Blogs

IRS Seizes 10 Million American's Medical Records

Thu, 23 May 2013 19:20:00 GMT

Apparently Tea Party Conservatives were not alone in attracting the wrath of the IRS. The following from the Washington Times will send another chill up your spine:

A class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in San Diego says 15 IRS agents illegally seized the medical records of more than 10 million Americans, including California judges and their families, members of the Screen Actors Guild and Major League Baseball Players...

“In a case involving solely a tax matter involving a former employee of the company, these agents stole more than 60,000,000 medical records of more than 10,000,000 Americans, including at least 1,000,000 Californians.”

Read more here

Rand Paul: "Congress should be on trial" - not Apple

Thu, 23 May 2013 19:17:00 GMT

Apple employs 600,000 people in the U.S. and is the largest corporate taxpayer in the country. Last year alone, the company paid $6 billion in taxes. This year they expect to pay $7 billion.

But, that's not enough for some members of Congress. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) hauled the Apple CEO Tim Cook in front of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee which he chairs and berated him as a "tax dodger." Levin and others in Congress are offended that Apple makes profit in other countries and doesn't bring all that money back to the U.S. - where they would be taxed 35 percent as soon as it crosses the border.

Sen. Rand Paul saw it differently. Paul was "offended by a government that convenes a hearing to bully one of America's greatest success stories." Apple was simply doing what every Member of Congress, private citizen, or businessman does - managing their financial affairs to "minimize their taxes."

Paul says if anybody should be investigated, it should be Congress for creating a "byzantine tax code...that simply doesn't compete with the rest of the world." The tax code chases "the profits of great American companies overseas," Sen. Paul said.

He's right! See his four minute indictment of Congress and clear representation of free-market principles below:

Don't Criminalize The Investigations. Immunize the Witnesses!

Thu, 23 May 2013 12:36:00 GMT

By Michael Ledeen , Contributing Editor

Keep your eye on the mission, which is to save us from an ambitious tyranny. We cannot accomplish this life-and-death task if we turn it over to the lawyers. It’s a political mission, not a law enforcement roundup. We need to know, in detail, what happened. We have to know the details, which will, if we are good, enable us to dismantle an enormously ambitious attempt to change America in precisely the way Alexis de Tocqueville predicted.

As I wrote four years ago, American tyranny would not resemble those of the past. It would consist of a series of rules and regulations than would enervate us, and reduce us to objects of manipulation by an arrogant state:

That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

We can see this impulse at work in an amazing number of governmental initiatives, from the truly terrifying new speech code for all American colleges and universities that receive federal funds, to the previously unimaginable intrusion of the Feds into our privacy, whether via the IRS or the Justice Department, as in the criminalization of journalists doing their jobs. It goes on and on, from Obamacare to the greatly expanded role of Washington in corporate enterprise, and to myriad regulations–many of which we do not even know–and executive orders.

For the future of the American enterprise, it does not matter if Obama and his colleagues deliberately set out to create a Tocquevillian American tyranny, or if it is simply a hell that grew out of good intentions. It’s there, and it’s getting worse. We need to block and undo it, which requires that have a full picture of it.

The scandals give us a chance. They open windows into the progress of that “absolute, minute, regular, and provident” power, and we need to look through all of them. But if we criminalize the investigations, if witnesses are afraid they will be indicted, prosecuted and punished if they tell the truth about what they’ve been up to, our chances of getting the full picture will be enormously, maybe even fatally, diminished.

We want the truth, the whole truth. The best way to get it is to immunize Congressional witnesses who tell the story. That way, they will be part of a common effort to understand what went wrong, rather than targets of a criminal investigation. It may surprise you to learn that there are many civil servants who have quietly asked to be subpoenaed, so their superiors will not accuse them of ratting out their bureaucratic cohorts. Fair enough. Subpoena them, and give them the protection of immunity, provided they tell the truth.

The cudgel of criminal action should be reserved for those who insist on clamming up, for they are obstructing investigations desperately needed to protect and advance our freedoms. But, as Andy McCarthy argues with his usual brilliance, for heaven’s sake let’s not have special prosecutors, who will throw a mantle of secrecy (“can’t talk about it, there’s a criminal investigation here”) over the whole thing. We want transparency, not secrecy. Secrecy is part of the problem and no part of the solution.

This requires Congress to carry the burden, and ferret out the truth. It’s hard to imagine our elected representatives will do themselves proud. So be it. It’ll be messy. But then, democracy is messy. Chaos can be creative. The pols will need an attentive and responsible press to call attention to their errors and their omissions. Hard to imagine that, too. So be it. There’s a lot of journalists, editors, talk show hosts, bloggers and even entertainers out there. I think we can sort it out. Bring it on. Give us a chance.

I sure hope we can get this right, even approximately right. When we elected Obama I said that we were in for a hell of a fight. We’ve got it. Let’s make the best of it. It’s political, stupid, in a very fundamental way: it’s about freedom and tyranny, the essence of American politics. Don’t turn it over to the lawyers. Get the story. Tell it all. Then we’ll figure out how best to deal with the mess we’re in.

***Also published May 22, 2013 by PJMedia.com.

Who Let the Benghazi Four Get Killed?

Sat, 18 May 2013 18:08:00 GMT

By Lawrence J. Fedewa, Contributing Editor

It is true that the government lying to the American people is reprehensible and not to be ignored. But Susan Rice's role in the Benghazi episode does not constitute the first time the government has lied to the public, nor is it likely to be the last.

Many in Congress and the media seem focused on this incident. But this obsession is obscuring the far more important fact that our diplomats and their protectors were deserted under fire by the Obama Administration. This is unforgivable and sends deadly messages to our diplomats, our allies, and our enemies.

Clearly, it says that the Americans are willing to sacrifice the lives of American diplomats, even in a very public incident, to the obscure dogmas of the Obama foreign policy. That the Americans are afraid to protect their own people. That the intelligence services of the Americans were inadequate to anticipate the danger – or the increasingly likely fact the Obama Administration knowingly and deliberately ignored the warnings it received from all sources, including the CIA and the Ambassador himself. That the Americans, for all their military power, won't use it in an emergency.

This cannot stand. The individuals who let our own people get killed must be identified and penalized in the most public way.

America's prestige in the world cannot stand the assault it is getting from this incident. And, our diplomats all around the world must be given reassurance that this despicable behavior will never be repeated.

Give Obama and Clinton a slap on the wrist for Rice's lies, and get down to the real crimes committed in Benghazi by the Obama Administration.

WaPo: AP phone records scandal politically motivated, not national security

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:13:00 GMT

Eric Holder says the AP reporting of the foiled Yemen airline terrorist bombing plot was perhaps "the most serious" security leak he had ever seen. "It put American people at risk," he claimed defending the covert targeting of AP reporters and editors phone records over a period of two months.

But, the Washington Post tells a very different story. By the time the AP published their report, the CIA had lifted national security concerns. Nonetheless, the CIA continued to lobby the AP to hold the story until the President got to thump his chest first.

The AP actually sat on the story for five days at the request of the CIA. By then, officials no longer had "national security" concerns, but wanted the AP to hold off breaking the story because…..wait for it….."the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday."

So, after security concerns evaporated, our CIA for purely political reasons was pleading with the press to hold a major story in deference to the White House's political objectives.

Contrary to Holder's claim, what has now erupted into the full blown AP phone records scandal was payback for spoiling Obama's political objectives – not some breach of national security.

Obama wanted to toot his own horn in the midst of the Presidential campaign and was p***ed that the press didn't let him.

From the Washington Post:

For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.

The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday.

AP balked and proceeded to publish that Monday afternoon. Its May 2012 report is now at the center of a controversial and broad seizure of phone records of AP reporters’ home, office and cellphone lines. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the unauthorized disclosure about an intelligence operation to stop al-Qaeda from detonating explosives aboard a U.S. airliner was among the most serious leaks he could remember, and justified secretly obtaining records from a handful of reporters and editors over a span of two months.

Now, some members of Congress and media advocates are questioning why the administration viewed the leak that led to the May 7 AP story as so grave.

It gets ever more bizarre. The national security concerns lifted in a meeting on Monday, May 7, but the CIA intervened again, making a purely political plea for the AP to hold off so the White House could break the story. As the WaPo reports, the AP balked:

Then, in a meeting on Monday, May 7, CIA officials reported that the national security concerns were “no longer an issue,” according to the individuals familiar with the discussion.

When the journalists rejected a plea to hold off longer, the CIA then offered a compromise. Would they wait a day if AP could have the story exclusively for an hour, with no government officials confirming it for that time?

The reporters left the meeting to discuss the idea with their editors. Within an hour, an administration official was on the line to AP’s offices.

The White House had quashed the one-hour offer as impossible. AP could have the story exclusively for five minutes before the White House made its own announcement. AP then rejected the request to postpone publication any longer.

The AP published the story and we now know what the Obama Administration's retaliation was for disobeying. As the Right Sphere puts it, “Stealing the Obama administration’s thunder is now grounds for secret subpoenas on the press. Is this America?”

Spy Games

Thu, 16 May 2013 12:57:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

The shocking video of the arrest of an alleged CIA agent in Moscow this week on espionage charges certainly won’t rank as one of most heralded moments in the vaunted agency’s long history of derring-do.

But spying — and counterspying — happens.

We may never know the whole story of this latest spy-vs.-spy case, but there’s likely a lot more afoot than the nabbing of a possible American spook, who got caught in flagrante delicto before being declared persona non grata.

First, the fanfare revolving around the pinching of the US embassy’s third secretary was more than a bit theatrical. It’s near-certain that the Russians “enhanced” the signs of buffoonery, and possibly manufactured all of it.

The Russian intelligence services (including Putin) have never really gotten over how the Cold War ended. They lost and the West won, despite the KGB’s best efforts. They’re not happy about it, especially when it comes to their arch-enemy, the CIA. It was all meant to send a signal to both domestic and international audiences, possibly with (former KGB officer) President Vladimir Putin’s approval.

The feelings of any intense sports rivalry apply. This may account for the demeaning and very public manner with which the Russians portrayed the hapless 007, including badly fitting wigs, written instructions, several pairs of sunglasses, lots of cash — and an anachronistic compass. (What, no GPS?)

But Russia’s intelligence services are sending a straightforward message to their US counterparts — and others: They’re not going to tolerate collection operations in the Russian Federation.

It’s also a hard-hitting warning to any Russkies contemplating spying for the Amerikanskies: You will get caught — don’t even think about it.

Moscow may also not be too keen on who Washington is going after, either. The reported target of the American’s advances was a Russian intelligence or law-enforcement officer. Some conclude that the information our covert compatriot was after (via the yet-to-be-recruited Russian) could be related to counterterrorism in the aftermath of the Boston bombings.

What better way to find out what’s really going on with the international militant Islamist movement in Chechnya and Dagestan than by getting the straight skinny from a plant inside the Russian security services?

After all, there still seem to be many questions about what Moscow did — and didn’t — tell Washington about the Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston blasts. Evenfriendly intelligence services don’t tell each other everything.

It’s certainly possible that we got sloppy by getting a little far forward in the spying saddle in our understandable desire — need — to get the poop on extremism/terrorism in the Caucasus.

If true: Bravo!

While our guy’s tradecraft against a likely Russian double agent was — shall we say— less than elegant in its execution, we should (quietly, but vigorously) applaud the effort of our intelligence agencies.

The spy biz isn’t without risk.

Indeed, the unceremonious booting of one American “diplomat” is a small price to pay for the possibility of obtaining crucial information that may prevent another 9/11 or Marathon bombing.

And Moscow’s “outrage” is the height of hypocrisy, since the Russian intelligence services are operating here at Cold War levels, targeting everything from government to military to high-tech secrets. Anyone remember Anna Chapman, the ruby-haired, Russian femme fatale? Or Russian moles Robert Hanssen (FBI) or Aldrich Ames (CIA)?

In any case, the expulsion of the American from Russia probably won’t make relations between Washington and Moscow any frostier; they went from Obama’s “reset” to our “regret” long ago.

The fact is that intelligence is our first line of defense in an increasingly dangerous world. We should be grateful that we have brave Americans who have the pluck to put themselves secretly in harm’s way on our behalf.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published May 16, 2013 in his regular column in the New York Post.

Obama says Benghazi Criticism a "Sideshow" – ask Sean Smith's Mother

Tue, 14 May 2013 14:55:00 GMT

Barack Obama dismisses the continuing criticism about the Benghazi cover-up as a "sideshow" that is politically motivated by the GOP. He claims that his administration has been completely truthful about the scandal that cost four American lives on September 11, 2012. There is nothing more to tell, or so he says.

Obama's protests don't square with millions of Americans. Finally, some of the media beyond Fox News are starting to pay attention, as well. Notably mainstream media icons, Tom Brokaw and Bob Schieffer have both engaged in the criticism of late. Brokaw now says, "You cannot explain away Susan Rice's performance on those Sunday talk shows in which she said it was not a terrorist attack and grew out of a domestic demonstration of some kind."

Pat Smith, the mother of State Department Diplomat Sean Smith who was killed in the attack is even more critical. She says the President, Hillary Clinton, and the others involved in the scandal "don't care" about the truth or the lives that were lost. Watch her emotional and damning interview with Gov. Mick Huckabee below.

"Massive Premium Increases…nearly 100 percent on average" according to ObamaCare Congressional Survey

Tue, 14 May 2013 14:03:00 GMT

As the Obama Administration juggles multiple scandals – Benghazi, IRS, and now the AP – the pack of lies that the President told to sell ObamaCare will likely go virtually unnoticed. Nonetheless, Obama's often repeated claim that, "This legislation will also lower costs for families and businesses," was a phony as any of his spin on all his other scandals. His standard talking point promised "your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year."

The Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has released results of a survey of 17 of the nation's largest health insurance companies requesting analyses of the effect of the PPACA's (ObamaCare) policies, mandates, taxes, and fees on premium insurance rates.

The survey found that "massive premium increases" await the vast majority of Americans because of ObamaCare. In summary, "consumers purchasing health insurance on the individual market may face premium increases of nearly 100 percent on average, with potential highs eclipsing 400 percent. Meanwhile, small businesses can expect average premium increases in the small group market of 50 percent, with highs over 100 percent."

The full report is available here.

When Senator Max Baucus, one of the leading Democrat sponsors of the PPACA, recently predicted the roll out of ObamaCare would be a "huge train wreck," he was far more honest that anyone else closely connected to the legislation. Baucus is retiring after 34 years in the Senate. According to Senator Chuck Grassley who has served with Baucus virtually his entire career and preceded him as Chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, Baucus is retiring because he is "fed up" with the roll out of the health care monstrosity.

Lies, cover-ups, and trampling of the Constitution and Rule of Law have become standard operating procedure for the Obama White House. The volume is so great that no one even expects the truth anymore. So, the phony premium decrease assertions about ObamaCare will likely not receive much attention in the press. That is until millions of Americans actually get hit with the bill just months from now.

190 Million Hours - ObamaCare Compliance Burden Keeps Growing

Mon, 13 May 2013 13:19:00 GMT

Mountain of New Mandates, Rules, and Red Tape Threatens Families and Job Creators

Editor's Note: The following was released May 7, 2013 by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

WASHINGTON, DC – The House Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce Committees today released an updated version of the Obamacare Burden Tracker (#ObamacareBurden), which reveals the burden on employers and families has increased to almost 190 million hours. The Burden Tracker, first released in February, is a real-time, online resource to help the public keep track of all of the new government mandates, rules, and red tape resulting from Obamacare.

The burden of Obamacare is already being felt, even though many provisions of the law, including the requirement for most Americans to buy government-approved health insurance or pay a tax, are not set to take effect until 2014. According to the Obama administration’s own estimates, Obamacare will require American job creators, families, and health care providers to spend almost 190 million hours per year on compliance.* This burden has increased over 60 million hours since February of this year.

Every hour and dollar spent complying with the Democrats’ health care law are time and resources being taken from spending time with family, growing a business and creating jobs, or caring for patients. Since many small businesses do not employ in-house lawyers and accountants, compliance costs are especially expensive and burdensome. Given the new demands of complying with the law, it is not surprising that over 70 percent of small businesses cite the health care law as a major obstacle to job creation.

What could be done in 189,822,836 hours?

Mount Rushmore, which took 14 years to build, could be constructed 1,547 times.
Halley’s comet, seen from Earth once every 76 years, could be spotted 285 times.
The Empire State building, which took 7 million man hours to build, could be constructed 27 times.

*Based on administration estimates approved by the Office of Management and Budget.

Obama Repeats Energy Mistakes of the Past

Mon, 13 May 2013 13:08:00 GMT

A new language was introduced in Washington when President Obama began his first term in office. For a time, it flummoxed his observers, including many Republicans, who were caught off-balance by the combination of the President’s soaring rhetoric and his Chicago-style politics.

The language is newspeak. Introduced by George Orwell, it is characterized by using familiar words and phrases in unfamiliar ways. In the President’s parlance, “fair” means skewering the upper middle-class and redistributing their wealth. "Necessary investments" are excuses to raise taxes and grow government.

Similar convoluted definitions exist in the President’s energy policy pronouncements. His “all-of-the-above” approach apparently means wasting precious federal revenues on failed renewable projects while bankrupting the coal industry and slapping new taxes and regulations on U.S. oil and natural gas producers.

Promoting renewables is hardly a new idea. President Jimmy Carter tried it in the 1970s when the Iranian Revolution and gasoline lines made America fearful of its dependence on foreign oil. Speaking to the nation in April 1977, he called the energy crisis the “moral equivalent of war” and said “we must prepare…permanent renewable energy sources” because “we are now running out of gas and oil.”

Although many in America apparently don’t remember that President Carter’s renewable energy investments were an expensive failure, his warning stuck in the American psyche. Today there are still countless Americans in denial about our ability to achieve North American energy independence in the near term.

The latest global energy projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shatter the Carter-era myths. According to EIA, U.S. imports of foreign oil are plummeting and are expected to continue to fall in 2013 and 2014. Oil production in both OPEC and non-OPEC countries is expected to rise. New technologies, including hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, are rapidly expanding U.S. oil and natural gas production, while improved vehicle fuel economy and other factors are likely to continue reducing demand for oil.

Furthermore, North America could provide 100 percent of U.S. demand for liquid fuels by 2024. That’s an amazing feat considering the gloom and doom prognostications from the Carter Administration 36 years ago.

Yet this good news is being downplayed by the Obama Administration. Instead of a robust energy policy including approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the President is clinging to oldspeak, or at least old ideas, to address a different dilemma—climate change. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions, he is promulgating regulations on traditional energy production while subsidizing renewable energy companies.

Simply put, the President is repeating historical mistakes by propping up energy sources that are as yet unreliable, unaffordable, and cannot compete without federal support.

The Administration’s latest embarrassment is Fisker Automotive, an electric car company that was expected to generate sales of more than $1 billion by 2012. Despite federal loan guarantees amounting to $193 million, the company recently fired 160 of its remaining 200 employees and hired a bankruptcy law firm. With the government likely to inherent the company, now worth only pennies on the dollar, a congressional panel is investigating the Administration’s investment.

To make matters worse for the President, climate scientists are at a loss to explain why the planet has not warmed in the past 16 years. As Richard Tol, professor and climate expert at England’s University of Sussex, told Reuters, “My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years.”

So far questionable climate models and bankrupt renewable energy companies have not dampened the President’s quest to save the planet from humans. Although he paid lip-service to domestic oil and natural gas production in his recent State of the Union address, he said “we must do more to combat climate change” to safeguard our future.

If the President ignores the promise of secure domestic oil and gas production and continues to embrace the failed energy policies of the 1970s, more federal dollars will be wasted, U.S. economic growth could remain slow, and millions of workers will continue to face an uncertain future. On the other hand, if the President encourages domestic oil and natural gas production, hundreds of thousands of jobs could be created in the energy industry, along with more than one million new manufacturing jobs.

As the President assembles his new team for his second term, there is very little reason for economic optimism. One thing we can count on, however, is that the President’s policy pronouncements are likely to be couched in newspeak to camouflage their impact on our wallets.

***This article also published May 12, 2013 by the Pueblo Chieftain and May 13, 2013 by RealClearEnergy.com.

Self-Radicalization Chic: The preposterous theory du jour.

Sat, 11 May 2013 12:31:00 GMT

By Michael Ledeen, Contributing Editor

The president has described the Boston terrorists as “self-radicalized,” and his voice is but one in a great chorus insisting that we face a major threat from Americans gone bad, almost entirely on their own, and certainly without any input from foreign countries or terrorist groups. Some of these voices can be heard in a front-page “analysis” by Scott Shane in the May 6 New York Times, whose title says most all of it: “A Homemade Style of Terror.”

The Boston bombers, Shane tells us, weren’t radicalized or trained in some al Qaeda camp; it happened online. They didn’t smuggle bombs into the country; the components were commonplace, and their purchase didn’t make anyone suspicious. As for ideology, Shane quotes experts dismissing its importance. One, according to the Times, says “the brothers might have as much in common with self-radicalized terrorists of completely different ideologies—say, white supremacism or antigovernment extremism—as with the committed Qaeda operatives.” Another insists that “the key point was not that [Tamarlan Tsarnaev]had embraced radical Islam but that he planned to travel to Russia to join underground groups.”

There is a substantial cottage industry manufacturing experts on self-made terrorists, and it’s puzzling that its practitioners are rarely asked to justify the theory, since it’s logically incoherent and factually unsubstantiated. How, exactly, does a person radicalize himself? Is it, as the language suggests, the result of communing deeply and passionately with his navel? No doubt that has happened. The first terrorist wasn’t recruited; he was truly self-radicalized, as the Unabomber was. But it’s hard to find such cases in contemporary America, where terrorists, as they proudly and aggressively tell us, are members of a group, whether it be jihadist or something else. Indeed, even if we accept the (invariably dubious) claim that the only contact with the terror network consisted of listening to incendiary language and studying bombing instructions on the Internet, the very claim undermines the self-radicalization meme. Doesn’t the Internet create communities?

The New York Times can’t come up with a single convincing example of self-radicalization. Four photos labeled homegrown terrorism appear above the text: Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City), Major Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood), Faisal Shahzad (Times Square), and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. None qualifies as self-radicalized. McVeigh was recruited by the Klan and joined other nativist groups. He was recruited by Terry Nichols (now in prison for life), who frequented a college campus in the Philippines well known for Islamic radicalism. Major Hasan was inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical imam who befriended two of the 9/11 killers and other terrorists, and was subsequently killed by an American drone in Yemen, where he had lived for 11 years as a teenager and whence his parents had come to New Mexico. Shahzad was a Pakistani who lived there for almost 20 years, went back and forth numerous times, and confessed to having been trained in an al Qaeda camp in his native land. Tsarnaev was apparently recruited by his older brother, who in turn had contacts with radical Islamists in Russia, as the Russians informed both the FBI and the CIA.

So why has self-radicalization become conventional wisdom? Its main feature is the dismissal of ideology, whether religious or political. The terrorists are all tossed in the “extremism” bag, and we don’t have to bother parsing specific doctrines to understand or combat them. This is very handy for the multiculturalists. If all cultures have equal standing, and all people are basically the same, then it’s either stupidity or bigotry to insist on listening to what they say about themselves.

The other big reason for the proliferation of the doctrine of self-radicalization is that it firmly blocks any effort to single out the followers of any given ideology, and thus rejects the very idea of a war against terrorism. Defense of the homeland becomes a quest to identify alienated loners whose ideas have nothing to do with terrorism, especially radical Islamic terrorism. As Shane’s expert says, they can latch onto most any doctrine, from white supremacism to bin Ladenism, once they’ve radicalized themselves. Who cares what they say about themselves?

But the ideas often matter a lot. The ideas, in fact, give meaning to the terrorists’ lives. Read Bernard-Henri Lévy’s biography of the man who organized the kidnapping and beheading of Daniel Pearl, for example. Omar Sheik was a well-educated Briton with Pakistani roots who came from a good family, went to good schools, and was moving steadily up the ladder. One day he went into a radical mosque, and became a convert to the ideology of jihadism. His life acquired greater meaning, and killing a Jew fulfilled him.

Omar Sheik didn’t radicalize himself, any more than McVeigh, the Tsarnaev brothers, Major Nidal, and Faisal Shahzad. They were all recruited, and all were converts. To deny that, as the president and so many self-declared experts maintain, obscures the motives of terrorists and thereby adds significantly to our peril.

***This article also published in the May 20, 2013 issue of The Weekly Standard.

ABC News: 12 Revisions to Benghazi Talking Points

Fri, 10 May 2013 14:05:00 GMT

Finally, someone other than only Fox News seems to be paying attention to the still growing Benghazi cover-up. CBS's Bob Schieffer seems to have finally engaged following some great reporting by Sharyl Attkisson. Now comes an ABC report by Jonathan Karl that the Benghazi talking points went through twelve revisions - not just the three as reported last week by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard.

Maybe - just maybe - the scales will fall from at least a few of the Obamaphiles in the media to help expose what really happened in Benghazi and find out who was responsible.

Here's the first few paragraphs of Jonathan Karl's feature story and a link to the entire piece:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

Read more here.

The Media: What Difference Does it Make?

Thu, 09 May 2013 14:10:00 GMT

By Melanie Sturm

Stretching Oscar Wilde’s adage “I never put off til tomorrow what I can do the day after,” some in the mainstream media have finally started to Think Again about the Benghazi attack launched last year on the anniversary of 9/11 — thanks to new revelations by high-ranking State Department whistle-blowers including experts in security, counterterrorism, and the No. 2-ranking diplomat in Libya under slain Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Contrary to the “spin” that the U.S. Consulate assault was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam YouTube video, the truth is that American officials knew “from the get-go” that it was a premeditated terrorist attack by al-Qaida-linked terrorists. In fact, failures to heed Stevens’ calls for increased security due to heightened terrorist threats and decisions to have Special Forces “stand down” rather than respond to the attack proved lethal for four brutally murdered Americans.

While most in the media prefer covering the Jodi Arias murder trial and the coming-out of gay basketball player Jason Collins, CBS News elder statesman Bob Schieffer and colleague Sharyl Attkisson aren’t buying White House press secretary Jay Carney’s line that “Benghazi happened a long time ago.” On Sunday on “Face the Nation,” Schieffer probed “whether there was a cover-up” based on “startling new details about the Benghazi attack ... totally at variance with what some American officials were saying in public on this broadcast five days after the attack.”

Schieffer cited an investigative report by the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes describing the wholesale rewriting of the CIA’s post-attack talking points, edited to eliminate references to terrorism, al-Qaida and five previous attacks in Libya. These talking points never mentioned an anti-Islamic YouTube video, providing fresh evidence that “senior Obama officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults.”

As if in the Soviet Union, where dissidents joked, “The future is known; it’s the past that’s always changing,” the fraudulent narrative about a YouTube video was peddled by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before the victims’ caskets and their grieving families, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday news shows, President Obama in his September address to the U.N., and consistently by Carney.

Weeks later, those who disputed this false narrative because it jeopardized U.S. national security — including Mitt Romney — were accused by media mavens such as “Meet the Press”’ David Gregory of “launch(ing) a political attack even before facts of embassy violence were known.” But wasn’t the administration guilty of politicizing Benghazi by deliberately misleading the world about a deadly terrorist attack they failed to anticipate?

Consider Watergate, another cover-up that preceded a presidential election, though there were no deaths or lost consulates. Imagine Woodward and Bernstein averting their eyes had Richard Nixon deflected responsibility for Watergate by accusing his opponents of “politicizing” the matter or asking, as Hillary Clinton asked about Benghazi, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Good journalists know what difference it makes, as did Abraham Lincoln, who said, “If given the truth, (Americans) can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”

Yet the media — CBS News notwithstanding — seem to have abandoned their constitutionally protected role to safeguard Americans from the government, tending instead to protect the government from Americans.

Why else do they show scant interest that no senior administration officials have been held accountable for the four deaths, nor have the terrorists who launched the attack — although the YouTube filmmaker is in jail? Considering the terrorist-infested region, why didn’t leaders equipped with the world’s strongest military have contingency plans available to rescue the two Navy SEALs who lasted seven hours before succumbing? Sixty-plus years post-conflict, we have military capacity in Germany, Japan and South Korea; why not North Africa?

As Vladimir Lenin understood, government accountability derives from an active media and an informed citizenry. That’s why the Soviet people were subjects, not citizens. As Lenin explained, “Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinion calculated to embarrass the government?”

But America’s founders guaranteed a free press so we’d be informed citizens — not helpless subjects. As Thomas Jefferson said, “When the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” All wasn’t safe for Americans abandoned in Benghazi, which reminds us that as a self-governing people, it’s our duty to be informed enough to safeguard one another’s life and liberty.

This is the answer to Hillary’s question — “What difference does it make?” When armed with the truth, “We the People” can humble governments, secure justice, frustrate deceit, help the disenfranchised and know the world that is, not the utopia politicians try to sell us.

Think Again — shouldn’t all presidential aspirants be able to answer Hillary’s question?

***Melanie Strum is a good friend of A Line of Sight having published several previous articles. She writes a regular column – "Think Again" – for her hometown Aspen Times wherein she challenges often sensitive cultural issues with sensitivity and thoughtful common-sense. The following appeared in her regular column May 9, 2013. She welcomes comments at melanie@thinkagainusa.com.

Benghazi Whistleblower: Special Ops told "You can't go now."

Tue, 07 May 2013 12:54:00 GMT

U.S. Special Operations forces in Libya were on the way to the airport to board a Libyan government plane to Benghazi but were told "you can't go now; you don't have authority to go now." That's the stunning testimony of Gregory Hicks, the top ranking American diplomat in Libya after Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed in a terrorist attack at the Benghazi Consulate on September 11, 2013.

Hicks was in Tripoli when the attack commenced. He has told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that after word arrived from the Libyan Prime Minister that Ambassador Stevens had perished, a U.S. Special Operations team was ready to fly to Benghazi before the second attack occurred but received a call from Special Operations Command Africa to stand down.

Hicks and two other State Department officials – "whistleblowers" – are scheduled to testify to the Oversight Committee on Wednesday, May 8.

Hicks testimony completely contradicts the Obama Administration's claim that, "At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could…There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support."

Hicks also believes lives could have been saved at Benghazi had the administration dispatched just one aircraft from the naval base at Souda Bay in Crete about an hour away. "I believe that if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split," Hicks said.

More of Hicks testimony account is available here published by The Hill.

Benghazi: Entitled to the Truth

Sun, 05 May 2013 22:07:00 GMT

"If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public."

Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard

You know the scene from A Few Good Men; Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) presses Col. Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson) to get the facts about the death of Pfc. William Santiago (Michael DiLorenzo).

Jessup: "You want answers?"

Kaffee: "I think I'm entitled to them."

Jessup: "You want answers?"

Kaffee: "I want the truth!"

Jessup: "You can't handle the truth!"

Jessup's erroneous belief that the end – largely defined by him – justified any means – also, defined by him, including suppression of the truth and the rule of law.

While inspired by a true story, the famous movie is largely Hollywood fiction. However, from the beginning on the night of September 11, 2012, the Obama Administration operated as if the American people couldn't handle the truth about the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Or, more likely, that the interests of the White House and the President's re-election campaign would not be well served if the truth were known. Thus, the effort to cover-up and suppress the truth.

Among the many immediate questions that arose was the denial of any connection between the perpetrators of the attack and al Qaeda. Despite the White House and State Department's denial, the CIA confirmed within days that the intelligence community immediately made the connection to Islamic terror organizations. Only after weeks of claiming the murderous attack was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video no one seemed to have seen, did the White House eventually capitulate.

How the Obama White House's talking points evolved in those first days and who was ultimately responsible for the Administration's preferred version of "the truth" quickly became part of a growing scandal, and remains so today.

Stephen F. Hayes has published and advanced online version of "The Benghazi Talking Points" which offers considerable illumination to the questions that remain. His article will appear in print in the May 13 issue of The Weekly Standard where Hayes is a Senior Writer. Hayes is also the author of two New York Times best sellers, Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President and The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America. He is also a regular Fox All Stars panelist on Special Report with Bret Baier.

The entire article is available here. Key excerpts, including the three-stage revisions to the CIA assessment that became the Administration's talking points are included below:

The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.

As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.

Hayes references the information in a House report from the chairmen of five investigative committees, lays his foundation, and then makes a most serious indictment:

… If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.

Hayes notes information contained in State Department alerts sent at 4:05pm and 6:08pm Eastern time while the Consulate was under attack indicating that Ansar al Sharia, a Libyan based al Qaeda-linked terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack. He continues:

....A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 (Version 1 below). This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.” Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”

After the internal distribution, CIA officials amended that draft to include more information about the jihadist threat in both Egypt and Libya. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy,” the agency had added by late afternoon. And: “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” But elsewhere, CIA officials pulled back. The reference to “Islamic extremists” no longer specified “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda,” and the initial reference to “attacks” in Benghazi was changed to “demonstrations.”

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

Below are the three versions of the talking points as published by Hayes and The Weekly Standard.

There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

What remained—and would be included in the final version of the talking points—was mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations and working with the Libyan government, together with bland language suggesting that the “violent demonstrations”—no longer “attacks”—were spontaneous responses to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists” (see Version 3 above).

