October 13, 2007
Oct 13 01:14 The Indictment Against John Murtha Oct 13 14:05 The Lies of the LA Times Oct 13 14:53 Decoding Liberalspeak Oct 13 22:35 McCain's Illogical Argument
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006
The Indictment Against John Murtha
No, he hasn't been indicted in a court of law, though I certainly wouldn't oppose it. What I'm talking about is John Murtha getting indicted in the court of public opinion. This article in the American Chronicle is a perfect example of a public indictment against Murtha:
Last year, without cause, and before any evidence or court convened to hear allegations that eight of our Marines killed innocent civilians on 11/19/05 in Haditha, Congressman Murtha, who has been propped by his congressional cronies at every opportunity as a combat war veteran accused those leathernecks of murder.John Urban nailed it with his assessment. Murtha did mount a campaign to destroy these Marines. Urban is also right in saying that Murtha's been propped up by his earmark-requesting cronies. Democrats are quick to say that they support the troops.
Murtha mounted a campaign to destroy, not as an end, but as a means to an end the following Marines: S.SGT. Frank Wuterich, Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, Lance Cpl. Steve Tatum, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, LTC. Jeff Chessani, Capt. Randy Stone, Capt. Lucas McConnel, and 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson. These individuals having gone to war for America, were rewarded with vilification in the left leaning media who happily and hurriedly gave substance to Murtha's' self proclaimed indictment, trial and conviction in the press. That a United States Congressman gave life to such a horrible occurrence fed not only the anti-war faction at home, but abroad as well.
What I'd like to know is this: what proof is there to support this claim? Are they referring to the fact that William Delahunt's staff counsel John Kivlin didn't lift a finger during Larry Hutchins' trial? Or might they be showing their support by speaking about John Murtha as a heroic figure after he played judge, jury and executioner with the Haditha Marines?
The Hutchins family and the Sharratt family don't want that type of 'support'.
As I reported here , Justin Sharratt's interview with Sean Hannity will air Sunday night on Hannity's America. With America watching, Justin will tell his story about what actually happened in Haditha. When Justin speaks real truth to real corrupt power, large parts of America will be outraged. Their fists will clench in rage that ex-Marine John Murtha trampled Justin's constitutional rights when he accused the Haditha Marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood."
They'll see red when I point out all the times that John Murtha went on CNN or MSNBC or Meet the Press and told unsubstantiated lies about Marines like Justin Sharratt, Stephen Tatum, Frank Wuterich, Randy Stone and Sanick De La Cruz.
Fast forward past the investigation into the allegations, despite "Judge Murtha's" decision and proclamation of guilt on our countrymen without a proper trial; the servicemen have their day in court. If we can presume sexual predators, rapists, and drug dealers innocent until proven guilty then the same rights exist to these individuals despite Murtha's Kangaroo Court.In May, 2006, I called my friend Leo Pusateri to tell him what Murtha had said. I told him that we should start a blogswarm against Murtha. Instead, Leo created a blog titled Murtha Must Go . Seventeen months later, our belief hasn't wavered a bit. If anything, it's intensified. We still believe with every fiber of our being that John Murtha must be run out of the House of Representatives.
And something very different is evolving from the real court these defendants stand before. Charges against four of these eight railroaded Marines have been dropped.
It's also our belief that those Democrats who won't lift a finger to chastise Murtha must be held accountable at the ballot box. If they won't support the troops by telling a corrupt politician that they don't take kindly to his throwing the pillars of our judicial system under the bus, they shouldn't be allowed to continue serving in the US House of Representatives.
It's long past time for the American people to step forward and tell John Murtha that his political power play is simply unacceptable. It's long past time for us to tell Washington that We The People won't tolerate corrupt politicians railroading genuine American heroes for temporary political purposes. It's time we told Washington that we demand leaders with integrity.
In the end, Murtha's lack of integrity is the greatest indictment against him. I pray that that's the enduring part of Murtha's legacy of shame.
Posted Saturday, October 13, 2007 2:18 PM
No comments.
The Lies of the LA Times
I didn't get far into this LA Times editorial before spotting the first hint of BDS. Look at this misstatement of fact:
After the 9/11 attacks, Bush determined that U.S. intelligence agencies needed to be more aggressive in intercepting telephone calls and e-mail between suspected foreign terrorists and people in the United States. He then faced a choice: He could publicly ask Congress to remedy what he saw as shortcomings in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that required judicial oversight of domestic wiretapping of suspected foreign agents. Or he could act on his own, and in secret, to authorize the monitoring of electronic communications involving Americans.Actually, President Bush didn't act alone. Here's what a USA Today article said about the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program:
Abetted by Vice President Dick Cheney, who long had resented what he regarded as congressional encroachment on executive authority, Bush made the latter choice.
