Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Let Me Break This Tax Thing Down For You One Last Time

If You Believe This, Then, You Are Easily Fooled

It’s a sly bit of linguistic manipulation. Who could possibly be opposed to asking others to pay their “fair share”? Besides me? In theory, everyone supports “fairness.” I do, certainly. So when President Obama used his State of the Union address to trumpet “fairness,” the Democrats seized on the term, heralding it as their new public-relations concept of choice.

When it comes to taxes, a definition of fairness suited to liberty is the demand that each person pay a reasonable amount of money into the system to defend our Constitutional rights. Because this is what our system is meant to do, this is a reasonable request. The proper purpose of government is to safeguard individual rights. People can be reasonably required to surrender some of their money to protect them.

Our rights certainly aren’t being properly safeguarded. But this is not what Obama means when he insists that wealthy people are not paying their “fair share.”
Some of those lied to fools right here

To begin with, Obama’s trite definition of the rich — “millionaires and billionaires” — is a fantastic lie. The federal income tax system is divided into tiers, the top one capped off at $250,000 gross earnings. Someone making $10,000,000 annually pays the same federal income tax rate as someone earning $275,000. Collectively, the top ten percent of earners pay over 70% of federal taxes.

Aside from the simple contention that this money justly belongs to the people and not the government, there is a basic economic argument against raising these people’s taxes: these people are very often small business owners, and so much of their money is being funneled right back into the business. This enables growth and creates jobs for millions of Americans. Every extra dollar seized by the federal government is a dollar not going toward creating jobs that represent real prosperity. The CEOs of Fortune 500 companies might be able to “handle” a tax increase — but for a small business owner, that could mean tens of thousands of dollars that make the difference between hiring a new employee or expanding into a new market. To whom is that fair, exactly?

In their public-relations offensive, the president has proposed a manipulative idea called the “Buffett Rule,” which, as the president would have it, means that we shouldn’t have a tax system in which billionaires don’t pay as much into the system as their secretaries. Michelle Obama even invited Warren Buffett’s secretary as her special guest at the State of the Union — a slot typically reserved for national heroes.
Anointing a liar, Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett’s secretary makes hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, so she seems like an odd choice for an object of left-wing pity. I’m certain that most conservatives would be glad to support a tax cut for people like her — “the rich,” in left-wing parlance — but, of course, Obama being Obama, the object of this game is not to make Buffett’s secretary richer, but to make Warren Buffett poorer.
Warren Buffett's secretary Debbie Bosanek

There is, in fact, a reason that Buffett pays a lower rate of taxes than his secretary: he makes money through capital gains, the rate of which is 15%. His secretary makes her money through personal income, which is capped off at 35%. By conflating two different taxes, Obama deliberately creates a false impression that millionaires have rigged the system to pay fewer taxes, when in fact anyone at all making money through capital gains will pay less.

The capital gains tax should not be hiked. It should be abolished: there should be every incentive to invest in American businesses and promote private-sector growth. This investment does far more for Americans seeking work than any dollar chewed away at by bureaucracy and special interests. Anyone choosing to risk his money in the market should be entitled to keep every cent of his earnings.

But Obama, going back to his leftist roots, is actually motivated by envy and resentment, not justice and fairness. Previously, he has admitted that he would still support an increase in the capital gains tax even if it would lead to less revenue for the federal government, this statement should ring home for you, he's not concerned with debt reduction, he only wants to level the playing field and totally cripple the American economy. This, in the name of “fairness.” His game is up: he doesn’t want to help make the poor richer. He wants to make the rich poorer.

In the final analysis, the only consistent definition of “fair share” in Obama’s world is this: however much money the left needs to craft the world in their image.
The Ideal Democratic World

Monday, January 30, 2012

The Pope's Pissed

Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict XVI issued a solemn warning about the erosion of religious freedom in the United States, in a January 19 address to visiting American bishops.

The Holy Father told the American prelates, who were making their ad limina visits, that “it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.” He added: “The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life.”

He specifically named the United States, and by inference, the current Obama administration, in attacking all of Christianity. President Obama is probably not itching for a fight over abortion. But he might get one. With unusual speed, the Vatican has condemned Obama's Jan. 23 repeal of the ban on U.S. funding for foreign family planning aid groups who offer abortion services.

