There’s nothing quite so arrogant as an arrogant liberal occupying a position of power. Connecticut senate candidate Richard Blumenthal’s non-apologetic apology over his false claims to have served in Vietnam was a case point. Last week, another liberal Democrat, Illinois congressman Phil Hare (D -17) was in the news again, this time for allegedly threatening a constituent who called the congressman out over his fatuous claims of being a veteran.

You may remember Phil Hare. He was filmed telling a constituent that he doesn’t worry about the Constitution. It was a stupid thing to say, but I’m inclined to give Hare the benefit of the doubt regarding the Constitution. In the context the question he was being asked – where in the Constitution does it say that Americans have the right to health care? – he probably meant that he felt that the healthcare bill would survive a constitutional challenge, rather than thumbing his nose at that hallowed document itself. Not that many a Democrat doesn’t think in the latter terms, but they surely know better than to express such an opinion.

What was more troubling in that video was the sneering arrogance that seemed to seethe through congressman Hare’s very pores. Hare sounded more like a feudal lord putting an annoying peasant in his rightful place for daring to question his master’s wisdom than he did an elected representative addressing the legitimate inquiries of an obviously upset and concerned constituent. But, perhaps Phil Hare was just having a bad day? It seems not. The latest accusations leveled against the congressman are enough to make one question not just his qualifications to serve in the United States Congress, but whether he would be fit to lead a Boy Scout troop.

Hare has repeatedly called himself a “veteran.” In fact, he joined the reserves during the Vietnam era and was never called to active service. By most legal definitions of the word, and most importantly to most real veterans themselves, a former reservist is not entitled to call himself a veteran. When a former reservist uses their honored word, real veterans get touchy, and understandably so. If such a deception doesn’t qualify as a case of full-blown stolen honor, it’s certainly matter of taking out an extended, zero-interest loan against the honor of those men and women who earned the title.

Ken Moffett, a constituent of Hare’s from Moline, Illinois and an actual veteran, asked the congressman to stop describing himself using the term to which – in Moffett’s and many a veteran’s view – Hare is not entitled. The congressman’s reaction was so offensive that Moffett was moved to pen a letter to Blake Chisam, committee staff director and chief counsel of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Ethics). The following excerpt from that letter, dated June 2, 2010, describes what Moffett says happened during his encounter with Hare:

“After I pointed out that according to the law he is not a veteran, he became very upset and demanded to know my name. I refused to tell him my name, saying that this was about his claim of being a veteran and not about me.

Mr. Hare then told one of his aides who was with him, to follow me to my car and get my license plate number so he could find out who I was. I have since been told that Mr. Hare’s daughter works for the DMV.

I then asked Mr. Hare if he was going to stop telling people that he was a veteran. Mr. Hare again demanded to know my name, and again told his aide to get my name or to follow me to get me license number so he could find out who I was, so he could tell the former reservists what I said.

I asked Mr. Hare if he as a public official was going to use his official office to run name checks on private citizens, in order to intimidate them into not asking questions he did not want to answer.

As Mr. Hare was turning to walk away from me he paused, and turning back to my direction, he glared at me intently, and while leaning forward pointed his finger at me, and in a threatening and intimidating manner said, “I’ll find out who you are!”

Aside from tossing in the obligatory “and your little dog too!” Hare sounds a lot more like the Wicked Witch of the West than a reasoned and sober representative of the people according to Moffett’s account. The arrogance and veiled threats that Moffett describes in his letter are consistent with the persona Hare revealed in the “what, me worry about the Constitution?” video.

Will there be outrage over these allegations? Will there be a full-blown investigation to find out if Phil Hare has threatened to misuse, or has actually misused, his power to intimidate voters? There ought to be, on all counts. “I’ll find out who you are!” sounds a hell of a lot more scary than all of the rights that we supposedly lost when George W. Bush flushed the Constitution down the toilet so the NSA could snoop around in search of terrorist e-mails.

When it comes to the media and progressives, the “good intentions test” (good intentions, being of course defined solely by them) is the only thing that matters. I suspect Phil Hare, like Jesse Jackson and so many others before him, will get a free pass. Whether Illinois voters will let him off the hook so easily remains to be seen.

President Obama has been helping his former employer ACORN — in India, of all places.

As I wrote at The Daily Caller, President Obama’s ambassador to India, Timothy J. Roemer, has lent his name and the prestige of the American government to ACORN India’s efforts to agitate among rag-pickers in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay). Roemer used to be a Democratic congressman from Indiana.

The former congressman turned ACORN-propagandist met with rag pickers in Dharavi, a Mumbai slum, to give a publicity boost to ACORN India’s local campaigns. The local U.S. consulate in also co-sponsored an event with the Indian branch of the organization for community organizers.

According to ACORN India’s website the group was formed in order to assist in defending the “socialist legacy” of Jawaharlal Nehru, a leftist who served as Indian prime minister of India from 1947 to 1964. That “legacy” is “now in danger from the onslaught of the march of global corporatism,” the website says.

Unrestrained by the white straitjacket many of his constituents want imposed on him, the strident motormouth Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) invaded a meeting of local Republicans at a Perkins restaurant in his congressional district.

The freshman congressman, who is one of the most endangered House Democrats, berated the GOPers for daring to send “spies” to observe a meeting of Organizing for America, a controversial pressure group run by the Democratic National Committee.

Grayson can be seen in videos confronting Republicans. In one video he is asked if he feels he owes his constituents “an explanation for [his] recent votes?” He replies, ”I don’t owe them anything; they’re trying to defeat me.”

I asked Grayson’s congressional office for a comment. In the official statement I received Friday Grayson attacked his constituents, denying he’d done anything wrong by allegedly storming into the meeting.

“That is completely not true and they are hypocrites for suggesting that,” said Grayson. ”These are the same people who did whatever they could to disrupt my health care town hall meetings, and shouted outside the meeting.”

