Fort Hood's Military Victims Effectively Barred From Collecting Damages

Not unexpected, but something of a bummer nevertheless. From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "Fort Hood's Military Victims Blocked From Getting Damages":

Legal experts say families of active-duty military members who were killed during the recent Fort Hood shootings or the military members themselves who were wounded probably will be unable to win court judgments for damages even if they can prove the Army was negligent in not acting to remove the alleged shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Andrew Adair, a Washington attorney, and others say a 1950 Supreme Court ruling would stand in the way of such damage claims.

The restriction would not apply to the lone civilian, Mike Cahill, 62, who was killed in last week's attack. Nor would it apply to injured civilians, including police officer Kimberly Munley, who was involved in a shootout with Hasan.

In the 1950 ruling, known as the Feres Doctrine after one of the plaintiffs that brought the case, the high court said active-duty members of the military cannot sue for damages if the death or injury is "incident to military service."

"Even if the higher-ups in the military have knowledge that someone is a loose cannon and take no action, there is no recourse. That's where the law is," Adair said.

More at the link.

The legal doctrine is based on Feres v. United States (1950). Here's a guiding passage:

We know of no American law which ever has permitted a soldier to recover for negligence, against either his superior officers or the Government he is serving. Nor is there any liability 'under like circumstances,' for no private individual has power to conscript or mobilize a private army with such authorities over persons as the Government vests in echelons of command. The nearest parallel, even if we were to treat 'private individual' as including a state, would be the relationship between the states and their militia. But if we indulge plaintiffs the benefit of this comparison, claimants cite us no state, and we know of none, which has permitted members of its militia to maintain tort actions for injuries suffered in the service, and in at least one state the contrary has been held to be the case. It is true that if we consider relevant only a part of the circumstances and ignore the status of both the wronged and the wrongdoer in these cases we find analogous private liability. In the usual civilian doctor and patient relationship, there is of course a liability for malpractice. And a landlord would undoubtedly be held liable if an injury occurred to a tenant as the result of a negligently maintained heating plant. But the liability assumed by the Government here is that created by 'all the circumstances,' not that which a few of the circumstances might create. We find no parallel liability before, and we think no new one has been created by, this Act. Its effect is to waive immunity from recognized causes of action and was not to visit the Government with novel and unprecedented liabilities.

This is the law of sovereign immunity. More here.

RELATED: From the Washington Post, "Mourners Grieve for Soldiers Killed at Fort Hood."

'Just Wrong and Unconscionable': Some Fear Bush Administration Could Become Target in 9/11 Trial

The quote in the headline above's from former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge. He notes, regarding the Obama administration's decision to hold civil trials for 9/11 terrorists, "If we discover later that it's really just a facade to delve into a fishing expedition, I would find that just unacceptable, outrageous and a further distortion of the system. ... "If it's subterfuge for the fishing expedition, that's just wrong and unconscionable."

And at the video, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey, from Fox, "Bush Attorney General: 9/11 Trial Offers Jihadists Platform":

Beer-Swilling Stimulus: Taxpayers to Fork Over $17 Million for Billy Carter Gas Station Preservation!

Wonders never cease! From the Los Angeles Times, "Billy Carter's Old Gas Station: A National Monument?":

In the age of the $787-billion stimulus package, it is, perhaps, a modest question:

Should the American taxpayer foot the bill to enshrine the gas station run by the late Billy Carter -- the beer-swilling, wisecracking, self-professed redneck brother of our 39th president?

Located in the middle of tiny Plains -- still the world's most famous peanut town some 28 years after the Carter presidency -- the station was transformed into a museum last year by a civic group that owns the property.

Most locals agree it has been rendered cleaner and more pleasant than it was under Billy's proprietorship, when it served as an improvised beer joint, gambling hall and grease-stained agora for homespun philosophizing.

Its claim to historical significance came during Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential run, when reporters mobbed Plains and transformed the station into a sort of unofficial headquarters.

It became the setting for story after story about Jimmy's little brother, Billy, his down-home manners and epigrammatic wit (e.g., "Beer is not a good cocktail-party drink -- especially in a home where you don't know where the bathroom is") and the candidate's rural roots.

In a reminiscence posted at the museum, Billy's family writes that both press and tourists back then "seemed to be amazed a place such as the Station actually existed outside bad, B-grade movies about Southern moonshine runners."