The repeal fulfils a campaign promise Obama made to pro-choice supporters. But 
if the late Friday afternoon signing was an attempt to get the change in under the 
radar, it didn't work. Top Vatican officials, usually hesitant to respond directly to 
Washington's domestic policy decisions, pounced quickly. By Saturday afternoon, 
the Holy See was emailing reporters the Sunday edition of its official daily, 
L'Osservatore Romano, which features a front page headline describing Obama's 
decision as "very disappointing."

The US should be a land thoroughly committed to religious freedom in light of its history and the fundamental principles of the nation’s founding, the Pope argued. He said:

At the heart of every culture, whether perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing. In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God. Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.
Pope John Paul II

The loss of religious freedom, the Pontiff warned, is “a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself.” He explained: “When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.”

The Pope said that he was dismayed by reports from the American bishops about new threats to religious freedom. He mentioned especially the initiatives that would “deny the right of conscientious objection” to people who are morally opposed to “cooperation in intrinsically evil practices.” Here the Pontiff was obviously referring to policies that would require health-care personnel to cooperate in abortions, or force both public officials and private individuals to participate in the celebration of same-sex marriages or refer children for adoption by gay couples. The US bishops have sharply criticized the Obama administration for its unwillingness to afford "conscience clause" protections to religious believers.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan

The New York archbishop also slammed Obama's plans to force the Catholic Church into providing its employees with free birth control. According to new regulations, church-affiliated institutions will have to cover all methods of contraception, including sterilization and the morning after pill, described as an 'abortion drug' by some religious conservatives, will also be covered, but an actual abortion will not.

Asked whether he disagreed with the President's mandate, following a lecture in New York last night, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, said: 'You bet we got a disagreement.'
 'The government doesn’t have the right to butt into the internal governance and teachings of the church. 'It’s not about contraception. It’s about the right of conscience. This is not a Catholic issue, it’s an American issue,' he added. 'We’re strong on this issue of conscience, and that’s what’s at stake here.'

The administration's new rules exempt houses of worship and their employees, as well as other institutions whose primary purpose is to promote religious belief.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Slash Two

Me Wearing My Dress Uniform

First News Release By The Defense Department

This is the official letter entered into my military service record

U.S. LETTER, JAN. 4, 1989

In accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and as discussed earlier today with you and the Secretary-General, I wish, on behalf of my Government, to report that United States forces have exercised their inherent right of self-defense under international law by taking defensive action in response to hostile actions constituting an armed attack by the military forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against United States forces lawfully operating above international waters of the Mediterranean Sea.

The incident took place at 5:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (1000 GMT) on January 4, 1989, more than 40 miles off the coast of Libya, northeast of Darnah between Benghazi and the Libyan-Egyptian border United States aircraft were participating in a routine peaceful naval training operation over international waters in the Mediterranean Sea when two Libyan aircraft without provocation approached them in a hostile manner After repeatedly attempting to disengage by taking evasive measures, the American aircraft, acting in self-defense, fired upon and shot down the two Libyan aircraft.


 E-2C Hawkeye
This was part 2 of the Gulf of Sidra incident which occurred On the morning of  Wednesday January 4, 1989, while stationed aboard the USS Kennedy operating some 130 km north of Libya, with a group of A-6 Intruders on exercise south of Crete, escorted by two pairs of  F-14As from VF-14 and VF-32, and as well as an E-2C from VAW-126, when I shot down two Libyan MiG-23 Floggers that gave all appearances of attempting to engage us, as had happened eight years prior in the first Gulf of Sidra incident 1981.
A-6 Intruder

Later that morning the southernmost Combat Air Patrol station was taken by two F-14s from VF-32, (CDR. Joseph Bernard Connelly/CDR. Leo F. Enwright in BuNo 159610, 'AC207') and (LT. Bobby L. Greer Jr./LCDR. Steven Patrick Collins in BuNo 159437, 'AC202'). I was the junior officer on this mission.

We had been specially briefed for this mission due to the high tensions regarding the Carrier Group's presence; the pilots were advised to expect some kind of hostilities.
MiG-23 Floggers

At 11:50 hrs, after some time on patrol, the E-2 informed us that four Libyan MiG-23s had taken off from Al Bumbaw airfield, near Tobruk. We turned towards the first two MiG-23s some 50 km ahead of the second pair and acquired them on radar. At the time the Floggers were 72 nautical miles away at 10,000 ft and heading directly towards us and our carrier. We turned away from the head-on approach to indicate that we were not attempting to engage. The Migs changed course to intercept at a closing speed of about 870 knots (1,000 mph). We descended to 3,000 ft to give the E-2C a clear radar picture of the Floggers against the sky and leave the Floggers with sea clutter radar returns contend with. Four more times we turned away from the approaching MiGs. Each time the Libyan aircraft turned in to continue to close. At 11:59 the Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) of the lead Tomcat ordered the arming of the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles were carrying. The E-2C had given us authority to fire if threatened; and we did not have to wait until after the Libyans opened fire, Article 51 had already given us that authority.

