8, the Fox News poll (conducted on April 22-23) found that voters felt Obama had expanded government rather than contracted it (42 percent said it was the same size) and, by 46-30, reported believing that big government was more of a danger to the nation than big business. (By 50-23, they said Obama felt big business was more dangerous.)

By 62-20, they said government spending, under Obama, was “out of control.”

So if voters differ so fundamentally with the president on the very essence of his program, why do they accord him high ratings? They are like the recently married bride who took her vows 100 days ago. It would be a disaster for her life if she decides that she really doesn’t like her husband. But she keeps noticing things about him that she can’t stand. It will be a while before she walks out the door or even comes to terms with her own doubts, but it is probably inevitable that she will.

For Americans to conclude that they disapprove of their president in the midst of an earth-shaking crisis is very difficult. But as Obama’s daily line moves from “I inherited this mess” to “There are faint signs of light,” the clock starts ticking. If there is no recovery for the next six months — and I don’t think there will be — Obama will inevitably become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

And then will come his heavy lifting. He has yet to raise taxes, regiment healthcare or provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. He hasn’t closed down the car companies he now runs and he has not yet forced a 50 percent hike in utility bills with his cap-and-trade legislation. These are all the goodies he has in store for us all.

Obama’s very activism these days arrogates to himself the blame for the success or failure of his policies. Their outcome will determine his outcome, and there is no way it will be positive.

Why? (more…)

…….sad that it is the only one so far. So where is the rest of the MSM???

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

WASHINGTON – “That wasn’t me,” President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was partly him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped the latest in a string of precipitously out-of-balance budgets.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

His assertion that his proposed budget “will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term” is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: “We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” — from news conference.

THE FACTS: This assertion is flawed on several levels. For starters, the U.S. has lost more than 1.2 million jobs since Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even if Obama’s stimulus bill saved or created as many jobs as he says, that number is dwarfed by the number of recent job losses.

But Obama’s number is murky, at best. The White House has not yet announced how it intends to count jobs created by the stimulus bill. Obama’s number is based on a job-counting formula that his economists have developed but have not made public. Until that formula is announced — probably in the coming week or so — there’s no way to assess its accuracy.

Whatever the formula, economists who study job creation say it will require some creative math. That’s because Obama has lumped “jobs saved” in with “jobs created.” Even economists for organizations that stand to benefit from the stimulus concede it probably is impossible to estimate saved jobs because that would require calculating a hypothetical: how many people would have lost their jobs without the stimulus.

___

OBAMA: “We must lay a new foundation for growth, a foundation that will strengthen our economy and help us compete in the 21st century. And that’s exactly what this budget begins to do. It contains new investments in education that will equip our workers with the right skills and training; new investments in renewable energy that will create millions of jobs and new industries; new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and new savings that will bring down our deficit.” — news conference.

THE FACTS: While the budget does set a roadmap for achieving the president’s goals, it says nothing about how to pay for his health plan, expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And while the deficit, under the plan, would drop to $523 billion in 2014, it achieves it with unrealistic assumptions, such as projections that spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will amount to only $50 billion a year.

___ (more…)

by Regina Sztajer.

Every Friday morning at the Pentagon there is a very special ceremony that takes place. It fills the halls and corridors with applause, cheers and tears. In the newly renovated wing from E ring to the A ring at the Pentagon the floors are shiny, broad and the lights bright. In these 110 yards, the entire length of the corridor is packed with Army officers, some sergeants and civilians all crammed three and four deep against the walls.

Thousands form in the Army’s hallway with G3 officers one side and G2 on the other while G8 is around the corner. It’s all Army with friends who have not seen each other for years crossing over to hug, shake hands and in general catch up to renew friendships. An open path remains down the center of the hallway. The press of bodies raise the temperature in air conditioning not designed for so may people in the hallway. Nobody seems to care!

At 10:30 hours the applause begins in the E Ring!!! The applause is mixed with raw emotion which carries like a wave down the hallway. It is a steady roll of sound moving with the first soldier who appears in a wheelchair who is missing a greater part of one leg and his other wounds still very fresh. He is very young and appears to be either a private or private first class. Soldier to soldier offices, such as captains, majors. Lt. colonels and colonels, meet make eye contact with this brave young man. These men are all combat veterans and know what the young man feels because they have all been there.

