…while I’m able. Luckily, or not so luckily, depending on ones point of view, some things I have to do have been delayed. This, however, leaves me more time to post, so…

I’ve been reading arguments both for and against this WikiLeaks guy, Julian Assange and what he’s been up to regarding the secret documents (91,000 of them, WOW!) he’s allegedly been receiving that detail some pretty bad stuff about our government’s exploits in Afghanistan.

According to some of this material, the U.S. taxpayer has been financing Taliban operations and other activities that are not in the best interests of either our brave troops over there nor in the interests of any sort of U.S./Allies victory.

So why are there pundits and letters-to-the-editor writers blasting this Assange guy for exposing vital military secrets?

It seems to me that the things he’s exposing are problems about which the government needs to do something, but haven’t been — Why? Because like the illegal alien problem we have, which was allowed to build up because politicians were able to sweep it under a rug (if the public ain’t complaining, why take the initiative, right?) due to lack of media pressure, what’s evidently been permitted to become business as usual in Afghanistan has been kept under wraps.

There’s no way anyone is going to convince me that the folks in charge over there (the ones whose salaries originate with We, The Taxpayer), as well as the fine folks in the Langley ‘hood of McLean, Virginia, haven’t been well aware of these ongoing events; If they have been, they aren’t the right people to either a) be assigned responsible charge over there, or b) be responsible for supplying the “powers that be” with intelligence from over there.

I also feel that funneling U.S. taxpayers’ dollars to the Taliban, whether they’re being diverted via U.S. military or intelligence or their Afghani counterparts, endangers our troops a whole hell of a lot more than this WikiLeaks exposing it.

I mean, C’mon! Money supplies people like the Taliban and their al-Qaeda playmates with weapons, logistics, baksheesh to bribe Afghani officials not already secretly sympathetic to their cause, maybe even a nice Swiss account ala Arafat to which some Terrorist-in-Chief can one day retire in luxury.

That sounds more dangerous to our military men and women over there than nobody knowing about any of it.

Now that everybody does know, perhaps something will be done about it.

I know, I know, politicians hate when “classified” graft, corruption, ineptitude and lack of proactive action is exposed.

But, now that it has been, regardless of the source, maybe they’ll do something about it.

I don’t know about the rest of my fellow countrymen, but I sure as shootin’ hate the idea that my hard earned tax dollars are going to the very same evil entity that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are over there fighting.

…coincidentally in the aftermath of U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton’s predictably anti-American (yes, I say anti-American because I don’t believe any judge who would, given the circumstances, rule as Bolton did on the Arizona immigration law signed by Governor Jan Brewer has any right to call herself an American — it’s too bad U.S. district judges can’t be replaced by illegal aliens, for a fraction of what we pay Ms. Brewer, of course) ruling, I was walking around in the neighborhood in which I grew up.

Forest Hills, in the Borough of Queens, New York.

When I was growing up here, the neighborhood was a mixture of nationalities, eastern European, Irish, German, various generation Americans, a few Asians, WASP, Jewish, Catholic. One thing we all had in common in those days (late 1950s through early 1970s), including the immigrant population, was that everybody could speak, read and write English. If they couldn’t when they arrived here, they certainly could by then.

But I digress: I was sort of flabbergasted when, earlier, a very frustrated guy (N.Y. accent, born in New York) came up to me right here in Forest Hills, asking for directions, and the first thing he said was, “Please, tell me you speak English!”

How bad are things getting, for crying out loud!?

…so to speak, I have a bit more to say, this concerning security for the most part.

Or, should I say, a lack thereof.

As we all know, or at least assume, it’s the job of any government to protect its citizens and, where possible, its allies and friends, which in itself goes hand-in-hand with protecting said citizens and also operating in the best interests of itself and, again, therefore, its citizens.

So why are we allowing Iran to go so far with their nuclear weapons program?

From Mark Steyn:

News from around the world:

In Britain, it is traditional on Shrove Tuesday to hold pancake races, in which contestants run while flipping a pancake in a frying pan. The appeal of the event depends on the potential pitfalls in attempting simultaneous rapid forward propulsion and pancake tossing. But, in St. Albans, England, competitors were informed by Health & Safety officials that they were “banned from running due to fears they would slip over in the rain.” Watching a man walk up the main street with a skillet is not the most riveting event, even in St. Albans. In the heat of the white-knuckle thrills, team captain David Emery momentarily forgot the new rules. “I have been disqualified from a running race for running,” he explained afterwards.

In Canada, Karen Selick told readers of The Ottawa Citizen about her winter vacation in Arizona last month: “The resort suite I rented via the Internet promised a private patio with hot tub,” she wrote. “Upon arrival, I found the door to my patio bolted shut. ‘Entry prohibited by federal law,’ read the sign. Hotel management explained that the drains in all the resort’s hot tubs had recently been found not to comply with new safety regulations. Compliance costs would be astronomical. Dozens of hot tubs would instead be cemented over permanently.” In the meantime, her suite had an attractive view of the federally-prohibited patio.

Yeah, we can see where this is going.

