By John D. Suttor

(CNN) -- In the early 1970s, when Daniel Ellsberg wanted to get top-secret information about the Vietnam War to the public, he leaked the bombshell Pentagon Papers to elected officials and national newspapers.

But if Ellsberg, a former U.S. military analyst, wanted to leak secret documents today, he probably would send them to a powerful and controversial new venue for whistle-blowing: a website called WikiLeaks.org.

"People should definitely think of WikiLeaks as the way to go" when other methods of leaking information fail, he said recently.

WikiLeaks, a nonprofit site run by a loose band of tech-savvy volunteers, is quickly becoming one of the internet's go-to locations for government whistle-blowers, replacing, or at least supplementing, older methods of making sensitive government information public.

Some have praised the site as a beacon of free speech, while others have criticized it as a threat to national security.

The site gained international attention in April when it posted a 2007 video said to show a U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq killing a dozen civilians, including two unarmed Reuters journalists.

At the time, Maj. Shawn Turner, a U.S. military spokesman, said that "all evidence available supported the conclusion by those forces that they were engaging armed insurgents and not civilians."

Pfc. Bradley Manning, 22, has been charged by the U.S. military with eight violations of the U.S. Criminal Code for transferring classified data, according to a charge sheet released by the military this week.

Manning's military defense attorney, Capt. Paul Bouchard, is not speaking with the media about the charges, said U.S. Army Col. Tom Collins. Bouchard did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment. WikiLeaks may also offer an attorney for Manning, according to Wired.com.

The high-profile video has led some observers to say that WikiLeaks is forcing a new era of government transparency.

"It's a whole new world of how stories get out," Columbia University journalism professor Sree Sreenivasan told British newspaper The Independent in April.

Others have said the website may be a threat to society and the rule of law.

A 2008 U.S. Army Counterintelligence Center report (PDF), which was classified until it was uploaded to WikiLeaks in March, says that information posted to WikiLeaks.org could "aid enemy forces in planning terrorist attacks."

The report "is authentic, and it speaks for itself," Collins said.

What is WikiLeaks?

The premise of the WikiLeaks, which has been operating largely out of the public spotlight since 2007, is simple: Anyone can leak documents, videos or photographs, and they can do so while remaining anonymous.

The site says that none of its whistle-blowers has been outed because of WikiLeaks.

Visitors to the site will notice a large link that simply says "submit documents." Reports, photographs and videos given to the site are reviewed by a global network of editors and then, if deemed to be important and real, are posted online.

"Every submitted article and change is reviewed by our editorial team of professional journalists and anti-corruption analysts," WikiLeaks says on its website. "Articles that are not of high standard are rejected and non-editorial articles are fully attributed."

But the site does differ from traditional media outlets..

In The New Yorker, Raffi Khatchadourian wrote that WikiLeaks is "not quite an organization; it is better described as a media insurgency."

In part, this is because of the technology employed by the site.

The site's documents and other leaks are backed up on computer servers in several countries. WikiLeaks also maintains several Web addresses to make it difficult -- the site claims impossible -- to remove the secret documents from the internet once they are posted on WikiLeaks.

The website is run by an organization called Sunshine Press, which takes public donations. Time.com reported that WikiLeaks has a $600,000 annual budget.

Who manages the site?

WikiLeaks' elusive editor and co-founder is an Australian named Julian Assange. In profiles, writers describe him as an eccentric who wanders the globe, carries all of his belongings and keeps semi-residences in Kenya, Iceland and Sweden, where the site's Web servers are reportedly located.

"In my role as WikiLeaks editor, I've been involved in fighting off many legal attacks," Assange told BBC News. "To do that, and keep our sources safe, we have had to spread assets, encrypt everything and move telecommunications and people around the world to activate protective laws in different national jurisdictions."

Lately, Assange is reported to be living in Iceland, which recently passed laws to protect anonymous speech like that promoted by WikiLeaks.

Assange -- who has stark white hair and a deep voice, and appears only occasionally in YouTube videos and in media interviews -- tells reporters that the aim of WikiLeaks is to promote a more open democracy, where government officials and bureaucrats can't keep dark secrets from the public.

