NY Times Exposes Clinton Foundation

Editor’s Note – Hillary Clinton in 2016? Really? Already? Maybe not so fast. If she is already on the campaign trail as it clearly seems, then its time to vet her, time to educate America again on what would be another dismal failure.

Thank you NY Times for taking the lead on exposing your former NY Senator and our former Secretary of State.

As SUA has been saying for ages, it is amazing how little people actually know or remember about Hillary Clinton. It is equally stunning that she is already in coronation mode three years before the next Presidential election. The media along with the Democrat Party just look beyond all the issues that should completely derail her intentions, but they go on.

Now however, maybe the Main Stream Media is finally noticing that Hillary and her family have a multitude of problems – problems that may just derail her early. When the NY Times uncovers dirty secrets about the Clinton Foundation and reports it, there is more than just smoke, there is fire. Wake up America, Mrs. Clinton is not the answer, she is part of the problem, remember Benghazi and the Watergate hearings to name just a couple of issues?

In the matter of Benghazi, yes it does matter Mrs. Clinton, and in the matter of Watergate, yes we remember you were fired for lying to your boss on the prosecution team. The list is very long and we plan to bring it up at every turn. Obama was not properly vetted by America, and its clear that was a dismal mistake, now we MUST vet Mrs. Clinton, and out all the laundry, again.

Former First Lady, former Presidential Candidate, former NY Senator, former Rose Law Firm, former Secretary of State, former First Lady of Arkansas, former Health Care Czar – former is great word, lets use it often in her case to make sure she stays a ‘former’ in every way, shape, and form!

The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary

By  – Telegraph UK

Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticizing for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

Over a year ago Bill Clinton met with some aides and lawyers to review the Foundation’s progress and concluded that it was a mess. Well, many political start-ups can be, especially when their sole selling point is the big name of their founder (the queues are short at the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential Learning Center). But what complicated this review – what made its findings more politically devastating – is that the Clinton Foundation has become about more than just Bill. Now both daughter Chelsea and wife, and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton have taken on major roles and, in the words of the NYT “efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs Clinton’s political future.” Oh, they’re entangled alright.

Clinton Foundation

The NYT runs the scoop in its usual balanced, inoffensive way – but the problem jumps right off the page. The Clintons have never been able to separate the impulses to help others and to help themselves, turning noble philanthropic ventures into glitzy, costly promos for some future campaign (can you remember a time in human history when a Clinton wasn’t running for office?). And their “Ain’t I Great?!” ethos attracts the rich and powerful with such naked abandon that it ends up compromising whatever moral crusade they happen to have endorsed that month. That the Clinton Global Initiative is alleged to have bought Natalie Portman a first-class ticket for her and her dog to attend an event in 2009 is the tip of the iceberg. More troubling is that businessmen have been able to expand the profile of their companies by working generously alongside the Clinton Foundation. From the NYT:

Last year, Coca-Cola’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, won a coveted spot on the dais with Mr. Clinton, discussing the company’s partnership with another nonprofit to use its distributors to deliver medical goods to patients in Africa. (A Coca-Cola spokesman said that the company’s sponsorship of foundation initiatives long predated Teneo and that the firm plays no role in Coca-Cola’s foundation work.)

In March 2012, David Crane, the chief executive of NRG, an energy company, led a widely publicized trip with Mr. Clinton to Haiti, where they toured green energy and solar power projects that NRG finances through a $1 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.

This is typical Clinton stuff. The second thing I ever wrote for this website was about how corporations invest in politicians as a way of building their brand and raising their stock price. It can lead to some funny partnerships. This, from 2011:

Just this month, bedding manufacturer Serta announced that it will be sponsoring Bill Clinton’s keynote address to an industry conference in August. “To us,”’ said the head of the company, “Clinton represents leadership. This appearance shows Serta is a leader and is taking a leadership position. This singles us out.” Some might say that it is beneath a former president to basically endorse Serta’s new “Perfect Sleeper” line, even with its “revolutionary gel foam mattress”.