The young soldiers wheelchair is pushed by a full colonel and behind them stretching the length from Ring E to A, come many more of the young man’s peers. Privates, corporals, and sergeants assisted by a field grade officer while at 11:00 hours the applause continues, tired hands are numb, but still they clap with enthusiasm. Soldier after soldier take 24 minutes to make it down the hallway. Some have lost legs, arms, hands bur their hearts beat with pride.

Finally they are escorted to lunch as guests of honor with the generals. Some of these brave men leave their wheelchairs to march as best the can with their chins held high, assisted by officer’s through this special audience. They are like politicians on a Fourth of July parade. The often smile shyly because while combat hardened they are still just so young and unassuming.

Families are there as well. How touching to see an 18 year old war bride pushing the wheelchair of her 19 year old husband. The boy she may have grown up and gone to school with, grown to become the man she is so proud of. Then there was the older Latino parents who have a wounded mid-20s son who appreciates the emotion given on their son’s behalf.

No man in that hallway, either walking or clapping, is ashamed of shedding tears on their cheeks. There was the strong airborne ranger who wiped the tears from his eyes only to see better! Many of those officers had themselves at one time been part of the parade. These are their men while broken in body they welcome them home, they are brothers! (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

…and declares himself a ‘Democrat‘!

About time, my boy! A Rino that marred the brand of the GOP has now left the room. 2010 is looking good for real change in the political landscape of Pennsylvania as the voters respond to this crass political move.

The brighter side of Philly’s blogosphere weighs in on this announcement:

Blonde Sagacity: Coward

The Bitter American: Quisling

First In! : Good Riddance

Chairman Steele weighs in:

“Let’s be honest — Sen. Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. “He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.

Lowman Henry sizes up the switch:

No, the Specter switch was not a move of ideological conscience; it was a crass political calculation. Specter conceded as much during a news conference announcing his party switch when he condescendingly proclaimed that he would now allow Republican primary voters to decide the fate of his 28-year senate career. Rather than accept the fact he could not win re-election as a Republican, Specter has tossed the dice and gambled that his political future will be longer as a Democrat.

It is a risky move. First, the Democratic Party is notorious fractious and Arlen Specter will not be welcomed with open arms by all. He will likely enjoy the support of his one-time employee in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, Governor Ed Rendell. And national Democrats, much like their Republican counterparts had done for years, will likely support the incumbent over other challengers. But one group in particular could be problematic, and that is organized labor. As he struggled to regain his political footing within the GOP after the stimulus vote Specter flip-flopped on the Employee Free Choice Act or Card Check, infuriating the labor movement. Specter says he won’t switch positions again, but it is hard to see how he can be successful within the ranks of the Democratic Party unless he does.
-Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.

Also:

Lies And Liars

Last week saw an unusual number of outright lies from our media and political class. Lies that went virtually unchallenged. Yawn.

Lie #1: ABC, celebrating Obama’s 100 day mark, announced he is enjoying the best presidential job approval rating of any president at this point in 20 years. Not so. A simple google search shows that George W. Bush, at the 100 day mark in his presidency, enjoyed a 62% approval rating. Obama, alas, enjoys only a 52% approval rating. ABC lied.

Lie #2: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced to the world that she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other “enhanced” interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects. This directly contradicts a 2007 Washington Post article saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time. In plain English – Nancy Pelosi lied. (more…)

From Red Maryland

–by Richard E. Vatz

Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter has announced that he will switch parties today to become a Democratic Senator. The switch is politically significant, as it will provide the Democrats with their filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority, despite the Senator’s claim in his statement announcing his intention that he “will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture.”

This article is not to say “good riddance;” it is just to say that Sen. Specter’s decision makes him just another politician without integrity. Political expediency is the motivating force behind his change; he faced a formidable challenge in the upcoming Pennsylvania 2010 presidential primary, and we shall learn soon enough what “incentives” the Democrats have promised him.

Revealingly, last month when there were rumors that he would become an Independent, he said, “To eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican and I am running for re-election in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket.”

Part of the contract with the voters when you’re elected is that you are aligned with the party on whose ticket you ran for your full term. Many such voters base their vote partly or wholly on the party of their chosen candidate.