Anything else? Oh, yeah. In Iran, the self-declared nuclear regime announced that it was now enriching uranium to 20 percent. When President Barack Obama took office, the Islamic Republic had 400 centrifuges enriching up to 3.5 percent. A year later, it has 8,000 centrifuges enriching to 20 percent. The CIA director, Leon Panetta, now cautiously concedes that Iran’s nuclear ambitions may have a military purpose. Which is odd, because the lavishly funded geniuses behind America’s National Intelligence Estimate told us only two years ago that Tehran had ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Is that estimate no longer operative? And, if so, could we taxpayers get a refund?

This is a perfect snapshot of the West at twilight. On the one hand, governments of developed nations microregulate every aspect of your life in the interests of “keeping you safe.” If you’re minded to flip a pancake at speeds of more than 4 miles per hour, the state will step in and act decisively: It’s for your own good. If you’re a tourist from Moose Jaw, Washington will take pre-emptive action to shield you from the potential dangers of your patio in Arizona.

On the other hand, when it comes to “keeping you safe” from real threats, such as a millenarian theocracy that claims universal jurisdiction, America and its allies do nothing. There aren’t going to be any sanctions, because China and Russia don’t want them. That means military action, which would have to be done without U.N. backing — which, as Greg Sheridan of The Australian puts it, “would be foreign to every instinct of the Obama administration.” Indeed. Nonetheless, Washington is (altogether now) “losing patience” with the mullahs. The New York Daily News reports the latest get-tough move:

“Secretary of State Clinton dared Iran on Monday to let her hold a town hall meeting in Tehran.”

All of which goes to show the difference between our two political belief systems, I suppose: One, barring status quo politicians of the “new school” variety on the right, many of whom are even older than me, believing in tangible and decisive action, the other, from the right side of the aisle, believing that do-nothing symbolism will suffice, until…

BOOM!, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Paying a brief visit to our friends and steadfast allies, the Israelis, my head’s still spinning a bit from the Bush reversal, a few years back, of his initial support of Israel’s being allowed to win their war in Lebanon. Once he backpedalled and sided with France (spit!), pressing Tel Aviv to withdraw the IDF, the stage was set for Lebanon, beleaguered as it has been by the Islamofascists of Hezbollah who are well entrenched in the government in Islamabad, to rabble-rouse further in pursuit of a road to the destruction of Israel.

At least, wherever they can.

Two Lebanese vessels are planning to leave shortly for Hamas-controlled Gaza, in defiance of an Israeli maritime blockade on that territory. The ships, the Naji Al Ali and the Mariam, are expected to set sail from the Lebanese port of Tripoli as early as Friday (July 23) or Saturday (July 24).

Meanwhile, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev has sent letters to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and the UN Security Council calling on Lebanon and other countries to prevent the flotilla from illegally entering the area.

Said Shalev, “All goods that are not weapons or material for war-like purposes are now entering the Gaza Strip through appropriate mechanisms that ensure their delivery as well as their civilian nature.” Israel announced June 17 that it would ease restrictions on allowing civilian goods via land crossings into Gaza and increase the delivery of construction materials.

Wait just a minute, I don’t see the word “humanitarian” up there anyplace. Oh, wait… It is purely humanitarian based, goodwill toward all, etc, by French (spit!), general Muslim, U.N. or Obama Administration standards. How can we tell? Just peruse the emphasis (mine) below.

Most of the passengers aboard the Naji Al Ali are journalists, while the Mariam is an all-women’s ship. Yasser Qashlaq, a Syrian national and the two-vessel flotilla’s chief funder and organizer, has said the main aim of the ships is to stage a public relations stunt and force Jews out of Israel. Said Qashlaq, “A day will come when the ships will carry the remainder of the European garbage which came to my homeland [i.e., Israel] and return them to their homelands. Gilad Shalit will go back to Paris and those murderers [the leaders of Israel] will go back to Poland.”

Lastly, we have more of the usual bullshirt from Janet Napolitano, our illustrious Homeland Security Secretary whom any security supervisor with even a 1% competence level wouldn’t trust on a job as a uniformed rent-a-cop in a corner grocery store.

Six years after the Sept. 11 commission issued a series of recommendations to boost U.S. defenses against terrorist attacks, the federal government has achieved “historic advances” in fulfilling them, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday.

Historic advances, yes, of course. Ahem…

But back to Mark Steyn, whom I find has more security sense in his left pinky than Napolitano will have in her entire lifetime.

The average Canadian can survive an Arizona hot tub merely compliant with 2009 safety standards rather than 2010. The average Englishman can survive stumbling with his frying pan: You may get a nasty graze on his kneecap, but rub in some soothing pancake syrup, and you’ll soon feel right as rain. Whether they — or at any rate their pampered complacent societies in which hot-tub regulation is the most pressing issue of the day — can survive a nuclear Iran is a more open question.

