Archive for the ‘Subversives’ Category

I remember a cartoon in Newsweek right after President Clinton ordered ground troops to Bosnia. In the next-to-last frame of the cartoon, President Clinton is telling them that he’s proud of them & that he wishes them a successful return. Then, in the final frame, he says “And don’t do anything that I wouldn’t do.” Unexpectedly, the troops say in unison “We’re already doing something you wouldn’t do” in direct reference to his avoiding the draft.

This week, we’ve had another Clinton “Don’t do nothing that I wouldn’t do” moment, thanks to former NYC Mayor Ed Koch. In his column, he’s already done what Hillary won’t do:

There are people in our country who have different views on what U.S. policy toward Iraq should be. MoveOn.org, a radical group of opponents of the Iraq war, took a full-page ad in The New York Times of Sept. 10, the day he was to testify before the House of Representatives. Under his photo, a banner headline stated, in a play on words, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

It is vile on the part of MoveOn to charge the general with betrayal of our country, even before he testified.

The Republican candidates for president have denounced MoveOn for its unfair attack on Gen. Petraeus. Most of the Democratic presidential candidates declined to do so when asked.

In other words, Ed Koch has stood up to MoveOn.org because of their disgusting NY Times ad about Gen. Petraeus. As Mayor Koch has noted, the Democratic presidential candidates haven’t shown the spine to denounce MoveOn’s ad. They’ve written a profile in political cowardice with their silence. They’d better not say that they didn’t speak up because they’re opposed to the war, either. Here’s what Mayor Koch said about that:

While I believe we should leave Iraq immediately, I respect the opinions of those who have come to a different conclusion. We are at war. The Iraqi insurgents and al Qaeda operatives want to kill us, not only U.S. military personnel in Iraq, but Americans wherever we are, including those of us in the United States.

In other words, it isn’t a matter of your position on the war, it’s a matter of not letting an organization drag an honest man’s name through the mud. That simply isn’t acceptable. So why the silence? Here’s Mayor Koch’s theory on that:

In my opinion, the Democratic candidates declined to denounce MoveOn because they fear themselves becoming the victims of a similar onslaught from the radical left. This is a cowardly position, which I hope they will rethink. It takes more than intelligence to be a good or great president. It takes integrity and courage, as well.

If he’s looking for integrity and courage, he’s looking in the wrong place. This group of candidates haven’t shown that they’ve got the fortitude it takes to pull off a Sister Souljah moment.

Mayor Koch has stated perfectly the reasons why I wrote that Sen. Obama isn’t a new type of Democrat.

I don’t know how long it’ll be but Democrats will pay a political price for not standing up to the MoveOn.haters.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That’s the question that’s squarely being asked in the aftermath of MoveOn.org’s ad about Gen. ‘Betray Us’. Specifically, the NRSC is asking that Democrats return all campaign contributions from MoveOn.org:

Senate Republicans are calling on Democrats to return political contributions they received from MoveOn.org after the anti-war group took out an ad in the New York Times calling Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us.” Sen. John Ensign, chairman of the NRSC, attacked Democrats for not failing to condemn the ad.

“Democrat front group MoveOn.org is calling a unanimously confirmed United States General a liar and betrayer of the public trust,” the Nevada Republican said in a statement. “Apparently the prospect of campaign funds is enough of an incentive for Senate Democrats to stand idly by while a respected general is maligned before he has even presented his report to Congress.

He went on: “If Senate Democrats are serious about moving our country forward, they will denounce this outrageous ad and return the campaign funds MoveOn.org has lavished on them as well as the donations made through MoveOn.org, the choice is theirs.”

There isn’t a chance that Democrats will return the campaign cash and Sen. Ensign knows it. That’s what makes this move so brilliant. Democrats are now put in the position of ostensibly admitting that they won’t separate themselves from a radical fringe organization. Democrats are now caught in a lose-lose-lose situation. If they return the campaign contributions, their warchests will be considerably smaller. Secondly, they’ll risk alienating the Nutroots activists prior to next year’s elections. Thirdly, if they don’t get rid of MoveOn.org’s money, Republicans will tie every Democrat to this ad.

Democrats quickly responded by attempting to change the subject:

A Democratic aide responded: “There’s a reason Senate Republicans’ electoral prospects are rapidly fading and it’s not just because of a bathroom in Minneapolis or a whorehouse in New Orleans. Instead of playing politics with national security, they should join Senate Democrats who are working to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home.”

That’s one of the lamest responses I’ve ever seen. Why should Republicans “join Senate Democrats who are working to” unilaterally declare defeat?

Here’s MoveOn.org’s ad:

The biggest bald-faced lie is in this sentence:

“Every independent report on the ground situation shows that the surge strategy has failed.”

That isn’t the conclusion that Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon reached. That isn’t the opinion of Ralph Peters. Rep. Brian Baird and Rep. Keith Ellison certainly don’t think that it’s failed.

