Climate Scientists Plan to Hit Back at Skeptics
March 05, 2010
FOXNews.com

In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind.

This is a view of the Amazon basin forest north of Manaus, Brazil. A U.N. report stated that global warming is threatening the forests — a statement that was recently discredited.

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics.

In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.

Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work.

“This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, ‘God, can’t we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,’” said Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment who was part of the e-mail discussion but wants the scientists to take a slightly different approach.

The Heritage Foundation
How Should Conservatives Respond To The Health Care Summit?
February 27, 2010

It is yet to be seen if President Obama’s health care summit is a genuine attempt to reach out and resolve health care in a bipartisan manner, or a ruse to check the box on bipartisanship before proposing another liberal Washington takeover of health care. Recent reports that the President and Congressional leaders are secretly writing yet another bill to attach to the filibuster-proof reconciliation bill certainly indicate the latter, and if that is the case, conservatives should boycott the event, and call it out for what it really is. But if the President and Congressional leadership are committed to bipartisan reform, there are real grounds of potential agreement among Republicans and Democrats.

Help the Uninsured – First, most agree that the government should provide help to working American families who do not or cannot get health insurance through the place of work. This means changing current federal tax and insurance rules that block access to affordable coverage and undermine the portability of health insurance.

Increase Competition – Second, most agree on the need for more competitive health insurance markets and see the tremendous potential of the states to enact serious health insurance market reforms. Such reforms can dramatically expand coverage and improve safety net care for the sickest, poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens. States will experiment with different approaches. For example, states as radically different as Massachusetts and Utah have embarked on far reaching and consequential changes.

Control Costs – Third, Members of Congress must first control health care costs in the giant public programs they run, Medicare and Medicaid. They should give states more flexibility to manage Medicaid and provide care without breaking their budgets. The President has already proposed more rational subsidies for enrollees in the Medicare Drug Program and a new system of competitive bidding for Medicare Advantage plans. These Presidential proposals could be the basis of a broader reform of the entire Medicare program.

Promote Transparency – Finally, if the President’s health care summit is to result in genuine bipartisan negotiations, he should also recommit himself to supporting real transparency so that the American people can better see and understand the process before drafting any new proposals.

If the summit is to be a serious effort to arrive at a true bipartisan agreement on health care reform, a measure that will impact the lives of three hundred Americans and generations to come, the President and Congressional leaders should start with a clean sheet of paper. Americans do not want a summit that is only a public relations stunt, or a mere pretext for jamming a liberal health policy agenda through Congress outside of regular order through the arcane Senate reconciliation process

Sunday night was a big TV night for the NFL, and don’t forget the people who make the commercials that are played during the festivities.  The Super Bowl is where all the best commercials are aired.  And that is why commercials cost so much during the Super Bowl.  Commercials tend to be more on the funny side but everything, for the most part, seems to be fair game.

I was a little disappointed in the pickings this year.  Most were flat and not as funny as the Budweiser Frogs or the Weasel.

But there was one that really grabbed me.  I found it to be funny and scary at the same time.  It was the Audi commercial in the third or fourth quarter that featured a different version of the Cheap Trick song Dream Police that held the catch line of Green Police.

The one thing that makes humor truly funny is that there is a touch of truth or reality in the joke.  Without this it is just a make believe story like a fairytale which may or may not invoke a laugh response from the audience.  And the Audi commercial had more than just elements of the truth and that is the scary part.

Audi may have been trying to poke fun at those of us who see the “Green” agenda as more than just a way to make the planet a cleaner place or a way for consumers to save a little bit of money on their energy bills.  If you really break it down it is a much more insidious project than saving polar bears or bunnies.  In fact the saving of polar bears or bunnies may just be an improvable byproduct that is used to pressure those who will not just jump on board and say “Eye Eye Sir!” (yes I do know it is spelled Aye Aye, it’s just more fun to write it that way)

Stop and think about how the left has pushed this issue.  If Climategate in and of itself does not show “Global Warming” as the fraud that it is, maybe the recent UN Climategate where the scientific source cited was “Climbing” magazine.  I’m sure they adhere to the most stringent of criteria while collecting empirical data.  Now I have never read “Climbing” magazine but something tells me that if my kid used it as a source for one of his science classes it would not be taken seriously.

