DREAM Act Scorecard: The GOP Senate Fence-Sitters

The following GOP Senators haven't made up their mind on whether they should oppose a bill that amounts to a 2.1 million future Democrat voter recruitment drive. Know your fence-sitters:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN 202-224-2235; 480-897-6289: Staff says he "hasn't made a public statement" and "hasn't made up his mind." He talked a tough border security game to get re-elected, while promising illegal alien activists he would "resolve their issues." Arizona, you chose to re-elect him. You get what you deserve.

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE 202-224-5344; 207-874-0883: Staff says she "hasn’t released a statement."

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS 202-224-2523; 207-945-0417: Staff says she "hasn’t released a public statement."

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI 202-224-6665; 907-271-3735: Staff says she’s "still reviewing the bill."

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK 202-224-6521; 785-233-2503 Staff says he "hasn’t had a chance to look at it" and remains non-committal.

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON 202-224-5922; 214-361-3500: Staff says she "hasn’t released a statement," but will probably do so later today. UPDATE: HUTCHISON will vote AGAINST DREAM Act in its present form, says staff.

SEN. GEORGE LEMIEUX 202-224-3041; 904-398-8586: Recorded message informs callers that he’s "in a meeting." He has yet to publicly state his position as open-borders extremists step up pressure. UPDATE: LEMIEUX IS A NO.

***

FYI: The following GOP Senators who had been of concern say they are opposed to the stand-along DREAM Act:

SEN. SCOTT BROWN: Staff says he "does not support ANY taxpayer illegal alien amnesty bills," including the DREAM Act.

SEN. MIKE JOHANNS: Opposed the DREAM Act. Period.

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: Opposed.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: A former DREAM Act champion, he is now opposed.

***

SEN. JUDD GREGG: Staff says he is a likely no vote.

***

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR, an original co-sponsor of the DREAM Act amnesty, remains a staunch supporter.

***

Your voice and your calls count. Make yourselves heard

Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed "central to the activity" of the site regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the "nuclear option," which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites "off."

Read More: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/coica-web-censorship-bill/

FCC Chief to Move on Net Neutrality

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is putting together a net neutrality proposal and plans to take action on the controversial issue as early as next month, according to several sources with knowledge of the situation.

Details of the proposal being developed by Genachowski's office are unclear, but sources say it could be similar to the deal stakeholders tried to reach with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) earlier this fall.

The long-running net neutrality debate centers around rules that would require Internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally. Internet companies like Google and Skype want net neutrality rules applied to both wireline and wireless networks, but network operators including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast say they need flexibility to manage web traffic on their lines.

President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to implement net neutrality rules. Genachowski’s plans to carry out that promise were hampered when a federal court ruled the FCC did not have legal authority to adopt the regulations.

Internet and telecom companies have been in trying to reach a compromise on the hot-button issue, first at the FCC over the summer and most recently with Congress. Under the arrangement shepherded b y Waxman, wireline networks would have been subject to net neutrality rules, meaning the biggest telecom companies would not be able to discriminate against any web traffic or content on their traditional wireline networks.

Wireless networks, however, would not have been subject to all of those non-discrimination requirements. The major telecom and Internet stakeholders, as well as several public interest groups, signed onto the deal, but Republicans on Capitol Hill refused to support the draft proposal, especially so close to the mid-term elections.

It now appears Genachowski, after receiving significant pressure from net neutrality advocates and public interest groups to take action after congressional efforts failed, is picking up where Waxman left off.

“We haven’t circulated the December agenda,” said Jen Howard, spokeswoman for the FCC chairman’s office. “These rumors from outside, uniformed sources are pure speculation at best.”


Article from the Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45371.html#ixzz15kXGeruS

Corrupt DeStefano Campaign Seeks Legitimacy By Fraudulently Using NJ Tea Party Coalition Name in Ads

On Thursday, October 28, the New Jersey Tea Party Coalition received word that fraudulent advertisements (Google Ads) have been appearing on the internet connecting the NJTPC to Peter DeStefano. Mr. DeStefano has no connection to the NJTPC, nor does he have a connection to any legitimate Tea Party in the State.

In New Jersey’s Third Congressional District, Congressman John Adler (D) is in a tight race with challenger Jon Runyan (R). Peter DeStefano is a third party challenger claiming to be the Tea Party Candidate.

According to press accounts, Congressman John Adler’s campaign manager Geoff Mackler directed the collection of signatures to get DeStefano on the ballot as a third-party spoiler.

A poll sponsored by Richard Stockton College’s Hughes Public Policy Center puts Jon Runyan and John Adler in a statistical dead heat. We can only conclude that this attempt to link Peter DeStefano to the NJTPC is an attempt to legitimize his candidacy in the minds of conservative voters and to draw votes from John Runyan’s campaign.

At this point, we have filed complaints with Google in regards to at least 6 different ad links. The NJ Tea Party denounces these advertisements as well as the actions of the DeStefano and Adler campaigns and is seeking the person or group that has placed these ads. We believe this action was not only corrupt and immoral, but illegal as well.

We would ask anyone with knowledge of who placed these fraudulent ads to contact us through our website: http://www.njteapartycoalition.org


NJ Tea Party Coalition

Dear Conservative Editorialist,

by John Anthony

To those conservative editorialists and strategists who grab the Moet every time Mr. Obama drops one point in popularity: will you please cork the bottle until after the election?

To those who proclaim the biggest sweeping victory in 30 years, will you kindly look to the present, at least until November 2nd?

Your premature buoyancy spins our opponent's lethargy into energy. Your endless presumptions of yet un-won seats morphs our oppressors into underdogs and provides raw meat for the Obama grinder.

Congressional representatives are already deciding how they will negotiate with the President when we have not even had an election. Thank you for providing our sleeping enemy with a wakening cause.