Grayson then hurled accusations at Republicans.

“I think it is very revealing. The Republican Party seems to be returning to its Nixonian roots.  Corruption, lying, and spying. I thought they moved beyond that after Watergate, but I was wrong.”

Grayson is so far out there he makes the famously unbalanced serial tax cheat Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) seem like the picture of mental health — and this isn’t Grayson’s first experiment in conducting unbecoming a congressman.

During the debate over health care, the far-left Grayson said Republicans’ plan was for patients to “die quickly.”

Grayson called Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s senior adviser Linda Robertson a “whore.” He said, “I am the only member of Congress who actually worked as an economist, and this lobbyist, this K-Street whore, is trying to teach me about economics!”

“Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?” asked Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) also chastised Grayson for the comment.

If you wondered what our Congressmen thought of our founding documents when they were passing Obamacare recently, we may now have the answer.  They just might care more about socialized medicine than they do the Constitution.  At least that’s what Illinois Congressman Phil Hare admitted to a Tea Partier this past Thursday.

If you never heard of Hare it is understandable.  He has only represented the 17th Congressional district of Illinois since 2006.  Before coming to Washington, Hare was a union leader and President of UNITE HERE Local 617.  He has identified himself as a far left activist in his short tenure in the House so far.  Hare is a founding member of the LGBT caucus, supports federal funding of abortion, and has been outspoken in pushing for a single-payer health care system.  At one time he swore he would not vote for health care reform that did not boast a strong public option.

“I will not support any plan that does not contain a robust public option because, a plan without a public option is sort of like a car without a motor. It may look good on the outside, but in the end it will get you nowhere.” – Rep. Phil Hare

Hare, like many other left-wing congressman, ditched a harsh stance against Obamacare knowing that this new health care bill will eventually lead to the universal health care they want.  The Illinois congressman did a small town hall meeting this past Thursday to defend his vote and take questions.  At that event he was asked some tough questions by a St. Louis Tea Party leader named Adam Sharp.  Sharp was armed with a camera and Hare seemed to not realize the gravity of what he was saying.

“Where in the Constitution does…” – Adam Sharp

“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.” – Hare

“You care more about (universal health care) than the US Constitution that you swore to uphold?” – Sharp

“I believe that it is says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Hare

“That’s the Declaration of Independence.” – voice off camera

“It doesn’t matter to me – either one…At the end of the day I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country.” – Hare

Hare doesn’t realize that he just let the cat out of the bag.  The men and women who voted for the health care bill put socialized medicine above the Constitution.  They have some vague remembrance of a founding document talking about the right to life and that means America gets universal health care no matter what the Constitution allows.  They really don’t care.  And even though the Congressional Budget Office numbers show that by 2019 there will still be over 22 million people without health care, Hare and the Democrats know eventually they will get socialized and mandatory health care for all.

We need more people like Sharp out there with video cameras.  We need men and women not afraid to ask Congressmen and Senators what they really believe.  Bring light to the darkness.  Sharp said it well to Rep. Hare,

“You better start looking for a job.” – Sharp

By November hopefully the majority of those who voted for Obamacare will have to start looking for a new job.

Nor is that all that can be said about CAIR. See more here.

But just try telling it to the blinkered dhimmi who is the sheriff of Los Angeles.

"Sheriff Baca argues with Republican congressman about Islamic group," by Robert J. Lopez in the Los Angeles Times, March 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca argued with a Republican congressman from Indiana during a hearing Wednesday when the lawmaker questioned his relationship with an Islamic nonprofit group.

Baca was in Washington testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security when he was questioned by Rep. Mark Souder about attending fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, officials said....

The exchange between Baca and Souder was recorded by a reporter for KPCC-FM (89.3). To hear the recording, click here.

"There's a substantial difference between protected speech and government officials going to fundraisers for organizations that do speech that is radical. And Sheriff Baca, you've been 10 times to the fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which even the FBI has separated themselves from," Souder said, according to the recording.

Baca shot back, citing his service in the Marines and support of Israel, according to the report. "The security of Israel has always been at the forefront of my thinking," he said. "And for you to associate me somehow through some circuitous attack on CAIR, is not only inappropriate, it is un-American."

Whitmore said department records show that Baca attended two CAIR fundraisers in recent years.

"Just because they are Muslim Americans does not mean they want to destroy Israel or the U.S.," Whitmore said.

Right. But what about all the evidence?

Did former Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) whose resignation came swiftly after he was accused of –well, actually, I’m not even really sure what he was accused of– do anything wrong?

Time will tell but right now it appears the greatest sin the newly ousted congressman committed was daring to disagree with ObamaCare.

And for this grievous offense against righteousness Massa is being punished mightily in the public square.

The Obama administration’s war against Massa ramped up as the ex-lawmaker told a clearly skeptical Glenn Beck on TV that the president’s Chicago thug enforcer Rahm Emanuel approached him in the shower and told him he “better vote with the president.”

Spokesthingy Robert Gibbs of the Obama White House denies the event took place but the Obama White House lies about, well, everything, so you can pretty well discount everything that comes out of Gibbs’s mouth. “I think this whole story is ridiculous,” said the taxpayer-supported professional liar.

Anybody familiar with Emanuel’s tactics knows the high-pressure tactic described is standard operating procedure for Emanuel.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who now presides over one of the most corrupt, unethical national legislatures in the history of the Republic, trashed Massa, seemingly projecting her own pathologies onto the former congressman.

“This is a very sick person,” said Pelosi. “Perhaps his judgment is impaired because of the ethical issues that have arisen, and he is no longer in the Congress.” Aren’t leftists –especially latte liberals like Pelosi of San Francisco– supposed to show compassion toward the sick?