"We have a mission to promote political reforms by releasing suppressed information," he said in April .

Assange did not respond to an e-mail about this story.

Site causes controversy

In its attempts to unearth and publicize this hidden information, however, the site has stirred a number of controversies.

WikiLeaks has published information as varied as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal e-mails; manuals from the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; e-mails that spawned the "Climategate" global-warming controversy late last year; and documents that Assange reportedly says altered the outcome of the 2007 presidential election in Kenya.

'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty

Ari Schwartz, vice president and chief executive officer of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said it's unclear what WikiLeaks' lasting impact will be. If the site publishes state secrets without cause, a public backlash could quickly kill the following the site is trying to build.

"If they're publishing just to publish ... the public reaction against that information is going to be so negative," he said.

Schwartz said his group has benefited from WikiLeaks, which was able to obtain some congressional public records his organization could not.

"They are effective in terms of getting to documents that people have trouble accessing in other ways," he said.

Ellsberg , the former U.S. Department of Defense official who leaked the Pentagon Papers in the '70s and who now donates to WikiLeaks, said the site has the potential to change the way the world's governments operate.

He says the site will make leaders more accountable to the public.

The recently released military videos are "a very small door, so far, into the huge library of broadly withheld information," he said.

He called Assange a hero for trying to shed light on those hidden catalogues.

By Barry Secrest

Conservative Refocus

In the wake of the neglected Gulf Spill, an economy that is becoming ever more mired, and a Private Sector that is incrementally diminishing, we have finally found something that brings a dash of hope to us regarding the US Military to which we must exclaim:  Bravo, Bravo, Mr. President!  Amazingly, we find ourselves in total agreement with the President in his decision to sack General McChrystal as the commanding General in Afghanistan--but for decidedly different reasons.

It is, in fact, our belief that any commanding General who actually voted for Obama for President, as McChystal allegedly did, shows a particular lack of discernment for a military expert in such a position.  This  intermittent lapse in judgment also comes into play especially as it regards both tactical and strategic thinking--which might also partially explain the lack of US success in Afghanistan thus far.  In all of this, the President is at least in partial agreement with us as Obama did indeed indicate that McChrystal showed a serious lack of judgment in his various comments as reported in the damning Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings.

The President was, however, most gracious in his  dismissal speech regarding the General, no doubt in an effort to retain the General's sole remaining vote come 2012--assuming the country is still here, of course.  In fact, as General Petraeus takes over the Afghan Campaign, we are already beginning to hear rumors of "Rules of Engagement" changes which will better serve our troops, along with other reports from the Media which indicate that our soldiers are actually heartened by the forced change in command.

Latest Inductee To The "Liberally Impaired Hall Of Fame"

As with most Liberals, a lack of discernment as described above tends not to be the only malfunction that becomes evident, especially when their mouths open and sounds begin to emit.  A Democratic Wisconsin County Supervisor, Peggy West,  recently made us all wonder exactly what is in the water up there when she indicated, in her efforts to promote a Wisconsin State boycott of Arizona, that she found it difficult to take Arizona's immigration law seriously as compared to a state like Texas "which sits right on the border with Mexico."

Many were trying desperately, at this point, to understand what the dear lady, bless her heart, was saying until she further made her point by stating that "Arizona is far removed from the border and would not have the same problems as Texas."  To which we can only say:  "Good Grief."  Once again, it would be difficult to make up such things as these.  With rampant Liberal thought deficiencies being as they are, it becomes more and more difficult to understand how such individuals have managed to inculcate themselves so widely, if not damagingly into our system of governance.  Perhaps we should start a fund to help these poor, hapless victims of the American education system.

But as we progress into the long days of the  Summer Solstice, most of America swelters under the continued upheaval and chaos brought into our lives by the ever more distressing antics of our burdgeoning Authoritarian leadership.  It's as if we can almost feel the tension that seethes between various members of the government, private industry and the civil society.  As the invisible and yet tangible  ideological battle lines continue to coalesce among various sectors of society, areas of the country, and even between the branches of our Government, we can begin to see fresh cracks alarmingly appear in the foundations of America's Constitutional Rule of Law mandate that has stood for over two centuries.