We can sizably win this election. However, you are making the jobs for us on the ground ever so much tougher.

If you do not stop, the only November 'tsunami' will be the flood of tears as you reach for the Budweiser on Wednesday morning.

We're All Community Organizers Now

by Laura Greer

State House Reps on speed dial. Email boxes filled to the brim with messages about Tea Party events and projects. Congressional contact info locked and loaded into Blackberry address book. A middle-aged mind struggles to remember new acronyms like GOTV (Get Out The Vote, thank you very much).

My summer beach reading morphs from Mary Higgins Clark’s latest mystery to the “5000 Year Leap.”

How did this happen?

There was a time – not so long ago – when American politics was a modern spectator sport.

We tuned in every two or four years to select what the Irish call, “The best of a bad lot.” Those of us who cared enough to vote did our best to gather information about the candidates and trudged to the polls –– voted - and hoped for the best.

This exercise in civil life was fairly simple. The pattern was established and there was comfort in knowing we fulfilled our civic duty. Life as we knew it marched on.

Candidates and elections came and went and not much ever seemed to change.

Or so we thought.

Under the cover of darkness, while we were quietly going about our lives, a cadre of radical activists executed their plan to overthrow the United States Government.

You can call them communists, progressives, Marxists or liberals.

I call them traitors.

These aging hippies are disciples of Mao, Marx, Stalin and Alinksy. They despise all that is good about America and its people. Their contempt for everyday Americans, our freedoms and the Constitution is palatable.

They are the same cast of characters who wreaked havoc in the 1960’s, when they incited riots, killed police officers and did their level best to topple the free market system.

We thought they went away. Instead, they went legit.

It took this fringe, radical group 40 years – but they achieved the ultimate prize – control of the US Presidency and both houses of Congress in 2008.

With break-neck speed under the cover of contrived emergencies, they are in the process of fundamentally transforming America – from a Representative Republic to a Social State. Our free market system, social compact, liberty and freedoms are dissolving before our eyes.

Is this the kind of change you believe in?

For the love of God, Country and the US Constitution, join us in the fight to restore America.

Put down your remote and pick up a protest sign.

Write letters to the editor.

Gather in your houses of worship and pray for God’s forgiveness and intervention.

Find a candidate who believes in small government, who will work tirelessly to overturn the bailouts and Obamacare – and contribute to their campaign.

Attend the local school board and freeholder meetings. Demand to get a copy of your town/city budget.

Call out judge’s for decisions that disregard the Constitution.

Fax, phone and visit your representatives (term loosely used) to protest latest assaults on our freedoms.

Email your friends and family – share information and widen your sphere of influence.

Educate yourself – read the Constitution, learn about our Founding Fathers, do your own homework. Subscribe to conservative publications – or read them for free online. The state-run media is corrupt – so it’s up to each of us discern truth from propaganda.

Join groups of like-minded citizens who are in the fight to roll back this radical agenda. If you can’t find a group, start one of your own.

Travel to lower Manhattan to protest the Mosque at Ground Zero September 11, or take the bus to DC on August 28 and September 12 to support the cause of freedom.

Leave your comfort zone. Join the action – time to get some skin in the game.

For the love of God, Country and US Constitution – join the fight for freedom.

Make no mistake - we are all community organizers now.

NJTPC Research Bulletin No 1

Beware of Misinformation Regarding the UN "Small Arms Ban"
- produced by the NJ Tea Party Coalition Research Committee

Lately, emails have been circulating regarding the Obama administration's support of international treaties regarding arms bans, such as the so-called UN "small arms ban". In particular, one email cited an alleged Reuters announcement to the effect that the State Department, under Hilary Clinton, had reversed longstanding policy and said last week that it woul d back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales. The concern is that this announcement in effect represents the Obama administration's "first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States". Another rumor claims that Hilary Clinton has already signed such a treaty.

Now, every American who has thought about the matter understands that the Obama administration indeed manifests the hard liberal/left view that the right to bear arms should be restricted to the state and to a self-appointed elite; not surprisingly, self-appointed elites such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, and Daley all had or have the same view. If given a chance, the left would indeed eviscerate the Second Amendment. It is no coincidence that sales of firearms and ammunition skyrocketed after Obama's election, and probably would have had Hilary Clinton become president.

That being said, there is no evidence that any international arms ban is at all imminent. The NRA, which does a good job of tracking legislative or political threats to the Second Amendment has this to say about the email rumors:


Contrary to a widely circulated e-mail, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not signed any UN small arms treaty. She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.

As we noted in the item below from last November , the UN Arms Trade Treaty will be drafted between now and 2012, and even if signed would not take effect in the U.S. until it was ratified by the Senate.

Please rest assured that, as we said in November, NRA will be actively involved in this process and will oppose any treaty that would attempt to impose limits on our Second Amendment rights. In the meantime, we urge gun owners to follow this issue in NRA's magazines and NRA-ILA's Grassroots Alerts. We also urge gun owners not to circulate misinformation on this issue.

Web link for more is here: http://www..nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5843

We must note that he NRA makes ample use of the Obama and Clinton position on firearms in their fund-raising efforts, with the unfortunate result that hysteria can easily be stirred up. it is also true that gun owners are very aware of the issue, and remain rightfully concerned.

While there is every reason to remain vigilant on this subject, there is no immediate apparent reason to let it distract us from more urgent matters.

The Committee to Recall Senator Robert Menendez Will Finally Have Their Day in Court

The day many of us have been waiting for, Friday, February 26th, has been postponed to Tuesday, March 2nd due to inclement weather. Dan Silberstein and Richard Luzzi, attorneys representing the Recall Committee, will be appearing in Mercer County’s Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton at 10:30 AM. They will be joined by Peter Ferrara, the Attorney for the American Civil Rights Union, who has filed an amicus brief in defense of the Committee’s civil rights.