Green Peace has assaulted us with commercials of falling polar bears, hassled us on the corners of downtowns across the nation for donations using the famous and flawed picture of the polar bears a drift on a very small piece of ice.  The photographer who took that picture has asked that Green Peace stop using it because it does not depict a shrinking ice flow as Green Peace likes to tell us.

And if that does not say enough don’t forget the Green Peace founder who has broken away from the group to start his own group because Green Peace wasn’t militant enough for him.  C’mon you probably know the guy, Paul Watson from the pirate show on Animal Planet called Whale Wars.  This is exactly the way the left feels (and yes I used the liberal key word FEELS) about the rules of the game, and this applies to all of the games that they play in.  Saul Alinsky dedicated a whole chapter in Rules for Radicals to the game plan, Of Ends and Means.

Alinsky basically says if the ends are justified and considered good or for the “Common Good”, then too all means to that end are not only justified but should be employed.  Alinsky even uses the example that the left absolutely hates, because it is the fly in the ointment of their perfect utopia, war.  Specifically he uses the example of the French Resistance and how they fought the Nazi’s during the occupation of France during World War II.

This is exactly what many State legislative bodies and the Fed’s in Congress have been trying to do for years, and have gotten companies like GE to help them with.  Think “Smart Grid”, think about the legislation that was being pushed and talked about in the State of California where a government agency would have the ability to adjust your thermostat if you were using too much energy.

Don’t forget the push to criminalize any light bulb that is not one of the new and energy saving mercury filled light bulbs.

The left is using groups of eco terrorists like those on the Sea Shepherd, or those that belong to the Earth Liberation Front as well as other less controversial groups like the Sierra Club and Green Peace to push the Green Agenda and help to implement the “Green Police”.

The current Presidential Administration has already told us that they want to fundamentally change this country.  We already know that all of the lefts eggs are in the basket of destroying the Constitution of the United States of America.  It is the only way that their agenda can be put in place.

The scary truth in the Audi commercial is that the left wants the “Green Police” to have more power and authority than the regular police.  Maybe the only entity that the left wants to have more power than that of the “Green Police” is that of the “Thought Police” to help enforce their PC agenda and criminalize some trains of thought like the memo put out by the current Sec. of Homeland Security making all veterans and people who believe certain political views terrorists.

The media and the left said that the Columbine shooters in Colorado were a case of life imitating art.  The media and the left went on to blame everything from video games to Marylin Manson for that awful day, or better yet both.  According to the media it was because the shooters listened to the music while playing violent video games that desensitized them to the violence that they were about to commit.

So I guess the real question is: Is this commercial the perfect example of art imitating life?  Is there enough truth in this commercial to say that it is almost prophetic?  Maybe so, but at least they’ll have a really cool theme song.

How Washington Can Really Help the Greens in Tehran
For the Obama administration, there are dangers in doing too much and too little to help the pro-democracy movement in Iran. Here is how to chart a safe, effective third way.
BY ALIREZA NADER, TRITA PARSI www.forgienpolicy.com
FEBRUARY 9, 2010

Ever since last June’s disputed presidential election, Iran has been in the throes of change, with the nascent “green movement” protesting against an ever-more-authoritarian state. For months, Washington has asked itself: Should the United States actively push for regime change? Torn between the fear of ending up on the wrong side of history by being too cautious and the fear of ending up undermining the pro-democracy movement by being too aggressive, Barack Obama’s administration is playing a difficult balancing act.

More… History shows that intervention is easier said than done. Past U.S. attempts to sway Iranian internal affairs — such as the CIA-fomented 1953 coup d’état against a democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh — have proven costly for U.S. interests. Most notably, Washington’s support for the shah fueled the 1979 Islamic Revolution, inspiring anti-Western movements in Pakistan, Egypt, and beyond.

To make matters worse, due to its absence from the scene during the last 30 years, the United States is not sufficiently equipped to understand and shape what appears to be a titanic struggle between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his opponents.