The cynical might infer from the NYT piece that the Clintons are willing to sell themselves, their image, and even their Foundation’s reputation in exchange for money to finance their personal projects. In Bill’s case, saving the world. In Hillary’s case, maybe, running for president.

It’s nothing new to report that there’s an unhealthy relationship in America between money and politics, but it’s there all the same. While the little people are getting hit with Obamacare, high taxes and joblessness, a class of businessmen enjoys ready access to politicians of both Left and Right that poses troubling questions for how the republic can continue to call itself a democracy so long as it functions as an aristocracy of the monied. Part of the reason why America’s elites get away with it is becuase they employ such fantastic salesmen. For too long now, Bill Clinton has pitched himself, almost without question, as a homespun populist: the Boy from Hope. The reality is that this is a man who – in May 1993 – prevented other planes from landing at LAX for 90 minues while he got a haircut from a Beverley Hills hairdresser aboard Air Force One. The Clintons are populists in the same way that Barack Obama is a Nobel prize winner. Oh, wait…

NY Times – Revisionist history on the West Bank

By SUA Staff – Why is it, that after 45 years, the US media still mischaracterizes the 1967 war in the Middle East?

Why, not because they cannot read or study factual history, rather, they chose to adopt revisionist history. In the following article below, it is clear that this is yet another example of how the so-called “newspaper of record”, the NY Times, rewrites history and slants its news – blatantly.

When the Arab nations lined up to annihilate Israel in 1967, Jordan controlled in part, what is referred to as Yesha. Yesha is an acronym in Israel for “Yehuda Shomron ‘Azza'”, also known as the West Bank (Samaria and Judea) and the Gaza (Azza) Strip, and is one of a number of terms used to describe the areas won by Israel after the Six-Day War of June 1967.

In the area of Yesha on the “West Bank” of Judeah and Samaria, the NY Times claims Israel “took” it from Jordan. Unfortunately for the NY Times, that is a myth:


“Israel attacked Jordan to capture Jerusalem.”


Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent a message to King Hussein saying Israel would not attack Jordan unless he initiated hostilities. When Jordanian radar picked up a cluster of planes flying from Egypt to Israel, and the Egyptians convinced Hussein the planes were theirs, he then ordered the shelling of West Jerusalem. It turned out the planes were Israel’s, and were returning from destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. Meanwhile, Syrian and Iraqi troops attacked Israel’s northern frontier.

Had Jordan not attacked, the status of Jerusalem would not have changed during the course of the war. Once the city came under fire, however, Israel needed to defend it, and, in doing so, took the opportunity to unify the city, ending Jordan’s 19-year occupation of the eastern part.

Another fact they missed was the pre-war set, and the position of Jordan:

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30, 1967. Nasser (Egypt) then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . ​to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.” On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

Buoyed by false reports of Egyptian success, Jordan initiated offensive actions against Israel from the eastern portion of Jerusalem and from lands it occupied west of the Jordan river (the West Bank). Israeli forces responded by attacking Jordanian military positions. After a three days of fierce fighting, especially in and around Jerusalem, Israeli forces defeated the Jordanians and gained control of all of Jerusalem as well as the West Bank, the historical heartland of the Jewish people known to Israelis as Judea and Samaria.


Jordan (originally called Transjordan) was created out of the Palestine Mandate by Great Britain in 1923, and achieved full independence in 1946. In 1948, during the war against Israel, Transjordan conquered and annexed what became known as the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Old City of Jerusalem, but only Britain and Pakistan recognized its sovereignty there.

In fact, one small issue defies logic, how was Judea every anyone else’s but Israel’s, since it was originally Judah, one of the 12 tribes of Israel? The very name Judea (Yehuda) is part the root for the term “Jew”. How was Judea ever an ancestral Arab homeland, let alone a “Hashemite” homeland, since it was a land conquered from the Jews?

Even the Nazis called Jews “Juden”. History, fail to know it – doomed to repeat it – shame on the NY Times – again!