Since this is a matter of great concern to the citizens of New Jersey and has recently received media attention, we are anticipating that many of our supporters and opposing protesters are planning to demonstrate outside of the courthouse. We respectfully ask those intending to go to Trenton on our behalf , behave in a manner that respects the court and the system – the same system of law we are working so hard to preserve. While those who oppose our intitiative may seek to disturb the peace, we believe our citizens are protectors of the peace and therefore should act accordingly. To all wishing to attend, please dress conservatively, and if you plan on carrying signs, we ask that they be handmade and not controversial. We are sure that the media will also be attending and will be looking to capitalize on any behavior that can be interpreted as radical in any way, shape or form.

Thanks to all who have been supportive of this initiative and we are counting on your cooperation. Without it, we will not succeed and the consequences for our country can be dire.

Judge Approves Appeal of Menendez Recall Decision to Move Forward; Will Hear Oral Arguments February 26th; American Civil Rights Union to Join Appeal

A NJ Superior Court Appellate Judge has granted an emergency motion to fast-track the appeal of a committee seeking to recall a United States Senator.

In a two-part order issued late afternoon on Thursday, February 4th, Judge Edwin Stern granted the committee's motion to accelerate their appeal and scheduled oral arguments for Friday, February 26th. In the same order, the Judge also granted approval for the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) to participate in the appeal as amicus curiae (friend of the court), in response to an emergent application filed by the ACRU.

The case stems from a January 11th final agency determination by NJ state election officials, in which the Secretary of State denied a Notice of Intention and proposed petition filed by the Committee to Recall Robert Menendez. Former Secretary of State Nina Wells wrote in the letter,

“It has been determined that the qualifications and election of a Member of the United States Senate is a matter of exclusive jurisdiction of federal authority and that neither the United States Constitution nor federal statute provide for a recall proceeding for a federally-elected official…Therefore, in my capacity as the Chief Election Official of the State of NJ, I hereby determine that neither the Notice of Intention to Recall nor the proposed Petition can be accepted for filing or review.”

Members of the Sussex County Tea Party formed the recall committee and had filed the Notice back in September, 2009, hoping to move onto the phase of petitioning the public for signatures in support of requesting a recall election.

Dan Silberstein and Richard Luzzi, attorneys for the committee, have challenged the state's decision, contending that the issue at hand is not one of whether the State has the power to issue a judicially enforceable recall order of a U.S. Senator, as the respondents maintain, but it is a question of first amendment rights. Their brief reads in part,

"Can the State [of NJ], after amending its Constitution and passing legislation to guarantee its citizens access to a formal, State-endorsed mechanism to foster collective “core political speech”, deny its citizens access to that mechanism because of the content of their political message?"

While the constitutionality of a 1995 amendment to NJ's state Constitution that granted citizens the power to recall federal officials may be open to debate, there has never been any federal court decision holding that the States do not have the power to recall their Senators. Some might contend that it is premature to determine the enforceability of a State’s recall order before a ruling on it has ever been issued.

Due to its potential broader constitutional implications, the case also attracted the attention of the American Civil Rights Union. Peter Ferrara, General Counsel for the ACRU, recently sought approval from Silberstein and Luzzi to participate in the appeal as amicus curiae, and they were happy to oblige.

The ACRU was founded in 1998 by Robert B. Carleson, long time policy advisor to President Reagan, as a non-partisan, non-profit 501(C)(3), legal/educational policy organization dedicated to defending constitutional rights. Its policy board includes former US Attorney General Edwin Meese III; Pepperdine Law School Dean, Kenneth Starr; and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, William Bradford Reynolds, among many others. In addition to the public interest in this matter regarding the functioning of our democracy and the constitutional rights of the citizens of NJ, the ACRU also maintains that the recall of US Senators is a matter of broad, national public interest across the entire country. It plans to file a brief addressing the right of recall in NJ under the law of the state of NJ, the Constitution of NJ, and the US Constitution. For more information on the state’s provisions for recall, visit recallcongressnow.org

Oral arguments will be heard by Judges Stern, Graves, and Sabatino at 10:00am on Friday, February 26th in the Appellate Division courtroom in Trenton, NJ.

Follow NJ Recall Now, Sussex County Tea Party, or NJ Tea Parties United for more on this case.

Legal Contact:
Dan Silberstein, Esq.
Phone: (732) 388-8600, Email: dsilberstein@dpspc.com

Sussex County Tea Party Contact:
RoseAnn Salanitri, Founder (Branchville, NJ)
Phone: (973)948-8553, Email: roseann216@gmail.com

Attorneys for Respondents:
Paula Dow, Acting Attorney General of NJ, on behalf of respondents [former] Secretary of State and the Director of the Division of Elections

Angelo Genova, of Genova Burns and Marc Elias, of Perkins Coie, LLP, attorneys for Senator Robert Menendez

The Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Esq., Secretary of State, and Robert F. Giles, Director of the Division of Elections; Appellate Docket No. is A-2254-09 T1.

This Is What The Terrorists Did To Me -- And Why They Should Be Tried At Gitmo

President Obama finally listened to the outcry of New York, and is considering moving the trial of 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other al Qaeda members out of the city, perhaps to Guantanamo Bay.

Finally, some wisdom.

It would be better there. It's military. They're not going to mess around. These dangerous terrorists will not be allowed to spread their hate, or hurt anyone else.

Nobody knows better than me.

I was a federal prison guard at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. In 2000, I was with a prisoner, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, taking him back to his cell. His cellmate was Khalfan Khamis Mohamed. They were accused of bombing two embassies in Africa in 1998. Later they said that they worked with Osama bin Laden and that they helped set up al Qaeda.
We were back at their cell. It's only me and those two guys. No supervisors. Just the three of us. Somehow, they slipped out of their handcuffs.

