How dare we suggest that evidence of wrong-doing and a trial might be required?

How dare the courts try to intervene?

The Obama Administration is fighting tooth and nail to kill a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of New Mexico cleric Anwar Awlaki, arguing that even though Awlaki isn’t charged with any crimes it “strains credulity” to argue that the US government needs to present evidence before assassinating the US citizen.

In fact the papers filed by the Justice Department attempting to quash the case argue that the court system should have absolutely no oversight over the administration’s sudden, bizarre claim that it can assassinate any American citizen it wants on the basis of nation security, arguing that such issues are “for the executive branch of the government to decide rather than the courts.”

Read the rest here, if you can stomach it.

Nearly 40 years before the Obama White House denounced the WikiLeaks website for publishing classified documents, another president, Richard Nixon, was even more obsessed with the same phenomenon.

Only Nixon and his top aides went to far greater lengths to deal with the problem: They launched an extraordinary campaign to smear and discredit the journalist who, more than anyone else, was bedeviling them by publishing government secrets: newspaper columnist Jack Anderson.

The White House obsession with Anderson — whose “Washington Merry Go-Round” column was the WikiLeaks of its day — is detailed in a new book being published this month, “Poisoning the Press: Richard Nixon, Jack Anderson and the Rise of Washington’s Scandal Culture,” by journalism professor Mark Feldstein. The book relies in part on newly unearthed tapes from the National Archives that document how Nixon’s aides plotted to destroy Anderson by planting forged evidence with him and spreading false rumors about his sex life and that of one of his associates.

Nixon plot against newspaper columnist detailed
Michael Isikoff, national investigative correspondent, msnbc.com

and now …

In a nondescript suite of government offices not far from the Pentagon, nearly 120 intelligence analysts, FBI agents, and others are at work—24 hours a day, seven days a week—on the frontlines of the government’s secret war against WikiLeaks.

The General Gunning for Wikileaks
Philip Shenon, The Daily Beast

Four months before WikiLeaks rocketed to international notoriety, the Robin Hoods of the Internet quietly published a confidential CIA document labeled “NOFORN” (for “no foreign nationals”)—meaning that it should not be shared even with US allies. That’s because the March “Red Cell Special Memorandum” was a call to arms for a propaganda war to influence public opinion in allied nations. The CIA report describes a crisis in European support for the Afghanistan war, noting that 80 percent of German and French citizens are against increasing their countries’ military involvement. The report suggests that “Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing the [International Security Assistance Force] role in combating the Taliban because of women’s ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory.”

On July 25 WikiLeaks published its massive cache of classified documents on the war in Afghanistan. Four days later, Time magazine posted on its website its August 9 cover story, featuring a horrifying image of a beautiful young Afghan woman named Aisha with a gaping hole where her nose once was, under the headline “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan”—echoing the strategy laid out in the Red Cell report [see Ann Jones, "Our Afghan Demons," page 4].

These two media events unfolded in starkly different ways. While Time has been praised for telling Aisha’s story, WikiLeaks has been characterized as a criminal syndicate with blood on its hands. Former Bush administration speechwriter Marc Thiessen called for the United States to use whatever means necessary to snatch WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, including rendering him from abroad. Others have called for the United States to shut down WikiLeaks and prosecute its members. Michigan Republican Congressman Mike Rogers has called for the alleged leaker, 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, to be executed if he is convicted.

Wikileaks and War Crimes
Jeremy Scahill, The Nation

The government’s response to exposure, then and now, is a reflection of an immature culture that thinks the means justify the ends, admitting you’re wrong is a sign of weakness, and we should always shoot the messenger.

What a sad statement about our presidents, past and present.

What a sad statement about America.

When Obama visited Egypt last year, he said the pyramids were “awe-inspiring.” Apparently he liked the idea of having laborers move millions of tons of rocks and arrange them in big piles to honor their rulers, the pharaohs.

-Jim Powell, Cato Institute

There’s no doubt that when someone goes out of their way to be provocative in ways that we know can inflame the passions of over a billion Muslims around the world at a time when we’ve got our troops in a lot of Muslim countries, that’s a problem.

Instead of sending the FBI to intimidate the misguided Florida pastor, removing our troops from “a lot of Muslim countries” would seem to offer them better protection.  It might even “deflame” their hatred for the U.S. because it would be harder for us to kill their civilians from a distance.

This move would probably help the democrats in November, too, although I know you would never make a decision based on politics.

I’m just sayin’ and I know you have other very important things on your mind, but that’s my two cents, Mr. President.