But between the extremes of doing nothing and doing everything, there is a middle ground: providing the Iranian pro-democracy movement with breathing space, rather than engaging in risky and imprecise exercises that would directly involve America as an actor on the Iranian scene. The United States can achieve this through a few simple steps.

First, the United States should tread carefully when it comes to issuing military threats. Under the shadow of a foreign military threat, the uphill battle of the Iranian pro-democracy movement becomes even steeper, as the Iranian regime is quite adept at exploiting foreign threats to stifle criticism at home. Moreover, the possibility of military conflict between Iran and the United States, or their respective “proxies,” might allow the Iranian regime to distract the population from the internal crisis.

Second, the United States should avoid sanctions that put a burden on the Iranian people, rather than the Iranian government. Broad-based sanctions that hit the entire economy hurt common citizens far more than the powerful elites. Any new sanctions should demonstrate not only international discontent with the conduct of the Tehran government, but also an effort by the United States to keep from harming average Iranians.

February 05, 2010
U.N. Climate Chief: Critics Should Rub Their Faces With Asbestos
FOXNews.com

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change, said global warming skeptics are like people who see no difference between cancer-causing asbestos and talcum powder.

The U.N.’s climate chief dismissed “nefarious” global warming skeptics this week by insinuating that they are deep in the pockets of big business — and suggested that they go rub their faces in cancer-causing asbestos.

Rajendra Pachauri, the besieged head of the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change, told the Financial Times on Wednesday that he is the victim of a “carefully orchestrated” campaign to block climate change legislation.

“I would say [there are] nefarious designs behind people trying to attack me with lies, falsehoods,” he told the paper, swatting away allegations that his India-based climate institute, TERI, has benefited from decisions made by the IPCC, which he also chairs.

Climate change skeptics “are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder,” he said.

“I hope that they apply it (asbestos) to their faces every day.”

Pachauri’s remarks came as pressure and scrutiny are mounting against the IPCC’s hallmark Fourth Assessment Report, which laid out the case for man-made climate change over a thousand sprawling pages.

The report contained misleading data about the melting rate of glaciers in the Himalayas and is riddled with citations to data furnished by activist groups, non-scientific journals and material that was never peer-reviewed.

Pachauri called the furor over errors in the assessment report “a blip that is going to pass,” and reiterated his intention to remain in place as the chief of the world’s most powerful climate body.

“I’m not a quitter. Some people would want me to be; some people would probably say that I should go, but I am not going to oblige them. I have no desire to leave at all,” he said.

His critics in the business world, he told the paper, “see climate change as a threat to their own comforts, their own convenience and the generation of easy profits.” He accused them of establishing a network of lobbyists in D.C. “trying to write all kinds of malicious articles and indulge in invective.”

“It’s all part of a pattern,” he continued. “But let me clarify. I have no proof. I can only presume something like this is at work.”

Who Is Harry Knox, and Why Does He Trash the Pope?
Media Elite Doesn’t Care
By Tim Graham Media Research Center
February 6, 2010

Harry Knox is not exactly a household name, and the media elite have no interest in making him one. The media are in the controversy-making business, but not when Barack Obama picks “spiritual advisers” who think condoms are holier than the Pope.

Most media outlets have reported nothing on Knox, despite his view that Pope Benedict is “hurting people in the name of Jesus.”

Some could say Bush’s faith-based initiatives office didn’t get much ink, either. But back in July 2001, the networks picked up and promoted gay-left groups like Knox’s group (the Human Rights Campaign) in complaining about the Bush faith-based initiative. They made the Salvation Army a target of political criticism. (Here and here.)

A Nexis check shows that since Obama selected Knox last spring, there is nothing from ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Time, Newsweek, and USA Today.

The Washington Post briefly noted the appointment (without critics) in April, and then used Knox in a story about the Episcopal Church in July. The New York Times only mentioned Knox last year in a profile of Bill Donohue (last May):

And Mr. Obama’s appointment of Harry Knox, a gay human-rights activist — ”an anti-Catholic bigot who has called the pope a liar” — to the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships had Mr. Donohue in overdrive.

”This is fantastic,” said Mr. Donohue, 61, with a gap-toothed smile that he rarely shows on television. ”I can’t get enough of it.”

