A Spy 'Outing' Game For Real

So, where are all the libs who were rallying around Valerie Plame a few years ago? They were all screaming about how horrible it was that Plame got "outed" as a CIA agent.

For some reason, all those same libs are now silent (I would say shamefully silent) about John Adams Project defense lawyers for the terrorists who will truly "out" current CIA operatives and expose their families as well. Whereas Valerie Plame showed how much her privacy had been violated by posing for the cover of Vanity Fair, a nationally circulated magazine, the current outings will put agents and their families in danger of reprisals from the terrorists themselves.

(I wonder if Barack Obama realizes this and if so, does he even care? He seems to care more about the terrorists than he does about American lives.)

Writing for the Washington Times, John Armor has the following:

First, the Plame Affair. According to the mainstream media, that was about the "outing" of a CIA "covert operative" in violation of federal law. But that law applies only to people who had been a covert operative "within five years." The only person who identified her as a CIA covert operative within five years of her service was her husband, who let the cat out of the bag in a Who's Who entry. Mrs. Plame was not outed by anyone, per the law.

That's right. Even Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald admitted that there was no violation of Federal law in the Plame case. But, he overstepped his bounds when he went after Scooter Libby on what were obviously trumped-up charges.

Read on:

However, the fraud of the Plame blame game does not detract from the real purpose of the CIA-protective law. It's designed to protect covert CIA agents from being killed by enemies who would do so in a heartbeat if they knew who these agents are. That brings us to the current situation. The defense counsel for certain Guantanamo Bay detainees is receiving help from the John Adams Project, a combined effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. According to numerous accounts, these defense lawyers have John Adams Project researchers taking photos of CIA covert operatives. And these lawyers have already shown these photos to their clients in Guantanamo Bay and are now seeking the legal right to release the photos to the public.

If the Plame affair were so infuriating to the libs, then they should be surrounding the Justice Department right now demanding that these photos never get released. Because, unlike the Plame situation in which Valerie was never in any danger, the agents that will be outed by this investigation will most certainly be in danger as will their families.

Clearly, The ACLU couldn't care less about the safety of these people! If anyone from the ACLU wishes to refute this, please feel free to leave a response.

Armor goes on to say:

More likely these photos were taken in the home communities of these agents, placing not only them, but their families and neighbors in the cross hairs of murderers. And that is precisely why the law that never actually applied in the Plame Affair, does apply today. It may be that just showing the photos of the CIA agents to their clients turns the assistants who photographed them and the lawyers who passed them on, into criminals themselves. Beyond that, there is the matter of what happens if these photos are offered as evidence in a trial.

The choice here is clear. If you support protecting innocent Americans, you will be against letting the ACLU out these agents. If you support the terrorists, you will agree with putting these agents and their families at risk by releasing these photos.

I will always go with protecting Americans. It's clear that the ACLU and other libs want the opposite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Spy 'Outing' Game For Real
John Armor
Washington Times
August 26, 2009

Political Humor: Divorce Agreement

I got this in an email from my sister today:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement: Our two groups can equitably divide up this country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volkswagon you can find. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World. We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you which one of us will need whose help in 15 years. Sincerely, John J. Wall Law Student and an American P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

The sad part is that if the Dems succeed in inflicting socialism on the United States in such a way that it become irreverisble through the electoral process, what you just read above may actually happen and the U.S. will split into to distinctly separate nations with one nation embracing the disaster known as socialism and the other going back to the roots of our Founding Fathers. You can already see the beginnings of it from the states that are declaring their sovereignty from the Federal government.

Chuck Norris: Barack Obama And The "J" Word

When I was growing up in the 1970's and going to elementary school in Prince George's County, Maryland, I very much enjoyed studying the history of the American Revolution. It was always a very big deal for us and we used to have "festivals" celebrating the founding of the United States and celebrating the ideas that the Founders wrote about.

That doesn't seem to happen much anymore. Somewhere along the line, our educational system began to "forget" about where we came from. And, if you don't know where you came from, you cannot get to where you're going.

How many of us still believe as the Founders did? I mean, really believe. How many of us even know what the Founders believed?

That number is getting smaller and smaller even thought our population is getting bigger and bigger.