With the sheer volume of vitriol emanating from the executive branch, it’s just like Bill Clinton’s lead character assassin Sidney Blumenthal is back in the White House.

And it’s only just beginning. The Obama administration is determined to destroy Massa. Of course Massa didn’t help matters by flying the white flag at the first sign of trouble, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Plagued by multiple serious scandals, Rep. Charles Rangel has stepped down from his post as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. The move, which Rangel said was “temporary,” came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the congressman that he did not have enough votes to survive an expected Republican challenge to his chairmanship.

To view a comprehensive profile of Charles Rangel, click here. 

The replacement of “Maverick” Republican John McCain with an authentic conservative is a longtime fantasy held by many of us on the Right.  But could it actually happen?  Former Congressman and Arizona talk radio host JD Hayworth thinks so, and while the polls show he’s got an uphill battle, an upset isn’t impossible.  The Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove recently had a few words with Hayworth about the race:

“We all respect John and thank him for his service,” Hayworth says. “His place in history is secure. He will remain a widely admired historical figure. But after 28 years in Washington, it’s time to come home. People are just ready for a change.”

[…]

“Sure, he’s a very slick communicator, but he has no demonstrated record of accomplishment,” says Brian Rogers, McCain’s campaign press secretary. “He went to college for broadcasting and he was a sportscaster before he was elected to Congress, and he’s obviously been successful at that. But compare that to the life experience of John McCain. I think people are looking for a little bit more than a radio shock jock.”

Bashing talk radio—now that’s gonna play well with conservative voters!  In all seriousness, Hayworth would be a vastly preferable Senator to McCain.  As Erick Erickson has pointed out, his admittedly-imperfect conservative record is still far better than McCain’s, Hayworth was a fierce opponent of the very amnesty plan McCain not only championed, but demagogically so, and while Hayworth lost his House seat in 2006 amidst the Jack Abramoff scandal, he was never shown to have committed any actual wrongdoing.  As Erick says:

I know – and anyone who has watched McCain knows – that if he is re-elected, he will at some point in the next 6 years work against conservatives and with liberals on energy taxes, free speech restrictions, or God-knows what other liberal cause suddenly consumes him.

I had the honor of meeting Representative Hayworth several years ago at the 2005 Teen Age Republicans national conference, where I got the distinct impression that, unlike many of the career politicians on Capitol Hill, he approached his job with a sense of purpose, that he was there to advance certain ideas rather than his perpetual reelection.  Hayworth is eloquent, personable, and passionate, and certainly has the potential to legitimately challenge McCain—that is, if he’s learned his lesson about taking the Birther bait from the media.  And the “identity theft” damage control?  Not a smart move, JD.

McCain’s got a fair lead in the polls now, but as Arlen Specter learned, polls are hardly written in stone, and as Grove put it, “the climate is unpredictable” and “the electorate is mad as hell at the powers that be.”  It’s still questionable whether or not the Republican Party will realize that their own liberalism has been the source of many of their woes, but the long-overdue replacement of the Party’s leading RINO with an actual conservative would be a big step in the right direction, and a fitting symbol of true change.

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also blogs at the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

“Every Congressman and Senator takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  I think it’s time they started taking that oath seriously.  Freedom includes the freedom for mismanaged institutions to fail.  There is a battle raging in Washington now between those who want to defend the Constitution and those who wish to disregard it.

I along with several Republicans introduced a proposal last week which would place a one-year moratorium on earmarks.  My web site lists the names of those who have NOT co-sponsored this proposal as well as those who have.  Please let those who have not know that you urge them to do so.

I’d rather have 30 Marco Rubios in the Senate than 60 Arlen Spectors.  Of course, if we had 30 Marco Rubios, we wouldn’t have to settle for just 30.  Strong conservatives will pave the way for preserving America and its principles of freedom.  I’m afraid we’re causing a little trouble for the establishment.  When Republicans don’t do the things they said they would, voters deserve the choice of another Republican.  We put up a candidate against Arlen Spector.  He went back to his roots in the Democrat Party.

We endorsed Marco Rubio and Chuck Devore in CA.  Michael Williams in Texas.

Let’s talk for a minute about the Presidential race in 2012.  This time I hope Americans will expect more from their next President than a good speaker.  Just because you’re good on TV doesn’t mean you can sell socialism to freedom-loving Americans.  If America is going to survive and thrive in the future, we need to get back to basics.  That means no more bailouts.  That means we will not spend money we don’t have.

And it definitely means we will not give away our precious Constitutional rights to foreign terrorists who want to destroy us.

Reducing the size and the scope of the federal government is the only way to solve our current fiscal problems.  I didn’t come to Washington to make friends, and so far I haven’t been disappointed.  We need to make sure that this administration and Congress doesn’t have the strength to show up at Waterloo – much less win the battle.”

Barry Goldwater, whose seat John McCain occupies, chose to run with Bill Miller, a congressman from Lockport, N.Y., near Buffalo. Miller, Goldwater cheerfully explained, annoyed Lyndon Johnson. After the Goldwater-Miller ticket lost 44 states, Miller retired to Lockport where he practiced law and lived in dignified anonymity until his death in 1983. Although he had served as an assistant prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, and seven terms in Congress, no one suggested he should be considered for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.

via RealClearPolitics – Mutual Loathing Society.

Congressman John “Jack” Murtha, who died last week at the age of 77, represented western Pennsylvania’s Twelfth District in the House for 35 years. But Murtha’s impressive longevity belies his more dubious political legacy. The narrative of Murtha’s legislative career was punctuated on virtually every line by self-absorption, self-interest, secret dealings, and an ugly brand of political hackery that placed Murtha’s own lust for power above the welfare of his country.