CNN captured John Boehner condemning Knox in live coverage of a press conference, but never in an actual news story they produced. MSNBC’s Nexis search (their transcripts are only from parts of their schedule) found a defense of know on Ed Schultz’s show last April.

Several networks (NBC and NPR) talked to Knox in December 2008 as he protested….Barack Obama, or more precisely, Obama’s decision to invite evangelical pastor Rick Warren to offer the invocation at the Inauguration. The NPR show was Tell Me More:

HARRY KNOX: Well, we were outraged about this decision, Michel, because he could have chosen so many other people to serve in this role. But he chose a person who has used the most divisive and hateful language you can imagine to talk about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people like me and my husband, Mike.

MICHEL MARTIN, NPR: What do you consider hateful?

KNOX: Well, when he compares us to people who practice bestiality and pedophilia, to be called a pedophile is the most insulting thing I can imagine. If I were a violent person it would get him a punch in the nose. But this is the sort of speech that’s used about LGBT people with impunity by folks all the time, and we’re standing up to say that is unacceptable and it certainly shouldn’t be done by a person who’s going to be invited to be the preacher at the inaugural.

MARTIN: Harry Knox, if I could just continue with you for just a minute. There are some 62 million evangelical Christians in this country. Is it your view that they should have no representation in this inauguration, or is it something about Rick Warren?

KNOX: Absolutely not. It’s Rick Warren. It’s the choice of this person that’s so hurtful to us.

Evangelicals who completely accept the LGBT agenda — he wouldn’t have minded one of them praying for Obama and the country. Once again, the forces of “tolerance” want anyone who disagrees with them silenced.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/02/06/who-harry-knox-and-why-does-he-trash-pope-media-doesnt-care#ixzz0emGXkKlh

February 5, 2010
By Amanda Reinecker
The Heritage Foundation

Over the past two decades, there have been a number of attempts to subject Americans to an international judicial system with jurisdiction over war crimes and the like. This idea of a “world court” became a reality in 1998 with the introduction of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Court itself was officially established in 2002 after 60 countries ratified the statute.

To date, no U.S. President has submitted the Rome Statute to the Senate for the advice and consent necessary for ratification. Last summer, Heritage Foundation experts Brett Schaefer and Steven Groves released an analysis paper explaining why past Presidents were right not to seek ratification. They wrote:

Past U.S. Administrations concluded that the Rome Statute created a seriously flawed institution that lacks prudent safeguards against political manipulation, possesses sweeping authority without accountability to the U.N. Security Council, and violates national sovereignty by claiming jurisdiction over the nationals and military personnel of non-party states in some circumstances.

The Obama administration’s announcement last week that it would not seek ratification was certainly a welcome one. But the administration left the door open for enhanced American cooperation in the International Criminal Court. But this “enhanced” cooperation would require altering important policies that protect our military servicemen and civilian officials from being transferred to the ICC without U.S. consent.

So although the U.S. has once again rejected the Rome Statute, the ICC still poses a danger to our sovereignty. As Schaefer and Groves explain on National Review Online, “the ICC and the use of universal jurisdiction are two facets of an increasingly prevalent and alarming trend of eroding national sovereignty by divorcing the vital link between the law and the people subject to it.”

Though its objective to hold war criminals accountable for their terrible crimes is a noble one, the ICC’s unaccountable autonomy and broad jurisdiction invite politically motivated indictments, inefficiency and inflexibility. It is flawed “notionally and operationally,” write Groves and Schaefer. The U.S. is right to be skeptical of any agreement that would bind us to such an institution under which foreign powers could trump even our own Constitution.

Bring Our Marines Home
by Patrick J. Buchanan
February 5, 2010

A month after Germany surrendered in May 1945, America’s eyes turned to the Far East, where the bloodiest battle of the Pacific war was joined on the island of Okinawa.

Twelve thousand U.S. soldiers and Marines would die — twice as many dead in 82 days of fighting as have died in all the years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Within weeks of the battle’s end came Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Three weeks later, Gen. MacArthur took the Japanese surrender on the battleship Missouri.