Sen. Specter disappointed Republicans when he supported the Democratic stimulus package, opposed the nomination of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and many other examples provide further questionable credentials as a reliable Republican. No matter; he had no ethical obligation to hew to the party line. The changing of parties in mid-term, though, is a violation of implicit and explicit promises and statements made by Sen. Specter. It makes him simply deceptive.

For whatever full disclosure this opinion requires of the author, I was a big fan and an acquaintance of Pete Flaherty, the former, late Democratic Mayor of Pittsburgh, parenthetically a wonderful human being who never shied away from day-to-day conversation with his constituency and who ate daily in public restaurants. Sen. Specter defeated Pete in 1980 in a close election that this conservative wishes had gone in the other direction. I vote on political matters, but personal integrity usually trumps such considerations.

Just to reiterate: there is no integrity issue with Sen. Arlen Specter’s reputation as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). The ethical issue is the dishonesty in his self-representation as a Republican when he ran in 2004.

Professor Vatz is professor of political rhetoric at Towson University

By Brujo Blanco

“The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers.”

William Shakespeare’s Henry VI

The current push to punish those that allegedly engaged in torture is a new twist for our country. There are other countries that every time there is a change in the executive branch the new guy on the block utterly destroys the former executive. There were serious rumblings initially to put GWB, and Dick Cheney on trial literally for their lives. This was a serious consideration and a number of prominent leftist legal eagles were working on the project.

Now there has been a cosmetic change to the plan. Instead of going after the former president and Cheney or the agents in the field they are focusing on the attorneys that provided legal advice regarding the so-called enhanced interrogations. You know the ones. The ones that produced the intelligence necessary to save American lives. Of course the left will not want to provide information regarding the favorable fruits of these enhanced interrogations. One serious issue to consider is specifically what laws have these attorneys broken? Is it illegal to provide legal advice?

My background consisted of working as field agent for a US intelligence organization and subsequently a detective in the criminal field. We must keep in mind that in order to gather intelligence one must engage in deception and that means lying your butt off at times. The real action agents (of which I was not one) had to do more than just tell lies. They have to take aggressive action in order to complete their missions. It would also be considered that our enemies in the intelligence field have no rules. They routinely commit murder and torture to get the job done.

The administration is carping that they have no intention of prosecuting the field agents for crimes if they were simply following instructions. This means that they have reasoned that the field agents in fact have broken US law. The problem from my perspective I cannot identify the laws that they have broken. The illegal combatants under international law are afforded no rights at all. In fact there is some speculation that the military could have executed them in the field in that they were not fighting for a country but only for a cause. That cause was terrorism.

One of my concerns is when the administration commented that they have no intention of prosecuting the field agents I do not believe, or trust, that that means that they will not be prosecuted. There is a concept called transnationalism which means that one can be prosecuted in another jurisdiction. For example, if one is identified as having committed a crime against humanity in Iraq the Spanish and Belgian courts by their laws have jurisdiction to try you in their country. There are a number of countries that all those that violate their laws to be tried in abstentia. Will our president and/or his men use a foreign legal system as a surrogate to exact vengeance. (more…)

By Barry Rubin

A meeting was meant to take place on Wednesday, April 22nd, in the Grimond Room at Portcullis House, adjoining the House of Commons in London. The planned meeting was titled “Talk with Hamas” and was meant to feature a video link to Damascus.

Khaled Mashaal, leader of Hamas, was supposed to address members of Parliament and journalists via the link, but he failed, due to a technical glitch.

This planned meeting was the latest event in an ongoing and organized campaign to break the Western boycott of Hamas and transform policy toward the organization. Much energy is being expended in the UK. But London is only a way station, with the real prize being the transformation of the US stance.

This campaign is part of a larger effort to change the way that the West sees Islamist movements – and by doing so to bring many of the arguments made by such movements into the mainstream.

Who is behind this effort? The invitation to MPs to the Mashaal meeting came from the office of Independent MP Clare Short.

However, it was issued in the name of John, Lord Alderdice. This name immediately offers a pointer. Alderdice, a veteran Northern Irish politician, is head of the board of advisers of an organization called Conflicts Forum.