Here’s what Col. Peters told Bill O’Reilly:

MoveOn.org couldn’t care less about what’s actually happening in Iraq because they’re consumed with using the war to seize as much political power as possible in Washington, DC. They didn’t start their campaign against the war because they thought it had turned south. They started it because they’re pacifists who think that all war is wrong. Simply put, they’re despicable liars who’ll do anything to get their way.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That’s the essence of this NY Times article. I’ll respond to that with a question: Is it wrong for non-Muslims to question the actions of Rep. Keith Ellison, who claims that he’s a mainstream Muslim, when he speaks at the MAS-Minnesota convention? Is it a mainstream Muslim belief that they can spew anti-Semitism on their websites but then pretend to be friends of Jews? Is it a mainstream Muslim practice to refuse to denounce the anti-Semitism found on MAS-Minnesota’s website? That’s what Rep. Ellison has refused to do for over 90 days.

According to Dictionary.com, the definition of stereotype is “a too-simple and therefore distorted image of a group, such as “Football players are stupid” or “The English are cold and unfriendly people.” How is it stereotyping when we’re providing specific, accurate reasons for mistrusting specific Muslims? According to the Dictionary.com definition, stereotypes are categorical in nature. The questions I have are specific and directed at specific people and organizations.

Since the definition of stereotyping is essentially oversimplification, doesn’t my referring to specific events and people prove that I’m not stereotyping? For instance, I’m not saying that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is a terrorist or a terrorist-sympathizer. I won’t make that statement without there being a basis in fact for the statement. Here’s something from the NY Times article that plays into the ‘stereotyping’ meme:

A fresh example cited was an open letter from two Republican House members, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan and Sue Myrick of North Carolina, that attacked the Justice Department for sending envoys to the convention because, the lawmakers said, the Islamic Society of North America was a group of “radical jihadists.”

The lone Muslim in Congress, Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, the keynote speaker here, dismissed the letter as ill informed and typical of bigoted attacks that other minorities have suffered.

Being lectured by Keith Ellison on the issue of bigotry is insulting. Since Rep. Ellison refuses to denounce the anti-semitic statements found on the MAS-Minnesota website, why should we take his accusations of bigotry seriously?

I’d further challenge Rep. Ellison to provide proof that ISNA isn’t a “group of ‘radical jihadists'”. Here’s my proof that they are:

Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was co-founded by convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) leader Sami Al-Arian. Here’s a list of former ISNA members and their profiles:

Sirhaj Wahhaj:

Siraj Wahhaj was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and testified as a character witness for convicted terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. According to Salon.com, in a 1991 speech before the Islamic Association of North Texas, Wahhaj called Operation Desert Storm “one of the most diabolical plots ever in the annals of history,” and predicted that America will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has openly expressed his desire to see the American government replaced with a caliphate.

Muzammil Siddiqi:

Muzammil Siddiqi is the former president of the board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Saudi-funded organization that is used by the Muslim World League (MWL) to finance and exercise control over most of the mosques in the United States. Prior to his work at ISNA, Siddiqi was a top figure in the MWL, whose American headquarters in Virginia were raided by a Treasury Department task force in March 2002 on suspicion of ties to terrorism. Siddiqi has also chaired the Religious Affairs Committee of the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada. In addition, he is a member of the Fiqh Council, another government-raided entity.

Abdullah Idris Ali:

Abdullah Idris Ali served as president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) from 1992-1997. ISNA enforces Wahhabi theological writ in some 1,200 American mosques, determining who will speak at every Friday prayer, and which literature will be distributed there. Ali is a member of the board of trustees for the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a Saudi Wahhabi financial institution that, according to a CAIR report, owns about 27 percent of the estimated 1,200 mosques in the United States. Wahhabism is the most extreme, intolerant, violent form of Islam. Ali is also on the board of advisors for the American Muslim Council (AMC), whose founder and leader, Abdul Rahman Alamoudi, has publicly proclaimed his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Moreover, Alamoudi was arrested in September 2003 for illegally failing to notify the U.S. State Department of his numerous trips to Libya; illegally accepting $10,700 from the Libyan mission to the United Nations; and using two American and one Yemeni passport for at least ten of those trips.

I can further add that Alamoudi was the chief fundraiser for the legal defense funds for Omar Abdel Rahman and Mousa Abu Marzook:

Hillary Clinton has worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who has openly collected funds for the legal defense of Mr Marzook, the Hamas chieftain arrested at JFK Airport, and for Mr. Abdel-Rahman, who organized the World Trade Center bombing.

In other words, ISNA’s leadership over the years was littered with men convicted of terrorist activities. They’ve even raised money for Hamas chieftains and the Blind Sheikh, the mastermind behind the first World Trade Center bombing. Given that type of history, why shouldn’t Rep. Hoekstra and Rep. Myrick call ISNA “a group of ‘radical jihadists'”?