It is now certain that Tehran will get its nukes, and very soon. This is the biggest abdication of responsibility by the Western powers since the 1930s. It is far worse than Pakistan going nuclear, which, after all, was just another thing the CIA failed to see coming. In this case, the slow-motion nuclearization conducted in full view and through years of tortuous diplomatic charades and endlessly rescheduled looming deadlines is not just a victory for Iran but a decisive defeat for the United States. It confirms the Islamo-Sino-Russo-everybody else diagnosis of Washington as a hollow superpower that no longer has the will or sense of purpose to enforce the global order.

What does it mean? That a year or two down the line Iran will be nuking Israel? Not necessarily, although the destruction of not just the Zionist Entity but the broader West remains an explicit priority. Maybe they mean it. Maybe they don’t. Maybe they’ll do it directly. Maybe they’ll just get one of their terrorist subcontractors to weaponize the St. Albans pancake batter. But, when you’ve authorized successful mob hits on Salman Rushdie’s publishers and translators, when you’ve blown up Jewish community centers in Buenos Aires, when you’ve acted extra-territorially to the full extent of your abilities for 30 years, it seems prudent for the rest of us to assume that when your abilities go nuclear you’ll be acting to an even fuller extent.

Hillary! Janet! B. Hussein, wake up! Oh, wait, B. Hussein Obama is wide awake, he just hasn’t decided whose side he’s on.

Oh, well.

But, even without launching a single missile, Iran will at a stroke have transformed much of the map — and not just in the Middle East, where the Sunni dictatorships face a choice between an unsought nuclear arms race or a future as Iranian client states. In Eastern Europe, a nuclear Iran will vastly advance Russia’s plans for a de facto reconstitution of its old empire: In an unstable world, Putin will offer himself as the protection racket you can rely on. And you’d be surprised how far west “Eastern” Europe extends: Moscow’s strategic view is of a continent not only energy-dependent on Russia but also security-dependent. And, when every European city is within range of Tehran and other psycho states, there’ll be plenty of takers for that when the alternative is an effete and feckless Washington.

It’s a mistake to think that the infantilization of once-free peoples represented by the microregulatory Nanny State can be confined to pancakes and hot tubs. Consider, for example, the incisive analysis of Scott Gration, the U.S. special envoy to the mass murderers of Sudan: “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration a few months back. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”

Actually, there’s not a lot of evidence “smiley faces” have much impact on kids in the Bronx, never mind genocidal machete-wielders in Darfur. So much for the sophistication of “soft power,” smiling through a hard-faced world.

So, Iran will go nuclear and formally inaugurate the post-American era. The Left and the isolationist Right reckon that’s no big deal. They think of the planet as that Arizona patio and America as the hotel room. There may be an incendiary hot tub out there, but you can lock the door and hang a sign, and life will go on, albeit a little more cramped and constrained than before. I think not.

The truth is, actually, that like our economic policies, our security policies are these days derived via about 90% political considerations and 10% common sense. Combine that with a lot of political appointments of key people who are astronomically unqualified to make security decisions, and, well…

BOOM! (or, again, a reasonable facsimile thereof).

…of the political equation to take a step back and a deep breath, and try and consider what the ongoing snowballing polarization is doing. In essence, it’s shaking our great nation apart.

Seth here.

I’ve had almost no time to spend, of late, on-line and even now I’m making a quick stop because I believe that this has to be said.

The battle between the left and the right has gotten so extreme on both sides that the only losers are the American people. That’s right, We, the People.

It’s true that the current recession can be laid mostly at the feet of our left-dominated House and Senate, the “groundwork” for disaster having begun when they took over the majorities in January, 2007, and our “esteemed” president, B. Hussein Obama. Where the first two are concerned, however, whose fault is it that the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were able to become the leaders of the houses on the Hill?

Answer: A fat, complacent, self serving collection of Republican senators and representatives whose only priorities revolved around keeping themselves in office, career politicians who couldn’t give a good goddamn about the American people or their own conservative voter base, only about their own benefits, perks and continued jobs in a field that was never even meant to be a career path.

What we have now is a no-holds-barred street fight, totally devoid of even an iota of honor or human decency, between the Democrats and the Republicans, all politics, all the time.

We, the People are nothing to any of them but collateral damage, at apparently “acceptable” numbers, as the fight for political victory rages on.

The American people have already begun to demonstrate dissatisfaction with this state of affairs, in the sheer volume of Tea Party support, the moves to block incumbent Hill critters from running for reelection on both sides of the aisle and enough browbeating of same to move numerous Democrats to oppose the “sunsetting” of the Bush tax cuts.

Unfortunately, the elected combatants are still going full steam ahead. The American People? Who are they?

This country was founded (see the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution) on the principle of the people controlling the government, not the government controlling the people. Our founding fathers spilled a lot of blood to evict the concept of royalty from our shores…

…yet here we are, once again under the control of royalty, people we’ve elected who have somehow seen their election and/or reelection as mandates to decide for us what the Constitution says is ours to decide, to enact laws that are blatantly contrary to the letter of the Constitution, to go to war with each other, for self serving political purposes, at the public’s expense.

