RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.nomurthaship.com/
No Murtha Ship!
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus plans to honor the late Congressman John Murtha by giving his name to the Navy’s new LPD (Transport Dock Ship), to be launched in 2013.
In doing so, Sec. Mabus is breaking the Navy’s tradition of naming its San Antonio-class amphibious transports after American cities. He is also honoring a man who:
1) was one of the most corrupt members of the U.S. Congress, and
2) called our Marines murderers who killed Iraqi women and children “in cold blood.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-was-investigating-rep-murtha-for-corruption-new-records-show/2011/10/18/gIQAtZ8PvL_story.html By Carol D. Leonnig, Published: October 18

Several months before Rep. John Murtha died, the FBI was moving to expand its ongoing investigation of the powerful lawmaker into a full public corruption probe, newly released records show.
ON ABSCAM

John Murtha (D-PA) was one of the Congressmen videotaped[7] in an encounter with undercover FBI operatives.[8] Although never indicted or prosecuted, he was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the scandal.

In November 1980, the Justice Department announced that Murtha would not face prosecution for his part in the scandal. The U.S. Attorney’s Office reasoned that Murtha’s intent was to obtain investment in his district. Full length viewing of the tape shows Murtha citing prospective investment opportunities that could return “500 or 1000” miners to work. In July 1981, the House Ethics Committee also chose not to file charges against Congressman Murtha, following a mostly party line vote. The resignation later that day of Republican E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., the panel’s special counsel, has been interpreted as an act of protest.[11]

Murtha remained prominent in Congress, and was re-elected by his constituency 13 times over the course of 26 years before his death on February 8, 2010.[12]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

THE GOP CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD HAS JUST GOTTEN DOWN TO A SHOWDOWN IN THE SMEAR CORRAL. AND THE NEOCONS HAVE PLACED SO MANY BETS ON ROMNEY THERE IS A SUDDEN FLURRY OF NICELY WRITTEN, WELL ARTICULATED SCREED IN ALL THEIR OUTLETS. WILL THESE TWO QUALIFIED CANDIDATES BLODDY EACH OTHER SO MUCH THAT AN OBAMINATION WILL OCCUR IN NOVEMBER?…..RSK

The Romney campaign has been hitting Newt Gingrich hard over the 1990s ethics case that resulted in the former Speaker being reprimanded and paying a $300,000 penalty. Before the Iowa caucuses, Romney and his supporting super PAC did serious damage to Gingrich with an ad attacking Gingrich’s ethics past. Since then, Romney has made other ads and web videos focusing on the ethics matter, and at the Republican debate in Tampa Monday night, Romney said Gingrich “had to resign in disgrace.”

In private conversations, Romney aides often mention the ethics case as part of their larger argument that Gingrich would be unelectable in a race against President Obama.

Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it’s worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich’s former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich’s ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/4335

Call it wishful thinking. Call it expecting the campaigns to honor what the American people have been demanding for several election cycles. Call it what you will, but I admit, I am one of the life-long Conservatives and Republicans who finds the attack ad blitz being perpetrated by our GOP presidential candidates against one another over-the top and, quite frankly, embarrassing. It is one thing to illuminate an opponent’s past record, even his past behavior where it applies to his ability to execute elected office, but it is quite another to engage in the slash-and-burn, win-at-all-cost political tactics of the Progressive Left. We, as Conservatives and as Republicans are better than that…we have to be.

http://sarahhonig.com/2012/01/26/another-tack-the-perry-mason-school-of-life/
“Obama might kid himself that he’s playing for time till after November’s Election Day. Only by then, all bets will likely be off. Obama’s inaction inexorably pushes Israel to the desperate unilateral action it itself is leery of. We cannot remain pawns in Obama’s gamble that Ahmadinejad can be converted to Harvard niceties. Or as Perry Mason reiterated: “You can’t sit back and wait for things to happen to you.”
Back in 1940, as whodunit author Erle Stanley Gardner’s The Case of the Baited Hook got typically tangled, fictional legal wizard Perry Mason opined to his trusty secretary Della Street that “Every time you stop to figure what the other fellow’s going to do, you unconsciously figure what you’d do in his place.

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2016/Beastweek-vs-Wilders-No-Contest.aspx

Beastweek decided to take a swipe at Geert Wilders this month — no particular reason, just because he’s still there. It’s a singularly empty piece, a selection of complaints by Christopher Dickey rattling around, anchored by an almost comically validating chorus.

Example:

There’s no such thing as moderate Islam, Wilders insists, and he’s tired of hearing that radical Islam is something different from the mainstream faith.

BTW, Beastweek, Turkey’s Erdogun goes ballistic at the very notion of “moderate Islam.” The Turkish PM doesn’t like assimilation, either — calling it “a crime against humanity.” But never mind. You’re perfect the way you are. Don’t ever change.

Beastweek:

It means nothing to him that among Muslim believers there are many different sects and currents.

Chorus:

“He makes no distinctions whatsoever,” says Robert Leiken, author of the just-published study Europe’s Angry Muslims. “He wants to throw out the whole Quran because of some things that are objectionable—but you could say the same thing about the Book of Joshua.”