It goes even further than that. Here are the speakers at this year’s ISNA Convention:

I find it strange that ISNA invited Siraj Wahhaj, who testified as a character witness for the Blind Sheikh, to be a featured speaker at their 44th annual convention. I find it perplexing that they’d invite Muzammil Siddiqi to be a featured speaker at their convention, especially considering he was the man responsible for enforcing the teaching of extremist Wahhabist teachings in mosques all across the United States. It’s noteworthy that al-Qa’ida practices Wahhabist Islam.

Considering all this information, how can Rep. Ellison say that Rep. Hoekstra and Rep. Myrick are “ill-informed” whose letter was “typical of bigoted attacks that other minorities have suffered”? Rep. Ellison should have to explain why he thinks Rep. Hoekstra and Rep. Myrick are bigots. Their criticism of ISNA isn’t based on this definition of bigotry:

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

Quite the contrary, Myrick’s and Hoekstra’s accusations against ISNA are based on actions, mostly based on the illegal actions of ISNA’s past leadership. Myrick’s and Hoekstra’s accusations don’t come close to fitting the official definition of bigotry. Ellison’s accusations of bigotry should be ignored. Rep. Ellison, like his CAIR friends, use the word bigotry as frequently as they use the word Islamophobia.

Leaders of American Muslim organizations attribute the growing intolerance to three main factors: global terrorist attacks in the name of Islam, disappointing reports from the Iraq war and the agenda of some supporters of Israel who try taint Islam to undermine the Palestinians.

I’ll speak only for myself. The reason I’ve criticized specific Muslims is because of their verified actions. My criticisms don’t have anything to do with “disappointing reports from Iraq.” They certainly don’t have anything to do with what supporters of Israel are saying. Most of the people that I’ve criticized in this post have been convicted of criminal activities relating to terrorists. I’d doubt that the average person would say that my criticisms are bigoted, though I’m certain that Rep. Ellison and other CAIR/ISNA mouthpieces would instantly criticize me as an ill-informed, and possibly bigoted, Islamophobe.

That’s just part of the territory when reporting on people who’ll say anything to draw attention away from their illegal and unsavory behavior.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Abdi Aynte, one of Keith Ellison’s biggest supporters, used Minnesota Monitor to deny Keith Ellison’s being the Grand Marshal of the Sept. 9 Muslim Day Parade in New York City. Here’s what Mr. Aynte said:

Contrary to reports circulating widely in conservative publications and blogs in recent days, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison will not be the grand marshal of the Muslim parade in New York next month, according to his office.

The freshman Democrat from Minneapolis was never scheduled to be there, said Brian Elliot, district director for Ellison.

Elliot said the congressman “was equally surprised” when he learned the buzz that he would be the grand marshal for the 22nd Annual Muslim Day Parade in New York City, which is scheduled for Sept. 9. Ellison “declined the offer to be the grand marshal a long time ago because he has other obligations in the district,” said Elliot.

The first question I’d ask after reading Elliot’s statement is which specific obligation within Rep. Ellison’s district is preventing him from being the Grand Marshal at the Muslim Day Parade? Another question I’d ask is why this supposedly important obligation within his district isn’t listed on his events calender. According to his events calendar, Rep. Ellison’s next event is for Sunday, Sept. 23 on the subject of health care.

Mr. Elliot might want to contact the Muslim Foundation of America and find out why they posted this flyer on their website announcing Rep. Ellison as the Grand Marshal:

Aynte made a major mistake when he wrote this:

In her “Rogues Gallery of Radical Islam” column, Canada Free Press’ Judi McCleod wrote that Ellison’s alleged role in the parade would have been “totally ignored were it not for the courage of a single freelance journalist.” Yet that journalist, FrontPage magazine writer Joe Kaufman, seems to have ignored a basic tenet of reporting: fact-checking.
(Ed.- emphasis mine)

I’ve known Joe for almost two years now. Joe is nothing if not meticulous. Accusing Joe of not fact-checking his work is laughable at best. In light of the fact that we now have visual proof that MFA had created a flier stating that Keith Ellison would be the Grand Marshal of the Muslim Day Parade, I think it only fair that Minnesota Monitor, Keith Ellison and Abdi Aynte apologize to Joe.