Case in point: Obama’s destructive economic policies, preceded by a whole passel of stealthy and not so stealthy bills pushed on us by Pelosi/Reid Enterprises have been responsible, in major share, for what? Not only a national debt now topping thirteen trillion, two hundred forty billion smackers, but around twenty five million unemployed.

The Democrats want to extend unemployment benefits, the Republicans do not.

“Where are we going to get the money!?” They demand.

Well, this is that case in point.

The people did not spend us into that thirteen trillion dollar debt, the government did, a government that, as I said earlier, has not been doing its job and listening to the people.

Millions of those who have become unemployed are undoubtedly people who didn’t even vote for Democrats.

I read all the time about Republicans and conservatives (there is a difference) protesting the extension of these benefits. Somehow, I doubt that those who do are unemployed and struggling to survive in the recession our government hath wrought.

Which is where I’m coming from with this.

The government interfered in the private sector, and caused this mess.

To the man on the street who’s trying to keep his roof over his head, eat and pay his bills to the best of his ability while he busts his touchas trying to find a new job, it’s not the Democrats or the Republicans who caused this recession, it’s The Government.

Period.

The Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, filibuster against the extension. Why?

Not because “we can’t afford it”, which we can’t, but we couldn’t afford the “stimulus” and, as we’ll soon find, we won’t be able to afford Obamacare, either, but because the more suffering Americans go through under the Democrats now, the better chances the Republicans will have to win back more seats in the next election.

Pure and simple.

Screw the people, win the politics.

The government, party responsibility aside, caused the problems these people now face, the government can’t simply leave them in the lurch.

The United States Government is supposed to be one government, not a shopping mall of political special interests. If the people serving in elected office can’t understand that and start governing like responsible adults, perhaps it’s time we got rid of the whole bunch of them, good, bad or indifferent, and started from scratch.

For the first 200 years, while there was a lot of opposition between the two parties, our government managed to conduct itself in a mature, adult manner and get things done pretty much proactively. Of course, this was when politicians placed America and Americans first.

Now, we no longer have a government, we have a political Tower of Babel.

If we don’t step back from the partisan firing line very soon and start remembering that both parties are still supposed to be part of the same government, serving the same electorate, the United States will fast become a part of history.

This will likely be the last post for a bit, as I am going on a trip and Seth has not yet returned, and Wolf is also indisposed.

That said, as we enter Independence Day weekend, we would like to leave you with a 4th of July Op-Ed by a spot-on columnist and a man who knows what being a conservative and a real American is all about, Greg Crosby.

Happy 234th birthday to America! The Fourth of July is the celebration of our nation’s birth, of course, but it’s also an ideal time to reflect on what our country is all about. A good place to start would be the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence specifically mentions three unalienable rights which human beings possess by birth and by their Creator - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nobody can deny us these things, no one. And since they are “unalienable,” we cannot rightfully surrender them either…

…Read on…

See you when we get back.

Seth, Wolf, Chuck.

One of the pet peeves shared by both Seth and myself (Wolf could care less, he just shakes his head and mutters) is the idiocy that cell phones have introduced into our society.

These mindless young twits, male and female alike, who spend their every waking minute yakking on their cell phones, meandering along the sidewalks, unable to keep in a straight line and oblivious of their surroundings because their unending conversations absorb the vast bulk of their feeble attention spans; Interrupting the flow of pedestrian traffic, clogging lines at cash registers as they pay no attention to cashiers when it’s their turn to pay, blabbing their personal affairs into their PC devices in loud voices so that everybody within earshot is forced to hear all the sordid details…

I posted an article a few days ago related to “the cell phone menace“.

Well, now let’s get ridiculous.

From Congo to Cancer, Cell Phones Are Killing Machines, Sunday Columnists Argue

Reading the print edition of The New York Times can bring the paper’s strange priorities into focus. Both the left-hand and right-hand columns on Sunday’s op-ed page warned of the “carcinogenic” hazards and moral turpitude of owning cell phones.

On the left, the text box to Nicholas Kristof’s Sunday column “Death By Gadget” warned: “That smartphone you’re using may be financing killers and rapists.” Kristof was warning his readers that their fancy phones may contain tantalum (a rare metal) “peddled by a Congolese militia.”

On the right (or actually, the other left), Maureen Dowd’s column “Are Cells The New Cigarettes?” warned that cell phones could be giving you cancer. Dowd defended San Francisco’s crusading leftist mayor Gavin Newsom against the “brazenness of Big Business,” when a wireless association announced they may not hold their convention in San Francisco.

They should be sending Mayor Newsom a bottle of good California wine for caring about whether kids’ brains get fried, not leaving him worried about whether they’ll avenge themselves in his campaign for lieutenant governor.

Kristof and Dowd, just two more “progressive” twits.

Sunday is July 4th, Independence Day.

As I’ll be travelling east on a small piece of business after the weekend and the interval in-between will be pretty well taken up by preparations (prepping my maritime home for my absence) for the trip, which will be of indeterminate length, and on Sunday, of course, a few old comrades and I will be celebrating the birthday of the Declaration of Independence with a get-together including the usual old war stories, steak, shots and brewskies.