Then came the "blame the video" spin.

…In ensuing days, administration officials emphasized a “demonstration” in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi and claimed that the demonstrators were provoked by a YouTube video. The CIA had softened “attack” to “demonstration.” But as soon became clear, there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.

More troubling was the YouTube video. [UN Ambassador Susan] Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.” There is no mention of any “video” in any of the many drafts of the talking points.

Still, top Obama officials would point to the video to explain Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even denounced the video in a sort of diplomatic public service announcement in Pakistan. In a speech at the United Nations on September 25, the president mentioned the video several times in connection with Benghazi.

When doubts arose about the implausible video defense, the White House only dug in their heels.

…It was a preview of the administration’s defense of its claims on Benghazi. After pushing the intelligence community to revise its talking points to fit the administration’s preferred narrative, administration officials would point fingers at the intelligence community when parts of that narrative were shown to be misleading or simply untrue.

And at times, members of the intelligence community appeared eager to help. On September 28, a statement from ODNI seemed designed to quiet the growing furor over the administration’s explanations of Benghazi. “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available.”

The statement continued: “As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al Qaeda.”

The statement strongly implies that the information about al Qaeda-linked terrorists was new, a revision of the initial assessment. But it wasn’t. Indeed, the original assessment stated, without qualification, “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

The statement from the ODNI came not from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, but from his spokesman, Shawn Turner. When the statement was released, current and former intelligence officials told The Weekly Standard that they found the statement itself odd and the fact that it didn’t come from Clapper stranger still. Clapper was traveling when he was first shown a draft of the statement to go out under his name. It is not an accident that it didn’t.

On Wednesday, May 8 the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has scheduled another hearing delving into the unanswered questions and conflicting information regarding the Benghazi attack. Three State Department employees labeled as "whistleblowers" are set to testify about what they know. Many questions remain including the denial of requests for additional security for the Consulate prior to the attack, failure to deploy military assets during the attack, the inaccessibility of survivors, and failure to "bring to justice" those responsible although identities are known.

When pressed for the truth, Hillary Clinton fumed, "What difference does it make?" The President just wants to move on. "Benghazi happened a long time ago," his spokesman Jay Carney said last week.

Like Lt. Kaffee in A Few Good Men, the families of the victims as well as the American people are entitled to the truth. Col. Jessup ultimately paid a heavy price for withholding the truth and breaking the law. If Stephen Hayes is correct, "that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public," the same fate might await some big names in the Obama Administration.

Al Qaeda on March across the Globe two years after SEALs got bin Laden

Fri, 03 May 2013 12:42:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

Two years ago today, SEAL Team Six sent Osama bin Laden on his way to Davy Jones’ Locker — but his Islamist terror machine is anything but sinking to the depths. It remains a vicious, global threat.

Since Osama’s demise, the terror group’s strength has ebbed in some areas, but flowed strongly in others.

Indeed, one current estimate concludes that al Qaeda affiliates and associates (i.e., groups, cells or operatives) are active in more than 30 countries (of some 190) on four continents.

Including our continent. While we don’t yet know the whole story behind the Boston bombing, just last week in Chicago the feds arraigned an American teen, who wanted to join an al Qaeda-linked group in Syria. Oh, and the Canadians busted up a plot to bomb a Toronto-New York train, supported by al Qaeda operatives in Iran.

That same week, the Spanish arrested suspects linked to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

In Syria, the most effective fighting force against the Bashar al Assad regime is al Qaeda & Co. The main group, Jabhat al-Nusra, has conducted suicide attacks and seeks an Islamist state under sharia law. (The feds have also charged a former American GI for fighting alongside al Nusrah.)

The Syrian group works closely with al Qaeda in Iraq, which once again numbers in the thousands. It has rebounded from the departure of US forces in 2011 and is the source of ghastly violence across the country.

The Iraqi and Syrian al Qaeda allies have reportedly proclaimed the creation of an Islamist state called “al Sham.” The Associated Press reports that they’ve set up camps along the Syria-Iraq border.

Al Qaeda has also popped up in the Sinai in Egypt.

To the South in Yemen, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (once deemed al Qaeda’s most dangerous wing) continues the fight, although weakened due to the government’s efforts and US drone strikes.

Al Qaeda is surging in Africa as well.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and its splinter groups have been on a tear since the fall of Libya’s Moamar Khaddafy. AQIM and its allies are responsible for terror attacks in Libya (including on the US consulate in Benghazi last fall and on the French embassy last week), as well as the deadly raid on a gas plant in Algeria.

In Mali, Ansar al Dine once held ground the size of Texas. French troops forced a retreat — but the Islamist insurgency continues.

Elsewhere in Africa, the Nigerian government is battling al Qaeda’s kindred spirit, Boko Haram. In Somalia, al Shabab has suffered setbacks, but hasn’t given up the ghost by any stretch.

In Russia, al Qaeda has long seen the Caucasus as a key battlefield in the fight against the infidels. Chechnya supplies fighters to Syria and an al Qaeda-linked group operates in the shadows in neighboring Dagestan.

The terror group is holding on in Asia, too.

In Pakistan and Afghanistan, al Qaeda’s “core” is weakened, but its allies like the Taliban, Lashkar e Taiba and others fight on, seeking control of those countries.

While Osama’s a goner, al Qaeda’s not. Some al Qaeda acolytes are in the doldrums, but others have the wind in their sails.

The comforting narrative that we’re in a post-al Qaeda world is just plain wrong. The terrorists’ goal of a global caliphate built through violence isn’t relegated to the history books yet — and complacency on our part is a sure killer.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published May 2, 2013 in his regular column in the New York Post.

Benghazi: Still looking for Answers, Part III

Thu, 02 May 2013 14:19:00 GMT

"They're making up for all the mistakes they made with excuse."

In this space over the last two days, we have focused on the three part series by Fox News still looking for the truth and answers to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith, and former SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

Below is the Part III report by Adam Housley in which the military Special Operator with intimate knowledge of the Benghazi attack charges that the Obama Administration "had no plan" of how to respond to the attack despite the multiple security warnings that preceded that fateful night. The expert "monitored the Benghazi attack in real time" according to Housley.

"They're making up for all the mistakes they made with excuse," the expert claims, referring specifically to the failings of the State Department to adequately prepare and a serious communications failing between State and the Department of Defense.

The Special Operator notes that a distress call for "all available assets in the vicinity for help" was issued during the attack, but the State Department never gave permission for the military to engage. Housley specifically identifies Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, and Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy as the responsible derelict officials.

Next is the third installment report regarding revelations that at least four officials with the CIA and State Department want to come forward with details about the Benghazi attack with "whistleblower" protection, but that protection has not been afforded them. In fact, through Victoria Toensing, comes a claim that the officials feel they have been threatened to keep silent.

Toensing asserts "with certainty" that the four whistleblowers have information that is inconsistent with the Obama Administration's account of the attack.

It is worth noting that Toensing is a highly respected and accomplished lawyer having previous experience as Counsel for the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Deputy Assistant Attorney General during the Reagan Administration where she headed the Terrorism Unit at the Justice Department. Toensing's responsibilities included investigating and prosecuting the hijacking of TWA flight 847, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and the terrorist capture of the cruise ship Achille Lauro.

Benghazi: Still looking for Answers, Part II

Wed, 01 May 2013 19:33:00 GMT

Yesterday we posted the first of a three part report by Fox News regarding the assault on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi, Libya last September. Below are the second installments that aired last evening. In the first, the identity-concealed Special Operator reveals that the Obama Administration knows the identity of the mastermind of the Benghazi attack that left four Americans dead, but is "sitting on the information" and taking no action. That's because the Administration "doesn't want to upset anybody" in Libya according to the Special Operator.

Within hours after the attack on September 11, 2012 Obama pledged to "bring to justice those responsible." However, the Special Operator confirms that the U.S. has both the intelligence and the capability to fulfill the President's pledge, but no one will give the order to act. That unwillingness must be enormously difficult for the family members of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty who perished in Benghazi. It also sends an unmistakable message about American weakness and cowardice to our enemies.

In the video below, James Rosen expands on the developing story involving CIA and State Department officials who want to come forward with the truth about Benghazi, but charge that they have been denied a process to do so and even threatened by superiors. Curiously, just last November Barack Obama signed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act to supposedly provide more transparency in government and encouragement for government workers to expose "misconduct, fraud, and illegality."

During his press conference the day following Fox News' initial report of the threatened whistleblowers, Obama dodged Fox reporter Ed Henry's question about the whistleblowers claims saying, "I'm not aware" of the issue. Either the White House staff is totally incompetent beyond imagination for failing to alert the President that Henry would almost certainly be asking the question he did, or the President was less than truthful – again.

Saudi Arabia warned DHS about Tsarnaev in 2012

Wed, 01 May 2013 19:27:00 GMT

Yesterday we reported on the connection between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and two know Russian terrorists. Now, thanks to The Daily Mail we also learn that the government of Saudi Arabia warned the U.S. authorities last year in writing that the Tamerlan was a serious security threat.

Saudi sources said the communication was "very specific" and warned that "something was going to happen in a major U.S. city." The written warning was sent to the Department of Homeland Security at "the highest level." Below is the entire MailOnline article.

Saudi Arabia 'warned the United States IN WRITING about Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2012'

By David Martosko and The American Media Institute

April 30, 2013, published by The Daily Mail

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia sent a written warning about accused Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2012, long before pressure-cooker blasts killed three and injured hundreds, according to a senior Saudi government official with direct knowledge of the document.

The Saudi warning, the official told MailOnline, was separate from the multiple red flags raised by Russian intelligence in 2011, and was based on human intelligence developed independently in Yemen.

Citing security concerns, the Saudi government also denied an entry visa to the elder Tsarnaev brother in December 2011, when he hoped to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, the source said. Tsarnaev's plans to visit Saudi Arabia have not been previously disclosed.

The Saudis' warning to the U.S. government was also shared with the British government. 'It was very specific’ and warned that 'something was going to happen in a major U.S. city,' the Saudi official said during an extensive interview.

Russian Terrorist Connections to Boston Bombers

Wed, 01 May 2013 06:00:00 GMT

Two weeks after the Boston Marathon bombing we are still learning new information - and generating new questions. The following article by Valery Dzutsev published yesterday in the Jamestown Foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor.

Dzutsev names two Russian terrorists (both killed by Russian authorities) directly linked to Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older brother in the Boston bombing. He also documents "contradictions" about Tsarnaev's visits to Russia given by government authorities.

Additionally, Dzutsev explains the "uncharacteristic" way that the parents of the Tsarnaev brothers are being treated by Russian media and authorities. Family members of known terrorists are similarly suspect in Russia. The law prohibits the media from "'propagating terrorism,' and featuring a suspected terrorist's mother would count as such an act," according to Dzutsev. Instead he says, "Russian security services appear to be courting the parents instead of persecuting them."

Dzutsev's concludes that "The Russian security services' gradual leaking of information invites more questions than it answers."

That's putting it politely. The Obama Administration's company line is that the Tsarnaev brothers were lone wolves, or "knock-off jihadis" (Biden's term), who perpetrated their madness for reasons unknown. That's beginning to sound about as credible as the Benghazi attack being a spontaneous response to a movie almost no one had seen.

Russian Security Services Offer Surprising Revelations About Boston Bombings

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 10 Issue: 80

By: Valery Dzutsev

April 29, 2013 05:37 PM

On April 27, the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta published an article on the dead Boston bomber suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, based on information it received from the Russian security services. It cited officers of the Dagestani Center for Combating Extremism who said they became aware of Tsarnaev’s presence in the republic in April 2012 and registered his “repeated” meetings with 18-year-old Mahmud Mansur Nidal, who had previously been under surveillance for a year. The police considered Nidal to be a recruiter for the Dagestani insurgency, so the police scrutinized everyone who contacted him extensively (http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/57925.html). The Novaya Gazeta report directly contradicts an earlier statement by Dagestani Interior Minister Abdurashid Magomedov, who stated that Tsarnaev indeed visited Dagestan in 2012, but stayed in the republic only for 3–4 days to receive his passport and left the republic before the passport was ready (http://top.rbc.ru/politics/24/04/2013/855465.shtml).

Nidal was killed in a special operation in Makhachkala on May 19, 2012. The police accused him of participating in a terrorist attack on a police checkpoint in the city last May 3. That day, police sealed off a house in the Dagestani capital in which Nidal was located along with several other people, including women and children. About 300 protesters gathered nearby to prevent the security services from storming the building. Eventually, everyone in the house was allowed to come out alive, but Nidal was killed. Conflicting reports circulate about his death. Some sources claim that he was killed on the spot as he tried to surrender (http://ummanews.com/news/kavkaz/6972-2012-05-20-11-22-33.html); while other sources asserted that he resisted the police and was subsequently killed (http://moidagestan.ru/news/antiterror/16933; lomalkinn.livejournal.com/24229.html).

Nidal’s alleged involvement in the attack on the police checkpoint in Makhachkala was peculiar in that he was reportedly responsible for the recruitment of new rebels, and presumably not directly involved in insurgent operations. Even more puzzling is the fact that after registering repeated meetings between Nidal and Tsarnaev and killing the former in a special operation, the police did not even question Tsarnaev. The older Tsarnaev brother stayed in Dagestan for another two months after Nidal was killed, so the security services had ample time to interrogate him.

The special treatment Tsarnaev received in Dagestan is especially surprising in light of what happened to another foreign citizen of Russian origin. William Plotnikov, a 21-year-old Canadian citizen, was detained in the coastal Dagestani city of Izberbash south of Makhachkala in 2010. Plotnikov had reportedly converted to Islam in Canada and went to Dagestan to study Islam. According to Novaya Gazeta’s source in the security services, they used “a wide range of special equipment” on Plotnikov and extracted from him a list of people he communicated with abroad, including Tamerlan Tsarnaev. On July 14, 2012, Plotnikov was killed by the police forces in Dagestan, on July 16, 2012, Tsarnaev left Russia for the United States, according to the same sources in the Russian security services. The sources further alleged that Tsarnaev had unsuccessfully tried to join the insurgents, became scared and left Russia in a hurry. Curiously, even though the Russian security services put Tsarnaev under surveillance, they did not detect his departure from Dagestan or, later, from Russia (http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/57925.html).

The Novaya Gazeta report raises several important questions. The Russian security services admitted they extensively interrogated Plotnikov, a suspected radical who was a citizen of Canada and possibly of Russia. The authorities interrogated Plotnikov in 2010 despite the fact that they had practically no incriminatory information on him and thus eventually released him. At the same time, they followed up on Tsarnaev, who allegedly met and had meetings with Mahmud Mansur Nidal, a known radical, but did not even bother to question Tsarnaev, who was even more susceptible to being interrogated by the Russians since he apparently was applying for a Russian passport and did not have US citizenship.

The Russian media displayed an uncharacteristic attitude toward the suspected terrorists. On April 28, one of the country’s major TV channels, NTV, featured an interview with the mother of suspects, Zubeidat Tsarnaev, in which she again insisted that her sons had been “framed.” The substantive part of the interview revealed little that was new, but what was interesting was the very fact that she was featured on a major Russian TV channel (http://www.ntv.ru/peredacha/CT/m23400/o163397/). This is normally not the way relatives of suspected terrorists are treated in Russia. On the one hand, Russian media are threatened by the law against “propagating terrorism,” and featuring a suspected terrorist’s mother would count as such an act. In addition, the relatives of suspected terrorists are often treated with suspicion, based on an implicit expectation that they could carry out an attack to avenge the killing of their relative. Zubeidat and Anzor Tsarnaev do not seem to have experienced any of these usual attitudes in Russia. If the Russian security services had prior information about Tamerlan’s attempt to join the North Caucasian insurgency, then they surely cannot trust his parents. Yet the Russian security services appear to be courting the parents instead of persecuting them. Zubeidat and Anzor Tsarnaev reportedly left Dagestan for Moscow. While in Dagestan, the police protected Anzor Tsarnaev from excessive contacts with journalists. This level of protection for someone whose sons are accused of terrorist activities, not only abroad, but also domestically, is highly unusual in Russia.

The Russian security services’ gradual leaking of information invites more questions than it answers. Much more information will have to be released in order to understand why the Tsarnaev brothers turned so violent in Boston.

Benghazi: Still looking for Answers

Wed, 01 May 2013 03:10:00 GMT

It has been nearly eight months since Ambassador Chris Stevens, his diplomatic aid Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty we're killed in a terrorist attack on the US Mission outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

The Obama Administration continues to maintain that it has disclosed all the information available and that lingering questions are "politically motivated." The Administration remains in denial about the contradictory and incomplete information that has been shared. "What difference does it make?" Secretary of State Hillary Clinton angrily said during a Congressional hearing.

Thanks to the persistence of several Members of Congress, and family members of the fallen victims the search for the truth has continued. Many bloggers, investigative journalists, and particularly Fox News have kept the quest for answers alive, as well. A Line of Sight has written about the Benghazi scandal no less than three dozen times.

Yesterday, Fox News ran two special reports. The video below reveals serious charges that threats have been made to silence four whistleblowers within the State Department and CIA that would like to come forward to tell what they know about the Benghazi attack.

The report below includes an interview with a military expert with intimate knowledge about Benghazi. The "Special Operator" with his identity concealed for "fear of reprisal" explains that Special Operation Forces and military assets were in fact in the region and could have been deployed to Benghazi before the fatal second attack. That information is in direct conflict with the Administrations claims. This is the first of a three part report that we will continue to follow.

Did you see what I saw?

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:26:00 GMT

Editor's Note: Phil Mikan is a career radio personality and journalist. He broadcasts daily on WMRD 1150 AM and WLIS 1420 AM in central Connecticut. His home is just 40 miles from Newtown and 120 miles from Boston. Mikan is a very good friend of A Line of Sight and of this editor. Like many of us he has been rocked by the recent tragedies too close to his home. We're privileged to share some of his many insights below.

We have become the stuff movies are made of. On Patriots Day in Boston, April 15, the third Monday of the month, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was celebrating the shot heard around the world, the beginning of the American Revolution. The citizens of Boston for over a hundred years have had a marathon to commemorate Patriots Day. The race has become a world-celebrated event.

This year, two foreign nationals - brothers - decided to make a political statement at the finish line. They set off two homemade bomb, killing three people, and as the count goes up and up, wounding over 250. Two brothers, Muslims, thought they would show America their dislike for the country they had been living in for over 10 years.

One of the brothers, the younger, had just become a naturalized citizen and was a college student and by all accounts a really fine fellow. He was the one who survived five days of high drama. His older brother was killed Friday morning after by all accounts, a fierce firefight with local police. The younger brother was captured about 6:30 p.m. Friday, so we had full news coverage. It was a full-fledged circus, and we all watched, glued to our seats.

The people of Boston were celebrating a day when they drove the British regular Army out of Concord and Lexington. The British had tried to take the Colonists guns and powder. Out of a force of 800 trained solders, the Massachusetts farmers and shopkeepers killed 250, wounded many and made the king’s men run back to Boston.

It took seven years but the British were thrown out of the country.

All that Ammo

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:21:00 GMT

An enraged Barack Obama lashed out at Congress and "willing liars" who defeated efforts to expand federal gun control laws. Obama and Joe Biden spent weeks – and millions of taxpayer dollars – campaigning for a federal registry of gun owners, ban on entire classes of firearms, and capacity limits for magazines and clips.

But, at the same time that Obama was trying to limit or deny the rights of citizens, the government was loading up – literally – in an unprecedented way, including 174,000 hollow-point bullets for the Social Security Administration.

Some of the truth was exposed in a recent Congressional hearing and a subsequent IBD editorial. As the editors say, "The government that would limit law-abiding citizens to some seven bullets to defend their families and their homes still has some explaining to do."

Following are some key excerpts from the IBD editorial and link to the entire feature:

Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz on Thursday asked Nick Nayak, DHS' chief procurement officer, a question we and others have been asking: Why has the Department of Homeland Security been buying so much ammunition?

Dismissed as a concern only of right-wing conspiracy theorists, the reported amounts as high as 2 billion rounds have varied and been explained not as a one-time purchase but a bulk buy over five years to reduce costs. It's one of the rare instances, apparently, a government agency has actually cared about such a thing.

Comparing that with the small-arms purchases by the U.S. Army, he said the DHS is churning through between 1,300 and 1,600 rounds per officer per year, while the Army goes through roughly 350 per officer.

"What does not make sense in the information you provided is that Customs and Border Control used (around 14 million) rounds for operational purposes when they rarely fire their guns," a skeptical Chaffetz said, citing just one example of a particular allocation.

Jonathan L. Lasher, the Social Security Administration's assistant inspector general for external relations, has previously explained the purchase of 174,000 hollow-point bullets by saying they were for the Social Security inspector general's office. Its 295 agents investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes. Read more here

Hillary Clinton Lied, And Four In Benghazi Died

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:00:00 GMT

Following is a must read editorial published April 25, 2013 by Investor's Business Daily:

Hillary Clinton Lied, And Four In Benghazi Died

Scandal: A congressional report shows security cuts before the Benghazi attack were approved by the secretary of state and that White House talking points describing the events were edited to protect the State Department.

The "progress" report by House Republicans will no doubt be dismissed as a partisan political document. But it effectively records administration efforts to ignore the threat of terrorism before the attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, to cover up administration culpability afterward and to sweep aside responsibility for the deaths of four Americans to make the administration look caring and competent.

Despite then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's denials that pleadings from Ambassador Chris Stevens, killed in the terrorist attack, never reached her desk, the interim Benghazi report concludes that:

"Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013."

Indeed it does. On that date, Clinton testified:

"I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the ARB (Accountability Review Board) placed responsibility."

The 46-page report by the five committees of jurisdiction cites an April 19, 2012, cable bearing Clinton's signature acknowledging a formal request dated March 28, 2012, from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for additional security assets but ordering the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

After the attack, the talking points that became the administration's version of events were drafted. But contrary to administration rhetoric, changes to the talking points were not made to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior administration officials.

According to the report, when then-CIA Director David Petraeus briefed the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Sept. 14 about the Benghazi attack, the CIA notes for that briefing included:

• Information about five previous attacks on foreign interests in Benghazi since April 2012.
• Potential links to the al-Qaida connected Libyan militia, Ansar al-Sharia.
• Previous CIA assessments of groups linked to al-Qaida in eastern Libya.

• Information suggesting Islamic extremists participated in the attack.

After Petraeus' testimony, the report states that once the editing process began, "draft talking points were sent to officials throughout the Executive Branch, (and) senior State Department officials requested the talking points be changed to avoid criticism for ignoring the threat environment in Benghazi."

The report quotes one email saying there was concern that members of Congress would attack the State Department for "not paying attention to Agency warnings" regarding the mounting threat in Benghazi.

The report also says changes eliminating the truth about Benghazi were made at the behest of the White House and the State Department, and that the changes were made to make the administration look good.

The administration then sent Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to appear on five Sunday morning talk shows with the newly edited talking points and the bald-faced lie that the attack on the Benghazi compound was spurred by a "spontaneous" demonstration against an anti-Muslim Internet video.

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" was Clinton's heated response when pressed why the White House long insisted the deaths of four Americans was the result of reaction to a YouTube video and not to an organized terrorist attack for which the administration was not prepared and tried to sweep under the Oval Office rug.

To the families of Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Ty Woods, the truth still matters and makes a world of difference.

Our Much-Needed Missile Defense

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:00:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes

Now is the time for the United States to upgrade its missile-defense technology.

Our attention is focused on the terrorist attack in Boston last week, but just two weeks ago we were gripped by North Korean threats of a new Korean War and the possibility of New York being attacked by long-range missiles. While North Korean promises of thermonuclear war have faded from the news for the moment, the threat hasn’t gone away for good.

The national-security challenges our country faces from the advances in ballistic-missile and nuclear-weapon programs continue apace. Global missile- and nuclear-proliferation problems are real, and they can’t be ignored. So the development and deployment of missile-defense programs must be a priority for American security.

Take North Korea. Bluster, belligerence, brinkmanship, and blackmail are routinely directed at Washington. Yet Pyongyang’s actual ability to carry out threats against us is improving--and significantly.

In December, North Korea launched a long-range, multi-stage ballistic missile that put a small satellite into orbit. The real concern wasn’t the satellite itself, but Pyongyang’s ability to put a satellite into space at all. If you can put a satellite of as little as 1,000 pounds into orbit, you can launch a nuclear warhead toward a target anywhere on the Earth’s surface.

Then, in February, North Korea conducted its third nuclear test since 2006, which may have used a smaller test apparatus of the sort that would be needed for the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) warhead.

There is plenty of debate within the U.S. intelligence community as to whether North Korea already has a functional nuclear warhead that it can mate with the missiles of various ranges currently in its arsenal. But there is little doubt that we will be near, or at, the top of the targeting list when they do have one.

Then there’s Iran. Although they are also out of the news at the moment, Iranian centrifuges continue to spin, producing kilograms of low- and medium-enriched uranium, which if further enriched, could be used in nuclear weapons.

The ever-cautious International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’s nuclear watchdog, suggests that Iran may be involved in the development of a nuclear weapon for that fissile material.

While publicly available intelligence estimates differ, Tehran may have the wherewithal to produce its first nuclear weapon in the very near future.

Iran’s ballistic-missile program isn’t any more comforting. In 2009, Tehran was able to put a satellite into space using its own launch vehicle. Today, the U.S. government estimates that Iran will have an ICBM by 2015, adding to what is already the largest ballistic-missile arsenal in the Middle East.

While seemingly obvious, it’s worth pointing out that the principles of physics that would allow North Korea to put a warhead anywhere on the Earth’s surface also apply to Iran.

Another inconvenient fact is that both the North Korean and the Iranian nuclear and missile programs could move along faster than currently assessed if either receives outside assistance, including from each other, which some analysts strongly believe is ongoing.

We shouldn’t overlook the Chinese or the Russians, who are also modernizing their strategic arsenals.

Beijing has moved its nuclear arsenal from silo-based to road-mobile systems and is sending its nuclear forces to sea aboard submarines. Moscow still relies heavily on its strategic forces and is developing, or deploying, new sea- and land-based ICBMs.

The obvious question is: What should we do?

As we all know, diplomacy and punitive economic sanctions haven’t stopped North Korean or Iranian missile or nuclear programs â€” despite years of trying. Military responses are filled with risks, and Cold War-era “Duck and Cover” isn’t a good alternative, either.

Nothing makes more sense than investing in American missile defenses.

With advances in missile defense, a robust, layered, capable system will not only protect us from enemy ballistic missiles and their nuclear and other payloads (e.g., chemical, biological, conventional, or electromagnetic pulse), but it will provide decision-makers with additional policy options beyond massive retaliation.

In addition, due to missile defense’s ability to blunt the effectiveness of the ballistic-missile threat, it may well deter aggression with these weapons against us in the first place.

The best option now is to move forward vigorously with funding, developing, and deploying American missile-defense systems to protect the homeland, to protect our troops overseas, and to protect our allies and friends from the growing nuclear and missile menaces around the world.

Coexistence following the gun and immigration debates

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:00:00 GMT

By Melanie Sturm

In his 1831 book celebrating America, Alexis de Tocqueville warned, “In democratic societies, there exists an urge to do something even when the goal is not precise, a sort of permanent fever that turns to innovations,…(which) are always costly.”

After a spate of traumatic tragedies that impact the gun and immigration debates, feverish politicians are rushing to innovate complex legislation without thoroughly and publicly examining the underlying problems and before “we the people” consent to their solutions. Lawmakers should Think Again, considering that only 4 percent of Americans currently “mention guns or immigration as the most important problems facing the nation,” according to Gallup. Americans' top concerns are the economy, jobs and dissatisfaction with the way government works.

If irony is the hygiene of the mind, much about the Boston Marathon massacre is clarifying, though boggling. Intent on massacring Bostonians on Patriots Day, the immigrant brothers Tsarnaev received state welfare benefits funded by the taxpayers they killed and maimed. Then they murdered a police officer en route to hijacking a car with a “Coexist” bumper sticker. Perhaps inspired by “Coexist” sentimentality, the fugitive sociopaths allowed the car's owner to live “because he wasn't American,” assuring their capture and non-coexistence in the American community they shunned.

Sadly, despite new laws since 9/11 and $50 billion spent annually on robust security precautions, there is little a free and open society can do to prevent Boston-style bombings or public mass shootings by lawbreakers. While there are crime-prevention measures that could deter public attacks, civil libertarians and constitutionalists claim that they encroach on Americans' constitutionally protected natural rights to self-defense, due process and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes measures that infringe on the First Amendment rights of makers of violent video games and background checks that could lead to the institutionalization of the mentally impaired and the infringement of their privacy rights; psychiatrists resist reporting patients fearing it would deter treatment-seekers; and the National Rifle Association opposes measures that inhibit the rights of responsible, law-abiding citizens — often victims of gun or domestic violence — to protect their person, family and property. They believe the best response to a criminal trying to kill civilians is a civilian equipped to deter him.

These are complex and challenging issues entailing important security-versus-liberty trade-offs. Americans need and deserve thoughtful and informed deliberations to derive consensus-driven solutions, not hyperpartisan demagoguery that casts opponents as uncaring and evil. If politicians truly want to prevent the next Newtown, why do they push legislation that, by their own admission, fails this test — unless they want to sow discord for political gain? If public safety were their paramount concern, why couldn't they legislate enhanced school-security measures, like those enacted in airplanes after 9/11?

The irony is that while politicians insist on expanded law enforcement capabilities to protect society from gun-wielding lawbreakers, they resist enforcing immigration laws, as if we're not a sovereign nation of laws and legal immigrants — many with relatives who suffered tragic fates after being denied entry.

Imagine treating gun-law violators, insider-traders or thieves with the same kid gloves with which we treat those who violate our immigration laws. Would we care that they live in the shadows, fearful that their lawlessness might be exposed? Would we permit city sanctuaries that protect lawbreakers from law enforcement, or would we insist that private employers be law enforcers?

The truth is that our immigration system is broken. Those we most want — the millions of law-abiders and entrepreneurial American dreamers who, like our forefathers, want to come to America to adopt our way of life — must wait years to earn an American visa. Meanwhile, according to official U.S. immigration data since 1970, significantly larger percentages of immigrants possess lower skill levels, live in poverty and rely on public assistance, as compared with non-immigrant Americans. Consequently, low-skilled Americans suffer $402 billion in wage losses annually, according to Harvard economist George Borjas, while taxpayers bear the cost of welfare benefits.

These statistics belie the fact that, as the most multiethnic nation on earth, America possesses unique cultural and economic strengths that underlie our unity and prosperity. Unfortunately, for the past 50 years, we've migrated away from the secret sauce that accounts for our success — “e pluribus unum” (out of many, one) — toward a “separate but equal” hyphenated Americanism. As the Tsarnaev brothers demonstrate, it's not in America's interest to import foreigners who remain foreign and lost outsiders.

Tocqueville said, “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.” If we're to avoid the Balkanization that triggers disaffection and ethnic strife elsewhere and preserve the vitality that's historically attracted new Americans, we must resume acculturating immigrants to American values so they can integrate into American society.

Think Again: For this definition of “coexist” to prevail in America, our politicians must coexist better.

***Melanie Strum is a good friend of A Line of Sight having published several previous articles. She writes a regular column – "Think Again" – for her hometown Aspen Times wherein she challenges often sensitive cultural issues with sensitivity and thoughtful common-sense. The following appeared in her regular column April 25, 2013. She welcomes comments at melanie@thinkagainusa.com.

Osama's Dead, Jihadis Thrive

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:00:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

No matter where or how or by whom the Boston Bombers were radicalized, one of the important take-aways from the terrible terrorist attack is that the international militant Islamist movement is alive, kicking — and killing.

It’s time we wake up and smell the jihad.

The threat is bad and it’s getting worse. In fact, here’s a sordid sampling of foreign and domestic terrorist plots and attacks across the globe as reported by media outlets since just before the Boston bombing.

In Iraq, al-Qaeda has been on a tear since U.S. forces left. Among the recent carnage, two blasts killed four at a mosque, a suicide bomber vaporized more than 30 in a cafe and in one single day, another 60 Iraqis perished in 25 separate bombings.

Next door in Syria, al-Qaeda affiliates like al-Nusrah Front, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and other assorted foreign militants (e.g., Chechen and Libyan) are battling the regime — and working to establish an Islamist state.

Spinning the globe to Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are hard at work shedding blood. The Taliban killed seven with a roadside bomb and cut off feet and hands of locals suspected of helping Coalition convoys as a warning to others — and a stark reminder that while foreign forces may be leaving, they’re not going anywhere.

Neighboring Pakistan remains one of the world’s most terror-afflicted countries. A female suicide bomber killed four while another eight bombings over 24 hours killed another 11.

In Africa, terrorists are raging as well. In Libya, the French embassy was blasted with a car bomb, killing two guards. In nearby Mali, three Chadian soldiers died as a result of an Islamist militant suicide bomber.

In Nigeria, fighting with Islamist militants resulted in the death of nearly 200. And across the continent in Somalia, al-Shabab killed at least 30 in a slew of attacks. Another bombing plot was foiled.