I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that apology, especially in light of the fact that it’s been 87 days since Keith Ellison spoke at the Muslim American Society Annual Convention. At the time of Rep. Ellison’s speech, the MAS-MN website contained these anti-semitic remarks:

  • The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews, but continue exerting his utmost to establish the Right Way in accordance with the Guidance of the Quran; for nothing better could be expected from those who had forsaken their own Torah. He should deal with the Christians likewise, for they, too, had forsaken their Gospel. 41 – 50
  • In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants. Likewise they should be on their guard against the evil designs of the hypocrites, the disbelievers and the like and should rely on the true Believers alone. The people of the Book have, in their turn been exhorted to give up their enmity and adopt the right attitude, for they cannot get salvation without this. 51 – 69
  • The theme of the corruptions of the Jews and Christians has been resumed. The Christians especially have been reproved for their errors in regard to the doctrine of Tauhid. At the same time they have been preferred to the hard hearted Jews, for there are among them some who are more inclined towards the Truth. 70 – 86

Thinking that Ellison will do the right thing, whether it’s denouncing anti-semitic statements or admitting that he knew that he was the Grand Marshal of the Muslim Day Parade, isn’t something that I’m anticipating. It’s obvious that Rep. Ellison, Abdi Aynte and Brian Elliot consider telling the truth an option, not an obligation.

Finally, I’d suggest to the people at Minnesota Monitor that they’d better do a more thorough job of fact checking. Let’s hope that Friday’s post is the exception, not the rule.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

According to this article, the Thomas More Law Center has agreed to represent Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani in a civil suit against Rep. John Murtha if/when the charges against him are dropped. Here’s some of the details from the article:

The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center is representing Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani (USMC), who has been charged with not fully investigating the events at Haditha, Iraq, and failing to report a Law of War violation, in the aftermath of the November 19, 2005, incident that led to the death of 24 Iraqi civilians. Spokespersons for the legal group hope the convening officer in the investigation will throw out the charges as he already has for two of the six other men charged in the case. Chessani is the highest ranking officer charged in the case.

Congressman Murtha, a prominent war critic, last year accused U.S. Marines of shooting and killing unarmed civilians near the scene of an attack on a military convoy, then going into two homes and shooting others. According to Brian Rooney with the Law Center, Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, one of the other defendants in the investigation, is already suing Murtha for those comments. Rooney argues the Pennsylvania Democrat should be held accountable for taking the word of Iraqi insurgents and calling the Marines “cold-blooded murderers.”

“Staff Sergeant Wuterich’s attorneys are suing Congressman Murtha for liable for saying that the Marines were cold-blooded murderers, so that suit’s still ongoing,” the attorney explains, adding that the Law Center is considering taking similar action.

“We’re exploring our options…in that regard because Murtha said that officers covered this up, which is explicitly naming our client as covering it up,” says Rooney. “So once we get through with this court-martial, and hopefully it goes our way, then we’re going to look at whether or not we should take a hard look at Congressman Murtha as well.”

If charges are dropped against Lt. Col. Chessani and Sgt. Wuterich, Rep. Murtha could be looking at spending alot of time in a courtroom in the near future. John Murtha should be held to account for leveling these serious accusations against the Haditha Marines. Based on this timeline, it’s obvious that Rep. Murtha has a difficult time keeping his story straight. It isn’t a stretch to think that he’s having those troubles because he’s basing his opinions on ideology instead of verifiable facts.

Here’s one of the things I pointed out in the timeline:

GIBSON: Jonathan just mentioned, there’s no charges yet filed against any of the Marines that were in this outfit, but Jonathan mentioned a moment ago, defense lawyers are already saying, well, there’s drone video and there is actual radio traffic to higher-ups that will give a different picture than you have been talking about of this incident. What do you know about that?

MURTHA: I can only tell you this, Charles. This is what the Marine Corps told me at the highest level. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards and there’s no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn’t excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.

This point was also mentioned in the article:

In comments during a June 2006 interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson, Murtha stated, after a meeting with high-level Marines: “I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards, and there’s no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story.”

The first time I read that sentence, I couldn’t believe my eyes. As I’ve said elsewhere, if you know that a coverup happened, you’d be able to state specifically where the coverup happened and who was involved in the coverup. You might even produce a timeline or flowchart showing who was involved in the alleged coverup.

It’s my opinion that, if you can’t produce such things, then you don’t really know that a coverup happened. You might suspect that a coverup happened but that isn’t the same as knowing it, is it? I haven’t seen anything in news articles or in my personal investigation that says Rep. Murtha has any verifiable proof of his allegations. That leads me to believe that Rep. Murtha’s allegations will never be proven.

I’ve often reminded commenters here that “allegations aren’t proof.” Allegations that aren’t backed up by eyewitness accounts or a taped conversation or an email are simply allegations. Let’s turn this around to see what the Haditha Marines can verify. Here’s what I wrote awhile back that fits into this conversation:

The battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day’s events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation.

Jeffrey Dinsmore is the name of the S2 intel officer. Capt. Dinsmore testified that he heard gunfire coming into his observation station. He also scanned the video coming in from the UAV that was filming the firefight. That would be the firefight that Rep. Murtha said didn’t happen.

If the charges are dropped against Sgt. Wuterich and Lt. Col. Chessani, then I’d say that Rep. Murtha will be staring at a mountain of verifiable proof that contradicts the allegations he’s made against the Haditha Marines.