John Adams once said, "Our constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind."

Perhaps that quote merely sounded like Christian bravado over the years, but today, we may be witnessing the true meaning of those words.

The Constitution was originally written so that people of all faiths could come to the New World and worship according their own conscious. But the deeper meaning is that they were free from having any particular religion forced upon them by the state. John Adams envisioned such a nation growing in North America.

What neither he nor any other Founder envisioned was that atheistic movements would spring up and threaten to drown out the faithful from the public scene. The reason that Adams said that our Constitution was "wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind" was because the Constitution contained no controls over those who would reject morality and decency in favor of hedonism and self-indulgence.

For example, the Consitution contains no reference to the crime of murder. Why? Because the Founders knew that the good and moral people of the several states would enforce a "murder is a crime" civic code. That one is simple to explain.

But, the Constitution also contains language that guarantees certain liberties like free speech. Does that mean that you are free to go over to your neighbor's house and begin yelling obscenities at your neighbor's children because they are praying where you can see them? Again, the Founders would never have considered this to be a problem and were certain that local communities were filled with people who would find such a prospect horrifying. But, now you can see the grey area where, over the past hundred years or so, the non-faithful have been working in and exploiting legal loopholes.

This is, I believe, precisely why John Adams said what he said. It wasn't meant as a compliment to the faithful, it was meant as a warning of what could happen if the faithful ever lost their public voice.

Chuck Norris, writing for Town Hall notes a few things:

Under Article VI, Section 3 of the new Constitution, denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices must be kept separate from government would have struck our Founders as ridiculous because the very basis for the Founders' ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.

It was everywhere in public life back in the late 1700's. Even Benjamin Rush advocated diversity long before it became a left-wing political buzzword:

"Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament."

Well, maybe not so much Mohammed, but clearly, Rush saw the dangers of allowing atheism to overshadow faith.

More:

[S]igners of the Constitution included Abraham Baldwin, a minister. Others had studied religion but never were ordained. And again, most signers of the Constitution were also Protestants. Two, Charles Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics. ... Like George Washington, I don't believe we can maintain morality and civility apart from a religious foundation: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

One of the problems we are facing here in modern times is that groups like the ACLU have twisted the First Amendment around so that "Freedom of religion" now means to them "Freedom from religion." They like to point to the part of the First Amendment that says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but seem to conveniently forget the rest of that line which statess, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Founders envisioned people having the right to worship in public, something that atheists claim is "offensive." In other words, the ACLU and their anti-religious allies are seeking to force us all to act like atheists.

So, why hasn't our new president shown any regard for any religion except Islam? Chuck Norris isn't afraid to ask the following question:

Is Obama afraid of the word "Jesus"?

The Founders weren't. And we shouldn't be either. Feel free to express your religious convictions anywhere you please. If the ACLU tries to stop you, remind them of the part of the First Amendment that states "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Obama Afraid Of The J-Word?
Chuck Norris
TownHall.com
April 7, 2009

Barack "The Silencer" Obama's Gangland Assault On Free Speech

Usually, politicians who seek the Presidency don't get their nicknames until they reach the Oval Office and do something to earn themselves that nickname. Barack Obama has jumped the gun on this and gotten himself a nickname even before the convention nominating him was over. He is now known as "The Silencer."

In my blog posting from yesterday, I noted how the Obama camp is engaging in strong-arm tactics and even legal threats to stifle free speech. They are specifically targeting a TV ad which legitimately questions Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Further, the TV ad uses no untruthful information yet the Obama camp refers to its content as "lies" without offering a single shred of evidence to support their claim.