Conflicts Forum is jointly led by Alistair Crooke and Mark Perry. Crooke is a former British intelligence officer, while the US-based Perry is described by the organizations website as a ‘military, intelligence and foreign affairs analyst’. It describes its aim as opening “a new relationship between the West and the Muslim world.”

What this anodyne phrase means in practice is revealed in a remarkably frank document published by this group, in which it explains the means it intends to use to bring about the basic change in perception that will bring Hamas and Hizbullah into the mainstream.

The document notes the need to build a “link-up between activist groups and mobilizers of opinion in order to shift the debate on Islamism from a predominantly defensive posture to a positive assertion of Islamist values and thinking.”

It suggests “articulation of Hamas’s and Hizbullah’s values, philosophy and wider political and social programs… Being more proactive in statements and rephrasing discourse to focus on the positive aspects of Islamist ideology.” (more…)

‘Hateful words’ may be prosecutable

A Democratic congresswoman’s candid remarks in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday bolster the fears of Americans who are concerned they one day may be convicted of a “hate crime” for merely publicly expressing their opposition to homosexuality.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act was reported out of the Judiciary Committee yesterday in the House (see earlier story). The bill, which is expected to face a vote in the full House on Wednesday, would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.

Proponents of the hate crimes bill claim that Christians and others who speak out publicly against homosexuality are not threatened with the same type of prosecution that criminals would face for committing acts of violence against homosexuals and transgender people.

crime scene smallIn response, Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan), a co-sponsor of the measure, stated: “The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way.”

However, during the Judiciary Committee markup yesterday, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) reinforced the notion that people could be prosecuted for having a particular belief. “We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts,” said the Democratic lawmaker.

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, offered several amendments that would have provided religious-freedom protections from hate crimes prosecution, but they were all rejected by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

Read the rest here.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Republican Marsha Blackburn laid into Al Gore today about his motives for his man-made global warming hocus pocus, specifically challenging him on the fact that his firm will make a ton of money if the cap and trade legislation he supports is enacted: (h/t Gateway Pundit)

An article about the exchange:

Blackburn noted Gore’s role as partner in Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, a venture capital firm that invests in technology to address global warming.

Blackburn asked Gore if he stood to benefit financially from cap-and-trade legislation, which would force companies to reduce carbon emissions. Companies would likely turn to the kinds of technologies Kleiner Perkins helps develop.

“This bill is going to fundamentally change the way America works.” Given the magnitude of those changes, I think it’s really important that no suspicion or shadow fall on the foremost advocates of climate change legislation. So I wanted to give you the opportunity to kind of clear the air about your motives and maybe set the record straight.”

Here’s what followed:

BLACKBURN: I’ve got an article from October 8th, the New York Times Magazine about a firm called Kleiner Perkins. A capital firm called Kleiner Perkins. Are you aware of that company?

GORE: (LAUGHS) Well yes, I’m a partner at Kleiner Perkins.

BLACKBURN: So you’re a partner at Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap and trade legislation. So is the legislation that we’re discussing here today, is that something you are going to personally benefit from?

GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us. And I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a non-profit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness about why we have to take on this challenge. And Congresswoman, if you’re, if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.

BLACKBURN: I’m not making accusations. I’m asking questions that have been asked of me. And individuals, constituents that were seeking a point of clarity–

GORE: I understand exactly what you’re doing, Congresswoman. Everybody here does.

BLACKBURN: Well, are, you know, are you willing to divest yourself of any profit? Does all of it go to a not-for-profit that is an educational not-for-profit.

GORE: Every penny that I have made has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy. I’ve been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there’s something wrong with being active in business in this country?

Can you just imagine the outcry if a Republican was a major partner in a firm set to receive a major windfall from legislation?

It would be deafening.

But not now, not with Gore….I wonder why?

A good comment was left on Gateway Pundit that bears repeating on the topic of Gore’s assertion that every penny he has made has gone to the non-profit:

But a “non profit” is not under obligations to spend all its income (donations) nor all of its assets in every fiscal year. It can accumulate and accumulate donations. Non-profits don’t have customers, so you cannot boycott them. They only have self-appointed boards and donors.

In the case of Gore, it appears that the major donor is also on the Board, so it is a self-perpetuating way of funding propaganda, a tax-exempt pool of money from which he can get his expenses reimbursed and have staff members to help him.