David Versus Gov-lieth & Keep it Moving With Health-Lax

The increasingly excessive overreaching by the Democrats in our Executive and Legislative branches has, so far, been only marginally countered by the Republicans within the Legislature who lack numbers.  The only true success in actually blocking the Democrats efforts have come mainly from the Judicial Branch of the Government which is a process that appears to be slowly gathering steam.  For instance, in a compelling David versus Goliath drama, a small company in Louisiana legally challenged the Government's moratorium on deep sea drilling.  The presiding Federal judge ordered the moratorium to be lifted on the basis that The Feds, in installing the moratorium, failed to successfully make the case that other such rigs were operating under the same haphazard conditions as the BP rig.

The Government then indicated that it would appeal the decision, but rather than succumb to the obvious authority of a sitting Federal Judge, Secretary Salazar boldly made an effort to circumvent the Judge's ruling by restating the moratorium on a "revised basis," which is more commonly referred to as "legalistic BS."  The result of this new effort failed as the Judge refused to reverse his decision knowing that the artful and yet pitiful effort to circumvent the ruling was only just that.  The Government here, as in most cases, was not operating on a safety or hazard imperative in calling the moratorium but rather under an opportunistic ideological imperative--that being all fossil fuels are horrible and should be banned from the planet.

This was, however, only the most recent case, when in fact, the President's efforts to impose his  will against the People have been rubber-stamped as "approved" on nearly every occasion by both the Democratically controlled Legislative Branches and the Fourth Estate, which rarely challenges the President's veracity and only lightly questions the "Messianic Motive" in any given media-reported area.  Obama's health insurance mandate can easily be shown to circumvent the Constitution and is being challenged by what could be as many as 17 states in a monumental court case that is just now beginning--the conclusion of which will prove beyond fascinating as it slowly moves through what promises  to be a court system so terribly constipated that a 95 year old bowel would quiver in envy.

Border Fence/Reform/Chicken/Egg

The President has also chosen to forgo State sovereignty by challenging the Arizona illegal immigration law despite the fact that the law mirrors the Federal law on immigration.  Hereto, other states are now in preliminary stages to enact their own laws concerning illegal immigration due largely to Federal inaction in enforcing its own law.

However, the skewed insights of the Liberals in charge becomes ever more clear when we have learned that, absurdly, in a meeting with Senator John Kyle, the President reportedly indicated to Kyle that any effort to physically secure the border must come after immigration reform rather than before--here again--don't hold your breath would be the best advice should reform pass.

The President's reason?  Because if the border is secured before any reforms, the Body Politic would have no existing reason to then legislate the new immigration reform (read "amnesty").  Which is a twisted form of reasoning that only an extreme purveyor of dissonance could truly appreciate.

Area-51 Legislation & U.F.E.O's ( Un-identified Fake Executive Orders)

More recently we have the President's efforts to install financial reforms in the form of yet another 2000 page "monstrosity of a bill" in which Senator Chris Dodd closely echoed Speaker Pelosi's earlier statement on the Heathcare Bill:  "We will know what's in it when we pass it" by stating "we won't know how this works until we pass it." Perhaps it's just me, but this finally begs the question, "if none of these leading Democratic Legislators nor even the President have any idea as to what is exactly within these bills, nor how they will effect the Country--then who in the hell is writing them and exactly why?"

More Americans should now be demanding the exact and precise originators and authors of these "Area-51 Bills."  In addition, we have heard recent "rumors" of the President's possible misuse of, yet again, the Executive Order by way of  "decreeing amnesty" for illegal aliens--which would most likely create a civil/political firestorm the likes of which has not been seen since the Civil Rights era of the 60s.

