Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Pickerhead needed a Mark Steyn fix. Here’s one from 2004.
…In Mission Impossible, to get hold of top-secret classified information Tom Cruise has to break into CIA headquarters, crawl through the ventilation shaft, suspend himself from the ceiling, and hack into the computer. The whole room is hermetically sealed and ultra-motion-sensitive and ultra-heat-sensitive. So if Tom’s dainty little foot brushes the floor or he starts to perspire heavily, the alarms will go off and all hell will break loose.
IN REALITY, as we now know, the most sensitive, most classified documents in America’s National Archives are not kept in a sealed room that’s ultra-motion-sensitive. They’ve only just introduced a security camera, and they only did that because of a pattern of national security breaches by the, er, national security adviser. Or, to be more precise, the former national security adviser for Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger.
Last fall, while preparing to testify to the 9/11 Commission, Sandy Berger went to the National Archives and “inadvertently” removed dozens of pages of the most classified documents by “inadvertently” stuffing them in his pants and “inadvertently” secreting them in his socks and “inadvertently” taking them home, where he “inadvertently” lost some of them, and then he “inadvertently” returned to the Archives and “inadvertently” removed other drafts of the same document. Lather, rinse and repeat, inadvertently. He “inadvertently” made improper cell phone calls from within the secure room and he “inadvertently” made a suspicious number of trips to the men’s room for who knows what “inadvertent” purpose. …
Charles Krauthammer is appalled by the government’s lack of response to the WikiLeaks.
…At a Monday news conference, Attorney General Eric Holder assured the nation that his people are diligently looking into possible legal action against WikiLeaks. Where has Holder been? The WikiLeaks exposure of Afghan war documents occurred five months ago. Holder is looking now at possible indictments? This is a country where a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Months after the first leak, Justice’s thousands of lawyers have yet to prepare charges against Julian Assange and his confederates?
Throw the Espionage Act of 1917 at them. And if that is not adequate, if that law has been too constrained and watered down by subsequent Supreme Court rulings, then why hasn’t the administration prepared new legislation adapted to these kinds of Internet-age violations of U.S. security? It’s not as if we didn’t know more leaks were coming. And that more leaks are coming still.
Think creatively. The WikiLeaks document dump is sabotage, however quaint that term may seem. We are at war – a hot war in Afghanistan where six Americans were killed just this past Monday, and a shadowy world war where enemies from Yemen to Portland, Ore., are planning holy terror. Franklin Roosevelt had German saboteurs tried by military tribunal and shot. Assange has done more damage to the United States than all six of those Germans combined. Putting U.S. secrets on the Internet, a medium of universal dissemination new in human history, requires a reconceptualization of sabotage and espionage – and the laws to punish and prevent them. Where is the Justice Department?
And where are the intelligence agencies on which we lavish $80 billion a year? Assange has gone missing. Well, he’s no cave-dwelling jihadi ascetic. Find him. Start with every five-star hotel in England and work your way down. …
David Warren notes the irony that the NYTimes’ unethical and biased actions have exposed its incompetence in reporting the news as well.
…”It is the soul’s duty to be loyal to its own desires; it must abandon itself to its master passion.” Thus spoke Rebecca West, perhaps the greatest of the leftists and feminists of the last century, who did honestly wrestle with questions of treachery and betrayal. See her book, The Meaning of Treason.
What, I’ve been wondering, would Dame Rebecca have said, about the casual treachery of The New York Times, and other media who have cooperated with Wikileaks in return for advance access to their stolen documents — as if this were a straightforward business arrangement?
The total hypocrisy of the Times has been exposed by several of my right-wing colleagues, who have juxtaposed the paper’s various self-justifications. The Times smugly refused, for instance, to print or link any “Climategate” revelations of a global warming scam, because “the documents appear to have been acquired illegally,” and “were never intended for the public eye.” But when an opportunity arises to publish potentially devastating state secrets, they do so without hesitation “in the public interest.” And the smugness is the same.
Paradoxically, these documents confirm everything the Times and like-minded media have not been reporting for the last few years. …
Caroline Glick covers a lot of important ground in discussing WikiLeaks.
…The leaked documents themselves expose a profound irony. To wit: The US is unwilling to lift a finger to defend itself against an act of information warfare which exposed to the world that the US is unwilling to lift a finger to protect itself and its allies from the most profound military threats endangering international security today.
…THE MOST important question that arises from the entire WikiLeaks disaster is why the US refuses to defend itself and its interests. What is wrong with Washington? Why is it allowing WikiLeaks to destroy its international reputation, credibility and ability to conduct international relations and military operations? And why has it refused to contend with the dangers it faces from the likes of Iran and North Korea, Turkey, Venezuela and the rest of the members of the axis of evil that even State Department officers recognize are colluding to undermine and destroy US superpower status?
…THE FINAL irony of the WikiLeaks scandal is the cowardice of WikiLeaks that stands at the foundation of the story. Founded in 2006, Wikileaks was supposed to serve the cause of freedom. It claimed that it would defend dissidents in China, the former Soviet Union and other places where human rights remains an empty term. But then China made life difficult for WikiLeaks and so four years later, Assange and his colleagues declared war on the US, rightly assuming that unlike China, the US would take their attacks lying down. Why take risks to defend dissidents in a police state when it’s so much easier and so much more rewarding to attempt to destroy free societies?
…And that brings us to the real question raised by the WikiLeaks assault on America. Can democracies today protect themselves? In the era of leftist political correctness with its founding principle that Western power is evil and that the freedom to harm democracies is inviolate, can democracies defend their security and national interests?
