by AV Web

Eminent domain has been invoked to secure some 500 acres of in Somerset Country, Pa., from seven owners, for a memorial to United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 that crashed there September 11, 2001, after passengers heeded the call "Let's roll" and attempted to retake the flight from its hijackers. The memorial for the 40 passengers and crew will encompass 1,400 acres, and the Department of Justice has a paperwork deadline at the end of the month. Flight 93 Federal Advisory Commission members, Somerset County Commissioner Pamela Tokar-Ickes and Stonycreek Township Supervisor Gregory Walker, have stepped down in protest of the land grab. Replacements are being sought from a pool of area residents. The National Park Service, which will own the land and could have negotiated for its purchase, was defended by the U.S. Department of Interior. Associate director Steve Whitesell told a local news station "we're at the deadline. We need to start proceeding with construction" to make an opening date of September 11, 2011. Vocal property owners are stating that they were willing to make a less forceful transfer of ownership, but were never engaged in negotiations for the land.

Among those who will lose property is a man whose father had purchased land there during the great depression and a pastor who owns a cottage there where he planned to retire. Landowner Randall Musser told the Associated Press he served on the committee that helped establish the memorial's boundaries and said that back in 2002 landowners were promised that eminent domain wouldn't be used. A spokesman for the park service said of the latest plans, "It's just fitting and right that we get this done in time for the 10th anniversary." Eminent domain eliminates the potential for title challenges, liens and other claims that could delay the project.

Related: http://www.wjactv.com/news/19490778/detail.html

by David Almasi

Washington, D.C. - Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC), the third-ranking member of the congressional leadership, has engaged in unnecessary and harmful race-baiting in his criticism of governors wary of accepting money from the so-called "stimulus" package, say members of the African-American leadership group Project 21.

"Trepidation about accepting a federal handout is rational, not racist," said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. "For Congressman Clyburn to claim that refusing stimulus money would hurt blacks is the last gasp of a desperate politician revealed to have been making a career out of the loathsome practice of pushing set-asides, pork projects and increased government intrusion."

In remarks to reporters on February 19, Congressman Clyburn called opposition to the stimulus package "a slap in the face of African-Americans." In particular, he was referring to opposition by southern governors such as Rick Perry of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Mark Sanford of Clyburn's home state of South Carolina.

These governors - all Republicans - are concerned about federal mandates that may be attached to the acceptance of stimulus money.  In a letter to President Barack Obama, Governor Perry wrote:  "I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up." Perry and several other critical governors are grudgingly accepting stimulus-related money.

Project 21 member Kevin Martin said: "Liberals such as Congressman Clyburn have always employed tactics such as the race card to shame critics into accepting their heavy-handed demands. This stimulus package is unpopular pork, and the American people are angry.  To use race as a means of cramming it down these governors' throats is reprehensible, and people should take notice as to how far these people are willing to go to get their way."

Massie added: "The 10th Amendment to our Constitution protects the rights of states from federal encroachment. These governors are concerned about the tremendous debt and regulatory strings this spending package will saddle their constituents with in the future. But Congressman Clyburn is essentially saying that being fiscally responsible and protecting the integrity of the Constitution is racist and antagonistic to blacks. It is an affront to reasonable minds."

 by Jeffrey Kuhner

The disastrous path on which America is currently embarked was tried in another country. A fact not well known is that Argentina, prior to World War II, was an economic powerhouse. Beginning in the 1880s and continuing through the 1920s and 1930s, it was regarded as one of the most prosperous and advanced nations in the world. Then Juan Peron and his wife Eva took control in the 1940s until a coup in 1955 ousted them from power.

by Mass Resistance

Every place in the world isn't like Massachusetts.

While our politicians were celebrating homosexual "marriage" and making their plans to march in next month's "gay pride" parade, things were a little different in Moscow. There, police broke up a gay protest parade and arrested the participants.

According the Associated Press, Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov described homosexuality as "satanic." Hmmm. It's going to be hard to get that prized "Log Cabin Republicans" endorsement. And forget about a fundraiser from the Human Rights Campaign.

The Associated Press is unabashedly pro-homosexual, so their article below has to be taken with a grain of salt. Knowing how violent and enraged gay activists here are, it's interesting that the AP describes it entirely from the perspective of the activists. (We don't support police brutality, but the AP seems a bit one-sided here.)

Moscow police detain scores at gay pride rally
By DAVID NOWAK, Associated Press Writer
Sat May 16, 2009

MOSCOW - Riot police broke up several gay rights demonstrations in Moscow on Saturday, hauling away scores of protesters hours before the capital hosted a major international pop music competition.

No injuries were reported, but the detentions could damage Russia's desire to be seen as a modern nation as it holds the finals of the Eurovision song contest, a cultural event televised around the world.

City officials had warned that they would not tolerate marches or rallies supporting the rights of gays and lesbians, but activists had targeted Moscow and the Eurovision contest to press their claims that Russia officially sanctions homophobia . . .

Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov has drawn international criticism by describing homosexuality as "satanic" and seeking to justify official discrimination against gay people in Russia by claiming they help spread the AIDS virus . . .

Read entire article HERE

by Scott Crockett

Meet Katie Brickell of the United Kingdom. Katie was diagnosed with cervical cancer at the age of 23.  Prior to her diagnosis, Katie tried three times to get a routine pap test but was refused because the U.K.'s government rationing board (National Institute of Clinical Excellence or NICE) that controls what treatments patients may receive only allows screenings for women 25 or older in an effort to cut costs.  Katie's cancer is terminal.

