Miss California emerges as ‘opposite marriage’ spokeswoman

FROM BEN SMITH

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who offered memorable opposition (above) to same-sex marriage and a young, attractive new face for the movement against it, will appear tomorrow at a press conference hosted by the National Organization for Marriage at the National Press Club, according to a press release from the group.

She’ll be launching a new ad, the second in what the group says is a $1.5 million campaign.

The ad, the release says, will address:

What happens when a young California beauty pageant contestant is asked, “Do you support same-sex marriage?” She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values. But Carrie’s courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values. “No Offense” calls gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: Gay marriage has consequences.

Fairness Doctrine ‘unconstitutional’

FROM WND

By Joe Kovacs

For the first time, a U.S. Supreme Court justice is offering some legal insight about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, suggesting the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it’s revived and brought before the bench.

In written discussion on yesterday’s ruling cracking down on indecent language on television, Justice Clarence Thomas called the policy “problematic” and a “deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.”

The doctrine requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues was brought to an end in the 1980s under the direction of President Ronald Reagan’s Federal Communications Commission.

There has been widespread fear, though, the policy could be resurrected during the term of President Barack Obama.

Don’t be silent! Sign the petition to block federal government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The Pacific Justice Institute, a California-based legal group specializing in the defense of religious freedom  and other civil liberties, is calling the remarks by Thomas “very significant.”

“To my knowledge, this is the first time a sitting Supreme Court justice has weighed in on this issue,” Matt McReynolds, a PJI staff attorney, told WND.

“It could potentially take a lot of steam out of the movement from those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It also provides a lot of ammo to those who have been saying it’s unconstitutional. Now we have some validation from a member of the court.”

Thomas is questioning the viability of Supreme Court precedents dating back to the 1960s, long before the explosion of media sources beyond radio airwaves.

“The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so,” Thomas noted.

“It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media.”

He also noticed “the number of over-the-air broadcast stations grew from 7,411 in 1969 … to 15,273 by the end of 2004.”

If Congress and the president bring the doctrine back to life, there is no doubt lawsuits will fly.

“We are prepared to take legal action should it be reinstated,” said Brad Dacus, president of PJI. “Justice Thomas’ opinion is very encouraging to everyone who believes in free speech and government non-interference with public debate.”

Meanwhile, as WND is also reporting today, the leader of a newly formed public awareness campaign to alert U.S. citizens about an effort to stifle free speech says he expects local “boards” will be assembled within 90 days to begin censoring talk radio, a move that will come as an “Arctic blast” against the expression of opinion in the United States.

“I think the FCC is on the cusp of enacting regulations that would fundamentally alter the traditional American assumption that we have the right to share and debate political opinions,” said talk-show host Roger Hedgecock, whose new initiative is called “Don’t Touch My Dial.”

“The assault on the First Amendment that is being planned by the government and the extremist Left is not limited to their desire to silence conservative talk radio,” Hedgecock said.

“Newspapers and television are not immune to the anti-First Amendment efforts that are at work here. In addition, the Internet is also a target for receiving the restrictive aspects of the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine.’”

Intelligence Warns Israel is now an ‘Obstacle to Obama’

by Gil Ronenif

(IsraelNN.com) According to a classified intelligence assessment handed to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama and his senior advisors wish to “incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation with Israel.”

A report in World Tribune quoted an Israeli source familiar with the intelligence assessment who said that “Obama wants to make friends with our worst enemies and [those who were] until now the worst enemies of the United States. Under this policy,” the source added, “we are more than irrelevant. We have become an obstacle.”

According to the report, which has not been corroborated by news sources other than World Tribune, Israeli sources said the U.S. Administration would reject Israel’s intelligence opinions on Iran and Syria while advancing the Obama plan to reconcile with the two states, although both were listed as state sponsors of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.

The Israeli intelligence document reportedly predicted that Obama would maintain his policy of appeasing Iran and Syria through 2010. It determined that Obama is convinced that appeasing Iran and Syria would make a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan possible.

Pressure on Israel
“Obama will want to show Iran, Syria and radical Muslims that the United States could pressure Israel on a strategic level,” the source said. “The pressure has already begun and will intensify throughout the next year or two.”

At the same time, the intelligence officials estimated that Obama would restrict U.S. arms exports to Israel in an effort to deny it systems that it could use in a raid on Iran or Syria. The intelligence sources said this policy was begun during the last year of the Bush administration and predicted that it would intensify under Obama.