Thus, Obama has become "The Silencer." Michelle Malkin over at TownHall has some more on this:

Where are all the free speech absolutists when you need them? Over the past month, left-wing partisans and Democratic lawyers have waged a brass-knuckled intimidation campaign against GOP donors, TV and radio stations, and even an investigative journalist because they have all dared to question the radical cult of Barack Obama. A chill wind blows, but where the valiant protectors of political dissent are, nobody knows. On August 11, I called the American Civil Liberties Union national headquarters in New York for comment about the Chicago gangland tactics of one of these groups -- a nonprofit called "Accountable America" that is spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit. ... The ACLU press office failed to respond to my initial call. On August 13, I followed up through e-mail: "I called on Monday requesting a statement from the ACLU about Accountable America's intimidation campaign against GOP donors. What is the ACLU's position with regard to such efforts? Waiting for your statement..." ACLU press officer Pamela Bradshaw e-mailed back: "Michelle, My apologies that I cannot be of more assistance, but we don't have anyone available. Thanks, Pam." My reply: "Pam -- Does this mean you don't have anyone available today, this week, or for the foreseeable future?" On August 20, after a week of silence, I forwarded the message again to the ACLU press office. No response.

In a stunning act of hypocrisy, the ACLU refuses to denounce the strong-arm tactics of The Silencer and his minions. That comes as very little surprise given that the ACLU has done everything in its power in recent years to curb traditional freedoms and uphold freedoms that have only recently been invented.

But this is the part that should really make you stop and think. Barack Obama, for all of his eloquence and class, is engaging in a campaign of censorship that sinks to the level of street-thugs.

Michelle highlights the real Barack Obama:

Behind the glowing, peaceful facade lies Barack "The Silencer" Obama and his silent enablers on the left. While mainstream journalists schmoozed with liberal celebrities in Denver, practiced yoga with left-wing bloggers and received massages at the Google convention tent near touchy-feely Barackopolis, Team Obama was on an ugly, aggressive warpath sanctioned by Mr. Civility. While compassionate Obama prepared to stand before thousands of worshipers at Invesco Field, purporting to give voice to the voiceless, his Chicago-schooled campaign machine was working overtime to muzzle conservative critics. "We want it to stop," ordered one pro-Obama caller to WGN.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Barack "The Silencer" Obama's Gangland Assault On Free Speech
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
August 29, 2008

Should Telecoms Be Punished For Exposing Terror Plots?

I wonder how Shakespeare would write the answer to that question. Maybe something along the lines of: "'Tis a notable issue then that the usurpers of our secure quickness have found themselves met with agents of protectiveness who resolutely refuse to stead in silence." Or words to that effect. In plain English, the answer is a resounding: "No!"

Writing for TownHall.com, Cliff May has the following:

During the 1990s, thousands of terrorists were trained in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. The government did next to nothing about that. Terrorists groups and the regimes backing them were seldom infiltrated. Neither terrorists nor their masters were effectively monitored. ... But after 9/11/01, one of the steps our intelligence officials took was to go to the big telecommunications firms and ask for help. Another attack could be coming – maybe more after that. The officials wanted access to data that might contain clues – dots they might be able to connect. The idea was not to have a federal agent listening in on your calls to Uncle Moe in Toledo. The idea was to gather huge quantities of information, “meta-data,” and mine it – seeking out patterns that might indicate terrorist connections or activities.

And those efforts have been very effective. But only groups like terrorist supporters and the ACLU are against it.

More:

An important point: The Supreme Court has held for decades that telephone record information—as opposed to the content of phone calls— triggers no Fourth Amendment privacy interest. You have no expectation of privacy in the numbers you dial because you expect the phone company to keep records of those numbers. What if you wanted to challenge a phone bill? You’d be pretty peeved if the phone company did not have records of the calls you made, when you made them and how long you stayed on the line. I do not believe this kind of intelligence gathering outrages normal Americans. I think most Americans say: “Good for government and good for the telecoms. They did their duty. They helped protect us” But the ACLU and some other groups that call themselves “civil liberties advocates” do claim to be outraged. Also outraged – or perhaps just excited – are the plaintiffs’ attorneys who have nearly 40 lawsuits pending before federal courts. If these lawyers prevail, tens of billions of dollars will be extracted from such firms as AT&T, Cingular Wireless, Bell South, Sprint and Verizon Communications.

Anyone care to guess which political party these trial lawyers mostly support?

Trial lawyers are among the most generous donors to the Democratic Party -- but leave aside whether that may explain House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refusing to let House members vote on a bill to protect the telecoms from being sued for contributing to the effort to thwart terrorists.

