From 

President Obama isn’t ready to back away from the state secrets privilege. Tomorrow, Justice Department lawyers are expected to notify a judge that it will not back away from its assertion of the privilege in the Al-Haramain case, even under the threat of sanctions. Judge Vaughn Walker, frustrated by months of delay from the government, said he might summarily rule in favor of Al-Haramain, the Islamic charity that’s suing the government over the legality of the National Security Agency’s domestic collection programs.

The government wants to force Walker’s hand by stonewallking. Walker could order the government to release a critical, highly-classified document, an order that could be — and would be — appealed to 2nd circuit court of appeals. Or, Walker could decide the case in favor of the plaintiffs, something that the plaintiffs don’t want … the case isn’t about money, for them, it’s about the legality of the NSA program. (The government could also make the case go away by accepting the summary judgment; they’d pay a few million bucks to the plaintiffs and wouldn’t have to disclose — or admit — anything.)

The more things change the more they stay the same!

As for the North Koreans, they laugh at The US Paper-Tigers and their flimsy memorandum. They issued a predictably stupid and obnoxious statement that made old Cold War Watchers yearn for the days when the Soviet Union issued these statements using well-written prose instead.

“Our army and people are fully ready for battle . . . against any reckless U.S. attempt for a pre-emptive attack,” the reclusive country’s state-run news agency said.

Imagine the Dear Leader’s chagrin when his Aide-Du-Poobah informed him that all the Americans did was issue another lame cease and desist letter. The quote “4.7 on the Frikkin’ Richter Scale, and all they can come up with is that?! Leonid Breshnev used to get front page headlines!” was not really attributed to the Dyspeptic Despot of Pyongyang, that’s just me being snarky.

Of course the recent missile test didn’t come without a long list of precursors. The Washinton Post does a good job of describing the list of provocative actions taken by North Korea this Spring.

North-South relations on the Korean Peninsula have deteriorated dramatically this spring. The North has launched a long-range missile, detained a South Korean national, kicked out U.N. nuclear inspectors, restarted a plutonium factory and halted six-nation negotiations on its nuclear program. It has also voided contracts with South Korean companies at the Kaesong industrial park, a jointly run operation just across the border from South Korea.

And yet Barack Obama thinks we should all get together and talk. Talking with our enemies always makes us stronger – provided that we actually have a gravaman for discussions. With North Korea, that gravaman does not exist. Ipso facto, President Obama’s preferred policy will not succeed in this situation.

North korea believes they are the legitimate government of all Korean people, and that they hold title to Seoul and all points South. They believe the government in Seoul consists of usurpers and that the US supports them illegitimately. In their eyes we are criminals. They have no more desire to discuss with Barack Obama than I would to twitter Chucky Manson.

Thus, the US has three valid options. We can drop a Cleveland Steamer on Kim Il Jung and take over. We can continue a slow bleed strategy of supporting a status quo arrangement, where North Koreans don’t eat three meals a day too often. The third option involves our withdrawal of the 2nd Army Division to Scofield Barracks. Call it the Acheson Perimeter.

If you read that paragraph closely, you’ll notice conversation with our enemies does not appear anywhere on the menu of available options. Neither did George W. Bush’s Six Party Talks. A successful conversation requires more than one interested listener.

So if George W. Bush and Barack Obama both followed a similarly impotent set of guidelines towards dealing with Nannutjob of The North, why then does Barack Obama get the worse end of the stick in terms of hostile conduct from North Korea? It has to do with how each man is perceived in Pyongyang. Kim Il Jung believed Gearge W. Bush had both the nerve and the nasty intent to pull the trigger. He doesn’t think Barack Obama would feel comfortable weilding a paint-pellet gun.

The long list of smaller provocations by the North Koreans were preperatory steps. They wanted to determine whether the United States was still engaged as an interested party, and whether the United States was still willing to deal with North Korea without blinking.

As a Pilot Test, these provocations told Kim Il Jung that the US no longer wanted to expend the capital of empire in his neck of the woods. This allowed him to feel safe in utterly flaunting the recent treaties he had signed with the Six Party talks under durress; instead of good will. Finally, it allowed him to feel cocky enough to express what he always has and always will feel towards Barack Obama, and all other Americans. He expressed his complete and unmitigated contempt.