They sprayed me with some kind of hot sauce. I couldn't see. They pulled me into the cell and hit me — boom, boom. They hit me so much, I swear to God, like a hundred times.

I hit my radio. I thought help would come.

They wanted the keys for the other prisoners, but they couldn't find them. They were in my front pocket. I used to be big, 300 pounds, and I was laying on them. I gave them my car keys.

About halfway through, they used a comb — thick and long, about 10 inches, with a handle. They'd taken the teeth out and sharpened it like a knife.

They put it in my left eye. It went three inches into my brain.

Nobody came. I kept calling and nothing. I was in there with them for an hour. It was f- - -ed up. With my blood, they made the sign of the cross on my chest because they thought I was dead. Finally, 12 guards came to my aid. They said they had the wrong keys.

When it was over, I got up and walked down toward the infirmary. I wanted to show them I could do it.

I thought I would go to a doctor right away. They kept me at the infirmary.
Finally, I was taken to Bellevue. I thought I was dead. I went into a coma.

They did surgery. I lost my left eye and suffered some brain damage. It was like I had a stroke. For two years, I couldn't speak. I couldn't write. I couldn't walk. My right eye is perfect — straight ahead. But I can't see to the side. It's like a horse with blinders.

It's better now. I have a gym in my apartment in Coney Island. I do 500 sit-ups a day. I have a speech therapist and a massage therapist. I get up at 3 in the morning, eat some breakfast, cereal and a banana. I can dress myself.

But for 10 years, I was pretty much in isolation. Now I can walk a little. I go to the boardwalk twice a day. I have a cellphone and sometimes talk to girls. I'm 52. I'd like to have a girlfriend, maybe a baby.

And I have my family — my mom, my sister. They're right here. I have a nice home.

I'm not really friends with the other guards. They know they messed up.

Do you know they never found the handcuffs for Salim? After the attack, his set was not there. They still don't know where the cuffs went 10 years later. It looks very stupid.

They won't give out the results of the investigation into the attack. I think there's something fishy.

I'm still afraid of Salim. When I was in the hospital, there were death threats. Salim wants to do something one more time.

These people want to kill and go to Allah and have 10 girls. That's just the way they are.
They want to become martyrs. They want jihad. They want to kill people. And that's all they want.

Federal prison officials are still naive. They give these terrorists toothbrushes, squirt bottles, items that can be used as weapons. Caught up by political correctness, they let them out of handcuffs to pray, leaving guards unprotected.

It's going to happen again — unless the trial gets moved to where it belongs, a military prison.

We don't need Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City. President Obama should do the right thing and keep him at Guantanamo Bay.

By LOUIS PEPE

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/this_they_what_gitmo_terrorists_YFcFeMXZOxAm4t9cJzTcMN#ixzz0eEkxbr7t

Recall Update

The recall petition submitted to the State to begin to take signatures was also sent to Senator Menendez last week (Friday) as requested by the Judge reviewing the appeal. This was only a notification to Senator Menendez that a request to begin taking signatures was submitted.

We are waiting for the determination from the Judge as to whether we can begin taking signatures. We may receive word as soon as next week to begin. The lawyers continue to submit any necessary paperwork to get the approval to proceed with the recall petition. Please realize that approval of the petition itself to collect signatures is what we are seeking. Once the approval is received to proceed we will call upon all of our members to collect signatures; the member groups of NJ Tea Parties United (statewide) will also collect signatures. Only when sufficient signatures are collected can the actual petition be submitted and a decision to remove Senator Menendez be sought.

Was it a coincidence that Senator Menendez after receiving the paperwork on Friday was all over the talk shows during the weekend? Perhaps or perhaps not….you be the judge.

America Rising - An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians

BREAKING NEWS!!!

Sussex County Tea Party Committee Announces Campaign to Recall Senator Robert Menendez

A "Committee to Recall U.S. Senator Robert Menendez," sponsored by the Sussex County Tea Party has announced plans to launch an effort to recall Senator Robert Menendez from his position in office. Helping to lead the charge is New Jersey Tea Parties United, the state's grass-roots coalition of county and regional Tea Party groups representing several thousand members in support of fiscal responsibility, individual liberty and limited government. The Committee filed a formal Notice of Intention to Recall with the Secretary of State's office on September 25, 2009. While the office of the Secretary of State acknowledged receipt of the Committee's Notice of Intention to Recall in a letter dated October 5, 2009, it has since provided no further communication. NJ state law requires that administrators respond either with an approval or with a notice of non-compliance stating the reasons within three business days of receiving the Notice, which was October 4, 2009. Since no response had been received, on November 25, 2009, the Committee filed a civil complaint in the Essex County Superior Court of New Jersey against Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State and Robert F. Giles, Director of the Division of Elections, demanding that the defendants be ordered to immediately and forthwith comply with state law by issuing a response to the Committee’s Notice of Intention. To date, the Secretary of State has ignored the Notice and the Complaint in violation of state law and the Committee is awaiting a decision from the court. For up to date information, go to: http://njrecallnow@blogspot.com, http://www.defendingamericanfreedom.com/, or http://www.njteapartiesunited.org/ .

Once the notice is approved by the state or by court Order, the Committee to Recall along with NJ Tea Parties United will spearhead a large coordinated petition drive to collect signatures in support of a special recall election. NJ state law requires a minimum number of signatures equivalent to at least 25% of the prior general election's registered voters in order to grant a special recall election.