The video below is an animation to give you a clearer perspective of what it looked like that day and to fill in the gaps of me not turning on my FLIR camera until around four minutes into the engagement.

At almost 12:01 the lead Tomcat RIO said that "Bogeys have jinked back at me again for the fifth time. They're on my nose now, inside of 20 miles", followed shortly by "Master arm on" as he ordered arming of the weapons. At a range of 14 nmi the RIO of the lead F-14A fired the first AIM-7M Sparrow; he surprised his pilot, who did not expect to see a missile accelerate away from his Tomcat. The RIO reported "Fox 1. Fox 1." The Sparrow failed to track because of a wrong switch-setting. At 10 nmi , he launched a second Sparrow missile, but it also failed to track its target.

The Floggers accelerated and continued to approach. At 6 nmi range the I split off from the flight leader and  Floggers followed me, the wingman while the lead Tomcat circled to get a tail angle on them. I slammed my aicraft into a hard 11 G turn to port, which put me at 5 -o clock of the Floggers tail and I engaged with a Sparrow and downed one of the Libyan aircraft. I then went into an inverted 10 G dive for the sea surface and my warning radar cherps to indicate that  Mig  was now at my 3 o-clock position  and he was turning south.  I loaded  my aircraft to 12.4 G's and steered on a collision course the second Flogger, you will see the near collision as I came within 200 feet of him. I then deployed speed breaks and slowed to get a better firing angle. You will then hear my RIO say "There he is, Shot' And I respond "I don't have a fucking tone",  I turned my aicraft harder and rolled  my noes to intercept Flogger and the tone in the sidewider locked on. At 1.5 nmi I fired a Sidewinder, which hit its target. I proceeded north to return to the carrier group. The Libyan pilots were both seen to successfully eject and parachute into the sea, but the Libyan Air Force was unable to recover them.

At the request of the National Air and Space Museum, the Navy provided BuNo 159610 to its Udvar-Hazy location near Dulles International Airport. Although Tomcat BuNo 159610 downed the Libyan MiG-23 as a VF-32 F-14A model Tomcat, it returned from that deployment and was entered into the F-14D remanufacture program and served later in a precision strike role as a VF-31 F-14D(R). On September 30, 2006, it was formally unveiled to the public with now retired CAPTs Connelly and Enwright on the podium as honored guests.

As of March 2008, BuNo 159437 is still resting at the Aircraft Maintenance and Restoration Group (AMARG) facility just outside Davis-Monthan AFB. The aircraft is in poor condition (lacking a windscreen and a few other panels), but has been set aside for a future museum placement that has yet to be determined.

It is unknown why the two MiGs operated in this manner, and why the Libyans did not launch a successful rescue operation to recover the pilots. The following day, the Libyans accused the US of attacking two unarmed reconnaissance planes, but the footage, also called the gun-camera videos, showed that the Libyans had been armed with AA-7 Apex missiles. Depending on the model, this can be either a semi-active radar-homing missile or an infrared-homing (heat-seeking) missile. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi reportedly threatened reprisal against the commanders of the NATO base at Lampedusa and the U.S. Naval Air Station at Sigonella.

In January 1986 Gaddafi proclaimed a "line of death" across the Gulf of Sidra, warning that if American ships or planes crossed that line they would be destroyed.  In March the U.S. responded with Operation Prairie Fire, consisting of 45 ships and 200 planes. 

Aircraft from the Sixth Fleet's three carriers, USS Saratoga, USS Coral Sea and USS America, made forays across the "line of death."  Then three surface vessels crossed the line, supported by planes overhead and Los Angeles-class attack submarines beneath the surface.  On Monday, March 24, the Libyans fired several SA-5 surface-to-air missiles, but none came close to hitting an American target because they were diverted by jamming devices carried by EA-6B Prowler aircraft.  Vice Admiral Frank Kelso, Sixth Fleet's commander, waited until dark to respond.  A pair of F-14's Intruders from the  USS Saratoga hit a Libyan attack boat with AIM-54 Phoenix.