From Rasmussen

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide now disagree with President Barack Obama’s decision to close the prison camp for suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted after the President’s speech on Guantanamo last week, shows that 38% agree with his decision.

Just 25% share the President’s view that the Guantanamo camp weakened national security. Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree with that perspective.

And, by a 57% to 28% margin, voters oppose moving any of the suspected terrorists to prisons in the United States. Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party strongly oppose transfers to U.S. prisons. Democrats are evenly divided.

Just 15% now say the President is Very Likely to close the prison camp during his first year in office while 6% say that is Not at All Likely to happen. Two-thirds of the nation’s voters are not so sure—35% say the President is Somewhat Likely to close the prison camp while 30% say he is Not Very Likely to do so.

America may never be able to re-pay the national debt to foreign bondholders that the ObamaDems’ stimulus and budget bills promise to incur and certainly we will never be able to re-pay the ultimate sacrifices so many Americans have made that we honor on this and every Memorial Day.

So, is it too much to ask that we that our Commander-in-Chief at the least, not make it more likely that the latter debt in blood be increased exponentially while he surrenders what that memorialized blood bought?

The United States last paid off the national debt in 1835 at the insistence of President Andrew Jackson, whose victory as General of US forces in 1815 at New Orleans secured the revolution against taxation without representation and other evils made possible for non-self government, launched 39 years earlier and for which thousands died.

Yet, surely the fallen didn’t die for self-government that would find representatives like Senator Barack Obama voting to grant the Treasury unfettered power to squander $750 billion last September and a President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi tripling the national debt built up during the past 194 years in the next ten.

Surely those that fell for to secure Texas and the Southwest for the manifest destiny of a Fruited Plain from sea to shining sea in the 19th Century didn’t die so that ObamaDems could populate labor unions through an illegal invasion by the ancestors of those from whom they secured the Lower Forty-Eight in the 21st.

Surely those that fell to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness didn’t die for a cap on such pursuits at $250K; liberty restricted by one man’s whim to hold back pitchforks; and life not even secure for born alive infants whose deaths are the object of conspiracies between expectant, yet reluctant mothers and the graduates of medical schools.

Surely those that died to defeat fascism under the leadership of Democrats FDR and HST in WWII didn’t fall so that a future President from the World’s Oldest Party would aid and abet the rise of totalitarians promising to provide a more complete Holocaust without the defenders of liberty firing a shot.

Surely those that died in the efforts that led to the capture of those whose squealings saved Los Angeles after 911, without harming one hair on the heads of prominent perpetrators of 911, didn’t fall so that those that defined interrogations down could be disbarred.

The fallen did die, though, for freedom of speech, even speech as vile as what periodically spews from prominent ObamaDem Dick Durbin who famously compared American armed forces heroes as akin to Nazis, who belched more slander yesterday:

MR. GREGORY: Senator Durbin, the vice president’s–former vice president’s daughter, Liz Cheney, said that President Obama has a September 10th mentality in his fight against terrorists.

SEN. DURBIN: Let me say–if you, if you step back and take a look at history for a moment, you will find the message we just heard from Mr. Gingrich, from Vice President Cheney and Mr. Rush Limbaugh to be the same, it’s a message of fear: “Be afraid, be very afraid.” And to say that this president is not doing everything in his power to keep America safe is just as irresponsible as anything I’ve ever heard said on your program.

Yes, Senator Durbin, let’s talk about fear, but first, let’s hear more of your slander against those that have kept more innocent Americans from being killed since 911 no thanks to you and Obama:

SEN. DURBIN: First, let me tell you that America cowering in fear is not going to be a strong nation. I disagree with Mr. Gingrich. We can understand the threat, we can deal with it rationally, we can be strong and we will be safe with President Obama. But this notion that fear is going to guide us is what brought us to the notion of weapons of mass destruction and this war in Iraq and all that it has cost us. You know, Vice President Cheney said the other day without hesitation, “I’d do everything all over again.” He hasn’t learned any lesson from history.