Appointed to a special one-year term by Governor Jon Corzine in November 2005, Robert Menendez was subsequently elected in 2006 during the mid-term election and has served in the US Senate for just over four years as a Democrat representing New Jersey. His term isn't scheduled to end until January 2013. The Recall Committee and New Jersey Tea Parties United believe that Senator Menendez has sided with rigidly partisan politicians in his repeated votes for cloture on a variety of key bills, stifling public debate in the Senate and denying New Jersey citizens transparency. For example, the Senator voted down an amendment that would have prevented Medicare from being raided for new entitlements[1], and another that would have limited the government's control over the health care of American families[2]. During this difficult financial period when Americans are cutting their own budgets and trying to save every penny, Senator Menendez voted down proposals to remove from spending bills a number of extravagant, excessive multi-million dollar projects that offered little or no short-term economic benefits[3]. When an amendment was proposed to transfer some of the country’s funding for the United Nations contributions to help offset the costs of providing assistance to family caregivers of our disabled veterans, he voted against it[4]. And in one case, Senator Menendez voted against allowing each member of Congress and the Secretary of Defense to simply review the allocation of certain taxpayer funds[5].

One NJ Tea Party member put it this way, “When NJ voters came out to the polls in November of 2008, they voted for the transparency and accountability that was promised. Rather than believe his own constituents who have desperately been trying to convey their wishes to him on health care reform without a government run option, he chooses to dismiss us, making public statements on the senate floor that our concerns are all nothing more than the greedy insurance companies lobbying to protect themselves.” It is statements like this that have convinced the Committee, NJ Tea Parties United, and other tea party members that Senator Menendez is one of many elitists in government that are more concerned with promoting their own careers than doing what is right for the American people. Those spearheading this effort hope that this will be the first recall of many throughout the nation and that the Constitutional government of the United States can be restored to the American people, to whom it belongs.

[1] Vote 368: H R 3590: Gregg Amdt. No. 2942
[2] Vote 360: H R 3590: Thune Amdt. No. 2901
[3] http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=495114&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
[4] Vote 310: H R 3326; Vote 285: H R 3288; Vote 284: H R 3288; Vote 283: H R 3288
[5] Vote 310: H R 3326: Coburn Amdt. No. 2565

Sussex County Tea Party contact:
RoseAnn Salanitri, Founder (Branchville, NJ)
Phone: (973)948-8553, Email: roseann216@gmail.com

Alternate Contact:
Michele Talam, NJ Tea Parties United
Email: MicheleNJTPC@verizon.net

Legal Contact:
Dan Silberstein, Esq.
Phone: (732) 388-8600, Email: dsilberstein@dpspc.com

The Health Bill Is Scary

By Senator Tom Coburn -

I recently suggested that seniors will die sooner if Congress actually implements the Medicare cuts in the health-care bill put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. My colleagues who defend the bill—none of whom have practiced medicine—predictably dismissed my concern as a scare tactic. They are wrong. Every American, not just seniors, should know that the rationing provisions in the Reid bill will not only reduce their quality of life, but their life spans as well.

My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.

For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.

Section 6301 of the Reid bill creates new comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs. CER panels have been used as rationing commissions in other countries such as the U.K., where 15,000 cancer patients die prematurely every year according to the National Cancer Intelligence Network. CER panels here could effectively dictate coverage options and ration care for plans that participate in the state insurance exchanges created by the bill.

Additionally, the Reid bill depends on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in no fewer than 14 places. This task force was responsible for advising women under 50 to not undergo annual mammograms. The administration claims the task force recommendations do not carry the force of law, but the Reid bill itself contradicts them in section 2713. The bill explicitly states, on page 17, that health insurance plans "shall provide coverage for" services approved by the task force. This chilling provision represents the government stepping between doctors and patients. When the government asserts the power to provide care, it also asserts the power to deny care.

If the bill expands Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the poverty level, that too will lead to rationing. Because Washington bureaucrats have created a system that underpays doctors, 40% of doctors already restrict access to Medicaid patients, and therefore ration care.
Medicaid demonstrates, tragically in some cases, that access to a government program does not guarantee access to health care. In Maryland, 17,000 Medicaid patients are currently on a waiting list for medical services, and as many as 250 may have died while awaiting care, according to state auditors. Kansas, the home state of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, faces a Medicaid backlog of more than 15,000 applicants.

Other unintended consequences of the Reid bill could wreak havoc on patients' lives. What happens, for instance, when savvy consumers commanded to buy insurance realize the penalty is the de facto premium? It won't take long for younger, healthier Americans to realize it's cheaper to pay a $750 tax for coverage instead of, say, $5,000 in annual premiums when coverage can't be denied if you get sick.

OMB Budget Director Peter Orzsag's belief that mandatory health insurance will become a "cultural norm" is bureaucratic naivete that will produce skyrocketing premiums and reduced care for everyone. My state's own insurance commissioner, a Democrat, recently confirmed this concern to me in a letter noting that "the result will be higher insurance rates due to a higher percentage of insured being higher risk/expense individuals."

But the most fundamental flaw of the Reid bill is best captured by the story of one my patients I'll call Sheila. When Sheila came to me at the age of 33 with a lump in her breast, traditional tests like a mammogram under the standard of care indicated she had a cyst and nothing more. Because I knew her medical history, I wasn't convinced. I aspirated the cyst and discovered she had a highly malignant form of breast cancer. Sheila fought a heroic battle against breast cancer and enjoyed 12 good years with her family before succumbing to the disease.

If I had been practicing under the Reid bill, the government would have likely told me I couldn't have done the test that discovered Sheila's cancer because it wasn't approved under CER. Under the Reid bill, Sheila may have lived another year instead of 12, and her daughters would have missed a decade with their mom.

The bottom line is that under the Reid bill the majority of America's patients might be fine. But some will be like Sheila—patients whose lives hang in the balance and require the care of a doctor who understands the science and art of medicine, and can make decisions without government interference.

The American people are opposing this bill in greater numbers every day because the facts of the bill—not any tactic—are cause for serious concern.