NY Times Claims Israel ‘Took’ Yesha from Jordan in 1967

A NY Times editorial rewrites history: Israel “took” Judea and Samaria from Jordan in 1967, when Jordan fled the areas in the Six Day war.

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu – Israel National News

New York Times editorial Tuesday rewrites history and claims Israel “took” Judea and Samaria from Jordan in 1967, when Jordan fled the areas after joining other Arab nations as they converged on Israel in the Six Day War.

The editorial lambasted Israel in last week’s non-binding report by a government-appointed judicial panel, which contradicted the international community’s claim that Israel is an “occupier” and that it is illegal for Jewish communities to exist in Judea and Samaria.

The editorial stance of the Times was not surprising, but its editorial actually twisted the fact that Israel never “took” or conquered Judea and Samaria. The newspaper also repeated the frequent claim, not supported by facts, that all of Judea and Samaria were under authorized Jordanian sovereignty.

The Israeli panel of three legal experts, chaired by former High Court Justice Edmund Levy, pointed out that Jordan actually was the occupier of what mainstream media calls the “West Bank, which also is a misnomer because the literal definition is all of the land west of the Jordan River and reaching the Mediterranean Coast.

The United Nations partition plan of 1947 was to divide Israel, administered under the British Mandate, between Israel and a new Arab state after Britain had created the artificial country of Transjordan. After the Arab world refused to accept the idea of a Jewish State of Israel, the War for Independence broke out and ended with the Temporary Armistice Lines of 1949. Jordan assumed sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria because its forces had occupied the area.

Jordanian forces fled the entire area during the Six Day War in 1967, leaving Israel to administer Judea and Samaria. Israel could be termed an “occupier” in the land that fell under its control and had been part of the country, but Jordan itself had occupied Judea and Samaria in 1947.

Nevertheless, The New York Times editorial continues to allege that Israel is in violation of “the Fourth Geneva Convention [that] bars occupying powers from settling their own populations in occupied lands.”

Even the editorial’s headline – “Wrong Time for New Settlements” – was a bit misleading concerning the newspaper’s opinion, which does not leave an option for a “right time” for settlements.

The Times also concluded that the Levy report was a “disastrous blow” because “pushing ahead with new settlements in the West Bank” is an obstacle to “peace talks, the best guarantee of a durable solution” to the Palestinian Authority-Israeli dispute.”

The newspaper even warned that the report also will damage Western efforts to halt Iran’s unsupervised nuclear development.

It reasoned that the report will bring about “new international anger at Israel…that could divert attention from Iran just when the world is bearing down with sanctions and negotiations to curb Tehran’s nuclear program.”

McCarthy – Hit List and the NY Times praise for Obama

Editor’s Note – “Andy, who put the Blind Sheik behind bars in the first World Trade Center bombing, ” PJM CEO Roger L. Simon writes, “was arguably the most important prosecutor in the War on Terror. He is among the most authoritative writers anywhere on the dangers of Jihad. His distinguished legal career and expertise on national security matters will be invaluable to PJ Media and our readers.”

From “Rule of Law” to Hit List: The Times Lauds Obama at War

by Andrew C. McCarthy – PJ Media

“The president accepts as a fact that a certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen, and to him, that calls for a more judicious process.” Well, that’s certainly a judicious use of judicious by William Daley. The former White House chief of staff was addressing the inevitability of collateral damage inherent in President Barack Obama’s principal war strategy against al-Qaeda: killing suspected terrorists by firing missiles from unmanned drones that scour faraway skies over Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. This was about halfway through the New York Times‘ rambling 6,300-word testimonial to Obama’s unparalleled splendor as a wartime commander-in-chief.

You see, for all the precision of modern weaponry, it turns out error is simply unavoidable: sometimes the wrong targets get hit and the wrong people get killed by our armed forces and the presidents who command them. Fog of war, and all that. For many years — specifically, from October 2001 through January 19, 2009 — the Times saw this inevitability as grist for scandal. But suddenly, the Gray Lady has evolved, just like its heroically “pragmatic” commander-in-chief. Collateral killings are just the way it goes — and if Obama camouflages what the Left used to insist were civilian casualties by a post facto declaration that everyone killed was a “combatant,” the Times has suddenly decided that, far from crying out for a war crimes investigation, this just proves his lawyerly brilliance.