So, to commemmorate the 4th with a dose of related political commentary thrown in, I’ve decided that Newt Gingrich’s 2010 tribute says everything that needs to be said.

This Sunday, July 4th, we will once again celebrate our nation’s founding, marking the day in 1776 that the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence was intended to be an official statement explaining why the 13 American colonies had declared their independence from Great Britain. In the years following its passage, however, this statement of principles about the rights of man grew to mean much more.

America became the only country in history founded, as Leo Strauss explained, “in explicit opposition to Machiavellian principles,” by which he meant crass, power politics. Instead, America was founded on a set of clearly expressed “self-evident” truths. Thomas Jefferson said the Declaration was “intended to be an expression of the American mind,” and indeed, no document since has so succinctly and so eloquently spelled out the spirit of America.

Our country has evolved out of the timeless truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence to develop a distinct character and set of values that distinguishes us from even other Western democracies.

This holiday, it is worth taking a look at how several key phrases from the Declaration of Independence have served as definitional statements about the aspirations of America, and how those words of our Founding Fathers’ have affected America in the 234 years since they were written.

To continue:

“…all men are created equal”

The Founding Fathers who authored the Declaration were the first people in the history of the world ever to express our natural equality as a principle of government in such an unqualified way. Though neither the Constitution that followed nor the Founders personally quite fulfilled the promise of those words, it has since been the project of our country to accomplish them.

America came though to recognize that we are not all literally equal—we are born with different capabilities and attributes, and to different stations in life—the words of the founders capture the truth that we must treat each other as equals. We are “created equal” in the sense that all men (and, we now recognize, all women) have the same natural rights, granted to them by God. We are all the same under the law.

…the same natural rights, granted to them by God.

“…endowed by their Creator”

The core contention of the Declaration of Independence and the principle of natural rights upon which America was founded is that there is a higher moral order upon which the laws of man must be based. The Declaration asserts the existence of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” which had a clear meaning in 18th Century England and America. It referred to the will of God as displayed by the natural order of the world.

John Locke, who was widely read by the leaders of colonial America, wrote in his Second Treatise on Government: “Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule of all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must … be conformable to the law of nature, i.e., to the will of God.”

William Blackstone, who was arguably the single greatest influence on the creation of the American legal system, wrote in Commentaries on the Laws of England, “As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should at all points conform to his maker’s will.”

“…the pursuit of happiness”

Here again we see the influence of the English and Scottish enlightenment on the Founding Fathers. For writers such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson, the term “happiness” meant something close to “wisdom and virtue.” It did not mean hedonism or other shallow pleasures as the term is too often confused to mean today.

It is also essential to note that the Declaration does not say that we have a right to have happiness provided to us. It says we have the right to pursue happiness – an active verb. As I point out in jest to audiences in my speeches, the Declaration says nothing about a right to redistribution of happiness. It says nothing about happiness stamps. It does not say some people can be too happy and that government should make them less happy out of a sense of fairness.

The above emphasis is mine. Perhaps at least one or two “progressives” might be able, as John Hancock said upon signing his bold signature on the Declaration of Independence, of King George, to read those passages without having to put on their spectacles. Hopefully so that the words register!

A bedrock belief of American conservatism is a respect for the established traditions and values of American culture. Conservatives believe from the time the first colonists landed in Jamestown, America took on a unique culture and set of values that have set us apart from our European cousins: a belief in natural rights, strong religious faith and values, the importance of the work ethic, and a spirit of community that manifests itself in a belief in limited government and strong civic participation. It is this set of beliefs – truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence – that have made America so successful, and they deserve to be protected.

The modern Left – what I describe in my book To Save America as a “secular-socialist machine” – is using every lever of power at its disposal to dismantle our unique American civilization and replace it with a secular, bureaucratic culture in which government is big, citizens are small, and our rights are defined by the state rather than endowed by our Creator. Equality under the law is being discarded in favor of equality of results; consent of the governed is being subverted by an increasingly overbearing federal bureaucracy and imperial judiciary; and the pursuit of happiness is being undermined by a redistributive welfare state that kills the can-do, entrepreneurial spirit of America.

This July 4th, I hope you will take time to read the Declaration of Independence and consider the truths about our rights and freedoms contained within. I hope you will take time to appreciate the sacrifices made by the founding generation and generations since to secure our liberty.

But most of all, I hope you will take time to appreciate the greatness of America and how hard we must be willing to work to preserve that which makes it so special.

Happy Independence Day.

Your friend,
Newt

And from Hard Astarboard (Seth, Wolf and I) as well, Happy Independence Day.

From The Israel Project.

2 Israelis attacked in Berlin nightclub

Police probing whether assault by man who identified himself as Palestinian was anti-Semitic

I don’t think they’ll have to probe too deep on this one, or, more to the point “Duh!”

************

Jewish dance group stoned in Hanover, Germany

German police are investigating the stoning of a Jewish dance group trying to perform on the street in the city of Hanover.