In Spain, the police nabbed al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb-linked operatives in advance of the Madrid marathon, while the Canadians foiled a plot to blow up a train running between New York and Toronto with support from al-Qaeda operatives located in Iran.

While far from a comprehensive compiling of terrorist activities, a back-of-the-envelope tally of the above says that (including Boston) in just about two weeks we’ve seen tens of plots/attacks in 10 countries on four continents, taking the lives of 300 to 400 people.

That’s terribly troubling, coming nearly 12 years after 9/11.

Closer to home, the Heritage Foundation estimates there have been more than 50 foiled, Islamist-based terror plots in the United States since 9/11, including the shoe and underwear bombers and Times Square plot.

(The number doesn’t include attacks like Ft. Hood, Little Rock and Boston.)

The fact is that the world is aflame with Islamist militancy, and we’re one of the targets in the crosshairs. Wishing away the terrorist threat we face at home or abroad won’t make it — poof — disappear.

The concern is that some believe we’re in a post-Osama bin Laden era. That’s factually correct, but we’re not in a post-terrorism or post-al-Qaeda period. Osama’s inspirational Islamist ideology of violence lives on. Letting our guard down to this reality would be a huge mistake.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published April 26, 2013 in his regular column in the Boston Herald.

At the Intersection of Terrorism and Immigration

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:00:00 GMT

Something to think about:

April 15: A lot of questions are being raised about the Boston Marathon bombers: Why were Chechen nationals given asylum? Why was Tamerlan Tsarnaev still in the country? Why was Dzhokar Tsarnaev naturalized as a citizen? Was the attack al Qaeda connected – or, inspired?
April 22: Two men are arrested for plotting the bombing of a Canada-US passenger train. The men, Chiheb Esseghaier, 30, and Raed Jaser, 35, are not Canadian nationals, and are charged with "receiving support from al Qaeda elements in Iran."
April 23: The French Embassy in Tripoli is attacked with a car bomb bringing violence to the capital city thought "safer" than much of Northern Africa. U.S. officials immediately said militants with ties to al Qaeda were mostly likely involved.

It's a signature terror tactic that has been familiar in Israel, much of the Middle East and Afghanistan for a long time; a likely link to major terror networks, but executed by one or two individuals. The pattern seems to be spreading.

Given that possibility, then, it would seem vulnerable nations would be on heightened alert about who is inside their borders.

And, yet, a Washington Times headline reads, "99.5% of illegal immigrants get approval for legal status; high number raises concerns about fraud." The article explains that under President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) non-deportation program for young adults virtually every application is approved for legal status.

Then there is the 844 page "comprehensive immigration reform" bill introduced in the Senate last week that includes a plan to give legal status to an estimated 11 million people who are also currently here illegally. Even more concerning, the Gang-of-Eight proposal contains a bonus provision that significantly advantages immigrants from nations known to be hotbeds of radical Islamic terror. The following is courtesy of Neil Munro, the White House correspondent for The Daily Caller.

The Senate’s pending immigration bill would give an advantage to people seeking to immigrate from Kyrgyzstan, the former Soviet republic that provided passports to the two ethnic Chechens who allegedly bombed Boston.

As part of a compromise that would replace the current “Diversity Lottery” program, countries with low rates of immigration to the United Sates — including Kyrgyzstan and Russia — would be awarded five points.

The five-point bonus could have a significant influence on who gets to live among 310 million Americans, because only the top-scoring applicants in the bill’s new merit-based immigration system would be granted green cards.

This system would give a person with a Kyrgyzstan passport an advantage over otherwise equally qualified people from countries like Mexico, the United Kingdom, Canada and Brazil. Those countries do not qualify for the bonus because they send large numbers of people to the United States.

The same bonus is also offered to people from a series of unstable countries that are not covered by the Diversity Lottery, a State Dept. program that annually offers 55,000 green cards to people in countries that send few immigrants to the United States.

Those countries include Egypt, Libya, Somalia and Tunisia, as well as countries alongside the war-wrecked Chechen homeland in the Caucasus mountains.

Russia is also on the 2012 Diversity Lottery list. People from Chechnya hold Russian passports, and — if the bill is not amended and becomes law — may be entitled to the five-point bonus.

The immigration bill’s five-point bonus is also quite large. It is equal to the bonus given to people who have earned bachelors’ degrees in science, math or any other topic.

Read more

Does this make any sense?

Chechen Brand of Terror: Is there a connection to Marathon bombers?

Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:38:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

While unconfirmed as of this writing, it’s within the realm of possibility that there’s some sort of connection between the Boston Marathon bombers and international Islamist terrorism, including the likes of al-Qaeda.

True, we don’t know at this point what motivated two young men to undertake these despicable acts of terror against innocents, but potential ties to a place in the Caucasus region of Russia called Chechnya may give us a clue as the story unfolds.

It turns out the Boston bombers have Chechen heritage. While most Americans have never heard of Chechnya, it’s been a source of instability, violence and terror for some two decades now, going back to the end of the Soviet Union and a Chechen independence drive.

Chechen terror groups, targeting Russian interests, have been responsible for some of the most infamous acts of terror in terrorism’s sad and sordid history.

For instance, in 2002, Chechen terror groups stormed Moscow’s Dubrovka Theater, where some 700 people were attending a performance. In the rescue attempt by Russian security forces, more than 100 people perished.

In 2004, in the largest hostage-taking in history, Chechens stormed the Beslan school in Russia. They held more than 1,000 students and teachers, including nearly 800 children, for three days. The crisis ended with more than 300 dead.

A few years later in 2010, two female Chechen suicide bombers (sometimes known as “Black Widows”) struck the Moscow subway system during rush hour. The bombs killed nearly 40 people and injured another 100.

Chechen terrorists have also reportedly attacked government offices, apartment buildings, shopping malls, military parades, airports, and even trains in Russia.

Worse, some analysts believe Chechen terror groups have ties to al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden’s fighters (and others) have been drawn to the Chechen Islamist “cause” for years and fought on the Chechen side in its bloody conflict with Russia.

Chechens fought alongside the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan when U.S. forces intervened after 9/11. More recently, it was reported that in 2011 a senior al-Qaeda commander was killed in Chechnya by Russian forces.

Despite all of these potential ties to the dark world of terrorism, at this point we still don’t know what drove these particular men to do the evil they did. What was their purpose?

Was it their idea alone or did someone at home or abroad — even on the Internet — radicalize them to undertake these horrible deeds? Where did they learn to make those powerful bombs?

It’s certainly possible the attack had nothing to do with Chechnya, Islam, al-Qaeda or the global Islamist militant movement. There are so many questions that sorely need to be answered.

The one thing we do know is that we’re very likely in dangerous, uncharted territory — and that right alongside terrorism, nothing may be more dangerous right now than the risk of complacency to the terror threat.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published April 20, 2013 in his regular column in the Boston Herald.

Transformational Obamanomics

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:07:00 GMT

The same government that controls the supply of money, that makes and enforces the rules for the financial industry, is now also a larger supplier of consumer credit than the entire private sector combined.

It happened so fast that hardly anyone even noticed. As recently as 2006, private sector financing was double that of government sources, but no more. As the above chart indicates, the federal government is now the nation's banker. Following are some key excerpts from Jed Graham's Investor's Business Daily article of April 17, 2013:

"Back in 2006, private financing supplied nearly $2 in outstanding household loans for every $1 in government-financed credit."

"But 2012 completed a dramatic transformation that has seen the government displace the private sector as the main source of home mortgages and consumer credit, Federal Reserve data show."

One might think that as the housing market gradually improves, private sector sources of home mortgages will also return. There had also been much discussion on Capitol Hill about "privatizing" the GSE mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But, as Graham points out, with housing rebounding, Fannie and Freddie are suddenly a big revenue generator instead of a bottomless pit that needed bailouts. And, the government likes sources of revenue. According to Graham:

"Now, although the mortgage crisis has abated and home prices are back on the rise, the government's dominant role in consumer financing may persist."

"New regulations after the financial crisis and the prospect that mortgage finance will be a cash cow for the Treasury may work against efforts to scale back the government's role."

"That possibility was underscored last week by the White House budget forecast that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will provide a $183 billion windfall to Treasury over the next decade."

Then, Graham provides some numerical context of the magnitude and quickness with which the government – never letting a crisis go to waste – took control of the market:

"At the end of 2012, government-financed home mortgages and consumer credit outstanding totaled $6.4 trillion, up from $4.4 trillion at the end of 2006. Private-sector financed loans fell to $6.3 trillion from $8.45 trillion over the same span."

"The shift to government financing primarily reflects the collapse of private mortgage financing in 2007 as the housing bubble popped. Financing through government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, as well as Ginnie Mae, which finances Federal Housing Administration mortgages, became the only game in town."

"Privately financed loans made up nearly 60% of the $10 trillion home mortgage market in 2006 but now account for just 40%."

Prior to 2010, the student loan program was a public-private partnership with local banks originating the government guaranteed loans. However, wrapped inside the ObamaCare legislation that the Democrat Congress rammed through in 2010 was the completely unrelated government seizure of the student loan program. As Graham documents, under the guise of lowering interest rates for students, the government nationalized another revenue source.

"The other growth area for government lending to consumers has been student loans. Since the end of 2008, direct student loans from the government have increased by $423 billion, while other consumer credit has shriveled by $192 billion. Since 2010, all federal student loans come directly from the government…"

In 2011, I opined that with the passage of Dodd-Frank, an extremely aggressive "witch hunt" against private banks initiated by the Justice Department, the Fed's monetary policy, and the further crowding out of private lending sources in the housing market, that the Obama Administration was effectively nationalizing the banking industry.

Additionally, as ObamaCare becomes fully implemented, the government will take a giant step toward nationalizing the health care industry into the "single payer" system envisioned by Obama and many Progressives.

One day soon it may be difficult to recognize even remnants of the once great American free-market economy where entrepreneurs and a vibrant private sector flourished. But, then, Obama did say he would "transform" America, didn't he?

Open Letter to Larry Kudlow: Americans Still Prefer a Job to Welfare

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:46:00 GMT

By Lawrence J. Fedewa, Contributing Editor

Dear Larry:

I want to start this letter by assuring you that I am one of your fans. I love your enthusiasm and particularly your way of disagreeing without being disagreeable. However, I strongly disagree with you on one issue: The so-called "welfare state".

I recognize that you espouse the Republican dogma when you assert that providing even survival-level government support is a sure-fire way of encouraging all those lazy people to stop looking for work and live off the government dole. But, in the present situation, that dogma is wrong. You and your cohorts are fundamentally misreading the increase in government dependency in recent years. Most Americans would give up unemployment checks for a real job in a heartbeat.

What you Wall Street Republicans do not seem to understand is that living on welfare payments is no fun. If I am a recent male college graduate, I am part of a 16.2% pool of the unemployed. If I live in Yuma, Arizona, I am facing a 25.6% overall rate of unemployment, in Fresno California 15.4%, in Detroit 10.2%. In fact only 27 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia are at or below the 7.6% national unemployment rate.

Even if I still receive unemployment payments of $300-$400 per week (depending on the State), while I frantically search for a job, my entire career is stalled. I am carrying as much as $100,000 in student loans, I can't get married because my fiancé is also unemployed (11.2%). I even have to live with my parents – which is also a problem because only my mother is employed (as a waitress). I am constantly faced with the requirement of past experience in my field, but I can't get experience when no one will hire me. If I am a veteran between 18 and 24, the situation is even worse – 20.4% unemployed; African American (13.8%), Hispanic (9.6%). Pretty soon, I am frantic for some source of income. I will take whatever I can find, including unemployment and disability. Meanwhile, I am on the night shift at McDonald's to try to keep up with my student loan payments. I am a whole generation who cannot find an American dream.

I know you are aware of all these statistics – in fact you are better able to interpret them than I am. What you do not seem to see is the huge disconnect between the stock market and the rest of the country. How can the stock market be hitting all-time highs while we are losing a third of the adult population to permanent unemployment? Is it possible that all these guys are riding a Bernanke bubble? This is a question you can and should be pursuing with all the vigor for which you are famous. In the meantime, lay off the tirades against the unemployed. They are doing what they have to do to survive. There is no World War II to bail out this generation. We are on the edge of a very high precipice. If we fall off, we change America forever.

The Democrats have their "Limousine Liberals" and the Republicans have their "Wall Street Conservatives". Don't be one of them.

Sincerely,

Lawrence ("Larry") Fedewa

Tax Freedom Day

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:15:00 GMT

Tax Freedom Day is the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay off its total tax bill for the year. Each Year, the Tax Foundations calculates that date, and for 2013 it's today, April 18.

Not only do Americans have to work almost 30% of the year just to fund government, but the total amount of federal and state taxes paid will be $4.22 trillion – and it won't come close to enough. The federal government will borrow and spend almost a trillion dollars more than that!

From the Tax Foundation:

Tax Freedom Day 2013 is April 18th. In 2013, Americans will pay $2.76 trillion in federal taxes and $1.45 trillion in state taxes, for a total tax bill of $4.22 trillion, or 29.4 percent of income. April 18 is 29.4 percent into the year.

Tip-of-the-Hat: Family Small Businesses, the Heart of American Life

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 04:10:00 GMT

The original immigrants were mostly farmers, just trying to survive and eke out a life in the New World. Then followed the trappers, shopkeepers, merchants, and the rest. For a very long while, staying alive and taking care of the daily duties was a family job requiring everybody to carry a bit of the load. Stressful, yes, but within the close interdependence and reliance on each other, they also developed the uniquely American Culture and transmitted those lessons and values for generations.

Small family businesses were the backbone of America in the colonial era, and for the more than two centuries that followed. However, in today's modern, transient, technologically advanced economy multi-generational family businesses are more the exception than the rule. But, just like other great traditions in our heritage, the beautiful, decent wholesomeness of this lifestyle continues to be much revered.

Since 1972, Bob Philips has paid tribute to rural life and the legacy of small family businesses as the Texas Country Reporter. Each week, Phillips produces a documentary that is syndicated throughout Texas as well as broadcast nationally. One of his most recent episodes highlights the Carpenter family, owners and operators of the Central Texas Tool Company in Abilene, Texas.

Included below is a link to Phillips' fine tribute. We tip-our-hat to the Carpenters, for sure, but also to the countless others just like them and those that have gone before. They represent the finest of family values, of entrepreneurship, and the beautiful dignity that comes from an honest day's work. Even if you've never seen the inside of a small machine shop, we're sure you'll enjoy the next seven minutes watching this video.

Pull the Plug on the RFS

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:41:00 GMT

For a country that prides itself on American ingenuity and the free enterprise system to solve problems and create new products, the recent shift to a command-and-control economy is becoming increasingly troubling.

During the past several years, self-appointed autocrats in government have been inserting themselves into our day-to-day lives in the mistaken belief that we need to be protected from ourselves. The mayor of New York City led an aborted attempt to ban large sodas because he believes we’re powerless against carbonated calories; the government tells banks who they can lend money to despite the potential financial risk; utilities are ordered to produce a percentage of their electricity from green energy sources despite the cost to consumers; and motorists fill up with government gas and diesel concoctions designed by environmental activists and bureaucrats rather than by automotive engineers and energy experts.

This government intrusion in the nation’s fuel supply is threatening to cause serious economic harm to the overall economy. The key problem is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). It requires an ever-increasing amount of biofuel, including billions of gallons of corn-derived ethanol, to be blended into gasoline and diesel fuel through 2022.

This feel-good program to reduce oil imports by promoting the U.S. ethanol industry has become an albatross hanging around the economy’s neck. Developed at a time when fuel demand was climbing rapidly, the RFS was based on the assumption that gasoline demand would continue to grow, making it possible for gasoline to transform into E10, a mixture of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol.

But U.S. gasoline demand hit its peak in 2007 at 142 billion gallons and has declined ever since. As a result, the RFS is rapidly approaching the “blend wall,” the point at which the U.S. gasoline supply can no longer absorb additional amounts of ethanol without exceeding the 10 percent.

The government’s meddling in the U.S. fuels market could lead to dire consequences for the economy. A study produced by NERA Economic Consulting shows that by 2015 the RFS is likely to hike the cost of gasoline by 30 percent and lead to rationing, increase the cost of diesel by 300 percent, reduce the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by nearly $770 billion, and reduce take-home pay by $580 billion. In what might qualify as the understatement of the year, NERA’s economists say the RFS in its current form is “infeasible.”

Others use stronger terms. The Environmental Working Group calls the corn ethanol mandate a “costly disaster.” The oil industry says the RFS is “irretrievably broken.” U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and David Vitter (R-LA) call the RFS “unrealistic” and have sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging it to use its authority to “alleviate the threat of increased consumer fuel costs.”

On the other side of the equation, ethanol interests are pushing hard to protect the RFS and to increase the amount of ethanol that is blended into the nation’s fuel pool. Biofuel industry leaders have met with Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s pick to head EPA. The Governor’s Biofuels Coalition, representing 33 governors, has sent letters to both the House and the Senate to emphasize the ethanol industry’s “tremendous positive impact on the Coalition’s states.” And Growth Energy has succeeded in its bid to convince EPA to allow the sale of E15, a blend of 85 percent gasoline and 15 percent ethanol, in an apparent move to nullify the effects of the blend wall and increase the amount of ethanol sold to consumers.

But using E15 in most light-duty vehicles can cause engine failure, accelerated engine wear, and fuel-system damage, according to AAA auto experts. In testimony before a congressional panel, AAA reported that only 12 million of the 240 million cars and trucks on the road today have been approved for E15 and urged Congress to "suspend the sale of E15." Thirteen manufacturers have said they will not cover damage associated with E15 usage or that their warranties could be voided.

Simply put, the RFS is a government-mandated mess of unprecedented proportions. By distorting the free market operations of the nation’s fuel supplies, it is pushing up fuel prices. By creating an artificial market for corn-based ethanol, it has established a U.S. ethanol industry that likely isn’t sustainable without ongoing government assistance. And by approving the sale of E15, it could significantly damage one of the biggest investments most consumers make—a car or truck for personal transportation.

I was in Congress in 2005 and regret my vote to establish the RFS. Like many government programs, the original good intentions have morphed into a mess that now threatens to harm the very people it was designed to protect. This command-and-control approach to energy policy isn’t working and should be repealed.

***Also published on The Hill's Congress Blog April 11, 2013.

Debate over Marriage should Center First on Role of Government

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:41:00 GMT

By Kelly Sloan, Contributing Editor

Much has been made of late over the issue of homosexual marriage, its embers stoked by the Colorado Legislatures affirmation of Civil Unions, and more recently by the U.S. Supreme Court’s tentative wading into the issue over a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. Proponents of marriage redefinition have taxonomized the issue as being a civil right; a bit of terminological license, to be sure, but it seems to have had the desired effect, as public opinion appears to be gravitating rapidly in favor such a social readjustment.

Of course, part of the fallout from detonating the civil rights warhead over the issue is that dissent is declared anathema, as censured as pro-segregationist bluster, or advocacy of repealing a woman’s right to vote, or an anti-Semitic rant not delivered in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Or as Mark Steyn puts it, like much of the liberal agenda it is not so much about winning as ruling any debate out of bounds.

Nevertheless, the debate ought to be had, and should center on three questions.

The first is to ask what, precisely, is the government’s justifiable role and interest concerning marriage? The fashionable temptation among libertarians is to absolve government altogether of the responsibility, and to make marriage, of whatever strain, a purely non-governmental affair. There is a certain laissez faire appeal to that position; but before heading down that road, it should be determined whether or not the state does bear an interest in the institution.

First, let’s recognize that whether or not the two parties appearing to receive a marriage license are in love is of no concern to the state, nor should it be. Does any couple, gay or straight, really require the government to affirm their interpersonal relationship?

So what is the interest of the state? Well, the criteria established over the centuries to meet the requirements of a marriage license suggest strongly that it is all about the continuation of the civilization – two people of complementary sexes; not closely related; and just the two. That’s it. Each criterion directed towards the optimum environment for producing and raising the next generation of our society.

But wait, exceptions surface; cannot two men, or two women adequately raise a child? Certainly, under certain circumstances, as can a single mom or dad, or grandparents, or many other combinations. But law is necessarily about generalities, not specifics. Can some 14 year olds drive better than some 21 year olds? Yes, but the law cannot be tailored towards the individual, so an age of 16 is established. Likewise, a single mother might do a heroic job at raising her children; but the accumulated wealth of human experience instructs that this is not the ideal situation – a child responds best to the complementary influence of both a mother and a father, who should not be so closely related as to produce genetic abnormalities, and for whom a break-up should not be too easy. Hence, the laws defining marriage.

What about elderly or infertile couples? Should they be prohibited from obtaining a marriage license? Not unless we wish to include fertility testing as one of the base requirements. Keeping with the general nature of law in a free society such couples fall within the established definition, again provided they are not closely related.

Secondly, some consideration must be brought to the concept of marriage in any case as a “right”. Every right has a corresponding duty attached to it; if one has the right to be married, then someone else must bear the duty of marrying him or her. Does an ugly person with a disagreeable personality have the “right” to be married? If so, should that person not be able to sue in court if denied their right due to rejection by the object of their nuptial desires?

Finally, the more immediate political concern involves the question of whether such issues should be left to the temporal moods of nine individuals, or to the lowest feasible political level. DOMA, it should be remembered, was instituted simply to protect one state from the dictates of another.

The entire discussion should take place under the aegis that it can do so without desiring any interference in the freedom of homosexuals. The desire to resist egalitarian efforts to allow government the ability to redefine a fundamental societal institution is not – and should not be – exclusive of the desire to protect the true fundamental rights of gay persons, nor should the debate be placed off limits.

***Also published in Sloan's regular column in the Business Times, April 9, 2013.

Biden adds insult to injury

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:17:00 GMT

It was certainly painful enough during these Apocalyptic Sequester Times to learn a few weeks back that VP Joe Biden's one night stay in Paris in early February cost the taxpayers $459,388.65. That's just the room charges. It doesn't include the cost of travel and "incidentals." One can only imagine!

More recently we learned through the good investigative journalism of Keith Koffler that Biden has routinely been taking Air Force Two home to Wilmington, Delaware on weekends; a distance of just 100 miles. When Biden was in the Senate, he typically took Amtrak, but no more. Koffler calculates just the operating cost would amount to $13,200 per trip.

As if the fringe benefits of the office aren't quite enough – and, Joe does seem to enjoy them – we learn today that he's been charging the taxpayers rent for the accommodations used by the Secret Service as they provide security for him on his Delaware property. As reported in the Washington Times:

Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, took in $26,400 in 2012 by renting a cottage on the property of their Delaware home to the Secret Service, tax records released by the White House revealed.

Read more

The Budget Dud

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:37:00 GMT

The Obama Budget arrived yesterday on Capitol Hill. The House has already debated five different budget proposals and adopted the plan introduced by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. Even the Democrat controlled Senate got around to passing a budget for the first time in four years. But, the President – who is required by law to annually submit a budget to Congress on the first Monday of February – apparently chose to "lead from behind" and was 65 days delinquent. It's the fourth time in five tries that Obama has failed to meet his legal budget deadline obligation.

It probably doesn't much matter. Like his previous budgets, even Democrats aren't excited about getting on board, and his typically idolatrous media was less than impressed.

USA Today said the Obama Budget arrived "as a dud" and "was eliciting groans from his conservative opponents as well as his backers on the left."

CNN's John Berman laughingly said the Obama budget had "minus infinity" chances of passage.

John Parkinson of ABC News recalled how Obama's previous budgets had "fallen flat in Congress," and predicted the 2014 version would "suffer a quick death, as well."

Just in case you are curious for a more detailed analysis of the long overdue White House 2014 plan, you can get the entire 244 page document here. Or, you might learn all you really care to know by studying the following chart from Investor's Business Daily with additional analysis by Jed Graham here, and editorial commentary here.

Bluster & Blackmail: Playing Pyongyang Ping-Pong

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:06:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

As Secretary of State John Kerry wings his way to Asia on his first trip there as our top diplomat, now is a good time to put North Korea’s dangerous game of belligerence, brinkmanship and blackmail into some much-needed perspective.

Pyongyang has been threatening everything from another Korean War to a nuclear strike on US cities. It’s not likely going to do anything so drastic — but it will probably keep turning up the temperature with missile launches and even small-scale attacks against South Korea.

Why? The “Nork” rulers both want to shore up its domestic support for its new leader Kim Jong Un and to get paid off in some way from someone to start behaving (well, misbehaving less).

The most thundering threats are hollow: Any major provocation is too likely to lead to a major war with Seoul and Washington that would not end well for Pyongyang. But we’re in uncharted, possibly dangerous territory with this new regime.

Nuking New York is beyond Pyongyang’s current missile and nuclear capability, but it’s making progress in developing that sort of potent punch, witnessed by December’s long-range missile test and February’s nuclear weapon test.

But turning Seoul into a smoldering pit with conventional forces is within the realm of possibilities right now. The South Korean capital is just south of the (sorely misnamed) Demilitarized Zone — and within range of North Korean artillery and other short-range missiles.

A barrage of thousands of belching Nork artillery tubes and the marching of a massive mechanized army south could come with little warning — not to mention the use of chemical and biological weapons against South Korean and US forces.

But, for the moment, we’re essentially expecting some sort of ballistic missile firings. Reports speculate a test of a new medium-range “Musudan” missile, or even a fusillade of short-range missiles, that will (hopefully) crash harmlessly into the sea.

The successful test of the mobile Musudan would put a new type of missile into North Korea’s already-alarming ballistic arsenal, one that could reach out and touch US forces on Guam, some 2,000-plus miles away.

Plus, after all its recent heated rhetoric, the North will likely have to do something violent to make sure it’s still taken seriously as more than a third world dictatorship with nukes. The target is likely to be South Korea — as we’ve seen in the past, when it sank one of the South’s warships and shelled an island in 2010. The North has already slapped the South with a cyber attack, hitting media and economic targets, but that doesn’t really meet Pyongyang’s propaganda purposes.

So we’re likely to see some sort of limited Nork military or naval action against the South’s forces along the Northern Limit Line in the Yellow Sea, where Pyongyang and Seoul dispute some territory.

A limited strike against South Korea would give the North a way to save face abroad and a propaganda victory at home. Problem is, the new leadership in Seoul will almost certainly respond. We could be in for rounds of dangerous tit-for-tat escalation.

While there is plenty of debate about Team Obama’s policy toward the Kim regime — we’re told it’s “strategic patience,” whatever that means — it’s clear the approach hasn’t been able to quash the weeks-long perilous play. The White House showed some spine with B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter sorties over the Peninsula, some beefing up of missile defenses (a pragmatic policy reversal) and ship deployments, but none of it put Kim back in his cage.

Nor did canceling a planned US ICBM test into the Pacific Ocean, which would’ve been another show of strategic strength.

Kerry has his work cut out for him as he travels to South Korea, China and Japan in the coming days. Above all else, he must not make Washington look weak, which would invite Pyongyang to act up even more, increasing the risk of deadly consequences.

Unfortunately, at this point, it won’t be easy to overcome the prevailing perception that Team Obama’s foreign policy isn’t as strong as it needs to be to deter misperception and miscalculation.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published April 10, 2013 in his regular column in the New York Post.

Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin sounds off about Benghazi: "Get accountability and get the truth out."

Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:20:00 GMT

Two days ago I posted the letter to Congress signed by 700 former Special Operations Veterans demanding Congress appoint a special committee to find the truth behind the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012. Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin is one of the signers of that letter.

Boykin is a highly decorated combat veteran including the Bronze Star, Air Medal, and two Purple Hearts. Among his various responsibilities during his 36 years of distinguished service was Commander of Army Special Operations (the Green Berets) and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. Below is a link to Boykin's Fox News interview about the Benghazi attack and the many still unanswered questions highlighted in the letter to Congress.

Obama's Budget Targets IRA Savings

Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:46:00 GMT

Four years ago, my remarkably prescient wife warned, "You just watch, one day he will go after our retirement accounts." The "he" she was referring to was the new President who had placed priorities on "spreading the wealth" and "transforming America."

I responded that no politician, not even the uber progressive Barack Obama, would be foolish enough to confiscate personal IRA and 401-k accounts. It looks like my wife was right, again.

According to a White House statement released in advance to Politico.com, Obama's 2014 budget to be delivered to Congress on April 10 puts a big target on personal retirement accounts:

"The budget will include a new proposal that prohibits individuals from accumulating over $3 million in IRAs and other tax-preferred retirement accounts. Under current rules, some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving. The budget would limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013. This proposal would raise $9 billion over 10 years." Read more

This is from the same Barack Obama who somehow also knows how much Americans can earn. In 2010 in a rare unscripted, off-teleprompter moment he showed both his arrogance and his disdain for earned success by industrious Americans. "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money," he told a Quincy, Illinois audience. It was only "fair," Obama continued to argue, that government should confiscate the rest by raising taxes.

Now we learn that Obama also believes he knows the upper limit of what is "needed to fund reasonable levels" of retirement savings to sustain senior citizens.

Unfortunately, attacking personal savings – even money set aside for retirement – is not a new idea with the most radical leftist Democrats. In 2008, then Chairman of the House Labor and Education Committee Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support held a hearing to promote a plan to eliminate all tax incentives for 401k plans, and force workers to set aside 5 percent of their wages in a government administered account that could only be invested in government securities (aka: debt).

Then, again, in early 2010 Timothy Geithner's Treasury Department floated a similar idea by issuing a notice of a public comment period on a plan for "the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams."

As Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara of the American Enterprise Institute succinctly said of the Treasury scheme, "They will tell you that you are 'investing' your money in U.S. Treasury bonds. But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds."

Larry Kudlow of CNBC hosted a panel discussion on Obama's budget attack on IRAs as part of his nightly Kudlow Report on April 8. Kudlow ridiculed the idea as the "Michael Bloomberg version of retirement planning." A member of the panel was A Line of Sight friend, Ross Kaminsky who authored a fine opinion piece on the subject published in The American Spectator. Another panelist, former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) agreed with Kudlow that "this is not going to happen." Maybe not today, but….?

B.O. (Before Obama) I would have confidently said this would never happen, too. I also would have said America would never have four consecutive trillion dollar plus deficits or a President who openly lamented the "essential constraints" placed on him by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

There was also a time, I expect, when Europeans thought the government would never confiscate personal deposits in their bank accounts. But, it happened. As absurd as Obama's budget proposal to cap retirement savings might sound, it really isn't a new idea, and the Democrats sure haven't given up going after private accounts. Welcome to Cyprus!

Korea's Kim Edges to Delusions of Grandeur

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:43:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

In its latest effort to ratchet up tensions on the Korean Peninsula, North Korea may go ballistic — literally — as soon as tomorrow, possibly launching an intermediate-range “Musudan” missile from its east coast, according to press reports.

The big question is: at who or what?

The “good” news is that the range of the mobile Musudan missile isn’t well-suited for targeting North Korea’s archenemies: South Korea, the United States or Japan. This means that the likely destination of Pyongyang’s latest provocation will be the open waters of the Pacific Ocean, where any launch will hopefully terminate in little more than big splashes of salty water — and North Korean propaganda.

But before you start your happy dance, there’s bad news, too.

First, assuming North Korea is going to launch a Musudan (a land-based knockoff of a Soviet-era sub-launched ballistic missile, according to IHS Jane’s) in an open-ocean test, the missile may pass over Japan.

Considering the possibility of a less than fully-successful flight test, this could result in missile debris falling on Japanese territory, causing death or destruction on the ground.

North Korea has tested missiles over Japan in the past, going back to a long-range missile test in 1998. This time, Japan could shoot the Musudan down using its own missile defenses, intensifying the already-simmering crisis.

The United States isn’t free and clear, either.

It’s believed that Pyongyang hasn’t tested this missile before, creating questions about how far it can actually fly en route to a target; some experts like Jane’s believe the Musudan’s expected ranges to be about 1,500 to 2,500 miles.

If this is the case, this means that, while Hawaii (at about 4,500 miles) isn’t threatened by the Musudan missile, Guam (at about 2,200 miles) might be on the outer edge of its threat ring.

The U.S. missile-defense capable ships in the Western Pacific and the Theater High Altitude Air Defense — or THAAD — that the Obama administration recently deployed to Guam could come in really handy if North Korea shoots a missile in that direction.

Equally troubling is that if North Korea is successful in testing the Musudan or another similar missile, it means Pyongyang will proudly put a new (mobile, nuclear-capable) arrow in its already-prodigious ballistic missile quiver, increasing its military might.

Plus, it’s possible that North Korea will share the results of its latest launch with its proliferation partner Iran, where the two countries are suspected of sharing both missile and nuclear technology and know-how.

Lastly, a successful missile test will come on top of triumphant tests of a long-range missile (in December) and a nuclear weapon (in February), possibly filling the head of North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, with delusions of grandeur.

This situation could be the most dangerous of all.

Seeing his regime on a roll, the inexperienced Kim could continue to toss the strategic dice in a game of belligerence, brinkmanship and blackmail, vastly increasing the chances of misperception and miscalculation — ending in dire consequences.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published April 9, 2013 in his regular column in the Boston Herald.