Obama and Brennan meet

After all, it is the end result of a “judicious process.” That’s judicious, not judicial. Of course, time was when candidate Obama, his campaign surrogates, and the Times would have scoffed at the notion that the executive branch was capable of judiciously prosecuting the battle, determining who was the enemy, and taking action to kill or capture and detain. Sure, from 1787 through 2001, presidents may have been trusted with plenary control over war-fighting. But that was then. Now, according to the Bush-deranged Left, the “rule of law” demanded a judicialprocess. Terrorists don’t wear uniforms — a willful violation of the laws of war that the Left converted into a presumption of innocence. Thus, progressives told us, to hold suspected terrorists, let alone kill them, based on nothing more than a unilateral executive branch determination, no matter how “judicious,” was a shredding of the Constitution and a profound violation of international law.

Now that the president’s name is Obama, though, “judicious” executive unilateralism is more than enough to justify killing — and not only in an emergency: the Times depicts Obama as the don, meeting weekly with his consiglieri to decide who lives and who dies.

Eleven years into post-9/11 combat operations and facing a tough reelection fight, it has conveniently dawned on the Obama Left that when the nation is threatened and takes up arms, the risk of error shifts from the government, which bears it in peacetime law-enforcement operations, to “the enemy.” For the Times — whose epic account of Obama at war begins with a portentous “This was the enemy” – enemy is the term now in vogue for what, heretofore, were known merely as “young Muslim men,” subjected either to indefinite detention without trial or to being slain under ambiguous circumstances in Bush’s “war on terror,” which was really a “war against Islam.” Now that those young Muslim men are being detained or killed by Obama, it is remarkable to discover what a mortal threat to the United States they really are. And it further turns out that, while our intelligence community does the best it can, warfare requires our combat forces to take action without the certainty of meticulously tested courtroom evidence — and that’s suddenly okay, too: When people are plotting to mass-murder Americans, the Times wants you to know that we can’t afford to wait until we have proof that will satisfy a jury; they need to be rubbed out, pronto.

What is most astonishing in the story co-authored by Jo Becker and Scott Shane is its rationalization of the president’s naivete and amateur-hour missteps. In the revisionist history, these are seen as emblematic of the Omniscient One’s duplicity — which the reporters, far from finding offensive, portray as the president’s most praiseworthy attribute. “Bush lied and people died”; Obama lies and … it is his unmatched attorney’s mind at work.

Obama signs Executive Order to close Gitmo after taking the oath of office in 2009

Thus does the Times celebrate what, in the retelling is Obama’s knowing deception — not his ideologically-driven recklessness — in ceremoniously pronouncing, on his second day in office, that Gitmo would be closed and that he would make good on other campaign commitments to turn the clock back — back to Clintonian courtroom counterterrorism, away from Bush-era reliance on the laws of war. Even as the Times and rest of the Left deliriously swooned, we now discover that Obama was furtively inserting “a few subtle loopholes” in his first executive orders, “already putting his lawyerly mind to carving out the maximum amount of maneuvering room to fight terrorism as he saw fit.” An outrage? No, the Times sees this as just “the deft insertion of some wiggle words” by “a realist who, unlike some of his fervent supporters [ACM: the Times, for one] was never carried away by his own rhetoric.” The Paper of Record, which spent years obsessing over 16 words in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address, now builds sleight-of-hand into the president’s job description.

And why not? Why shouldn’t the Times‘s preferred commander-in-chief be afforded the same loose acquaintance with the truth that the paper allows itself? For how else could it publish paragraphs such as this:

The care that Mr. Obama and his counterterrorism chief take in choosing targets, and their reliance on a precision weapon, the drone, reflect his pledge at the outset of his presidency to reject what he called the Bush administration’s “false choice between our safety and our ideals.”