 Several more Libyan vessels venturing near the fleet the following morning were struck, with one confirmed destroyed.  Reagan congratulated the airmen and sailors of the Sixth Fleet, some of whom wore "Terrorist Buster" t-shirts and buttons, for a job well done, and on Thursday, March 28, the naval "exercises" were concluded.  There were no American casualties; 56 Libyans had been killed.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Identifying The Big Government Mindset

Liberal, Big Government and propagandistic point of view, interestingly, but not surprisingly, has absolutely no free market suggestions or ideas in any of it's plans for America that I have been able to find, anywhere ... none. I do see and hear a-lot of Soros-style “Open Society” stuff, and nonsense about a “need for a new economic model,” and the notion that we are all in the same global pot. This is all bull-crap to me.
 To my mind, the only people with a real and genuine right to complain about the current mess are true Conservatives who have been predicting this collapse and warnings about Keynesian or "Fascist" economics and “Syndicalism Capitalism” since the last Great Depression.

We dissenters have been called lunatics, mean-spirited, uninformed and worse. [Name-calling is the trade of those who can’t think.] After all ...  as FDR famously quipped [I paraphrase],” ... we only owe this money to ourselves.” Well, not any more! 

The spending habits of big government, like Frank-Dodd manipulations of Fannie-Mae/Freddie-Mac and other market redistribution regulations helped create this "New Soft Depression" contrary to what you've been told that it was the fault of Capitalism. Free Market manipulation and regulation by Central Banks and Big Government programs and Labor unions are the problem. Workers are the “everyday heroes”  of this nations economic engine.

I have a few more musings from another point of view. Just call me silly, but is this not all a re-hash of redistributionist Marxism fighting against Fascism? Is this not the old 20th Century “Middle Way” Fascism repackaged for a faux “battle of ideas” with new improved Marxism identified now as the environmentalist protectors of Earth? Only the one side is presented. This is what Obama does too. As long as you want to bring only Socialist ideas to the table, he will discuss them; otherwise, go fish! Red Herring. Shibboleth. Potemkin. “Iceland Spring.” Call it whatever you want. It is brainwashing and deceit at its best. It is the remnant struggle between the “Ancient Regime” with mid-Nineteenth Century “Liberal” [early Marxist-Collectivist] uprisings throughout Europe.

Old reporting of old ideas to cover cyclic events with the same old Marxist-anarchist solutions. It is nothing new under the sun. Still blaming the same villains, still spurring the same dead horse; now there is a new, young generation of deceived people even further removed from the horrendous wars fought by these very same antagonists with very similar results beginning in the 18th century. How anyone can repeat the same mistakes and think that the way out of the mess is the same road on which we came in, i.e., more of the same? Well, who are the crazy ones here?

This is not about economic justice at all. These Elites could care less about “economic justice” [whatever that is]. It is just the old utopian arguments. The real solution to problems involves deconstruction of the Nanny State, a return to sound fiscal discipline, and the removal of many regulations over Free Market Enterprise. That Nanny State” system will die hard in Europe, because we [the USA] pampered and protected Europe for 70 years after World War II to keep them at peace. But, when they get hungry, cold and angry enough there will be some collectivist revolt [Leftists always take it to the streets] Let me bring this fact home to you "Occupy Wall Street".

There will be death, hunger and perhaps a “Thermidor” period for reconstruction where the “winner” swoops in with government “Guardians” to the rescue. They, and we, are still in denial if we buy this stuff. For reasons already known to the perspicacious among us, Americans are being lured to this very same class warfare and welfare strife in America [with a healthy dose of race-baiting thrown in] so that Obama’s  “Fundamental Transformation” can be completed in one term, or have you not been paying attention?
Maurice Strong

Prepare for Obama's re-election campaign. Expect more of them from Big Brother, whether in print format or on the nightly news. It is all very clever collectivist revolutionary propaganda. I’d wager that Maurice Strong and George Soros have some skin in this game ... even if they aren’t mentioned out loud, or interviews, or their ideas discussed in a public context.
George Soros
 I also didn’t notice George Soros or Maurice Strong or Warren Buffet or any other of the world’s wealthiest in the cast of villains that are destroying the economies of nations. Soros has been instrumental in hurting the American markets with his Hedge Fund maneuverings, just as he did before in Britain. There are thousands of profession Hedge Funds and day traders bleeding Mom & Pop investors dry by “shorting” the market and controlling/dominating commodities. When you control or manipulate that much of the capital, there are eventually fewer investors ... just a casual observation.