A logical place to begin an examination of Murtha’s career would be the early 1980s, when the Congressman was named as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the so-called “Abscam” (a contraction of “Abdul scam”) corruption probe of several U.S. legislators. That inquiry was conducted between 1978 and 1980 – not by right-wing enemies of Murtha and his fellow Democrats, but by President Jimmy Carter’s Justice Department. Initially, the FBI established a phony investment firm called “Abdul Enterprises” in New York City and invented a fictitious Middle Eastern sheikh, “Yasser Habib.” Bureau agents, posing as “Habib” and his attendants, offered bribes to Murtha and several other members of the House and Senate in exchange for their pledge to provide political favors to the “sheikh.” Specifically, the legislators were asked to help “Habib” purchase asylum in the United States and transfer his financial assets out of his native country. In exchange for their assistance, the Congressmen were offered handsome financial rewards.

Murtha, for his part, rejected a blatant $50,000 bribe but not the influence buying tactics. Murtha unambiguously left open the possibility that he might be willing to “do business” with the “sheikh” and his retinue at some point in the future. A 54-minute FBI videotape shows Murtha, then a member of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, telling the FBI undercover agents:

“You know, you made an offer. It might be that I might change my mind someday.”

Murtha explained that he simply needed some time to get to know the “sheikh” and his cohorts a bit better, and to develop a sense that he could trust them not to squeal, before he would be ready to risk accepting such a large bribe:

“I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period. After we’ve done some business, well, then I might change my mind [and agree to the scheme]. I’m going to tell you this. If anybody can do it — I am not bullsh–tting you fellows — I can get it done my way. There’s no question about it.”

“You know,” Murtha added cautiously, “we do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested, maybe I won’t.”

These were the words of a political opportunist whose eagerness to complete a lucrative transaction was tempered only by his fear of being caught in the act. “I’ve gotta be completely to the point where I can disclaim anything,” Murtha stressed. “And that’s why I’m so careful about making any deals.”

As fortune would have it, Murtha actually did think of a way to structure a mutually beneficial arrangement with the “sheikh,” short of taking the $50,000 bribe at that point in time. Murtha said that in lieu of accepting the bribe just yet, he would be glad to offer political favors to “Habib” in exchange for money which the “sheikh” might make available, through Murtha, for businesses in the latter’s congressional district. Said Murtha:

“I wanna do business with you. I mean I want to get the goddamn jobs in the area. You know, if you, the bank deposits in my area. [There's] nothing I’d like better. Later on, you know, after we’ve dealt awhile, you know we might change our minds. We might want to do more business. But right now, I think I can do more this way than any other way.”

Murtha proceeded to crudely express his concern that the public might someday find out about his secret willingness to put a price tag on his political influence:

“When I make a fu**in’ deal, I want to make sure that I know exactly what I’m doing …  And what I’m sayin’ is, a few investments in my district, a few you know, is big to me … to a couple of banks which would get their attention. And investment in a business where you could legitimately say to me — when I say legitimately, I’m talking about so these bastards up here can’t say to me, well, why, in eight years from now, that’s possible, we’d never hear a thing for eight years, but all at once, ah, some dumb bastard would go start talking eight years from now, ah, about the whole thing and say, ‘[Jesus Christ], ah, this happened,’ then he, then he, in order to get immunity so he doesn’t go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people and then the [expletive] all falls apart.”

All told, seven members of Congress (six of them Democrats) accepted bribe money from the “sheikh.” The House Ethics Committee appointed a special prosecutor, Barrett Prettyman, to investigate the matter. Then, in early 1981 the Committee became concerned that Murtha, too, had violated House rules by failing to report the attempted bribery to law-enforcement authorities. Prettyman began looking into Murtha’s activities as well. In addition, as the Wall Street Journal explains, the prosecutor was “rumored to be offering deals in exchange for testimony that would take the scandal inside the office of [House] Speaker O’Neill” – a reference to Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, the Democratic U.S. Congressman from Massachusetts. At that point, a jittery O’Neill moved to shut down the Murtha probe as quickly as possible. That decision so infuriated the special prosecutor, that he promptly resigned in protest.

Of course, Murtha was not really innocent. He even testified in federal court that he had gone so far as to call his “immigration guy” to discuss the possibility of helping the “sheikh” – who had just offered Murtha a $50,000 bribe – to resolve his immigration concerns. Ultimately, the congressman, as stipulated by the terms that would enable him to avoid prosecution, testified against two House colleagues who had been implicated in the FBI sting. In other words, Murtha himself had morphed into the same type of shadowy figure he had previously claimed to fear: a “dumb bastard” who “would go start talking … in order to get immunity so he doesn’t go to jail.”

Abscam was by no means Murtha’s only involvement in financial chicanery. In 2004 the congressman, who was then the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, steered more than $20 million in federal appropriations to at least ten companies that were represented by KSA Consulting, a Maryland-based lobbying firm where two of the senior partners were Murtha’s brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha, and a former aide to Rep. Murtha, Carmen V. Scialabba.

Murtha always viewed taxpayer dollars essentially as slush funds that he could use to finance his own political pet projects. In February 2008 the taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), which promotes fiscal responsibility and federal earmarks reform, named Murtha as Congress’s 2007 “Porker of the Year” “for flouting the rules and playing games with reform, while filing spending bills with pork and arrogantly threatening anyone that challenges his authority.” Noting that Murtha had secured 72 earmarks worth $149.2 million for his district in fiscal year 2007, CAGW said:

“Rep. Jack Murtha has long been known inside the Beltway for using threats, power plays, and backroom deals to control spending decisions. There is an area of the House floor known as ‘Murtha’s corner,’ where the legendary appropriator dispenses earmarks. The overwhelming vote for Porker of the Year shows that his shameful behavior is attracting attention throughout the country.”