Dr. Coburn, a physician, is a Republican senator from Oklahoma.
Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588842779569168.html

Code Red Rally

Videos from the CODE RED RALLY in Washington, DC

December 15, 2009

Obama's Jobs Summit: The Invisible Hand of SEIU and ACORN

by Liberty Chick -

As President Obama concludes his first jobs summit, almost a year into his presidency, the nature of the guest list hints at a deliberate initiative that's been underway for over 15 years - and it's not one of the obvious presumptions that most would make. Notice that of the list of leaders invited, the majority are labor union leaders, leaders of businesses with government contracts, or leaders of businesses that operate on partial public funding. There is a common element across most of the businesses represented: in one capacity or another, even if they are private sector businesses, most on the list benefit from some form of public money.

There is a legal precedent over 15 years old that is the pervasive push behind such a premise, one that was the product of ACORN and labor union coalitions. And judging by Change to Win / SEIU’s Anna Burger’s plan for today’s jobs summit, it’s evident that this precedent is in play as we speak.

It’s no coincidence that in the wake of America’s economic crisis, some lawmakers have been pushing for infusions of public funds into the private sector. No, we’re not just talking bank and insurance company bailouts. We’re talking about tax credit and incentive programs, health care reform proposals, green jobs programs, energy efficiency initiatives, and even real estate development companies. As the conservative accusations of socialism have begun to sink in with progressive leaders -especially with union leaders, who are especially sensitive to being perceived as public spenders – the language has been changing. Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” doesn’t sound so scary when it’s wrapped in the glove of words like “co-ops” and “public-private partnerships” and “national service”, which are now quickly being mainstreamed into the rhetoric.


To the observant reader, one can look at the list of Jobs Summit invitees and know what the outcome will be, and why. The goal is not to create jobs. The goals are to create public-private partnerships and to create union membership opportunities.

In 1994, when ACORN and its community and labor union allies won the first Living Wage fight against Baltimore’s Inner Harbor development project, a national movement was underway. It was not only about Living Wage, but the premise itself opened up the door for a broader, more creative initiative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The premise of Living Wage: any private business that benefits from public money can be controlled in part by government policy, and in this particular case, must pay their workers a living wage. While minimum wage is a standard national and state guideline across the board, living wage is different in that it calculates the income an adult with the average family of two must make in order to live comfortably in the middle class bracket for that geographic location.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The premise of today’s broader movement: create more opportunities for private businesses and individuals to benefit from public money, and the government can then intervene to dictate anything it wants – labor regulations, wages, health benefits, and much more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we see in SEIU’s campaigns to unionize home child care workers and UAW and AFSCME’s campaigns to do the same, any trickle of state or federal subsidies creates an opportunity for government and union entry, which drives up taxes and stresses the economy. And SEIU is applying the same logic to home care workers, nursing home workers, cafeteria workers, and the like.

We see this premise of control via public subsidy in action most obviously today with TARP and the bank bailouts. Conveniently for unions and community organizers, the bailouts outraged many – even constitutional conservatives. Hence, why SEIU especially seized upon the opportunity to channel that collective rage and turn it instead into a marketing tool to create anti-capitalist hype. (Note that SEIU selectively excludes the Automaker Bailouts from its manufactured rage). Bashing capitalism and the free enterprise system has become a favorite pastime for some. It seems just downright trendy these days to equate greed or corruption with capitalism and use it as a basis for throwing out an entire economic system, doesn’t it? When in your lifetime have you stood in line at the grocery store and overheard everyone from your postal carrier, to the elementary school’s janitor, to your neighbor’s college student son, all offering their theories on the evils of capitalism? You don’t even have to know anything about economic theory or the important role of Capitalism in the founding of America to participate in this latest fad. (After all, in a study of the Ability Of College Freshmen To Identify Adam Smith And Karl Marx, only 26.6 percent could identify Adam Smith as the “father of Capitalism”).

By the way, if you want to argue the positive aspects of Capitalism, just watch Steve Forbes put SEIU’s Andy Stern in his place on the issue in this video from the The Federalist Society, where it presented a panel discussion on Redistribution of Wealth at the 2009 National Lawyers Convention. (full panel video on C-Span)

Keeping in mind the consequences facing banks that have received public funds, let’s look at all of the private sector areas in which SEIU and other labor and community organizing coalitions have been gaining unionizing strongholds, based on the same precedent initially set by the living wage laws 15 years ago:

• Child care workers who have customers that receive public subsidies through welfare programs
• Home care workers who serve patients who receive Medicare, Medicaid, or other public health care benefits
• Using unionized workers to drive public weatherization and energy efficiency initiatives that receive public funds
• Private schools and universities with students who receive public grants or loans
• Private companies that do business with the government in any capacity
• Private companies that have received public grants or loans
• There’s even a push to regulate private companies that have received loans from any banks that have received public funds
• The future focus no doubt will be on creating regulations related to anyone who receives public health care benefits

Unions have been unable to successfully grow membership in the private sector; therefore, SEIU has focused on growing its public sector opportunities by organizing typically private sector independent workers as mentioned above. In addition, it has focused on acquiring, often by force, other unions, and on creating political policy that will create public sector jobs in their realm of union membership, such as with health care. Lastly, the SEIU conducts repeated corporate campaign attacks on organizations that support free markets and that oppose forced unionism. Simply look at their attacks on non-unionized hospitals like this one and this one, and groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which coincidentally was left off today’s jobs summit invite list).

In fact, just watch this Campaign for America’s Future video on C-Span, with panelists Anna Burger (Change to Win/SEIU) and Ilyse Hogue (MoveOn.org), especially at around minutes 57:00 and at 58:40 when Hogue mentions their joint campaign with SEIU against the US Chamber of Commerce to mobilize 22,000 small business leaders to oppose the Chamber of Commerce under the guise of saving the planet.