Last month, the House approved a measure that would incorporate the station into the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site, a National Park Service operation that runs a number of Carter-related buildings in Plains. A similar bill is under consideration in the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The legislation calls for the park service to take over the gas station, plus an old farmhouse that Jimmy and wife Rosalynn lived in from 1956 to 1961. Both would be donated by the current owner, the Plains Better Hometown Program.

Really. This is no joke.

The Congressional Budget Office analysis is here: "H.R. 1471 - A bill to expand the boundary of the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site in the state of Georgia, to redesignate the unit as a National Historic Park, and for other purposes."

Not sure if authorized funding will come from the Obama/Democratic Economic Recovery Act, but no doubt -- one way or another -- some stimulus money's going make it down to Old Billy's Bodega.

Shocka! Obama to Congress: You Can't Handle the Truth! - "Hold Off on Fort Hood Hearings"

From the Houston Chronicle, "Obama to Congress: Hold Off Fort Hood hearings: He Urges Lawmakers to Let Army Finish its Investigation First." And here's Obama, at the video:

I know there will also be inquiries by Congress, and there should. But all of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington. The stakes are far too high.

You betcha! We wouldn't want Congess looking into Nidal Malik Hasan's militant Islamist ties. Way to kneecap the truth, Obambi!

RELATED: Doug Ross, "Progressive Groups to Honor KSM with NYC Ticker-Tape Parade."

Bowing Before Monarchs and Tyrants: Obama 'Restores' America's World Standing With His Head Down - UPDATE: REAGAN DIDN'T BOW!!

The headline up top is borrowed from Power Line, "Why is This Man Bowing?" (via Memeorandum):

Obama's breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance of his foreign policy. He means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs and tyrants. He embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege and royal bloodlines. He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for which to apologize.

More Video: Infidels Are Cool.

Also blogging:

* American Digest, "If a US President Had Just Done This in January 1942 It Would Have Saved Everyone a Lot of Trouble."

Another Black Conservative, "Bow Wow! Obama Bows Again."

* Astute Bloggers, "FOR BOWING DOWN TO ANOTHER FOREIGN KING, OBAMA HAS ONCE AGAIN PROVEN HE IS UNFIT FOR OFFICE AND NEEDS TO BE EFFIN IMPEACHED."

* Atlas Shrugs, "Obowa: Another Country, Another Deep Bow."

* Berman Post, "Obama Bows to The Emperor of Japan."

* The Blog Prof, "Video: Obama Drops Yet Another Contact Lens in Front of Royalty."

* Chicks on the Right, "Inappropriate."

* Confederate Yankee, "O-Bow-Ma."

* Don Surber, "Obama, Bow Wow Wow."

* Fausta's Blog, "Say No to the Bow."

* Gateway Pundit, "He Did It Again… Obama Gives Japanese Emperor a Waiter Bow."

* Hot Air, "Obamateurism of the Day."

* Hot Air Pundit, "Video: Obama Bows To The Emperor Of Japan."

* Left Coast Rebel, "Obama Bowing to Japan Emperor Akihito."

* Macsmind, "President "O-Bow" to Anyone."

* Maggie's Farm, "Life Imitates Satire."

* Neo-Neocon, "Obama: “Ashamed of His Country but Arrogant About Himself”."

* Nice Deb, "Obama Bows Yet Again."

* Protein Wisdom, "Obama “Bows Deeply” - UPDATED: Attention Leftists!."

* Riehl World View, "The Boy King: Where Do O Bow Now?"

* Ruby Slippers, "Take a Bow Barack."

* Sandra Rose, "OBAMA BOWS DOWN AGAIN."

* Snooper's Report, "The Bowing Moron In the Marxist House...He's An ASSHAT."

* Sister Toldjah, "I Guess This Wasn’t Really a “Bow” Either, Eh, Mr. President?"

*Sweetness and Light, "Obama Bows Again – Japanese Emperor."

* Weasel Zippers, "Does Obama Think He ONLY Represents America When He Bows Inferiorly?: BO Bows Again..This Time To Emporer of Japan, Akihito...(Please Bring Your Best Snark)."

*WyBlog, "Obama bows before Japanese Emperor Akihito."

If I missed anyone, just let me know in the comments, or by e-mail, and I'll add your link to the roundup!

Added: Linked at Orthogonal Musings, "I Think I Finally Get It."

Plus, Carolyn Tackett, "For the Love of God, STAND UP!," and SWAC Girl, "Obama's Worldwide Apology Tour Continues ..." Also, Israel Matsav, "He Won't Bow to Netanyahu Because Israel Didn't Murder Americans," and Cold Fury, "“How to Greet a Japanese Emperor”."

