By  Lance Thompson 

The Obama administration’s decision to try Kalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in a civilian court rather than before a military tribunal left many Americans mystified.  Since Attorney General Eric Holder’s old law firm defends terrorists held in Gitmo (and did so while he was a senior partner there), we can assume that a Justice Department under his control will not successfully or even vigorously prosecute this confessed mastermind of the September 11th attacks.  Much time and money will be wasted in parading KSM through the legal process.  There is, however, a way to serve justice swiftly and, one might even say, diplomatically.  

by  Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon 

In American politics, the fringe groups of the left, right and center sooner or later end up accusing the sitting President of the United States of being a Nazi, a Marxist or a Communist.  Such references are usually punctuated by cartoons of the luckless leader sporting a Hitlerian moustache, a fuzzy beard and wild smoky hair, or perhaps even a handlebar moustache below a leering look.  By way of example, if you Google “Bush and Hitler” you get well over nine million hits. 

Until now, it was semi-amusing to blow off steam with this kind of partisan ram-rodding.  It seemed harmless because “everyone does it.”  And we would laugh it off because we knew in our hearts that all the jabbing was no more than satire run amok.  That was then. 

This is now: 

In the frenetic months leading up to the 2008 presidential election, conservative pundits railed against Barack Obama’s questionable alliances, specifically Bill Ayers, Tony Rezco, George Soros, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  Sean Hannity of FoxNews initiated an unrelenting and unyielding charge against the candidate’s suspicious leftist associations, tracing the dubious connections as far back as Obama’s childhood.  But the powerful and fawning mainstream media were able to block, distort, distract, and disengage from what Hannity and others tried to present as nothing more than a smear campaign against their chosen one.  They were blinded by Obama’s shining smile and the opportunity to make politically correct history.  History has been made, but it’s been extraordinarily incorrect. 

Try as they might, the conservative talking heads barely put a chink in the armor the MSM had dressed Obama in since his rousing 2004 speech at the DNC.  That was the day, nigh, the moment, when the lights went on in the heads of the leftist power elite -- that here was the malleable shining star who could and would make the changes they so desperately tried to effect since the last Great Depression.  “Last” you say?  Yes, because creating the second Great Depression is the aim of this administration: to crush the hearts and minds of the citizenry until we accept their brand of redistributive change. 

Conservatives in both public and private life who speak on behalf of our Constitutional rights and against this maelstrom have been ruthlessly branded by lefties, liberal journalists, RINOs, and the press with just about every hostile and threatening moniker.  It’s not unlike the way the Nazis slapped the yellow cut-out Star of David on Jews throughout Germany and in countries overrun by the Third Reich.  The Jews of Europe had no one to speak freely on their behalf without fear of retribution, and that silence contributed to the destruction of European Jews. 

Today, an American – a white knight – has charged forth to expose the brutish attempts to wreck our country.  He is working hard to help with the recovery of conservatism and lead the counterattack to save the former “United” States of America.  That knight is Glenn Beck. 

Practically from his debut he has been the object of extreme ridicule (the usual thread-worn defense mechanism of liberals).  He’s been called a circus clown, a raging alcoholic, a moron, or, as Stephen King referred to him, “Satan’s mentally challenged younger brother.”  But this time the sticks and stones are bouncing off his proud chest like the proverbial s**t hitting the fan -- and it’s landing square on the smug faces of Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and David Letterman.  And the sludge is coming in the form of stratospheric ratings for Glenn Beck and Fox News. 

Beck has repeatedly pointed out that Obama’s message has been unambiguous with respect to his revolutionary intentions.  Beck’s exhortations were not innuendo or speculation but direct, factual quotes and video footage of then candidate Obama which would hold up in any court of law.  But Americans, largely shielded by the utopian fantasies of the leftist media, did not, or wished not, to hear or see the truth. 

Even David Von Drehle has proffered in Time Magazine, albeit in a backhanded way, “…Whom do you trust?  Either the corrupt, communist-loving traitors on the left are causing this, or it's the racist, greedy warmongers on the right, or maybe the dishonest, incompetent, conniving media, which refuse to tell the truth about whomever you personally happen to despise.” 