That was 65 years ago, as far away in time from today as the Marines’ arrival at Da Nang was from Teddy Roosevelt’s charge up San Juan Hill.

Yet the Marines are still on Okinawa. But, in 2006, the United States negotiated a $26 billion deal to move 8,000 to Guam and the other Marines from the Futenma air base in the south to the more isolated town of Nago on the northern tip. Okinawans have long protested the crime, noise and pollution at Futenma.

The problem arose last year when the Liberal Democratic Party that negotiated the deal was ousted and the Democratic Party of Japan elected on a promise to pursue a policy more balanced between Beijing and Washington.

The new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, indicated his unease with the Futenma deal, and promised to review it and decide by May. Voters in Nago just elected a mayor committed to keeping the new base out.

This weekend, thousands demonstrated in Tokyo against moving the Marine air station to Nago. Some demanded removal of all U.S. forces from Japan. After 65 years, they want us out. And Prime Minister Hatoyama has been feeding the sentiment. In January, he terminated Japan’s eight-year mission refueling U.S. ships aiding in the Afghan war effort.

All of which raises a question. If Tokyo does not want Marines on Okinawa, why stay? And if Japanese regard Marines as a public nuisance, rather than a protective force, why not remove the irritant and bring them home?

Indeed, why are we still defending Japan? She is no longer the ruined nation of 1945, but the second-largest economy on earth and among the most technologically advanced.

The Sino-Soviet bloc against which we defended her in the Cold War dissolved decades ago. The Soviet Union no longer exists. China is today a major trading partner of Japan. Russia and India have long borders with China, but neither needs U.S. troops to defend them.

Should a clash come between China and Japan over the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, why should that involve us?

Comes the retort: American troops are in Japan to defend South Korea and Taiwan. But South Korea has a population twice that of the North, an economy 40 times as large, access to the most advanced weapons in the U.S. arsenal and a U.S. commitment to come to her defense by air and sea in any second Korean War.

And if there is a second Korean War, why should the 28,000 U.S. troops still in Korea, many on the DMZ, or Marines from Futenma have to fight and die? Is South Korea lacking for soldiers? Seoul, too, has been the site of anti-American demonstrations demanding we get out.

Why do we Americans seem more desperate to defend these countries than their people are to have us defend them? Is letting go of the world we grew up in so difficult?

Consider Taiwan. On his historic trip to Beijing in 1972, Richard Nixon agreed Taiwan was part of China. Jimmy Carter recognized Beijing as the sole legitimate government. Ronald Reagan committed us to cut back arms sales to Taiwan.

Yet, last week, we announced a $6.4 billion weapons sale to an island we agree is a province of China. Beijing, whose power is a product of the trade deficits we have run, is enraged that we are arming the lost province she is trying to bring back to the motherland.

Is it worth a clash with China to prevent Taiwan from assuming the same relationship to Beijing the British acceded to with Hong Kong? In tourism, trade, travel and investment, Taiwan is herself deepening her relationship with the mainland. Is it not time for us to cut the cord?

With the exception of the Soviet Union, few nations in history have suffered such a relative decline in power and influence as the United States in the last decade. We are tied down in two wars, are universally disliked and are running back-to-back deficits of 10 percent of gross domestic product, as our debt is surging to 100 percent of GDP.

A strategic retreat from Eurasia to our own continent and country is inevitable. Let it begin by graciously acceding to Japan’s request we remove our Marines from Okinawa and politely inquiring if they wish us to withdraw U.S. forces from the Home Islands, as well.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, “The Death of the West,”, “The Great Betrayal,” “A Republic, Not an Empire” and “Where the Right Went Wrong.”

February 03, 2010
Holder Must Go!
By Jamie Weinstein
FOXNews.com Reuters News Agency

After a year of outrageous national security mistakes it’s time for our Attorney General to step down.

The Obama administration’s most egregious national security blunders over the past year can be traced back to the Department of Justice. From the handling of the interrogation and incarceration of the accused Christmas Day bomber to the decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in civilian courts, these national security misjudgments have made the United States less safe in the War on Terror. While the buck ultimately stops with President Obama, it is now clear, after a year of mistakes, that Eric Holder has failed in his role as Attorney General. He must go.