Given the observations of all of the above, now examine the highlights from Anna Burger’s plan for creating jobs at Thursday’s jobs summit:

• Increase unemployment insurance and expand work sharing programs to provide unemployment benefits for reduced hours of work
• Use TARP funds to increase credit for small businesses
• Expand federal fiscal relief to states and local governments (to save an anticipated 900,000 jobs?)
• Create jobs in child care, in-home services for the elderly and disabled, and other community services through a public jobs program
• Leverage private investment with public dollars through a Green Bank that will promote energy-efficiency and renewables as a major source of job creation; Expand home retrofitting programs begun under the Recovery Act to commercial and public buildings
• Rebuild schools, roads and bridge; create an Infrastructure Bank to foster public/private partnerships in developing regional and large scale projects
• Passing health care reform will add “tens of millions of Americans to the healthcare rolls and create more than a million new and different jobs” in healthcare and related industries
• Pass the Employee Free Choice Act
• Expand worker training programs on a national scale

Every last one of Burger’s recommendations hinges entirely upon public dependency, both at the business level and the at the individual level. Aside from being one of the most powerful labor union leaders in the world, Burger is a primary participant in today’s summit, and she’s also on the President’s Economic Recovery Board of Advisers. As SEIU Secretary/Treasurer and chair of Change to Win, Burger’s organizations spend the union members’ dues on some of highest lobbying numbers on Capitol Hill for a multitude of self-serving policies.

Today’s jobs summit is not about creating jobs. It seems relatively clear that the goals will be more focused on establishing ways to propagate “public-private partnership opportunities” to all facets of the private sector. “Reformist”, “Social Capitalism”, “Market Socialism” – use whatever terms you want. Most of us know that Capitalism didn’t cause this crisis, because Capitalism isn’t really what we have anymore, which is why the free market needs to be restored. While we may hear what sounds like private sector rhetoric from President Obama, Progressives in Congress, and today’s jobs summit leaders, don’t be easily fooled – beware of Adam Smith’s infamous “Invisible Hand” in the form of the proverbial wolf disguised in sheep’s clothing.

Liberty Chick is an associate member of New Jersey Tea Parties United as well as a contributor to Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com

Medicare Tax Increase

by PDR -

Medicare Tax according to Webster's: A tax deducted from employees' paychecks that goes to pay for medical benefits for people over 65 years of age. Medicare tax is paid by both employee and employer.

Medicare Tax was first imposed upon us working Americans in 1966 at a rate of .35 or .70. The current Medicare Tax rate is 1.45% or 2.90%; that is a 241% increase over a 43 year period. Medicare is paid by the employee, yes you the employee and is matched by the employer. There is no wage base for the Medicare tax, you pay it from day 1 and you pay it as long as you are a wage earning American. We already pay too much in taxes.

This tax affects ALL of us adversely:

The young will be paying from the first job they take. They will have no CHOICE but to participate in government sponsored health care. They will this Medicare tax until they are ready to retire at age 65 and collect their and then they will become SENIORS

SENIORS, who have been paying into Medicare are will receive less services by less doctors; higher premiums for MediGap and the government will have direct access to your bank account to obtain payment for services. Medicare already denies more claims than any private insurance plan. HR3962 specifically makes reference to a reduction in Medicare funding, higher Medicare Taxes but less funding and benefits. Is this what we want? NO we do not.

And Small business owners-we know who we are and we know how we are currently struggling under high taxes. We can no longer afford additional taxation. Small businesses combined provide the greater majority of jobs in this country and are always hardest hit by tax increases. Why? Because it is more difficult for small businesses to compete and more difficult for small businesses to increase the costs of goods and services. Colgate Palmolive can increase the cost of a tube of toothpaste 1% to cover this Medicare tax increase and the American consumer will continue to purchase the toothpaste. They can raise the price by 10 or 20% to cover all the additional costs that will be imposed upon us by HR3962 and we will continue to purchase their products. The small business owner who increases his price for goods and services by 10% may be out of business tomorrow.

I urge everyone to oppose HR3962. It is an invasion of our privacy. It takes away our choices. It reduces benefits to our seniors. It increases taxes and costs. And it does not provide coverage for every uninsured American, but it sure does tax every working American.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER? Charges Filed Against SEIU Purple People Beaters...

From the Labor Union Report -

It is said that the wheels of justice turn slowly.
In the case of the SEIU purple shirted thugs who beat a conservative black man selling Gadsden flags at a town hall meeting in August, justice is coming more slowly than usual and the wheels?...Well, in St. Louis, the wheels of justice seem to be nothing more than that of a blue matchbox car.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch, which has a reporter among one of the charged, writes:

Six people arrested in August outside a raucous town hall meeting in south St. Louis County have been charged with misdemeanor ordinance violations.

The six, including a Post-Dispatch reporter, had attended a demonstration outside an Aug. 6 forum called by U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, at Bernard Middle School in Mehlville to discuss health care reform....

The maximum penalty upon conviction would be one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Some bloggers have been writing for months about the lag between the arrests at the politically-charged event and the filing of charges.


County Counselor Patricia Redington insisted it had nothing to do with politics, influence or pressure from any official.

"These charges are like the 90,000 other charges we file each year," she said.
[Emphasis added.]

Interestingly, although the county counselor insists her delay has nothing to do with politics, she seemed much more interested in justice nine years ago when she filed charges against a Republican staffer for pushing a camera away from his face.
Redington was quick to file charges back in 2000, when a staffer for Democrat Richard Gephardt stalked serious contender Republican Bill Federer on a parade route. The staffer, James Larrew, tried to shove his camera into Federer’s face until Federer was forced to push the camera away. The staffer freaked, flagged down a cop and claimed that he had been assaulted. Larrew then called Gephardt’s office and spoke to Joyce Aboussie, Gephardt’s top political adviser, who then contacted Redington’s office. Two days later Redington filed assault charges against Federer, on Columbus Day, a national holiday; after which Redington, Aboussie, and Larrew conducted a media blitz, all arranged for by Gephardt’s office.