Midway through 2009, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) – which reserves most of its criticisms for Republicans – anointed Murtha as the U.S. Congress’s “King of Pork,” in recognition of the $192 million in earmarks he had secured for his district in 2008, coupled with another $134 million in earmarks he had requested during the first half of 2009. CREW executive director Melanie Sloan put it this way:

“The more Rep. Murtha’s dealings are exposed, the more we all learn about how Congress really operates and the more disgusted the public becomes. CREW will continue to shine the light on Rep. Murtha until the congressman changes his ways or is indicted. I’d take a bet on which is the more likely outcome.”

Impervious, as always, to the taxpayers’ legitimate concerns about how their hard-earned money was spent by government, Murtha glibly shrugged off Sloan’s comments by saying: “If I’m corrupt, it’s because I take care of my district.”

Further questions about Murtha’s use (or misuse) of taxpayer money were raised by the expenses associated with the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania – the congressman’s home district. This facility is equipped with a $7 million air-traffic-control tower, a $14 million hangar, and an $18 million, state-of-the-art runway. As a result of Murtha’s influence, more than $150 million in taxpayer funds were funneled to this airport between 1999 and 2009, including $800,000 (from the February 2009 stimulus bill), which was allocated for repaving an “alternate runway.” These massive expenditures hardly seem justified: Only three flights per day – all to Washington, DC – originate from the Murtha airport.

His many financial shenanigans aside, Murtha in recent years was best known to the public as an inveterate critic of the U.S. war effort in Iraq. In October 2002 Murtha voted, albeit grudgingly, to authorize America’s use of military force against Saddam Hussein: “I only voted for it,” he explained, “because I [had] said to [Vice President] Cheney and the President, ‘You have to go to the U.N.,’ and when they did that, what the hell could I do?”

After that, Murtha did everything he could to hamstring President Bush, to paint the war effort as a foolish endeavor, and to thereby pressure the President to adopt the type of minimalist approach to the war that would only prolong the slow bleed – an outcome that Murtha well understood could potentially cause great harm to the country. But he was more interested in the political benefits he and the Democrats could derive from it. Presaging Harry Reid (who would infamously proclaim “this war is lost”), in May 2004 Murtha asserted that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq had made the war “unwinnable.” In November 2005 he announced that “the Army is broken,” and that “the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq” was not only “impeding … progress” there, but indeed was acting as a “catalyst for violence.”

Then in May 2006, the Haditha story landed in Murtha’s lap. It was an unsubstantiated allegation that a squad of eight U.S. Marines had killed, without cause, up to two-dozen unarmed civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha. The congressman appeared immediately on ABC’s This Week program, where he said that the Marines had “overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” “There’s no question in my mind about what happened here,” declared Murtha. “There was no gunfire [from the Iraqis]. They [the American Marines] killed four people in a taxi and then in addition to that, they went into the rooms and killed them.” He further alleged that the U.S. military was trying to “cover up” what had occurred in Haditha.

In the May 17, 2006 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, the host said to Murtha: “[W]hen you say ‘cold blood,’ Congressman, a lot of people think you’re basically saying you have got some civilians sitting in a room or out in a field and they’re executed just on purpose.” Murtha replied, “That’s exactly what happened.”

Except that it wasn’t. By June 2008, it had become apparent that Murtha’s allegations against the eight Marines were entirely unfounded. Charges had been dismissed against six of the eight, while a seventh had been fully acquitted. Moreover, two of the Marines – including Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the only one who was still facing any charges – filed defamation and slander suits against Murtha.

Murtha not only remained unapologetic but he signed on to another Democratic campaign to discredit the war effort, voting in favor of a June 2008 resolution drawn up by Congressman Dennis Kucinich to investigate the feasibility of impeaching George W. Bush for “high crimes and misdemeanors” – as punishment for having led the U.S. to war in the first place.

Indeed, after voting to authorize it, Murtha opposed the U.S.-led war effort at every step. In June 2006 Murtha voted against a Congressional proposal to formally declare that Iraq was a crucial theater in the overall War on Terror, and that it would be unwise to set a firm withdrawal date for U.S. troops. Four months later, Murtha voted in favor of withdrawing American troops at the earliest practicable date. Then, in early 2007, Murtha spoke out against the Bush administration’s planned troop “surge” – where an additional 21,500 soldiers would be deployed to Iraq in an effort to quell the insurgency there. Vowing “to stop this surge,” Murtha stated that “surges have not worked in the past” because enemy forces “disappear, and then they come back later on. To think that a surge will work is, in my estimation, false thinking.” Murtha could not have been more wrong, as the troop surge successfully turned the tide of the war.

One irony of Murtha’s career is that although he worked tirelessly to secure taxpayer dollars for his district, he did not hold his constituents in high esteem. In October of 2008, just weeks before the presidential election, he accused voters in his Pennsylvania home district of being bigots because, in his estimation, they were not supporting Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy in sufficiently large numbers (though Obama was in fact leading in the local polls). “I think Obama is going to win [the local vote], but I don’t think it’s going to be a runaway,” Murtha said. “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area,” he added. “The older population is more hesitant [to embrace a black candidate].”

Murtha’s remarks drew considerable media attention, and the congressman issued an ambiguous “clarification” the next day: “It’s [the racism is] better than it was a few weeks ago. It’s better than it was a few months ago.” In an interview with a local news channel the following week, Murtha sought to further “clarify” his remarks: “What I mean is there’s still folks that have a problem voting for someone because they are black…. This whole area, years ago, was really redneck.”

It was some thanks to the voters who had sent him to Washington for over three decades. As a final act in Murtha’s career, it was also fitting. For all his political success, Mutha remained a self-anointed know-it-all who considered himself not only more enlightened than the “rednecks” who inhabited his district, but also better qualified to spend money than the hardworking Americans who made it.

Republicans believe there are three words so powerful that they might reshape the political order in an economically beleaguered corner of the country: War on coal.