In point of fact, we learn in the course of the article (as if we did not know already) that the drone is not all that precise: It often takes lives and destroys property beyond its narrow targets. Furthermore, because the Obama administration, in its demagoguery against Gitmo and Bush detention policies, has nullified the options of capturing and interrogating jihadists, “our ideals” now apparently include killing people we could have taken alive — and whose intelligence we could have exploited to save American lives. And if those people happen not to be the people we were trying to kill, Obama just counts them as terrorists anyway — as long as they fit the administration’s profile for Muslim terrorists.

But a more overarching point: When Obama excoriated Bush for offering a “false choice between our safety and our ideals,” he was referring to the Bush wartime preference for executive processes over judicial ones. The Times well knows this, because it was leading the Obama cheering section. In what now passes for “our ideals,” however, Obama is not just unilateral judge and jury; he is executioner, as well. Bush was convinced the war model was necessary to protect the nation, but he left the war-fighting to the professionals. Obama, by contrast” is the “liberal law professor” who “insist[s] on approving every new name on an expanding ‘kill list,’ poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre ‘baseball cards’ of an unconventional war.”

Not to worry about this seeming contradiction, though. The doctrinaire secularists at the Times want to assure you that The One even transcends what up until five minutes ago was the essential “wall of separation” between church and state. You see, our current commander-in-chief, that erudite protege of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a sharp departure from the Bible-thumping rube who last held the job. Obama is “a student writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas,” who is determined “to apply the ‘just war’ theories of Christian philosophers to a brutal modern conflict.”

What Obama, or, for that matter, the Times, actually grasps about Christian just war theory is unclear. (If you actually want to know what it is, a few words from George Weigel are a better expenditure of your time than a few thousand words from folks who find virtue in not being “carried away by [their] own rhetoric.”) But we do learn that Obama-style “just war theory” bears a striking resemblance to Obama-style “pragmatism” — which somehow always manages to get to the result Obama finds politically expedient.

So we discover that Obama applies a strict moral imperative in his judicious application of just war drone-killing … except when he doesn’t. The target must be an imminent threat to the United States … except when he isn’t. There must be a “‘near certainty’ of no innocents being killed” … except when there isn’t. The Times concedes, for example, that Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud “did not meet the Obama administration’s criteria for targeted killing”: he was not a threat to the United States and, when located by the CIA, he was surrounded by innocents — staying with his wife at his in-laws home. But, hey, “Pakistani officials wanted him dead.” Obama rationalized that the drone program was necessary and the “drone program rested on [the Pakistanis’] tacit approval.” And, yes, killing Mehsud with a missile would necessarily entail killing those in his company, but them’s the breaks. The don gave the order.

Drone Strike with multiple missiles

And on it goes, at times sadly hilariously. The Times, for example, notes that “the president’s resolve” was “stiffened” by a “series of plots” that included “the killling of 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex. by an Army psychiatristwho had embraced radical Islam.” The Times does not note that, with this one passing reference tying Major Nidal Hassan’s jihadist rampage to Islamic supremacist ideology, the Gray Lady has surpassed the Pentagon in explaining what happened at Fort Hood. Applying the Obama-imposed conscious avoidance mandate, the armed forces did not refer to Islam or jihad in its 75-page report on the massacre, which the administration prefers to frame as a case of “workplace violence.”

In the main, though, the Times report is a study in the Left’s self-absorption. When modern progressives are out of power, warfare is unnecessary — a simplistic, “might makes right” resort to force when the Left’s brand of nuanced diplomacy would have done the trick. Reasonable suspicion is never enough: no one is to be assumed an enemy of the United States absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that will stand up in court; and if a Republican president resists the “transparency” of judicial review, or resorts to measures like military detention or immigration-law deportation in order to protect its intelligence secrets from exposure, it is chipping away at the very foundations of constitutional governance, such that the Republican administration should be understood as more of a threat to America than the terrorists. Only when the Left is in power does war become necessary, as well as excruciatingly complex and difficult. Only then must we learn to be understanding when irresponsible political rhetoric crashes into hostile reality, and when moral lines in the sand are constantly crossed and haphazardly redrawn … only to be crossed yet again.

This would all be easier to swallow if the evolution came with an apology. But it is packaged in the same smarm as original antiwar, anti-Bush indictment: the more events reveal Obama’s predispositions to be half-baked, inept and unrealistic, the more you are supposed to admire his savvy pragmatism in not merely abandoning them but pretending he never really held them in the first place — while the courtiers applaud.


Andrew C. McCarthy, is a former federal prosecutor and New York Times bestselling author of The Grand Jihad andWillful Blindness; he’s also a regular contributor at National Review and The New Criterion.

“Andy, who put the Blind Sheik behind bars in the first World Trade Center bombing, ” PJM CEO Roger L. Simon writes, “was arguably the most important prosecutor in the War on Terror. He is among the most authoritative writers anywhere on the dangers of Jihad. His distinguished legal career and expertise on national security matters will be invaluable to PJ Media and our readers.”

Outside of his legal and writing careers, Andy has been coaching little league baseball for the last few years. He’s been a hockey fan for more than 40 years, and he and his family watch sports all year round: mainly Mets, Jets, Knicks and Devils.

"Idiosyncratic rights" – NY Times, Ginsberg, Rule-of-man vs. Natural Law

By Scott W. Winchell

The NY Times does it again. Well at least its Supreme Court correspondent and long time legal counsel to the NY Times, Adam Liptak, “notably” writing about the 1st amendment in his career, has done it again, they tell American how “The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.” What about the ones they want to take away? To reduce it further? That is double-talk.

As a Constitutional scholar, as he is billed, he and the NY Times have never understood the Constitution, and in this article on our rights, commenting on a study of how other governments mirrored our foundational document, or migrated away from using it, demonstrates this once again. It demonstrates the arrogance that man can grant rights.

They just do not understand that it does not matter what other countries do or do not do constitutionally, what matters are the unalienable rights all persons possess by birth. What matters is that our founders understood the basics of natural rights, not those designed by a political ideology or trend, and they set up a system so these cannot be legislated or stolen away by man. That is the difference!

Just like the court that Obama snubbed in Georgia over the qualifier for eligibility to be President, the term “Natural-born” was bastardized, ignored, demeaned, and rendered un-needed, Liptak and these scholars ignore that the rights in our Constitution are “unalienable.” Again, they dispel parts and then claim we do not have a document that grants enough rights. One example of his reasoning:

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms.

Liptak thinks the second amendment is an idiosyncrasy, not an un-alienable right, the right to defend yourself against a government that may seek to take your rights away by force. Again, liberals just do not get it, and they never will; its not about man made rights, its about natural law. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot…take away your guns, so you cannot fight tyranny. That is what America is about, who cares what foreigners wish to do.

To date, the USA is still the best government ever created, the others keep trotting out old ideas, failed ideas. Ours is transcendent.

Then he trots out the icons of virtue to our north whose charter includes:

…balances those rights against “such reasonable limits” as “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

“Reasonable limits”? That’s man-talk, not nature’s law. Who is doing the justifying? A person, a fallible person or persons, at the whim of society, again, trodding on natural law…”idiosyncratic man…?”

Adding, or creating rights through government, means that same government can take them away. Our constitution mandates that ours are unalienable, and are not derived of man, but of nature itself. Therefore government cannot take away that which it did not create. They can do what these other governments do, trod all over them, but they still exist.

Additionally, Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg does not understand either, or better yet, she does not agree with our founders. Her opinions are not supposed to enter the mix in her work, but she sure likes to tell others, and that taints every action she has ever taken in her role in the the diminished influence of the Supreme Court.

This is reflected by other nations where “…foreign judges say they have become less likely to cite decisions of the United States Supreme Court.” Who cares, they are nations with rule-of-man, not rule-of-law. Like Canada, some believe they are more enlightened than natural law, and therefore have to change or “limit” them.

The fact that others mirror our words is not the point, they instituted “parchment guarantees” that never guaranteed rights in reality. There is no guarantee like ours, unless Americans allow men to trod upon them. Here is what Ginsburg thinks, and then the article by Adam Liptak:

‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World

By Adam Liptak

NY Times

Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is waning.

In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”

A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according toa new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.

The study, to be published in June in The New York University Law Review, bristles with data. Its authors coded and analyzed the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006, and they considered 237 variables regarding various rights and ways to enforce them.

“Among the world’s democracies,” Professors Law and Versteeg concluded, “constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s.”

“The turn of the twenty-first century, however, saw the beginning of a steep plunge that continues through the most recent years for which we have data, to the point that the constitutions of the world’s democracies are, on average, less similar to the U.S. Constitution now than they were at the end of World War II.”

There are lots of possible reasons. The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.

In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” he said.

In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or theEuropean Convention on Human Rights.

The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in “Our Undemocratic Constitution,” “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today.” (Yugoslavia used to hold that title, but Yugoslavia did not work out.)

Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale, replacing them on average every 19 years. By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” These days, the overlap between the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those most popular around the world is spotty.

Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)

The Constitution’s waning global stature is consistent with the diminished influence of the Supreme Court, which “is losing the central role it once had among courts in modern democracies,” Aharon Barak, then the president of the Supreme Court of Israel, wrote in The Harvard Law Review in 2002.

Many foreign judges say they have become less likely to cite decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in part because of what they consider its parochialism.

“America is in danger, I think, of becoming something of a legal backwater,” Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia said in a 2001 interview. He said that he looked instead to India, South Africa and New Zealand.

Mr. Barak, for his part, identified a new constitutional superpower: “Canadian law,” he wrote, “serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world.” The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.

The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against “such reasonable limits” as “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

There are, of course, limits to empirical research based on coding and counting, and there is more to a constitution than its words, as Justice Antonin Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October. “Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights,” he said.

“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ ”

Give the Pulitzer Prize back – Levin proven wrong again!

By Scott W. Winchell, Editor-in-Chief – How many times does one have to endure being investigated, cleared of all charges each time, and then investigated again? Apparently Senator Carl Levin thinks at least four.

Yet, despite failing to prove his accusations and all his demagoguery, he is still adamant that there was some sort of propaganda machine pushing the US to war in Iraq. Those of us who are intimately aware of the facts leading up to that war, the existence of WMD, and the end of Saddam Hussein’s murderous rule, know that the only propaganda that took place was the anti-war machine, led by people like Senator Levin and the NY Times.

They just didn’t like facts because they hate the military and they had already made up their minds. Despite proving Albert Einstein’s definition of stupid, they keep accusing and demanding further investigations, expecting a different outcome each time.

David Barstow - NY Times Pulitzer Prize Winner De-Bunked

The left was looking for Donald Rumsfeld’s head on a platter and they beat the propaganda drums with their loyal aids in the Main Stream Media, trying to ruin the reputation of many retired flag and command officers who spoke the truth on the air. When do these folks get their reputations back? Who is going to compensate them for lost income?

When will the Pulitzer Prize Committee demand the return of the award they gave NY Times’ David Bartsow for printing the story that accused so many great people of wrongdoing.

From Democracy Now:

David Barstow, investigative reporter at the New York Times, won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting for his articles Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand and One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex.

In his first national broadcast interview, New York Times reporter David Barstow speaks about his 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning expose of the Pentagon propaganda campaign to recruit more than seventy-five retired military officers to appear on TV outlets as military analysts ahead of and during the Iraq war.

Apparently with the Pentagon releasing information to the public that you don’t agree with or like is propaganda. That is what Barstow and Levin apparently thought when they saw Pentagon documents and heard of briefings where Military EXPERTS attended and were given permission to speak about the content on air. Unfortunately, its not propaganda when one speaks truth, a concept that the left cannot comprehend. Its all fine when they (the left) twist the truth, demagogue, manipulate data and stats, and promote conspiracy theories. What is pricelss is that since they do it all the time, they think everyone does.