Now, as far as President Obama’s approach at the National Archives, he made it clear and he was open to the American people, and this is what he said: there will be military commissions, but these are going to be commissions that are going to follow our constitutional values. We’re going to basically say that we’re not going to have hearsay that has to be rebutted by a defendant. We’re going to allow for the right of counsel. We’re going to have the basic approaches under the law that the Supreme Court is going to demand this.

MR. GREGORY: But do you, do you see that correlation between President Bush’s approach and President Obama?

SEN. DURBIN: I would say they’ll both have military commissions, and we’ve had them back to the time of George Washington. But the approach of President Obama is one that is closer to our Constitution and our rule of law. And just consider this, in seven years in Guantanamo there were exactly three who were convicted by military commissions, and those were thrown out by the Supreme Court. The–President Obama has learned from that lesson of history. He’s going to make sure that any military commission, military tribunal in the future is one that can be sustained by the courts.

Before Hitler invaded Poland and Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, President Franklin Roosevelt declared that the only thing we had to fear economically, was fear itself. But apparently, according to ObamaDems, FDR was “cowering in fear” when he tried and executed German spies via military commissions. Apparently what ObamaDems fear more than the killing of innocent Americans is offending terrorists and giving them “recruiting tools” via nose swabbings.

Durbin and Obama want to return to the 1990s strategy that saw America repeatedly attacked before any nose swabbings at Gitmo. One could forgive the failure to “get it” before 911, but after 911 one must conclude that many ObamaDems will never get it, given their lack of fear of big holes in LA.

Apparently the status quo in the 90s was acceptable to ObamaDems whose only fear today is that we offend the already offended.

History suggests that such weakness invites aggression that ensures the number we will mourn on future last Mondays in May will increase exponentially.

The fallen didn’t die for this.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Pres. Obama on Health Care

Pres. Obama on the State of GM

Pres. Obama on His Relationship with Pres. Bush

Surprise, surprise. Nancy Pelosi was for enhanced interrogation techniques before she was against them. This damning coverage by Fox News (hat tip to Redstate’s Moe Lane who wrote about this in an excellent column) reports that the CIA claims that Pelosi was briefed in 2002 about waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques, which directly contradicts her previous story where she claims that she was not told about the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques on suspected Al Qaeda terrorists.

I think that Charles Krauthammer hit it out of the park, in regard to Pelosi’s behavior, in his recent column titled, “Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible”, when he stated the following–

Today Pelosi protests “we were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what’s done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA’s rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do “in the future.”

But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying “Don’t do it.”

On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, “on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.”

More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now “on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009″ (the words are Blair’s) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.

Now, the funny thing is that I could actually forgive Nancy Pelosi this one factual inaccuracy (OK–outright lie) if this was her first brush with idiotic and untrustworthy behavior–but, unfortunately for the country, it’s not.

Remember during the whole TARP/Bailout bill fiasco when Pelosi gave that God-awful partisan speech–which gave cover to both Republicans and Democrats (who were already skeptical of the bill) to vote against it? (The embed is below). In this ridiculous turkey of a speech, Mrs. Pelosi actually has the unmitigated gall to make a fuss over seven hundred billion dollars (even though Obama’s porkulus/stimulus bill, that Pelosi subsequently helped write, will eventually cost the taxpayers over a trillion dollars). Furthermore, Nancy Pelosi also states, in the first two minutes of the video, that “the golden parachute and the government bailing you out–those days are over”. Well, again, Mrs. Pelosi was being disingenuous to say the least (OK–again, she was lying), because in the recent stimulus/porkulus bill, ACORN was given a 5.2 billion dollar bailout. Yeah, that ACORN who is under investigation by the FBI for voter fraud in thirteen different states. Oh, and who could forget about the recent AIG bonus debacle as covered by Dan Spencer or Obama’s recent bailout of the auto industries that even some Democrats opposed, but I digress. (I guess the days of government bailouts aren’t over yet, are they?)