**********

UPDATE: President Ronald Reagan didn't bow to Emperor Hirohito (other way around, actually). See, Meredith Jessup, "This is Getting Embarrassing...":

These Guys Aren't F**king Around! Taliban Attack That Killed 9 U.S. Soldiers in July

From ABC News, "'Relax, Brother': Exclusive Video Shows Taliban Attack That Killed 9 U.S. Soldiers at Afghan Post":

Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers.

Vivid Entertainment, Top Porn Outfit, Makes Play to Release Carrie Prejean Sex Tapes: Plus, Can Former Miss California Still Speak for Conservatives?

At TMZ, "Porn Kings Trying to Release Prejean Sex Tape":

The world's largest porn company has obtained a copy of the Carrie Prejean solo sex tape - and TMZ has learned they're desperately trying to release it.

The porn company -- Vivid Entertainment -- tells us they obtained the tape legally, but they want Carrie to sign off on it personally before it goes wide. Good luck with that...

As TMZ first reported, the solo sex tape was played in front of several people during settlement negotiations between Prejean and the Miss USA Pageant just a few weeks ago. Once Prejean saw the tape, she instantly dropped her $1 million demand.

But check AOSHQ, "Eight Carrie Prejean Self-Satisfaction Tapes?":

Not really "sex" tapes, per se, but you know.

I don't really find this "hypocritical." I have a problem here, but it's not hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy does not mean "Establishing a standard for yourself and then failing to live up to it." There is a different word for that: It's called being a human being. Or at least a human being who does, in fact, attempt to better herself and set goals and maintain a standard of conduct.

Anyone who sets goals for himself will fail. And what is the alternative?

Hypocrisy is, instead, proclaiming a series of values and vindictively using those values to chastise others for failing to live up to them, all the while gleefully violating them yourself.

Has Prejean done this? I don't remember a single statement she made about sexual modesty. The only thing I remember her saying about sex at all wasn't even about sex, per se, but about marriage, and that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

A position shared, the left is never willing to concede, by our president, Captain Wonderful. (At least publicly he proclaims this -- in private, he's probably in favor of gay marriage, which the left takes to be "better," somehow, than actually believing in traditional marriage and saying so like Prejean.)

So I don't mind this stuff, really. I do not believe Christians are somehow magically neutered and lack a sex drive. I do not believe that Christians do not have kinks and enjoy sex and even enjoy somewhat forbidden sex. I also do not believe that most Christians attempt to claim otherwise, or scream when others demonstrate similar desires.

Mostly what I see Christians saying is that the culture and our major institutions ought not to overly-glamorize sex out of the covenant of marriage, and especially should not sexualize children, both of which seem to be pretty innocuous statements and do not in fact include any possibility of "hypocrisy" at all.

And I'd add, Carrie Prejean was so extremely demonized, excoriated, and smeared by the hardline leftist gay marriage ayatollahs that she'd practically have to become a flesh-eating chainsaw murderer before most right-wingers would cut her loose. See my earlier report at Pajamas Media, "Miss California Carrie Prejean’s Odyssey: Not Very Pretty."

Image Credit: The Superficial, "Carrie Prejean Asked Her Ex to Lie About Sex Tape." See also, TMZ, "Prejean's Ex BF: Carrie Wanted Me to Lie."

Glenn Beck: 'Time to Be Heard'

I'm watching the late-show rerun right now. But check Another Black Conservative for some post-show reaction as well, "UPDATED: The Glenn Beck Show: The Aftermath":

Also, check Motivation: Truth and My Voice on the Wings of Change.

Saber Point will no doubt be weighing in with updates and commentary as well.

'America's First Pacific President' - Won't Defend U.S. Nuclear Attacks at Hiroshima, Nagasaki (VIDEO)

At the Politico, "'America's First Pacific President'":

Trying to reassure allies and rivals, President Barack Obama billed himself Saturday as "America’s first Pacific president," promising the nations of Asia "a new era of engagement with the world based on mutual interests and mutual respect."

Turning tough, Obama also said that the U.S. "will not be cowed by threats" from North Korea, which he said for decades "has chosen a path of confrontation and provocation, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons."

In a slap at President George W. Bush, Obama spoke of the importance of "multilateral organizations [that] can advance the security and prosperity of this region."

"I know that the United States has been disengaged from these organizations in recent years. So let me be clear: those days have passed,” Obama said during the first major address of a four-country Far East swing, which will continue from Japan to Singapore, China and South Korea. “As an Asia Pacific nation, the United States expects to be involved in the discussions that shape the future of this region, and to participate fully in appropriate organizations as they are established and evolve," Obama said.