When Eric Holder was nominated for the post of Attorney General there was a small glimmer of hope among some conservatives that he would be reasonable when it came to war on terror issues. That hope was almost entirely based on a 2002 interview with CNN where Holder stated, correctly, that it was “hard for me to see how members of Al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war” and thus entitled to the “protection of the Geneva Convention.”

He continued:

“One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located,” he told then-CNN anchor Paula Zahn. “Under the Geneva Convention…you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.”

Unfortunately, this small glimmer of hope has been dashed during Holder’s first year in office.

In the aftermath of the disastrous handling of the interrogation of the accused Christmas Day bomber, we have learned that it was most probably Eric Holder’s Justice Department that decided to read Umar Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights and try him in federal court, essentially giving him a pretext to stop talking before he could be extensively interrogated.

Asked at a White House Press briefing “who made the decision to try him [Abdulmutallab] in federal court,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs replied “I believe that decision is made by the Attorney General.”

Having spent months in Yemen, Abdulmutallab could have potentially provided vital intelligence that could have been used to protect the American homeland. But because of DOJ’s decision to Mirandize him, Abdulmutallab initially exercised his right to remain silent after only 50 minutes of interrogation. What an outrage.

Despite White House spin and reports that Abdulmutallab may have started talking again, there is little question that this was an astounding error. And it is not just the Dick Cheneys of the world who think so. No less than our current Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, has said that Abdulmutallab should have been treated as a terrorist detainee instead of as an ordinary criminal.

This decision alone is enough to dismiss Holder. Yet, this is just the most significant error in a long list of serious errors the Attorney General has made during his short tenure.

In April, President Obama authorized the Justice Department to release the enhanced interrogation memos [sometimes erroneously called the “torture memos”] on the recommendation of Attorney General Holder. Calling the release of the memos “unnecessary as a legal matter” and “unsound as a matter of policy,” former CIA Director General Michael Hayden and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the “effect” of the move “will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.”

The two continued by noting that “public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques…”

In August, despite President Obama’s insistence that his administration would look forward not backwards and despite the fact that they had already been previously investigated by career prosecutors, Eric Holder decided to reopen investigations into CIA officers who employed enhanced interrogation techniques. This unnecessary move, which even the president decided to distance himself from, only served to further weaken morale at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

In November, it was Eric Holder who decided that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad would be tried in civilian courts despite the fact that the terrorist kingpin had already declared his intention to plead guilty in a military tribunal. In addition to serving as a propaganda platform for Mohammad, the trial will likely cost huge sums of money to orchestrate and make New York City an even a bigger target for attack than it already is.

All the decisions that have been made by Attorney General Holder and his Justice Department have already damaged America’s security. They rank as some of the Obama administration’s most troubling errors during its first year in the White House. The United States has been ill served by Attorney General Holder. It is time for the president to relieve him of his duties.

Jamie Weinstein holds a master’s degree in the history of international relations from the London School of Economics and is a columnist for The North Star National. He can be reached through his blog at www.JamieWeinstein.com.

Obama Administration Is Tone-Deaf To Concerns About Terrorism
February 2, 2010
By Richard Cohen Washington Post

Once a far-left liberal always a far-left liberal. Cohen couldn’t help and/or stop himself to get in a few digs regarding the last administration. “No doubt George Bush soiled America’s image abroad with what looked liked vigilante justice and Dick Cheney’s hearty endorsement of ugly interrogation measures.” But at least for today, Cohen grew a pair.

There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer. Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded, reciting terrorists their rights, or the legally meandering and confusing rule that some terrorists will be tried in military tribunals and some in civilian courts, what is missing is a firm recognition that what comes first is not the message sent to America’s critics but the message sent to Americans themselves. When, oh when, will this administration wake up?

Bit by bit, circumstances are forcing President Obama and his aides to come to grips with reality. The original plan to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the so-called Sept. 11 mastermind, in New York City has apparently been aborted. It finally occurred to the Justice Department that cordoning off much of Lower Manhattan and placing a security perimeter around the financial district not only would cost something like $200 million a year but also would destroy the economy of the area. A trial there would give KSM, as he is called, a second shot at devastating downtown New York.