In fact, the number of Decrees or Executive Orders, which are historically a President's means to circumvent an impending crisis or to immediately mitigate a damaging situation, in addition to minor procedural issues, have become an extreme point of abuse within this particular administration.  Following are a but a few of many Decrees or Executive Orders issued in 2009 and 2010 which have been mandated by the President--some of which are quite glaring in their circumvential excess:

• Executive Order requiring agencies to extend more employment benefits to partners of gay Federal workers
• Executive Order mandating "lifestyle behavior modifications" for all Americans
• Executive Order ensuring and requiring lawful interrogations of terrorism detainees
• Executive Order mandating new rules requiring tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks without waiting for Congressional approval
• Executive Order prescribing changes in Presidential records availability which would newly limit or defeat attempts to gain access if Executive Privilege were invoked
• Executive Order which widens Interpol's abilities as it regards American Citizens rights

Birthing The Authoritarian Lovechild: When Occasional Excess Becomes Business As Usual

When any Constitutional Conservative or otherwise brings up this point and alludes to the ever-increasing numbers of Decrees or non-law mandates by our leadership, they are more often than not derided and ridiculed by the Leftward Apologists rather than artfully counterpointed.  Republican Representative Joe Barton, rather unskillfully, alluded to this fact when he apologized to the executives of BP.  Virtually all members of the Right were then excoriated by many, if not most, of the Mainstream Media outlets who, more often than not, seem to serve as a sycophantic bullhorn for the Democratic members of our leadership--such as it is.

What Barton should have said was simply that BP had woefully erred and deserved much financial punishment; however, the Constitutionally derived law of the land does not allow for the stripping of property from any individual or company by decree of a President but rather only by due course of law.  In fact, once this type of Executive precedent has been set, it will most likely give birth to other additional such excesses which creates a severe if not precarious imbalance between the Judiciary and the Executive branches of government--not to mention the various Civil Society victims who might bear the brunt of such authoritarian over-reach in the future.

This particular transgression of the Presidential Decree to BP-- and the Conservative stance in our criticisms--is not and has never been about protecting  BP.  Rather, it is about power and control and the possibility of the Executive abuse that lies within.  But even further in our alarm is a seemingly growing governmental disdain regarding individual  rights and liberties as established by the US Constitution.  Remember, despite what many in the Media and otherwise might claim, authoritarianism is not and has never been a manifestation incumbent of those who are members of the Ideological Right, but rather it is an historical denizen where those of the Extreme Left make their abode.  Conservatism is always grounded in the principles of limited government while empowering the individual by self determination.

Ultimately, the President, along with the Socialist Democrats, are now making many of us writers and otherwise, as members of the "New Media," along with the Icons of Conservatism, appear to be prophets, as the frequent warnings we have been howlingly issuing are just now beginning to attract the attention of those individuals whom are paying closer attention to those in power then ever before.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

As the seemingly innocuous transgressions grow out of our leadership, many are now taking note that a number of oddities too great to ignore continue to make themselves manifest.  We recently noted the Secretary of Labor in an alarming video urging illegal aliens to report US Employers who failed to abide by minimum wage requirements.  This almost sets up a Waiver by Estoppel for aliens in that the "illegalness" of their being here in the US is totally ignored by a Government Department while legal Businesses become Villains .  We also have what may be a Federal violation on the Interstate Commerce Clause where the Federal Government has apparently sided with cities and states in boycotting Arizona, as reports indicate that the US Government has canceled a number of events earlier slated in the state of Arizona.

In addition, there was the recent ICE appointment by Obama of a Department Head, Harold Hurtt, who apparently resisted enforcing immigration laws as the police Chief of Houston, who was now in charge of promoting such laws--much like a fox in the hen house as some might put it.  Then we have the inexplicable "stealth tactics" showing up in the Gulf which promote a vague and uneasy feeling as to their seemingly counter-effective results.  For instance:

• The Coast Guard actually detained a large number of oil skimming ships from leaving port in order to conduct "life jacket" inspections, which falls under one of the world's oldest tactics at delaying a ship.  Besides, everyone knows how sailors can't swim very well.
• The blocking of oil skimming ships located in other ports of the US from being able to operate within the Gulf due to concerns that an oil leak elsewhere in the US could occur and the ships would be absent.  This would be akin to blocking a fire truck from being dispatched to one house fire due to the vague possibility that another fire could occur elsewhere.
• The blocking by the Federal Government of sand-berming operations in order to catch and trap oil offshore rather than allowing it to soak up on land.  The reasoning here was over concerns of where the sand was being dredged.  Indeed it could have upset a number of sleeping flounder and shrimp.
• A Harvard Report has indicated that Obama's emissions goals for US cars and trucks could cause gas prices to surge in a number of years to $ 7 dollars per gallon.  However, if oil production in the Gulf were severely curtailed, this could have a huge impact on world petroleum markets causing gas prices to surge and therefore allowing Green Energy efforts to become more palatable--despite the enormous impending and future costs to both the US and the world.