The White House wants to signal U.S. re-engagement with Asia, and the speech was designed to provide an overture to Asia similar to the outreach to the Arab world in the president's famous Cairo address.

Obama spoke extensively of his own roots in the region – his birth in Hawaii, living in Indonesia as a boy, his mother spending nearly a decade working in the villages of Southeast Asia. “The Pacific rim has helped shape my view of the world,” Obama said, speaking in front of 14 alternating U.S. and Japanese flags.

Interesting, that, with Hawaii and all being the opening salvo of Japan's declaration of war on the United States. Tokyo's surprise attack was met with American power, and ultimately America's ultimate weapon in August 1945. You'd think that a U.S. president would be able to speak frankly about the cold, hard, difficult realities of international history. Just not this president, our post American president.

See also, Allahpunit, "Video: Obama Ducks Question on Whether U.S. Should Have Nuked Hiroshima."

Also Memeorandum.

Missing George W. Bush

From Carolyn Glick:

A couple of days ago I heard the news that George and Laura Bush paid a private visit to the wounded soldiers at Fort Hood. They specifically requested that the base commander not inform the media of their visit. They came. They comforted the wounded soldiers and the Fort Hood community for a couple of hours. And then they left. And they never had their pictures taken saluting the troops or holding their hands.

When I heard the news, I felt this pain that hasn't gone away. It's a pain that I have been feeling fairly often since last November.

It hurts to hear about an American President who cares deeply and sincerely about wounded soldiers and soldiers murdered in a terrorist attack and know that he is not the American President. It isn't so much that I miss Bush personally. I had a lot of criticism about his policies - particularly in his last two years in office after he effectively abdicated his leadership of global affairs to Condoleezza Rice and the permanent bureaucracy in Washington.

But at least you always knew that Bush loved America and that he loved Americans. You knew that he valued America's allies even if he didn't always do right by them. You knew that his values were American values.

More at the link.

See also, Nice Deb, "Miss This Guy Yet?" She links to Project M1A (the group will present tens of thousands of thank you letters to President Bush on September 11, 2011).

Sarah Palin's Cutting-Edge National Book Tour

From the Wall Street Journal, "Palin's Book Tour Builds on Effective Web Strategy"

Sarah Palin's national book tour -- and image campaign -- will build on the Internet strategy that has allowed the former vice-presidential candidate to leapfrog traditional media outlets and appeal directly to her dedicated and vocal fan base.

The coming tour through small towns and midsize cities is designed mostly to maximize sales of "Going Rogue: An American Life," which will be formally released Nov. 17. But associates say it also serves as a reintroduction for Ms. Palin and a warm-up for what promises to be a starring role in next year's midterm elections and, if her supporters get their wish, the next presidential race.

Among the features of this new strategy: buying Internet advertising based on Google searches of her name, and using Facebook as virtually her only means of communicating with voters. Her team also has considered filing libel suits against bloggers who spread

Within its 413 pages, "Going Rogue" seeks to blame aides to Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain for many of Ms. Palin's worst media moments in the 2008 presidential campaign, such as her interview with CBS's Katie Couric, according to a copy of the book purchased from a bookstore by The Wall Street Journal. Ms. Palin complained that the network "systematically sliced out material that would accurately convey my message." A CBS spokeswoman said the interview "speaks for itself."

Since then, her political tactics have been unorthodox. Her August Facebook entry warning that President Barack Obama's health bill would create a "death panel" inspired Tea Party activists to crash congressional town hall meetings and moved public opinion against the White House. Her surprise resignation from the Alaska governorship over the July 4th weekend helped her dominate the news and drove heavy traffic to the Web site for SarahPAC, her political action committee.

"She resigned as governor, still has all this power...and her book before it's even published is a best seller," said John Coale, a Washington lawyer who helped Ms. Palin devise her early strategy. "Going Rogue" is published by HarperCollins, a unit of News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.

More at the link (including a cool interactive timeline).

It turns out that Palin's savvy Internet strategy hasn't been all that friendly to conservative media. See Robert Stacy McCain, "Why is Sarah Palin Dissing Conservative Media?"

Victoria's Secret Angel Boot Camp!

A little break from anti-jihad blogging for readers!

From Entertainment Tonight, "Victoria's Secret Angel Boot Camp: ET's V.I.P. Tour!":

Have you ever wanted to know what it would really be like to live with 10 gorgeous models in an uber-swank Manhattan penthouse? ET's got your exclusive tour of the Victoria's Secret Angel Boot Camp!