John Fund points out where the Obami will continue to attack American businesses.
…On Sept. 22, Labor’s Office of the Solicitor—which employs 400 attorneys to enforce the nation’s labor laws—issued a draft “operating plan” to dramatically increase pressure on employers. …
…But while the Department of Labor prepares for a hyper-aggressive enforcement strategy against business, it has rolled back Bush-era reforms mandating greater union transparency. Just this week the department rescinded its Form T-1, which required unions to report on strike funds and other accounts under union control.
The Labor Department is also planning to transfer responsibility for whistleblower investigations from OSHA (which currently has 80 investigators on this beat) to the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), which oversees union financial integrity. But the Obama administration has severely cut funding and staff for OLMS. There are 187 OLMS investigators, down from 223 last year. With additional responsibilities, the office’s ability to investigate embezzlements and union corruption will be further hindered. …
…Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government, a government watchdog group that monitors union issues, says Labor’s new approach should trigger oversight hearings by the new GOP House. “But that won’t be enough,” he predicts. “The solicitor’s budget at Labor will have to be kept in check.”
David Harsanyi has another classic, this time on taxes.
Few displays of phony generosity and bogus earnestness are more irritating than watching a stinking rich tycoon advocating that others shell out more in taxes.
“People at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it,” explained Warren Buffett, who must be aware that “people like him” number somewhere in the low single digits.
But, please, go for it, Mojambo. Hand it over if you’re feeling compelled. And if your “please-tax-me- more” companion Bill Gates feels equally bonded to the virtues of federal revenue streams, he can always divert some of that foundation funding from the private sector to the IRS — where the magic really happens.
“Rich” families with two student loans, mortgages, outrageous property taxes and young children they can’t send to the awful local public schools are, undoubtedly, indebted to you guys for finally speaking up. …
…Anyway, if tax cuts do not generate economic activity, as most liberals contend, why limit tax hikes to the rich?…Surely some in the middle class can afford to pay more. …
Peter Schiff indicts the myriad government interventions that circumvent market corrections and prevent economic recovery.
Today’s payroll report severely disappointed on the downside and left economists scratching their heads to explain the weakness. The explanation, however, is plain as day. As I have been saying for years, the US economy will not create jobs as long as the Fed keeps interest rates artificially low, and Congress keeps stimulating spending and consumer debt, punishing employers with mandates, regulations, and taxes, crowding out private investment with massive government borrowing, and preventing market forces from restructuring our out-of-balance economy.
…No doubt the 9.8% unemployment rate (17% when counting the under-employed or discouraged workers) will spark another extension of unemployment benefits, which will provide yet additional incentives for the unemployed not to work. In addition, we will likely get another round of stimulus – paid for with higher budget deficits – that will further hinder the capital investment and business formation necessary to produce sustainable jobs. Then, the inflation created by the Fed to finance those deficits will send consumer prices higher, making life that much harder for all Americans, regardless of their employment status.
…If printing money and dolling it out to the unemployed could create growth and jobs, why hasn’t it already worked? After all, we have already extended benefits to 99 weeks. Where are all the jobs? Also, if every dollar of unemployment benefits generates two dollars of growth, as our legislators claim, why not double or triple the benefits? In fact, why limit them to the unemployed? Just give the benefits to everyone – then we will really get this economy going.
Politicians cannot create economic growth at will simply by doling out money. If it could, the Soviets would have won the Cold War. …
Jennifer Rubin anticipates an interesting 2011 Senate session.
…The numbers that matter are 23 (Democrats plus independents up for re-election in 2012), 47 (total Senate Republicans) and 60 (the cloture minimum). The name of the game for those 23 will be to balance partisan loyalty against electoral self-interest. From a self-interest standpoint, many of them will feel extreme pressure to join with the 47 Republicans on everything from taxes to health care to regulation.
…it’s “the most serious class” he’s seen entering the Senate since he arrived on the Hill 14 years ago. Since voters last month rejected a number of Tea Party-backed Republican candidates — Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Joe Miller and Christine O’Donnell — most of the incoming Republicans are rather mainstream and experienced. They include two former congressmen (Pat Toomey and Mark Kirk), a state house speaker (Marco Rubio), a Bush administration veteran (Rob Portman), a popular governor (John Hoeven), a state attorney general (Kelly Ayotte), a veteran senator and former ambassador to Germany (Dan Coats) and a small businessman who, as one advisor put it, “got pissed off” at what was happening to the country (Ron Johnson). Yes, there is Rand Paul, but he’s sounding more like a mainstream Republican than a wide-eyed radical these days. And a number of Capitol Hill Republican can’t hide their delight that quirky figures such as Arlen Specter and George Voinovich are being replaced by more serious, reliable conservatives.
Moreover, adversity has bred unity on the Republican side. Each Republican, including the Maine senators, knows what it feels like to have debate cut off by Democrats and to be left with nothing for their constituents. Sen. Susan Collins was left out in the cold on small business issues. Sen. Olympia Snowe was infuriated at one point over what she deemed abuse of Senate rules by the majority. That has fostered a certain solidarity, as evidenced by this week’s letter in which all 42 Republicans vowed to filibuster bills before tax and government financing measure are completed.
…The Senate will be the most unpredictable, and, therefore, the most interesting player on the political scene come January. Will the hapless Reid control the body, or will a fluid coalition of red state Democrats and Republicans led by McConnell run the show? Stay tuned.