Crucial offers to help clean up BP’s oil spill came “from Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian firms that . . . possess some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships.” But the Obama administration didn’t accept their help, because doing so would require it to do something past presidents have routinely done: waive rules imposed by the Jones Act, a law backed by unions.

“The BP clean-up effort in the Gulf of Mexico is hampered by the Jones Act. This is a piece of 1920s protectionist legislation, that requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. So” the U.S. Coast Guard ”can’t accept, and therefore don’t ask for, the assistance of high-tech European vessels specifically designed for the task in hand.”

The law itself permits the president to waive these requirements, and such waivers were “granted, promptly, by the Bush administration,” in the aftermath of hurricanes and other emergencies. But Obama refused to do so after the spill, notes David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen.  Instead, Obama rejected a Dutch offer to help clean up the spill, noted Voice of America News:

“The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters.  During the Hurricane Katrina crisis five years ago, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case.”

Gotta protect the unions, now.  Read the rest of Hans Bader’s report on this nonsensical crap here.

WASHINGTON — President Obama has decided to use his executive power to order tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, accelerating the fight against climate change without waiting for Congress, administration officials said Thursday.

Mr. Obama plans to announce on Friday that he is ordering the creation of a new national policy that will result in less pollution from medium- and heavy-duty trucks for the first time and will further reduce exhaust from cars and light-duty trucks beyond the requirements he has already put in place.  [Read the rest of the palace decree here.]

So with one stroke of his mighty pen, the King will bypass Congress and save the whole planet from global warming.  Do you think he might keep the sky from falling, too?

Hat tip to Bluegrass Pundit.

But there seems to be a little more openness about this issue now that the bill has been made into law.  Listen.

Congressman Bart Stupak, who has been leading a coalition of pro-life Democrats against the pro-abortion Senate health care bill over its abortion funding, announced today he has reached an agreement with the White House for President Barack Obama to issue an executive order nullifying it. The executive order would reportedly make it so the Stupak amendment, which stopped abortion funding and promotion in the House version, would apply to the final law.

“I’m pleased to announce that we have an agreement — with the help of the president and the Speaker — we were able to come up with an agreement to protect the sanctity of life in health care reform,” Stupak said.

“Today the president announced he will be signing,” the executive order to “keep the principle” against funding of abortion.

Setting aside the ridiculous shenanigans that are being used to change a major portion of our economy without actually voting on it, let’s look at this.  The President, who thinks killing babies is the right of every woman, and signed an executive order to fund overseas abortions right after he took office, has said he’ll sign another executive order to prevent that in the United States, if only Stupak and company will give him the rest of Obamacare.

Isn’t this a lot like the guy who says he’ll marry you, if only you’ll sleep with him now?

But maybe I’m selling Obama short.  Maybe he really will sign an executive order.  Maybe it really will prevent direct federal funding of abortions. And maybe no other executive order will ever change that.

yeah, right …

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

UPDATE:

Congressman Stupak called NRO to clarify his comments. In recent conversations, he says that some Democratic members, not Democratic leaders, have been citing a Congressional Budget Office report that says his amendment will cost $500 million to implement over ten years. “I did not mean to infer that the leaders are using financial arguments to deny my amendment,” he says.

So much for taking a stand.  About all the credit I’ll give Bart Stupak is that he’s generated some discussion about abortion funding, even if he’s just doing it to make himself feel better – or to garner some name-recognition.  In the final analysis, he knows and we know that Obamacare will pay for abortion.

So what’s new?

“It’s against the law to fund abortions,” you say.

But that doesn’t stop your tax dollars from going to Planned Parenthood [PP], the country’s largest abortion business.  Even though PP will proclaim that tax dollars are not used for abortions (yeah, right),  local, state, and federal grants and contracts have increased steadily for the past ten years or more.  According to Planned Parenthood’s last annual report, in 2007 they received $350 million from the government.  If you extend that out ten years, it comes to $3 billion more than the Stupak amendment purportedly will cost.

If you compare the tax dollars to the number of abortions PP has done, as LifeNews.Com has done in this handy-dandy chart [click chart to enlarge], you’ll find that just as this non-profit’s government funding has increased, so has the number of babies they murder each year.  In 2007?  They killed 305,310 babies with your money.

So as much as I abhor abortion, excuse me for not getting overly excited about the Stupak amendment.  Whether it’s openly in Obamacare or hidden in grants and contracts, our tax dollars kill babies – piles and piles of babies.