Evangelical Christians and Catholics listed as Religious Extremists in Army Training Session

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:16:00 GMT

Evangelical Christians and Catholics were listed as Religious Extremists in a U.S. Army training session for a Reserve Unit based in Pennsylvania. Other examples of extremists groups on the same list include Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Ku Klux Klan.

An Evangelical Christian required to attend the training session had the good sense to blow the whistle, and the Army quickly washed their hands of the incident. The slide was removed from future training programs, and an apology was offered.

Below is the original slide along with excerpts from the Fox News article exposing the outrage.

From Fox News: A U.S. Army training instructor listed Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism along with Al Qaeda and Hamas during a briefing with an Army Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania, Fox News has learned.

“We find this offensive to have Evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church to be listed among known terrorist groups,” said Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization.”

The incident occurred during an Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief on extremism. Topping the list is Evangelical Christianity. Other organizations listed included Catholicism, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Ku Klux Klan, Sunni Muslims, and Nation of Islam.

- - - -

Army spokesman George Wright told Fox News that this was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Dept. of the Army.”

“This slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine,” he said. “It was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”

Wright said after the complaint was lodged, the presenter deleted the slide, and apologized.

“We consider the matter closed,” he said. Read more

Benghazi Letter from 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:05:00 GMT

To: The US House of Representatives

Subject: The Benghazi attacks on 9/11/ 2012

The undersigned are a representative group of 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals who spent the majority of their careers preparing for and executing myriad operations to rescue or recover detained or threatened fellow Americans. In fact, many of us participated in both the Vietnam era POW rescue effort, The Son Tay Raid, as well as Operation Eagle Claw, the failed rescue attempt in April of 1980 in Iran, so we have been at this for many years and have a deep passion for seeking the truth about what happened during the national tragedy in Benghazi.

The purpose of this letter is to encourage all members of the US House of Representatives to support H.Res. 36, which will create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. It is essential that a full accounting of the events of September 11, 2012, be provided and that the American public be fully informed regarding this egregious terrorist attack on US diplomatic personnel and facilities. We owe that truth to the American people and the families of the fallen.

It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries. Additional information is now slowly surfacing in the media, which makes a comprehensive bipartisan inquiry an imperative. Many questions have not been answered thus far. The House Select Committee should address, at a minimum, the following questions:

Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?
1. Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not?
2. If so, were they alerted?
3. Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?
4. Was military assistance requested by DOS? If so, what type?
5. Were any US Army/Naval/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?
6. What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?
What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?
How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?
Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?
Where are the survivors?
Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks and was a senior US military officer present?
Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis and what inputs and recommendations did they make?
Where were the National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, his Deputy, Denis McDonough, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan during the attacks and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?
Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away) never considered a viable option for disruption if not dispersion of the attackers, until “boots on the ground” (General Dempsey’s words) arrived?
Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that lead to his death?
Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?
What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings? What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad of DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?
Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis situation in Benghazi?
What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?
What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?

This was the most severe attack on American diplomatic facilities and personnel since the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Thus far it appears that there has been no serious effort to determine critical details of this attack. This is inexcusable and demands immediate attention by the Congress. Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue.

A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments. That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked. That is an unacceptable message.

The House Select Committee should focus on getting a detailed account of the events in Benghazi as soon as possible. H. Res. 36 will provide a structure for the conduct of a thorough inquiry of Benghazi and should be convened immediately.

We ask that you fulfill your responsibilities to the American people and take appropriate action regarding Benghazi. With over sixty members of the US House of Representatives calling for this Select Committee already, it seems that the time is right to take appropriate action on Benghazi.

SpecialOperationsSpeaks.com

EndTheCoverup.com

Signed:

Lt Gen Leroy J. Manor, USAF (Ret.)
Commanding General, Son Tay POW Raid

Larry W. Bailey, CAPT, USN (Ret.)
SOS Founder & SEAL Coordinator

Richard F. "Dick" Brauer, Col, USAF (Ret.)
SOS Founder & Air Commando Coordinator

Michael Thornton, LT, USN SEAL (Ret.)
Medal of Honor

Thomas R. Norris, LT, USNR SEAL (Ret.)
Medal of Honor

LTG Leroy Manor, USAF (Ret) Air Commando (CG, Son Tay Rescue Msn)

LTG Bruce Fister, USAF (Ret) AFSOC Commanding General

LTG Michael F. Spigelmire, USA (Ret) Sp Forces, former CG USASOC

LTG Dell Dailey, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTG William Boykin, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTG David P. Fridovich, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MG Robert Patterson, USAF (Ret) Air Commando, former CG, 23AF

MG James Guest, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MG Jim Hobson, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

MG David A. Morris,USA (Ret) Special Forces

MG John M. McBroom, USAF (Ret) Fighter Pilot

MG Sid Shachnow, USA (Ret), Special Forces

MG Richard “Dick” Scholtes, USA (Ret) CG, JSOC

MG Joe Boyersmith, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MG David Baratto, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MG Ed Scholes, USA (Ret) Special Forces

BG Joe Stringham, USA (Ret) SF/Ranger RADM George Worthington, USN SEAL (Ret.)

BG Samuel Thompson III, USA (Ret) Special Forces

BG George Gaspard Jr. USA (Ret) Special Forces

BG Stuart Pike, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CAPT Larry Bailey, USN SEAL (Ret.)

Col Dick Brauer, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col Tom Bradley, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col Loren A. Rodway, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col Jim Kyle, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col George Ferkes USAF (Ret) Air Commando

COL John Harbison, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

COL Ken Poole, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

COL Mike Flynt, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

COL Don Panzenhagen, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

COL George R. Randy” Givens, USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Jack Peevy, USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Rodger Slaughter, USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Darrell W. Katz, USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Thomas Hoyt Davis III,USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Robert W. Lockridge,USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Wylie W. Johnson, USAR, (Ret) Special Forces

COL John P. McMullen,USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Kevin B. Rue, USAR (Ret) Ranger

COL Lawrence Draper, USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Clyde Wadsworth, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Steve “Mac” McIsaac, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

COL John P. Dolan, USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Allen F. Fleming Jr, USA (Ret) Special Forces/MACV-SOG

COL John Corley, USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Bill Duesberry,USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Edward R. Ager Jr., USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Sully DeFontaine,USA (Ret) Special Forces

COL Jack Farr, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Aviation/PSYOP/CA

COL Allen L. Bucknell,USA (Ret) Special Forces

CAPT Ted Hammond, USNR/SEAL (Ret.)

CAPT Ron Yeaw, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

Col John Gargus, USAF (Ret) Air Commando/Son Tay Raider

COL Bob Morris, USA (Ret) Ranger

Col Stan Shaneyfelt, USA (Ret) Ranger

Col Roland Guidry, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col Ron Jones, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

COL Nick Hubbell, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Forrest M. Kimsey, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col John Harbison, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col John Arnold, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col Phillip E. Glenn, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col J. Briggs Diuguid, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col John “Pappy” Gallagher, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col Lance E, Booth, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Hawk Holloway, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Donald W. Drasheff, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Gordon Arabian, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Max F. Newman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Jack Farr, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Tom Rendall, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

Col David E. Stark, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col James P. Nelson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Michael Kershner, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Mark D. Boyatt, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Richard N. Helfer, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Lincoln “Linc” German, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

Col Carlos A. Burgos, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Robert “Bob” Brenci, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col Herman “Bubber” Youngblood, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col Lee Hess, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col James T. Laroe, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Col Ray Turczynski, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Col Richard T. Dillon, USA (Ret), Aviation

Col Duncan M. “Pete” Thompson Sr, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CAPT Joseph R. John, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CAPT Norman Olson, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CAPT Dan Cain, USN/JSOC (Ret.)

LTC Jim Horris, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Richard “Dick” Pack, USA (Ret) Ranger

LTC Ben Prater, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC S. “West” Summers Jr., USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Robert Kolpien, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Michael O’Byrne, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Harvey M. Johnson III, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Dreher Kinney III, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC C.R. “Rex” Crigger, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

LTC Michael Lyons, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Kevin Dragnett, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Bill Behrens,USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Robert Closson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Charles Zimmerman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Robert L. Leites, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Charles Revie, USA (Ret) Ranger

LTC Donald L. Briere, USA (Ret) Special Forces/SFOD-D

LTC Brett A. Francis, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Jeffrey S. Prough, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC John Armstrong, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Civil Affairs

LTC Joseph Jacobowski, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

LTC Pete Cafaro, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Edward Wolcoff, USA (Ret), Special Forces

LTC Geoff Barker, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

LTC Stephen Muskett, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC David S. Keith, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Kevin Reece, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Mark Grdovic, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Richard A. Evans, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Phillip B. Wyllie, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Daniel M. Ward, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Michael A. Cruz, US ARMY Special Forces

LTC JVO Weaver, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

LTC Ben Morris, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Allen D. Butler, USA (Ret), Aviation

LTC Percy Dunagin, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

LTC John Anderson, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

LTC Arnold w. Peterman Jr, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Peter Marceau, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Michael D. “Mick” Colgan, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Mark A. Beattie, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Emil “Max” Friedauer, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

CDR Paul Evancoe, USN SEAL (Ret.)

LTC Ken Benway, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Ray T. Oden, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Michael Babb, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Gary Danley, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Alex R. Lizardo, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Steven K. “Kelly” Snapp, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC A. Dwayne Aaron, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Larry Little, USA (Ret) Aviation

LTC Fred Lindsey, USA (Ret) Special Forces/MACV-SOG

LTC John F. Downey, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC Cecil Bailey,USA (Ret) Special Forces

LTC John L. “Dusty” Deryck, USA (Rt) Aviation

Lt Col Jim Lawrence, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

Lt Col William Cowan, USMC Recon (Ret.)

LTC Jimmie D. Sullivan, USAR (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Clifford Andersen, USAR (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Daniel L. “Danny” Harrington, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Steve James, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

MAJ Bob Krueger, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

MAJ Gene R. Bacon, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Bill Patton, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Patrick Desmond,USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Julian P. Turner, USA (Ret) Ranger

MAJ George Gaspard III, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ R. V. Giroux, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Anthony M. Jones,USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Robert A. Mathews, USMC (Ret) Force Recon

MAJ Doug Ulery, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

MAJ James T. Soper, USA (Ret), Ranger

MAJ Joel Rieman,USA (Ret) Special Forces

CDR Kevin C. Walters, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

MAJ Roy Sayer, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Timothy Howle, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Nelson Bernard “Beny” Neff II, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Mark A. Smith, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MAJ Kevin N. Knapp, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Kent M. Elliot, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Clifford Barber, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Jim Grimshaw, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MAJ Chris Brewer, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Charles J. Watts, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ William “Bill” Morrell, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

MAJ Dave Morehouse, USA (Ret) Ranger

MAJ Charles Gallagher, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Thomas Humphus,USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Jerry L. Cooper, USA, (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MAJ Mike Linnane, USA Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Thomas A. “Bluto” Person, USA (Ret) Ranger

MAJ Fred Karnes, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Tom Greer, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MAJ Pat W. Mitchel, USA (Ret) Special Forces

LCDR Samuel “Sam” Miess, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

LCDR Bill Langley, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

LCDR William T. “Bill” Davis, USN SEAL (Ret.)

LCDR Thomas R. Truxell, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

LCDR Joe Hunt, USN/SEAL/USCG (Ret.)

LT Mike Thornton, USN/SEAL (Ret.) Medal of Honor

LT Thomas R. Norris, USN/SEAL (Ret.) Medal of Honor

LT James Tyrie, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

LT Keen Bradley, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

CPT James Brenci, USAFR, Air Commando

CPT Robert J. Fair, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Jeffrey C. Long, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Gary Honold, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Don Bendell, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Robert L. Woodfork,USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Paul D. Copher Jr., USAF (Ret) Air Commando

CPT “Cork” Motsett, USA (Hon Med Discharge), USA, Special Forces

CPT Brett Patron, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT W. F. “Walt” Emerson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Dale R. Simmons, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Charles Sands, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Stuart K. Weber, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Bryan L. Brooks, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Rogers Stevens, USAF, (Ret) Air Commando

CPT Lewis Arnold, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Fred Iacobelli, USA (Veteran) Vietnam

CPT Dennis Murphy, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Michael Hawkeye, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Robert J. Van Hoof, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Garth S. Estadt, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT John Hammack, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Richard Pait, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Robert D. HicksonJr, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Gregory Miller, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Russell E. Cummings, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT J. “Jay” Paton Dellow, USAR (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Jon B. Wang, USA (Veteran), Special Forces

CPT Doug Mason, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

CPT Tommy Shook, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

CPT Richard L. Harvey, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Patrick M. Kinsey, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Robert L. Noe,USA (Ret) Special Forces/MACV-SOG

1LT Michael Ash, USA (Ret) Special Forces/MACV-SOG

1 Lt Mark Austin Byrd, USMC (Ret) Aviation/MACV-SOG

CMSgt Nicholas “Nick” Kiraly, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

SMSgt Johnny Pantages, USAF (Ret) Air Commando/Special Tactics

SMSGT Donald R. Williams, USAF (Ret) MACV-SOG

CSM GARY l. Baura, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Anthony J Doldo, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Dennis “Denny” Baum, USA, Recondo

SFC S. West Summers III, USA, KIA 2/8/09, Special Forces

SSG Craig J. Rutherford, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 Michael Roth, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Ken Bradshaw, USAR (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Jon S. White,USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Cuitahuac Weber, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Kenneth Potter,USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Robert L. Selmer II, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Glenn O. Ulman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Chris Crain, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG John D. Morris, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Jorge Reyes, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Miles Lee White, USA (Veteran) Special Forces

SGT Stephen M. Goth, USA (Ret) Special Forces/MACV-SOG

SGT Alan N. Kelley, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Lanny Lucero, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Stephen M. Thayer, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SOC Douglas Norway, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

CW4 Jeffrey Mallette, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Robert K. “Bobby” Parker, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Lou Faulkner,USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Carlos Westling, USA (Ret) Special Forces/SFOD-D

CW4 Jim “HoverinHud” Hudson, USA (Ret) Aviation/160SOAR

1SG James E. McDougal,USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Rex Crawford,USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW4 John “Chet” Hayward, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

1SG CleteSinyard, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSG Walter R. Anderson, USA (Veteran) Special Forces

MSG Ronnie L. Raikes, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Michael Birky, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Michael D. De Rosa, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Kevin R. C. O’Brien, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Jay M. Massey, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Theodore D. Aslund USA (Veteran) Special Forces

SFC Kerry Alzner, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Dennis M. Foy, USA (Ret) Special Forces

BM2 Wallace D. Whitley, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

SSgt Eric Roberts, USAF, (Ret) Aviation

MSG Larry M. Busbee, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG David J. Lamorte, USA (Ret) Special Forces/CIA

SGT Frank Maiorano, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Robert Allard, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Thomas B. Jackson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Bob Seifert, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Timothy A. Dedie,USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Leo Joseph Van Deusen I, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Leo Van Deusen II, USA (Veteran) Special Forces

SGM Donald Weichold, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Adolph G. Reyes, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Robert S. Domina, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSG James Vaughn,USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Mike Maricle, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Clarence Page, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SOCS David R. Havens II, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

SGT Keith Hendricks,USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 William Arrot Jr. USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Bradley Adair, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Kirk A. Pope Jr. USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Scott K. Fagan, USA (Ret) Special Forces

1SG Ronald C. Wilson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Robert W. Ramsey,USA (Ret) Special Forces/MACV-SOG

SFC David Diaz, USA (Ret) Special Forces

TSgt David P. Jones, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

SFC Harry B. Whidden, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Dave Noyes, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW2 Kevin A. Marnell, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSG Jim Stoddard, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG John McCort, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Terry J. Dagnon, USA (Ret) Special Forces

1SG Dean M. McBride,USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Robert D. Leonard, USA (Ret) Special Forces

1SG Tracy R. Hickman, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MSG Thomas Olden, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC John Bash, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Steven M. Williams, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SFC Stephen Aden (Veteran) Special Forces

SFC Andrew G. Wilbur, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Nick Freitas, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM William F. Cronin III,USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Melvin L. Wick, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Gary L. Melchi, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SP5 Roger F. Lockshier, USA (Veteran) Aviation

MSG Gerald Mierle, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Danny Fowler, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Edwin L. Simons Jr., USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Frank G. Duran, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SGM Harold “Jake” Jacobson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Walter J. Hooper, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SFC Phillip Carter, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Robert E. Hand, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 Malcolm A. Howard, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC H. Deatherage, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Ernest Hartwig, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Mark T. Smith, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

1SG James B. Rawlinson, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MSG Clyde N. McMillan, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Michael w. Clark, USA (Veteran) Special Forces

SFC John Lemke, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Harold Johnson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW4 Shaun P. Driscoll, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SGT Alex Saunders, USA (Veteran), Special Forces/Recon

CW2 Ronald B. Piper, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 Scott Herbert, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Brian Scott La Morte, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Robert S. Cox, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Selmer R. “Dick” Hyde,USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MSG Allen W. Elks Jr, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSG R. Jones, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SSG Nelson M. Parrish, USA (Ret) Special Forces

AOCS Paul Johnston, USNR (Ret.) EOD/ NAVSPECWAR

MSG W. N. “Nick” Ward, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Casey Standidge, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Benjamin Stochmal, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Rick Hodges, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Roderick Knight, USA (Ret) Special Forces

PRC Michael Morgan, USN/SVD (Ret.)

SSG David J. Hall, USA (Veteran) Ranger

MSgt Justin D. Hughes, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

SGM Ronald C. Knight, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Mark Popelka, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Scott Marbut, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Shawn Datres, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSG Bernard Goggins, USA (Veteran) Special Forces

SGT Barry R. Crossfield, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Robert King, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Glenn Nickel, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC James D. Maxwell, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Clarence Brangard, USA (Ret) Ranger

SGM Kevin Riley, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Jeffrey T. Oates, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MSG Peter N. Spagnalo, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Tony Cleveland, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSG Arnold Ring, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Russ Baker, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC John D. Johnson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSG Michael E. Benish, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Gary M. Moston, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Kurt Weber, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Harry L. Coker, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Kenneth Wortman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Barry Hotle, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SP5 M.E. Jackson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Angel “Candy” Candelaria, USA (Ret) Spec Forces/Ranger/ SFOD-D

MSG Brian E. Gould,USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Bruce V. Hanley, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC John P. Mouyos,USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Al Hunt Jr.,USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Doug Fuhrmann, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 Dan Farmer, USA (Ret) Special Forces

1SG Gary Myers, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Ted Aslund, USA (Veteran) Special Forces

1SG Wedell J. “Joe” Waters, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Dennis Foy, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CMSgt Gene Eller, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

CORP Harry Clafin, USMC (Veteran) Force Recon

CW4 Richard F. Balwanz, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SP4 Steve Costa, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Howard Massingill, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Lawrence A. Jordan, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SFC Phil Melcher, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Tim Guth, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Rocklyn “Rock” Shiffer, USA (Ret) Ranger

CW3 Todd D. Rinehart, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Phillip Stone, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Charles S. “Chuck” Simpson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

1SG Steven Mattoon, USA (Ret) Ranger

MSG Robert “Bob”James, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC TimothyMabe, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SP5 Harvey Cox, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Tim Ward, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Brian Rodriguez, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC John Stepan, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Joseph S. Glazewski, Jr. USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG William E. Strobel, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Billy VanValkenburgh, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Arthur C. Tucker, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Juan A. Calderon, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSgt James H. Shorten Jr.,USAF (Ret) Air Commando

SFC Dennis Holloway, Medic USN/USA Spec Forces/USAF Pararescue

SGT Grant M. “Marc” King, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Merritt H. Powell, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Richard H. Garvey, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Larry R. Darras,USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Herman “Chris” Reeves, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Anthony S. Altano, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MSG Laverne “Bing” Allar, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Jeffrey a. Yaro,USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Tom Holschuh,USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC David S. Surman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Joseph Tetreault, USA (Ret) Special Forces/SFOD-D

SFC Gerald Holt, USA (Ret) Ranger

SFC Jerald L. Petersen, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Rodolfo “Rudy” D. Rodrigues, USA (Ret) Special Forces/SFOD-D

MSG William “Todd” Black, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Larry L. Trimble, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SGM Kenneth C. Baschke, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Lawrence Cardassi, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Hank Luthy, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 Willy Welsch, USA (Ret) Special Forces/SFOD-D

SFC Phillip Schulz, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC John L. Leffler, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Pete B. Estrada, USA (Ret) Special Forces

A1C David “Mac” McLay, USAF (Veteran) Air Commando

CSM Selmer R. “Dick” Hyde, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SSG Nick Walton, USA (Veteran) Special Forces

MSG Daniel E. Deck, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG James Blakelee, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG John M. Trantanella, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Brian Shives, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Sgt Martin T. Bennet, USAF (Ret) MACV-SOG

CW4 Greg Coker, USA (Ret) Aviation/160thSOAR

SFC Terry Grant Winkley, USA, (Ret) Special Forces

MSG George Torrealba, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Johnnie King, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 Charles Garland, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC James E. King, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Jay McGinness, USA (Ret) Special Forces

1 SG Jim “Ringo” Ringland, USA, (Ret) Special Forces

MSG John D. Tippy, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 James H. Thackaberry, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM John Shimkoski, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT James D. Thacker, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Thomas A. Reesman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Gail R. Ernst, USA (Ret) Ranger

CSM David L. Clark, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Edward Laminack, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC John A. Hughes, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Kenneth Chapman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW4 Akira Wayne Kim, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG David L. Rotner, USA(Ret) Special Forces

MSG Jerry “Fonz” Fontana, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM William F. Hux, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Billy Cason, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Anthony Ruddeen, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Joe Lupyak, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Samuel Wright, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG William A. Easterling, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG David C. Goodwin, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 Todd B. Girdner, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Jeff Hinton, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Patrick R. Ballogg, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW4 John “Chet” Hayward, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SGT Clifford N. Alford, USA (Ret) Special Forces/CIA

SGT Richard E. Gross, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM George Davenport, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Lee “Tony” Douglas, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Robert Rogers, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW2 Thomas Leslie Tannahill, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Daniel Zahody, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Gerald Hamm Jr, USA, (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SFC Lloyd Carpenter, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW2 Michael Flick, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Donald M. Feeney Jr, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Henry S. Moran, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW2 David S. Chacon, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SFC Chris Mottler, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Phillip Crowley, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 Joseph Lloyd, USA, (ret) Special Forces

MSG Timothy F. Wynne, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC David A. Anderson, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Jesse Boyd, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SFC Stephan Harrell, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Lanny Lucero, USA Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MSG Russell Justice, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Lou Campbell, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW4 Eric Crum, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSG Blake Mills, USA (Veteran) Special Forces

SGT Mark Miller, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Robert F. Finke, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC John Jones, USA (Ret) (Special Forces

MSG Leamon L. Ratte, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG James "Mel" Banks, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Leandro Sanfeliz Jr. USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Joseph H Socie, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Charles E. Smith, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SGM Alan F. Farrell, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC James Plannette, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Randall Long, USA (Ret) Ranger JTAC

MSG Charles S. Spence, USA (Ret)Special Forces

MSG Carl A. Fuller, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Patrick T. Quinn, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

SFC David Kauffman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Thomas Collins,USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM EarnieHolifield,USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Donald R. Doering, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Rick Lavoie, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Cecil A. Sager Jr, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

MSG Randy Earp, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Perry Turpin, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG John M. Ailello, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC John Bartsow, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG David Mullins, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW5 Lawrence Plesser, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Robert T. Hill, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Joe Back, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Joe Burt, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Serafin Antonio Panigua, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Jack Pope, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM David L. Tope Jr, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Henry F. Wilson III,USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Kenneth J. Garcy, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSgt Patrick Walker, USAF (Ret) Air Commando/SOWT

MSG Eddie Licon, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Thomas F. Schultz, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC John Thomas Leggat, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Ernest Hartwig, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Dennis Cherup, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Manuel Beck, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Jeff Ruble, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Scott Randol, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW5 Walt Edwards, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CWO (R) Miguel "Ponch" Ruiz-Pattzi, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Danny Cartwright, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG James Weatherford, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Don W. Benesh, USA (Ret) Special Forces/MACV-SOG

CSM Bobby Pruett, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC George Armstrong Menor, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Curtis Earle Edwards, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSG Michael Duffy Jr., USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Lloyd O'Daniel, USA (Ret) Special Forces/MACV-SOG

CSM Roger George, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CSM Gerald E. Klein, USA (Ret) Ranger

SFC James Hull, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Durwin Dengerud, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Ronnie Medini, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Cecil W. “Bud” Morgan,USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

CW2 Albert Matos, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Bruce Kuhlman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Michael K. Aleen, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SSGT Danny J. Perry, USA (Vet) Special Forces

MSG James D. McHenry, USAR (Ret) Special Forces

SGT James “Ernie” Acre, USA (Ret) Special Forces/MACV-SOG

SFC Charles Roberts, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Tim Louys, USA (Ret) Special Forces

QMCS Richard R Powers Jr., USN SEAL(Ret.)

MSG Timothy M. Ferris, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM Jon F. Ridolfo,USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGM James Kilcoyne, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CW3 Bobby D. Shireman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

1SG Joseph M. Crane,USA (Ret) Special Forces

SGT Ward "Buddy" Gilbert, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MSG Terry Huffman, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Jerry Kleive, USN SEAL

LCDR Cade Courtley, USN SEAL

LT H.S. (Bud) Thrift, USN SEAL (Ret.)

BMC Richard L. Arnold, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CDR Rick Bernard, USN SEAL (Ret.)

LCDR Steve Elson, USN SEAL (Ret.)

LT William J. Blackmon, USNR SEAL

CAPT Ronald K. Bell, USN SEAL (Ret.)

Richard Cyrus, USN SEAL

LTJG James M. Hawes, USN SEAL

MCPO Jerome D. Cozart, USN SEAL (Ret.)

Captain Steve Ahlberg, US Navy (Ret.) SEAL

CPO Carl T. Zellers, USN SEAL (Ret.)

LCDR David L. Tash, US Navy (Ret.) SEAL

Jim Seidel, USN SEAL

HMC Richard Bryan Willis, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CDR R.J. Thomas, USN SEAL (Ret.)

LT Roland Samuelson, USNR SEAL

QMCM Tom Shoulders, USN SEAL (Ret.)

SCPO Dan Yowell, USN SEAL (Ret.)

Brandon Webb, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CAPT Ron Seiple, USNR SEAL (Ret.)

SN Wayne Gough, USN SEAL

Paul A Tamosunas, USN SEAL

MSG Keith Laub, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPT Robert S. Crenshaw, USA, RANGER

BMCS Frank Odermann, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CAPT Steve Ahlberg, USN SEAL (Ret.)

Rick Worthen, USN PBR

Hunter Grimes II USN SEAL

Maj. William “Bill” Diggins, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

LCDR William T. Davis Jr., USN SEAL (Ret.)

LT John R. Dew, USNR SEAL

CWO4 Gary Jackson USN SEAL (Ret.)

CDR Alan G Morris, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CDR Mark Divine, USN SEAL (Ret.)

MAJ Logan Fitch, USA Ret) Special Forces

Glenn Heidenreich, USN SEAL

Col. Michael Haas, USAF/USA, (Ret) Sp Forces/Ranger/Pararescue

MCPO Mark Kauber, USN SEAL (Ret.)

COL John D. Blair IV, USA SF (Ret.)

COL J. H. (“Scotty”) Crerar, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CAPT Martin McNair, USNR SEAL (Ret.)

MCPO Tom Keith, USN SEAL (Ret.)

MAJ Charles Odorizzi, USA SF (Ret.)

LT John Rottger, USNR SEAL (Ret.)

LT Christopher O. Bent, USN SEAL

LT Martin Every, USN SEAL

COL Marshall Helena, USA (Ret) Special Forces/Ranger

COL Wayne Long, USA (Ret) Special Forces

Lt. Col. Tim Penley, USAF (Ret)

Lt. Col. Joseph W. Cook, III, USAF (Ret)

CAPT Edward Lyon, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CDR Tom Deitz, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CAPT Roger Crossland, USN SEAL (Ret.)

MAJ Andy Messing, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPO Brandon Webb, USN SEAL

LT Francis B. Cleary, USNR SEAL

LCDR Joe Fuller, USN SEAL

MSgt. Bob La Rosa, USAF (Ret) Air Commando

HTCS Steven Granger, USN SEAL (Ret.)

BMC Henry R. Kawecki , USN SEAL (Ret.)

Lt. Col. Dennis B. Haney, USAF (Ret) Wild Weasel

CDR Marshall D. Daugherty, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CWO4 Mike USN SEAL (Ret.)

QMCM Tom Shoulders, USN SEAL (Ret.)

SOCM Mike Bloom SEAL (Ret.)

Larry Reams, USA (Ret) Ranger

SCPO Robert J. Guzzo, USN SEAL (Ret.)

LCDR Thomas Kleehammer, USN SEAL (Ret.)

SOCS John Westfall, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CPO John Westfall, USN SEAL (Ret.)

SSG Chester Howard, USA (Ret) Special Forces

BMC Ted L. Traver, USN SEAL (Ret.)

Dennis H. Johnson, USN (Ret.) Command Master Chief Seal Team 6

LT Alan R. Horner, USN SEAL

CDR Bruce Willhite USN/SEAL(Ret.)

PO1 Don Tinnin (Medical Ret), SEAL

MSG John Nettles, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Allen Berberick, USA (Ret) Special Forces

SFC Kelly A. Stewart, USA (Ret) Special Forces

CPO John J. Ballis, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

LTC Raymond “Ray” Morris, USA (Ret) Special Forces

MMCM Kirk Scarboro, USN/SEAL (Ret.)

Philip Williams, USN Beach Jumper

Mike Macready, USN SEAL

HMC Manny Perez, USN SEAL (Ret.)

CDR Mike Wilkinson, USN SEAL (Ret.)

MCPO Thomas D. Vawter , USN SEAL (Ret.)

BM1 Thomas E. Black, USN SEAL (Ret.)

Captain David Del Giudice, USN SEAL (Ret)

Chris Wilhelm, USN SEAL

MCPO Arturo Farias, USN SEAL (Ret.)

Joe Murray, USN SEAL

Chris Berman, USN SEAL

MCPO William A. Garnett, USN SEAL (Ret.)

C. J. Poulnot, USN SEAL

Eric L. Hansen, USA (Ret.) Special Forces 18D LCDR

Robert S. Hayman, USN SEAL (Ret.)

William R. Rosencrans, USN SEAL CPO

Terrence Flynn, USN SEAL (Ret.)

Roger Guerra, USN SEAL

James Seidel, USN SEAL

CPO Robert Willingham, USN SEAL (Ret.)

Rick March, USN SEAL

Forrest Hedden, USNR SEAL

CIVILIAN PATRIOTS

John F. Bellamy, Jr.

Eric Max

Rob DelGaudio

Robert B. Seiple Jr.

Drew A. Osterman

NON-SPECOPS MILITARY

COL James G. Seyster, AUSA (Ret.)

CAPT Chuck Deleot, USNR (Ret.)

Col. Pete McCaffrey, USAF (Ret.)

CPO Charles Alfier USN (Ret.)

LT William Webb, USN (Ret.)

SFC Steven Waterman, USA (Ret)

SCPO David L. Magnone, USN (Ret)

The Iron Lady Passes

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:39:00 GMT

There is little that I might add to illuminate the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. Volumes have been written about her principled leadership and courage to "push back against the advance of socialism" at a critical time for Great Britain and the world. Those memories will now be recalled in coming days and weeks as freedom loving people mourn the passing of the former British Prime Minister.

Thatcher put the "Great" back in Britain and gave conservatism a new birth. As the steady ally and personal friend of Ronald Reagan, along with a mighty assist from the Polish Pope, John Paul II, Thatcher helped to relentlessly drive the battering ram that eventually collapsed the Soviet Empire and ended the Cold War.

One of the great honors of my life came on June 11, 2004 at the memorial service for President Reagan at the National Cathedral in Washington. In the moments before the ceremony, I took the opportunity to greet Mrs. Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev whom were seated side-by-side nearby.

It was of Gorbachev whom Reagan demanded "tear down this wall." It was Gorbachev's empire that Reagan branded as "evil." But, on that day two of the most pivotal figures in global politics of the 20^th Century, one a dear friend and the other a political foe that also became a friend, sat together to pay final respect to the great American President. Of all the examples of successful diplomacy, that image will forever stay in my mind.

Margaret Thatcher came to be known as the "Iron Lady" for her steadfast courage and unyielding principled leadership. Most think the nickname originated from her fellow Brits who knew her best, or perhaps from Reagan and the American admiring millions. But, that most appropriate moniker was actually coined by the Soviets who came to understand that Soviet Communism and nuclear arsenal was no match for The Iron Lady and The Gipper.

May they both now rest in eternal peace.

The Trouble with Low Information Lawmakers

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:00:00 GMT

By Krista Kafer, Contributing Editor

“Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself,” wrote Mark Twain more than a century ago. It’s safe to assume that the troubling phenomenon of the low information lawmaker is nothing new. However, given the unprecedented size and scope of the federal government with its $3.8 trillion budget, more 163,000 pages of regulations covering every facet of life, and drones on command, the cost of ignorance is higher today than in Twain’s time.