So, there is indeed a benefit that Gore gets from these investments.

Indeed, because of the status of the NP, when he gets a distribution from his Kleiner Perkins partnership, because it is a “donation”, he gets the full economic benefit and use of all the money, rather than what would be left over after paying all the taxes on it!

He’s as slick as a snake oil salesman…..and the gullible left have fallen for it big time.
also:

Liz Cheney Slams MSNBC Host Norah O’Donnell Over The Use Of Harsh Interrogation Tactics On Terrorists

Liz Cheney does an outstanding job during her interview on MSNBC defending the use of “harsh” tactics against the mastermind of 9/11 and his cohorts. Liz Cheney refused to accept the premise of a few of the questions…some of which just manipulate facts and in fact she ensures that Norah doesn’t get away with reporting misleading information. The result of all this? Norah becomes unhinged….quite funny to watch: (h/t The Patriot Room)

Whole transcript below:
(more…)

The opinion polls have uttered. The country loves the new 50 per cent top rate of income tax. Soak the rich. Smash the bankers. So Government spin doctors are in second heaven. The Conservatives’ silence redefines a tomb. And I suppose there’d be quite a turnout for the public flogging of Sir Fred the Shred.

But before you book your tickets, hold hard. And before you lynch me as a rich b*****d flying a kite for my own cause, let me beg you to believe that I am not.

I believe that this new top rate of tax could be the final nail in the coffin of Britain plc.

I am 61 years old. I have lived and worked in Britain all my life. Not even in the dark days of penal Labour taxation in the Seventies did I have any intention of leaving the country of my birth.

Despite a rumour put around some years back, I have never contemplated leaving Britain for tax reasons. But in the 40-plus years I have been lucky enough to work here, I’ve seen a bit. So I must draw your attention to what is really proposed in this Budget.

Here’s the truth. The proposed top rate of income tax is not 50 per cent. It is 50 per cent plus 1.5 per cent national insurance paid by employees plus 13.3 per cent paid by employers. That’s not 50 per cent. Two years from now, Britain will have the highest tax rate on earned income of any developed country.

I write this article because I fear the inevitable exodus of the talent that can dig us out of the hole we find ourselves in. It is inevitable, given that other countries are bidding for entrepreneurs. The Government must modify its proposals.

I give you this example. I have altered the details of the family I write about for obvious reasons. But the essentials are true.

Last Thursday I met with a thirtysomething guy. I absolutely depend on him in a highly technical area of theatrical production. For legal reasons he has to employ himself through his own company. Under the new tax regime, he will have to pay 13.3 per cent to employ himself before he pays himself anything. And then he will have to pay 51.5 per cent on what’s left.

This is a guy at the cutting edge of his profession who works all over the world. He is in demand in every major territory where entertainment is produced. He has a young wife and two children. Last Thursday he told me that he and his wife had decided that the UK was no longer where they wanted to live.

His wife thinks the State education system is inadequate. And she fears that a bankrupt Britain will increasingly be a worse place in which to live as the horror of our present financial mess hits us all in the solar plexus.

He says that he is young enough to set up shop somewhere else. The new tax rates were the final straw. These talented young people know they will make it impossible for them to educate their kids privately in the UK.

So Britain plc loses not just the 40 per cent he would have paid in personal taxes under the old regime – plus NI and everything else – but… Come on, I don’t need to explain the knock-on effect. It’s obviously huge and immensely damaging – that’s why I am writing this article quickly and probably with too much passion. (more…)

By Barry Rubin

Ring! Ring! The Israeli prime minister’s alarm clock went off. He quickly sat up in bed and immediately shouted out: “Yes! I’m for a two-state solution!”

At breakfast, lunch, and dinner, during his talks and all his meetings, in greeting his staff as he walked down the corridor to the office, endless he repeated that phrase.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the world seems to want from Israeli policy.

But the fact is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the two-state solution back in 1997 when he took over in the midst of the Oslo agreement peace process and committed himself to all preceding agreements.

This is not the real issue. The real issue is this: much of the world wants Israel to agree in advance to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) what they think it wants without any concessions or demonstration of serious intent on its part.