From America The Beautiful To America The Crucible

Almost as an exclamation point, with talk of the American economy stalling into a recession again, while the Government does nothing "practical" to induce business and, therefore, individuals, we have the most recent public utterances of both the President and Treasury Secretary Geithner.  Both made the point that America could no longer be the powering engine behind the world's economy and that the responsibility would now become the responsibility of other countries as America, in essence, falls into decline.

Were this actually the case, the President and Geithner would have no one to blame but themselves with regard to their ascension to positions of  power and the pitiful lack of positive results in their actions.  In fact, were a colossal meteor to "Deep Impact" in the heartland of America, the results would most likely be no less devastating than the repercussions American people have had to endure for the past 18 months resulting from both harmful actions and painful inaction which have proven severely damaging to the  traditional American way of life.

Most American Governments, each having faced its own crises, have virtually always found the correct way through and out of the myriad Difficulties that Countries always face.  Unfortunately, this has not yet occurred with this "Statist" administration.

We can only say to the President and his administration--wholeheartedly from the American People--in response to their utterances:

"The rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated."

Barry Secrest

Conservative Refocus

Barry Secrest

After Rush Limbaugh and many other Conservatives loudly criticized the TSA's "website exclusion" decision  of "controversial opinion" yesterday, the TSA as per the story below, reversed itself.  Had there been no outcry, the decision most likely would have stood which would have chilled freedom of access to information at the TSA;

TSA Reverses "Controversial Opinion" Web Policy

CBS News

Pia Malbran

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) reversed itself today, announcing that it will no longer block TSA employees, using work computers, from accessing websites that contain a "controversial opinion."

As CBS News first reported, the TSA on Friday informed its employees that five categories of websites would be off-limits because they were deemed "inappropriate for government access."

Those categories were: "Chat/Messaging," "Criminal activity," "Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content," "Gaming," and any websites that contained a "Controversial Opinion."

Blog: TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web

Blog: TSA Responds to Web Blocking Memo

Sources who spoke with CBS News were puzzled as to why the federal agency would block websites that contain controversial opinions and questioned whether the move would violate First Amendment rights and the freedom to access information.

At about 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, the TSA sent out another memo to its employees explaining that the category of "controversial opinion" was "an IT software catch-all phrase used to describe sites that may violate TSA's acceptable use policy, such as sites that promote destructive behavior to one's self or others."

The memo went on to say that "after further review, TSA determined this category may contain some sites that do not violate TSA's policy and therefore has concluded that the category is no longer being considered for implementation." The TSA also emphasized that it encourages the "sharing [of] ideas and opinions."

When Attorney General Eric Holder suddenly reversed course and had the DoJ dismiss the voter-intimidation case against two New Black Panther Party activists stemming from an incident in 2008 in Philadelphia, many questioned why the DoJ would quit a case it had already won. Attorneys within the DoJ wondered why the federal government had suddenly become disinterested in voter intimidation. Some, like Christian Adams, Asheesh Agarwal, and Mark Corallo have gone public with their outrage, and also wonder where the hell Congress has gone in its duty to oversee the executive branch and its enforcement of laws Congress passed.

Well, look, maybe this was just a bad day for the defendants. Maybe they were just nice young men who took civic engagement to a momentary extreme of enthusiasm. They’re probably just nice guys caught in a single instance of bad judgment … right? Er, not exactly, as Naked Emperor News and Breitbart’s B-Cast discovers after watching National Geographic:Lovely. Someone’s crackers, and I’d say it’s the people who decided to drop the case against this lunatic.