One might be surprised how many leaders, self-annointeds, and hangers-on would “sell Granny short” in order to be part of the privileged class of apparatchiks. The “Marketeers” and predatory banking interests and elites learned well from Metternich, Napoleon, Hegel, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao how to be ruthless and without conscience for the “greater good”, after all, we have heard our leaders quote and praise these people. 

Still, I am not too much into buying the whole conspiracy thing. This is because I do think these folks operate largely in the open. They tell us what they are doing by their actions. They are careful not to be conspiracists. Some of the involved people could be hapless products of the “Peter Principle but I doubt it.” Most of a Fascist mindset, constructing an “American Syndicalism.” Other, including certain bankers and insurance moguls, are simply greedy or otherwise bottom-lined oriented, or tied in with other bigger entities who have an Open Society world vision several steps removed.

The fact that this big bauble always gets hung around Bush’s neck is largely visual sophistry. George W. Bush is culpable to a much lesser degree than Obama. Obama is but the American instrument in a consortium of power-brokers who pose as philanthropists to redistribute wealth for the Open Society. But the President is not “Mr. Big” here. Still, we could be working our way out of this mess, just as Canada is now doing, if we were not saddled with Obama, Reid and Pelosi and the trillions of dollars sent down the rat hole of Keynesian fictions.  Did we learn anything from the failed New Deal of 1931-1940? Apparently not! This garbage is still being taught as economic salvation in HS and College texts by Leftist teachers and Professors and I know this for a fact, i'm a teacher. Simply amazing.

George Soros: Open Society Faces Chinese Hostility by FORAtv

The Open Society folks have their power and position. They do not realize that the most of the American People still treasure freedom more than security, bread, or circus. Still, we must beware. Civilization is but a thin veneer. That fine line tread between civilization today is maintained not through finance ministers and bankers, but through power brokers like Strong and Soros who bring countries to their knees by leveraging their market savvy into political power to carry out their own vision. When collapse is imminent, they ride on to the rescue posing as wise men. Even certain “Conservative” news outlets continue to report Soros’ thoughts as if he is an oracle. He is not. He and others are playing sorcerer’s apprentice right now. They just think that they know what happens next. They think they are able to keep it from going down the tubes. They can’t play the balancing act and deception forever.

It is up to free-thinking, constitutionally oriented leaders in this next election to point out and lead us back on the path to economic freedom, freedom from bureaucratic domination, freedom from government intimidation, demagoguery and fear mongering. If we are ever going to recover freedom, we had better be able to start viewing all such media programs with a clear thinking mind and a good understanding of our American freedoms, or we are finished. See the Emperor in his new clothes. Modern Liberalism, Socialism and Fascism are not synonymous with Freedom.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

The Spy Who Loved Me

Is This The Face Of A "SPY MASTER?"

The New York Times, has been publishing classified information in violation of the Espionage Act. They did in other words undermine the foreign policies of the United States, and in particular to attack the Bush administration. On Monday the curtain was raised on one of those episodes, as a former CIA official who was more recently a Democratic staffer for former presidential candidate John Kerry Senate Foreign Relations Committee was indicted. The Washington Post has the story (without mentioning, however, that the criminal defendant, John Kiriakou, was a Democratic staffer):

The Justice Department on Monday charged a former CIA officer with repeatedly leaking classified information, including the identities of agency operatives involved in the capture and interrogation of alleged terrorists.
John Kiriakou

The case against John Kiriakou, who also served as a senior Senate aide for senator John Kerry, extends the Obama administration’s crackdown on disclosures of national security secrets. Kiriakou, 47, is the sixth target of a leaks-related prosecution since President Obama took office, exceeding the total number of comparable prosecutions under all previous administrations combined, legal experts said.
The New York Times article referred to in the Kiriakou criminal complaint is here. The article, by Scott Shane, is essentially a brief against the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. News accounts of Kiriakou’s betrayals of the agency he once served are rather bland; in fact, however, the complaint’s allegations are sickening.
Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and Omar Khadr

Based on information supplied by Kiriakou, the Times article named the CIA agent who interrogated Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah as Deuce Martinez. It also acknowledged requests from Martinez and the CIA that the paper not print his name:
Mr. Martinez declined to be interviewed; his role was described by colleagues. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the C.I.A., and a lawyer representing Mr. Martinez asked that he not be named in this article, saying that the former interrogator believed that the use of his name would invade his privacy and might jeopardize his safety.