With Democrats holding total control of the federal government and a cap-and-trade bill still looming, the GOP is fanning widespread coal country fears that the national Democratic Party is hostile to the coal mining industry, if not outright committed to its demise.

Those efforts are putting a group of coal state Democrats at risk as Republicans leverage the tremendous economic anxieties surrounding the future of an industry that is a vital part of their states’ economies.

In West Virginia and Kentucky, longtime Democratic House incumbents with solid records on the issue are taking heavy flak. Across the border in Virginia, a veteran Democrat could face his most serious challenge yet in part because of his support of cap and trade. Two junior lawmakers from Ohio are facing threats for the same reason.

The issue may loom largest in West Virginia, where coal mining is an integral part of the culture and makes up a full quarter of the state’s revenues.

A well-known former state supreme court judge switched his party registration to run against 17-term incumbent Rep. Nick Rahall in the state’s coal-heavy south and wasted little time in raising the issue.

“West Virginians deserve a congressman who will fight to end this war on coal instead of standing by idly as thousands of local jobs are threatened,” said Elliott “Spike” Maynard in launching his campaign last month.

In an interview with POLITICO, Maynard said: “Our part of the world and way of life is threatened by liberal Democrats in Washington.”

He pointed out that some environmentalists want to stop all surface mining, the above-ground technique that happens to account for about 40 percent of the state’s coal jobs.

His message, he said, was simple: “If you vote for Spike Maynard, you’re voting for your job and to mine coal. If you’re against me, you’re voting against your job and against mining coal.”

In the state’s north, a region less Democratic than the United Mine Workers-dominated south, 14-term Rep. Alan Mollohan is facing a primary from a state senator and has a host of Republicans vying to take him on in the general election.

One of those Republicans, former state Del. David McKinley, warns that cap and trade would “cripple the economy of West Virginia.”

Part of the challenge Republicans will have in the two districts is that both Rahall and Mollohan voted against the energy bill on the House floor last year.

via GOP mines coal-country anxieties – POLITICO.com Print View.

DALLAS — Charlie Wilson, the former congressman from Texas whose funding of Afghanistan's resistance to the Soviet Union was chronicled in the movie “Charlie Wilson's War,” died Wednesday. He was 76.Wilson died at Memorial Medical Center-Lufkin after he started having difficulty breathing while attending a meeting in the eastern Texas town where he lived, said hospital spokeswoman Yana Ogletree. Wilson was pronounced dead on arrival, and the preliminary cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest, she said.Wilson represented the 2nd district in east Texas in the U.S. House from 1973 to 1996 and was known in Washington as “Good Time Charlie” for his reputation as a hard-drinking womanizer.Actor Tom Hanks portrayed Wilson in the 2007 movie about Wilson's efforts to arm Afghani mujahedeen during Afghanistan's war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Wilson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, helped secure money for weapons.In 2007, Wilson had a heart transplant at a Houston hospital. Doctors had told Wilson, who suffered from cardiomyopathy, a disease that causes an enlarged and weakened heart, that he would likely die without a transplant.”Charlie was perfect as a congressman, perfect as a state representative, perfect as a state senator. He was a perfect reflection of the people he represented. If there was anything wrong with Charlie, I never did know what it was,” said Charles Schnabel Jr., who served for seven years as Wilson's chief of staff in Washington and worked with Wilson when he served in the Texas Senate.

via Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson dies at 76 – washingtonpost.com.

John “Jack” Murtha, a Democrat from western Pennsylvania’s Twelfth District, died Monday of complications from gall bladder surgery. He had been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1974.

During the Bush administration, Murtha consistently assailed the manner in which the Iraq War was prosecuted. In a November 2005 statement, Murtha described the U.S. military as “stretched thin” and “broken.” He added that “the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq” was not only “impeding … progress” there, but was acting as a “catalyst for violence.”

In May 2006 Murtha reacted swiftly and angrily to unsubstantiated allegations that a squad of eight U.S. Marines had killed, without cause, up to two-dozen unarmed civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha. The congressman appeared on ABC’s This Week program, where he said that the Marines had “overracted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” “There’s no question in my mind about what happened here,” declared Murtha. “There was no gunfire [from the Iraqis]. They [the American Marines] killed four people in a taxi and then in addition to that, they went into the rooms and killed them.” He further alleged that the U.S. military was trying to “cover up” what had occurred in Haditha. He would eventually be proven wrong on each of those allegations.

In February 2008 the taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), which promotes fiscal responsibility and federal earmarks reform, named Murtha as Congress’ 2007 “Porker of the Year” — “for flouting the rules and playing games with reform, while filing spending bills with pork and arrogantly threatening anyone that challenges his authority.”

To view the full Jack Murtha profile, click here.

Previously today NewsReal ran a Point/Counterpoint between Janet Levy and myself regarding Governor Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul for Senate.

Janet expressed strong concerns regarding Paul’s foreign policy views and argued that “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” in reference to Paul’s notorious congressman father.

I pointed out that while Janet’s concerns about Paul’s views were legitimate, it appeared as though he did not foster the anti-Israel impulses of his father.

Well, upon further research into the matter it looks like we have a reason why Rand at least looks different from his Pops.

From the great blogger Sultan Knish who unearths a Rand appearance on the radio show of the conspiracist lunatic Alex Jones:

“You’re basically what I would call a chip off the old block. Your policies are basically identical to your father, correct?”

“I’d say we’d be very very similar. We might present the message sometimes differently.. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary.”

In other words Rand Paul is basically a Paulastinian Alinskyite. He’s going to be much smarter than his Dad at hiding his true views so that he might stand a better chance at achieving positions of power to implement the policies he supports. It’s his way of utilizing the Alinsky tactic of boring from within.

So from my vantage point Palin should not be considered an enemy of Israel because she fell for Rand’s deception. Agree?