ET links to Victoria's Secret's Fashion Show home page, which includes fabulous pictures of the lovely Heidi Klum:

Hey, Marisa Miller's a lingerie hottie too! Click here for that -- and come to think of it, I'll have my own Marisa update later. I love it!

Also, check out the CBS promotional page, "Victoria's Secret Fashion Show - Models, Videos, Photos."

Bob McDonnell For Governor - Of California!

I hadn't really heard of Virginia's Bob McDonnell before this year's governor's race in Virginia.

I vaguely remember the controversy over his conservative master's thesis last summer (see the Washington Post's story, "'89 Thesis A Different Side of McDonnell: Va. GOP Candidate Wrote on Women, Marriage and Gays." But McDonnell of course won election on November 3rd, and his victory is now seen as a precursor to big GOP sweeps next November. Even then, it wasn't until I watched his talk with Chris Wallace last Sunday when I realized that this is a great man. McDonnell sounded clear and confident about meeting the priorities facing his state. He spoke most clearly about economic challenges, but didn't back off when asked about hot button social issues. McDonnell said, for example, "We tried to focus on the issues we knew people cared about. It was jobs, the economy, economic development, transportation, the things that the citizens overwhelmingly said they wanted government to fix." Watch the whole exchange:

McDonnell's comments were particularly compelling given what's happening here at home, in the once-great State of California. It turns out, as the Los Angeles Times reported this week, that a majority of the state's voters think California's best days are long past. See, "California's Best Years Have Passed, Voters Say":

Frustrated at California's woes, voters are sharply pessimistic about whether the next governor will be able to move the state in the right direction, and most believe California is in the midst of a long-term decline, a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll shows.

Against that grim backdrop, next year's political contests loom as potentially volatile, but Democrats start out holding the upper hand, the poll found. President Obama retains his popularity in a state that gave him a landslide victory one year ago, with 60% approving of his tenure as president. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican struggling in the last year of his term, won the support of only a third of voters.

In the election to replace Schwarzenegger, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, the only major figure currently angling for the Democratic nomination, was seen favorably by more than 4 in 10 voters, and unfavorably by about one-quarter. His likely Republican opponents are much less known; none was seen favorably by more than 2 in 10 voters, the poll indicated.

There was little confidence that the next governor, whoever he or she may be, would be able to successfully battle California's problems. Voters were split over whether the winning candidate would be able to bring about "real change." More than half of voters said that California's problems are long-term in nature and will not ease substantially when the national economy recovers.

"I just feel like we are spinning our wheels," said Tracey Blair, a mother of two from Mar Vista who described herself in a follow-up interview as an independent-minded Democrat. "I don't feel like it's going anywhere at the moment. . . . It's a feeling of -- like we've peaked."

Asked about next year's election for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Democrat Barbara Boxer, nearly 3 in 5 voters said they "want a senator who will mostly support" Obama's policies. .

Few voters said they knew enough to have an opinion about either of the Republicans running to challenge Boxer, Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore. Voters, however, have a favorable view of Boxer, about in line with where she has stood before her three prior victories in Senate races.

While Boxer's poll standings are comparable to where she stood in earlier election years, 2010 is going to be a massive anti-incumbency election. As Pew reported earlier this week, "A Year Out, Widespread Anti-Incumbent Sentiment."

Obviously, Bob McDonnell can't run for governor of California. But his message of practical governance and conservative values needs to be the core of the GOP message in California next year. (I have no idea who I'm backing in the primary, but I'll work like hell to get Barbara Boxer into retirement, in any case).

Anyway, McDonnell, in another segment from the interview, lays out an agenda for reform:

I ran very specifically on the fact that I'm going to make government work better. We're going to find ways to cut spending out of state agencies and retool government to find ways to keep taxes low, whether it's — and when the economy returns, find ways to reduce the tax burden on working families, use tax cuts as a way to promote economic development.

These are clearly things that my friends in the — my conservative friends and I are very interested in doing, and then to make sure that these important issues are protecting families, promoting fatherhood, looking for options in education, like charter schools and merit pay.

These are things that I ran on as part of the overwhelming — the overarching theme of the campaign, and I intend to pursue those as well. So I think that the overwhelming conservative message with a focus on practical results is exactly what people have elected me to do.