Case in point: earlier this week Congresswoman DeGette of Colorado told an audience that if high capacity firearm magazines were banned their number would decrease over time. She was under the impression that firearm magazines are disposal, kind of like soup cans. You can only use them once. That she’s wrong on this point wouldn’t be so worrisome if she wasn’t the lead sponsor of a bill to ban such magazines.

The gaffe isn’t as spectacular as say Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson’s contention that the island of Guam could capsize or California Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ assertion that a tiny cut in federal spending would cause 170 million people to lose their jobs (there are only 155 million US workers). But whereas these mistakes are sad but harmless, Congresswoman DeGette’s misimpressions about firearms could impact American’s Second Amendment rights to self-defense. Her counterparts in the Colorado statehouse recently passed a similar magazine ban and President Obama has federal gun control in his sights.

This is the same Administration that claimed the Affordable Care Act would reduce the cost of health insurance premiums not cause them to rise each year. There seems to be a pattern here of pushing legislation based on faulty assumptions.

The trouble with a large, centralized government is that low information lawmaking negatively impacts everyone. Power amplifies error. The nation’s founders, who knew a thing or two about misuse of authority by knowledge-challenged rulers, established a form of government based on federalism whereby power is divided among federal, state, and local governments and the people themselves.

When decisions are made at the state or local government level, the impact of lack of foresight or outright ignorance is contained. Chicago’s strict gun laws and sky high murder rate, while tragic, end at the city’s borders. Massachusetts’ rising health care costs under Romneycare, the model for Obamacare, were previously just the state’s problem. People who didn’t like paying more and getting less could move out of state. Now there’s no escaping the folly of a low information Congress.

Returning power from the federal government to states and local governments would reduce the impact of flawed public policy. We must go further. Decisions big and small from the form of self-protection to the size of the soft drink, from health care coverage to light bulb wattage, should be made by individuals. We should experience the consequences of our individual choices be they foolish or wise. That’s what being free is all about.

The trouble with low information lawmakers isn’t so much their ignorance; it’s their ability to make those decisions for us.

Colorado Gun Laws Miss the Target

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:00:00 GMT

By Rob Douglas, Contributing Editor

Steamboat Springs — It’s unfortunate the Steamboat Pilot & Today didn’t have a videographer in the room during Wednesday’s standing-room-only Coffee and a Newspaper event featuring Routt County Sheriff Garrett Wiggins discussing recently proposed and enacted Colorado gun control laws.

If there was a recording, all of Colorado could witness the top cop of a department responsible for protecting a county with a land mass larger than the state of Delaware discussing gun control from the perspective of a police officer who can articulate why the laws signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper will be mostly unenforceable and certainly ineffective at stopping mass shootings like those at Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech and Columbine.

Wiggins presented his views supporting and opposing specific gun control bills in a clear, concise, rational and level-headed manner. Significantly, he kept the focus on whether the new laws provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who have demonstrated they may be a danger as a result of mental illness. While mentioned, Second Amendment concerns were kept to a minimum.

Commendably, given that sheriffs must keep politics at arm’s length when it comes to official conduct that impacts the administration of justice, an observer unaware that Wiggins is a Republican would have had a difficult time detecting his political brand during his presentation. Emphasizing the nation’s bipartisan desire to reduce mass shooting incidents, Wiggins stated “we’re all Americans, we should try to unify instead of divide.”

As expected, much of the discussion focused on the law that will prohibit the “sale, transfer or possession” of new handgun and rifle magazines that are “capable of accepting, or are designed to be readily convertible to accept, more than 15 rounds of ammunition” starting July 1. While possession by current owners of existing magazines that hold more than 15 rounds will remain legal, the sale or transfer of those magazines will be illegal.

Citing specific language in the bill, Wiggins’ recitation of numerous reasons why police officers will be unable to charge a suspect with a violation of the law under realistic scenarios, other than a sting operation, was presented without political or ideological overtones. Of note, Wiggins made it clear he isn’t refusing to apply the law, he just thinks it will be the rare situation where his officers can employ the law.

Acknowledging his frustration with the law’s lack of efficacy, Wiggins put words to the feeling that gnaws at Americans as they watch legislators repeatedly pass laws that don’t address the crux of an issue: “Doing something for the sake of doing something ain’t always the right thing to do.”

Articulating his well-founded belief, based on 20 years in law enforcement, that there isn’t a magic elixir that will stop a killer determined to commit mass murder any more than the police can stop the idiotic acts of common criminals, Wiggins stated that “you cannot legislate the evil heart of man and stupidity.”

Undoubtedly, there were differences of opinion between some in the audience and Wiggins, just as there were differences of opinion between segments of the audience. However, there was widespread agreement in the room, just as there is across the nation, that we must take steps to better identify those who pose a danger to society because of mental illness and then ensure that the identity of those individuals is available to authorities charged with screening gun purchases and, if necessary, removing guns from their homes by court order.

In the majority of recent mass shootings in the U.S., the killer exhibited signs of being a danger to others because of deteriorating mental health. But, as Wiggins noted Wednesday, “the mental health system is broken” and his jail, like many other jails across the country, “has become a babysitting venue for the mentally ill.

As a society, if we are truly interested in taking steps to reduce — we will never eliminate — mass shootings, we must insist that our elected representatives stop passing unenforceable and ineffective laws and instead pass common-sense legislation designed to keep guns away from those who pose a danger due to mental illness.

***This article also published as Douglas's regular column in Steamboat Today, April 5, 2013.

Déjà vu all over again

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:30:00 GMT

I don't think I'm wrong about this: The collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market precipitated the economic downturn in 2008. Years of continually relaxed loan underwriting standards at the insistence of politicians and "guaranteed" by the federal government against loss eventually turned rotten. Rather than a gradual downward spiral, the collapse was more like jumping off a cliff.

Not only has the Obama Administration failed to lead America's economy out of the resulting recession, they are aggressively going down the same path the created the problem in the first place. The Washington Post headline below tells the story:

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

"The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place."

"...administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default."

Read more

March Jobs Madness

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:26:00 GMT

There is no way to put a happy face on it. The March 2013 jobs report is very bad news. While the civilian non-institutional population increased by 167,000 people, the labor force shrank by 496,000 as huge numbers of Americans continue to give up finding a job.

As a result, the labor force participation rate fell to 63.3 percent. Not since the Jimmy Carter era of 1979 has the participation rate been so low.

An anemic 88,000 jobs were created in March according to the Labor Department; less than half the 200,000 analysts were expecting, and far short of enough to even keep pace with population growth.

A few weeks back, Joe Biden proclaimed that Americans are "no longer worried about the economy." But, then, Joe's been wrong about a lot of things before.

Today, 46 percent rate the economy as "poor" while just 14 percent believe it is at least "good." And, nearly 60 percent believe we are in a recession again. Regardless of Biden's fantasy, if people were worried before, the new jobs report will do nothing to reduce anxiety levels.

No Fooling, Obama announces National Financial Planning Month

Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:30:00 GMT

Out of the White House comes a Presidential Proclamation that seems totally appropriate for the first of April – except it's not a joke. Barack Obama officially proclaimed the entire month of April as National Financial Capability Month. Among the many ironies of this announcement is the key initiative: To teach young Americans "how to budget responsibly."

No kidding! Budgeting responsibility help from the President that is two months late in complying with federal law that requires him to submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday of February each year? And, whose recent budgets have failed to garner a single vote even from Congressional Democrats?

"I call upon all Americans to observe this month with programs and activities to improve their understanding of financial principles and practices," said the proclamation. Let's hope this applies to the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, too.

The Master of Audacity also said, "My Administration continues to encourage responsibility at all levels of our financial system." Twenty-one federal agencies have been mobilized to offer advice and counsel to the average Jane and Joe American that may be gullible enough to turn to the federal government for help in getting their personal financial house in order.

As CNS News explained in commenting on National Financial Capability Month, the share of the national debt for each American household has increased $53,377 since Obama took office. More than $6.1 trillion has been added to the total national debt for the same period.

You really can't make this stuff up. Truth is stranger than fiction.

"Frankenol" – End the Madness

Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:04:00 GMT

Note: The following also published as a guest editorial in the Washington Times April 2, 2013.

The word “gasoline” no longer characterizes the stuff we put into our cars. Due to regulations forced on the refining industry, “Frankenol” might be more accurate.

This government-engineered, market-distorting fuel is a blend of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol (E10). Originally conceived to breathe life into the fledgling U.S. ethanol industry and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, continued tinkering with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has turned the program into a nightmare.

The RFS requires refiners to blend increasing amounts of ethanol into the nation’s fuel pool annually. Last year they were responsible for blending a minimum of 13.2 billion gallons. This year the figure is higher at 13.8 billion gallons. By 2022, the RFS mandate will require 36 billion gallons.

To document compliance, refiners track the RINs (Renewable Identification Numbers) applied to every gallon of ethanol purchased, or they buy paper RINs which are credits paid to ethanol producers. In either case, refiners have to spend real money to comply with the law.

In creating the RSF program, the government assumed that gasoline demand would continue to rise. It was wrong. With more fuel-efficient vehicles, a lackluster economy, and higher prices at the pump, gasoline demand has declined to the lowest level in 18 years.

As a result, refiners are stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place: They have had to reduce fuel production because demand is down; yet they have to comply with the increasing ethanol mandate. This means they are buying more ethanol credits in the form of RINs but purchasing fewer gallons of ethanol. As a result, millions of gallons of corn-based ethanol are sitting in storage tanks, while the price of RINs has climbed 20-fold in the last 90 days. Industry analyst Byron King says the RIN credit gimmick has "added a dime, or more, per gallon to the national fuel bill in the first quarter of 2013 – in the face of stagnant or declining oil prices."

But that’s just part of the RFS’s market distorting impact. Ethanol contains less energy than crude oil-based gasoline, so motorists have to fill-up more often and needlessly spend more money. Furthermore, an estimated 42 percent of the nation’s 2012 corn crop will be consumed to make ethanol. Artificially driving up corn prices – particularly when much of the farm belt was drought stricken - has resulted in more expensive meat, poultry, and countless food products leaving consumers to bear the burden.

Research by the Heritage Foundation conducted last year indicated that U.S. ethanol production was responsible for increasing the price of corn by up to 68 percent. Stanford University’s Center for Food Security and the Environment warned, “Poor households in the developing world, where 70-80% of the budget is spent on food, [are] hurt the most.”

And there’s more. Ethanol producers looking to create a larger market for their fuel have convinced the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow the sale of E15, a fuel blend containing up to 15 percent ethanol. However, as AAA warns, E15 could "void car manufacturers warranties" since 95% of the nation's 240 million light duty vehicles can't handle the concoction. E15 "could result in significant problems such as accelerated engine wear and failure (and) fuel-system damage," according to AAA.

If that’s not bad enough, Son of RFS (RFS2) contains volumetric mandates for other biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol – although no commercial quantities of the advanced fuel are even available. For failing to use this fantasy fuel that can't be found, the EPA fined energy companies $6.8 million. Thankfully, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the EPA and overturned the imposition of the phantom fuel fines.

One would think the judges’ ruling would stop this regulatory insanity. It didn’t. A few days after losing in court, the EPA mandated that 62 percent more cellulosic ethanol be blended into motor fuel in 2013.

However well intended way back when, the RFS is another example of government market intervention that has turned out badly. The RFS is casting a large, menacing and costly shadow over the production and marketing of motor fuels. Rather than making fuels better, it is making them worse. Rather than helping American consumers, it is siphoning money from their pockets.

Frankenol and its ugly Frankenfuel stepchildren should be abandoned on the scrap heap of failed policy prescriptions before they can cause more harm. Congress should repeal the RFS.

The Terrorists Europe won't name

Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:40:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

Lost in the other news from Cyprus last week was this: A Cypriot court sentenced a Hezbollah operative to four years in jail for putting together plans last summer to attack Israeli tourists on the eastern Mediterranean island.

It’s only the latest deadly Hezbollah plot in Europe over the last year — yet the European Union still hasn’t designated the Lebanon-based group as a terrorist organization. It’s time to crack down on it before more blood is shed.

In the Cyprus case, reports indicate the Hez henchman, Hossam Yaacoub, had been collecting info on flights arriving from Israel as well as noting the hotels where Israeli tourists stayed and the buses that conveyed them around the island.

Equally troubling, Yaacoub, a Lebanese-Swedish national, had also “cased” a number of other European locations for possible strikes on Israeli visitors.

Then, just shortly after he was arrested in July in Cyprus, Hezbollah operatives bombed a bus in a resort town in Bulgaria. The attack killed five Israeli tourists and the Bulgarian bus driver.

Hezbollah behaving badly outside the Middle East isn’t new; its violence in Europe goes back to the 1980s, when the group joined Iran in attacking the West and its interests. Today, few experts would dispute that Hezbollah has a network of operatives that spans Europe.

So why is the 27-member EU reluctant to put Hezbollah on its terror list, which would help curtail its operations, fund-raising, freedom of movement and other criminal activities? Because key EU powers figure: If we’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to us.

The recent Hez plots seem to disprove that calculation, but some Europeans also worry about Hezbollah targeting their interests abroad. For instance, it might attack European interests or peacekeepers in Lebanon (Hez’s home turf) if the EU gets tough.

A few European countries even try to separate the “military” wing from the “political” wing of the Shia outfit, hoping that doing so will keep communications open and help stabilize always fragile Lebanese politics, where Hezbollah is a big player.

Unfortunately, “hope” isn’t a good basis for a foreign policy, especially toward the likes of Hezbollah, which has plenty of European — and other — blood on its hands.

The EU should stop whistling past the graveyard and take steps now to stand with the United States and others (e.g., Canada, Australia, Israel and Bahrain) in actively opposing Hezbollah’s terrorist scourge — before the next innocent falls victim to its ways.

Sadly, the EU works by consensus and some powerful EU countries (e.g., Germany) oppose any terror listing. But individual nations can act on their own to designate Hezbollah a terror organization, reducing the area where it can operate in Europe. The Dutch have already done this.

If even that’s too much, a European state could at leastgo after the group’s militant-related activities on its territory. The United Kingdom started doing this in 2008.

The point is that something must be done.

Considering Hezbollah’s increasingly global operations (e.g., 2012 Thailand, India and Georgia plots), doing nothing is not just a bad option, it’s potentially a fatal one.

The EU must muster the political will to send a strong, unequivocal signal to Hezbollah — indeed, to all terrorists — that Europe isn’t open for their sort of business.

Anything less will only mean more terrorism in Europe — and elsewhere.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published in his regular column March 31, 2013 in the New York Post.

The Chart from Hell

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:27:00 GMT

Source: Sentier Research analysis of Labor Department data. Note that vertical axis does not start at zero to better show the change. Credit New York Times.

On August 7, 2009 Barack Obama thumped his chest in the Rose Garden and proclaimed "We've rescued our economy from catastrophe." Supposedly, the economic recovery had officially begun two months earlier.

That was 1328 days ago. But, try telling that to somebody that has to work for a living. Median Household Income continues to fall. (See above chart)

While the President pretends that the end to life as we know it is near because of the incy wincy sequester cuts, families have been forced to live on less for years – and, it's still getting worse.

As reported by the New York Times:

For the first time in over a year, median annual income fell by a statistically significant amount from the previous month, according to a report from Sentier Research.

Median annual household income in February 2013 was $51,404, about 1.1 percent (or $590) lower than the January 2013 level of $51,994. The numbers are all pretax, and are adjusted for both inflation and seasonal changes.

… The longer-run trends are even more depressing.

February’s median annual household income was 5.6 percent lower than it was in June 2009, the month the recovery technically began; 7.3 percent lower than in December 2007, when the most recent recession officially started; and 8.4 percent lower than in January 2000, the earliest date that this statistical series became available.

Note that these numbers are "pretax." In January, the Payroll Tax was increased by 2 percent by Obama's $600 billion fiscal cliff tax hike. On average, that tax increase will suck another $700 per year out of the wallets of 160 million Americans.

Little wonder that 6-in-10 Americans believe the economy is still in recession. And, the really big hit from ObamaCare is right around the corner.

And, what do we get from the White House? Denial. Last month, Joe Biden said Americans are "no longer worried" about the economy.

Healthcare Costs Going Up. Way Up.

Thu, 28 Mar 2013 04:14:00 GMT

They passed it, and sure enough, we're finding out what's in it. And, the news isn't getting any better for ObamaCare.

The following chart is from analysis by the Society of Actuaries (SOA). It tells the alarming story that under ObamaCare by 2017 insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies. That, of course, will quickly result in significant insurance premium increases.

Click on the image to view a full-size version of the infographic (PDF)

Reporting on the SOA analysis, the AP opined that the President could be in for a "big headache" as his signature legislation kicks in. "Obama has promised that the new law will bring costs down. That seems a stretch now," observed the AP.

The SOA analysis comes on the heels of another damning report issued just weeks ago that found premiums for young healthy men could triple under ObamaCare:

The federal health care law could nearly triple premiums for some young and healthy men, according to a forthcoming survey of insurers that singles out a group that might become a major public opinion battleground in the Obamacare wars.

The survey, fielded by the conservative American Action Forum and made available to POLITICO, found that if the law’s insurance rules were in force, the premium for a relatively bare-bones policy for a 27-year-old male nonsmoker on the individual market would be nearly 190 percent higher. Politico.com February 04, 2013

Doug Holtz-Eakin, President of the American Action Forum and former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, said the Obama Administration should be "very, very, very afraid." The country was told ObamaCare "was going to make health care cheaper."

For the record, here's just a few of those false promises:

Obama Repeatedly Promised That His Health Care Plan Would “Bring Down Premiums By $2,500 For The Typical Family.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks Of Senator Barack Obama At Campaign Event, Raleigh, NC, 6/9/08)

Obama: “All this is going to lower premiums. It’s going to make healthcare more affordable.” (President Obama, Remarks At A Q&A Session, Falls Church, VA, 9/22/10)

Obama: “This law will lower premiums.” (President Obama, Remarks At The 2011 Families USA Health Action Conference, Washington, DC, 1/28/11)

IRS knowingly sends Billions in Fraudulent Refunds to Illegal Immigrants

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:32:00 GMT

A WTHR-TV Indianapolis investigative report exposes a fraudulent scheme wherein the IRS is sending $4.2 billion per year to illegal immigrants as an "additional child tax credit" for children who don't even live in the U.S.

Further, the IRS and Congress have been ignoring the scheme for years. The Inspector General's office has repeatedly identified the problem in audit after audit. The IG, Russell George says, "The magnitude of the problem has grown exponentially," but the IRS is doing nothing to stop it.

"It's so easy it's ridiculous," the tax preparer whistleblower who exposed the fraud admits. Names are simply listed on the IRS form. "The more you put on there, the more you get back." No questions asked…the check's in the mail.

The whistleblower notified the IRS of dozens of returns that were "fraudulent, 100% fraudulent tax returns." But, no response was ever received from the IRS. Out of frustration he went to WTHR investigative reporter Bob Segall.

"If the opportunity is there, and they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?" admits one of the undocumented perpetrators to Segall on camera.

Segall found that there are "2 million…undocumented workers right now who are getting tax refunds because of this loophole."

Meanwhile, American school kids hoping for the opportunity of a lifetime to see the inside of the White House find the doors are closed supposedly because we can no longer afford to let them in. Below is the video of the shocking report.

Obama Cuts Medicare – Again!

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:23:00 GMT

Editor's Note: The following also published March 21, 2013 by The Daily Caller.

Last month, the Obama Administration moved forward with new Medicare spending cuts that few outside ardent industry observers noticed. If put into place, however, these cuts will mean significantly less money in the pockets of some 14 million senior citizens around the country.

But with health care costs projected to rise another three percent, these reductions couldn’t come at a worse time.

When President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he simultaneously authorized $200 billion in cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the health care reform law’s cuts would result in three million fewer Medicare Advantage enrollees. Moreover, actuaries at Oliver Wyman predicted that the cost of the health insurance tax would mean an additional $3,500 in out-of-pocket expenses for seniors over the next ten years.

If all that weren’t bad enough, a few weeks ago the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed an additional 2.3 percent reduction in Medicare Advantage payments for 2014. This new reduction, combined with the cuts in the health care law, mean Medicare Advantage payments next year will go down by more than eight percent, or about $11 billion.

Oliver Wyman calculates the impact in 2014 will be $50 to $90 per month in some combination of benefit cuts and premium increases per senior participant. As the full effect of the mandated ObamaCare cuts become fully implemented, the impact worsens significantly.

It’s time for seniors to stand up and say enough is enough.

Medicare Advantage is the one program that allows seniors to choose a plan that offers coverage through a private company rather than a government agency. Much to the chagrin of the Obama Administration, 28 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries - 14 million – rely on Medicare Advantage.

Participation among minority groups is even higher: 31 percent for African-Americans, 38 percent for Hispanics. Forty-one percent of all beneficiaries have incomes of $20,000 or less. However, 61 percent of minority beneficiaries are in that low income group. Bad as it is for everyone, the CMS’ proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage will disproportionately affect minority, low-income senior citizens.

The combined impact of these administrative actions will force millions of seniors into the government run Medicare they already chose to reject. According to the CMS’ own numbers, enrollment in Medicare Advantage fell for several years after the program was faced with significant cuts in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. And between December 2001 and December 2002, enrollment dropped by more than 900,000. Those who stayed in the program saw higher premiums and reduced benefits and coverage.

And, what of those in the low-income category? They’ll be shouldering the brunt of the higher premiums. According to Oliver Wyman, “those who utilize services the most will be required to pay even higher cost sharing or be forced by higher MA premiums or loss of access to MA plans to move back into FFS Medicare…”

Furthermore, according to 2010 analysis by the Heritage Foundation’s Robert A. Book, Ph.D. and James Capretta, the grisly truth is that the reform law’s cuts in payments to Medicare Advantage and the subsequent premium hikes and reduced benefits will only drive would-be Medicare Advantage enrollees into a government- run Medicare program. The net effect is that spending is only transferred from one program to the other; it’s not reduced.

So why not fund Medicare Advantage and allow the millions of seniors, particularly low income and minority seniors, to keep the coverage they already have?

Barack Obama repeatedly pledged, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." But, the war he is waging against Medicare Advantage will give lie to both of those promises.

It’s time for Washington to stop playing politics with seniors’ medical care and continue to allow private companies to compete in the Medicare marketplace. Simply forcing more and more Americans to become dependent on the federal government is no way to go about real reform. The Obama Administration can, and should, stop these cuts before it’s too late.

Is Climate the Biggest Threat?

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:22:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

The commander of American forces in the Pacific, Admiral Samuel Locklear, told a Boston Globe reporter last week that the most serious long-term security threat to the Asia-Pacific region is climate change.

Locklear said in the interview that instability stemming from a warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.” Apparently having faced some raised eyebrows in previous conversations on the matter, the admiral admitted that “People are surprised sometimes” to hear him say climate change is the biggest threat to peace in the Pacific.

He’s right on this account: Many would be surprised—or even shocked—to hear our senior warfighter in the Pacific say that. It’s likely that his listeners would expect him to talk about nuclear North Korea or China’s military build-up, cyber or space warfare or even the ongoing sovereignty disputes in the East and South China Seas, which involves some of our allies and friends.

In fairness to the admiral, there are a lot of possible reasons for his views. First, Locklear could be convinced of what he says or was being cautious with his words so as to not exacerbate existing tensions with the likes of North Korea, whose rhetoric of late has been anything but friendly.

But the Admiral could also simply be reading from the national-security gospel according to Team Obama, which has highlighted climate change as an emerging security threat. Obama national-security team members—past and present—seem to have the climate-change threat encoded in their DNA, no doubt to the delight of fawning environmentalists.

It arguably started with the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), where the Pentagon noted that: “While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.” Then former secretary of defense Leon Panetta noted in 2012 before the Environmental Defense Fund:

"In the 21^st century, the reality is that there are environmental threats which are threats to our national security. For example, the area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security: rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief."

Current secretary of defense Chuck Hagel has an interest in this issue going back to his days in the Senate. Just last fall, he wrote in a report on “The Impact of Climate Change”:

"America and the world face unprecedented, complex interconnected 21^st Century challenges. Environmental issues will continue to have unpredictable and destabilizing effects on developing and developed countries alike."

Reiterating his administration’s commitment to the idea in his second inaugural address, President Obama promised that “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

In his confirmation hearing, secretary of state nominee John Kerry echoed the administration’s take on climate change by saying in his opening statement that among other issues our foreign policy is “defined by leadership on life-threatening issues like climate change . . . ”

Unfortunately, just saying climate change is a security threat doesn’t make it so. Indeed, as informed observers are aware, climate-change predictions have come and gone over the years. Moreover, while there has been climate change before, there is no evidence of a war based upon it.

Proponents of the dangers of climate change have not been helped by hyperbolic claims about its effects, either. Wasn’t it the United Nations that predicted in 2005 that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010?

Moreover, trying to compare changes in climate with, for instance, the rise of China—likely one of the most significant events in the Pacific since the American ascendance early in the 20th century— seems a bit shortsighted, even to the most casual of observers.

Of course, the weather is important, including to the military; there is nothing wrong with looking at emerging, or evolving, issues for the purposes of long-range planning. It’s a good practice.

But the question, indeed the concern, is: Is it possible that our leadership is taking its eyes off of the real threats in favor of feel-good, politicized or du jour perceptions of evolving national-security challenges? Worse, with ongoing defense cuts, perhaps the Pentagon’s Pacific “pivot” will be more focused on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief due to the anticipated effects of climate change rather than on the ability to deter and fight wars, which are the topics the Pentagon should be thinking about.

Unfortunately, either of these might be the case, providing the climate for a perfect national-security storm—one for which we may be woefully unprepared.

Tip-of-the-Hat: Pope Francis

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:00:00 GMT

In an age when celebrity and excess are the norm, we are given a reminder that there is a higher calling, a greater purpose, a road less traveled. There is nothing I can add to the story of Pope Francis that has not already been told in the days since his selection by the Conclave of Cardinals.

The first image of Pope Francis to the world conveyed the message far better than words could possibly capture. Less than a week into his papacy, evidence of his beautiful humility, simplicity, and gentle countenance abound. He immediately reminded us of Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

As a Catholic, I am naturally filled with great hope and awe with my new Pope. But, in a larger sense, I rejoice in the reception to Pope Francis by Christian and non-Christians throughout the world.

The already legendary Christ-like nature of the former Cardinal of Buenos Aires Jorge Bergoglio illuminates his choice to model his Papacy after St. Francis of Assisi, whose prayer is included below. May Pope Francis likewise serve as an inspiration and example for us all.

We will do as he asked, and pray for him.

Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury,pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen

Gun Control: Who benefits? Who suffers?

Sun, 17 Mar 2013 06:00:00 GMT

By Krista Kafer, Contributing Editor

The most important Latin phrase you’ll ever learn isn’t semper fidelis, persona non grata, or status quo; it is cui bono translated who benefits? Cui bono isn’t just for impressing lawyers at cocktail parties; it’s the most important question you can ask about any piece of legislation considered by city hall, the statehouse or Congress. Cui bono? Who benefits if this becomes law?

Let’s apply a little Latin to the gun bills passed by the Colorado General Assembly now sitting on the Governor Hickenlooper's desk starting with House Bill 1224. The legislation puts a legal limit on the magazine size of a firearm. Apparently the bill’s sponsors feel 14 rounds are okay but 15 goes too far. I wonder what the word for arbitrary is in Latin. If the legislature can limit magazines to 15 with no clear rationality, why wouldn’t they limit rounds to ten or five or outlaw firearms altogether? Reductio ad absurdum? Ask Second Amendment opponents about their end game.

Ultimately, politicians and special interests are the ones who most benefit by limiting law abiding citizens access to firearms. New York Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama, and various lobbyists have been urging Colorado legislators to pass gun control bills as part of a national agenda. They need to score a win. The party loyalty of Colorado legislators on the Left will surely pay off, quid pro quo, next election season in contributions and endorsements.

Who else benefits? Criminals who don’t intend to abide by magazine limits much less laws against maiming and killing, benefit from having lesser armed victims. How many bullets does a woman need to stop a rapist? In the words of Laura Carno of I Am Created Equal, as many as it takes to stop the rape.

The world’s largest magazine clip in the hands of a law abiding woman is no threat to society; a simple hammer in the hands of a murderer or rapist is a crime waiting to happen. That hammers and clubs kill more people than rifles in the United States shows that the present debate over the size and shape of inanimate objects is misplaced. The real issue is the person with lethal intent not the hammer, knife, gun, etcetera, at their disposal.

Then there’s House Bill 1229 which would force all firearm arms buyers to undergo background checks. Cui bono? Who benefits if this bill is signed into law?

Score another win for politicians and lobbyists. The bill would have no impact on criminals who buy guns on the black market or steal them. The law would be at best an inconvenience to the honest citizen who buys a gun from a friend and at worst an attempt to gain information about law abiding citizens and their firearms. Registration always precedes confiscation. If that sounds too improbable, so once were unmanned drones, omnipresent surveillance cameras, and computer spyware the providence of the paranoid.

What legislation could be passed this session that would benefit the public while preserving the rights of individuals?

Instead of targeting law abiding citizens, as does this bill, lawmakers could instead create a “no buy” list of people who are forbidden from owning guns because of criminal history. It would be the “no fly list” of firearm possession that individuals or shop keepers could consult before selling a firearm. Thank you Ari Armstrong for the idea. Who would benefit from a “no buy list”? Law abiding gun sellers, be they individuals or gun shop owners, do not want guns in the hands of criminals or those with violent psychosis and would be eager to check a potential buyer’s name against a comprehensive list of ineligible personae non gratae.

Such a law would keep guns from being unknowingly sold to criminals on the private market while ensuring that law abiding citizens’ rights to protect themselves would not be taxed and recorded as it is in public sales. The public and individuals benefit from Second Amendment protections for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and a streamlined process for identifying those who cannot legally possess a firearm. In the simplest terms: good guys benefit and bad guys suffer, not vice versa.

Washington Post blasts Dems Budget

Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:12:00 GMT

"In short, this document gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for — or even a responsible public assessment of — the country’s long-term fiscal predicament."

Washington Post Editorial, March 14, 2013

Somebody must have realigned the planets. That's the only explanation I can fathom for the harsh criticism the editors of the Washington Post unloaded on the Senate Democrats newly released budget. The first budget Harry Reid & Co. has even bothered to introduce in four years, in case anyone is still keeping score.

The WaPo editors took some jabs at the House GOP's budget, as expected. But, the dissing of the Dems is nearly unprecedented.

The editors establish the foundation for their criticisms by citing a Feb. 28 analysis by William Gale and Alan Auerbach of the left-leaning Brookings Institute, as follows:

There has been halting but real deficit reduction progress in recent months. The United States faces no imminent budget “crisis.” Nevertheless, the economists write, “the 10-year budget outlook remains tenuous.” Even assuming steady economic growth, the national debt in 2023 will be twice as high as its historical average, as a percentage of the economy — and poised to resume rising. That long-term fiscal problem, driven by the growth of entitlement programs for an aging population, remains unaddressed. Dealing with it, Messrs. Gale and Auerbach write, will take tax and spending changes “several times the size of those adopted under the recent legislation.”

Thereafter, the editors unload:

Except for the part about no imminent crisis, the Senate Democratic budget recognizes none of this. Partisan in tone and complacent in substance, it scores points against the Republicans and reassures the party’s liberal base — but deepens these senators’ commitment to an unsustainable policy agenda….

It is on the issue of entitlements that the Democrats’ document really disappoints. There is literally nothing — not a word — suggestive of trimming Social Security, whether through greater means-testing, a more realistic inflation adjustment or reforming disability benefits. The document’s fuzzy call for $275 billion in “health savings” is $125 billion less than the number President Obama has floated.

As for the coming flow of baby boomers into Medicare, the Democrats declare that “new retirees deserve the same promise of quality, affordable health care from which their parents have benefitted — and it is the position of the Senate Budget that they ought to get it.” There’s plenty of excoriation for the GOP “premium support” plan. But there’s no explanation of how the Democrats would pay for their “promise” — nary a hint of the many cost-saving reforms that would extend Medicare’s life without embracing the GOP plan.

In short, this document gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for — or even a responsible public assessment of — the country’s long-term fiscal predicament.

Obama: "Not my fault" - White House to Re-Open

Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:36:00 GMT

Four days after slamming the doors of the White House closed, Barack "It's-not-my-fault" Obama says he's going to ask the Secret Service if to reconsider.

Contradicting previous statements, Obama told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News this morning that neither he nor his staff had anything to do with closing the public out of the White House. This time, he threw the Secret Service under the bus.

“I have to say this was not a decision that went up to the White House,” Obama said in the interview with Stephanopoulos. “But what the Secret Service explained to us was that they’re going to have to furlough some folks."

"The question for them is, you know, how deeply do they have to furlough their staff and is it worth it to make sure that we’ve got White House tours that means that you got a whole bunch of families who are depending on a paycheck, who suddenly are seeing a 5 percent or 10 percent reduction in their pay,” Obama said.