Listen to her story

By Anonymous

A single picture doesn't do justice for Medal of Honor Winner - Ed Freeman

You're a 19-year old kid. You're critically wounded, and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley, 11-14-1965, LZ X-ray, Vietnam. Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 to 1, and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in.

by Oliver North

Washington, DC – According to the U.S. Government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian – and meet regularly with other Christians to study God’s word. My faith convinces me the prophesies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, frequently shoot them, buy ammunition and consider efforts to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt.

Apparently, all this makes me a “rightwing extremist.” At least that’s what it says in the April 7, 2009 “Assessment” issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The nine-page report, titled, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” is full of warnings about American citizens who share any of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I have ever read.

Evidently neither you nor I were ever supposed to read this “Assessment.” At the bottom of the cover page is a warning that it is “not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know.” We’re Americans. We have a need to know what’s going on in our government – especially in an administration that promised to be “transparent.” A full copy of the report is posted at www.freedomalliance.org.

The “Assessment” purports to alert law enforcement officials that “rightwing extremists” – the term is used more than 35 times – are intent on exploiting Americans who have strongly held beliefs on everything from Christian faith to rising unemployment, U.S. sovereignty and the 2nd Amendment. It vilifies those of us in these categories by references to neo-Nazis, racists, militias, white-supremacists, and other “hate groups.” Notably, the report includes a warning that Rightwing Extremism “may include groups or individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Though the report proffers a passing reference to the 1st Amendment, it is replete with bias against conservative thought, writing and communications.  On page 3, law enforcement authorities are warned, “Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived (emphasis added) loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.”

This is a frightening acknowledgement that political speech is being monitored in America.  It is also wrong.  It’s not “perception.” It is fact.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the manufacturing and construction sectors have lost 161,000 jobs and 126,000 jobs, respectively, in the last month alone.

In its “Key Findings” the DHS manuscript boldly charges “rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues” and warns that “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

Under the heading “Disgruntled Military Veterans” the report alleges, “rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists – including lone wolves or small terrorist cells – to carry out violence.” These unsubstantiated claims are followed by reminders that Timothy McVeigh – the 1995 Oklahoma City bomber – was a military veteran.  Omitted is any reference to the fact that Mr. McVeigh was simply one of more than 40 million law abiding veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Thirteen lines after this egregious, unconscionable slander against those of us who are military combat veterans, DHS makes the stunning charge that, “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

According to this DHS “Assessment,” the most dangerous threat we face here at home isn’t from radical imams preaching violence in U.S. mosques and madrassas, Islamists recruiting in our prisons, Somali terrorists enticing young immigrants to become suicide bombers or Hamas, Hezbollah or al Qaeda operatives plotting mass murder.  No, according to DHS, the real threat comes from what our government labels “rightwing extremist ideology.”

Mr. Obama should publicly disavow this report and fire the officials responsible for issuing it. Those who prepare his remarks for the occasion should insert in the teleprompter, Senator Barry Goldwater’s words on the subject: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

by Porter J. Goss, former CIA Director

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage.  I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage.  We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets.  Americans have to decide now.

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaida.

In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were.  This was not a onetime briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned.  It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high value terrorists.  We understood what the CIA was doing.  We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.
We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaida.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues.  They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding.  And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted.  And shifted they have.

Circuses are not new in Washington, and I can see preparations being made for tents from the Capitol straight down Pennsylvania Avenue. The CIA has been pulled into the center ring before. The result this time will be the same: a hollowed out service of diminished capabilities.  After Sept. 11, the general outcry was, "Why don't we have better overseas capabilities?" I fear that in the years to come this refrain will be heard again: once a threat or God forbid, another successful attack captures our attention and sends the pendulum swinging back. There is only one person who can shut down this dangerous show: President Obama.

Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day "I have your back" only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it.  After the events of this week, morale at the CIA has been shaken to its foundation.

We must not forget: Our intelligence allies overseas view our inability to maintain secrecy as a reason to question our worthiness as a partner. These allies have been vital in almost every capture of a terrorist.  The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust.  We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate.  The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives.  Khalid Sheik Mohammed boasted of the tactic of placing explosives high enough in a building to ensure that innocents trapped above would die if they tried to escape through windows. There is simply no comparison between our professionalism and their brutality.

Our enemies do not subscribe to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury. "Name, rank and serial number" does not apply to nonstate actors but is, regrettably, the only question this administration wants us to ask.  Instead of taking risks, our intelligence officers will soon resort to wordsmithing cables to headquarters while opportunities to neutralize brutal radicals are lost. The days of fortress America are gone. We are the world's superpower. We can sit on our hands or we can become engaged to improve global human conditions. The bottom line is that we cannot succeed unless we have good intelligence. Trading security for partisan political popularity will ensure that our secrets are not secret and that our intelligence is destined to fail us.

Fellow Americans, please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South.  I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president.  Most importantly, I am not race conscious.  I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living.  I do not require a black president to love the ideal of  America.

I cannot join you in your celebration.  I feel no elation.  There is no smile on my face.  I am not jumping with joy.  There are no tears of triumph in my eyes.  For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the  United States of America , all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician.   I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to  America .  Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century.  I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life.  I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend.  I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them.  I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the  Harvard  University 's Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is the equivalent of justice.  I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest.  I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force.  I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.
 
Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park,  Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!"  Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.
 
So you have made history, Americans.  You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the  United States , the wounded giant of the world.  The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won.  Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men.  Jimmie Carter, too.  And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like.  

The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person.  So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians.  Toast yourselves, Black America.  Shout your glee Harvard,  Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley.  You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something!  You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.  But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good. 

There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.