Here's hoping for the best for my home state.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Stand Trial in New York: Attorney General Holder Gets Some Satisfaction for Terror-Backing Democratic-Left

It's big news. From CNN, "Accused 9/11 Plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Faces New York Trial."

And perhaps a bit dangerous. From Red State, "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Be Sent to New York for Trial."

There have been reports in the past month about another potential terrorist attack disrupted in New York City. Bringing these high profile terrorist leaders to New York will just put a target on New York again.

Even worse, the White House is going to subject these terrorists to criminal trials in civilian courts. They will get all the due process rights of citizens in court and potentially will be able to get access to material evidence in a civilian court that could reveal intelligence we’d prefer them not to have.

But see London's Telegraph, "Analysis: New York Trial for 9/11 Mastermind Risky but Bold":

President Barack Obama's decision to put the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial on American soil is risky but bold.

Courtrooms and prisons could become the target of terrorist attacks, and their localities subjected to months or years of intensified security.

Defendants will be entitled to the full constitutional protections enjoyed by average felons, while Mohammed will undoubtedly use the court as a platform from which to denounce the US, praise the Taliban and al-Qaeda and proclaim his desire for Islamic martyrdom ad nauseam.

His lawyers will argue that any incriminating evidence gathered from a man who was water-boarded 183 times and held in a secret CIA prison for three years and then three years in Guantanamo cannot be trusted.

Embarrassing details are likely to emerge of his treatment at the hands of American agents. Evidentiary requirements will also be tougher in a civilian court than the military commissions that had begun for the five alleged plotters at Guantanamo before Mr Obama ordered their suspension.

Fortunately for the prosecution, Mohammed actually admitted to al-Jazeera television that he was the prime architect of the suicide attacks on the US before he was captured in Pakistan in March 2003. So it is hard to imagine him walking free. But some of the others, the bag carriers, may in the end only face charges of material support for terrorism and could receive less-than-life sentences, prompting public outrage.

More at the link.

The most significant implication of the announcement is that the transnational alliance of America-haters will get first-hand information on America's counterterrorism and intelligence programs -- the great hope of the terror-backing neo-communist left, at home and worldwide, is that the Obama administration will continue to build a case for torture trials for former Bush administration officials.

See Andrew McCarthy, "Holder's Hidden Agenda, Cont'd ...":

This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.

Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.

Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al.

More at Memeorandum.

See also, Blasting Caps and Dynamite, "Obama, Don't Try Guatanamo Detainees in Article III Courts!" And, Right Truth, "Coming to America ..."

Image Credit: Donatella Della Ratta, A Hussein at the White House: What the Arab world thinks about Barack Obama.

Gallup Poll: Health Coverage Not Government's Responsibility

From Gallup, "More in U.S. Say Health Coverage Is Not Gov’t. Responsibility":

More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility.

Note that President Obama's near-year long campaign for ObamaCare has actually turned the public away from government-sponsored health coverage. This is obviously not the outcome the radical leftists would have you believe, and no doubt they'll spin these results in every which way but the truth. Ed Morrissey has lots more (here), and Glenn Reynolds adds, "Americans seem to be becoming steadily more libertarian. Thank you, Barack!" (Via Memeorandum.)

Orlando Tea Party: Friends and Patriots Stand for Liberty

This is Carolyn Tackett overjoyed to meet Robert Stacy McCain for the first time. They are joined by Andrea Shea King:

Robert has a report at the American Spectator, "Tea Party Nation":

Nine months ago, commodities analyst Rick Santelli was interviewed from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade about the stimulus-and-bailout policies of the new administration. At 8:11 am. Eastern time on Feb. 19, Santelli launched into a rant that instantly became a YouTube classic.

Turning to the commodities traders in Chicago, Santelli asked: "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage who has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" He was answered with a chorus of jeers.

"President Obama, are you listening?" Santelli then asked. "We're thinking about having a Chicago tea party in July. All of you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I'm going to start organizing it."

Santelli didn't have to organize. His rant on CNBC inspired other Americans to emulate the spirit of the original Boston Tea Party in 1773. They spontaneously staged rallies in their communities, far from Chicago. The Tea Party movement begun that February morning has been supported by major conservative institutions -- including FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity -- but the movement itself is organic, generated by the passions of the people who turn out for the events.

More at the link.

And don't miss lots more awesome comments and pictures at Carolyn's Robert's and Andrea's.

Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Interviews Despicable Libel-Blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs

E.D. Kain, the dirtbag blogger who once giddily published my work at his now defunct "hardline" neoconservative portal, Neo-Constant, has an interview with Charles Johnson at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, "The Evolution of Blogging: An Interview with Charles Johnson."