Based on this information, it’s isn’t surprising that Matt Mazonkey, his press person, won’t return my phone calls. The last thing that Mr. Mazonkey wants to do is try and defend Rep. Murtha against someone who’s got a command of the issues surrounding the Haditha Marines.

Unfortunately for his boss, his days of denial might soon end. The days of his having to defend himself in court might just be beginning.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

My good friend Darryl Sharratt just posted the good news on Freepers. Here’s what Darryl posted:

At 7:00 PST, 9 August 2007 Justin and his attorney met with a Marine Corps representative in an office at Camp Pendleton, CA. At this time, my son LCpl Justin Sharratt, was handed an official Marine Corps Disposition of Charges document declaring the charges stemming from the 19 November 2005 Haditha engagement have been officially dismissed. The last line of the two page Disposition Of Charges document ended with these words from the General, “And as you have always remained cloaked in the presumption of innocence, with this dismissal of charges, you remain in the eyes of the law- and in my eyes- innocent.” Lt. Gen James T. Mattis

Jim Robinson—My family would like to offer you a sincere and deep felt thank you. During our darkest days you allowed us to publish our story here on Free Republic. When others went deaf, you listened and you heard. Our belief in God, our belief in the innocence of our son and the support and prayers of the American people helped us through this rough ordeal. Our family has met a group of American patriots here on FR that my words fall short in thanking. You helped us through these trying times with your support, thoughts and financial assistance. My family is truly proud to be an American family. You took us in and made us part of Your Family. For that I can never thank you enough.

With the General’s announcement of the exoneration of my son, LCpl Justin L. Sharratt, part of our journey has ended. Another has just begun. We will put our lives together and continue the fight for the remaining Haditha Marines. By now, you know these men. They are part of my family and I know you have made them part of yours. My son served with these men and he would have given up his life for them. I hope to find justice for these Marines and the battle has just begun. God Bless.

Redrover, Madison Marine, Girlene, Marine Uncle, Eagles6, Semper Fi Mom, Jazusamo, 4 woodenboats, LanceyHoward, brityank, pinkpanther, Chickenhawk Warmonger, RaceBannon, xzins, velveeta, freema and others- names, with no faces. You helped my family through this and we may never be able to express our gratitude. Thank You!!!!!!

I can’t wait to talk with Darryl again. I can’t imagine the joy that’s sweeping through the Sharratt family this instant. This has been an arduous, emotional ordeal for their family, especially since the charges appeared shaky from the beginning.

Knowing Darryl a little bit, I know that he’s committed to getting justice for all of the Marines in Kilo Company. Capt. Randy Stone also had his charges dropped:

All charges were dropped against a captain accused of failing to investigate the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha, the Marine Corps announced Thursday. Also, all charges were dropped against Marine Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt, who had been accused of killing three Iraqi brothers in response to a roadside bomb attack in Haditha in 2005.

Capt. Randy W. Stone, 35, a battalion lawyer from Dunkirk, Md., was one of four officers charged with failing to adequately probe the killings. “It is clear to me that any error of omission or commission by Capt. Stone does not warrant action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice,” Lt. Gen. James Mattis wrote.

Talk about good news coming in bunches!!! This is indeed great news. This is also proof that seemingly ordinary men who tirelessly seek the truth will be rewarded. One man that fits that description is Tim Harrington. Tim has worked so hard on digging out evidence of these men’s innocence that he’s become an ‘adopted’ member of these Marines’ families. Justice-loving people should thank Tim for his role in exposing the holes in the prosecution’s cases.

Gen. Mattis did the right thing in dropping the charges against LCpl. Justin Sharratt and Capt. Stone. I wish he’d just done it sooner.

There’s more than a few ‘down arrows’ to go around. One of them goes to Rep. John Murtha. On May 17, 2006, Rep. Murtha declared that these Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” We now know that that’s been proven false beyond all doubt. Furthermore, Rep. Murtha declared that these Marines had covered this up and that “It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine.”

Two groups of people deserving of swift boots in the pants are the NCIS investigators and JAG prosecutors. They’ve wrongly accused these American heroes of horrific crimes. What’s worse is that they kept going after hearing Jeffrey Dinsmore’s testimony:

As previously reported by NewsMax, the battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day’s events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation.