Obama's contention stands in stark contrast to the words of Jay Carney, the President's spokesman who specifically announced last week that the White House did, in fact, make the decision to close the doors.

“In order to allow the Secret Service to best fulfill its core mission, the White House made the decision that we would, unfortunately, have to temporarily suspend these tours,” spokesman Jay Carney told reporters last week.

ABC News also reports that Secret Service officials confirmed that the decision to cancel public tours was made by the White House.

Not accepting responsibility and flat our contradictions are nothing new to this White House. It's more like standard operating procedure. "What difference does it make?" – Hillary Clinton's Benghazi defense – may well be the motto of the Obama "No-Fault" Administration.

North Korean threats just might be real

Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:50:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

When considering recent North Korean promises of devastating military strikes against the United States and South Korea, it’s important to understand that Pyongyang carries out its threats — except when it doesn’t.

Despite this, it’s probably best not to take any chances.

Once again, North Korea is pushing tensions in Northeast Asia to a fever-pitch. In addition to military action, Pyongyang is ending the 1953 armistice as well as shutting down the DMZ crisis hotline.

It’s done things like this before, but this time North Korea is annoyed about new punitive economic sanctions the United Nations levied on it last week as a result of its recent nuclear explosion.

Pyongyang may also feel emboldened in light of that (likely) more advanced nuclear weapons test — and a successful long-range ballistic missile launch that preceded it.

But beyond the new U.N. sanctions, North Korea is also doing lots of messaging with its threatening words and behavior. First, it’s trying to pump up the leadership credentials of Kim Jong Un to his own people.

When he came into office, the newest king of the “Kim-dom” didn’t have the gravitas of his grandfather and the nation’s founder (Kim Il Sung), or his father (Kim Jong Il), a long-standing No. 2 and later leader.

And nothing burnishes a North Korean cult of personality like chest-thumping its archenemies, South Korea and the United States, in the state-run media.

Of course, the messages go beyond the folks at home.

North Korea can’t be any too happy with China, which supported the newest U.N. sanctions. Beijing and Pyongyang have a curious marriage; while a regional crisis doesn’t benefit China, North Korea feels it must show its independence from time to time.

Plus, Pyongyang wouldn’t mind causing some trouble for the new government in Seoul under South Korea’s first female president, Park Geun-hye, who came to power just last month.

North Korea hasn’t been afraid to mix it up militarily with South Korea in recent years, including sinking one of its warships and shelling a South Korean island.

Naturally, North Korea is also signaling to President Obama’s new national security team, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that it won’t be taken for granted.

Considering ongoing and future U.S. defense cuts, Pyongyang may feel the time is right to tweak Washington’s nose.

So, in the end, North Korea makes threats. It thrives on its ability to wreak death and destruction. Some threats they carry out; some they don’t. When and where is also their choice.

The problem is that if they don’t carry threats out, they become meaningless, losing their leverage. It’s best we err on the safe side and be ready for trouble.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published March 13, 2013 in his regular column in the Boston Herald.

A Red Tape Tower - Over 20,000 Pages Of Obamacare Regulations

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:47:00 GMT

Stacked here are every page of Obamacare regulations published through last week. The newest ones are the stack at the bottom. On the chair, next to the stack is the original 2,700 page Obamacare legislation. This stack is 7 feet 3 inches high. Photo is courtesy of the Republican Senate Leadership office.

Lew v. Romney

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:51:00 GMT

With overwhelming majority support from the Senate Finance Committee, Jack Lew appears headed for confirmation by the full Senate as the next Secretary of the Treasury. There are plenty of reasons to doubt that Lew is the best available talent to manage the affairs of the world's largest economy during perilous economic circumstances. But, it is also impossible not to notice the hypocrisy of Obama and his liberal minions who are silent about Lew's Cayman Island and Wall Street connections after scandalizing Mitt Romney as a "felon" and an "economic traitor" who "bets against America" during the Presidential campaign.

Credit to the editors at National Review for the following perspective:

During his campaign against Mitt Romney, President Obama repeatedly identified Ugland House, an office building in the Cayman Islands, as the seat of “the largest tax scam in the world.” And then he nominated Jack Lew, a former Citibank executive with investments domiciled at Ugland House, as his new Treasury secretary.

Before his nomination to Treasury, Lew served as President Obama’s chief of staff, and like every Obama chief of staff before him, he had a Wall Street résumé. Lew received a nearly $1 million payday from Citigroup just before the bank went to Washington begging for a bailout. He then invested in a Citigroup venture-capital fund based in the Caymans, where corporate profits receive gentle treatment.

Lew broke no laws and argues that “the tax code should be constructed to encourage investment in the United States.” Funny: Mitt Romney made the same argument, and President Obama’s allies labeled him — let us use the precise phrase — an “economic traitor.”

Not Scrooge McDuck, but a traitor. President Obama should either explain why it is acceptable to put this traitor in the top job at Treasury or issue an apology to Mitt Romney.

The editors of National Review, writing in the magazine’s March 11 issue

Banks and Bandits

Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:30:00 GMT

By Lawrence J. Fedewa, Contributing Editor

It seems that meaningful bank reforms are highly unlikely to become law. As long as politicians make the laws and are dependent on contributions to get elected, the bank lobbyists are going to block any realistic reforms. If our recent experience of the breakdown of the financial system in 2008-10 was not enough to motivate our politicians to get back to basics, there is little hope that anything short of a worldwide panic will do the trick.

Look at the trouble Dodd-Frank had being passed by Congress, even with a single party (Democrats) in control of the federal government. And that law was not even a meaningful approach to the basic problems, which derive from the dangerous consolidation of America's financial risk profile into the BIG banks. In fact, many argue that it has made the situation worse because it gave the BIG banks a pathway to stay BIG – just file the right forms. Even with all these favorable conditions, Dodd-Frank still passed only with great angst.

Since no one, especially the Congress, whose members are mostly lawyers not bankers, really understood what the root causes of the financial crisis were, they were virtually forced to rely on lobbyists, and outside experts supplied by lobbyists, for their information and opinions. (Remember that it was Joseph Kennedy, "one of their own" bankers, who was behind the reforms of 1933-34, including Glass-Steagall.) The whole episode was a case of solving the wrong problem. Dodd-Frank focused on regulating the BIG banks, rather than breaking them up.

Until the late 1980's, America's financial system was widely distributed and pretty straightforward: deposit banks were for depositors and commercial lending; mortgages were for non-profit Savings and Loans, and investment banking was for Wall Street. The system began to fall apart when S&L's came to be owned by private individuals (rather than the depositors) for profit (rather than not-for-profit), and subsequently imploded due to abuses (although some of the worst offenders did in fact go to jail). Then Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, which allowed depositor banks and investment banks to merge, and the entire system was consolidated into today's huge banks. By 2008 this whole new system had imploded because of abuses. And no one went to jail.

It seems pretty clear that consolidation has not been a good idea. It also seems that Larry Kudlow's mantra, "Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity" is not altogether true, unless "free" can be modified to mean "under certain rules". These "rules" should distribute the nation's financial risks into segments that are not too big to be effectively regulated.

I think, as a start, Glass-Steagall should be revived in a modern version which clearly separates depositor banks from investment banks; Dodd-Frank should be repealed on the basis that it unsuccessfully attempted to do the impossible, namely, provide a meaningful oversight to the big banks by bureaucrats who know even less about how they work than Congress. That leaves the credit unions, which are depositor-owned non-profits, and which are already in the home mortgage business. I think they could be designated as the successors to the S&Ls, and prevented by law from changing their not-for-profit, depositor-owned status into for-profit companies, and prohibited from expanding into commercial lending and investment banking.

It is also worth considering the dissolution of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, which represent BIG GOVERNMENT'S most aggressive intrusion into the nation's financial risk profile by transferring much of the home mortgage risk to the Government, and then (amazingly) allowing investor ownership of these hybrid (government and for-profit) organizations. Many critics hold, with some justification, that the unintended consequences of these well-meaning organizations' actions in the 1990's were a leading cause of the recent financial crisis. At the very least, they are too BIG and too complicated to regulate.

Under these proposals, the American financial system would resume its distributed risk profile. And any financial executive who contributes to or countenances fraud should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

***Dr. Fedewa is president of a Washington DC technology transfer firm and a frequent commentator on current events. He can be reached at l.j.fedewa@wtg.net

Freedom may Flower Post-Chavez

Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:21:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

It’s fine to ruminate a bit on the troubling times of Hugo Chavez’s presidency, but the real question is what meeting his maker might mean for the future of Venezuela, the United States and the region.

While elections are required by the Venezuelan constitution within 30 days to replace the deceased leader, the end of “Chavismo” could mean a lot — much of it good, if it happens.

The “Chavistas” have not only been a threat to Venezuelan political, economic and civil liberties, but to peace, stability and U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere for more than a decade.

Without a doubt, the death of “El Comandante” is an enormous blow to the socialist, authoritarian “Bolivarian” revolution he founded. The movement will find it hard to replace the fiery and charismatic Chavez, which will have an effect at home and abroad.

Under a new leader, Venezuela might move beyond its repressive politics and institute a true democracy. It might also gain the free markets and economic vitality the people of Venezuela certainly deserve.

Internationally, Chavez will no longer be the head cheerleader for the radical Latin American left; the end of the anti-U.S. league following that Chavez formed (and largely bankrolled) in Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba is possible.

Not only has Chavez kept Cuba’s Castro brothers on economic life-support with billions of dollars in annual aid, he’s also helped the re-rise of Nicaragua’s leftist, (Cold War) retread president, Daniel Ortega.

A new government in Caracas could also lead to removing the welcome mat for Tehran in Latin America, where Venezuela has been aiding Iran to gain a foothold and circumvent international economic sanctions.

Hopefully, a new Venezuelan leader would also kick out the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds force, limiting their freedom of action in that part of the world.

Venezuela might also cut ties with Lebanon’s terror group Hezbollah, which along with Iran is currently propping up the bloody Syrian regime.

And what about the narco-terror group FARC, which sought to destabilize Colombia? They’ve received Chavez’s support for some time, including cash, weapons and safe haven in Venezuela.

Venezuela also became a major drug trafficking transit country. “Narcotraficantes,” including FARC, use Venezuela to export cocaine around the globe, including here in the U.S., according to Washington.

While there’s room for positive change, there are plenty of bad scenarios, too, like instability, violence and more anti-Americanism in an effort to get Venezuelans to rally around the flag — or, more specifically, Chavez’s political heirs.

But the end of Chavismo could be a blow for freedom for the Venezuelan people and this hemisphere, not to mention a blow against the presence and influence of the likes of Iran — and other bad actors.

Wouldn’t it be great if the Venezuelan people were allowed to make that choice in free and fair elections, potentially closing an unhappy and unproductive period in their history and in our bilateral relations?

Sadly, Venezuela may not recover from its post-Chavez hangover quickly enough to seize that opportunity.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published March 8, 2013 in his regular column in the Boston Herald.

Still Punting on Syria: Letting the Bad Guys Keep the Lead

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:28:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

New Secretary of State John Kerry told a German audience last week that in America, “you have the right to be stupid, if you want to be.”

Ouch. That’s a pretty harsh thing for a US official to say overseas about his country, but perhaps he was reflecting on Team Obama’s strategy toward the bloodletting in Syria — a conflict that has dragged on for nearly two years, taking more than 70,000 lives.

Kerry added to that impression later in the week, when he met in Rome with the Syrian Opposition Coalition.

Some had hoped that our new top diplomat was finally going to get the United States leaning forward in the saddle on Syria. Uh-uh.

The Washington Post had reported that the administration was going to supply the rebels with body armor, armored vehicles and possibly military training— but it seems all Kerry offered was “nonlethal” aid (food and medicine), plus $60 million in other US humanitarian assistance.

While it’s reportedly the first aid the United States has given directly to Syrian opposition fighters, it won’t prove to be a knockout punch to dictator Bashar al-Assad, who still has a death grip on power.

It’s likely the administration got cold feet at the last moment on the proposed military equipment, but knew it had to bring something to the table. Team Obama realizes that many members of the Syrian opposition are writing the Americans off in favor of Islamists and terrorists like the al Nusrah Front, another al Qaeda wing.

The limited US package will be some help to desperate fighters and innocent Syrian civilians, but it’s unlikely to alter the balance of power militarily — or psychologically — in Syria, which is what we should be doing.

The fact is that there are few —if any — good scenarios for the United States coming out of the Syrian civil war. By sitting on the sidelines for two years rather than helping the best of the opposition, we’ve reduced the likely outcome to a range from complete chaos to ongoing ethnic/sectarian violence to an Islamist state — even Assad hanging on.

It’s well past time we try to pick a “winner” and amp up our efforts against the blood-soaked regime.

The worst outcome is the Assad regime’s survival: That means more Iranian influence, more support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, more terrorism, more building of weapons of mass destruction (recall, the Israelis took out a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007, not to mention worries about Assad’s chemical weapons) and more bloodbaths.

No, it’s not time for sending in US troops, but there’s more that we — and others — can do to end this ghastly conflict with some possibility of strategic benefit to us and our friends.

To start, Washington should identify, or develop, an opposition force of moderates that will fight to build a better Syria in a post-Assad period: supporters of free markets, secularism and an inclusive democratic government at peace with its neighbors.

But in trying to accomplish this, we can’t let the “perfect” be the enemy of the “good enough.” We’ve already lost two years to dithering, and time is of the essence.

In addition to nonlethal aid, we could come through on military field gear, transportation and expanded communications and training for the right rebels. Some tactical intelligence could also be shared.

We could also move toward arming appropriate pro-US rebel groups with small arms, ammunition and rocket-propelled grenades. (The rebels want surface-to-air missiles, too, but that transfer would be too risky.)

Yes, we should worry about weapons falling into the wrong hands, but the volatile situation in Syria (which will stay rough even after Assad) guarantees that those who get weapons won’t part with them willingly.

We’ve squandered lots of time and countless opportunities for ending the Assad regime and gaining important influence with its successor(s).

We’re playing catch-up ball here. We’ve got to move beyond cheerleading from the sidelines and get into the game in a serious way if we want any chance of a win for our side.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published March 4, 2013 in his regular column in the New York Post.

How high is high enough?

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:27:00 GMT

In the hours leading up to the "Sequester" kicking in late last Friday, President Obama clung to his familiar refrain. In speech after endless speech, Obama said that it was simply "dumb" to reduce spending and predicted catastrophic consequences. What was needed, Obama argued, was higher tax revenue.

"Dumb" though it may be; the President conveniently forgot that the Sequester was his idea in the first place.

Republicans dug in and made the case that spending, not insufficient revenue from taxes, was the problem. While the Sequester was no one's ideal plan for solving the problem, it did at least take a tiny 2.4% step in the right direction. The GOP leaders made it clear they are willing to consider serious tax reform later this year, but reduction in spending needed to come first.

So, which argument is valid?

While the President argues for ever more revenue, the fact is Americans are paying record amounts of taxes particularly in the wake of the fiscal cliff deal he muscled through on January 1, 2013. The following chart tells the story:

Source: Investor's Business Daily, March 4, 2013

When making his argument for more tax revenue, the President always targets the wealthy. The fortunate folks at the top of the income ladder simply must pay their "fair share," he says without ever identifying what that upper limit of "fairness" would be.

But, as the AP reported over the weekend, "wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates. " Here's another chart:

Source: Associated Press, March 3, 2013

This President will likely never believe that the government sucks enough tax revenue blood out of the people, nor that government spends nearly enough. And, the Wealth-Distributor-in-Chief will never be satisfied until he "runs out of other people's money," as Margaret Thatcher said was the eventual result of the pursuit of Socialism.

The Grand Dame of the Democratic Party

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 07:00:00 GMT

By Lawrence J. Fedewa, Contributing Editor

You can't help admiring the way Hillary Clinton handled the Benghazi episode. She is truly an expert politician. First, she delays her testimony for four months until momentous events, such as the presidential election, Christmas holidays, and fiscal cliff debate, have overshadowed the Benghazi tragedy. She finally agrees to testify on her last days in office. Then she schedules both hearings (Senate and House) on the same day, so that there is a severe time limitation on both hearings. Finally, she focuses her impassioned testimony (tears and all) on the future, and makes the preposterous claim that the past doesn't matter except as a case study of how State Department Security procedures should be corrected. And leaves the Democrats giddy with praise, and the Republicans confused and outwitted. This is one savvy lady!

Of course, the Republicans helped enormously by focusing on the disinformation disseminated by Susan Rice, instead of asking, Why the UN Ambassador in the first place? The whole matter has to do with the Secretary of State, not the United Nations. Why was the Secretary mysteriously absent through most of the public discussion?

But the larger issues are far more important than the disinformation episode

Of course, the Republicans helped enormously by focusing on Susan Rice's disinformation, instead of asking, Why the UN Ambassador in the first place? The whole matter has to do with the Secretary of State, not the United Nations. Why was the Secretary mysteriously absent through most of the public discussion? But the larger issues, which few Republican Senators focused on, are far more important than the disinformation episode.

The Secretary's testimony focused on "fixing" the procedures which allowed this tragedy to occur, but no procedures are going to "fix" bad judgment. The cold fact is that someone rejected the ambassador's repeated pleas for more security. This person has never been identified. So, presumably a high official with an appalling lack of judgment, still walks the shadowy halls of the State Department, and remains an ever-looming threat to our national security. That person should have been relieved of his/her position immediately (Or is that person leaving now? Or, did that person just get re-elected to the presidency?)

Then there is the team who admitted they were aware of the attacks in real time, but rejected pleas by the Consulate staff for help. Why? And who told the military, the Special Forces, and the world that no help could have arrived at any time during 8 hours of the two attacks? Really? Wasn't it worth at least trying to save our people? And what about the rumor that there was a detail sent to the rescue but couldn't get through airport customs in time? Was that true? Our rescue team stopped from rescuing our Ambassador and the whole Consulate staff by some petty Libyan bureaucrats? Or, was it by orders from that mysterious Washington person who didn't want the troops to appear on the scene? No one was identified by the Secretary. No one was fired. She takes responsibility four months later. What does that mean? Apparently nothing.

The Secretary's most explosive response concerned the question of the identity of the attackers. She asked heatedly, "What difference does it make whether the attackers were Al Qaeda, local terrorists, or just some guys out for a walk who decided to go and kill some Americans?" Madame Secretary, don't you know what difference it makes? Don't you realize that the US Government had an indefensible lack of local intelligence of Benghazi threats? Especially after the earlier attacks on the American Consulate, and the British Ambassador, and the decision by the British and the Red Cross to abandon their outposts in Benghazi because it was too dangerous? Was everybody asleep? And, if the attack was organized by Islamic jihadists, didn't that suggest that there will be other attacks in the future? As, in fact, there have been? Doesn't the difference mean that the Administration must re-think its policies toward Libya, Egypt, and all the other "Arab Spring" regimes? In fact, doesn't such a difference challenge the Administration's whole foreign policy toward the Middle East? Seems incredible that the Secretary of State can't see the difference.

Or, did she see all this, and decide to do her level best to get out of town with no scars that might impede her 2016 campaign for the presidency? Makes you wonder.

***Dr. Fedewa is president of a Washington technology transfer firm, and a frequent commentator on current events. He may be contacted at l.j.fedewa@wtg.net

School Children: "1" - School Choice Opponents: "O" in Colorado Court of Appeals Decision

Fri, 01 Mar 2013 22:38:00 GMT

By Krista Kafer, Contributing Editor

School children in Douglas County won Thursday when the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the district’s innovative Choice Scholarship Program (CSP) is constitutional. Overturning an August 2011 decision by Denver District Judge Michael Martinez against the program, the majority on the Appeals Court ruled the plaintiffs “failed to carry their burden of proving the unconstitutionality of the CSP beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court also ruled that the school choice opponents lacked standing to make their case against the program. The plaintiffs indicated that they will appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Once up and running, the district’s pilot program will enable up to 500 district students to receive a $4,575 tuition scholarship to attend a secular or faith-based private school of their choice. If upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court, Colorado will become the 21^st state to have a voucher program. There are essentially three types of school choice programs—voucher programs that provide students with a scholarship to attend a school of their choice; education tax credits and deduction programs that enable families to exempt or credit school tuition costs from their taxes; and scholarship programs funded through individual and corporate donations whereby the donor receives a credit against their taxes.

All three types of scholarship programs have grown significantly in the past two decades. Maine and Vermont’s century old “tuitioning” programs, Minnesota’s tax deduction enacted in 1955, and Iowa’s tax credit which passed in 1987 aside, the number of scholarship programs began to take off in the 1990s and continues to grow to this day.

Various state courts have upheld voucher and tax credit/deduction programs against challenges. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program. The Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision concluded that the use of public money to fund tuition at independent and religious schools does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution as long as parents decide where the scholarship is used. Given the range of options and the responsibility of the parent to choose from among them, the Court concluded that the Cleveland program is neutral with regard to religion—even though most voucher recipients chose faith-based schools.

Similarly, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined the “CSP is neutral toward religion generally and religion-affiliated schools specifically” even though 16 of the 23 private schools are faith based. The Appeals Court cited numerous state and federal cases in its determination that the CSP is consistent with the Colorado constitution’s provisions regarding religion and religious institutions.

Although the case will likely go to the Colorado Supreme Court, the Appeals Court’s decision gives school children and their parents cause for hope. If Douglas County prevails, other district boards may find the courage to give families greater choice in the pursuit of their children’s education.

False Prophets and the End of the World

Fri, 01 Mar 2013 22:10:00 GMT

By Krista Kafer, Contributing Editor

Remember back in 2011 when radio broadcaster and end-of-the-world prognosticator Harold Camping predicted the world’s end on October 21 yet the day passed with nary a sign of Armageddon?

Last year, the ancient Mayans and a few North American self-proclaimed prophets like Warren Jeffs had various dates in December pegged for the end. Imagine the surprise of their true believers when the sun came up the next day. Did they feel relief? Disappointment? Skepticism (somewhat overdue) toward their leaders? Some no doubt have left the cult while others wait in trepidation for their prophet to predict a new date of apocalypse.

More recently, what did those who believed in the sequestration end-of-the-world feel when they woke up this morning and everything was as they left it last night? Air traffic controllers are still directing flights and no planes have fallen from the sky. Medical research is still going on. Teachers are on their way to work as are health inspectors. National parks are open. Children are getting vaccinated. Government satellites continue to orbit the earth. The day will go on as every other day before it. No need to stay in the bunker.

As for the true believers, are they experiencing relief that the $85 billion cut—a mere 2.3 percent from this year’s $3.6 trillion budget—has not thrown the country into crisis? Or disappointment that the great federal government is not so indispensable that its growth rate cannot be trimmed a little without dire consequences? Will they feel skepticism (somewhat overdue) toward the self-interested politicians who use scare tactics to get what they want and the press that hypes fears for ratings? Some no doubt are now tuning out the fear mongering while others wait for the politicians to cry Armageddon once again.

During the past couple of “crises,” politicians’ fear mongering has successfully prevented any spending cuts while justifying tax hikes. It’s been “A tournament, tournament, a tournament of lies” to quote R.E.M.’s manic song It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine). Tales of fiscal cliffs and government shut-downs have distracted from the real problems ahead like the $16 trillion in national debt, Social Security and Medicare’s fragile financial footing, and yearly trillion plus dollar deficits.

While sequestration may not be the best way to cut an irresponsible $3.6 trillion budget, it has become the only way that politicians will do what is right. Only the House of Representatives has had the courage to cut spending, but it cannot act alone. Incredibly, Senate Democrats and the White House tried to pass a bill yesterday that would have increased spending and raised taxes. Didn’t Congress just raise taxes? Without sequestration, the status quo remains unchallenged and that is a truly scary situation.

In the end, however, sequestration is insufficient to adequately reduce the deficit. Because it is only a cut in the growth of spending, the government will still spend more taxpayer money next year than it did this year. More cuts in discretionary spending are long overdue and there are countless examples of duplicative and ineffective federal programs and endless corporate and farm subsidies from which lawmakers can choose. Half of the budget, however, is devoted to mandatory spending—Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and interest on the debt—all of which is exempt from the sequester. It is clear that lawmakers must summon the will to reform these programs in order to balance the budget now and for the long term. In 2020, interest on the federal debt will rise to $1 trillion a year. Over the next decade the Social Security disability fund and Medicare hospital insurance run out of reserves. In another ten years, Social Security will run dry. The sequester does nothing to stave off these daunting budget crises.

The sequester does, however, prove that government spending can be cut without triggering the end of the world. It shows the crisis mongering on the Left for what it is—a con designed to milk the public for more money.

Politics Trumps Airport Security

Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:40:00 GMT

By Rob Douglas, Contributing Editor

Spend an hour with Yampa Valley Regional Airport Manager Dave Ruppel and you’ll quickly learn that he is a serious, dedicated professional who understands the responsibilities of his job and cares deeply about providing the best security possible to the 210,000 passengers who move through his airport every year.

Given that reality, it’s time to pay attention when Ruppel uses terms like “hole,” “a step backwards” and “degradation” to describe security conditions at YVRA because of a congressional mandate that resulted in airport security screening equipment being removed from YVRA this week.

As reported in Thursday’s Steamboat Today, “Earlier this month Ruppel was contacted by the Transportation Security Administration and was told YVRA would have to give up its (L-3) full-body scanning machine that was installed at the airport last ski season.” With the L-3 scanner removed, TSA has reverted to “conducting pat-downs on YVRA passengers and using an older walk-through metal detector.”

Why did TSA yank the only full-body passenger scanner at YVRA designed to screen for “metallic and non-metallic threats — including weapons, explosives and other objects concealed under layers of clothing,” while removing similar L-3 scanners from other small airports across Colorado and the U.S.? They did so as a byproduct of “a decision by the federal government to pull all of the controversial Rapiscan Systems body scanning machines from airports across the country. The Rapiscan machines came under fire because they produce life-like images that many argue violate passengers’ privacy. The L-3 machines, on the other hand, produce cartoon-like images while highlighting specific body areas where a security risk might exist.

"Federal lawmakers told Rapiscan officials they needed to come up with a software fix by June. But when it became clear that Rapiscan wouldn’t make that deadline, the TSA canceled the contract and began pulling the company’s machines.”

With the Rapiscan machines being removed from larger airports in the U.S. because of a political decision by Congress to respond to privacy complaints by no later than June 1, TSA is poaching L-3 body scanners from smaller airports and transferring them to the airports losing the Rapiscan devices because L-3 can’t produce enough new machines by the June 1 deadline.

Ruppel “objects to the removal of his airport’s L-3 machine, particularly for the assumption that YVRA’s security checkpoint is somehow less critical than checkpoints at larger airports. Once passengers pass screening at YVRA they typically do not face additional screening for connecting flights at other airports.”

Ruppel is acutely aware that Mohamed Atta, the hijacker-pilot of American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston that struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, entered the air passenger system that fateful day by means of a regional airport in Maine.

Recognizing that TSA is working under a congressional mandate to remove the Rapiscan devices, Ruppel contacted the three members of Colorado’s congressional delegation with jurisdiction at YVRA seeking a waiver of the transfer of his airport’s L-3 scanner. According to Ruppel, prior to Thursday’s report in the Steamboat Today, Sen. Mark Udall and Rep. Scott Tipton hadn’t acknowledged Ruppel’s request. Sen. Michael Bennet’s staff responded but didn’t offer any relief. Adding insult to injury, TSA hasn’t told Ruppel when, or even if, YVRA will get another full-body scanner.

So where does that leave security at YVRA and, potentially, dozens of other rural airports across the country? It leaves them with passenger screening technology that is below the level TSA deemed necessary just a month ago. Is it a critical degradation in security? Presumably not, as TSA personnel will institute manual procedures designed to replace the loss of the L-3’s advanced imaging technology.

But without question, the current situation demonstrates a lack of common sense and foresight on the part of Congress who, for political reasons, mandated the removal of the Rapiscan machines before having enough replacement scanners directly from L-3 instead of from airports where the devices were in use.

Politics never should trump airport security.

***This article published as Douglas's regular column in Steamboat Today, March 1, 2013.

"Savage Sequester" - Hardly

Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:20:00 GMT

The President is on the road again today warning of Armageddon on Friday morning when the "savage sequester" takes effect. So, how bad is it going to be, really?

The following graph is courtesy of CATO economist Dan Mitchell based on the CBO's data. Notice first of all that even with the implementation of the sequester "cuts," federal spending will still increase next year. You'd never know that by listening to the President.

Then get out your magnifying glass and try to find the real impact of these would be draconian budget cuts.

Pull Hagel Nomination

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:05:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

The fact Chuck Hagel’s nomination for defense secretary has dragged on so long and caused so much teeth-gnashing means it’s probably a good time for President Obama to come up with another candidate.

With a Senate vote on Hagel expected this week, it’s not too late to do so.

Sure, it’s understandable why Obama chose Hagel. As a former senator he can look members of Congress square in the eye as a perceived peer when discussing the tough issues.

Plus, he’s worn the uniform, which may give him some clout with the troops in the trenches; pull with the senior civilians and big brass is another question.

Hagel also served as a Republican, which gives the president political cover when it comes to bipartisanship in his second-term cabinet and on cutting Pentagon spending, which is expected to be an Obama priority.

Besides inexperience running a large, complex organization like the Pentagon, the real concern is Hagel’s command of the pressing issues and his policy views, following a lackluster confirmation hearing a few weeks ago.

One can only imagine how the troops in the field must feel watching Hagel — potentially their next boss — stumble before the Senate Armed Services Committee over important national security questions. It likely didn’t inspire confidence in their prospective leader.

The same is probably true for our friends and allies, who must have been dismayed and discouraged at the televised display. That’s deeply unfortunate — and a position that may be difficult to recover from.

Moreover, secretary of defense isn’t a position suited for on-the-job training. With an international landscape chock-full of hot spots and flash points, you need to hit the ground running.

It’s not as if a fast-unfolding Benghazi-like crisis is going to wait while the Pentagon chief reads a background memo or briefing book.

Unfortunately, the policy outlook isn’t any better.

Hagel has long been considered soft on Iran, so one has to wonder whether his confusion about the Obama administration’s policy toward Tehran was an honest mistake or whether he actually prefers “containment” over prevention of a nuclear Iran? (He had to amend his remarks during his confirmation hearing.)

It’s also hard to fathom Hagel’s support for total nuclear disarmament, especially in light of North Korea’s recent nuclear blast. It seems counterintuitive to work toward reducing our nuclear arsenal, while our foes are building theirs.

Unless, of course, you’re looking for trouble.

And what kind of steward would Hagel be of our defense establishment? He has talked about cutting Pentagon spending, but at the same time he hasn’t laid out a detailed blueprint.

That would seem to be important in light of emerging security challenges such as China. The old do-it-yourself adage applies: “Measure twice; cut once.” It’s not clear Hagel has even measured once yet.

In the end, the delay and debate over Hagel’s confirmation may have served us all well — as it gives the president an opportunity to rethink a nominee who has proven to be without question the most disputed defense pick in recent times.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published February 25, 2013 in his regular column in The Boston Herald.

Coal: No Longer a Dirty Four Letter Word

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 03:05:00 GMT

It looks like the radical environmental left may have to find a new favorite dirty four letter word. Scientists at Ohio State University have announced the discovery of a new process that takes the energy from coal without burning it – "and removes virtually all of the pollution."

The technology, known as Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CCDL), captures more than 99 percent of coal's carbon dioxide emissions based on laboratory research. The team of scientists led by Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical engineering and director of the Clean Coal Research Laboratory at Ohio State University, has been working on this and other clean coal technologies for 15 years with funding by the Department of Energy.

Almost as amazing as the discovery itself, Prof. Fan's research project has survived three different Presidential Administrations with vastly different energy policies.

Carbon-dioxide has long been targeted by global warming alarmists.

According to the EPA, coal-fired power plants produced about one-third of the nation's annual total emissions of carbon dioxide. As the villain-of-choice for the Obama Administration, restrictive air-quality emission standards were purposely crafted to achieve the President's objective to "bankrupt" coal-fired plants faced with the cost-prohibitive and technologically impossible task of achieving the new standards.

But, this new technology virtually eliminates pollutants and "could reduce the cost of carbon dioxide capture by more than half if implemented on a commercial scale," according to the OSU research team.

Coal has been a staple of American energy production for centuries in large part because it is so plentiful throughout much of the U.S. Today, the U.S. has more than 25 percent of the world's known "reserves" of coal, and vastly more of total coal "resources," as explained by the Institute for Energy Research:

American Coal. The United States has enough recoverable coal reserves to last at least another 250 years, with reserves that are over one-and-one-half times greater than our nearest competitor, Russia, and over twice that of China. America’s known reserves alone constitute 27 percent of the entire world’s coal supply.

While known reserves are high, actual US coal resources are much higher than current estimates. Why? Because “reserves” represent coal that is readily evident as a result of ongoing mine operations, while “resources” include all those areas known to contain coal but have yet to be actually quantified by direct exposure due to the mining process. In-place U.S. coal resources (the entire estimated volume that is within the earth) totals 10 trillion short tons, and would last over 9000 years at today’s consumption levels. Alaska is estimated to hold more coal than the entire lower 48 states. (While the EIA’s estimate of recoverable coal reserves in Alaska is 2.8 billion short tons, geological estimates by the US Geological Survey put the in-place figure at over 6 trillion short tons.)