With the exception of perhaps the harebrained Conor Friedersdorf, I can't think of more perfectly suitable blogger to interview the Mad King of LGF (Charles pumps up the interview here). It turns out E.D.'s now a featured contributor at True Slant. It notes there, at his bio-blurb, that he's also a "writer at David Frum's site, New Majority" (now called the "Frum Forum," and circling the drain as I write this). Beyond his abject dishonesty and spinelessness (discussed here), E.D.'s made a name for himself with his incoherent ramblings at the Ordinary Gentlemen. He's a stream-of-consciousness smear-master who's never learned the meaning of terms like "concision" and "parsimonious." Not only that, he's an Andrew Sullivan myrmidon, which raises obvious questions of integrity (if not sanity) all by itself.

So now, with the interview of C.J. at Ordinary Gentleman, E.D.'s now gone all in, breathlessly and irreversibly, with the weasely so-called postmodern conservatives who are increasingly being revealed as mindlessly useful idiots for the radical left. A quick case in point is Andrew Sullivan, who gleefully links the interview (off a hat-tip from airhead Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum).

And you know what? All of these folks have unsurprisingly found a consensus focal point on this gem of a libel-quote from the interview with King Charles (compete with the softball lead-in question):

At that point in time you were fairly well aligned with much of the conservative blogosphere which unified behind the war on terror. Lately that seems to have changed. More and more LGF seems to be distancing itself from the right. What’s changed? Has national security become secondary to economic issues, or does it run deeper than that?

National security is still an important issue. But the main reason I can’t march along with the right wing blogosphere any more, not to put too fine a point on it, is that most of them have succumbed to Obama Derangement Syndrome. One “nontroversy” after another, followed by the outrage of the day, followed by conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, all delivered in breathless, angry prose that’s just wearying and depressing to read.

It’s not just the economic issues either. I’ve never been on board with the anti-science, anti-Enlightenment radical religious right. Once I began making my opinions known on issues like creationism and abortion, I realized that there just wasn’t very much in common with many of the bloggers on the right. And then, when most of them decided to fall in and support a blogger like Robert Stacy McCain, who has neo-Nazi friends, has written articles for the openly white supremacist website American Renaissance, and has made numerous openly racist statements on the record … well, I was extremely disappointed to see it, but unfortunately not surprised.

I’ve always written the truth about my opinions, and I have no intention of changing that policy now, just to fit in with a “movement” that has gone completely off the rails.

Robert Stacy McCain is currently in Orlando, Florida. He texted me today to give me the heads up on his son Jim's scuba-diva lessons at their fabulous hotel. Robert hasn't responded at his blog to the Ordinary Gentlmen smears. He's busy, mostly likely, having a fun-filled business trip, although it's possible he's not aware of the latest salvo in Charles Johnson's campaign of libel smears. Of course, Robert's replied numerous times to these scurrilous attacks before (see, "Charles Johnson's Quantum Physics"). What's interesting here is how E.D.'s essentially given Johnson's ravings the patina of credibility outside the fetid fever swamps of the LGF commentariat and of the dungeons of a few hangers-on across the neo-communist blogosphere.

For the truth is that this campaign of fabrications of Robert Stacy McCains' "racism" is actually unintelligible except among those trolling the narrow ideological confines of the radical, unhinged postmodern left. No serious writer on the right today gives these allegations credibility. (No offense, but A.J. Strata recently proved, in his attack on Robert, that he doesn't know WTF is going on, so cross him off the list of right-wing respectables).

Interestingly, the first comment at the Ordinary Gentlmen post -- no doubt from a friendly but brainless "post-mod" -- sums up perfectly the non-conservative bone fides of Charles Johnson's leftist sycophants:

My theory on LGF ... is that he was never really a conservative at all. His original understanding was that the War that began on 9/11 was ultimately a LIBERAL war, i.e., a defense of those Enlightenment values he mentions above.

There's more of that (classic) comment at the post; and notice how it's a essentially an attack on the "evil" neocons as "illiberal" -- with the added bonus of smearing the reputation of former President George W. Bush. No doubt we'd find similar rants in the totally fubar comment threads at Daily Kos.

It's worth noting that Serr8d showed his mettle with a comment there as well, where he suggested that:

Charles Johnson is a hateful, spiteful little man who uses his ‘custom-designed software’ to form and shape his hand-picked commentariat to echo his own thoughts. It’s a classic methodology to assauge his desire for positive feedback. He’s selected Robert Stacy McCain as his target du jour, and in fairness, Ordinary Gentlemen, you should give RSM an interview as well.