Here’s what we know from Capt. Dinsmore’s testimony:

  • Intelligence gathered by Marine S2 officers in advance of the events of Nov. 19th, 2005, revealed that it was known that an insurgent ambush was planned for the day.
  • Although exact details of the planned ambush were not known, some important details were revealed, most importantly, that some 20 insurgents would take part, and a white car would play an important role in the ambush.
  • The intelligence was made available to the officers and men of Kilo Company, including Sgt. Frank Wuterich who has been charged with, among other things, murdering the occupants of a white car that came on the scene following the IED explosion that killed one Marine and seriously wounded another. The evidence will show that Wuterich acted appropriately when he shot the passengers of the vehicle.
  • Although the media continues to report that 24 innocent civilians were killed that day, the S2’s testimony shows that eight of the dead, including four of the five occupants in the white car killed by Wuterich, were known insurgents and the dead civilians therefore numbered 16, not 24.
  • The insurgents whose communications were intercepted and which revealed the planned ambush were the same two men who were the sources of the fallacious and dishonest Time magazine story, which was the source of the accusations against the Marines.
  • As previously reported by NewsMax, the battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day’s events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation. None!

This begs several questions of the JAG prosecutors:

  • Considering they knew about Capt. Dinsmore’s testimony, why did they continue onto other Article 32 hearings?
  • Considering Capt. Dinsmore’s testimony, isn’t it impossible to sustain the charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani for dereliction of duty?
  • Considering the fact that LCpl. Sharratt and Sgt. Frank Wuterich are accused of the same crimes, shouldn’t his charges be dropped, too?

Shouldn’t John Murtha (a) apologize to these genuine American heroes, (b) apologize to their families, (c) apologize to the Marine Corps and finally (d) resign from the House of Representatives for having leveled these charges without so much as even been briefed on the results of the investigations?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

MoveOn.org and other liberal hate groups are taking note of who’s advertising on FNC. Their goal is to build a database of FNC sponsors, then use that list in a phone call campaign to threaten these businesses with financial ruin if they continue advertising with FNC.

MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America’s Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.

How is this not blacklisting these advertisers? This is the most despicable enterprise I’ve seen in my entire political life and that’s saying something. This is essentially the Fairness Doctrine achieved without legislation or regulation. The goal is simple: silence opposing points of view through threats, intimidation and financial ruin.

That phone campaign is meant to silence FNC by threatening companies into pulling their advertising dollars from FNC. The proper response isn’t to threaten CNN’s or MSNBC’s advertisers. It’s to make Daily Kos, MoveOn.org and this coalition of organizations pay a heavy political price for their actions.

The other thing that’s necessary is for GOP activists to tell people of good will that this campaign is meant to silence differing points of view. It’s vitally important to tell these people that this has a chilling effect on journalists everywhere, regardless of ideology. Today, FNC is the target. This certainly isn’t their final target, though. After watching what MoveOn and Daily Kos and other liberal hate groups did to Joe Lieberman last year, does anyone think that their next set of targets won’t include media organizations who aren’t ‘compliant enough’ with their ideology?

I’d bet the proverbial ranch that that next set of targets will include liberal media outlets who aren’t ‘progressive enough’.

VOTER BEWARE: This shows these organizations’ true nature. At their core, they are dictatorial, hateful and intolerant of opposing points of view. In my opinion, that’s the personification of evil and McCarthyism. They aren’t satisfied with getting their way most of the time. Their goal is getting their way all of the time. Based on their willingness to silence media outlets that offer people a different perspective of the news, shouldn’t America worry that Daily Kos, MoveOn and likeminded organizations won’t think twice about silencing any opposing voices, whether it’s through the Fairness Doctrine, threats of financial ruin or whatever tool is available?

At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials. “It’s a lot more effective for Sam’s Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company,” Gilliam said.

It’s time that we broke out the double-barrels against these hatemongers. It’s time that we highlighted their utter lack of respect for the First Amendment. It’s time that we realized the Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America’s Future and other likeminded organizations aren’t interested in having a dialogue with America’s voters. It’s time we realized that they’re interested only in dictating the terms by which they dominate the political landscape.

To say that I’m furious is an understatement of historic proportions. Not that I agree with it, but it’s one thing to boycott a business with whom you disagree. It’s an entirely different matter when you try silencing media outlets.

Threatening to ruin businesses who advertise on media outlets that you disagree with is the essence of censorship. Threatening businesses who advertise on FNC is meant to intimidate FNC. That’s the ultimate in fascism. It’s something a freedom loving people can’t tolerate.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

I just finished reading John Hinderaker’s post about how Democrats put a higher priority on political gains than on national security. Just thinking about how they’ve undermined the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program is enough to get me fuming. When I think of how they gave NCLR veto power over major provisions in the ‘Grand Bargain’ negotiations, I get even more furious. Let’s start with how Democrats have crippled a valuable tool in surveilling the terrorists’ communications:

This has turned out to be an enormous mistake that has unilaterally disarmed one of our best intelligence weapons in the war on terror. To understand why, keep in mind that we live in a world of fiber optics and packet-switching. A wiretap today doesn’t mean the FBI must install a bug on Abdul Terrorist’s phone in Peshawar. Information now follows the path of least resistance, wherever that may lead. And because the U.S. has among the world’s most efficient networks, hundreds of millions of foreign calls are routed through the U.S.

