No Republican’s in Congress have the intestinal fortitude to start proceedings for impeachment of Barack Obama, or at the very least, begin legal proceedings against VP Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta. Why you ask? Here is an article printed in the Wall Street Journal by Leif Babin a former Navy SEAL officer who served three tours in Iraq, earning a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. He left active duty six months ago.

*****************

America’s premier Special Operations force is once again in the headlines after a team of Navy SEALs rescued two hostages from captivity in Somalia last week. Elite U.S. forces have carried out such operations periodically over the past decade, always with skill and bravery. The difference in recent months is that the details of their work haven’t remained secret. On the contrary, government officials have revealed them for political gain—endangering our forces in the process.

The floodgates opened after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last May, and the Obama administration’s lack of discretion was on display again at last week’s State of the Union address. As President Obama entered the House chamber, in full view of the cameras, he pointed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and exclaimed: “Good job tonight, good job tonight.” Clearly something had happened that he wanted the world to know about.

After delivering his speech, which included multiple references to the bin Laden raid, the president again thanked Mr. Panetta. “That was a good thing tonight,” he said as if to ensure that the viewing public, if they missed it initially, would get it a second time around.

Sure enough, shortly thereafter, the White House announced the successful rescue of the hostages in Somalia by U.S. Special Operations forces. Vice President Biden appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to highlight the success the next morning, and Mr. Panetta also publicly praised it. Then came the “anonymous U.S. officials” to provide extensive details of who conducted the raid and how. As with the bin Laden operation, the top-secret unit that carried it out was again front-page news, as were its methods and tactics.

Our special operators do not welcome this publicity. In fact, from conversations I’ve had in recent days, it’s clear they are dismayed by it.

Adm. William H. McRaven, America’s top special-operations commander, wrote in his 1996 book “Spec Ops” that there are six key principles of success in special operations. Of paramount importance—especially given the risk and sensitivity of the missions and the small units involved—is what the military calls “operational security,” or maintaining secrecy. If the enemy learns details and can anticipate the manner and timing of an attack, the likelihood of success is significantly reduced and the risk to our forces is significantly increased.

This is why much of what our special-operators do is highly classified, and why military personnel cannot legally divulge it to the public. Yet virtually every detail of the bin Laden raid has appeared in news outlets across the globe—from the name of the highly classified unit to how the U.S. gathered intelligence, how many raiders were involved, how they entered the grounds, what aircraft they used, and how they moved through the compound. Such details were highly contained within the military and not shared even through classified channels. Yet now they are available to anyone with the click of a mouse.

It’s difficult for military leaders to enforce strict standards of operational security on their personnel while the most senior political leadership is flooding the airwaves with secrets. The release of classified information has also opened a Pandora’s box of former and retired SEALs, special operators, and military personnel who have chosen to violate their non-disclosure agreements and discuss intricate details of how such operations are planned and executed.

We’ve already begun seeing specific examples of strategic harm from the post-bin Laden leaks. In June, Pakistan arrested several individuals who allegedly provided information to the CIA in advance of the raid. One of those charged with treason was a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi. This Sunday, Mr. Panetta confirmed to “60 Minutes” that Dr. Afridi had provided “very helpful” intelligence to the CIA. That may have condemned Dr. Afridi to death or life imprisonment.

Such disclosures are catastrophic to U.S. intelligence networks, which often take years to develop. Recklessness not only puts lives at risk but could set U.S. intelligence-collection efforts back decades. Our ability to carry out future operations is significantly degraded—something not lost on Pakistan.

A week after the bin Laden raid, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed dismay about Washington’s loose lips, telling a town hall meeting of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune: “Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday—the next day.”

Do the president and his top political advisers understand what’s at stake for the special-operations forces who carry out these dangerous operations, or the long-term strategic consequences of divulging information about our most highly classified military assets and intelligence capabilities? It is infuriating to see political gain put above the safety and security of our brave warriors and our long-term strategic goals. Loose lips sink ships.

*****************

Thank you for your unwavering service and courage Mr. Babin.

How so many American citizens can applaud Obama, bundle millions in campaign donations, support him and vote for him is hard for me to understand. I can’t get my arms around the fact that so many anti-Military, anti-American’s would like to see our country destroyed yet call themselves patriots and American. It’s unthinkable but we all better understand that Barack Obama needs to be run out of office. Barack Obama is an enemy of the United States of America.

Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”

I’ve already discussed the Keystone XL pipeline situation here and here. It’s apparent the Obama administration has a problem with the oil and natural gas industry although they are deemed safe to the environment through mountains of impact studies and create thousands of new jobs.

A little reported lawsuit in which the US Attorney for North Dakota hauled seven oil and natural gas companies into federal court for killing 28 migratory birds that were found dead near oil waste lagoons last year has been ruled upon. Wind production companies were not found within this suit and not presumed “guilty” of similar circumstances. Imagine that.

Continental Resources was accused of violating the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act because “on or about May 6, 2011 in the District of North Dakota” the company “did take [kill] one Say’s Phoebe,” of the tyrant flycatcher bird family. Brigham Oil & Gas is accused of killing two Mallard ducks. The Class B misdemeanors carry fines of up to $15,000 for each dead bird and up to six months in prison.