At the Huffington Post, Camille Paglia recently wrote, “The mainstream media's failure to honestly cover last month's mass demonstration in Washington, D.C. was a disgrace. The focus on anti-Obama placards (which were no worse than the rabid anti-LBJ, anti-Reagan or anti-Bush placards of leftist protests), combined with the grotesque attempt to equate criticism of Obama with racism, simply illustrated why the old guard TV networks and major urban daily newspapers are slowly dying. Only a simpleton would believe what they say.” 

Green jobs adviser, Van “Republicans are a bunch of assholes” Jones, resigned purportedly so as not to distract from Obama’s agenda.  Gosh, we wonder why.  And then this past week, Obama’s Mao-worshipping Communications Director, Anita Dunn, has also resigned.  Two down, and several Marxists (dots that Beck has already connected) to go, are waiting in the wings, eager to sacrifice themselves for their greater god, uh, good. 

Over the last few months, Beck has ingenuously presented facts and pointed questions about everyone surrounding Barack Obama and those within his inner sanctum.  You just can’t make this stuff up, and everyone knows it.  Beck is smart, but even he could not concoct the shocking pyramid of leftists with direct access to the most powerful man on earth.  The presidential minions have been given ample opportunity to refute possible misstatements of fact or opinion, but they have instead chosen to ignore the commentary in the mistaken belief that their silence would be interpreted as not lending credence to those facts and opinions.  

It is no secret – and no surprise to conservatives – that Obama & Co. (the duplicitous Democrat-controlled Congress) are forging the chains of socialistic enslavement of the American People, and pulling our country apart at the seams.  But Beck’s relentless search for the truth is growing exponentially, so much so that the upcoming American Revolt of 2010 already is being felt around the world. 

The freedom that we cherish, which was born from the precepts and principles of our sacred Constitution, is a “one size fits all” gift from our founding fathers – from those individuals who put their lives on the line and holding that line against oppression.  No one person or group is granted either more or less — everyone is equal in freedom. 

And so we conclude: “If it walks like a Marxist, quacks like a Marxist, looks like a Marxist, you can bet it’s not a duck.”

by Lance Thompson

by Lance Thompson 

by Lance Thompson 

The Obama administration announced that Attorney General Eric Holder will assign a special prosecutor to take the first step in bringing to trial CIA operatives who used extreme measures to interrogate terrorists. These extreme measures did not include torture, but merely threats and coercion which caused those interrogated to reveal details of planned terrorist attacks, and further permitted the United States to prevent them.

Others have persuasively argued that prosecuting those who defend our country encourages our enemies, discourages our own people, and makes our allies wonder why they’re on our side at all. However, under the present administration, anyone who takes an oath to defend our nation should be ready to be prosecuted for doing his or her duty, and crucified for going above and beyond the call.

The Obama administration prefers that its Justice Department dismiss criminal cases against its friends. This happened last week in the dismissed case of Democrat New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s shady deals with campaign contributors, and last month with the dismissed case of Democrat Senator Chris Dodd’s questionable favors bestowed by Countrywide Mortgage. Instead, Attorney General Eric Holder’s wrath is directed at Americans serving on the front line against terror. Further, there seems to be no statute of limitations on such vital practices as interrogating, interdicting, hunting and killing our nation’s enemies. So here is a list of some additional targets for Obama DOJ investigations:

Navy Captain Stephen Decatur, who in February, 1804, sailed his schooner Enterprise under the hostile guns of Tripoli harbor and in a daring raid destroyed the captured American frigate Philadelphia, denying the valuable ship to the terrorist Tripolitanian enemy.

Colonel William Travis and the defenders ofthe Alamo, who in February, 1836, obliged Mexican General Santa Ana and his army to find out what Texans are made of.

Marine Captain Lloyd Williams of the 5th Marine Regiment who, prior to the valorous stand of soldiers and Marines at Belleau Wood in June, 1918, responded to a French officer’s suggestion to withdraw from the exposed position, “Retreat, hell–we just got here!”

Or the civilian passengers of United Flight 93, who on September 11th, 2001, met the greatest terrorist attack on our nation with courage, resolve, and selfless sacrifice so that others might live.

Admittedly, these Americans are all beyond the pitiful jurisdiction of Eric Holder. Their cases have, in fact, already come before the Highest Power. (No, that is not a reference to Rahm Emmanuel.) But it is certain that before the Ultimate Judge, these heroes were not only acquitted, but honored, feted, and invited to sit on the side of the angels, which is certainly where they belong.

And they’ll be saving a place for those CIA operatives now threatened by the earthly courts of lesser men.

Basic political tactics dictate that bad news is released on a Friday, preferably before a big holiday weekend, when few people are paying attention. The current administration has had no shortage of bad news of late, but last Friday they announced that their previous ten-year estimate of the budget deficit (about $7 trillion) was too low. The revised deficit estimate for 2010-2019 is $9 trillion–two trillion dollars higher than before. 

Until Obama came to the Oval Office,finding something to spend two trillion dollars on was a challenge. Now that Obama and the Democrats are in charge, of course, spending two trillion dollars is an almost monthly occurrence. But in the old days (prior to 2009), two trillion was a lot of money. It’s the sort of price tag one would expect for waging a protracted world war, finding a cure for cancer, turning the Sahara Desert into fertile farmland, or colonizing Mars. And such ambitious programs would be exhaustively debated in Congress, in the media, and among voters across the country. Because two trillion dollars is more money than any previous administration has spent on anything, and we’d want to be sure we were getting our money’s worth. 

But the value of two trillion dollars has changed under Barack Obama. The current president seems to think that he has been issued the world’s most powerful credit card, with no limit and easy terms–spend however much you want, and simply mail the bill to successive generations. Under Barack Obama, massive spending is the solution to everything. But this is not two trillion dollars invested in a major piece of legislation or vital investment in our nation’s future. This is two trillion dollars of accounting error.

And remember, this is only an estimate of what the deficit will be ten years from now. In the first six months of the administration, that estimate has already been adjusted upwards by two trillion dollars. That estimate does not take into account more wars, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, energy disruptions, or pandemics. Any of these occurrences could cause the estimate of the deficit to be bumped upward again. By how much more next time? Two trillion? Five trillion? Ten trillion?

The administration released this information on a Friday, hoping Americans would be too busy enjoying their weekend to notice. Barack Obama hoped to set the example by flying off to a Martha’s Vineyard vacation in the direct path of Hurricane Bill. If the president isn’t worried by this looming tsunami of red ink, why should any of us be concerned? Besides, every thousand-page piece of legislation the president champions carries a multi-trillion dollar price tag. What’s a couple more trillion added to a multi-trillion dollar debt we have no way of repaying anyway? Max out the credit card and head for beach!

One other bit of weekend news most Americans won’t notice came out on Sunday. Rasmussen reports that the president’s approval rating is the worst since he took office. While 27% of respondents strongly approve of the president’s performance in office, 41% strongly disapprove. Rasmussen’s numbers are the lowest for the president of any major national poll, but all show steady deterioration in support for Obama. It may be that Americans are paying attention after all. And they have two trillion more reasons to do so since last Friday.

by Lance Thompson 

The steady drop in President Obama’s approval ratings has been attributed to the recent acrimonious debate over health care reform. But I believe that debate is only a minor factor in Americans’ growing dissatisfaction with the president. The real source of Obama’s declining popularity is his character.  

Every election of a non-incumbent is a matter of taking a chance. Political campaigns present candidates in the best possible light, and voters try to determine from all the hype and hoopla what sort of leader the candidate will be. However, it is impossible to be certain. We must infer from campaign themes and statements and behavior how the candidate will conduct himself in office. 

Once the election is over, voters compare the elected politician with the expectations they formed while he was a candidate. They hope that he will at least be true to the promises he made during the campaign. In the best of worlds, he will exceed the expectations of his supporters and prove to be an inspirational and visionary leader. 

The elected politician scores well when he demonstrates strength and depth of character. There are many aspects of the quality of character, but some elements are generally agreed upon. A president of character keeps his word, stands up for his country, and takes responsibility for his actions. President Obama has failed all of these tests of character. 

It is certain that many on the left who voted for Obama are pleased with his performance. After all, he has moved this country toward socialism in more ways, at a much faster rate, and at far greater expense than any American president in history. For those who idealize the redistribution of wealth, the dismantling of capitalism, the hobbling of our industries with taxes and restrictions, the takeover of private companies by the federal government, and total state control of our health care system, Obama has delivered in spades. 

However, liberals would have voted for Obama anyway. His margin of victory came from the many independent and nonaligned voters who thought it worth the risk to vote for an unknown quantity. These are the people who are turning away from Obama in droves, and the reason is his character.