From Louisville Mojo:

As Republican US Senate candidate Dr. Rand Paul approaches his biggest campaign event yet—a Saturday rally at the Fairgrounds that will feature Paul onstage with his dad, former Presidential candidate and US Congressman Dr. Ron Paul—the big news is an upcoming endorsement from 2008 Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

David Adams, Paul’s campaign manager, said he would announce the endorsement “as soon as we get it.”

Janet Levy: Kiss of Death for Sarah Palin?

Rand Paul has expressed opposition to the Patriot Act, has supported the cutting of military spending, has endorsed the shutting down of GITMO and has called for the banning of harsh interrogation of Muslim terrorists. His father (“the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” theory), Ron Paul, wants to end all foreign aid to Israel and see the United States sever its alliance with Israel.  He has gone so far as to denounce the pro-Israel lobby on Capitol Hill, but NOT the Saudi lobby.  The elder Paul is a staunch critic of military action against Iran.

David Swindle: Should We Respond as Though Sarah Palin endorsed Ron Paul?

I have tremendous admiration for Janet Levy’s spirited defenses of Israel and the Jewish people. And I share her disgust for the obscene positions of the embarrassing, crackpot congressman Ron Paul.

While many of Rand Paul’s foreign policy positions are not where we’d like them to be, he does not appear to be the anti-Israel zealot his father is.

Thus, this does not yet appear to be a reason for supporters of Israel to turn on Sarah Palin. However, this is an issue which needs to be explored further before I would more fully disagree with Janet’s position.

Harold Ford Jr., a former congressman from Tennessee who has been a New York resident for the last three years, is giving serious thought to challenging junior New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand in this year’s Democratic primary.  Chuck Schumer, who engineered her appointment by Governor David Patterson to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat, is unhappy.  So is Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid.

After muscling out all other opposition to Gillibrand, along comes Ford whom Schumer, Reid and other Democratic Party bosses cannot as easily force off the road.

The New York Times editors for once got it right:

The last thing voters of New York State need is a coronation instead of a choice.

Schumer wants a coronation so that he keeps his junior, hand-picked senator under his thumb.  Reid likes having a sure vote in his pocket rather than another independent-minded senator whom he would have to buy off.   He also likes  Gillibrand’s fund-raising prowess.   Thus, the Nevada senator, who is facing his own difficulties this fall, decided to put his two cents into New York politics.  He  called Mayor Bloomberg to urge him not to support Ford, should he decide to run.

What’s the matter, Harry? Doesn’t Harold Ford meet your test of a viable African-American candidate?

“light skinned with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”

Related posts:

1. Harry Reid Gets Dealt the Race Card
2. Harry Reid Makes Tiger Woods Look Good
3. Harry Reid: Slave Of The Shadow Party

Some people just have no sense of irony.

Apparently, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith is one of them.  Monday night, the broadcaster most known for having Tammy Faye Bakker eyes, twice used “black eye” as a metaphor.

Shep basically lost control while arguing with Congressman Peter King about the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and whether it should be closed.  Anyone who believes the myth of the Fox News monolith of opinion take note:

SHEPHARD SMITH [yelling] “In Cuba, we shoved them off to another country and stuck them on the end of an island and given the nation a black eye…!”

Unfazed, Congressman King snapped back:

CONGRESSMAN PETER KING: I think only a person that’s incredibly naive would say that we got – that we deserve that black eye. We got it because elements in the media and elements in the Democratic Party kept parroting that line.

SMITH: Ugh!

Ugh?  Really?  What a professional!  Ugh!

Smith is not one of Fox’s commentators, he’s supposed to be a straight news anchor.  Supposed to be.  But since he was parroting on cue, perhaps his unprofessional disgusted exclamation should have been “Squawk!”

Read the whole exchange and play Count the Cliches with Shep

PETER KING: And also, I think the President should end this race to close Guantanamo and realize that’s sending a very mixed signal to the world and to our people in the field.

SHEPARD SMITH: How’s that sending a mixed signal? He campaigned on that, he’s been real firm on that. He said that gave us a black eye around the world and studies seem to suggest that’s exactly what it did. And what difference does it make where you house them as long as they don’t get out?

KING: It makes a very big difference. Because right now we have no place to put them.

SMITH: Oh, they’ll find someplace to put them, Congressman.

KING: He wants to send them to Yemen and obviously-

SMITH: They’re not gonna do that, they already said they’re not gonna-

KING: Well, they were gonna do it up until yesterday.

SMITH: They’re not now.

KING: Well, why was he even thinking about it for the last year. I mean that’s the whole point, he should have known. That’s why I’m saying the schizophrenic message that’s coming from the administration. And I support the President on a lot of what he’s doing. I know what he’s doing in Yemen and I support that. But as far as sending people from Guantanamo there, it was a big mistake. And I think we should not be giving in just because the terrorists say that Gitmo is a recruiting agent. So is our support of Israel. Does that mean we shouldn’t support Israel? So if we’re using drones-

SMITH: You’re not equating the two, are you Congressman? I mean, truly-

KING: Guantanamo – Guantanamo – no-

SMITH: Why is this political football being thrown around so much in the middle of all this?

KING: Shepard don’t – don’t-

SMITH: President Obama campaigned on this issue and he said he was going to do it, he got elected, now he’s gonna do it.

KING: And he’s wrong. And he should learn by his mistakes. He’s wrong on that.

SMITH: Well, I mean the other one said he wasn’t gonna – actually the other candidate said he was gonna close Guantanamo Bay, too, and so did President Bush. I mean they’re not alone on an island out there somewhere.