The Bush administration briefed select members of Congress 30 times on the National Security Agency's surveillance programs since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a declassified list released Wednesday.The fact is that the Bush administration briefed the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on the program. I'll gladly admit that these meetings were confidential. After all, what's the sense of having public hearings on a confidential program aimed at not telling terrorists that we're intercepting their communications?
In other words, the Bush administration took prudent steps to prevent more terrorist attacks while keeping members of congress with the proper security clearance informed. The editorialist clearly intended to paint the image that President Bush was evil for concealing the NSA's TSP. Here's another whiny section from the editorial:
Only this year, after the election of a Democratic Congress, did Bush shift ground and agree to allow the program to be supervised by the secret federal court created by FISA.First of all, what proof does the unnamed editorialist provide to show that President Bush "pressed Congress to do much more than close" a loophole that some wacky FISA appeals court judge misguidedly created? It's likely that the editorialist is opining that that's what happened. He/she couldn't possibly know without being a member of congress who'd been lobbied by the Bush administration.
This acceptance of judicial oversight proved to be short-lived. When the court found fault with aspects of the program, reportedly ruling that FISA required the government to seek a court order for "foreign-to-foreign" communications that are routed through the United States, Bush pressed Congress to do much more than close what everyone agreed was a loophole created by advances in technology.
Secondly, I called Rep. Keith Ellison's office this week to see how he voted on the RESTORE Act. After talking with the secretary of his Minneapolis office for 2-3 minutes, she put Rep. Ellison on the phone. (To say that I was surprised would be understatement.) Rep. Ellison said that the RESTORE Act was "10 million times better than" what we currently have in place and that "FISA never applied to foreign to foreign calls." I chose not to point out the FISA appellate court judge's ruling that calls from Pakistan to Afghanistan that route through an American switch now required a warrant from the FISA Court.
In other words, only for a brief period of time was there any judicial oversight of foreign surveillance required. The editorialist implies that that's been required since FISA was enacted. It clearly wasn't.
I'd further point out that precedent says that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct reasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches. Intercepting enemy communications, especially in wartime, has always been considered a reasonable search.
Let's take Rep. Ellison at his word that "FISA never applied to foreign to foreign communications" for the sake of this discussion. That leads me to ask why the DNI and the Attorney General would have to apply for a yearlong warrant ? That's what this provision clearly states:
Sec. 105B. (a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General may jointly apply to a judge of the court established under section 103(a) for an ex parte order, or the extension of an order, authorizing for a period of up to one year the acquisition of communications of persons that are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States and not United States persons for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information (as defined in paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section 101(e)) by targeting those persons.If Rep. Ellison is right in saying that foreign to foreign communications have never been subject to FISA warrants, why should they now be required? At minimum, this seems like a provision that just creates another time-consuming and unnecessary burden for the DNI and the Attorney General.
Let's step back and ask a simple question: Did the Founding Fathers envision letting the Legislative Branch attach strings that hindered the Executive Branch's ability to protect us from attacks? I'm not a constitutional scholar but, after reading the Constitution, it's apparent that they intended for the Executive Branch to be in charge of national security and that the Legislative Branch only had oversight responsibilities.
When the dust settles, I strongly suspect that RESTORE will be substantially rewritten. I believe that because the Senate is already on record as saying they'll reject RESTORE. (Does this mean that the editorialist will characterize Senate Democrats in the same way as he/she mischaracterizes President Bush? Something tells me that that won't happen.)
For all the whining about President Bush's promised veto, there isn't a single word spoken about having the Senate agree to passing RESTORE. That seems hypocritical at minimum. Why am I not surprised that an LA Times editorial was this selective in their criticism?
Posted Saturday, October 13, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 13-Oct-07 03:22 PM
Gary,
Does the Council on Foreign Relations have BDS?
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14472/secrecy_report_card_2007.html
Among other things, they found that President Bush has used the "state secrets" priviledge to withold information from the courts, Congress and the public 39 times since 2001.
At the height of the Cold War, from 1953 to 1976, it was used just 6 times.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Oct-07 05:14 PM
Gary,
Does the Council on Foreign Relations have BDS?
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14472/secrecy_report_card_2007.html
Among other things, they found that President Bush has used the "state secrets" priviledge to withold information from the courts, Congress and the public 39 times since 2001.
At the height of the Cold War, from 1953 to 1976, it was used just 6 times.
Comment by Winston Smith 13Oct2007
That's an irrelevant point. the relevant point is that the Constitution gives the commander-in-chief the inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. That's what every appellate court has ruled. Argue all you want but precedent is precedent.