It is amazing that no one thought this through. Published reports say that the Justice Department informed Mayor Michael Bloomberg of its plan just about the time it was announced. This alacrity was clearly the product of some excitement down at Justice — yet another chance to show the world that George W. Bush was gone and with him the odious attempts to treat terrorists as if they were, well, terrorists. A civilian trial! Right in the heart of Manhattan! Obama ought to ask his friend Attorney General Eric Holder what in the world he was thinking — just as we might ask Obama why he has such faith in Holder’s judgment.

In a similar example of poor judgment, an undoubtedly delighted Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was told he had something called Miranda rights and could, if he so chose, cease talking about allegedly attempting to blow up a jetliner as it approached Detroit on Christmas Day. Abdulmutallab was Mirandized after just 50 minutes of interrogation and he, having probably seen more than his share of “Law & Order” episodes, promptly shut up.

Administration officials defend what happened in Detroit and assert, against common sense and the holy truth itself, that they got valuable intelligence — and so what more would you want? But Abdulmutallab went silent before terrorism experts from Washington could get to him. It has been more than a month since he last opened his mouth, and even if he resumes cooperating — a deal may be in the works — he now knows just a bit more about the present-day location of various al-Qaeda operatives than does Regis Philbin.

The announced closing of Guantanamo has also suffered from a peculiar Obama-style naivete. It is now apparent that there are some bad people there who should be detained way past the time they are eligible for AARP membership. It’s true that the world does not like Guantanamo, but then it’s also true that the world is not an al-Qaeda target.

KSM, Abdulmutallab and other accused terrorists should be tried. But these two are not Americans, and they are accused of terrorism, tantamount to an act of war — a virtual Pearl Harbor, in KSM’s case. A military tribunal would fit them fine. If it is good enough for your average GI accused of murder or some such thing, it ought to be good enough for a foreign national with mass murder on his mind.

No doubt George Bush soiled America’s image abroad with what looked liked vigilante justice and Dick Cheney’s hearty endorsement of ugly interrogation measures. But more is at stake here than America’s image abroad — namely the security and peace of mind of Americans in America. Bush stands condemned by the facts for Sept. 11 — his watch, his responsibility — and in all likelihood he bent over backward to ensure that nothing like those attacks would happen again.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, seems to have bent over backward to prove to the world it is not the Bush administration and will, almost no matter what, ensure that everyone gets the benefit of American civil liberties. But the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security and this, sad to say, has eroded under Barack Obama. Repeatedly, the administration has shown poor judgment. Abdulmutallab’s silence is a scream that something is wrong.

Palin Blasts Emanuel for Calling Democrats Idea ‘Retarded’
February 2, 2010
FOXNews.com

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is calling on the White House to fire Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for using the word “retarded” in a strategy session last year.

In a posting on her Facebook page Monday, Palin blasted Emanuel for calling an idea from some of President Obama’s supporters “f—ing retarded” during an August meeting with liberal groups and White House aides.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Emanuel made the remarks after some participants said they planned to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were critical of Obama’s health care agenda.

Palin, whose youngest child, Trig, has Down Syndrome, wrote that Emanuel’s expletive was “heartbreaking” and said his “degrading scolding” has been “completely ignored by the White House.”

“Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities — and the people who love them — is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking,” wrote Palin.

“Rahm is known for his caustic, crude references about those with whom he disagrees, but his recent tirade against participants in a strategy session was such a strong slap in many American faces that our president is doing himself a disservice by seeming to condone Rahm’s recent sick and offensive tactic,” she continued.

Emanuel reportedly apologized for the remarks in a phone call last week to Tim Shriver, CEO of the Special Olympics, which has launched a campaign to end use of the “R” word.

“Rahm called Tim Shriver Wednesday to apologize and the apology was accepted,” a White House official told Politico.com on Tuesday.

“The White House remains committed to addressing the concerns and needs of Americans living with disabilities and recognizes that derogatory remarks demean us all,” the official reportedly said.

On March 19, 2009 the president himself made headlines for a joke on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno in which Obama compared his poor performance in a bowling game to the Special Olympics.

In describing his measly score, Obama said, “It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something.”

