Video:Megyn Kelly Interviews John Bolton On Spanish Torture Inquisition

Megyn Kelly interviewed John Bolton following his oped in the Washington Post, about Obama’s prosecutions by proxy:


Bolton writes in the WaPo oped:

The question here is not whether one agrees or disagrees with the advice the lawyers gave, or with their superiors’ operative decisions concerning interrogation techniques. Nor is it even whether one believes our Justice Department should launch criminal investigations into their actions. (I believe strongly that criminalizing policy disagreements is both inappropriate and destructive.)

Instead, the critical question is who judges the official actions that U.S. personnel took while holding government office. Is it our own executive and judicial branches, within our constitutional structures and protections, or some unaccountable foreign or international magistrate in some unaccountable distant court? The proper U.S. position is to insist that our Constitution alone governs any review of our officials’ conduct.

This issue is not abstract. For the six lawyers, it has immediate effects on their lives, careers and families. Moreover, whether or not Obama has decided against prosecuting CIA agents, his decision in no way binds the creative mind of Señor Garzón, a man who has never shied from spotlights. Indeed, U.N. Special Rapporteur Manfred Nowak has already said that the other 145 states party to the Convention Against Torture must launch their own criminal investigations if the United States does not.

Behind-the-scenes diplomacy is often the best, and sometimes the only, way to accomplish important policy objectives, and one hopes that such efforts are underway. But in this case, firm and public statements are necessary to stop the pending Spanish inquisition and to dissuade others from proceeding. The president must abandon his Ehrlichman-like policy and pronounce unequivocally that Spain should take whatever steps are necessary to stop Garzón.

Who can predict what the Pres will do in this case? Has Soros weighed in? Ayers? TOTUS?

Video: ACORN’s Scott Levenson Finally Meets His Match

Acorn’s wacky Scott Levenson meets Fox News’ wacky talk show host Glenn Beck.

The result is hi-larious:

Allahpundit made me LOL:

I understand why they continue to book him — angering the host is great for ratings — but why, given his astounding Edwards-esque unctuousness, does ACORN continue to send him as their rep? It’s practically an exercise in self-sabotage. I’m sitting here numb with horror at the possibility that he might be the most likable guy they have.

Love this classic Levenson photoshop from the 2008 election:


On a more serious note, Levenson’s oft repeated claim that ACORN has only been caught engaging in voter registration fraud, (not voter fraud, you sillybilly!) is a smokescreen for the fact that election boards, beleaguered with thousands of fraudulent registrations from ACORN, are not able to  catch them all,  so a certain percentage of fraudulent registrations do end up on the rolls, and it’s almost impossible to catch the actual voter fraud when it occurs.


See Hot Air for part 2 where Beck recounts  what happened during the commercial break.

Video: CNN On The Air Force One Photos

CNN’s Lou Dobbs thinks it’s odd that Obama won’t release the photos that scared the bejesus out of New Yorkers for a price tag of $328,000, but will release the Abu Ghraib photos, and interrogation memos:

Nothing wrong with the old photos?

What was the whole reason for the “photo op”, then?

Previously at Nice Deb:

White House Not Releasing Scare Force One Photos

Air Force One 2009 (photoshop)


The White House is feeling the heat.

Fox News reports:

The White House plans to soon release a photo from the controversial Air Force One-style flyover of Manhattan last week, despite claiming earlier that there was no need to release any official images from the incident.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday that an internal report will probably be completed this week.

“We’ll release its findings and release a photo,” he said.

That was after Gibbs indicated Tuesday that the White House would not release any images.

The Anti-War Left EXPOSED

We hear a lot of talk these days of transparency. Well, here’s your transparency, via The Environmental Republican who scoured the internet, today, looking for condemnation from the anti-war left on the recent predator strikes ordered by Obama on a Western village in Pakistan which killed 15 people, including children.*

Amazingly enough (not really), Code Pink, International A.N.S.W.E.R, Not In Our Name, Iraq Veterans Against The War, Veterans For Peace, United For Peace And Justice, and Medea Benjamin were completely mum on the attacks.

Not. a. single. reference. to the attacks was found on any of the websites.

Conservatives have been seeing through the anti-war brigades’ b.s. for the longest time, but now the truth should be clear to everyone. Nothing could be more transparent.

I posted excerpts from this article by David Horowitz in my Does The President Hate His Own Country post, but his points are even more apropos, here:

My parents were members of the American Communist Party and I was part of the progressive left, which was the communist left, and which has grown ominously large today, and has seen its candidate elected to the White House. I was the editor of the largest magazine of the New Left, which was organized by the children of communists, so-called red diaper babies like myself. We regarded America as the enemy. We began as an isolated political minority, but the hate America crowd has grown alarmingly in size since then. Today, nobody is embarrassed about slandering his own country even in time of war — and this includes our current president, who recently apologized for the actions of his country to Latin American communists, Jew-haters and self-declared enemies, such as Venezuela’s Chavez and Nicaraguan jefe Daniel Ortega, a degenerate who molested his own daughter.