Combined, all these US coal resources may contain the energy equivalent of 35 trillion barrels of oil. While such figures are speculative and incorporate some coal resources that may not be economically viable with today’s technology, the future is full of promise. The US’s coal resources are clearly vast.

The OSU discovery was funded by a DOE research grant of just $5 million – less than 1 percent of the amount that was squandered on the now bankrupt Solyndra solar energy start-up company in California. Further, the total investment in Professor Fan's research hardly amounts to a rounding-error of the $80 billion set aside in Barack Obama's 2009 Economic Stimulus legislation for "green energy projects" – many of which have already collapsed.

In addition to efforts to regulate coal out of existence, the Obama Administration earned the infamous distinction of "the most anti-oil and gas record in U.S. history." During the last four years, the Administration has issued moratoriums, delayed permitting, cancelled leases, and limited access to federal lands for energy production. More recently, the Interior Department and EPA have begun aggressively pursuing new regulations on hydraulic fracturing technology (fracking) that has exponentially expanded recoverable resources and reduced consumer energy costs.

The OSU discovery exposes the fallacy of radical left and particularly the Obama Administration. They believe people are the problem, when in fact people will invariably find the smart, safe, and efficient solutions to the challenges we face.

At a time when North American energy independence in a real possibility due to our vast resources coupled with scientific advancements like fracking and encouraging discoveries like coal-direct chemical looping, our government and all citizens should be supporting – not trying to destroy – all options for safe, efficient energy production.

Obama's World: Employee Background Checks are "Racist"

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 03:05:00 GMT

Led by Barack Obama and Democrat politicians, the government is rushing to implement a mandatory background check before any American citizen could buy a gun. But, that same government says an employer who uses a background check as any part of the hiring process for new workers is racist and likely in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

If that makes your head hurt, it is with good reason.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) on January 29, 2013 issued Directive 306 without advance notice and effective immediately. The order reads in part:

Racial and ethnic disparities are reflected in incarceration rates. According to the Pew Center on the States, one in 106 white men, one in 36 Hispanic men, and one in 15 African American men are incarcerated.⁵ Additionally, on average, one in 31 adults is under correctional control (i.e., probation, parole, or incarceration), including one in 45 white adults, one in 27 Hispanic adults and one in 11 African American adults.⁶ Racial and ethnic disparities may also be reflected in other criminal history records. For example, although African Americans constitute approximately 13 percent of the overall population,⁷ they account for 28 percent of those arrested⁸ and almost 40 percent of the incarcerated population.⁹…

Policies that exclude people from employment based on the mere existence of a criminal history record and that do not take into account the age and nature of an offense, for example, are likely to unjustifiably restrict the employment opportunities of individuals with conviction histories. Due to racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, such policies are likely to violate federal antidiscrimination law. Accordingly, contractors should carefully consider their legal obligations before adopting such policies.

New Nuke Nonsense

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:29:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

You can only imagine how President Obama’s speechwriters must have been scrambling to reconcile their boss’ expected big pitch on new nuclear-disarmament initiatives and the North Korean nuclear test the day before the State of the Union address.

The test was not exactly what Team Obama or his supporters in the arms-control community were hoping for. But perhaps it was a fitting wake-up call—not to mention an opportunity to inject some rethinking—and some reality-- into the administration’s misguided plans for our nuclear security.

It was believed, based on reporting by David Sanger in The New York Times two week ago, that the President would use last week’s highly visible speech to lay out a detailed vision for new strategic-arms cuts. He clearly chose not to do so.

But building on the 2009 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the Kremlin, the White House is reportedly considering further reducing deployed nuclear weapons to around 1,000, down from more than 1,700. (New START requires both Russia and the United States to limit their accountable deployed weapons to 1,550 by 2018.)

While the President didn’t mention specific weapon-reduction numbers as some thought he would, he did say that: “America will continue to lead the effort to prevent the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

After issuing mild warnings to both North Korea and Iran for their nuclear programs, Obama added that “we will engage Russia to seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals, and continue leading the global effort to secure nuclear materials that could fall into the wrong hands—because our ability to influence others depends on our willingness to lead.”

While fairly open to interpretation, the phrase “willingness to lead” likely refers to the United States taking the initiative, such as setting the “moral example” for others, on nuclear disarmament, whether that means multilateral, bilateral—or even unilateral cuts.

In other words, if we do it, others will follow.

It’s as if the president is some sort of Proliferation Pied Piper, that is, by playing an alluring tune of disarmament, others (North Korea and eventually Iran) will follow him down the road to “Nuclear Zero”—or total nuclear disarmament.

It’s a wonderful idea, but like the Pied Piper, it’s likely a fairy tale.

First, what makes the president believe this approach will work? Sure, Russia may buy into further strategic-weapons cuts to reduce the operational costs of their current arsenal as they did under New START or, more likely, in exchange for limiting U.S. missile defense.

But beyond that, so far Moscow—despite numerous efforts— has refused to negotiate with Washington on their tactical nuclear stockpile, which may exceed American and NATO numbers by threefold or more. Further strategic reductions—without addressing Russia’s tactical holdings—could well undermine America’s extended deterrence and even give Moscow nuclear superiority over Washington.

And what makes the White House believe that our nuclear reductions would make North Korea follow suit? Pyongyang has just conducted its third—and most powerful—nuclear test since its first in 2006.

Early seismic data indicates the North Korean test was not only successful, but was also the most powerful to date. And while unconfirmed, Pyongyang claims the test used “a miniaturized and lighter nuclear device with greater explosive force than previously [tested].”

This assertion of “miniaturization” is significant when paired with North Korea’s successful satellite launch in December, advancing their long-range missile capabilities that might someday be mated with a nuclear warhead—and likely aimed at the United States.

Then there is Iran. Tehran seems to be doing anything but decelerating their nuclear (weapons) program. Indeed, it’s expected to have a nuclear weapon within the next few years, and the U.S. government believes Iran may have ICBM capability by 2015.

Lastly, has the White House taken China’s nuclear modernization program into consideration? Indeed, do we have a handle on the Chinese nuclear arsenal such as number of operational tactical and strategic warheads?

It’s not clear.

Without question, Beijing’s strategic buildup should be of concern. China has moved from a fixed, silo-based monad in the direction of a robust road-mobile and sea-based nuclear deterrent. A revitalized air leg, constituting a full triad, may not be far behind.

Moreover, Beijing’s reported development of a three-thousand-mile-long tunnel network—known as the “Underground Great Wall”—which supports the People’s Liberation Army’s Second Artillery (ballistic missile forces) raises a number of important questions.

Considering China’s massive military buildup and expected grand international ambitions, some which may conflict with the U.S. interests, a rush to nuclear parity by Beijing with Washington is a distinct—and perhaps less-than-predictable—possibility.

The point is that while no one would argue that a world without nuclear weapons would be a desirable one, the idea flies in the face of troubling trends—and the probability of any number of outliers in a dreamy nuclear-free world.

The important thing is that we preserve our strategic security in an increasingly proliferated environment. For the moment, that means developing robust missile defenses and maintaining and modernizing our nuclear arsenal—not sacrificing our well-being on the altar of wishful thinking.

Tip of the Hat: Benjamin Carson, M.D.

Mon, 18 Feb 2013 07:00:00 GMT

It isn't often that the President of the United States is upstaged, but it happened recently to Barack Obama. On February 7, the President spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast as has every President since Eisenhower. But, no one is talking about the President's remarks; only those by Dr. Benjamin Carson, head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.

In addition to the President, a second speaker is traditionally invited to address the more than 3000 people always in attendance which includes many Members of Congress, government officials, and distinguished American and international guests. Previous keynote speakers are a very diverse group that includes Mother Teresa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Bono, the Irish entertainer/humanitarian. Carson may be unique in that this was his second invitation to address the annual prayer breakfast.

In his 27 minute speech, Carson covered everything from the importance of faith in the American Culture, to his personal path from academic struggles and a life of abject poverty in Detroit raised by a single mom, to eventually become an acclaimed neurosurgeon awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.

Quoting scripture and confessing that "my role model is Jesus," Carson spoke of the importance of the lessons he learned from his mother who refused to allow him to believe he was a victim or to make excuses for under performance. She pushed him to excel through education.
You perhaps have heard excerpts of the 90 seconds of Carson's speech in which he rebuts ObamaCare and offers his own patient empowering solution to healthcare. That occurs between 20:20 and 21:50 of the video linked above, if you are so inclined. But, there is so much more of both substance as well as style to be learned by listening to the entirety of Carson's keynote address, including his thoughts about our federal debt and tax code.

I admit to finding some degree of satisfaction in Dr. Carson's put-down of the President's policies. But, I particularly admire the civility of his discourse – of which Obama himself has said we need to cultivate in our society. Some have been critical of Carson for taking on the President in what is typically a non-political forum. I applaud him for connecting Judeo-Christian principles with public policy – something frequented throughout most of American history, but too often absent in these more secular days.

Transforming America

Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:14:00 GMT

Michael Ramirez, Investor's Business Daily, February 13, 2013

Repair the State of Our Unions

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:30:00 GMT

By Melanie Sturm

Editor's Note: Melanie Strum is a good friend of A Line of Sight having published several previous articles. She writes a regular column – "Think Again" – for her hometown Aspen Times wherein she challenges often sensitive cultural issues with sensitivity and thoughtful common-sense. The following appeared in her regular column February 14, 2013. She welcomes comments at melanie@thinkagainusa.com.

“First comes love. Then comes marriage. Then comes the baby in the baby carriage,” goes the rhyme. Unfortunately, in large swaths of American society, this rhyme is playing in reverse, with dire consequences for lower-income Americans.

Given five decades of deteriorating marriage trends, it appears Americans concur with H.L. Mencken, who joked, “Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who'd want to live in an institution?”

Since 1960, the percentage of married Americans plunged from 72 percent to 51 percent last year, a record low. Meanwhile, babies born to unwed mothers skyrocketed from 4 percent in 1960 to 41 percent in 2011, another ominous record considering that out-of-wedlock children are 82 percent more likely to suffer poverty and other social ills.

However, Think Again before assuming Americans, like Mencken, believe that “the longest sentence you can form with two words is ‘I do.'”

A 2010 Pew Research/Time magazine survey concluded that the institution of marriage “remains revered and desired.” Though marriage isn't “as necessary as it used to be,” the study reveals that married people are significantly happier with their family lives, seven in 10 18- to 29-year-olds want to marry and 77 percent of Americans believe marriage makes raising a family easier, which remains a “very important” reason to marry.

If marriage is so revered, why aren't more Americans marrying and having in-wedlock children?

The Pew study confirms what Charles Murray chronicles in his best-selling book “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” American society is becoming as socially stratified as the vintage English world of “Downton Abbey.” Whereas in 1960, Americans shared bedrock moral values, behaviors and even neighborhoods, irrespective of class and education, today we're separated into cultural and income enclaves with profoundly differing values and practices — upper-class “Belmont” neighborhoods where college-educated, white-collar elites reside, and “Fishtown,” where less-educated working classes live.

“It's not the existence of classes that is new,” Murray contends, “but the emergence of classes that diverge on core behaviors and values.” As Fishtown's civil society atrophied, its residents suffered joblessness, family instability, poverty, government-dependency, crime and unhappiness. Meanwhile, cocooned Belmonters worked, invested, married, raised children, volunteered in the community, practiced a religion — they prospered. To recover, Fishtown needs a civic Great Awakening to revive America's original foundations of family, vocation, community and faith.

More marriage and family formation also is needed to counter another grave challenge — declining fertility. After decades of deteriorating demographic trends, America needs more babies, asserts Jonathan Last in his new book, “What to Expect When No One's Expecting: America's Coming Demographic Disaster.” Since low birthrates are infectious, “there's no precedent in recorded history of societies experiencing long-term peace and prosperity in the face of declining fertility and shrinking population.”

Low fertility and aging societies are less entrepreneurial, economically dynamic and secure because risk-averse older people seek to preserve — not invest — capital; a shrinking base of workers must support ever-growing retiree expenditures; when older majorities disallow entitlement cuts requiring tax increases on the younger, it makes having babies (future taxpayers) less affordable; and entitlements crowd out defense spending.

Notwithstanding the explosion of out-of-wedlock babies in Fishtown, America hasn't sustained a fertility rate above the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman since the 1960s. In 2011, it hit a record-low 1.93. Consequently, America's median age rose from 29.5 in 1960 to 37 today. Meanwhile, the ratio of workers to retirees shrank from 40 in 1946 to 2.9 today.

Though foreboding, America's prospects are better than the rapidly aging nations of East Asia and Europe, where decades of sub-replacement fertility rates are causing dramatic population contraction. Ironically, fertility decline was already a global phenomenon in 1968, when “The Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich predicted overpopulation would trigger imminent mass starvation.

Today, 97 percent of the world's population lives in countries with declining fertility. To avert “turning into a decaying nation,” and facing a fertility rate of 1.3 births per woman and devastating population declines, Russian President Vladimir Putin invited the group Boyz II Men to romance Russians into Valentine's Day baby-making.

In Japan — where the fertility rate has been below 1.5 births per woman since 1995 — more adult diapers than baby diapers are sold, and the economy has been stagnant for decades. With a median age of 45 and 2.6 workers per retiree (falling to 1.2 by 2050), spending on the elderly has exploded Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio to 229 percent. Last month, Japan's new finance minister made headlines when he told a social-security-reform committee that the elderly should “hurry up and die.”

To avoid these economic and societal death rattles, America needs more marriages and babies — in that order. With an “ideal fertility rate” of 2.5 births per woman (according to Gallup), Americans actually want more babies, and as the Pitt-Jolie children attest, kids prefer married parents.

Think Again — wouldn't it be wonderful to renew these commitments on Valentine's Day?

Benghazi – Where was the Commander-in-Chief?

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:10:00 GMT

By Paul E. Vallely (MG US Army – ret.), Contributing Editor

Editor's Note: MG Vallely is Chairman and Founder of Stand Up America. The following has also published on the SUA website and distributed nationally. Link to the entire text is provided below.

After the testimonies of Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey, and Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi tragedy, it appears the Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama was off duty and not available to make a hard decision to press the military Chain of Command to rescue Americans under attack. The cover up appears to be a White House order to “Stand Down” and not issue a rescue mission operational order. For over seven hours he did nothing; no communications with his National Security team, and then he flew to Las Vegas for a campaign stop. ”Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better.”

The testimony revealed that Obama stated to Panetta and Dempsey, “Do what you have to do.” Where was the order to execute a rescue mission NOW Mr. President? The investigation regarding the 9/11 al Qaeda raid on Benghazi and the deaths of four brave Americans began, but to date it has no end or acceptable findings, and provides no answers for the families of the four murdered Americans.

I have promised Charles Woods, Father of Ty Woods, and family, that at Stand up America, we will press this investigation to the end. Malfeasance and ineptitude borne from a foreign policy steeped in naiveté in the least and complete indifference to threat conditions provided by the Intelligence Community has degenerated into a massive cover up of the facts on the ground and is minimized by political corruption and ineptness by the National Security team. What we have had is myriad conflicting and/or changing stories and moving people and parts from all manner of sources, players, and decisions makers. We have internet rumors, official statements, hearings, in camera probes, an ARB report, talking heads ad nauseum, political spin and a very clear ‘circling of the wagons’ where blame encompasses all involved within the Obama circle of influence. Read more here.

CATO: State of the Union Analysis

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:08:00 GMT

Here's an exceptional dissection and analysis of last night's SOTU address as produced by the good folks at the CATO Institute.

Kim Sends US a Nuke Warning

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:40:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

With big defense cuts looming, this “boom” is for you, Mr. President.

As North Korea’s young dictator promised just a few weeks ago, the Stalinist state carried out its third underground nuclear weapons test late Monday night, following previous big bangs in 2006 and 2009.

Naturally, the latest test is directed at the “reckless hostility of the United States,” according to KCNA, North Korea’s “news” agency; “even stronger” actions might be forthcoming.

But rhetoric aside, while the radioactive details of the latest test leak out, it’s terribly troubling for U.S. security. Some experts think the test may indicate a big breakthrough in the North’s nuclear weapons program.

First, early seismic data indicates this test was not only successful, but the most powerful to date. (The 2009 test was a ground-shaker, but smaller in explosive power, while the 2006 test was more of a “fizzler.”)

North Korea is clearly getting the science of big blasts down pat.

Plus, while unconfirmed, Pyongyang claims that the test used “a miniaturized and lighter nuclear device with greater explosive force than previously (tested).”

This claim of small is big.

If true, this is important to North Korea’s efforts to build nuclear warheads for mating with any of its various ballistic missiles, which are currently only able to carry conventional (explosive) weapons.

Conducting a nuke test is one thing, but “weaponizing” that test platform — engineering it to fit in a missile nose cone and preparing it to withstand the extreme temperatures and pressures of long-distance flight — is another thing altogether.

There’s a good chance Pyongyang used this last test to advance its development of a warhead for its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program.

Remember back in December when Pyongyang was able to send a small satellite into orbit, using a multi-stage space launch vehicle? The dirty little scientific secret is that if you can launch a satellite payload of a significant weight into orbit, you can also, in theory, launch a nuclear warhead toward a target anywhere on the Earth’s surface — like the good ol’ US of A.

It gets worse.

We still don’t know if the fissile material used in this week’s test was plutonium or uranium. Previous North Korean tests used plutonium, which some observers believe Pyongyang has a limited stock of.

But, if it turns out North Korea used uranium in this test, it would mean Pyongyang has a new pathway for building weapons based on enriching uranium. Meaning? More bombs, and more problems. And even worse is the possibility they would pass along more of their nuclear know-how to Tehran.

Pyongyang’s provocations should remind our leaders, we live in an increasingly dangerous world, and even in trying fiscal times, a strong national defense is not something we can do without.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published February 13, 2013 in his regular column in The Boston Herald.

Obama AWOL during Benghazi Attack

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 04:59:00 GMT

President Barack Obama was nowhere to be found the long and fatal night of September 11, 2012 when Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were assassinated in an attack on the U.S. Mission Outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

Finally, five months after the terrorist assault, the American people and the families of those brave slain Americans find out that even though live video was being streamed back to Washington, even though requests for backup had been sent, the President left it to others to deal with the issue.

"He (Obama) knew generally what was deployed out there but as to specifics about time, etc. etc., he left that up to us," outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, February 07, 2013. Joining Panetta was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey.

Panetta told the Senators he did not speak with President Obama or anybody in the White House the night the terrorist attack was carried out on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Panetta testified that Obama relied on officials at the State and Defense Departments to deal with the issue.

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) asked Panetta if he "had any further communications with him (Obama) that night?" Panetta answered, "No."

Ayotte pressed further, "Did he ever call you that night? How are things going? What's going on? Where's the Consulate?" Panetta said, "No," but when information came in that Ambassador Stevens had been killed "we were aware that that information went to the White House."

Note the careful use of "the White House" – not "to the President." And, the vague "we were aware." Who passed on the information, and to whom was it delivered? There was a dead Ambassador, two former Navy Seals, and another diplomat, after all.

Recall, too, that earlier in the day of September 11, the Embassy in Cairo, Egypt had also been stormed, and other anti-American demonstrations were popping up across the globe. Further that this same Consulate in Benghazi had been attacked twice before and numerous communications had raised security concerns for the outpost and for the Ambassador and his staff. This was hardly a one-off, isolated occurrence.

In the same Senate hearing, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that the State Department never sent a request for military backup before, during or after attack occurred.

Citing the numerous requests for additional security in Benghazi, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) asked Dempsey, "Why didn't you put forces in place to be ready to respond?"

Dempsey said flatly, "Because we never received a request to do so…"

McCain cut him off apparently astounded by the answer, and fired back, "You never heard of Ambassador Steven's repeated warnings?"

Dempsey answered, "I had through General Ham (Commander of U.S. Africa Command). But, we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces…"

McCain interrupted again, "So it's the State Department's fault?"

But, Dempsey wouldn't go there. "I'm not blaming the State Department," he said.

Pressed by McCain for who was responsible, Dempsey referenced the State Department's internal review. "I stand by the report of the Accountability Review Board," Dempsey said. But, that report was neither complete nor comprehensive.

It's worth remembering that when Hillary Clinton testified before both Senate and House Committees two weeks ago, she admitted that on the night of September 11 during the attack she spoke to various "senior staff" at the White House throughout the night, but she also did not speak with President Obama. "I spoke to President Obama later in the day," she testified.

How impenetrable must be the barrier – and how totally detached and uncaring is this President – if a seven hour terrorist attack on a diplomatic installation leading to the death of four Americans including the Ambassador, doesn't merit a personal conversation between the President and either the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense?

Sebelius: A Tea Cup to Drain the Swamp

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 07:00:00 GMT

You'll get the "tea cup" metaphor soon enough. Allow me to set the stage:

The Department of Health and Human Services is "committed to cutting the red tape for health care facilities," according to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. That news came in the form of a public announcement that HHS was launching a search for "outdated or overly burdensome requirements" for possible elimination.

Although Sebelius is just announcing the search for needless and onerous regulations, somehow the Secretary is sufficiently clairvoyant to already know that her efforts will save $3.4 billion over five years, or $680 million annualized.

Cutting the cost of regulation by a few billion dollars initially seems significant. But, stop and think for a moment – put it all in context.

This all started on January 18, 2011 when President Obama signed one of his famous Executive Orders directing "a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive."

Sec. Sebelius has drug her feet for more than two years before finally getting around to following a direct order from the President of the United States.

More notably, though, Sebelius' great reg-reduction, cost-savings expedition turns laughable when put in context of the total burden HHS – and particularly ObamaCare – inflicts on patients, families, businesses, and health care providers.

According to an extensive study of the cost of government regulation by Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, "the baseline current cost of health services regulation…is $184.8 billion."

Even if Sebelius were to find and eliminate regulations costing the economy the $680 million per year she suggests, that would be a paltry 0.37 percent of the health care regulatory cost burden already imposed by HHS.

Since Crews' analysis was published last year, he makes specific reference to the need to add "future costs" to the current burden calculation for the as yet unknown total price tag for ObamaCare.

That's a frightening thought since published reports back in July 2012 indicated over 13,000 pages of ObamaCare regulations had already been written with much more to come.

According to Senator Jeff Sessions, Ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, beginning next year when ObamaCare is fully implemented, the legislation will cost a staggering $2.6 trillion over its first full decade of existence.

Now for the metaphor: Sebelius' announcement creates visions of a government bureaucrat coming to the aid of a drowning man with a tea cup to empty the swamp. Her announcement carries about the same significance, and millions of Americans are still drowning.

Expand School Choice, for the Children

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 01:34:00 GMT

By Krista Kafer, Contributing Editor

A great school isn't great for every student.

I was fortunate. Columbine High School was a great school for me. My senior year, I was making good grades, was an editor on the school newspaper staff, and competed on the speech and debate team.

Most of my friends were like me: involved, excelling — in a word, thriving at a public school. I had other friends, however, who were lost in a building with 1,600 students (and Columbine is by no means the largest public school in the state).

One friend had been passed along year after year in math and arrived in high school without basic arithmetic skills. She struggled thereafter to gain confidence. Another friend, also smart and gifted in music, dropped out. In a sea of young people, he fell through the cracks. Both would have likely flourished in another environment.

A great school isn't great for every student because one size does not fit all. Every child has unique gifts and challenges, and finding the right school is what school choice is all about. During National School Choice Week (Jan. 27 to Feb. 3), students, community leaders and activists from across the country celebrate how policies that put parents and students in control are creating better opportunities for children.

In Colorado, there's a lot to celebrate. At present, through school choice programs, Colorado students may attend any of the state's 1,500-plus traditional public schools or 187 public charter schools, space permitting. Additionally, thousands of families home-school their students independently or with support from an online public school.

The state has seen the steady growth of charter schools over the past 20 years. These public schools are managed independently of their school districts, but still have to adhere to state standards, assessments, and civil rights laws.

Few charter schools are alike. There are schools that embrace back-to-basics or project-based curricula; foreign language immersion; an arts or science and technology focus; dropout recovery; Montessori philosophy; expeditionary learning format; or online presentation.

Even though a handful of new charter schools open each year, many students have not found a space to achieve or a place to belong. Some of the most effective charter schools have long waiting lists. Students languish in schools where they continue to struggle. Test scores show too many students falling behind.

On the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, less than half of all Colorado's fourth- and eighth-graders score at grade level in math and reading and a quarter (26 percent) of Colorado students do not graduate on time, if at all.

While there are nearly 600 private schools in the state, only those families who can afford tuition can access this option. Colorado is not one of the 20 states that support lower- and middle-class families with private school tuition either through a voucher or tax deduction/credit.

The Douglas County School District deserves recognition for piloting a local voucher program, but it has been tied up in court. The district's board and leaders are some of the most innovative and insightful in the country. They understand the value of offering access to as many good schools as possible, even in a district where most of the public schools are performing well.

It isn't about the schools, after all; it is about the students. By providing a small voucher, the district would not only save money, it also would open more schoolhouse doors to more families.

There are a lot of students who are making the grade at their comprehensive public school. Even so, there are still those students who would do better in a different environment. Maybe they need a smaller school where they can get personalized attention. Maybe they need specialized help for a learning disability. Perhaps they need more challenging curricula, more guidance or even a fresh start with a different group of peers.

Whatever the case may be, these students would benefit from a range of choices from traditional public schools to charter schools to home schools to independent private schools. It's time for Colorado to take another step in expanding school choice.

***Published February 2, 2013 as a guest editorial in the Denver Post.

Then and Now

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:28:00 GMT

White House spokesman Jay Carney yesterday reacted as follows to the bombing outside the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey:

“A suicide bombing on the perimeter of an embassy is by definition an act of terror...The act itself is clearly an act of terror."

But, the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic mission outpost by heavily armed thugs with assault weapons, mortars and RPGs was a spontaneous reaction to a movie? Not only did the White House fail to identify Benghazi as a terrorist attack, they went to great lengths to vociferously deny that organized terror was even a possibility.

Why the sudden clarity from the White House? What changed?

Oh, right! Benghazi occurred before the election.

Invisible War Wounds

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:16:00 GMT

By Rob Douglas, Contributing Editor

Editor's Note: Rob Douglas has enjoyed a distinguished and extensive career (here) affording him great perspective on varied topics. Douglas now resides in beautiful Steamboat Springs, Colorado, and in addition to serving as a regular contributing editor to A Line of Sight, Rob pens a regular column for Steamboat Today. Below is his January 31 post that highlights a far too familiar problem for our military veterans. In large part because PTSD is invisible, both society and our government too often ignore and misunderstand this tragedy of war.

It’s a safe bet that most readers of the “Veteran alleges discrimination by Steamboat Springs motel owner”article in Monday’s Steamboat Today were offended by how Western Lodge motel owner Peter Guler allegedly treated Joseph Metzger, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who wanted to stay at the motel Saturday night along with his German shepherd service dog.

#As the Today reported, “Metzger, a Denver resident, arrived in Steamboat on Saturday with his girlfriend and service dog for a weekend getaway at the hot springs. The 26-year-old has served four deployments in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. In 2007, he broke his back in an improvised explosive device attack and was injured by a hand grenade in 2009. Today, the wounded warrior suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and has his working service dog Ruud for companionship and therapy.”

#After initially checking in to the Western Lodge without incident, Metzger told the Today that he was approached by Guler, who “flipped out and gave us a whole bunch of trouble. He wanted me to give him extra money to stay there, and then he said he didn’t want us to stay.”

#Guler has declined to speak to the Today about the specifics of the incident but told me Thursday that he thought the newspaper had taken Metzger’s side. “I disagree with many things” in the Today’s news report, Guler said, “but I cannot talk for legal reasons.” That may be wise, as Metzger stated he is “definitely” going to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that Guler violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

#If Metzger does file a complaint, it may be the first case to arise since the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs issued a controversial ruling last September that the department no longer will provide mental health service dog benefits to veterans with PTSD until the department determines whether “mental health dogs are appropriate treatment tools for mental health impairments.” Given the VA ruling, it is conceivable DOJ will have to re-evaluate whether mental health service dogs for veterans continue to fall within the parameters of the ADA.

#But let’s leave the legalities to lawyers and consider the more compelling issue of human compassion when it comes to recognizing that a significant number of combat veterans suffer invisible war wounds. Metzger’s allegations against Guler highlight the misconception that too many Americans have when it comes to battlefield wounds that leave no obvious physical trace while scarring the psyche. According to Metzger, after showing Guler the paperwork for Ruud along with proof of having been awarded the Purple Heart for his injuries, Guler questioned whether Metzger truly was disabled.

#“He didn’t believe me that I was disabled and said that I looked fine,” Metzger told the Today.

#Of course, how a veteran looks physically is not an indicator of whether PTSD is present. According to the experts the VA cites on its website, as many as 20 percent of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have PTSD. Couple that with the 10 percent of Gulf War veterans and 30 percent of Vietnam War veterans who battle PTSD, and there is no doubt that a significant number of the men and women who go to war on behalf of the United States come home with a mental health challenge.

#Tragically, upward of 6,500 veterans kill themselves every year — that’s one every 80 minutes. Are all veteran suicides attributable to PTSD? Of course not. But studies indicate that combat veterans — especially those serving multiple tours, as Metzger did — face a significantly higher risk of suicide than the overall population.

#What can those of us who’ve never gone to war on behalf of our country do to assist those who answered the call and are now burdened with invisible wounds? At a bare minimum, law or no law, we can demonstrate our heartfelt gratitude and humanity by giving our veterans a little latitude when they ask to have their service dog by their side in circumstances where others might be denied.

Hagel Nomination: Iranians Giddy, US Military Leaders "deeply concerned"

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:09:00 GMT

As the Senate prepares to hold a January 31 confirmation hearing for their former colleague Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense, an alarming paradox has emerged. Iran – the "Death to America" Islamic regime – is effusive with praise, while a large group of retired U.S. military commanders have "deep concerns" and have taken a highly unusual public position in opposition to Hagel's nomination.

The Washington Times cites an Iranian source that received the news of Hagel's nomination as "a message of peace from the Obama administration to the Islamic Republic of Iran" and admiringly quoted Hagel's condemnation of sanctions against Iran. Not surprisingly, the Iranians and are also giddy over Hagel's past anti-Israel statements and criticism of the "Jewish lobby" in the U.S.

Additionally, the regime controlled English press outlet in Tehran says the Iranians believe that a new SecDef Hagel would help craft a "grand bargain" between the U.S. and Iran. That bargain, they believe, would be accepting of the current Islamic regime and their quest for nuclear capabilities, while turning a blind eye as the regime squashes the pro-freedom opposition. Read the full article here.

Meanwhile a distinguished group of retired military commanders have taken a highly unusual public position in opposition to the Hagel nomination. The group includes nine retired Army, Air Force, and Marine Generals and Five Navy Admirals, including Paul Valley, Major General U.S. Army (ret), who is a contributing editor to A Line of Sight.com and Founder and Chairman of Stand Up America.

In a January 29 letter sent to Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the group of flag and general officers raised the following serious concerns and concluded that, "For all of these reasons, it is our professional assessment that confirmation of Sen. Hagel to be Secretary of Defense would be contrary to the United States' vital national security interests." Full letter here.

Sen. Hagel’s support for further cuts to the defense budget. Sen. Hagel stated in late August 2011 that the Pentagon is “bloated” and needs to be “pared down”, contrary to Sec. Panetta’s and Chairman Dempsey’s views that sequestration – the additional hundreds of billions in across-the-board cuts to defense that go well beyond the $787 billion in cuts already sustained by the Department since Sec. Gates’ tenure – would be “disastrous for the defense budget” and “very high risk” to national security;

Sen. Hagel’s support for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Sen. Hagel is a public supporter of the “Global Zero” Initiative, the goal of which is the “elimination of all nuclear weapons.” This stance is ill-advised for any Secretary of Defense, as Russia and China continue to modernize their nuclear capabilities while North Korea and Iran move closer to obtaining them.

Sen. Hagel’s hostility towards Israel. Sen. Hagel has demonstrated an abiding hostility towards Israel, a view that would be detrimental to ournational defense and perhaps perilous to our only stable, reliable ally in the Middle East were he to become Secretary.

Sen. Hagel’s outlook towards Iran. Sen. Hagel repeatedly opposed sanctions against Iran while serving in the Senate, and in 2006 stated that "a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option” – an ill-advised statement that undercuts the effectiveness of both diplomatic and military policies to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities.

Signers to the letter are as follows:

Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, USA (Ret.)

Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Thomas F. Cole, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Vincent E. Falter, USA (Ret.)

Rear Adm. H.E. Gerhard, USN (Ret.)

Rear Adm. Robert H. Gormley, USN (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Higginbotham, USMC (Ret.)

Rear Adm. Don G. Primeau, USN (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Mel Thrash, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, USA (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. Ronald K. Kerwood, USA (Ret.)

Mr. President, Your Ideology is Showing

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:28:00 GMT

On Jan. 21, the very day America learned that three of its citizens had been killed in a hostage-taking at a Saharan natural gas facility, President Obama was sworn in for another four years and delivered a speech that said nothing about terrorism.