Now, whether you were for or against the TARP/Bailout bill is neither here nor there. My point is that in another speech (which went viral under the title, “Nancy Pelosi: Dumber than Soap”–the embeded is below), Pelosi claimed that if we didn’t pass President Obama’s stimulus/porkulus bill IMMEDIATELY, that “five hundred million Americans would lose their jobs” (where she got that figure from, I don’t know–I don’t think that anyone knows). Anyway, my point is that Nancy Pelosi thought that it was urgent to pass the Obama stimulus package immediately in order to prevent millions of Americans from losing their jobs, and yet, she was willing to play partisan politics with the TARP bill which, to paraphrase Daniel Henninger of the WSJ, caused “the terrified stock market” to crater “wiping out individual voter wealth” when it fell apart? To quote Charles Krauthammer, that is “utterly contemptible”.

Now, I bet you are asking yourselves right now, “Can Nancy Pelosi’s tom-foolery, hypocrisy, disingenuousness, and out-right idiocy get any worse?” Well, I’m here to answer your question ladies and gentlemen–yes it can. Back in 2006 when Pelosi first became Speaker of the House she requested “regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation.” Now, it should be noted that the Bush Administration’s Department of Defense offered Pelosi the same plane to fly in that Dennis Hastert used when he was Speaker of the House, but Pelosi declined to use it because “She found it was not big enough for staff, supporters and other members.” However, in August in 2008, when asked why she was against offshore oil drilling, even though gas prices were going through the roof at the time, Pelosi replied by stating that, “I’m trying to save the planet”. OK–let me get this straight. Nancy Pelosi is “trying save the planet” by regularly flying herself and her posse across the country (creating a carbon foot-print the size of a Sasquatch’s), but we poor plebiscites are supposed to suck it up and pay $4.00 a gallon for gas, because she has a problem with offshore drilling. Man, that’s really rich. It kind of reminds me of President Obama telling us to turn down our thermostats while he cranks his up, but I digress.

However, if anyone was really interested in getting a clear view into both Nancy Pelosi’s character and competency, one only needed to look at who she initially tried to appoint to be the House Majority Leader, as well as who she eventually appointed to be be the head of the House Intelligence Committee, back in 2006 when she first became the Speaker of the House. In 2006 when the Democrats first took back the House and the Senate, the very liberal LA Times wrote a scathing op-ed about Nancy Pelosi titled, “Don’t Snub Harman”. Below is an excerpt from the column–

NEWLY MINTED House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is off to a rocky start. On the same day she was formally elected to lead the new Democratic majority, party colleagues refused to endorse her bizarre choice of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who was investigated but not charged in the Abscam scandal more than two decades ago, as her second-in-command.

That embarrassing experience should induce Pelosi (D-San Francisco) — who appeared chastened before reporters Thursday — to reconsider another ill-advised promotion: Her apparent intention to bestow the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee not on the panel’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), but on Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.).

Hastings, like Murtha, seems an unlikely choice for a leadership role in what Pelosi has been advertising as “the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.” Hastings was impeached as a federal judge and removed from office in the late 1980s (although he was acquitted of bribery in a criminal trial in 1983).

A litany of explanations have been adduced to explain why Pelosi would bypass Harman, an expert on intelligence matters who has won the respect of both parties while criticizing some of the Bush administration’s excesses in the war on terror. None of them is persuasive. Harman has earned this chairmanship.

But, what this op-ed doesn’t mention is WHO exactly Nancy Pelosi wound up picking to head the House Intelligence committee. After Pelosi found herself the butt of much ridicule due to her “bizarre” and ethically challenged choices after hammering Republicans for having a “culture of corruption”, she settled on Sylvester Reyes (D-TX) to head the House Intelligence Committee–a man who did not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia Muslim. Furthermore, when Reyes was pressed to answer if he knew anything at all about Hezbollah (the Shia Iranian terrorist group), Reyes responded by using the Sammy Sosa Defense (i.e., the “No habla Ingles”/”I speak no English” defense). I’m not kidding. This is the man that Nancy Pelosi put in charge of the House Intelligence Committee–think about that for a second. It clearly demonstrates just how seriously she takes our national security.

Now, I realize that Harman is embroiled in a semi-scandal of her own having to do with the Israeli Public Affairs Committee (although, the LA Times has an interesting column saying that the Harman scandal is really just some members of the Obama Administration’s Justice Department engaging in CYA–you can be the judge); however, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Jane Harman knows the difference between a Sunni and a Shia, and that she wouldn’t use the “Sammy Sosa Defense” if she didn’t know the answer to a question.