Decoding Liberalspeak
Minnesota House GOP Leader Marty Seifert has done us the great service of providing us with a 'dictionary' that puts into plain English what liberals mean when they use specific legislative terms. I strongly recommend everyone bookmark this site for future legislative sessions. I'm certain it'll be a useful tool. Let's look at a couple translations:
ATM : 1) All Taxpaying Minnesotans; 2) All The Money; 3) Automatic Taxing Machine, a mechanism by which Democrats believe they can remove (2) from (1); 4) Suburbs.Is anyone nodding their head, saying "Yeah, that's what I've always thought"? I thought so. Let's move onto some other definitions:
Budget targets : 1) the first draft of a wish list for Santa; 2) the unaffordable, passed by the unemployable, against the unprotected.
Decision making : the act of consulting with unions and leftwing radicals, then following their directions.Are you feeling sick to your stomach yet? I thought so. My apologies for putting you through this.
Enough : a term which cannot be defined by Education Minnesota or DFL special interest groups.
PS- You can't still think that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between liberals and conservatives, can you?
Just a few more. (I know you can do it. Just suck it up for the good of the team.)
Next session : the perfect time to take up any campaign promises Democrats can't keep.There. That wasn't so bad, was it? You made it through and you learned something important. The only thing scarier than the definitions is giving people like Tarryl Clark, Larry Pogemiller, Tony Sertich, Tommie the Commie Ruckavina the power to implement their warped agenda of increasing spending at unsustainable and imprudent rates.
Republican whore : a journalist who dares question a Democrat.
Isn't it better to retake the House so the GOP can set the agenda rather than praying that our goalie will block the DFL's shots ? Since we all agree that it's better to dish out than to take the DFL's punishment, isn't it time we started forging a new GOP majority in the Minnesota legislature?
Posted Saturday, October 13, 2007 2:53 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 14-Oct-07 08:49 PM
Uh oh, no plans, just attacks. Isn't this what you have been attacking national Democrats about? Gary, if the Republicans in Minnesota don't make any gains this election cycle they really ought to pack it in and go home because there will be nothing left to do but whine more about the DFL actually governing.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Oct-07 10:18 PM
Spending recklessly & increasing taxes by billions of $$$ isn't governing. It's called running yourself out of the majority.
If you think that independent voters & small businessmen will vote for DFL tax raisers again, you're really really stupid.
I've been in touch with numerous small business owners. Each has told me that their colleagues are seeing red after the DFL tried treating them like their personal ATM.
The DFL lied through their teeth last year, saying that they weren't going to raise taxes. I've got their lies recorded for posterity. Rest assured that I'll remind voters daily what the DFL liars said. Rest assured that I'll tell them how they tried ruining Minnesota's economy. Rest assured that the DFL's governing days are nearing an end.
You might as well start whining now. You'll really be whining a year from now.
Comment 3 by Political Muse at 14-Oct-07 10:35 PM
Oh Gary, you make me giggle!
This state has long accepted higher taxes in exchange for a higher standard of living. Pawlenty and the no taxes ever (unless we call it a user fee) crowd have cut our education system and others to the bare bones to the point that voters want the state to take over that burden again even if it means a raise in taxes. Anyone who is so concerned about taxes certainly didn't vote DFL last time so it really doesn't wash that somehow their angrier votes will change things dramatically. Heck, even Republicans like Arne Carlson have come down on Pawlenty for destroying the Minnesota Miracle. But hey, you keep pissing into the wind, I'm sure it'll work eventually.
McCain's Illogical Argument
John McCain criticized Rudy Giuliani for his appealing the constitutionality of the line item veto. The criticism rings hollow, though, because McCain later says that the legislation "wasn't properly written to withstand constitutional muster."
"I am deeply disappointed that Mayor Giuliani went to court to stop the president having a line-item veto so apparently he could preserve some of the projects for New York City," McCain said. "You can't be an economic conservative and in favor of fiscal discipline if you oppose the line-item veto."Being a fiscal conservative doesn't have anything to do with whether the line-item veto is constitutional. Being a fiscal conservative doesn't mean that you ignore the Constitution. The line item veto will never be constitutional unless it's passed and ratified as a Constitutional amendment. This is a phony argument. John Kasich didn't need a line item veto to be a fiscal conservative. Jack Kemp didn't need a line-item veto to be a fiscal conservative, either.
McCain's use of this argument is intellectually dishonest. If he tried this against Hillary, he'd have his head handed to him. This is just another example of why John McCain isn't intellectually honest enough to be the GOP presidential nominee. He's a good warrior on the Iraq War but he won't cause Hillary fits in the debates. Only Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani are equipped to appeal to voters when they attack Hillary's foolish proposals.
Posted Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:37 PM
No comments.