Obama promised to lower taxes for 95% of Americans. He said this with a straight face, even though less than 60% of Americans pay taxes. Not only was the math against him, but he has already stated that taxes may have to rise for middle income taxpayers to supply revenue for his various programs. Obama promised to raise ethical standards and bring transparency to the White House. He has since appointed tax cheats to his cabinet, placed a racist on the Supreme Court, and bullied private industry to accede to his takeovers of banks, auto companies and other private concerns. He promised to publicly post on the internet all important legislation for a week prior to passage. Since coming to office, he has supported a Democrat Congress in its rush to enact massive spending bills before any Senator or representative could read them. Obama’s administration has been one broken promise after another.

Obama also fails the test of standing up for our country. His strongest suit in the area of diplomacy seems to be to travel to foreign countries and apologize for American misdeeds or disavow long standing policies. Nations that have risked much to be our allies–the United Kingdom, Israel, former Soviet republics–are thus taught that we cannot be depended on. But he does not stop there. He supports the legally deposed president Zelaya of Honduras; seeks closer ties to the terrorist-sponsoring governments of Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba; and shrugs at the nuclear and ballistic missile advances of North Korea. Obama makes no demands, defends no principles, and commits himself to none of the great causes of American foreign policy. He is a president ashamed of American exceptionalism, and, by extension, of America herself.

Obama does not take responsibility for his decisions. He inherited an $800 billion dollar debt from President Bush–largely due to the last-minute spending on the TARP financial institution bailout. This was a lamentable decision on the part of the previous administration. But Obama has doubled and trebled that debt, and wants to multiply it again, and continues to blame the deficit spending on the previous administration. Obama, in six months, has spent more money than all other presidents combined, but when this point is brought up to him, he blames the last guy who sat in his chair. When will Obama take responsibility for the trillions he has spent, and the trillions more he demands?

Finally, the health care debate again focuses attention on character. Obama, who promised to make the public part of the legislative process, has instead tried to rush hundreds of pages of health care reform through the Democrat Congress. When details began to leak out, and Americans protested, Obama’s administration asked his supporters to report anyone who opposed his agenda to the White House. He allowed Democrats in Congress to demonize his critics as un-American, subversive, and dangerous. And despite Congressional Budget Office estimates that his proposals will cost more, accomplish less, and cause more damage than Obama claims, the president continues to insist that the legislation be passed. At one time, Obama’s personal credibility may have carried the day on this issue. But now, after more than half a year of Obama, the majority of Americans no longer accept his claims at face value.

Voters have months of campaigning to decide if they like a candidate enough to vote for him. After the election, it takes another few months for them to decide if they’ve chosen wisely. Character takes time to reveal itself. Obama has had ample time to demonstrate his character. It appears, as time goes on, that more and more Americans find him wanting.

“It is the nature of an intelligence service that it must receive encouragement and support from the government of the day; if the government lacks interest in or expert understanding for its intelligence service, not even the best service will succeed in overcoming external prejudices against it.” These are the words of Reinhard Gehlen, chief of the German federal intelligence service , the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst), in 1971, in his excellent memoir, “The Service.” (English edition: World Publishing, New York, 1972). Gehlen brought invaluable intelligence assets to the United States regarding Russia after

World War II, and founded the BND which continues its important work to this day.

Barack Obama is the most authentically anti-war president since Jimmy Carter.  While a student at Columbia, he wrote a paper called “Breaking the War Mentality” which favored a unilateral nuclear freeze, advocated shifting spending from military to social needs, and supported other campus anti-military organizations.  During the presidential campaign, he advocated immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and was widely known as the anti-war candidate of his party.  Upon taking office, his administration has cut funding for new jet fighters, missile defense systems for the United States and Eastern Europe, and Obama himself has pledged never to “weaponize space.”  Obama is completely against war and the military.

Except for the war in Afghanistan.  Even during the campaign, Obama accused George Bush of focusing on the wrong war in Iraq.  Obama advocated increasing our forces in Afghanistan, and since taking office has supported continued efforts to attack the Taliban in that desolate region.  I have not understood why until Obama’s recent Russian visit with Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev.