The first problem is that the demand is totally one-sided. Does the PA truly accept a two-state solution? That isn’t what it tells its own people in officials’ speeches, documents of the ruling Fatah group, schools, the sermons of PA-appointed clerics, and the PA-controlled media.

The second problem is that PA compliance with its earlier commitments is pretty miserable, though this is a point that almost always goes unmentioned in Western diplomatic declarations and media.

More often than not the PA’s performance could be called one of anti-confidence-building measures. In other words, what it does makes Israel and Israelis less certain that it is ever going to make a stable and lasting peace.

The third problem is that this leaves no room for asking the question: what does Israel want in exchange for accepting a Palestinian state, leaving West Bank territory, or even agreeing to a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem.

How about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state since, after all, the PA Constitution defines its country-to-be as an Arab Muslim state and the PA makes clear that all Jews who have come to live there since 1967 must leave. These stances don’t bother me in principle only the hypocrisy of doing one thing and demanding Israel do another.

How about agreeing-which any nationalist movement should be eager to do-that all Palestinian refugees be resettled in the state of Palestine.

How about accepting that a two-state solution would permanently end the conflict?

How about stopping daily incitement to kill Israelis and destroy Israel in PA institutions?

How about being open to border modifications or security guarantees like not bringing foreign troops onto Palestinian soil?

Aid to the PA is conditioned on absolutely nothing of the sort. These points aren’t even mentioned and Western diplomats and journalists don’t wax indignant about the PA’s intransigence.

In short, Israel is asked to give without getting in return. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

In 2007 Real Clear Politics published an article detailing the uproar in congress over destroyed ‘terror tapes’. In the article, Porter Goss places Madame Pelosi along with the top members of the intelligence committees at a ‘virtual tour’ of CIA interrogation facilities in 2002:

Their article described some of the background to last week’s congressional uproar over the CIA’s destruction of so-called “terror tapes” that had been made during harsh interrogations of captured al-Qaeda terrorists. It turned out that back in September 2002, four top members of the intelligence committees — including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is now House speaker — had been given a “virtual tour” of CIA interrogation facilities overseas. They heard descriptions of some of the harsh techniques that would be used, including the now-infamous practice known as waterboarding.

“Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement,” former Rep. Porter Goss told the Post reporters. He attended the 2002 briefing, along with Pelosi, as chairman of the House intelligence committee. He later served from 2004 to 2006 as CIA director.

Shocking! The Speaker of the House knew and condoned the use of expanded interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding? Say it ain’t so, Joe!

Nancy maintained her silence regarding these claims over the years, the leftosphere for the most part left the silence go unchallenged. Most recently, Madame Speaker put her world class oral skills to use in rebuffing a GOP charge that she had knowledge of EITs (Expanded Interrogation Techniques):

Without any proof one way or the other, this subterfuge and wordsmithing might have continued ad nauseam. There might be hope for us yet, a recently declassified CIA document sheds light on the Madam and her twisted tale. A brief look at page 23 of the OIG document (Counter Terrorism and Interrogation Activities Sept 2001 to October 2003) clearly states the leadership of the Intelligence Oversight Committees were informed of the use of standard techniques and EITs:

The DCI briefed appropriate senior national security and legal officials on the proposed EITs. In the fall of 2002, the Agency briefed the leadership of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of both standard techniques and EITs.

Should I start the process of reserving a front row seat for The Madame Speaker’s indictment?

Also:

Leftist Latin Leaders Declare War on Capitalism

Emboldened by Obama’s Latin American apology tour they unite to plunge the region into economic and political chaos.

Latin America, which throughout the 20th Century has been a hotbed of corruption, political instability and oppression, appears to be on the brink of repeating those mistakes once again. This latest dance into darkness was on display at The Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA for short). ALBA is the communist equivalent of the Organization of American States and the conference held in Cumana, Venezuela, hosted by the clown Hugo Chavez, President for life of Venezuela, is their version of the Summit of the America’s recently attended by President Obama.

Leaders pose for a picture at the 7th ALBA summit in Cumana April 16, 2009. From L-R: Sant Vincent and Grenadines’ Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, Cuba’s President Raul Castro, Chavez, Dominica’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit, Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega, Honduras’ Manuel Zelaya and Paraguay’s President Fernando Lugo.