But, what I find the most troubling is something that I read from a liberal blog called The Reaction. In their column, they basically admit that (and I’m paraphrasing) “Harman was backed by the Blue Dog Coalition”….”she is respected by her colleagues on both sides of the isle”….”Pelosi didn’t consider Harman partisan enough and thought that she has not been a tough enough critic of the Bush Administration”…..they quote and cite Robert Novak as saying that “Pelosi’s judgment might be distorted by personal considerations”…..and finally that “Pelosi needs to look beyond herself to the good of the country”. If this is true, then to me it is “utterly contemptible” that Nancy Pelosi would jeopardize our national security–by appointing a man to head the House Intelligence Committee who doesn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia–simply because she’s involved in some kind of p*ssing contest with Jane Harman. Not to mention, it’s also pathetic, immature, catty and embarrassing, but I digress.

So, in conclusion, I feel that it’s time to bring the Nancy Pelosi circus to an end. Yes, she had an amusing run there for a time, all the while providing great fodder for pundits and bloggers everywhere, but enough is enough. The national security of the country is at stake and this woman is at best a half-wit and a hypocrite, and at worst, she’s a slightly unbalanced liar. By the way, this is not an easy diary for me to write. I never agreed with Nancy Pelosi’s politics, but I was proud when the first woman was made Speaker of the House and I didn’t want her to turn out to be a laughing stock. (I’m sorry, but that’s how I felt–write it down, take a picture, sue me, whatever. Oh, and for any of you lefty lurkers out there who don’t believe that Pelosi’s a laughing stock, check out the SNL video that I embedded below mocking her–and SNL is a predominantly liberal organization). However, my country comes first and I can no longer trust this woman–who has by all means proven herself to be “utterly contemptible”–with our national security for another second. It is time for the circus to hit the road. Nancy Pelosi needs to go–now!

Update: Today, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has written an excellent column (citing The Washington Post) which provides further evidence that Nancy Pelosi lied about her knowledge of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques that were being used on high level Al Qaeda terrorists.

This diary is cross-posted on The Minority Report.

From:

Moving quickly to release Chinese Uighur terrorists into the United States, Obama administration officials have — for the second time — overridden objections of federal agencies responsible for national security.

The first time — as I reported on April 20 — the White House overrode the inter-agency panel it created from all the national security agencies to review all the cases of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners.  That panel found that the seventeen Uighurs — members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement captured at an al-Queda training camp in Pakistan — were too dangerous to release in the United States.

Now — according to a federal agency source who requested anonymity — the White House has also overridden opposition to the release from both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Read the rest here.

And you thought five years of the “Bushlied” lie was bad?

ObamaDems do for free what our enemies would pay them to do, and for the benefit of ObamaDem citizens of the world, “our” means America.

Would Usama bin Laden and KSM (pictured, who gave up intel that saved US from follow up 911 attacks, thanks to waterboarding), Iran’s Mullahs and MembersOnlyJacket-ijad, and Kim Jung Il prefer that CIA agents fear prosecution by succeeding administrations for the carrying out of lawfully given interrogation orders? That CIA lawyers fear such prosecutions for confidential legal opinions?

The answer is obvious, yet President Obama is criminalizing politics and the fighting of wars much like a new junta taking over after a coup:

Senior members of the Bush administration who approved the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation measures could face prosecution, President Obama disclosed today. He said the use of torture reflected America “losing our moral bearings”.

He said his attorney general, Eric Holder, was conducting an investigation and the decision rested with him. Obama last week ruled out prosecution of CIA agents who carried out the interrogation of suspected al-Qaida members at Guantánamo and secret prisons around the world.

Obama, taking questions from the press during a visit by King Abdullah of Jordan, reiterated he did not believe in prosecution of those CIA agents who carried out the interrogations within the guidelines set down for them. But “with respect to those who formulated” the policies, “that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws”. He added: “I don’t want to prejudge that.”

Ewen MacAskill on Obama’s reluctance to prosecute torturers Link to this audio He also opened the way for a Congressional inquiry into the issue.

Meanwhile the former US vice-president Dick Cheney has called for the disclosure of CIA memos which reveal the “success” of torture techniques, including waterboarding, used on al-Qaida suspects under the Bush administration.

