10th Amendment Issue: Texas Sends Rangers To Border Because Federal Government Failed To Address Problems

Count on this happening more and more often in the coming months and years. As the Federal Government over-reaches its powers in some areas (i.e. health care, financial institutions, auto industry, etc.) and fails in its responsibilities in other areas (i.e. border control, anti-terrorism policies, etc.) the several states will begin invoking the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and begin taking action of their own.

This story, from MSNBC of all places, is one example of it:

Special teams of Texas Rangers will be deployed to the Texas-Mexico border to deal with increasing violence because the federal government has failed to address growing problems there, Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday.

“It is an expansive effort with the Rangers playing a more high-profile role than they’ve ever played before,” Perry said of the Department of Public Safety’s elite investigative unit.

The forces, dubbed “Ranger recon” teams, are the latest effort “to fill the gap that’s been left by the federal government’s ongoing failure to adequately secure our international border with Mexico,” he said.

This action brings with it several implications, not the least of which is that if Washington D.C. does anything to try and stop the State of Texas from continuing this action, it will highlight the fact that Federal Government did fail in one of its greatest responsibilities and ignoring it will produce the same exact result.

More:

“They’ll be deployed to high-traffic, high-crime areas along the border,” he said. “They’ll give us boots on the ground, put people in these hot spots no matter what or where they may exist.”

Perry said the effort also would focus on remote areas where farmers and ranchers have complained of being overrun by smugglers and gangs from Mexico in numbers that also overwhelm local law enforcement and border patrol officers.

“Washington is shortchanging them, not giving them the support they need,” Perry said. “As a result, we’re having to dedicate our resources to deal with the challenges we have along the Texas-Mexico border and ensuing issues that porous border has created all across state of Texas.”

If the Obama administration wishes to bring any type of legal action against the State of Texas for this, I say bring it on. We need debates like this to help educate the American people as to exactly what kind of person Obama really is.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Texas Governor Sends Rangers To Mexico Border
Associated Press via MSNBC
September 11, 2009

Waterboarding Works! Detainee Cooperated After ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ Were Used

You certainly won’t hear Eric Holder or Barack Obama ever make this admission. In fact, I’m stunned that the leftist-leaning Washington Post even allowed this to go to print.

Khalid Shieik Mohammed, who refers to himself as the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, began to reveal a great deal of valuable information after CIA interrogators began using the technique known as “waterboarding” on him. Before that, he managed to resist interrogation quite effectively.

From Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate:

“KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete,” according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA’s then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general’s report and other documents released this week indicate.

Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again.

But here is what the interrogations yielded:

Mohammed provided $1,000 to Ramzi Yousef, a nephew, to help him carry out the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In 1994, he worked in the Philippines with Yousef, now serving a life sentence at the federal “supermax” prison in Colorado, on a failed plot to down 12 U.S. commercial aircraft over the Pacific.

Mohammed told interrogators it was in the Philippines that he first considered using planes as missiles to strike the United States. He took the idea to Osama bin Laden, who “at first demurred but changed his mind in late 1999,” according to the summary.

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis “to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York.” Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad.

“Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals — many of who we had never heard of before — that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations,” according to the CIA summary.

Mohammed told interrogators that after the Sept. 11 attacks, his “overriding priority” was to strike the United States, but that he “realized that a follow-on attack would be difficult because of security measures.” Most of the plots, as a result, were “opportunistic and limited,” according to the summary.

How many American lives were saved because of that information? How many attacks were thwarted because of the techniques used?

The average lib Democrat would rather see thousands of Americans killed than to see one terrorist suffer the least little bit. It would be nice if the Dems actually rooted for our side for once.

EITs work and we should continue using them. Holder and Obama should get out of the way and let the people charged with defending America do their jobs.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

How A Detainee Became An Asset
Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate
Washington Post
August 29, 2009

A Spy ‘Outing’ Game For Real

So, where are all the libs who were rallying around Valerie Plame a few years ago? They were all screaming about how horrible it was that Plame got “outed” as a CIA agent.