KING: No, there’s two different things, Shepard. John McCain, I disagreed with him on this, President Bush. Everybody wants to close Guantanamo ultimately. Don’t be setting one year time limits or two year time limits. The fact is that we cannot be giving into terrorist demands. And Guantanamo is a model prison, it’s better than almost any prison you would find anywhere. Those detainees there are being treated better than most Marines are being treated in Paris Island or Army trainees-

SMITH: [shouting] Of all the important things to talk this just where we keep these people who want us dead, why do we spend time even talking about it? Why do people care? I mean it’s-

KING: Well it’s very important – I’ll tell you why.

SMITH:[continued shouting] In Cuba, we shoved them off to another country and stuck them on the end of an island and given the nation a black eye, if you believe – if you believe President Obama.

KING: No, Shepard, only a – I don’t believe him – I think only a person that’s incredibly naive would say that we got – that we deserve that black eye. We got it because elements in the media and elements in the Democratic Party kept parroting that line.

SMITH: Ugh!

KING: But the fact is they’re being treated [with] extreme humaneness at Guantanamo. It was the right thing to do and there were constitutional reasons for doing it and legal reasons for doing it, all of which, I think, have been proven right. You have to keep them in a place where they can be interrogated, where information can be gotten from them, intelligence gotten from them. We have the right to keep them there as long as we want to, I believe.

No wonder the Chris Matthews rerun at 7PM opposite Smith has about triple the ratings Harball has going up against Glenn Beck at 5PM!

Isn’t it about time Fox killed two birds with one stone?  Stomp all over Chris Matthews’s best rated hour by giving ratings juggernaut Beck a better time slot at 7; by either swapping places with Smith or putting Beck at 5 and 7PM against both Hardballs and delivering the coup de grace to that floundering competitor.

With all the talent Fox has rounded up lately, the lame and extremely missable  7PM hour sticks out like a sore thumb, or a bad habit– maybe bad contract?– the network just won’t break– or maybe it’s Maybelline?

Talk about your black eyes.

Related posts:

1. NewsReal Sunday: Pots and Kettles: Maddow and Schaeffer Call Evangelicals “Village Idiots” Who Must be Excluded from American Political Life
2. Obama Has Just Made the Country a Lot Less Safe: Moving Gitmo Terrorists to Illinois
3. Naomi Wolf's America-is-a-Fascist State Hysteria Endangers American Lives

Suggesting someone beat up a U.S. senator is not "hate speech" according to this man.

Three full days after he wondered why no one had punched Joe Lieberman (“Traitor Joe,” as he calls him), Ed Schultz of MSNBC’s The Ed Show insisted no one on the Left had ever defamed the distinguished senator from Connecticut. Last night, Schultz asked former Republican Congressman Ernest Istook about Democratic infighting over the health care bill. Istook, now a Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, replied things had gotten so bad that “if conservatives said the things about liberals that liberals are saying about each other now, we would be accused of using hate speech.” This sent the easily agitated Schultz into a lather:

Now, Ernest, you’re saying the Left is doing some hate speech. Now, where’s the hate speech on Joe Lieberman? Come on!

Big Ed could begin with his video library from this week…

On Tuesday, December 15, Ed fumed:

What is the feeling towards Joe Lieberman? I mean how do you, you know, go into a room without punching the guy out after what he’s done to the progressive movement in this country?

Leftists believe any deviation from the “progressive” party line requires physical punishment. This isn’t hatred; they’re doing it for your own good.

Related posts:

1. Genius Envy: Ed Schultz’s Plan to Motivate Joe Lieberman is “Punching the Guy Out”
2. Ben Johnson’s “Genius Envy” Takes on Ed Schultz
3. Genius Envy: War on Terror, No! War on “Conservadems,” Yes!

The purpose of all war is peace—Saint Augustine: The City of God

While President Barack Obama was in Oslo, Norway yesterday accepting his Nobel Peace Prize (while at the same time justifying his troop surge in Afghanistan), back home Congressman and fellow progressive Democrat Dennis Kucinich was busy metaphorically pulling the red carpet out from under him by denouncing the surge and demanding an immediate withdrawal of all troops from that country.

Amy Goodman reported on both events on Democracy Now!, a network which represents the Marxist ideology, an ideology which is itself no stranger to war and destruction. From the Obama speech, this highlight:

President Obama: I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations, that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter and can bend history in the direction of justice.

A nice excerpt, but the real emphasis was on the Kucinich Story:

Democracy Now!: As the US gears up to escalate the Afghan war, Congress member Dennis Kucinich says he plans to force a House vote on withdrawing all US forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan. On Wednesday, Kucinich announced he is seeking co-sponsors for a resolution calling for a “timely withdrawal” from the AfPak [Afghanistan/Pakistan] region. Kucinich expects to introduce the measure next month.

Kucinich’s resolution raises some key points, which contradict Obama on nearly every issue. While in Oslo, Obama justified sending the additional troops as the only way to: “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.”

Kucinich’s resolution not only refutes the newly appointed Nobel Prize winner’s war strategy, but actually alludes to his other failed policies—something which was unthinkable just a few months ago!

Dennis Kucinich: Why are we still in Afghanistan? Al-Qaeda has been routed. Our occupation fuels a Taliban insurgency. The more troops we send, the more resistance we meet. If we want to be truly secure, we need to redefine national security to include financial security. Yet America has record debt, skyrocketing unemployment, huge trade deficits, record business failures and foreclosures.

The people of Afghanistan don’t want to be saved by us. They want to be saved from us.

Ouch!

Whether inadvertently or deliberately, what Democracy Now! has done is highlight a profound ideological split—between two progressive socialists!

It will be an ideological battle of the highest magnitude: the progressive pacifist vs. the progressive Nobel Peace Prize winning President about to escalate a war.

Hide the women and children–this could get ugly.

Related posts:

1. NewsReal Review: Covering Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Win
2. Nobel Aspirations For Peace By Global Consensus
3. Charles Krauthammer Has A Biting Take on the Nobel Appeasement Prize