That’s right: If an al Qaeda operative in Quetta calls a fellow jihadi in Peshawar, that call may well travel through a U.S. network. This ought to be a big U.S. advantage in our “asymmetrical” conflict with terrorists. But it also means that, for the purposes of FISA, a foreign call that is routed through U.S. networks becomes a domestic call. So thanks to the obligation to abide by an outdated FISA statute, U.S. intelligence is now struggling even to tap the communications of foreign-based terrorists. If this makes you furious, it gets worse.

Our understanding is that some FISA judges have been open to expediting warrants, as well as granting retroactive approval. But there are 11 judges in the FISA rotation, and some of them have been demanding that intelligence officials get permission in advance for wiretaps. This means missed opportunities and less effective intelligence. And it shows once again why the decisions of unaccountable judges shouldn’t be allowed to supplant those of an elected Commander in Chief.

When the program began, certain U.S. telecom companies also cooperated with the National Security Agency. But they were sued once the program was exposed, and so some have ceased cooperating for fear of damaging liability claims. We found all of this hard to believe when we first heard it, but we’ve since confirmed the details with other high-level sources.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell more or less admitted the problem last week, albeit obliquely, when he told the Senate that “we’re actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting.” That’s understating things. Our sources say the surveillance program is now at most one-third as effective as it once was.

The administration has introduced legislation to modernize FISA and to give immunity to telecom companies who cooperate in terrorist surveillance, but the Democrats have blocked the legislation.

In other words, Democrats are blocking legislation that would modernize a thirty year old law so that we aren’t hamstrung in fighting the greatest threat in several generations. When the next terrorist attack happens, I’ll be pointing the finger of blame right at the Democrats who decided that pursuing the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney was infinitely more important than making America safer.

History will also show that Republicans were serious about maintaining our sovereignty while Democrats saw illegal immigration as their next voter registration drive. Historians will be justified if they judge Ted Kennedy’s role in not securing the borders in a harsh light. Sen. Kennedy insisted on NCLR having a seat at the negotiating table. NCLR is a major advocate of family reunification, which isn’t technically an open borders policy but it isn’t far from it either.

Let’s also not lose sight of the fact that Democrats fought against building the border fence. After they voted to build the fence, Dick Durbin tried passing an amendment saying that we had to consult Mexico before we built it. In fact, Democrats didn’t just fight against the building of the fence, they ridiculed it after the bill passed:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, (D-Chappaquiddick), called the fence “a bumper sticker solution for a complex problem.” “It’s a feel-good plan that will have little effect in the real world,” he said. “We all know what this is about. It may be good politics, but it’s bad immigration policy. That’s not what Americans want.”

Kennedy is wrong in saying that it won’t have much effect “in the real world.” As Duncan Hunter points out, border security improved dramatically immediately after they built the fence in San Diego.

It isn’t a stretch to say that Democrats don’t have a way of protecting us from future terrorist attacks. If they were serious about it, they wouldn’t have effectively shut down the NSA intercept program and they certainly wouldn’t have opposed securing our borders with the vigor that they did.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That’s the underlying message of this Pelosi statement on their vote of Contempt of Congress charges against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers:

“The contempt proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee today are part of a broader effort by House Democrats to restore our nation’s fundamental system of checks and balances.
“The Constitution gives the Congress a crucial role in overseeing the Executive Branch in order to protect the American people against overreaching, incompetence, and corruption. I am hopeful that today’s vote will help the Administration see the light and release the information to which the Judiciary Committee is entitled.
“For the last six years, under Republican leadership, Congress failed to conduct its proper oversight role, resulting in fiascos such as the mismanagement of our Iraq policy, widespread corruption by contractors such as Halliburton, and the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.
“Congress will act to preserve and protect our criminal justice system and to ensure appropriate Congressional oversight in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people.”

Ms. Pelosi’s willful ignorance of the Constitution is breathtaking. The Constitution gives Congress oversight responsibilities and subpoena powers on cabinet members. It doesn’t give them the same responsibilities and powers of members of a president’s personal staff unless they can show beforehand that a crime has been committed. Clearly, that isn’t the case here.

Should Ms. Pelosi and her cronies pursue this, the Supreme Court will shoot their case down. In addition to the House overstepping its constitutional bounds, it appears as though Senate Democrats are following suit:

Leahy also said he was issuing a subpoena for J. Scott Jennings, a White House political aide. The deadline for him and Rove to comply was set as Aug. 2.

“For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail,” the Vermont lawmaker said. “They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents.”

Patrick Leahy knows that he’ll get shot down the minute the Supreme Court hears the part about Karl Rove. Because Rove is the president’s assistant Chief of Staff and not subject to congressional confirmation hearings, and because Leahy can’t prove that Rove has committed a crime of any sort, the Supreme Court will rule that their subpoena isn’t constitutional.