Indeed, in fairness, by all means.

Matthew Yglesias on Veterans Day: Unbelievably Putrid Anti-Americanism

I couldn't write about this yesterday without soiling myself in putrescence. From Matthew Yglesias, "Veterans’ Day / Armistice Day":

I sort of wish we called our November 11 observance Armistice Day like they do in other countries.

Something that I think is missing from American political culture is the thing that in Europe is taken to be the lesson of World War One, namely that a war can be bad for reasons other than it being lost. France and Britain were ultimately victorious in the war, but it was ruinous nonetheless. What was needed from the political leadership of the time was a way to avoid the war, not a way to win it. In America, though, evaluation of military endeavors is ruthlessly governed by considerations of efficacy. To lose a war, like in Vietnam, is a bad thing. But there seems to be a growing conventional wisdom that the surge has somehow redeemed Iraq and that the only thing we’re allowed to talk about with regard to Afghanistan is whether we can or will “win.”

These sentiments are so freaking off the charts that event Yglesias' own commenters took issue - and that's saying a lot, since Think Progress is simply one of the most hateful hellholes on the web.

RELATED: "Matthew Yglesias: Nidal Hasan Terrorist Threat 'Not That Big a Deal'."

Employers for a Healthy Economy - 'Skyrocket - National Ad'

The website is here.

RELATED: Noah Finley, "Oily Health Bill Fails to Build Trust":

Despite the president's "Don't worry, trust me" assurances that the reforms will deliver universal coverage with superior care and at a lower cost without disrupting current coverage, more than half of Americans aren't buying -- and it's not because they're frightened by Republican hainty tales. They know what snake oil smells like.

They don't trust the cost estimates, and for good reason. Taxpayers are being asked to swallow the incredible claim that the cost of the bill will be offset by savings gained from efficiencies and taxes on the wealthy. But as the Wall Street Journal notes, even confiscating 100 percent of the income of the truly rich won't raise enough revenue to pay for this bill. And the New York Times reports most analysts say the savings estimates are unachievable.

Big shock. Americans know this drill. In 1965, Medicare Part A was estimated to cost the nation $9 billion by 1990. Actual cost: $67 billion, according to the Cato Institute.

Similarly, in 1988, when a home health care benefit was added to Medicare, the cost was pegged at $4 billion. Actual: $10 billion. And the Medicare Part D drug benefit doubled in cost in the time it took to move from Congress to the president's desk.

Americans are also too familiar with how the federal bureaucracy works to trust that government management of care won't mean more hassles and hardship. Most Americans have had a least some contact with bureaucrats, and it's rarely pleasant. The House bill will increase the frequency and intensity of those contacts.

It sets up panels to dictate what procedures will be covered, panels to choose who can deliver the care, and panels to decide whether the treatment is necessary.

Americans are asked to trust the bureaucracy to be competent and compassionate at a time when competence and compassion can mean the difference between life and death.

Anyway they turn this bill, it still comes up looking like a first step to a federal takeover of health care.

Sarah Palin on Oprah Winfrey Show

Okay, the video's got clips of two segments from Oprah Winfrey's interview with Sarah Palin, airing Monday. At the first snippet, Palin's smart to confess that she bombed her Katie Couric interview during last year's campaign. I'm frankly trying to remember it. I have a better recollection of her stint with Charles Gibson at ABC, which wasn't the best performance either. Nevertheless, those were big league trials and Palin's now got a wealth of experience to help her prepare for a 2012 run, which is looking all but inevitable. Matthew Continetti's got an analysis, "Can Sarah Palin Make a Comeback?" (And recall that Continetti's the author of a recent, acclaimed book on Palin, The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star.)

At the second clip, Oprah asks Palin if Levi Johnston will be invited to Thanksgiving dinner:

"That's a great question because it's lovely to even think he would even consider such a thing," Palin said. "Because of course he is a part of the family ... He needs to know he is loved ... This can all work out for good, it really can. We don't have to keep going down this road of controversy and drama."

Considering how big of a prick Levi has become, I'd say Sarah Palin's practicing exemplary Christian values. It must take a lot to hold that cheery smile while mentioning the dude. I saw Johnston on Entertainment Tonight (or some other show) a couple of days ago. He's clearly got problems. All the media attention's gone to his head and he needs a good butt-kicking. But he is the father Palin's grandson, so I think she's doing right, as any good family matriarch would.