Now, about the wind industry, which the environmentalists and Barack Obama are wild about. Each year the wind industry kills not 28 birds, or even a few hundred, but some 440,000, according to estimates by the American Bird Conservancy based on Fish and Wildlife Service data. At the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Northern California, some 5,000 wind turbines each year kill scores of golden and bald eagles, which are highly protected under federal law. In fact, according to the September 13 draft of its new “Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would give the wind industry “assurances” of law enforcement discretion if it adheres to certain safeguards and then inadvertently kills birds.

Gas and oil had been prosecuted under the “Migratory Bird Act.” The criminal charges carried fines and potential prison sentences. A recent ruling by US district Judge Daniel Hovland contrasted “incidental and unintended” deaths during “legal, commercially-useful activity” with “hunting and poaching.”

The court rejected US Attorney Timothy Purdon’s “expansive interpretation of the law” because it “would yield absurd results”:

If the government’s case carried the day, “many everyday activities become unlawful—and subject to criminal sanctions—when they cause the death of pigeons, starlings, and other common birds.”

The court wrote that among the potential felonious bird-killing habits are cutting brush and trees, planting and harvesting crops, driving a vehicle, owning a building with windows and . . . “owning a cat.” The court noted that cats kill “hundreds of millions” of birds each year and cars kill 60 million, while windows kill 97 million to 976 million. In short, every American could be an unwitting criminal bird killer.

What we have here is “selective prosecution” by the Obama administration. Judge Hovland also pointed out that windmills kill “roughly 39,000 birds annually.” No lawsuits can be found against the windmill industry under the Migratory Bird Act.

Although I thought the Dodo bird was extinct it appears Obama and his ilk are the reincarnation of the bird. At least in name.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Since midnight, Wikipedia has closed down for twenty four hours, and countless additional well-liked internet sites have gone dark right together with them. They’re standing up collectively in demonstration regarding a pair of contentious pieces of legislation which jeopardize Internet security and safety and also challenge the freedom of speech all in order to crack down on online “piracy” — the unlawful circulation associated with copyrighted information.

Hollywood, the music community, and also the US Chamber of Commerce have joined together with respect to these recommended regulations on the understanding that they’re going to safeguard important copyrighted property. Although the aim might be laudable, the ends do not warrant the methods. Stop Online Piracy Act as well as the Protect IP Act possess far-reaching outcomes with regard to the Internet’s foundation, personal liberties, and innovation within the digital era.

Inside of the laws and regulations, after a order from the court, third-party organizations as well as internet sites will be compelled to crack down on rogue websites — as well as ones which unintentionally host or connect to content which could infringe copyrights or trademarks, if they know about the violation or not. Internet service providers shall be forced to block out Internet addresses associated with problematic websites — a step in which Internet technical engineers advise might jeopardize Internet security. Search engines like Google could well be banned from incorporating pirate websites from search results, a requisite which moves well past existing laws and could, in reality, breach the First Amendment.

It is actually considerations such as these which have triggered a firestorm within the internet community, compelling Wikipedia to state that the legislation “would be devastating to the free and open web” and driving Google to push in opposition to the laws over their highly trafficked search engine. At the same time, PC Magazine states that co-founders associated with leading technology companies such as Twitter, Google, Yahoo, along with eBay published an open letter opposing these laws, reasoning they would certainly undercut the “regulatory climate that promotes entrepreneurship, innovation, the creation of content and free expression online.”

This is the reason why: Underneath the legislation, internet sites such as Facebook, along with its hundreds of millions of end users, or perhaps YouTube, in which forty-eight hours of online video is uploaded every minute, would be responsible with regard to all content material published upon their particular websites. As a consequence, internet sites would be discouraged from participating in speech or perhaps from offering a community forum in which other people may undertake the equivalent. This, in turn, will certainly constrain creativity – the lifeblood of the economic system. One particular analysis revealed that among two hundred venture capitalists as well as angel investors, virtually all would cease financing digital mass media intermediaries in the event that these kinds of laws are passed.

Setting aside the burden the laws and regulations would likely inflict upon your freedom of speech as well as innovation, they do not make reasonable sense. Attempting to obstruct content material on the Internet is actually equivalent to obstructing the Mississippi River using a two-by-four. The idea cannot be accomplished. Nations such as Iran regularly censor content material, nevertheless information continues to pass through – quite often having the assistance from the United States. This particular endeavor in order to crack down on pirated content is undoubtedly a useless effort by industrial sectors that tend to be struggling at the hands of a technology which has overtaken it, a lot like when Hollywood had been up agitated over VCRs during the 80s as well as when the music industry had a fit concerning MP3 players throughout the latter 90s.

The Internet is definitely the most significant vehicle regarding absolutely free speech as well as innovation ever recognized to mankind. Undoubtedly its potential may be utilized for good as well as bad, yet censoring content material, endangering the security and safety associated with the Internet, in addition to stifling advancement is not necessarily the solution with regard to safeguarding intellectual property rights.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: