Defending the Indefensible? Liz, McCarthy(s) and the GWOT

An old charge has been brought back from the grave and used against members of Keep America Safe, the political action committee dedicated to ensuring America’s benevolent hegemony abroad, as well as her safety at home.  The PAC was started by William Kristol, son of the late (great) Irving Kristol; Elizabeth Cheney (daughter of Dick Cheney); and Debra Burlingame, “sister of Charles F. ‘Chic’ Burlingame, III, pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.”  It would behoove us to keep in mind the effort that critics of KAS take in singling out only Kristol and Cheney in their attacks.  Let’s be clear however, that members of both the Right and Left are calling all three Founders “McCarthy-ites” when they levy these charges of “fear-mongering” and borderline Neo-Nazism. 

What’s funny, is that being called a McCarthyite is extraordinarily mild compared to the perpetual reduction ad Hitlerum the left consistently employs against National Security Conservatives.  While Washington Post editorial columnist Jonathan Capehart dares not tread past the label “fear-mongering” in his quaint and insipid blog post about the matter of “The Al-Qaeda 7,” one of the members of his amen corner dares tread where… well, most liberals dare to tread:

The Rabid Reichwingers like Lizzy Borden Cheney, and Dick Adolf Cheney, are liken to Vampires. Once they get a taste of BLOOD, they want more.

They know by attacking these Lawyers, that their Reichwing Minions will pressure any Lawyer who would dare defend the Terrorist.

They assume everyone’s as Ignorant as their Minions, and won’t remeber all the court cases doing the Bush Error, concerning Terrorist.

In reality the real Terrorist America should be concern with are people like Lizzy B. Cheney and the ever increasing “RABID REICH”.

(Spelling mistakes in the original, due in part to modern liberal education I assume)

Andrew Sullivan also falls into the old reduction ad Hitlerum a number of times, one instance being his 2007 rant against President Bush’s enhanced interrogations.  How depressing, that an erudite student of Dr. Harvey Mansfield would resort to such empty hyperbole.  But I digress.

So liberals like to associate Republicans with a political party responsible for the extermination of twelve million plus fellow human beings; all of a sudden being called a McCarthyite doesn’t sting as bad.  One of these days, it is my hope that being called a Neo-Nazi, a Klansmen, a McCarthyist, et cetera will ring hollow, like the heads from whence they were spoken.  I guess this makes me an idealist. 

The fury is over a recent KAS add which addresses the hiring of nine attorneys in the Department of Justice, who also happened to have represented suspected terrorists in the past.  This matter is a bit unnerving for some as I am sure the ACLU would not be so inclined as to hire, say, Robert Bork; or how about the Southern Poverty law Center giving jobs to a handful of lawyers who represented Aryan Nations, the Klan, or real Neo-Nazis.  Does that mean that those people should not be hired?  Of course not, and by now anyone who has been keeping up with the news has heard all of the historical anecdotes where good Americans represented clients who went against America’s principles in the name of justice in the rule of law.  The most famous example being reiterated is that of John Adams’ representation of the English soldiers who opened fire on a crowd of Colonialists in Boston, Massachusetts in 1770.

The main point, however, is not that the Department of Justice hired people who used to represent suspected terrorists.  Perhaps this entire issue would have been avoided if Eric Holder, the Attorney general, had just given the names to the Senate back in November 2009 when they requested further information on the matter, as Marc Thiessen points out in the Washington Post:

 

In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they’ve worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.

Holder stonewalled for nearly three months. Finally, two weeks ago, he admitted that nine political appointees in the Justice Department had represented or advocated for terrorist detainees, but he failed to identify seven whose names were not publicly known or to directly answer other questions the senators posed. So Keep America Safe, a group headed by Liz Cheney, posted a Web ad demanding that Holder identify the “al-Qaeda seven,” and a subsequent Fox News investigation unearthed the names. Only under this public pressure did the Justice Department confirm their identities — but Holder still refuses to disclose their roles in detention policy.

Andrew McCarthy also addresses the issue:

Only our terrorist enemies get the red carpet treatment. “Enemies” in this context is not hyperbole. We are at war under a congressional authorization. Nearly 200,000 young Americans are in harm’s way. But enemy operatives are returning to their jihad against our troops and our citizens thanks to the help of American law firms. Only lawyers demand immunity from the ordinary duties of citizenship in a nation at war. And they further demand to be above criticism for donating their skills to al Qaeda operatives (though American prisoners must represent themselves in habeas corpus actions). The profession would reinterpret “patriotism” in total relativism: some risk their lives to fight the enemy for us, while others litigate so the enemy may be freed to return to the fight. Americans are not buying – that’s why Liz Cheney’s common sense resonates.

 

As for Jonathan Capehart and the sycophantic left, I look forward to their confrontations with their peers about the way they treated Bush Administration lawyers who meticulously explored the issue of torture, enhanced interrogations, the War on Terror, and the law.  That was exactly what lawyers like John Yoo, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and other lawyers did when they wrote what are considered the ‘nefarious torture memos’ now.  Writing in-depth analysis into the heart and soul of security and the law warranted harassment by the fringe left at their private residences and even possible criminal indictments from Congress. 

In the end, Senator Grassley, Liz Cheney, Keep America Safe, and FoxNews were asking their government a question regarding the most important issue facing our Federal government.  This should be an issue that Conservatives and some libertarian-leaning friends can unite around, considering both consider the Federal government’s central role to be protecting citizens.  We have a right to ask questions regarding our safety; and the Obama Administration has a right to not answer us.  But don’t get your panties in a bunch when you get called out for promising transparency, and again fail to deliver on your campaign promise.  It’s politics.  Grow up. 

-rj

Meet Mark Lloyd: FCC Chief Propaganda Officer

Watch this:

Catch that? Media is a powerful tool when used “independently”. By this, Mark Lloyd of course means having a neutral third party watch dogging how media is used. And that neutral third party is of course the FCC whose people were appointed by a socialist progressive regime running our current government.

Lloyd wants to make sure your political intake is “fair and balanced”, but not in the sort of way Fox News advertises. More in the CCCP has decided what you should hear from this radio station or this TV channel sort of way.

This is the new face of the Fairness Doctrine by any other name would smell as sweet. Memorize it.

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. -Sun Tzu

Does anyone know what comes after media control? What comes after the “authority” controls media, is thought control. Don’t think this is possible? Do you think people in the world were as reasonable and conscientious as you or I today back 73 years ago? You know who was successful in controlling thoughts and actions of a well educated, reasonable, and conscientious people? The Nazi’s. First through controlling media, radio and newspapers, then controlling the message and counter message, and then by controlling how they thought. Did you know the Nazi’s told the German’s that they couldn’t smoke or eat certain foods because the government had decided what was best for them? Heard anything like that lately?

Mark Lloyd is not your friend. He is not here to help you or to make sure that everyone is hearing “both sides of the story.” He is here to make sure you hear the administrations side of the story.

In the futuristic tales of society, I always thought that Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World was much more on task than that of the more often referenced 1984 by George Orwell. Along with Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World focuses on a society too busy to care. Their democratic system lays crumbled at their feet. But it wasn’t a war that forced government control and the creep of communism and fascism like in 1984. Society is simply too wrapped up in the glitz and glamor of the newest soap opera, automobile, celebrity, etc to care about the dilapidation of their liberty. Sort of the society of which one-third of the country will watch the Super Bowl, but only 119 million will vote in a presidential election.

He [Lloyd] wants them to regulate political advertising and commentary, the number of commercials these stations run, and ratings information about programs before they are broadcast. So basically he wants to takeover regulation of the entire operation of radio and television stations. -Seton Motley, 8/26/2009, Glenn Beck Show

This isn’t a recent phenomenon for Lloyd though. In 2007 (Strangely enough the time period in which Dems backed off the Fairness Doctrine to rename it. Which begs the question, is this a new Dem strategy? If something doesn’t pass the taste test with the American people, you just rename it and try again?) Lloyd wrote an article called Forget the Fairness Doctrine for the Center for American Progress. A well known fair and balanced think tank in DC. Which is an accurate statement as long as “fair and balanced” means “as far left as possible”. If there was a cliff where you could go no farther left, CAP would have fallen off of it. The article itself begs additional questions, like if you are trying to present a neutral case for fair media balance, why aren’t you publishing in a newspaper instead of on CAP’s blog?

But I digress…

In the article, Forget the Fairness Doctrine Lloyd presents the case for regulating free speech.? But he also makes the case not to regulate free speech. You read that correctly. It’s very clever. Watch:

From paragraph 2:

Only the most misinformed still believe that radio group owners such as Citadel Broadcasting Corp., which refuses to air popular progressive hosts like Ed Shultz, are only concerned about the bottom line. Few would agree that markets such as Philadelphia and Houston are well served with 100 percent conservative talk radio.

Here Lloyd says there isn’t a balance, something he would like to change forceably. But…wait for it…

But that doesn?t mean that the answer to this pervasive imbalance is the Fairness Doctrine.

Then he pretends that this action is not what the Fairness Doctrine is all about.

From paragraph 3:

In our report, we call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity of programming, news, and commentary. And we call for more localism by putting teeth into the licensing rules.

And once again a call for enforcement of “balanced” media.

But we do not call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

Followed by the statement that what he is talking about isn’t the Fairness Doctrine.

You know what it’s called when someone tells you one thing but is attempting to do something else? Propaganda.

Maybe no one has told Lloyd what the Fairness Doctrine is? Because it sure sounds like he’s saying he doesn’t want the Fairness Doctrine, but he wants the ability to regulate local radio and television markets presentation of content. In fact, he couldn’t have been more clear.

By the way, this is the same guy that praised Chavez for taking over the media to execute his take over of the Venezuelan government.

I hope America has woken up in the last six months.? Because you are in for a long fight.? And we all have responsibility in the battle; both those of us who voted in this administration and those of us who didn’t do more to resist it.

The Obama administration is full of micro-presidents known as Czars that pull in the reigns of bureaucratic powers that have normally been separated from the Executive branch.? He has appointed self-confessing socialists and communists to places of power in our country, and the last six months has been an appetizer.

America, we’ve got 15 more months of this to go before we even have a shot at any recourse. Stimulus packages, cap-and-trade, and health care are just the tip of the spear. Steady your sights, and remain strong in your resolve.

-nick

Public Option Dead, Obama Administration A Failure?

The AP is reporting that the Obama Administration has decided today to scrap the Public Option in health care reform.

Government provided health care was central to his candidacy.? One has to now wonder if the administration is in someway ultimately considered a failure if the central policy of his platform has crumbled before our eyes.

If Obama fails in this key component of his platform would you consider his administration a failure?

-nick