For some reason, all those same libs are now silent (I would say shamefully silent) about John Adams Project defense lawyers for the terrorists who will truly “out” current CIA operatives and expose their families as well. Whereas Valerie Plame showed how much her privacy had been violated by posing for the cover of Vanity Fair, a nationally circulated magazine, the current outings will put agents and their families in danger of reprisals from the terrorists themselves.

(I wonder if Barack Obama realizes this and if so, does he even care? He seems to care more about the terrorists than he does about American lives.)

Writing for the Washington Times, John Armor has the following:

First, the Plame Affair. According to the mainstream media, that was about the “outing” of a CIA “covert operative” in violation of federal law.

But that law applies only to people who had been a covert operative “within five years.” The only person who identified her as a CIA covert operative within five years of her service was her husband, who let the cat out of the bag in a Who’s Who entry. Mrs. Plame was not outed by anyone, per the law.

That’s right. Even Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald admitted that there was no violation of Federal law in the Plame case. But, he overstepped his bounds when he went after Scooter Libby on what were obviously trumped-up charges.

Read on:

However, the fraud of the Plame blame game does not detract from the real purpose of the CIA-protective law. It’s designed to protect covert CIA agents from being killed by enemies who would do so in a heartbeat if they knew who these agents are. That brings us to the current situation.

The defense counsel for certain Guantanamo Bay detainees is receiving help from the John Adams Project, a combined effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

According to numerous accounts, these defense lawyers have John Adams Project researchers taking photos of CIA covert operatives. And these lawyers have already shown these photos to their clients in Guantanamo Bay and are now seeking the legal right to release the photos to the public.

If the Plame affair were so infuriating to the libs, then they should be surrounding the Justice Department right now demanding that these photos never get released. Because, unlike the Plame situation in which Valerie was never in any danger, the agents that will be outed by this investigation will most certainly be in danger as will their families.

Clearly, The ACLU couldn’t care less about the safety of these people! If anyone from the ACLU wishes to refute this, please feel free to leave a response.

Armor goes on to say:

More likely these photos were taken in the home communities of these agents, placing not only them, but their families and neighbors in the cross hairs of murderers. And that is precisely why the law that never actually applied in the Plame Affair, does apply today.

It may be that just showing the photos of the CIA agents to their clients turns the assistants who photographed them and the lawyers who passed them on, into criminals themselves. Beyond that, there is the matter of what happens if these photos are offered as evidence in a trial.

The choice here is clear. If you support protecting innocent Americans, you will be against letting the ACLU out these agents. If you support the terrorists, you will agree with putting these agents and their families at risk by releasing these photos.

I will always go with protecting Americans. It’s clear that the ACLU and other libs want the opposite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Spy ‘Outing’ Game For Real
John Armor
Washington Times
August 26, 2009

Obama Administration To Give Terrorists More Fodder For Propaganda

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder decided to move forward with prosecutions against CIA interrogators who protected American lives by extracting information from terrorists. Apparently, Obama doesn’t think it was right for those CIA interrogators to get that information.

So, Eric Holder has appointed John Durham, a Justice Department prosecutor, to go after those interrogators and bring them to trial.

From CBS News:

Holder has appointed John Durham, a Justice Department prosecutor, to determine whether or not any laws were broken during the interrogations.

First, let us remember the Valerie Plame affair in which Plame (a CIA analyst who was not in a covert status at the time) was allegedly “outed” by someone in the Bush Administration. The libs and Dems went crazy screaming about how Plame and her husband were having their privacy violated, even as they both posed for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

Now, this investigation will most certainly “out” several CIA agents who are not only covert, but will now have their families exposed as well. That is a treasure trove of information for a terrorist to have. While some CIA interrogators may have threatened to kill a terrorist’s children, terrorists actually go out and kill innocent children.

So, to all you liberal Dems, why is it okay to “out” these interrogators and expose their families to terrorist reprisals but you came to the defense of Valerie Plame who wasn’t even in a covert status? I don’t think any amount of hypocritical reasoning will ever be able to justify that.