Unlike the Summit of the America’s Cuba’s leader. Raoul Castro (pictured right with the clown Chavez) was front and center.

Much of the ALBA declaration centered around demands that the U.S. lift economic sanctions on Cuba. No doubt Obama will follow suit shortly. Though few think such a move will change the anti-American rantings of this bunch of banana eaters.

Here is an excerpt of the declaration:

The Declaration of Cumaná: Capitalism ‘threatens life on the planet’
April 24, 2009
1. Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction. What we are experiencing is a global economic crisis of a systemic and structural nature, not another cyclic crisis.
… (more…)

From Red Maryland

–by Richard E. Vatz

First off, let’s be clear that the issue is Bush Administration legal opinions regarding interrogations and what to do about claims of legal errors, not what to do about soldiers’ committing war crimes.

As THE WASHINGTON POST tells the story, “President Obama met with top advisers on the evening of April 15…[f]ive CIA directors — including Leon E. Panetta and his four immediate predecessors – and Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser had expressed firm opposition to the release of interrogation details in four ‘top secret’ memos in which Bush administration lawyers sanctioned harsh tactics.”

On the other side of the issue, supporting the release, were Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair and White House counsel Gregory B. Craig, whose colleagues during the campaign recall him expressing enthusiasm for fixing U.S. detainee policy.

The POST reports that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates supported the disclosures in part because President Obama had promised “that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for any abuse.”

Once released, the significant fight over the consequences to those who approved, formulated and enacted interrogation policy remained. Despite President Obama’s apparent ambivalence – opposition to holding CIA interrogators responsible followed by lack of clarity as to whether he supports holding legally harmless those who formulated the policy – it appears now that he has rejected the creation of a “truth commission,” a notion supported by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy.

In addition to Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Leahy, among the usual suspects of irresponsible, retributive policy we find, of course, THE NEW YORK TIMES’ Spitefulness-in-Chief Paul Krugman.

At least the post-release fight may at last have been resolved for the president.

There are serious arguments on both sides, although there are otherwise serious people whose petty ideological vindictiveness is destructive, filled with unintended consequences and defended in an ostentatious exhibition of misleading argument. (more…)

by Frederick Meekins

The Obama progeny are well into their studies at Sidwell Friends School. As their parents, Barack and Michelle have every right to enroll their daughters in the school they think best for their children. Ironically, this is one of the many prerogatives the President’s most enthusiastic supporters would frown upon should you, the average American, decide to exercise them.

For decades now, liberals and secularists have argued that those pursuing nonpublic education for their children ought to be held in suspicion for exhibiting insufficient devotion to the COMMUNITY. Some might try to obfuscate the matter by claiming that that they do not oppose private education as much as they support the public alternatives.

This might be the line propagated for mass consumption, but the leftist opposition to private education (at least when it comes to your children) goes much deeper. For among the elites that think it is their place to mold what those below them believe and even how we live our lives, education is not so much about the accumulation of a particular body of knowledge or set of skills enabling the individual to make a way for themselves and their families in the world.

Rather, among this class education is seen about conditioning the vast majority into accepting the place predetermined for them and in such a way that they will not be able to advance beyond that. That is of course if human ambition is not engineered out of the individual human psyche all together through a combination of compulsory pharmaceuticals and a form of behavioral reinforcement popularly referred to as brainwashing.

Others will respond that, as the children of the President, these youngsters need to be protected from the assorted dangers that could befall them in a public school where access is gained more quickly than in a more disciplined private one. Such an assessment is absolutely correct.

However, the question to ask here happens to be are not your children as precious to you as the President’s are to him and are your children not entitled to the best kind of protection that you are capable of providing for them? Yet many of the very same elites applauding the Obamas’ decision to educate their children in a private school are among the very same voices insisting you are under some kind of obligation to the COMMUNITY to expose your offspring to an array of moral deviances and outright criminals.

As central as the issue of education is as the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next, it is not the only matter the concerned citizen needs to be worried about in the dawning “progressivist” era. These social engineers hope to impose upon you a lifestyle below which you have grown accustomed and are perfectly capable of providing for yourself. Once again, this point is proven by comparing what Barack Obama has said to what he has actually done. (more…)