In fact, his inaugural speech failed to address many of the most pressing issues confronting America today. Rather than pay respects to the families of the Americans lost in Algeria or at the Benghazi consulate, he talked about “hope,” “engagement,” and turning “sworn enemies into the surest of friends.”

The president made no mention of the more than 8 million Americans without jobs. And only a passing reference was made to the burgeoning federal deficit. About the budget-busting entitlement programs, the president said they “strengthen us.”

In short, President Obama’s inaugural address downplayed the clear and present dangers that confront us, played up the theoretical threat of climate change, and signaled that he intends to continue the profligate spending that led to the $16 trillion budget deficit at the conclusion of his first term.

High on his agenda are climate change and sustainable energy, both of which require massive government intervention in the private sector and huge outlays of capital. President Obama attempted to take action on these issues in his first term but with limited success.

The cap-and-trade bill, aimed at lowering carbon emissions, was not enacted despite having a Democrat-controlled House and Senate in the first two years of his presidency. Dubbed “cap-and-tax” by its critics, a Heritage Foundation analysis showed it could have cost the average family $3,000 per year and eliminated one million U.S. jobs.

After the bill died in the Senate, the administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did an end-run around Congress by asserting it had the authority to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, and EPA moved forward by proposing new rules. Last fall former EPA Administrator Carol Browner predicted climate regulations are likely to move forward on a “sector by sector” basis.

“The president has been willing to use his executive authority ... I think you’ll see that kind of leadership,” Browner said during a panel discussion in September.

On the sustainable energy front, the president used taxpayers’ dollars in his first term to place bad bets on solar, wind, and electric car and battery companies. The 2009 stimulus bill contained $80 billion in loan guarantees and other forms of government support for green energy projects. Many of the recipient companies went belly-up, among them was Solyndra, the poster child for wasteful spending and cronyism on failed energy pipe-dreams.

At the same time, the administration went to extreme efforts to discourage the consumption of traditional fuels. New regulations have made it nearly impossible to mine coal or build new coal-fired power plants. The Interior Department added new layers of rules and approvals on offshore oil and natural gas drilling, which added costs and delayed projects. The president also refused to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to cross our northern border, precluding the transport of about 860,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil to Gulf Coast refineries.

The administration also has hydraulic fracturing in its crosshairs. EPA has been conducting studies on fracturing’s alleged impact on groundwater, but serious concerns have been raised about the agency’s methodology. Recently EPA extended the comment period for its water quality studies conducted in Pavillion, Wyo., raising the ire of elected officials.

Senators David Vitter (R-La.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wrote a letter to EPA saying, “The additional eight-month delay further illustrates that the EPA’s initial findings failed to be based on sound credible science, and [were] hastily rushed out the door for political purposes.”

Hydraulic fracturing, a technology that has been used in U.S. oil and gas fields since the 1940s, holds the key to U.S. energy independence and sustained economic vitality. By creating tiny cracks in rock beds deep below the surface, fracturing is tapping U.S. shale formations that were considered impervious to energy production just a few years ago. Today these formations are yielding oil and gas in large quantities and greatly increasing U.S. energy production. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says the United States could become the world’s largest oil producer by 2017.

That is, if federal regulations do not delay or stop progress. The White House has formed a task force of no fewer than 13 federal agencies to consider new federal fracturing rules. And this is occurring despite the fact that fracturing already is regulated effectively by the states. Furthermore, not one confirmed case of groundwater contamination has been linked to fracturing operations.

One would think that the president would glom on to a made-in-America technological success initiated by the private sector to improve our economic and national security. Unfortunately, it does not fit his view of progress. In his inaugural address, President Obama said the United States needs “collective action” to “meet the demands of today’s world.” Translation: Big Government, not the private sector, should solve our problems.

Pardon me, Mr. President, your ideology is showing.

Top Concerns of Small Business? It's the Government, Stupid!

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:04:00 GMT

Memo to the President: In case just for a moment you really do wonder why businesses are not expanding, why their anxiety level is high, why the sense of uncertainty continues 43 months after the economic recovery supposedly began…just look in the mirror. Not just for another opportunity for self-adoration, but for the root cause of our economic stagnation.

According to results of a newly released Gallup poll, the top five concerns of small business owners are healthcare costs, taxes, energy prices, regulation, and the debt ceiling – all that have increased significantly under the Obama administration. Worse, if the President gets his way, all five of these business anxiety concerns are likely to go up even more during the second term.

Here's what Gallup found:

Senate needs to Grill Hagel

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:24:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

While Secretary of State-designate John Kerry’s nomination hearing last week was pretty much a lovefest (it was before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he chairs), this week’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Chuck Hagel for Defense should be anything but.

Setting aside his controversial past statements, there’s no shortage of pressing global issues — not to mention Team Obama policies — that sorely need to be discussed and debated:

Afghanistan: After more than a decade of fighting, the administration is looking at a drawdown — or complete withdrawal — of US troops from Afghanistan over the next two years.

What’s the plan for handling this? Members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard cheering last year at tests launches, including missiles that could one day reach the US.

How does the nominee see the threat from al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Haqqani network? What should the future US presence be, and how ready are the Afghan forces to meet the insurgent threat?

Iran: From its nuclear program to its ballistic missiles to terrorism, the Islamic Republic is arguably the greatest threat to international security today.

Committee members need to ask how Washington should deal with the growing threat “radiating” from Tehran. (Hagel has pushed for direct talks, while pushing against economic sanctions and force.)

Defense Budget: Some believe Hagel is being sent to the Pentagon with a cleaver to hack away at an already-shrinking defense budget; his past comments on Pentagon spending make this concern credible.

Senators should drill down on what Hagel plans to recommend for a Defense Department that’s endured more than 10 years of war and is in dire need of recapitalization.

Missile Defense: North Korea successfully tested a long-range ballistic missile recently and is reportedly getting ready for another nuclear test. Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs aren’t far behind.

Considering the lack of progress in dealing with these growing threats, how does Hagel plan to prioritize the development and deployment of missile defense — our best option at the moment?

Nukes: The prez sees himself as a modern-day proliferation Pied Piper, believing he can lead the likes of Russia, North Korea and, eventually, Iran down the road to total nuclear disarmament or “Nuclear Zero.”

Hagel is reportedly in sync with Obama on this issue. Considering the world today, does the prospective secretary really believe further reductions, including possible unilateral US disarmament, are wise?

Middle East: The region is nothing less than a mess, with ineffective US policies a big part of the problem: Syria is on fire; Egypt after two years of the “Arab Spring” is a big question mark, and other pro-West regimes are teetering.

The senators should press Hagel to unpack administration plans for protecting and advancing American interests in this important region, including the nominee’s view on our security relationship with Israel.

Terrorism: Al Qaeda affiliates and other militants are on a tear in places like Syria, Libya, Mali and Nigeria. The terror group may be “on the run” as the president has suggested, but it seems like it’s running to any place where US troops or drones aren’t.

What does Hagel see as our strategy going forward on fighting terrorism? What role will Obama’s second-term Pentagon play in dealing with the al Qaeda resurgence?

China: With its runaway military buildup — especially its naval, air, missile, strategic, cyber and space forces — Beijing is on a trajectory to challenge Washington’s military dominance in the Pacific.

Committee members should probe how Hagel plans to project American power into the Pacific, considering budget constraints. Is Team Obama’s rebalancing to the Pacific going to be a powerful pivot or more of a plucky pirouette?

The concern, of course, is that Hagel — like Kerry — will push US foreign and defense policy violently Left, more in line with Obama’s real sentiments. So a solid airing of the issues this week is critical.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published January 27. 2013 in his regular column in The New York Post.

Women, Not the Government, Will Close the Wage Gap

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:23:00 GMT

By Krista Kafer, Contributing Editor

In his inaugural address, the President said “For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.” He didn’t trot out his usual “women earn 77 cents on a man’s dollar” line from his campaign days or specify what he had in mind for the journey’s end but clearly he’s leaning toward the “collective” action of a government mandate.

Such government action has not led the way in the past in erasing historic disparities. Research shows that the gradual narrowing of the wage gap between men and women over the past century did not occur after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act or the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; rather it happened in the 1980s when women made significant investments in their education and training. Today women earn more bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees than men. They earn almost half of all medical, legal, and dentistry degrees. In other words, women deserve the credit for catching up to men, not the government.

What gap remains can be explained by women’s decisions—not systematic discrimination. When you take into account men and women’s choices regarding occupations, college majors, and time in the job, the wage gap all but disappears. A 2009 Labor Department study found the wage gap is between 4.8 and 7 cents when such choices are taken into consideration.

What are these choices? Women tend to have fewer accumulated hours and years in their occupation than men who do the same work. A fulltime male employee tends to work 8-10% more hours than a fulltime female employee. Women often take time off or work part time when caring for young children and this impacts their income. In short, they choose time over money. This is borne out by a report by Time Magazine last year stating that a single woman in her 20s in Dallas makes $1.18 to a man's $1. I suspect that if these women were tracked into their thirties, the gap would reverse course as their priorities changed.

Time in the job isn’t the only factor. A 2009 study found that men choose college majors based primarily on income potential while women consider other attributes in addition to financial benefits such as parental approval and potential enjoyment. Money isn’t everything after all. Many of us consider factors such as emotional fulfillment, contribution to the community, opportunity for creativity and collaboration, and time flexibility when looking at job opportunities. Some jobs which are financially lucrative are frankly, soulless drudgery.

To be certain there are still sexist dinosaurs out there who ogle their administrative assistants, tell sexist jokes and make a point of paying women less than their male counterparts. Very often these cretins have a tough time keeping employees because women have other options. Their existence does not justify wholesale government intervention that could leave women with fewer options to set priorities in their lives.

The Real Casualties of the Government’s Welfare State

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:23:00 GMT

By Krista Kafer, Contributing Editor

When I met her, she was high and barely conscious of the screaming two year old beside her. The dirty apartment, spare of furniture and barely lit, housed eight children and one adult. Two of the children, eight and ten year old girls, wanted me to meet their mother. They lived around the corner from my inner-city Washington, DC apartment and after helping me with my groceries one night, the girls became my constant companions.

Their mother’s addiction, chronic unemployment, irresponsibility (only two of the children shared a father), and apathy admittedly angered me. Taxpayers paid for her housing, food stamps, welfare checks, and other benefits, leaving her to languish obese and drugged while others worked. Worse, her poor choices impoverished the childhoods of her precious girls.

Only later in life did I begin to see the full tragedy of the situation and I could direct my anger toward its proper target—the politicians that created the situation. You see, when their mom—we’ll call her Shirley—was a child, she didn’t dream of becoming a welfare mom. She didn’t see herself living in a dirty house with fatherless children, living off others and seeking relief from a crack pipe. Shirley once dreamt of a bright future. It wasn’t just a series of poor choices that destroyed those dreams; Shirley had help. Under the guise of compassion, the government enabled that road to nowhere.

Ironically, the politicians complicit in her demise are living out their own dreams. They have the big home, the successful career, the supportive spouse, the happy children, and of course, the power and prestige of winning elected office. Even the bureaucrats who cut the welfare checks have the dignity that comes from holding a job, an earned paycheck, and the satisfaction of providing for a family. The same cannot be said for welfare recipients.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, once said, “It cannot too often be stated that the issue of welfare is not what it costs those who provide it, but what it costs those who receive it.”

The true cost of welfare appears lost on President Obama. Before the election, he weakened the work requirements for welfare recipients. Last week he scolded reformers in his inaugural speech. Entitlements, he said, “[D]o not make us a nation of takers.” He appeared to be calling out by name American Enterprise Institute’s Nicolas Eberstadt whose recently published book, A Nation of Takers: America's Entitlement Epidemic, bears that exact phrase.

Eberstadt’s book chronicles the rise of government programs that now pay out some $2.3 trillion annually. Half of all Americans receive a government benefit and more than a third receive a means-tested benefit like food stamps, housing, or welfare checks. The short book is worth reading as is his Wall Street Journal article responding to the President’s inaugural baiting. (You can also listen to my radio interview of Eberstadt.) Eberstadt writes, “The moral hazard embedded in the explosion of social-welfare programs is plain. Transfers funded by other people's money tend to foster a pernicious ‘something for nothing’ mentality...”

Think Al Qaeda Is Dead? Think Again

Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:35:00 GMT

Excerpted from Townhall Magazine's January feature, "Think Al Qaeda's Dead? Think Again," by Peter Brookes:

-------------------
President Obama's stump speeches last fall, which often featured phrases like al Qaeda "is on the run" or "on the path to defeat," were—like much of his overheated campaign rhetoric—prone to wishful thinking.

Yes, al Qaeda's founder and leader Osama bin Laden is dead, but from the looks of it, al Qaeda is very much alive.

It's true that over the years the American military and intelligence agencies have done a fabulous job of taking down "al Qaeda's core," those who planned, plotted, and trained in Afghanistan for the 9/11 attacks, and later found refuge in the Pakistani tribal areas. But the terrorist movement bin Laden led and the ideology he continues to inspire even after his death will likely remain relevant for a while.

According to a series of articles penned in November 2012 for The Washington Post and titled "The Permanent War," among senior government officials at that time, there was "broad consensus that such [kill or capture counterterror] operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al Qaeda continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight."

That is not good news.

Based on the above, the notion held by some that the U.S. is standing squarely in a post-al Qaeda era in light of bin Laden’s death appears rooted in hopeful—even convenient political— thinking.

Americans will need to re-familiarize themselves with an al Qaeda organization that still poses a near-global challenge 10- plus years after 9/11. Perhaps nowhere is the recent spread of the terror group’s influence more alarming than in Africa.

African Al Qaeda Allies

When one thinks of security challenges in Africa, one does not usually think of terrorism, particularly al Qaeda. But the group’s affiliates are putting down roots in places like Somalia, Mali and Nigeria, making this large continent the source of new worries.

From a review of the situation in Africa, counterterrorism officials are right to be anxious.

In fact, an article last summer in The Washington Post noted that the rise of radical Islamist groups in Africa has “raised alarm that an explosive cocktail of rebellion, terrorism, and religious extremism could spill across borders.”

Perhaps the best known of these evil terror triplets is AQIM, due to its likely involvement in the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya last fall, which resulted in the death of four brave Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

More specifically, it is likely that a pro-al Qaeda group associated with AQIM, Ansar al Sharia, is the perpetrator behind the terror attack that destroyed the American consulate and the annex with automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

AQIM and its al Qaeda allies operate in the northern regions of Africa, where they seek to take advantage of instability and governance issues not only in Libya, but in Mali, too.

...

Homegrown Horror

Unfortunately, while Americans may like to think of al Qaeda as a far-away danger in places like Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, in truth, the terror threat can be very close to home, too.

Arguably, nothing worries American counterterrorism officials more than the violent extremists that are already in the country as opposed to those which come from places outside the U.S. Imported terrorists must at least navigate U.S. immigration, often at a border entry point, where a red flag can possibly be raised.

Read the rest of Brookes' feature by ordering the January issue of Townhall Magazine.

Grassroots pushback

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:38:00 GMT

By Rob Douglas, Contributing Editor

In the wake of unprecedented and bipartisan growth of government during the past 12 years, grass-roots resistance to oppressive and failed government regulations and laws has begun to take hold.

From states challenging federal drug laws to counties challenging state oil and gas regulations to municipalities, counties and states challenging federal mandates for stormwater system upgrades, elected officials at the local and state levels are starting to fight the layers of government mandates imposed upstream.

In that vein, Tuesday’s resolution by the El Paso County Board of Commissioners in Colorado to “uphold the Second Amendment of the United States, and … not enforce any statutes, edicts, Presidential Directives, or other regulations which conflict — and are expressly preempted by — the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings” is just the latest demonstration of local elected officials refusing to kowtow when they think state or federal officials, including the president, have overstepped their authority.

Incrementally, the evidence is growing that Americans are trying to dam a river of laws and regulations that originates in Washington, D.C., picks up volume under state capitol domes and threatens to drown every town and county across America. The hundreds of new federal and state laws that give birth to thousands of regulations every year threaten to snuff out the last vestiges of American freedom, not to mention public budgets.

As a relevant aside, how many facets of life in America can you identify that don’t fall within the purview of a law or regulation?

The most promising aspect of the newfound willingness of local and state elected officials to fight the dictates that come from further up the government pecking order is that it is bipartisan. Even casual news consumers know there has been bipartisan support in the states, including Colorado, that legalized the use of marijuana in one capacity or another. Similarly, here in Colorado and across the country, local resistance to oil and gas dictates by state officials has been more parochial than political.

While bipartisan resistance to stormwater regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency based on the Clean Water Act may not be commonplace, a recent federal court ruling shed light on an example of unified pushback that may spark other localities and states to join the fray against burdensome EPA mandates while casting aside political differences.

On Jan. 3, in a case pitting local and state officials in Virginia against the EPA, federal Judge Liam O’Grady ruled, “Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it via TMDL (total maximum daily loads).” While the ruling may have relevance for other localities across the country — there are similar cases being litigated in other jurisdictions — the real promise of the ruling may not rest on its applicability beyond the Virginia case as much as the bipartisan nature of the resistance to the EPA’s directives.

Last July, while reporting that “Fairfax County and the State of Virginia have accused the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of ‘massive’ and expensive regulatory overreach in its attempts to control sediment buildup in the Accotink Watershed,” the Washington Post took note of the bipartisan team of plaintiffs.

“The Democratic-led Board of Supervisors wrestled with taking legal action against the federal agency or teaming with arch-conservative (Virginia Attorney General Ken) Cuccinelli, particularly in an election year when Virginia is a swing state and the EPA has been a periodic campaign issue. But board members … said they thought that the county had to take legal action, and felt that joining with the state would strengthen the board’s case, officials said.”

“A political body could make a decision based on politics and how things look, or they could do what’s right for Fairfax County. That’s what we’re doing here,” Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon S. Bulova, a Democrat, told the Post.

So, there are rays of hope for liberty lovers. Elected representatives at the grass-roots level are starting to cast aside partisanship and fight outdated and overly burdensome dictates from above that are inefficient or needlessly devouring limited resources.

That’s a worthy fight.

***This article also published as Douglas's regular column in Steamboat Today, January 24, 2013.

The Hillary Doctrine

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:36:00 GMT

http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/

Americans Died in Benghazi because of President Obama's Budget Priorities

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:34:00 GMT

By Christopher Jaarda, Contributing Editor

In four years, President Obama has refused to reform, scrutinize and prioritize spending. And, Americans died in Benghazi because of his failures.

This is the unmistakable inference from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony yesterday on the failures of the Obama Administration in Benghazi. According to her testimony, the security failures were a consequence of insufficient budget resources.

This was a not-so-veiled attempt by the Obama Administration to do what they have done for four years, blame someone else for the Administration’s failures. In this case, the Administration was seeking to blame Congress, the branch of government that has the constitutional power over setting spending priorities.

This claim, however, is simply not true. The failures in Benghazi were not due to a lack of budget resources but rather a failure in setting budget priorities. And that failure rests squarely at the feet of the President.

Clinton’s testimony actually raises more questions than it answers. Here are five additional questions that Congress must ask the Administration in order to give the American people the answers they deserve.

Under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, the President is required to submit a proposed budget to Congress each year. This submission allows the President to identify the need for spending in specific programs including, for example, the need for additional security resources to protect our diplomatic mission in countries like Libya. Where was the request for additional security funding in the President’s budget?

Over the last decade, the federal government has regularly passed “supplemental” appropriations bills to provide extra federal spending, above normal levels, for certain programs including security related programs. Both parties in Congress have been very willing to approve this funding to ensure our nation’s security. If there was a security risk in Benghazi, the President or Secretary Clinton could have asked Congress for a supplemental appropriation for security funding. Where was the President’s supplemental budget request?

Under the Constitution, the Administration bears the responsibility to assess, identify and communicate national and diplomatic security risks and to share information with Congress. Congress can only react to what it knows and Congress is not in a position to know about specific threats unless the Administration shares critical security information. Congress cannot be blamed for failing to fund specific security needs when they are unaware of identified risks. Did the Administration effectively identify and communicate the risks in Benghazi to Congress?

President Obama’s 2013 budget included a request for $51.6 billion for the State Department and its programs. According to one article, the State Department spent federal money to buy $79,000 of President Obama’s books, $20,000 to buy a portrait of Obama, $4.5 million on art for our Embassies, and $16 million to buy 2,500 Kindle book readers at a cost of $6,600 per device (Amazon.com sells Kindle Fires for $159 per device). When higher budget priorities arise, it is not uncommon for the Executive Branch to ask Congress to reallocate unspent funding for use to fund higher priorities. Where was the State Department’s request to Congress asking for the Kindle funding to be redirected to fund security in Benghazi?

It took 135 days from the date of the attack in Benghazi on September 11 before Secretary Clinton testified before Congress. If the deaths in Benghazi were due to a lack of budget resources, President Obama should have immediately testified before Congress to explain the cause of the problem and to request emergency funding for enhanced diplomatic security. He did not. Instead, the White House had Ambassador Susan Rice blame a YouTube video and had Secretary Clinton wait 135 days to testify. This delay unnecessarily exposed Americans overseas to a known but unaddressed risks for a period of 135 days. If, as Secretary Clinton says, the deaths in Benghazi were due to insufficient budget resources why was their any delay in her testimony to Congress?

The bottom line is that Americans died in Benghazi because the White House and the State Department failed to identify risk, they failed to prioritize federal spending and they failed to work with and communicate security threats to Congress. Persons who served in America’s diplomatic mission in Libya died because of the President and his policies.

Reconciling Roe v. Wade

Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:01:00 GMT

Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS decision that legalized abortion in the United States, marks a dubious 40^th anniversary on Tuesday, January 22, 2013. According to published data by the Guttmacher Institute more than 55 million abortions have been performed during the last four decades.

Abortion -- and those children who were never born – exist in a place that is primarily out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Although legally protected, abortion is among the few unspeakables in American society. Thus, comprehending the impact on American society is even more difficult. In a sense, it is hard to understand that which you never see.

Consider for a moment, however, that the consequences of Roe are deeply into the second generation. About 30 million of those aborted children would by now be of child bearing age themselves. New families would have been created resulting in an additional 20 million or more children based on normal demographic statistics.

So, in just a macro-population sense, the forty years since Roe v. Wade has eliminated a population roughly the size of California, New York, and Florida combined from American society. If those lost to abortion, including the lost second generation, were a nation, they would be about the size of Germany – the 16^th largest country in the world by population and the fourth largest economically.

America appropriately agonized after the loss of innocent life in Newtown, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado. Mothers, fathers, citizens and leaders are still struggling to reconcile those and other tragedies. As a society, we also need to reconcile the tragedies involving the people we never meet, with the faces we cannot see, that happen every day.

Mess in Mali – "Islamist Central"

Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:09:00 GMT

By Peter Brookes, Contributing Editor

With pro-al-Qaeda Islamist militants running amok in northwest Africa in places like Mali and Algeria, seizing territory and taking hostages, it’s far from clear that Team Obama has the foggiest idea of what to do.

That’s not going to cut it.

It’s not like this is a new problem. Unleashed by the conflict in Libya, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and its allies defeated the Malian army in northern Mali almost a year ago, putting the territory under Sharia law.

AQIM, along with militant groups such as Ansar Dine and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa, not only came to control an area the size of Texas, but recently began pressing toward the Malian capital, Bamako.

Reports indicate that like Afghanistan and Iraq previously and Syria today, Mali has become “Islamist Central,” with foreign fighters making their way there from inside — and outside — the region to battle infidels and build a Muslim “caliphate” (kingdom).

It’s gotten worse.

Expanding the area of conflict, an AQIM affiliate raided a natural gas facility last week in Algeria, taking hostage lots of Algerian and foreign workers, including Americans. (A subsequent raid by Algerian forces was less than successful.)

As we know, al-Qaeda & Co. is an opportunistic organization that looks to take advantage of chaos, lawlessness, ungoverned spaces and weak governments. Some experts warn that Mali and its environs could become the next (pre-9/11) Afghanistan.

We all know what that could mean.

Indeed, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said: “If we don’t deal with these militant groups and terrorists swiftly and effectively, they will only pose an increasing threat in the future as they already have in Benghazi and now Algeria and Mali.”

American and European officials have reportedly said these terror groups could use Mali as a platform for attacks not only in Africa, but beyond — which likely means at least the United States and Europe.

Even though the al-Qaeda threat in northern and western Africa has been growing for some time now, the Obama administration has been pretty hands-off, perhaps hoping the problem would go away.

Or maybe they didn’t think the United States was in the cross-hairs of these African al-Qaeda affiliates and that the objective of these militant groups was national rather than transnational; that is, the target was Mali as opposed to the United States.

In other words, if we didn’t mess with them, they wouldn’t mess with us. Considering our experience with al-Qaeda for some time now, you could probably put that in the category of “whistling past the graveyard.”

It also appears Washington and others were hoping African troops might handle the matter in Mali, perhaps like the African Union force did in Somalia (with the support of U.S. drone strikes) against al-Qaeda ally al-Shabab, which — by the way — took some five years.

The French decided they couldn’t wait for a new African force to appear and get trained and, instead, sent troops and planes to Mali last week to prevent its former colony from becoming the first al-Qaeda-run state.

As such, isn’t it long past time that we have a comprehensive plan for dealing with this latest al-Qaeda resurgence? It’s not like the increasing mess in Mali appeared without plenty of warning.

***Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, and a contributing editor to A Line of Sight. This article also published January 20. 2013 in his regular column in The Boston Herald.

MG Paul E. Vallely takes second humanitarian tour of war zone at Turkish/Syrian border

Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:09:00 GMT

By Scott W. Winchell – Editor, Stand Up America

Last June, Paul E. Vallely (Major General U.S. Army, Retired) and Stand Up America (SUA) staff members took their first trip to the war torn region of Syria to meet with leaders of the opposition forces to the Bashar al Assad Regime in Hatay Province Turkey. On that trip, Paul Vallely and his team learned a great deal about the conflict and cemented a relationship forged earlier by SUA’s Middle East Adviser, regional sources, and trusted contacts.

Since that time, the bond grew in any areas, especially in terms of mutual respect, loyalty, and trust; so much so that SUA has been in virtual constant contact with the leadership of the Free Syrian Army and other factions conducting the operations of the freedom seeking Syrian people.

During these communications, the opposition leadership invited the General and his team back to the region to observe the situation more closely, to talk face to face with those who know, and to examine the humanitarian needs of the rebels and the civilian population suffering so greatly.

During the last few months, it was also learned from these communications that the real story of the opposition and the suffering of the civilian population was not getting to western leaders properly, or in most cases, at all, at least factually. Aid to the civilians has been flowing to the country, but more often than not, it has been falling into the wrong hands, and those truly in need have been left in want and forced to fend for themselves with whatever they could.

The greedy and those with nefarious motives thrive because of this and use it as bludgeon or as a negotiating tool to increase their strength and numbers. United Nations and other efforts have been abysmal failures and the opposition has had only one real friend in the west; Paul Vallely and his SUA team.

The confusion of information emanating from the region and other political capitols often conflicts wildly with the truth on the ground, and more-so, is only propaganda from the regime and its supporters – all major impediments to the opposition. Many reports have been aired by SUA in conjunction with these contacts, but it seems few notice or take heed that a very real connection exists and must be utilized to end the mayhem and help the Syrian people rise from the ruins and pools of blood to form a new, promising future.

It soon became clear in these communications that a formal relationship was needed so that a conduit could be created where trusted information could be transmitted in a well vetted fashion. The free Syrian forces and political structure have been in contact with regional relationships but no real communication exists with the west except through SUA, something they know is key to their success in joining the community of nations down the road.

Therefore, SUA announces the formation the Syrian Opposition Liaison Group (SOLG). This conduit to the west was requested by the opposition and is the only one they trust, and the only way they will move forward due in large measure to the dis-satisfactory efforts from formal governmental entities.

The SUA team took them up on their invitation and again traveled to the region at the end of October and has just now returned to the west. During their visit, many meetings took place with hundreds of official leaders and much information was gathered. Many more bonds were created, not only with the military and political leadership, but also with the medical and humanitarian efforts being conducted by the opposition itself.

There is no doubt that the regime will completely fail, the only question is when and at what further price. Over the next days and weeks, SUA will produce many reports from this latest humanitarian trip – some for the general public, and much more to aid the policy decisions that must be made in the coming weeks and months. To begin, the first of these reports is included below as compiled by the team in the field:

Author’s Note – Many names have been shortened or given one letter designations to protect those involved on the team and in the region. After the report below is information that you can use to be of aid yourself to these efforts. Please consider donating to this cause. Currently, all efforts have been privately funded by SUA members and principles and will only continue as long as funds are available.

To learn more about and support SUA click here.

Syrian Opposition Liaison Group Report (SOLG)

Medical/Humanitarian Needs Report

The following interview was conducted in Antakya, Hatay Province, Turkey, by Paul Vallely, Mike S., and Chip B. while on the SUA – SOLG Humanitarian Mission to assess the overall medical/humanitarian situation of non-combatant victims within Syria.

GENERAL SITUATION — Camps and secret medical safe houses within Syria are overflowing with wounded civilians desperate for medical assistance and food. Doctors and children are being specifically targeted as a genocide tactic to crush the resistance by the Free Syrian Army (FSA). This is a clear violation of the rules of international law and the Geneva Conventions to specifically target civilians and medical doctors who are non-combatants. In the case of children and specifically teenagers, the Canadian doctors gave specific information about treating children as young as 5 years of age for gunshot and shrapnel wounds. Dr. M stated that he was told that the intent of the Assad Regime was to permanently cripple the young by shooting them in the thighs and hips.

In one day, Doctors M and J performed 61 amputations of limbs without anesthesia and very little morphine. The rate of post-op infection is as high as 70%, resulting in a high mortality rate. The poor conditions force the doctors to perform surgical procedures in an extremely primitive and unsanitary environment. They are overwhelmed in performing triage and treating all casualties.

TARGETING CHILDREN— As stated, the doctors related that an overwhelming number of children have gunshot trauma to the knees, hips, and femurs. This causes the fathers serving in the Free Syrian Army (FSA), causing the Opposition fighters to abandon the cause and return home to care for the children. There is little chance for orthopedic procedures to save a limb because of the number of casualties and lack of supplies. Due to the lack of effective antibiotics, many of them develop infections. Numerous children arrive at the medical facilities with bandages on their wounds that have not been changed in several days.

TARGETING MEDICAL DOCTORS— Doctors M and J have stated that they are reluctant to wear clothing identifying them as doctors, such as scrubs or white coats because they have been the recipient of direct hostile fire specifically targeting them. They have been told by the refugees that doctors will be killed.

Syrian girl injured in the leg from the Idlib area in air assault

NEED FOR SF TRAINED COMBAT MEDICS — Doctors M and J stated there was a desperate need for U.S. trained medics who are graduates of U.S. Special Forces advanced combat medical training. They have the ability to triage patients, give primary treatment to patients with gunshot wounds, treat other injuries, and stabilize them until surgery can be performed.

MEDICINE AND SUPPLIES NEEDED — All medicines and certain medical instruments are in very short supply. The doctors specifically requested: morphine, propophol, fentanyl, ketamine, cipro, keflex, flagyl, GE hand-held ultrasound units, King airways, and other medicines and instruments. They also specifically requested “Sked Sleds”. A Sked Sled is a folding, compact litter that can be used to transport casualties. It was specifically designed by Special Forces medics to be light and portable in a combat zone.

RAPE AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF FEMALES — Numerous females have been raped and otherwise sexually abused by Assad’s soldiers. They have no protection since the male members of their families are fighting with FSA Opposition Forces. This is also a clear violation of international law.

Confirmation of rape and sexual abuse can be verified by contacting the office of Faten Ajjan in Antakya, Turkey. She is a Syrian Opposition activist, Skype contact: “bestay5″.

Mrs. Ajjan only speaks Arabic and she is the only woman within the Syrian revolution in charge of treating rape victims. Help is urgently needed.

CONCLUSIONS — We know the casualty rate is higher than reported. This information was obtained by interviews with doctors, FSA commanders, and human rights journalists. A conservative estimate would be in the area of seventy thousand with more expected, especially in the end days. The Doctors’ and the FSA commanders’ biggest fears are the future use of chemical weapons by the Assad Regime. There are many reports of symptomatic serious skin irritations on many fighters. This must be addressed before there is a repeat of what happened in Iraq. The SOLG team wants to thank the Turkish government for the opportunity to allow them access within the country to conduct these interviews and evaluations.

THIS IS A TIME CRITICAL SITUATION – The attacks by air, armor, and artillery continue on the civilian population, including children. The attacks are prohibited by International Law and the Geneva Convention. These atrocities are comparable to any past and historic genocide. NO government, legitimately recognized or not, can legally target and kill civilians and medical doctors in any conflict. Again, it is a SERIOUS violation of human rights and the rules of land warfare. Critical supplies and financial support are needed to alleviate the situation.

A child in Syria looks horrified at his injuries, one of many wounded in the violence –

Photo by Sipa USA / Rex Features