Youths reportedly shouted “Juden Raus” (Jews Out) as they attacked the dancers of the Chaverim (”Friends” in Hebrew) dance troupe last weekend.

Police said several Muslim immigrant youths were among the attackers and two youths were being questioned.

A German Jewish leader said she feared growing anti-Israeli sentiment.

…several Muslim immigrant youths were among the attackers…

Who’d'a thunk it!?

Unrelated to Germany, meanwhile:

Israel’s hard-line foreign minister said Tuesday there was “no chance” a Palestinian state would be established by 2012 — a message that threatened to cloud the latest visit by President Obama’s Mideast envoy.

The comments by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman drew swift Palestinian condemnations and could put Israel at odds with the international community, which has set a 2012 target for brokering a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

“As an optimist, I see no chance that a Palestinian state will be established by 2012,” Mr. Lieberman said at a news conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. “We can express interest, we can dream, but in reality, we are still far from reaching understandings and agreements on establishing an independent state by 2012.”

Can you blame him?

I’ve always thought that a strange title for an organization that’s more a Murder Incorporated for defenseless unborn, but very much alive, babies.

Naturally, since baby murder goes well, somehow, with the doctrine that’s become popular among our intellectual elite and the “progressive” politicians they elect, it is also supported by the mainstream media who, as we know, have a habit of reporting only what is convenient for the public to know in order to press their political agendas. As often as not, there are a few twists, spins and, to those who actively seek the truth, some profoundly loud omissions.

Fortunately, there are a few honest journalists out there, including those who write for the Culture and Media Institute.

Speaking of which…

Media Ignore Planned Parenthood’s $1.3 Billion Federal Funding Discrepancy

Networks and newspapers silent on government report contradicting abortion group’s taxpayer funding figures.

If $1.3 billion is unaccounted for and the media don’t report it, did it really happen?

According to an American Life League review of Planned Parenthood’s annual reports, the organization received more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts between 2002 and 2008. A June 16 Government Accountability Report, however, found that the organization spent just $657.1 million of taxpayer money in the same time period.

The $1.3 billion discrepancy failed to catch the attention of the nation’s major media outlets. None of the networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) or major newspapers (Los Angeles times, The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post) reported it.

A Culture and Media Institute review of coverage found that only one newspaper listed among Nexis’ “major newspapers” – The Houston Chronicle – even mentioned the GAO report. The Chronicle’s June 16 article noted that Planned Parenthood spent $657 million of federal money over seven years, but did not mention the income/outlay discrepancy.

Amazing, here are all these media institutions in whom the public place their (I would say “our”, except I don’t trust those leftist turds, not me) trust for news, and only one of them even seems to “know” about a “discrepancy” on the part of an organization that our government siphons hundreds of millions of our hard earned tax dollars to.

Don’t Follow the Money

The media have made Planned Parenthood a go-to source for several stories over the last six months, including debate over abortion language in health care reform legislation, the trial of the activist who killed abortionist Dr. George Tiller, and the 50th anniversary of the Pill.

From Dec. 28, 2009, to June 28, 2010, the broadcast networks and the “Big 4” newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood 56 times in news stories. None of those stories mentioned the GAO report, and only one article reported the amount of federal money going to Planned Parenthood.

The February 27 article in The New York Times mentioned an investigative operation by pro-life activist Lila Rose which found Planned Parenthood clinics willing to accept donations from people who wanted African American babies aborted. A separate New York Times report on January 28 characterized the investigation as “prank calls” to Planned Parenthood.

Four reports referred to state funding of Planned Parenthood, but did not mention federal resources granted to the organization.

Planned Parenthood’s 2008 Annual Report says $349.6 million in taxpayer-funded grants and contracts accounted for more than a third (36 percent) of the organization’s income that year, second only to health center revenue. Federal funding for Planned Parenthood has increased by 45 percent since 2001-2002, when it received a reported $240.9 million from taxpayers.

While federal orders mandate that government money not be used directly for abortions, pro-life advocates point out that federal money used to cover non-abortion costs frees up private money to pay for abortions.

“Frees it up.”

Favorite Experts

Planned Parenthood is by far the most cited pro-abortion group when it comes to national media coverage. In the last six months, 30 broadcast and print reports have quoted Planned Parenthood representatives and another 26 have mentioned the organization.

The 56 mentions of Planned Parenthood dwarf other pro-abortion groups, including the National Organization for Women (30) and NARAL Pro-Choice America (15).

When abortion was a major focus of health care reform debates, the media turned to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards and other affiliated representatives to statements and analysis. When the media celebrated the 50th anniversary of “the Pill,” the media commemorated Planned Parenthood’s role in making it possible.

A February 26 profile in The Washington Post painted a glowing picture of abortion doctor Carol Ball. The article described a “difficult time” for Ball and other doctors who perform late term abortions in South Dakota.

When Planned Parenthood produced an ad in response to Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, the media praised it. USA Today noted it “defend[ed] abortion rights,” although the Focus on the Family ad did not target abortion “rights.”