Carter: US and Syria Close to Full Relations
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said on Tuesday that the U.S. and Syria are close to restoring full diplomatic ties. “Syrian President Bashar Assad is very eager to restore full ties with Washington,” Carter told Haaretz. “I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens this year,” he added, speaking on the phone from Quito, Ecuador, at the start of a four-nation South American trip.

Carter plans to meet Assad in Syria in early June.

Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad said Tuesday that Obama would face “a serious crisis in the Middle East” if he does not fix the mistakes made by his predecessor George W. Bush, within a year’s time.

On a visit to Vienna after meeting Austrian leaders and intellectuals, Assad called on the U.S. to rapidly withdraw its troops from Iraq. This, he claimed, would resolve “50 per cent of the problem,” Austrian news agency APA reported.

However, by appeasing Iran and Syria the U.S. is risking alienating Egypt.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned Egypt’s rivals in the Middle East Wednesday that he would not tolerate what he called their “tampering with security and stability” in his country, a reference to Iran and the Hizbullah terror militia that it supports.

Mubarak’s comments were his the most strongly worded ones since Egypt accused the Hizbullah of plotting attacks in the country. They were also meant to send a strong message to the group’s backers in Iran.

Did president approve buzzing New York?

FROM WND

By Andrea Shea King

Air Force officer: ‘It shows a kind of arrogance’

An Air Force officer who served in the Clinton White House and for two years carried the “nuclear football” briefcase of codes says it’s almost certain that the “highest levels” of the Obama administration knew about and approved this week’s stunt in which Air Force One buzzed New York City.

Retired Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson served in Clinton’s White House from 1996 to 1998 and was responsible for the president’s “emergency satchel,” the black bag of nuclear codes that accompanies the president at all times.

He wrote “Reckless Disregard” and “Dereliction of Duty” after his retirement from the military.

During an interview on “The Andrea Shea King Show” last night, he said, “I can’t imagine that anyone who works in the Air Force thought that was a good idea. I have worked in the White House and having worked for the Military Office, with the guys at Andrews Air Force Base and the ground crews, that (decision) had to come down from on high.”

Among the procedures with which he became familiar during his work with Clinton were those involving the preparation of the president’s 747 jet for flight.

“It defies my belief that the White House staff did not know they were launching the 747 to go up and do this. So it had to come down from the White House. It wouldn’t have been done on behalf of the folks at Andrews (Air Force Base). It would have been done at the direction of the White House,” he said.

Patterson said the low-flying escapade over Manhattan clearly was not an oversight.

“The White House Military Office director is the Obama appointee – Caldera in this particular situation. So, he got the notification, he got the direction from somebody – I’m guessing Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff would probably be the person behind this.”

Does that mean the president also knew?

“I’m guessing he probably did. Did Emanuel know about it? I guarantee you he did. It did not come from the Andrews folks. It came from on high,” Patterson said.

He said the stunt reveals the judgment level in the Obama White House.

“I think that it shows you… quite clearly the lack of knowledge, the lack of focus or the understanding the Obama White House has toward the military, much like my former boss President Bill Clinton. I think it also shows a kind of arrogance to using toys – I’m sure that would be a phrase President Obama might use, his ‘toys’ – to get photo op shots around New York City and not recall or remember what happened on 9/11 and the fact that it might have caused some alarm. And I think really, it shows again a hundred days, a hundred mistakes with the Obama administration.”

Patterson explained the process that would have had to take place to get the jumbo jet in the air.

“The White House Military Office would have called the presidential pilot office at Andrews and said, ‘We want to get this airplane airborne. We want to get some photo ops over New York City. We want to get some photos with the statue of Liberty in the background or the Empire State Building or whatever, and we’ll have a couple of aircraft with it taking pictures of the airplane with the background of New York City. And that’s what happened,” he said.

Though Patterson believes the responsibility for the flights estimated to cost more than $300,000 resides at the highest levels, Military Office Director Louis Caldera has accepted the responsibility. In a statement released Wednesday, Caldera said:

“Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision. While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it’s clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused.”

But Patterson isn’t buying it.

“No doubt Caldera is taking the hit for this… that’s kind of how the Obama administration works, much like the Clinton administration – they have to push this down to the lowest level that it’ll actually stick. So they had to push this down to ‘Who can we cut loose?’ And I guarantee you he’ll be fired within the next week or two. This façade of an investigation and a review of what happened will end up on his desktop and he’ll be fired. … But it probably wasn’t his fault. It probably came from above, and he was the person, the lackey, executing the orders to do this. He called Andrews and the Andrews Wing Commander got involved and the president’s pilot squadron got involved and so this thing happened. So he’ll probably be the guy that’s the scapegoat.”

Patterson currently flies for a carrier on a route crossing the nation.