Here is Obama last year slandering the troops  for doing what he just authorized:

It becomes clear that the real goal of the anti-war left is to weaken America, the country they believe is to blame for all of the world’s ills:

During the Vietnam years, the goal of the so-called antiwar movement was to cause America to lose the war — and that includes every leader of the anti-Vietnam left: John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and so on. The anti-Vietnam movement wanted America to lose because for the left, for progressives, we are the bad guys: America, the oppressor. America did lose the Vietnam war as a result of our protests. The anti-American antiwar movement forced America to give up the fight for freedom in Vietnam, to retreat from the field of battle, to withdraw overnight. It was the same prescription that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed and the congressional Democrats wanted for Iraq. Fortunately they failed, and consequently Iraq is not ruled by terrorists today.

But in Indo-China the ending was different. Once America quit the field of battle, the Communists proceeded to slaughter two-and a-half million poor Vietnamese and Cambodian peasants – one of the worst genocides in history. But there wasn’t a single demonstration by progressives against this atrocity. Bloodbaths are okay if they are committed by progressives of color in the name of “social justice.”

From Communism to Islamo-fascism, the left in America – as elsewhere – has had a lifelong love affair with tyranny and terror, which is the title of an important book that one of my FrontPage editors, Jamie Glazov, has just published. It’s called: United in Hate, the Left’s Love Affair with Tyranny and Terror. That is who they are. Progressives are adept at speaking the language of peace and love and justice; but these words are just a smokescreen for their real agendas which are search and destroy. Anybody who has ever encountered a progressive up close in any kind of political disagreement knows that this is a hate movement. They hate conservatives; they hate Republicans; they hate white males, and increasingly they hate Christians and Jews. They hated George Bush.

You see the evidence of the Christian, Jew, and Bush bashing everywhere you look.

You see it in the escalating attacks on Carrie Prejean. You see it on the Anti-war websites which are mum on Obama’s airstrikes but passionately condemn Israel’s air-strikes into Gaza. You see it with the continuing blame of everything that’s wrong in the country, nay the world on former President Bush.

When did America become so blind? How did it come to this?

Hat tip: Instapundit


The Environmental Republican post I linked to above, is from January 24, following Obama’s first airstrike into Pakistan. I had mistakenly assumed it was a recent post as it was linked to by Instapundit. A recheck of the anti war group websites that he linked to reveal crickets on the more recent airsrikes, too.


Well, we finally found an organization willing to condemn the airstrikes.

Thank you CAIR, for your intellectual honesty.


For one of the best rants of righteous indignation directed toward the anti-war left, you will ever read, see Mike at Cold Fury.

Michael Savage Banned In Britain

Allahpundit is right, this is a bizarre story. Michael Savage, a controversial talk show host has been lumped in with Jihadists, neo-Nazis, a child-killing savage from Hezbollah, and  Fred Phelps, and banned from entering the United Kingdom.

Not surprisingly, Savage is suing:

Savage told The Chronicle that being included in such a crowd is no laughing matter — and he is now preparing legal action against Smith, he said.

“This lunatic … is linking me up with Nazi skinheads who are killing people in Russia, she’s putting me in a league with Hamas murderers who kill Jews on busses,” he said. “I have never advocated violence … I’ve been on the air 15 years. My views may be inflammatory, but they’re not violent in any way.”

He said he has been defamed and endangered by the British government action. “She has painted a target on my back, linking me with people who are in prison for killing people,” he said. “Does she not think people might hunt me down?”

Savage said he has had no contact with the British government or with Smith’s office and has no idea how he ended up on the British Home secretary’s list.

Unlike Allah, I have listened to Michael Savage from time to time on the car radio when I’m out driving around. I have no idea why he’s on the list, either. He’s certainly controversial, frequently emotional, boastful, hyperbolic, often wrong, and almost always obnoxious. But he’s not violent, and doesn’t promote violence.

He delights in insulting individuals on both the left and the right, especially those who compete with him  in talk radio. That has made him “persona non grata” amongst conservative talkers like Mark Levin, who seemed to be referencing Savage’s predicament on his radio show, tonight:

It’s really too bad Savage has made  enemies of people who should be his allies in the  battle against politically correct fascism.

More at FrontPageMagazine:

As a political gesture, the British blacklist is in equal parts ridiculous and dangerous. Whatever one’s views of Savage’s on-air antics – and he has long since apologized to the gay community for his most outrageous remark, to a caller, that he should “get AIDS and die” – by no means does he deserve to be grouped with child killers, mass-murdering terrorists, and racists. No less absurd is the premise that the genuine extremists on the list will somehow be “shamed” by their mention. More likely, previously obscure terror leaders like Nasr Javed will savor their moment of international infamy and the attendant boost to their reputation.
The more worrying aspect of the official blacklist is the explicit message that British authorities will no longer tolerate opinions with which they disagree. How else to explain the inclusion of Savage, who fits none of the definitions of violent extremism that the Home Office cites as grounds for a ban, namely support for or incitement of terrorism and criminal activity? It is true that Savage has sometimes said inflammatory things, a point he readily concedes, but the fact that he is now banned from Britain invites the uncomfortable suspicion that anyone with an opinion uncongenial to the Home Office is no longer welcome in the country.