The left just flat out hates the military, so they try everything they can to de-fund it, cast aspersions upon it, and attempt to ruin the reputations of its American citizen soldiers. Apparently defending America is a bad thing, even after eons of proof that appeasement of mad men does not work. Let’s go and talk with Iranian mad men until they die of boredom?

Pentagon’s inspector general finds no misconduct in briefing program

Concludes three-year investigation

By Rowan Scarborough

The Washington Times

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin pressed for a probe of a government briefing program, but no misconduct was found. (Associated Press)Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin pressed for a probe of a government briefing program, but no misconduct was found. (Associated Press)

Senator Levin - Wrong AGAIN!

The Pentagon’s inspector general has released his final report on a Donald H. Rumsfeld-era program for briefing TV and radio military analysts, concluding for a second time that there was no wrongdoing.

The three-year investigation by the inspector general marks the fourth time a federal agency has found no improper conduct in the program.

The probes involved some of Washington’s most influential voices.

Some of the accused Military Analysts - Exonerated - AGAIN!

There was a powerful journalism institution. The investigations were spurred by a 2008 Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times story that strongly implied the practice of giving briefings to retired military analysts (RMAs) violated Pentagon rules against propaganda.

The story also suggested the ex-officers, some of whom worked as defense contractors, received financial favors from the Pentagon because of their roles.

There was Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin, who pressed the inspector general to find that the program was improper.

And there were the analysts themselves, some war heroes, boasting three and four stars during long military careers, who went on the air to comment on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

They repeatedly denied they had done anything wrong.

  • In the end, no agency found wrongdoing.
  • The first inspector general’s report, in 2009, said the briefing program was legitimate.
  • The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’ auditing arm, later said the program followed regulations.
  • Democrats pressed the Federal Communications Commission to find that the analysts had violated federal law, but the FCC has issued no report.
  • Mr. Levin, Michigan Democrat, pressed Pentagon Inspector General Gordon S. Heddell for another probe, and his findings were just released.

On the main issue, the new report says: “We found that the [Pentagon public affairs office] conducted the RMA outreach activities in compliance with policy and regulation.”

On the second issue of whether the retired officers gained financially, the report concludes: “Based on interviews, we did not identify that the RMA outreach activities provided a financial benefit to those RMAs affiliated with a defense contractor. Our review of relevant procurement ethics rules and regulations identified nothing that would preclude the RMAs with such an affiliation from participating in the events.”

On possible wrongdoing cited in the 2008 New York Times story, the report says: “We also reviewed the specific examples mentioned in the New York Times article. Based on our interviews, we did not find that the RMA outreach participants used the RMA outreach activities to further their own or the affiliated Defense contractor’s interests.”

Mr. Levin’s spokeswoman had no comment Thursday.

The Washington Times reported Sept. 24 that a draft report had cleared the briefings’ participants of wrongdoing.

The Times also reported Nov. 3 that Mr. Levin had intervened in the probe via a senior aide who, according to a source close to the investigation, was communicating with the inspector general’s office in an effort to get some findings changed.

Mr. Levin did not comment to The Times but later acknowledged the contacts to Fox News.

Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is conducting a review to determine whether there was an attempt to influence the inspector general.

Said retired Army Col. Ken Allard, one of the investigated military analysts: “Where do we go to have our reputations restored after four federal investigations and who knows how many millions spent? I meant every word of that letter I sent to Issa: This was a media-political cabal of congressional Democrats and the New York Times. And, oh, by the way, it turned out that, just as in war, the first reports were wrong.”

Said Keith Urbahn, spokesman for former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld: “Two things ought to happen, though they never will. One, the New York Times should give back its Pulitzer for a story that is now proven to be a fabrication. And two, Sen. Carl Levin should reimburse U.S. taxpayers for what must be the millions of dollars squandered in pursuit of repeated investigations that he ordered to fit his partisan agenda. And while they’re at it, the New York Times and the senator from Michigan ought to apologize to the uniformed military officers whose reputations were maligned by their attacks.”