But even more far reaching is how the terrorists are going to use this as propaganda against us and stir-up even more anti-American sentiment in order to bring more fanatical recruits to their cause of killing as many innocent Americans as possible.

And here is something interesting:

President Obama has said that he does not want to prosecute the former Bush administration officials who created the interrogation policies. But Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has added that the Attorney General’s investigation into the legality of the interrogations is independent of the administration.

Didn’t Obama say that we should look forward and not back? Apparently, Holder didn’t get that memo. And given Gibbs’ response to the whole thing, it looks as though Obama doesn’t have any idea of what is going on over at Justice or how that department is forcing him to break one of his own pledges. Or Obama is pushing for these prosecutions while trying to keep his hands clean at the same time. I think this last possibility is most likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Admin. Official Criticizes CIA Probe
Dana Chivvis
CBS News
August 25, 2009

Obama Rewrites Cold War History To Appease Our Enemies

Appeasement only works in the fantasy world of leftist minds. Out here in reality, it has never worked and only resulted in more devasting conflicts.

Read the following Liz Cheney column from the Wall Street Journal:

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: “The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.”

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not “competition in astrophysics and athletics.” It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet “sphere of influence” was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push “reset” — or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Mr. Obama’s method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.

The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old.”

Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, “I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, not so much.

The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism — Obama exceptionalism. “We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand,” one Obama handler has said. What they don’t seem to realize is that once you’re president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.

Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?

The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America’s Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. “No people in history,” it reads, “have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies.”

Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally — by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities — as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies’ lies about us.

That column hits the nail right on the head.

You can access the orginal column on-line here:

Obama Rewrites The Cold War
Liz Cheney
Wall Street Journal
July 13, 2009

Holy War In Virginia: Islamic School Wants To Expand

Right in our backyard in Fairfax County. A Saudi-owned Islamic school is trying to expand its campus and a group of local residents are trying to stop it.

From Fox News:

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing Monday night to consider a proposal to expand the campus of the Islamic Saudi Academy, a Saudi-owned college preparatory school.

Critics of the plan point to former students of the school who have been convicted in a plot to assassinate former President Bush, and more recently, arrested for trying to board an airplane with a seven-inch kitchen knife.

That is the end result of Wahabbism: young terrorists. And this is a Wahabbi school.

Don’t forget to brush up on terrorist training camps right here in America.

But, there are other issues here as well:

“We’re opposed to the operation of the Islamic Saudi Academy because it teaches and practices Shariah law,” said James Lafferty, chairman of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force (VAST).

Lafferty said his organization is a coalition with roughly 10 other groups that oppose the land-use expansion. By teaching Shariah law, Lafferty says, the school replaces the U.S. Constitution with a “very backward and barbaric” rule of law.

“Shariah law advocates rights via gender and religion,” Lafferty told FOXNews.com. “They allocate rights by gender and religion. If you are a male who is Islamic, you have rights. If you’re not, you have no rights.”

That alone is reason enough for this school to lose any accreditation at the very least.

But, I wonder how the government would respond if this were a Catholic School, or a Protestant Christian Academy, or a Jewish School. Would there even have been a debate? Or would the government simply have told the school “No” and be done with it?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Coalition Fights Expansion Of Islamic Saudi Academy In Virginia
Joshua Rhett Miller
Fox News
July 13, 2009

Essay From A Retired Army Command Sergeant Major

Got this in an email. One thing about this CSM (Command Sergeant Major), he does not waste time getting to the point! This essay has been around for a long while, but the points made are still extremely valid.

(I checked this out on snopes.com but didn’t find anything to indicate that this wasn’t written by J.D. Pendry, US Army, Retired.)

“The Axis of Idiots”

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and our embassy bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine, sir. You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marine’s butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a Communist victory there. You’re a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers – cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic Jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are all America ‘s ‘AXIS OF IDIOTS.’ Your collective stupidity will destroy us. self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

J. D. Pendry – Command Sergeant Major, USA (Retired)

You’ve got to admit, nothing was served cold in that essay!

J.D. Pendry is the author of The Three Meter Zone: Common Sense Leadership For NCOs available at Amazon.com