But this little gem is priceless:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended the telecom companies last month, telling his colleagues: "What is the big payoff for the telephone companies? They get paid a lot of money? No. They get paid nothing. What do they get for this [for cooperating with intelligence officials to prevent terrorism]? They get $40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it.”

And this warning is the ounce of prevention that is worth much, much more than the pound of cure:

As the Washington Post reported, there is “one thing on which both sides agree: If the lawsuits go forward sensitive details about the scope and methods of the Bush administration’s surveillance efforts could be divulged for the first time.” Divulged not just to the media – but also to terrorists intent on murdering you and your children. For having written that, I will be accused of “fear-mongering.” So be it. If America’s experience with terrorism teaches anything, it’s that we have more to fear than fear itself. When politicians cave to special interests who want to make national security policy – and billions of dollars – in courtrooms, that should raise fears, too. And if it doesn’t outrage you, maybe nothing will.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Listen Up: Should The Telecoms Be Punished For Helping Protect You From Terrorists?
Cliff May
TownHall.com
March 6, 2008

La Raza And The Anti-Defamation League Push For Censorship

It always amazes me how leftist groups claim to be fanatically committed to freedom (e.g. the ACLU) and yet they actively engage in activities specifically designed to curtail the freedom of others. We already know how the ACLU has been on an anti-Christian Crusade for the past several years and we know how that same ACLU works to silence the Boy Scouts while trying to give terrorists a louder voice.

But they are not alone.

The radical Hispanic group La Raza along with the Anti-Defamation League have been on a massive campaign to silence anyone who speaks out against illegal immigration. According to Roy Beck at NumbersUSA:

Led by the National Council of La Raza and the Anti-Defamation League, the open-borders groups have started a concerted campaign to persuade Cable TV executives to either bar me and our Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks from their shows, or to always introduce us as representing an "extremist" organization with ties to hate and racist groups. Their characterization of NumbersUSA and our members is without any connection to reality, facts or even common decency. But if all of us remain silent in the face of this campaign of character assassination, we might indeed be silenced on TV and beyond.

And more specific targets include Lou Dobbs of CNN, Pat Buchanan of MSNBC, Glenn Beck of Headline News and Sean Hannity of Fox.

You can access an Associated Press article about it here:

Group: Immigration Talks Rouse Hate
Associated Press via USA Today
February 1, 2008

Knowing how left-leaning most news networks are, it is not a question of if they will cave in but a question of when.

So, what can we do? We can notify the heads of the various networks that we will not be pleased if they give in to the propaganda of groups such as La Raza and ADL. You can contact them thus:

CNN Jim Walton President CNN Worldwide Atlanta, GA Email: jim.walton@turner.com Jonathan Klein President CNN U.S. New York, NY Email: jonathan.klein@cnn.com Richard Davis Executive Vice President of News Standards and Practices Atlanta, GA Email rick.davis@turner.com Viewer Response Line/Comments Call 212-275-7800 ask for Viewer Response Line FOX NEWS Roger Ailes Chairman and CEO New York, NY Email roger.ailes@foxnews.com Bill Shine Senior Vice President Programming New York, NY Email bill.shine@foxnews.com Brian Lewis Executive Vice President Corporate Communications New York, NY Email brian.lewis@foxnews.com Public Feedback Yourcomments@foxnews.com MSNBC Phil Griffin Senior Vice President of News New York, NY Email phil.griffin@nbc.com

And Roy Beck reminds us:

Please remember that these executives are not our enemies. Although we may not always agree with their balance in covering immigration, these three cables have been far more open than broadcast TV and the nation's newspapers to allowing the majority of Americans' concerns about immigration to be expressed. The La Raza Censorship Campaign is telling these executives that if they allow leaders from FAIR, the Minutemen, ALIPAC, or if they allow Rosemary and me, to continue to express our views on TV, the executives will be inculcating "good people" to hate all immigrants. The La Raza website says it goes beyond the bounds of free speech to say that our nation's immigration policies threaten our communities and our values. I say that statement itself threatens the values of our nation. Let these executives know that you know about the effort at censorship and that you back them 100% in keeping the immigration forum open to all sides -- including the open-borders people who want to censor us.

You can access the NumbersUSA website here:

NumbersUSA