Indifferent to the safety of Mr. Martinez and his family, the Times ignored those requests. We now know that the “colleague” who revealed Martinez’s identity was John Kiriakou. Here is some more specific information from the criminal complaint:
Scott Shane

There is probable cause that, at various times prior to June 22, 2008, KIRIAKOU provided Journalist  [Scott Shane, apparently] with personal information regarding CIA Officer [Martinez] knowing that Shane was seeking to identify and locate Martinez in light of Martinez’s role in the Abu Zubaydah operation. In doing so, KIRIAKOU confirmed that Martinez was involved in the Zubaydah operation and therefore disclosed classified information.

Kiriakou supplied Shane with Martinez’s contact information, including his home address and telephone number. Using that information, Shane proceeded to harass Martinez and his family:

Prior to the publication of the Article, Shane attempted to contact Martinez in person, by phone, and by email, among other means:
Scott Shane had visited Officer B’s home on a Sunday, leaving notes under his door and in his mailbox and parking outside his house for almost four hours.
On or about May 8, 2008, an individual identifying himself as Scott Shane called Martinez’s home and spoke with his wife.
On or about April 11, 2008, Shane emailed Martinez at his personal email address. Agent Martinez had provided his personal email address to KIRIAKOU, but not to Scott Shane or any other journalist.
And at various times prior to the publication of the Article, Scott Shane also contacted Agent Martinez’s mother, sister and a high school friend.

One disgusting feature of the complaint is that, when Kiriakou was asked about his involvement in the Times story, he lied cravenly, while acknowledging that whoever betrayed Martinez had endangered his safety:
After the publication of the Article, Kiriakou sent several emails denying that he was the source for information in the Article regarding Agent Martinez, while, at the same time, lying about the number and nature of his contacts with Scott Shane. For example, in an email dated June 30, 2008, Kiriakou stated to agent Martinez: “I had a conversation over the weekend with the ombudsman at the New York Times regarding the article about you in last week’s paper…. I told the ombudsman that I thought the use of your name in the article was despicable and unnecessary, and that I thought it could put you in personal danger. I also wanted to let you know … that I did not cooperate with the article. My only contact with the author was three days before the article was published. He called me and asked if we could talk. I declined. He then asked if I thought he should mention you by name. I said absolutely not.”

Kiriakou likewise lied to the FBI agents who questioned him about the article.
According to the criminal complaint, Kiriakou gave Martinez’s name to two other journalists in addition to the Times reporter. One of those journalists gave Martinez’s name and home phone number to an investigator who was working on behalf of one or more of the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. That investigator went to Martinez’s home and surreptitiously photographed him; four pictures of Martinez were later found in the possession of a Gitmo terrorist.

Agent Kerry; Deep Cover
The criminal complaint does not address Kiriakou’s motivation, but it appears to have been the same as that of the New York Times. Kiriakou had become an opponent of the Bush administration’s anti-terror policies and wanted to damage the administration by betraying his former colleagues in the CIA. So far, nothing is publicly known about how Kiriakou went to work for the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or what his role was there. Did John Kerry, the committee’s chairman, know that Kiriakou was a criminal who had violated the terms of his employment with the CIA and endangered the lives of fellow agents? We don’t know, but the question certainly should be asked.
Pinch Sulzburger

Another question that should be asked is why Scott Shane, his editor, and the publisher of the Times, Pinch Sulzburger, are not under indictment for violation of the Espionage Act.
Finally, we haven’t approved of much that the Obama administration has done, but its unprecedented effort to crack down via criminal prosecution on illegal leaks that compromise national security is commendable. The Bush administration was far too forgiving in this regard.

State Of The Union Address 2012, We've Heard It Before

President Obama’s State of the Union address was supposed to be a kinetic affair, but the opening salvo in Obama’s battle to retain the White House was anything but a kinetic affair. While trying to make the case for his reelection, the president was expected to offer a bold new political vision for leading the country. But the remarks he offered last night were as expected, lame, and gave us his usual brand of gimmicks, like class warfare, and outright contradictions that made the soaring oratory of Obama’s 2008 election seem like a distant memory.