True to his background, Obama pledged to cut our nuclear forces by a third, thus giving the Russians a diplomatic victory beyond their wildest dreams.  America will voluntarily disarm in the face of rising threats from Communist China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia itself.  Obama returned trumpeting his achievements.  One of those, perhaps little noticed, is the Russian agreement to allow American re-supply flights through Russian air space to our forces in Afghanistan.  Again, I wondered why.

Russia has a long and nearly unbroken tradition of denying over-flights to other countries, ever since the Communists took over.  During daredevil aviator Wiley Post’s round-the-world flight in 1931, Russia at first refused over-flight privileges and then relented at the last minute, only to furnish Post with inaccurate charts so as to give no information to a foreign government.  It has been much the same ever since, up to the 1983 shooting down of KAL 007 by a Russian interceptor.  The unarmed civilian jumbo jet went down with no survivors.  Russia ordinarily does not consider requests to cross its borders to even private aviators, let alone military flights.  Yet now, the Russians are granting that privilege to American military aircraft to re-supply our troops in Afghanistan.

Another long and consistent tradition is Russian expansionism.  During the colonial period, when Great Britain established coaling stations around the world to service the Royal Navy and protect its global empire, most other powerful nations followed suit.  This is what resulted in the Dutch East Indies, German possession of New Guinea and other Pacific islands, and French Guyana, to name a few.  The Russians, however, never went in for far-flung colonies they would need fleets to defend.  With the exception of some remote fur-trading outposts on the North American coast, Russia always expanded at its own borders.  In the 11th Century, Russians absorbed the lands of the Upper Volga, from the Urals to the Baltic Sea.  In the 16th Century, Russia expanded  to the Caucasus and Black Sea, into Turkestan and Siberia.  Russians clashed with China and Japan, and in the 20th Century, brutally subjugated most of Eastern Europe, including bloody takeovers of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and half of Germany.  In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and became mired in a punishing guerilla war with enemies who included the Taliban.  The Soviet Union withdrew ten years later, having suffered tremendous losses.  But they never relinquished their claims or ambitions in the region.

Which brings us back to the present day.  American troops have succeeded where the Soviet forces failed.  Americans have defeated the Taliban repeatedly, cleared areas of the enemy, destroyed terrorist training camps and hideouts, and stabilized the national government and economy.  When the Taliban attacks in strength, they are decimated.  When they disperse, we hunt them down.  When they attempt to terrorize the population, they are exposed and captured or killed.  American troops have demonstrated resourcefulness, persistence, and courage.  And they have prevailed.

The American pattern for this kind of war is to defeat the enemy, establish a fledgling democracy, and withdraw our troops.  In the past, American presidents have always offered support and protection for the emerging democratic government, lest it be set upon by enemies during its infancy.

However, it is evident to the world that Obama is a new kind of president.  He criticizes our staunchest ally in the Middle East–Israel.  He withholds official support for Iranian protestors who stand up against the oppression of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the risk of their own lives.  He supports a Honduran dictator and condemns the legal measures undertaken to remove him from office.  He bows to the Saudi King, makes overtures to Hugo Chavez, and allows North Korea to fire missiles at United States territory.  Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is not the champion of democracy or freedom, as previous American presidents have been.  Obama more often sides with the tyrants rather than the oppressed.

This fact is not lost on the Russians.  They know that the American military, after defeating the Taliban, will some day leave Afghanistan and its infant democracy to its own devices.  And that is when Russia, with its chief Afghan opponent–the Taliban–destroyed by the United States, will return to claim Afghanistan for itself.  The Russians know Obama will not defend a struggling democracy, that Obama would rather placate a powerful opponent than challenge one, that he will abandon any ally to avoid confrontation.

Thus, the Russians are only too eager to help with our pacification of Afghanistan.  While our troops do the heavy lifting, the Russians will plan their takeover.  As soon as we’re gone, the Russians will sweep in behind us and swallow Afghanistan in a matter of days.  There will be no organized guerilla force to oppose them, as there was in the 1980's.  There will only be a free people, weakened by years of war, unable to defend themselves.

It’s impossible to know whether Barack Obama foresees this eventuality or not.  One can ascribe many errors in judgment to simple incompetence.  But rest assured that Russian foreign policy is not trusted to neophytes and community organizers.  Their expansionist strategy is long-term, consistent and ruthless.  And they know an opportunity when they see it.