The New York Times on January 27 turned to Richards on the increase in teen pregnancy rates, and she used the opportunity bash abstinence education. “This new study makes it crystal clear that abstinence-only sex education for teenagers does not work,” Richards said.

In addition to news reports related to Planned Parenthood, newspapers published five letters to the editor from readers mentioning the organization and fives letters to the editor from Planned Parenthood executives.

Another seven op-eds and entertainment reviews mentioned Planned Parenthood, as well as 15 death notices, and a couple of comedians’ jokes. All told, the networks and newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood more than 80 times in the last six months.

But when someone noticed a $1.3 billion discrepancy in Planned Parenthood’s handling of federal money – crickets.

See what I mean about the mainstream media?

The Sound of Silence

One letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times February 7 illustrated the effect the media blackout has had on public perceptions of Planned Parenthood.

Responding to the media-manufactured controversy over Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, a reader wrote, “If I had it, I would give millions to Planned Parenthood to advertise on CBS during the Super Bowl.”

Well, dear reader, your wish has already come true. You might not know it from reading the Times, but Planned Parenthood already receives more than $350 million every year from you and every other American taxpayer, with no oversight from the “watchdogs” in the media.

$350 million every year!!!!

Of yours and my tax dollars, monies we could find much better uses for than having a bunch of “progressive” politicians give it to Planned Parenthood.

More than enough in any reasonable man’s book to justify giving every politician involved his or her just desserts.

Spy vs Spy?

Nah, more like Counterspy vs Spy.

Federal authorities arrested 10 people suspected of carrying out long-term “deep-cover” assignments in the U.S. for Russia that involved integrating into American society as married couples, infiltrating “policy-making circles” in Washington, and recruiting government and business sources.

The arrests occurred after federal agents intercepted messages from intelligence officials in Moscow calling on the defendants to “search and develop” intelligence ties in the United States.

The suspects were taken into custody in New York, New Jersey and Virginia on Sunday as part of a multiyear investigation by the FBI, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York and the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

See that? I’d be willing to bet that there are a whole lot of “progressives” out there who would refer to the guys and gals who catch spies for a living as “cold war anacronisms”, paranoids looking for enemy spooks under rocks.

Well, like they say, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”

A criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in New York said the deep-cover operation began in the 1990s, and terrorism scholars say the case shows that Cold War-style espionage schemes are not a thing of the past.

The complaint, written by FBI agent Amit Kachhia-Patel, said covert agents working for the SVR, successor to the Soviet-era KGB as the Kremlin’s intelligence organ, assumed false identities and lived in the United States on long-term, deep-cover assignments. It said they hid all connections between themselves and Russia, even while acting at the direction and under the control of the SVR.

Known as “illegals,” the complaint said the undercover Russian agents were told in a message: “You were sent to USA for long-term service trip. Your education, bank accounts, car, house, etc. — all these serve one goal: fulfill your main mission, i.e. to search and develop ties in policymaking circles in U.S. and send intels [intelligence reports] to [Center].”

Court documents show that at least one message sent back to Moscow from the defendants focused on turnover at the highest levels of the CIA and the 2008 U.S. presidential elections. Numerous messages intercepted by U.S. investigators were listed in the court documents, including what was described as a private conversation involving an unnamed former legislative counsel for Congress.

However, countries, including friendly ones, spy on each other all the time, not so much as a means for being prepared in case they go to war with one another where non-hostile or friendly relations are concerned, but to arm their diplomats with facts and figures, verbal “ammunition” to be utilized in the event that ones friend and ally is running a bluff in trade negotiations and other bargaining table venues.

This doesn’t mean that the spying itself doesn’t have to be complicated.

A shadowy money man for a Russian spy ring whose members were assigned a decade or more ago to infiltrate American society has been captured overseas, authorities said Tuesday. He was the last of 11 suspects named in a huge bust that threatens to tear recently mending relations between the U.S. and Russia.

The 11th suspect, using the name Christopher Metsos and purporting to be a Canadian citizen, was arrested at the Larnaca airport in Cyprus while trying to fly to Budapest, Hungary, police in the Mediterranean island nation said. He was later released on bail.

Metsos, 54, was among those named in complaints unsealed Monday in federal court in Manhattan. Authorities in Cyprus said he will remain there for one month until extradition proceedings begin.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Farbiarz on Monday called the allegations against the other 10 people, living in the Northeast, “the tip of the iceberg” of a conspiracy of Russia’s intelligence service, the SVR, to collect inside U.S. information.

Each of the 10 was charged with conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign government without notifying the U.S. attorney general, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison upon conviction. Two criminal complaints outlining the charges were filed in U.S. District Court in New York.

Most of the suspects were accused of using fake names and claims of U.S. citizenship while really being Russian. It was unclear how and where they were recruited, but court papers say the operation goes back as far as the 1990s.

Russia’s foreign ministry acknowledged Tuesday that those arrested included Russian citizens but insisted they did nothing to hurt U.S. interests.

The ministry still angrily denounced the arrests as an unjustified throwback to the Cold War, and senior lawmakers said some in the U.S. government may be trying to undercut President Barack Obama’s warming relations with Moscow.