“I fly an airplane out of Los Angeles into New York City all the time. I fly a large airplane. In NYC airspace at any point in time, especially during the day during normal waking hours to fly over the city like at that low level, it’s almost impossible to coordinate with the FAA. So there was a lot of coordination done on this, a lot of advance legwork and groundwork done on this.”

“It boggles my mind because when I fly into New York City, we have to stay on this straight and narrow path that you cannot deviate virtually by feet, and here’s a 747 that’s got the approval to fly all over the city at low level and again, scare the people of New York. It just defies description,” he said.

“I can’t imagine as a pilot, and an Air Force officer and a former Clinton administration official, I can’t imagine who thought that was a good idea!”

It’s just the latest evidence of mistaken judgment, he said.

“The releasing of the CIA interrogation stuff, which is a farce; the fact that he flies to Iowa on Earth Day in a 747 to talk about saving and preserving our resources and fuel; the fact that he launches an empty airplane to New York City for a photo op; this is exactly out of the playbook of President Bill Clinton in my time at the White House. It’s remarkably and scarily similar,” Patterson said.

“I think that they are – much like the Clinton administration – incredibly ignorant and devoid of reality when it comes to this country. They didn’t even think about the impact this might have, because they don’t understand that the war on terror is a real war on terror. They’ve changed the verbiage. They’ve changed the terms,” he said.

“The fact that they would fly a large airplane over a city that was attacked on 9/11 and the response of the people of New York was obviously 180 from what the Obama people thought. They just assumed there’d be no reaction because they don’t feel there’s a threat out there? They don’t understand that this country is still at war with terrorists and with the people who want to change our way of life. Instead, we’re shaking hands with Hugo Chavez; we’re shaking hands and brushing up with Hamas and Iran. We’re doing all these things that the Bush administration never would have even considered imaginable. So I think it shows not only arrogance, but more importantly, more troublingly to me, it shows that they’re just out of touch.

“I find it incredible with our current economic situation that we’re flying 747s empty anywhere in the country, much less for a photo op. And again, they’re so wantonly careless about this,” he said.

Afghanistan becoming Obama’s Vietnam?

Revival of Taliban attacks threatening American goals

Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.

Afghanistan could prove to be a quagmire for President Obama, with the Taliban resurgence a threat to existing U.S. forces, which which will increase by 17,000 troops, and to Pakistan’s timid government, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Part of the problem for U.S. and NATO troops is that they are not trained for the type of insurgency that exists in Afghanistan. They are conventionally trained to go against an unconventional guerrilla Taliban force and are placed in remote outposts that would be in a position to be picked off before help could arrive.

This assessment comes as Pakistan within the past week has yielded the Swat Valley territory some 100 miles north of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad.

While the capital is not under immediate threat, concessions of large swatches of land to the Islamic militants in the northwestern portion of the country that borders Afghanistan could embolden them to pursue further land acquisitions.

For example, the Taliban this week initially moved into the Buno district south of the Swat area, only 60 miles north of the Pakistani capital, but has offered to withdraw.

“Pakistan today is in dire straits where its very existence as a nation-state is at stake,” according to international relations and strategic affairs analyst Subhash Kapila.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

“Pakistan’s creeping Talibanization is no longer creeping but now galloping from its explosive western peripheries to the very heartland of Punjab. Pakistan’s galloping Talibanization is no longer a strategic menace for the United States and NATO Forces in Afghanistan only, or for that matter to India,” Kapila said. “Pakistan’s Talibanization has emerged today as an untreatable or malignant cancer afflicting Pakistan’s survival.”

The signs already are there for Pakistan. Its leadership under recently elected President Bilawal Bhutto Zadari is considered weak and doesn’t have the full confidence of the Pakistani military. In addition, Pakistan’s military isn’t trained to fight the growing insurgency in the country. Instead, Pakistani military doctrine is oriented toward conventional fighting to oppose Indian military forces.

Further, Pakistan’s intelligence service, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate, is increasingly being infiltrated by Taliban sympathizers and by mid-level military personnel who are sympathetic to it.

In fact, the Sunni Taliban originally was a creation of the ISI as a means of gaining influence in neighboring Afghanistan, first against the then-Soviet Union and to counter traditional Indian and growing Shiite Iranian influence in the country. Historically, Pakistan since its creation in 1947 has regarded Afghanistan as being in its sphere of influence.

“Pakistan is in the process of being gobbled by a Frankenstein’s monster of its own creation,” according to B. Raman, security expert with the South Asian Analysis Group.

For the complete report and full immediate access to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, subscribe now.