A White House spokesman was forced to release a hurried statement which said: “The president made an off-hand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics. He thinks the Special Olympics is a wonderful program that gives an opportunity for people with disabilities from around the world.”

At the time, Palin responded by saying: “I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics. This was a degrading remark about our world’s most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world… I hope President Obama’s comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community.”

It Is Past Time for Macedonia to Join NATO
by Sally McNamara
February 1, 2010

At the Bucharest Summit in April 2008, NATO affirmed that Macedonia would become a fully fledged member of the alliance once its bilateral name dispute with Greece is resolved. Nearly two years later, Greece continues to block Macedonia’s NATO membership and has extended its obstructionism to Skopje’s ambitions to accede to the European Union, despite widespread support in the region and from the broader Euro-Atlantic community.

The Adriatic-3 countries–Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia–have successfully completed their Membership Action Plans, and as a result, Albania and Croatia have taken their seat at the alliance’s table. It is well past time for Macedonia to join them. The United States must work with Macedonia’s allies within NATO to push their accession up the agenda and pressure Greece to abide by NATO’s long-standing precedent that one country does not block another’s membership on a purely bilateral matter.

Greek Obstructionism

Despite the fact that more than 120 countries have recognized Macedonia by its constitutional name, Greece asserts that the Republic of Macedonia gives the nation a territorial claim over Greece’s northern region of the same name.[1] Under Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, all decisions on NATO enlargement must be made by unanimous consent, so Greek opposition alone is enough to block Macedonia’s entry to NATO. However, bilateral disputes have traditionally been resolved outside of the alliance (such as Slovenia’s border dispute with Croatia) so that one member alone does not block the consensus decisions of the others.

Greece undoubtedly has the upper hand, unashamedly wielding its veto power over Macedonia’s accession despite a 1995 interim accord between the two nations agreeing not to do so. Instead of using its power to advance the stability of the transatlantic alliance, Greece is abusing its dominant position to advance its own narrow aims, which will invariably impact regional security.

Macedonia’s patience is not inexhaustible, and it continues to bear the costs of courting NATO without enjoying the full benefits of membership. It will inevitably become costlier politically for Skopje to justify the time and expense of chasing NATO accession as well as its increased commitment to NATO missions such as Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Iraq. Further, Macedonia–having recently increased its troop commitment to 250–currently has more troops serving under NATO in Afghanistan than does Greece.

The Way Forward

The U.N.-mediated talks, supporting bilateral negotiations, should continue separately from the issue of Macedonia’s accession to NATO. Therefore significant diplomatic pressure will have to be applied to Athens to overcome their opposition. Macedonia has a number of powerful advocates within the alliance to push the issue, including Austrian Minister for European and International Affairs Michael Spindelegger, Slovenian Prime Minister Borut Pahor, and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Significantly, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe’s political advisor, Ambassador Lawrence Butler, is a former U.S. ambassador to Macedonia. And American leadership on this matter is essential.

Both U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder and President Obama have also been vocal supporters of NATO enlargement. NATO expansion has traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the United States, and the Obama Administration should rally congressional support for NATO’s Open Door Policy, specifically pushing for the accession of Macedonia in time for the 2010 Lisbon Summit at the end of the year. Ambassador Daalder should also use the U.S.’s diplomatic channels in Europe, in concert with his colleagues in Athens, to increase international pressure on Greece to resolve this matter expeditiously.

A Fair Solution

NATO expansion has been a major success story for the alliance and has played a crucial role in stabilizing and reforming large parts of Europe. Greece was itself brought into the alliance in 1952 on the first wave of enlargement to advance Europe’s strategic reach in southern Europe. Macedonia has chosen a Euro-Atlantic path for its future and met its obligations to qualify for future membership, liberalizing its economy and professionalizing its military. It has shown itself to be capable of providing–not just consuming–security and has constitutionally mandated that it has no territorial aspirations against its neighbors.[2] Its membership prospects must finally be advanced before the window of opportunity closes.

NATO must send a clear message that it remains open for business and that accession is possible for all free, democratic nations in Europe.

Sally McNamara is Senior Policy Analyst in European Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.