“These actions are unfounded and pursue unseemly goals,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement earlier Tuesday. “We don’t understand the reasons which prompted the U.S. Department of Justice to make a public statement in the spirit of Cold War-era spy stories.”

The timing of the arrests was notable, given the efforts by Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev to reset U.S.-Russia relations. The two leaders met last week at the White House after Medvedev visited high-tech firms in California’s Silicon Valley, and both attended the G-8 and G-20 meetings over the weekend in Canada.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin mentioned the arrests during a meeting at his home with former President Bill Clinton, who was in Moscow to speak at a conference.

“I understand that back home police are putting people in prison,” Putin said. “That’s their job. I’m counting on the fact that the positive trend seen in the relationship will not be harmed by these events.”

Intelligence on Obama’s foreign policy, particularly toward Russia, appears to have been a top priority for the Russian agents, prosecutors said. Obama was asked Tuesday about the arrests as he spoke to reporters in Washington about the economy, but he declined to answer.

Dead drops, brush passes, invisible ink, burst transmissions and all that good stuff.

The 38-year-old son of one of the arrested couples, Vicky Pelaez and Juan Lazaro, said Tuesday outside their home in Yonkers that he didn’t believe the allegations.

“This looks like an Alfred Hitchcock movie with all this stuff from the 1960s. This is preposterous,” Waldomar Mariscal said. Of the charges, he said, “They’re all inflated little pieces in the mosaic of unbelievable things.”

The FBI said it had intercepted a message from SVR’s headquarters, Moscow Center, to two of the 10 defendants describing their main mission as “to search and develop ties in policymaking circles in US.” Intercepted messages showed they were asked to learn about a wide range of topics, including nuclear weapons, U.S. arms control positions, Iran, White House rumors, CIA leadership turnover, the last presidential election, Congress and the political parties, prosecutors said.

The court papers allege some of the ring’s members lived as husband and wife; used invisible ink, coded radio transmissions and encrypted data; and employed Hollywood methods like swapping bags in passing at a train station.

The court papers also described a new high-tech spy-to-spy communications system used by the defendants: short-range wireless communications between laptop computers — a modern supplement for the old-style dead drop in a remote area, high-speed burst radio transmission or the hollowed-out nickels used by captured Soviet Col. Rudolf Abel in the 1950s to conceal and deliver microfilm.

Behind the scenes, they were known as “illegals” — short for illegal Russian agents — and were believed to have fake back stories known as “legends.”

In spring 2009, court documents say, conspirators Richard and Cynthia Murphy, who lived in New Jersey, were asked for information about Obama’s impending trip to Russia that summer, the U.S. negotiating position on the START arms reduction treaty, Afghanistan and the approach Washington would take in dealing with Iran’s suspect nuclear program. They also were asked to send background on U.S. officials traveling with Obama or involved in foreign policy, the documents say.

“Try to outline their views and most important Obama’s goals (sic) which he expects to achieve during summit in July and how does his team plan to do it (arguments, provisions, means of persuasion to ‘lure’ (Russia) into cooperation in US interests,” Moscow asked, according to the documents.

Moscow wanted reports that “should reflect approaches and ideas of” four unnamed sub-Cabinet U.S. foreign policy officials, they say.

One intercepted message said Cynthia Murphy “had several work-related personal meetings with” a man the court papers describe as a prominent New York-based financier active in politics.

In response, Moscow Center described the man as a very interesting target and urged the defendants to “try to build up little by little relations. … Maybe he can provide” Murphy “with remarks re US foreign policy, ‘roumors’ about White house internal ‘kitchen,’ invite her to venues (to major political party HQ in NYC, for instance. … In short, consider carefully all options in regard” to the financier.
The Murphys lived as husband and wife in suburban New Jersey, first Hoboken, then Montclair, with Richard Murphy carrying a fake birth certificate saying he was born in Philadelphia, authorities said.

The complaint says Metsos traveled to the United States to pay Richard Murphy and others using clandestine — and sometimes bizarre — methods.

Metsos was surreptitiously handed the money by a Russian official as the two swapped nearly identical orange bags while passing each other on a staircase at a commuter train station in New York, Metsos said.

After giving some of the money to one of the defendants, Metsos drove north and stopped his car near upstate Wurtsboro, N.Y. Using data from a global-positioning system that had been secretly installed in his car, agents went to the site and found a partially buried brown beer bottle. They dug down about five inches and discovered a package wrapped in duct tape, which they photographed and then reburied.

Two years later, video surveillance caught two unnamed secret agents digging up the package.

On Saturday, an undercover FBI agent in New York and another in Washington, both posing as Russian agents, met with two of the defendants, Anna Chapman at a New York restaurant and Mikhail Semenko on a Washington street corner blocks from the White House, prosecutors said. The FBI undercover agents gave each an espionage-related delivery to make. Court papers indicated Semenko made the delivery as instructed but apparently Chapman didn’t.

The question is, were these guys caught because the SVR is not as good as its predecessor, KGB, or have our counterintelligence skills gotten better?