This isn’t surprising considering how Democrats’ affinity for ignoring the Constitution. The most recent case in point is John Murtha’s persistently ignoring the Haditha Marines’ most basic rights to a fair trial, their presumption of innocence and their due process rights.

It’s noteworthy that House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers’ didn’t think twice about impeaching President Bush without a shred of evidence that President Bush had committed any high crimes or misdemeanors.

Consider the constitutional crisis we might well find ourselves in if Democrats keep their majority in Congress following the 2008 elections. That’s a frightening thought if ever there was one.

UPDATE: The Justice Department has told the House Judiciary Committee that they wouldn’t enforce their subpoena:

White House counsel Fred Fielding has said Miers, Bolten and other top presidential aides are immune from congressional subpoenas. The Justice Department told the committee that any House-passed contempt citation that might be forwarded to the U.S. attorney for grand jury consideration would not be allowed to proceed.

The Republican former chairman of the House committee, James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, suggested that the Democrats go to court to challenge the White House stand.

It’s great seeing the Justice Department standing their ground. It’s long past time that the Bush administration played hardball with these liberals.

“If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn’t even have to bother to show up, where privilege can be asserted on the thinnest basis and in the broadest possible manner, then we have already lost,” Conyers, (D-MI), said before the vote. “We won’t be able to get anybody in front of this committee or any other.”

It’s time that Rep. Conyers quit with with the histrionics. He knows that there’s a clear delineation between cabinet officials and the President’s personal staff. I’m certain that that’s part of ConLaw 101. I can’t imagine a scenario where anyone to the right of Joe Lieberman would take him seriously. Much like Russ Feingold, he’s a joke and a tool of the extreme left.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

By now, everyone knows that Keith Ellison apologized for his comparing the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 with the Reichstag Fire. In today’s press, that likely means that all is forgiven amongst the Agenda Media. I, however, remain skeptical of Keith Ellison’s apology. Here’s why:

Anyone that co-sponsors a bill that calls for the impeachment of an administration’s vice president tells me that he doesn’t just disagree with that administration; he’s loathe to it.

If you read H. RES 333, you’ll immediately recognize that the first two articles of impeachment accuse Vice President Cheney of lying outright. The third article of impeachment accuses Vice President Cheney of “openly threaten[ing] aggression against Iran” despite “no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States…”

This isn’t just an exercise in venting one’s frustrations; it’s an article-by-article declaration that the vice president is evil. I don’t arrive at those conclusions simply out of disgust with Keith Ellison’s comparing President Bush to Hitler.

I’m also factoring in Keith Ellison’s statements comparing violent gangs like the Bloods with ‘civil rights advocates’:

“The people who govern this society,” he suggested, are “incarcerating all these young black men” in some kind of retribution for the victories of ’60s civil rights activists, and those who campaigned to “free Nelson Mandela.” For the powerful, he said, the “very idea of…black people having civil rights has got to be obliterated with [obviously] the criminal justice system and incarceration.”

Anyone that thinks that violent gangsters are victims that need special civil rights protections, it isn’t a stretch to think that he’s got an authority complex.

In other words, it isn’t unreasonable to think that Keith Ellison (a) said exactly what he meant and (b) that he’s now apologizing without meaning it. Frankly, I think it’s quite likely that Keith Ellison was ordered to apologize to get a PR disaster off the front page.

My opinions of Keith Ellison aren’t made in a vacuum. This is someone who doesn’t show the least bit of remorse after speaking at an anti-semitic organization’s annual convention, something for which he still hasn’t apologized.

He also hasn’t apologized for his comments about cop-killer Kathleen Soliah. Instead, he’s praised her:

Ellison praised Soliah for “fighting for freedom.”

Here’s another Ellison quote about Soliah:

“We need to come together and free…all the Saras,” he proclaimed.

Here’s one of the “Saras” that Ellison was thinking of:

Like Assata Shakur, Ellison told his audience. Shakur is a former member of the Black Liberation Army, a “revolutionary activist organization,” who killed a New Jersey state trooper “execution-style at point-blank range,” according to the FBI’s Wanted Fugitives website.

Shakur escaped from prison in 1979, and eventually fled to Cuba. She “should be considered armed and extremely dangerous,” says the FBI, which is offering a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to her apprehension.

Ellison, however, lauded Shakur. “I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they’re going to get Assata Shakur, they’re going to get a whole lot of other people,” he told the crowd. “I hope the Cuba[n] people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.”

Frankly, I don’t think that I’m stepping out on a limb when I say that Keith Ellison has an anti-authority attitude. I think I’m stepping on solid ground. I think Keith Ellison was instructed by Nancy Pelosi to apologize so they could get this incident in their rearview ASAP. I’ll just leave you with this question:

Can a person with a history of supporting the vilest criminals in society really feel remorse for comparing President Bush with Adolph Hitler? You know my answer.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative