Republicans are Responsible for new Terrorist Rights

In a staggering 5 to 3 decision, the Liberal majority on the nation's U.S. Supreme Court conferred Geneva Convention rights to those who are not a party to the Convention. For review sake, the Washington Times encapsulates the entire case:

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said a pending military tribunal for Yemeni national Salim Ahmed Hamdan, chauffeur to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, could not proceed because its structure and procedures violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.... Justice Scalia, writing the minority opinion, said Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act on Dec. 30 that "unambiguously provides" that no court, justice or judge has the jurisdiction to consider a petition on whether Guantanamo detainees were imprisoned lawfully and whether they should be released from custody.

Neither Osama Bin Laden the founder and titular head of Al Qaeda, Mullah Omar renamed the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, nor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the late leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, ever agreed to the conditions and restrictions of the Geneva Conventions. Neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban give a rip about the Geneva Conventions, yet the enemy of their enemy stated the following:

U.S. Senator Richard "Dick" Durbin - Democrat of Illinois "The United States Supreme Court handed down a decision reminding the Bush administration that no president is above the law. The court rejected the Bush administration's decision to turn its back on treaties and laws that have served America so well for generations."

U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader - Democrat of California (San Francisco) “Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law. “The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.”

U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy - Democrat of Massachusetts "...a stunning repudiation of the Bush administration's lawless behavior at Guantanamo...As we approach the Fourth of July, it is entirely appropriate that the Supreme Court has reminded the president and Secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law, even when our country is at war." What needs to be recognized in this decision is that the Supreme Court's liberal majority decided to write a legal opinion based on their personal politics - not jurisprudence. In the decision they ignored statutes passed by the congress last year and a previous supreme court decision in 1942 on the same issue. Also, some of these Left-Wing Liberals are...Republican!! It is easy for me to pick apart the legal decision however, I want to focus on the real problem - Republicans longing to get along with the domestic enemy of America - the American Left-Wing Liberal.

Now let's just accept the reality that Left-Wing Liberals (elected, appointed, civil servants, advocates, and all of the others) will rejoice at the fact that this terrorist and his cohorts have gained a significant victory against our nation's war on terror. I revel in fighting Left-Wing Liberals on every issue. However I realize the fact that it is the Repubican Party who enabled this morass of legal problems because we look the other way as our moderates become paramours of Left-Wing Liberals.

Some time ago, I wrote a blog entitled 9 out of 9. I made the point that every current member of the United Stated Supreme Court is currently serving with the explicit blessing of the Republican Party. Conservative Republicans voted in favor of these Left-Wing Liberals, knowing fully what their backgrounds were. It should be no surprise that the Left-Wing Liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court would disregard laws and precedents (of that court) in favor of the declared enemy of the United States.

Remember it is this majority who cites foreign constitutions as authority in their opinions - thereby subjecting U.S. Citizens to the Supremacy of those foreign Constitutions. So why would we be so surprised that this same judicial majority is similarly motivated to confer U.S. Constitutional protections to non-citizen who are combatants in foreign countries. The actions of the Left-Wing Liberal majority of the U.S. Supreme Court resemble the new world order and one world government that Left-Wing Liberal conspiracy theorists criticize that President Bush is accommodating.

The nation is currently reaping the harvest of horrible decisions made by Republicans who do not see the destructive power accommodating Left-Wing Liberals.

Homosexuality is no(longer) sin?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected on Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She will formally take office later this year.

Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual. "I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.How is this woman able to say that!! How was she able to simply disregard what the Bible says about Homosexuality? It is simple, U.S. Episcopal Church is not governed by God, it is fonded and governed by the British Monarchy – Man!

Why did she say this…This woman is no dummy. She is now pion. In the same article, Reuters reports:

Jefferts Schori, who was raised a Roman Catholic and graduated in marine biology with a doctorate specialization in squids and oysters, supported the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history. The 52-year-old bishop is married to Richard Schori, a retired theoretical mathematician. They have one daughter, Katharine Johanna, 24, a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and a pilot like her mother.

So why did Bishop Schori say that? Does she really believe what she said? Reuters again reports how she rationalizes her position:

The Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions. "The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said. "The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that's certainly the great message of Jesus - to include the unincluded."

Now before we begin to lose our senses in seething rage, let’s look at what she knows very well – the structure how her church. The U.S. Episcopal Church is a member of the Worldwide Anglican Communion. The head organization (aka mother Church) of the Worldwide Anglican Communion is the Church of England.

The Church of England is headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury (aka Primate of All England - chief religious figure in the Church of England). The office of Archbishop of Canterbury is filled by an appointment by the Prime Minister of England (the head of the national Government) and consent by Supreme Governor of the Church (the British Monarchy). So essentially the civil government is empowered to select the “pastor” and determine the ultimate direction of the entire 76 million member organization.

The current Archbishop is the Most Reverend and Right Honorable Dr Rowan Douglas Williams. Archbishop Douglass was appointed in 2003 by the current Prime Minister, Tony Blair and ratified by the current British Monarchy headed by the current Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II (who consulted heavily with the morally upright Prince Charles).

Another note. The current governing party in England is socialist. Socialism, like Communism, Fascism, and Despotism all share the same view that they, not the Bible, decides what is or is not a sin (Genesis 3:22).

So when Bishop Schori stated that Homosexuality is not a sin, she was merely exorcising her authority in her new role in the Worldwide Anglican Communion to overturn both church doctrine and Scripture.

I could not have said this better myself...

Murky Jack Murtha
By David Holman
Published 2/2/2006 12:09:11 AM


In the last year, ever since Tom DeLay became embroiled in the Jack Abramoff scandal, the Washington Post alone has published 168 articles mentioning Abramoff and DeLay. The Post's dogged Abramoff investigator, Susan Schmidt, has written 39 articles on Jack Abramoff in the last two years. Almost half of those made page A1 of the Post, and most were over 1,000 words in length. The Post has written enough about this scandal to fill a book -- literally -- and they probably will.

Since Rep. John Murtha made his splash in November with his call for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq, there have been no stories about Robert C. "Kit" Murtha in the Post. In fact, the Post has never mentioned Kit Murtha. A quick Lexis Nexis search turns up only a dozen or so mentions of "Kit" Murtha, Robert C. Murtha, or Robert Murtha in the last 15 years. Who is "Kit" Murtha?

He's John Murtha's brother -- a Washington lobbyist whose firm reeled in more than $20 million for its defense contractor clients in the 2004 Defense appropriations bill. And the Pennsylvania congressman is the ranking Democrat on the Defense appropriations subcommittee, which he also chaired for six years before Democrats lost the House in 1994.

It's a cozy relationship the likes of which are garnering heavy attention these days in Washington. Roy Blunt's family connections to K Street have received extensive coverage, as have Harry Reid's. Yet despite a front page story in the Los Angeles Times last June exposing Kit Murtha's firm's enormous success in steering defense contracts to its clients, other newspapers have been mostly silent: the Times has yet to follow up, and Murtha's lobbying ties have earned coverage by Roll Call and only single mentions in the Village Voice, Investor's Business Daily, and the Boston Globe just this week.

If Murtha were a powerful Republican legislator, the media would probably be all over this story. A former aide from John Murtha's office, Carmen V. Scialabba, is a top official at KSA Consulting, where Kit Murtha is a senior partner. KSA has directly lobbied Murtha's office on behalf of defense clients that directly benefited from the 2004 Defense bill. Murtha's subcommittee staff helps write Defense appropriations bills and oversees the lucrative earmark requests forwarded by Democrats. The contracts for KSA clients in the bill were entirely earmarks, the L.A. Times found. The Times also reported that most of KSA's defense clients hired the firm only after Kit Murtha became a senior partner in 2002.

The Hill reported in October that John Murtha is the top House recipient of campaign contributions from the defense industry for the past three years. As of the October 31, 2005 Federal Election Commission report, Murtha had received over $200,000 from defense firms in the 2006 election cycle, surpassing the next highest recipient by over $60,000.

Kit Murtha has been lobbying for defense firms since at least 1986, when he became Westinghouse's chief lobbyist in Harrisburg. In 1994, National Journal reported, Westinghouse made Kit Murtha its director of state and local government affairs, in which role he would also lobby the Pennsylvania congressional delegation in Washington. At that time, John Murtha chaired the defense appropriations subcommittee.

And what's more, Murtha's no stranger to congressional corruption scandals. Though eventually cleared by the House ethics committee (which means nothing legally), John Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal. (Abscam was an FBI sting operation of members of Congress from 1978 to 1980 in which one senator and five representatives were convicted of bribery and conspiracy.) As the Cybercast News Service recently detailed, Murtha was videotaped telling an undercover FBI agent, "I'm not interested. I'm sorry... at this point." When the House ethics committee cleared Murtha in 1981, CNS reported, the committee's lead counsel, E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., quickly resigned. When asked by Roll Call if he had resigned because of the committee's Murtha vote, he said that would be "a logical conclusion." Prettyman has otherwise declined to comment on the Murtha case.

An ethically suspect member of Congress, with close, personal connections to lobbyists whose clients are benefited by his committee? What more could the Washington Post need to begin sniffing around? And now that John Murtha's a nationally prominent politician, he should naturally attract closer scrutiny.

Perhaps that national prominence is steering the major press away. When Cybercast News Service asked Murtha about his Abscam past, he answered, "Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves." Rep. Murtha's office said he was giving interviews all day yesterday and would be unavailable for comment.

John Murtha is apparently using a controversy he created in November to shield himself from his ethical past. His comments about the war in Iraq make for convenient cover in an increasingly critical ethical atmosphere. The major media's silence is deafening.


David Holman is a reporter for The American Spectator.