Robert Leiken, an old friend of mine, is the man who brought us all “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood,” which is kind of like the Edsel, or even the Titanic, for intellectuals. “Abrogation” doesn’t seem to have entered the syllabus yet.

It will not be easy, but we will persevere
David Wilder
January 26, 2012
A few days ago, January 20, was the fifteenth anniversary of the implementation of the Hebron Accords, which divided our holy city into two unequal zones. Jews today have access to 3% of Hebron, while Arabs access some 97% of the city.
Yesterday we posted an interesting, important and timely article by Noam Arnon (in Hebrew) marking this ill-fated act, which led to so much violence and tragedy. I decided to also write about this, not with a ‘new article,’ rather using words of the past, clips from articles I authored fifteen plus years ago. They speak for themselves.

Clearly, should Israel continue on the same path in the future, the results won’t be any different. It is essential to learn from the errors of the past, in the hope that they will not be repeated in the future. History’s virtue lies not in names, dates and places. Rather it should be a tool, with which we can examine what occurred, why it occurred, and its implications for the future.

http://times247.com/ Bernanke: Fed to keep rates near zero through 2014 Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernank… Read more… Florida dead heat: Poll has Newt, Mitt in statistical tie Six days out from Election Day, a Qu… Read more… Daily Mail ousts NYT as biggest online newspaper The Daily Mail, an omnivorous middle… Read more… Psych! Pelosi’s […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289271/ballot-box-zombies-deroy-murdock Liberals love to laugh off voter fraud. It’s “a made-up problem invented by GOP operatives,” Robert Koehler snickered in the Huffington Post on January 5. Regarding ballot hijinks, Democratic national chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz chuckled: “There is almost none.” But the recent news is not so funny. One probe recorded on tape how easily anybody […]

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

We know that the state of the union is good no matter how many Americans are out of work, how many families are counting every penny, how many industries are falling off a cliff and how high the national debt gets. We know it’s good so long as another politician takes a victory lap up to the podium and tells us that it’s all good because he’s here.

Iraq? Nothing to worry about. We just brought all the troops home. Sure it’s breaking up into a civil war, but you won’t hear about it on the news. Osama bin Laden is no longer a threat, but his allies have taken over Egypt and Tunisia, and are moving on Libya. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken and they are on the verge of taking over the government which means they will finally have been defeated. These achievements are a testament to a military which is facing the biggest budget cuts in decades.

The American soldier is a role model to us. I take away his weapons, fire him, put him on trial and force him to marry his bunkmate to show his tolerance, and he never complains because he’s not allowed to. The rest of you need to take a lesson from him. Stop complaining or I’ll send you to a military tribunal.

Fighting Back Against Lawfare Posted By Jacob Laksin

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/26/fighting-back-against-lawfare/print/

FrontPage Interview’s guest today is Brooke Goldstein, a New York City-based human rights attorney, author and award-winning filmmaker. She serves as director of The Lawfare Project, a nonprofit organization dedicated to raising awareness about and facilitating a response to the abuse of Western legal systems and human rights law. Her award-winning documentary film, The Making of a Martyr, uncovers the illegal, state-sponsored indoctrination and recruitment of Palestinian children for suicide-homicide attacks. To view the trailer, click here. Goldstein is the co-author, with Aaron Eitan Meyer, of the recently published Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech: A First Amendment Guide for Reporting in an Age of Islamist Lawfare.

Goldstein will be speaking at the Philadelphia Chapter of the David Horowitz Freedom Center at The Office of Duane Morris, LLP. 30 South 17th Street, 12th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, on February 2nd from 5:00 to 6:30pm. To register for that event, click here.

FP: You run an organization that focuses on it and you’ve recently written a book about it, but for the benefit of the uninitiated reader, what is “lawfare” and what is it designed to accomplish?

BG: Lawfare is the use of the law as a weapon of war. More specifically, it is the manipulation of international human-rights law, the laws of armed conflict and legal terminology leading to their misapplication. Lawfare has basically three strategic goals. First, to frustrate and hinder the ability of democracies fight terrorism. Second, to undermine the rights of sovereign nations, including the rights to defend their citizens against imminent threats and exert sovereign control over their territory. And third, to punish and silence free speech about real national-security threats such as militant Islam, Islamist terrorism and terror financing.

FP: How does lawfare help to stifle free speech about the threats we face? And how did you become engaged in this subject?

BG: I’m a Canadian by birth but I moved to this country because I wanted to practice law and have a tremendous respect for the American Constitution. In the United States people enjoy more rights then ever recognized by a governing authority in the history of civilization. Yet there are many Americans who do not know what their rights are under the First Amendment and who don’t understand the implications of its guarantor of free speech. For instance, I get calls and emails from people who don’t know that blasphemy is not a crime in this country, or that free speech encompasses the right to speak and write truthfully about religion. I’ve gotten into discussions with bloggers who thought that hate speech was a crime in this country, which it’s not. American citizens have a right to speak freely and critically about their government and about religion. That principle is the cornerstone of liberal democracy and what the founding fathers based the First Amendment on.