Warren Says "Tax The Hell Out Of Me" 

Rather than the politics of renewal, Obama dealt in the politics of envy. At the heart of his speech was the theme of economic unfairness. As the president told it, the rich are not paying their fair share. The result is a “country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by.” The claim came courtesy of billionaire investor Warren Buffet, who has repeatedly bemoaned the fact that he pays a lower tax rate than his personal secretary. So I'll take this Opportunity to debunk this miss-information. 

What might have been simply a tendentious talking point has apparently become the heart of Obama’s reelection campaign, as the president paid symbolic debt to Buffet by seating his secretary, Debbie Bosanek, in the gallery with First Lady Michelle Obama. That set the stage for Obama to voice his support for the so-called “Buffet rule,” which would require Americans making over $1 million a year to pay a minimum tax of 30 percent, my personal tax rate last year was 29.06%, I aint no millionaire and I aint in the top 10% of wage earners.
Capital gains are taxed twice

The idea that secretaries are paying more in taxes than their billionaire bosses is certainly sensational. It’s also, for the most part, false. Under America’s progressive tax structure, the overwhelming majority of high-income earners pay the top rate of 35 percent. True, there are some minor exceptions, such as the case of Buffet. Not unlike Mitt Romney, most of Buffet’s income comes from investments like capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at 15 percent. That might seem to be a lower rate that Buffet’s secretary pays. In reality, however, most investment income is taxed twice. For most high-earners, the 15 percent capital gains tax on investments comes in addition to a corporate tax rate of 35 percent. So altogether, the effective tax rate for investment income in America is a sizeable 44.75 percent. Given that low-income earners pay little to nothing in taxes, it should come as no surprise that, according to the Tax Policy Center, a full 60 percent of Americans pay a lower effective rate than Buffett does. That includes nearly ALL secretaries.

Obama did his best to distort that reality.  He insisted, for instance, that he was simply asking a “billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes,” which he called “common sense.” A better description might be “extremely misleading.” Quite apart from the fact that tax rates for the rich are not as low as the president suggests, it’s ludicrous to claim that billionaires are not paying as much in total taxes as their secretaries. Not even Warren Buffet has suggested anything of the sort. It is surely a sign of the shallowness of the president’s domestic policy agenda that he sees stoking class resentment as his best appeal to American voters and it's these poorly informed voters that I'm trying to reach.

And not just class resentment. When not assailing the rich, Obama lashed out at America’s global competitors, most notably China. His affirmations of American greatness were interspersed with crude protectionism that left one to wonder whether he truly believed in America’s ability to succeed in the free market. 

The creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit to monitor Chinese goods entering the United States, applauded his administration for slapping a tariff on Chinese tires, and condemned companies for outsourcing jobs. To be sure, that rant did not prevent Obama from calling for the emergence of “the next Steve Jobs.” That would be the same Steve Jobs whose Apple has long outsourced jobs to China.

Such cognitive dissonance pervaded the president’s address. For instance, he claimed that “my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States,” this even as his administration ended Washington D.C.’s highly successful school voucher program. Elsewhere he touted the promise of “American-made energy” and “American oil production,” without bothering to explain why his administration just last week blocked the Keystone oil pipeline from proceeding.

Most jarring to the ear was Obama’s defiant exclamation of “No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs.” It was a catchy line, save for the fact that it was spoken by the president who extended the bailouts for banks and auto manufacturers, who signed into law a $787 billion stimulus package, and whose budgets have repeatedly included increases in welfare spending – including a 2011 budget request that would have increased welfare spending by 42 percent since 2008. It’s no wonder that Newt Gingrich has gotten applause lines by dubbing Obama the “Food Stamp President.”

Based on Obama’s record, it’s true.

Partly due to the substantive shortcomings of the president’s remarks and partly due to the weakness of the current field of Republican presidential hopefuls, the most compelling part of the president’s address came just after it, when Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels delivered the Republican response. Striking a contrast with Obama’s class warfare themes, Daniels laid out a vision of real renewal, one where society was divided not into “haves and have nots” but into “haves and soon-to-haves.”

To that end, Daniels endorsed the entrepreneurial spirit to achieve what government policies have not, while also calling for meaningful entitlement reform to restore the country’s financial footing. It may have been President Obama who declared that “America is back.” But it was Gov. Daniels who offered a credible vision to make that something more than another empty promise.