Before the New York Times became the de facto agent of our enemies a few years ago, adversaries from the old USSR (now Russia), Red China (still pretty red), Saddam Hussein (now dead), Iran (surrounded), North Korea and al-Qaida (now decimated) spent millions on espionage to secure classified information that would give them an advantage in their wars and competitions against us.

They are saving millions now, as it seems the only classified information these days are current legal memos of the Obama Administration. All information gathered by that inferior version of the United States of America known as the Ante-Obam-ellum Era is more available for inspection than the paintings on the walls of the White House seen during public tours.

All in the name of feeling better that we have the “moral high ground”? Or was it that we have removed a “recruiting tool” after 911? No matter that al Qaida’s recruited enough converts before 911 to carry out numerous attacks against America for a decade before and on 911, all before the enhanced interrogation days launched after said 911.

Who needs spies or even a Manchurian candidate when Americans elect a man tutored on “G-D America” sermons with political allies that regret they hadn’t bombed police stations and the Pentagon more?

And by the way Dear Communist Leader of our “equal” Nicaraguan partner, don’t blame me for President Kennedy’s attempt to save Cuba from a 50-year old Island-wide gulag.

After all Barry was only a baby? No word yet on whether James Earl Ray and Sirhan Sirhan should be pardoned since B. Hussein Obama had not reached puberty when their crimes were committed.

But this penchant (see passion) for leftist Democrats to do the bidding (see aiding and abetting) for our enemies, albeit without “adhering”, as in:

1) John Kerry’s trip to Paris to conspire with the Communist North Vietnamese;

2) The Church Commission’s decimation of the CIA and the Democratic Party majority’s abandonment of the then victorious South Vietnamese;

3) Sen. Ted Kennedy’s then secret attempted sabotage with the KGB of President Reagan’s strategies to defeat the Soviet Union;

4) Kerry and other Democrats’ public support for the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua while President Reagan was supporting the freedom fighting Contras; and, most recently

5) The aggression-inviting weakness of the 2003-2009 Bushlied Democrats that prolonged the Iraq War and cost more American lives by emboldening our enemies to fight on ’till their party took control of the Executive branch.

The Democrats cost the United States victory in the Vietnam War and are responsible for millions of lives slaughtered after we denied support for the champions of freedom in Southeast Asia, but thankfully, we eventually won the Cold War despite the above and President Carter’s indictment of a supposed “inordinate fear” of Communism.

And President Bush, the GOP and a remnant of JFK Dems won the Iraq War, for all intents and purposes that even Obama seems content to let stand so far.

But that same Obama is gutting the Defense budget including Strategic Missile Defense while Il ballistic missiles fly over Japan for potential Iranian customers to view; Poland, Ukraine and the Czech Republic see Obama and Medvedev look into each other’s non-souls after our President saw moral equivalence between Russian invaders and Georgians’ occupied; all while touring the world with Mr. and Mrs. Mea Culpa getting top billing on the itinerary.

We the People overcame past Democratic Party versions of “patriotism” to emerge as a City still Shining and still on top of the Hill.

I fear that after four years of Obama and these Dems, we may have to cross Delawares and enlist Old Hickorys in Nawlins in order to climb back up the Hill and restore our Liberty lighting luminescence.

Gamecock heard the fox guarding the hen house joke for years. It came true on Inauguration Day, but one good sign: The original Shining began with a Tea Party.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all for verification links may be accessed.

A call for Mr. Obama to release torture memos that show the great success in saving American Lives.

Are you better off today then you were a 100 days ago?

CIA has been removed from protecting Americans

The American military is now considered a training ground for terrorist

Cross-posted at The Vent-O-Matic.

Remember, it’s not sufficient to defeat your enemy – you must discredit and destroy them as well.

President Barack Obama said Tuesday the United States lost “our moral bearings” with gruesome terror-suspect interrogations and he left the door open to prosecuting Bush administration officials who vouched for their legality.

Oh, and a nice bit of editorializing from Jennifer “Kneepads” Loven there.  Gruesome, Jennifer?

I can’t wait to see how The Dark Lord handles this latest softball from Obambi.  Seriously.