Shamelessly Stolen from Townhall.com

The Left and Terrorism

J.R. Dunn has a great essay at The American Thinker about the erroneous worldview of the left in America. I highly recommend it for all readers to understand the scope of the problems we face today in America and to begin correction before the country is destroyed.

He opens with the assertion that the "Jihadis will return" and closes with the following paragraphs.

There is a difference between dissent and desertion, criticism and undermining. That difference has been lost amid a fog of relativism in the past few decades. But behind that fog, the hard stone of reality remains. It's no longer a game. People are going to die because of the actions taken by this country's leftists. Recognizing the differences lost in the relativistic fog has become a matter of life and death.

The terror conflict is a two-front war. It always has been, as reluctant as we are to admit it. The time to open the second front is coming.

Homeland Security???

Are the anarchists listed with the other local threats to the security of the US put out by the Department of Homeland Security? As I recall, that list featured Pro-lifers, gun owners, and veterans, but I don't specifically remember any anarchy group.

The anarchists are demonstrating in Pittsburgh now. There have been arrests, businesses have boarded up their windows, and police wear riot gear, complete with personal shields. I haven't heard any numbers, but anyone can see from the pictures that the number of demonstrators is minuscule compared to the September 12 event in Washington, DC.

The Tea Party protesters, who filled the streets and side streets from the Washington Monument to the Capitol, cleaned up the after themselves, required no police outfitted with riot gear, and no arrests were made. More than a million people gathered to protest intrusive government, but there were no "incidents."

Why are these the people Homeland Security is worried about?

Government of, by, and for The Czars

Obama has named at least 21 czars that greatly increase the power of the Executive Branch of our government. None of these people face hearings or confirmations; their sole allegience is to the president. It is such a massive power grab that even Robert Byrd left his sick-bed long enough to pronounce the moves, which are outside of congressional oversight, violate the Constitution.

A president may have as many advisors as he wishes, however the Constitution does not provide for executive “czars” who directly dictate policy, such as Feinberg who will approve of executive pay for any business that receives government money.

After a two-hour search of the Internet I found the names and positions of 21, but I am not certain my list is complete. They are:

Af-Pak: Richard Holbrooke
Border: Alan Bersin
Cars: was Steve Rattner
Climate: Todd Stern
Cybersecurity: Rod A. Beckstrom
Drug: Gil Kerlikowske
Energy: Carol Browner
Executive Pay Rate: Kenneth Feinberg
Faith Based: Joshua DuBois
Guantamano Closure: Daniel Fried
Health Reform: Nancy Ann DeParle
Info Tech: Vivek Kundra
Mideast Peace: George Mitchell
Non proliferation: Gary Samore
Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia: Dennis Ross
Regulatory: Cass Sunstein
Science: John Holdren
Stimulus Accountability: Earl Devaney
Sudan: J. Scott Gration
TARP: Herb Allison
Terrorism: John Brennan
Urban: Adolfo Carrion, Jr.

Little is known about their backgrounds, about their direction from the President, or about the exact scope of their power. For example, few people know that John Holdren has co-authored a book praising forced abortions and mass sterilization, that his Cyber Security Czar claims to know nothing about IT, or that his energy czar is a member of the Socialist International who believes in one world government.

Next time, let's test the candidates for President on their understanding of basic civics and the Constitution. And maybe we need to re-read the Tenth Amendment ourselves.

McCarthy on Protecting the US

Andy McCarthy* wrote a gem of an article today explaining his letter refusing to serve on an Obama task force regarding terrorists and enemy combatants. I highly recommend that you read it. He explains in logical, comprehensive terms the reasons Obama's policy on detainees at Guantanamo Bay is both dangerous and foolish and his possible indictment of those who offered advice to the Bush administration is unlawful, as well as unconscionable. He concludes with:
"As I told the attorney general in my letter, “I am 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.”

His actual letter to Eric Holder is posted at Rush Limbaugh.com, but probably won't be there too long.

*In case you've forgotten, McCarthy is best known as the federal prosecutor at the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Alinsky Seems to Be Ruling (Updated)

After all, his most effective disciple is now president of the United States. Today’s selective outrage over “torturing” the sworn enemies of our country appears to be a well crafted application of “Pick the target, freeze it personalize it, and polarize it.” The campaign has been so effective that even an experienced FOX journalist spewed foul language on air in denouncing the practice.

All of the commotion, of course deflects attention from the message of recent tea parties or continuing questions about smiling photo ops with Hugo Chavez. But the real problem is that continued scapegoating not only harms the chosen victims, but society as a whole. It makes reasoned discussion impossible and encourages mob rule.

The manufactured crisis has become a morality play that ignores several key issues:
1. Each of the enhanced interrogation techniques, including water boarding, was first “tried out” on American soldiers and determined to be safe.
2. Despite Nancy Pelosi’s statement to the contrary, members of Congress were apprised of the proposals and they approved them.
3. George Bush’s greatest accomplishment was to keep the country safe after 9-11; the only way to denigrate that triumph is to disparage the techniques he used. Otherwise, Obama would have either not released the secret memos or he would have also released the memos showing the good information gained thereby.
4. Threatening to prosecute the lawyers who advised the CIA makes giving a legal opinion a possible crime. And it defines the crime in retrospect. Up until now, it has been unconscionable to make a law regarding crime, then punish people who committed the act before it was considered criminal.

See also Wednesday's entry, Obama Finds New Way to Bash Bush.

Also notice that many of those who are outraged about the enhanced interrogation techniques, including Obama, see nothing wrong with tearing arms and legs off of innocent babies during the process of killing them in the womb.

Obama Finds A New Way to Bash Bush

I want to join the chorus condemning the release of secret CIA methods of interrogation. And the shift in policy of allowing the prosecution of the people who formulated them appalls me even more.

In the cold light of day, the methods were merely a step or two beyond fraternity initiation rites. How dangerous can it be to threaten to release a caterpillar or non-stinging insect into the room? In contrast to enemies who behead their prisoners in front of video cameras, the CIA methods were masterful for psychological impact on prisoners without harming their bodies.

Apparently Holder, Obama and other Democrats have forgotten that back in 2002 they wondered if CIA and Bush were tough enough on Al Quaeda suspects and detainees. Now, they now only reveal state secrets to the enemy, they undermine all CIA activities in the future. First, because the psychological impact depends on prisoners not knowing for sure what was about to happen, and secondly because no CIA operative will ever feel secure if approval of activities and techniques from Congress, the President, and the Department of Justice is not enough.

It’s beginning to look like Obama thought his oath of office was to hound and discredit his predecessor at home and abroad instead of protecting the country from enemies at home and abroad.