Something tells us that the wheels of justice are a bit off track in St. Louis.

http://laborunionreport.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-late-than-never-charges-filed.html

Reflections on the Status of Marriage

by CH -

The New Jersey Legislature is contemplating a vote on same sex marriage during the lame duck session. Governor Corzine promises to sign this legislation before leaving office.

I am against changing the definition of Marriage. Marriage is the committed relationship between a man and a woman. It is a unique institution and its meaning to society should be upheld and valued. One of the primary purposes of marriage is to procreate and raise the next generation. Mothers and fathers each bring a unique set of attitudes, skills and emotions to the table to help raise their children.

Children need both of these unique sets of tools to become healthy adults. The traditional Marriage relationship has proven to be the best environment possible to create and nurture children.

In addition, I fear that if same sex marriage is folded in to traditional marriage then any religious organization founded on the basis of traditional religious values will be pressured to change or risk losing their tax status, etc. I recently read that a Catholic Church was being challenged in Canada for refusing to rent out their church reception hall to a lesbian couple. A private religious entity should not be forced to do anything that is against the biblical values they are based on.

The slippery slope concept is worrisome. If same sex unions are defined as marriage then why not include multiple partner marriage or marriage with a minor? How far could we eventually go? Once marriage is opened up to a different meaning then people should be able to define it any way they see fit to adapt to their personal lifestyle.

The current recognition by New Jersey of civil unions for committed same sex couples is justified. It could be used to fight for health benefits, pension benefits, etc. But we don’t have to change the meaning of marriage to accomplish these goals. Same sex civil unions can be used as the vehicle to grant couples the benefits and protections that they deserve. We don’t need to retrofit marriage to make it all encompassing. We need to continue to recognize marriage as the loving union between a husband and wife and the best environment to raise children.

I realize my views will be depicted as hate speech and bigotry and that’s too bad. My views are not against same sex couples, what they do in their private lives is their own business. But I must stand up for the special status of traditional marriage. Most Americans agree. Whenever same sex marriage is put to a vote of the electorate, it loses. Voters recognize the unique status of marriage and want to keep it as such. Pushing a vote in a lame duck session in New Jersey not only ignores the recent election results, but takes the vote away from the people.

Why Not Try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed In Federal Court?

by Brian Baldwin -

The Stop The Terror Trial in NYC Rally will be held on Saturday, December 5, 2009, at Noon in Foley Square on the steps of the Federal Courthouse.

Organized and led by the 911 Never Forget Coalition, the rally will be supported by 911 family members, FDNY and NYPD personnel, members of the military, veterans, the 912 Project, Tea Party Patriots and thousands of Americans protesting the plan to hold the trial that will give enemy combatants of the U.S. constitutional protections by holding the trial in U.S federal court.

But why is it wrong to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Federal Court, when Zacarias Moussaoui was successfully tried in Federal Court?

Zacarias Moussaoui, the infamous “20th Hijacker”, was arrested by law enforcement authorities on immigration charges after arousing suspicion at a Minnesota flight school. Moussaoui was mirandized and provided with an attorney. Although he rejected his appointed attorneys and chose to represent himself, the groundwork for a trial in our legal system had been laid down. He was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on December 11, 2001. His trial finally met its completion in 2006 with a life sentence.


Why shouldn’t Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried in Federal Court in NYC? Attorney General Eric Holder says the trials are finally moving forward after “8 years of delay”. Isn’t it time that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was brought to trial?

But what happens if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is found not guilty? Don’t worry. Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off the question, saying, "I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that the outcome -- in the outcome we would ultimately be successful. I will say that I have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in the prosecution of these cases in federal court."

President Obama, while visiting Tokyo, said, "I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice…The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it."

It certainly sounds as if President Obama and Attorney General Holder are sure of the outcome of this trial. Is this the message we want to send to the Muslim world? We are going to pick and choose which high profile cases will be publicly tried while others, that are not a slam-dunk, are left in Guantanamo to rot in prison or face military tribunals. Doesn’t this undermine the arguments of the left that this must be done to show the world “American Justice”. We are treading on a dangerous path.


This is not the first time Eric Holder has shown bad judgment. As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, he pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers injured by them.

Senator Barack Obama often held a different position than President Barack Obama, and this case is no different. In September 2006, debating the Military Commissions Act, then-Senator Obama said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and those like him would get "basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He's going to have counsel, he's going to be able to present evidence, he's going to be able to rebut the government's case. Because the feeling is that he's guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Conventions."

"I think that's good that we're going to provide him with some procedure and process," then-Senator Obama said. "I think we will convict him and I think he will be brought to justice. I think justice will be carried out in his case."

Certainly, not everyone has done a 180 on this. Attorney General Holder was never a supporter of military tribunals. As he said, “after 8 years of delay”, we are finally moving forward”. It is true. Very few military tribunals were ever carried out due to leftist attorneys’ attempts to derail the proceedings with legal challenges. Many of these attorneys are in the Obama Justice Department today – including Eric Holder, a former partner in Covington & Burling LLP. Covington and Burling represented at least 18 Guantanamo detainees, donating over 3,000 FREE hours of legal service, making Holder’s claim of “8 years of delay” even more incredible.

Countless lawsuits delayed the military trials. These same delays, created by law firms like Covington and Burling, are the Obama administration’s justification for holding civilian trials.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested during a military action involving Pakistani ISI (Inter Service Intelligence) and SOG (Special Operations Group), a division of the CIA responsible for paramilitary operations. He was transferred to military custody at Guantanamo Bay detention camp to face a military tribunal – the tribunal once supported by Senator Barack Obama. Although Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was ready to plead guilty and accept a death sentence, President Obama, upon taking office, suspended all military tribunals.

Now that the trial will be moved to Federal Court, what legal rules will be followed? Miranda rights were not read. No attorney was provided. Will any evidence, testimony or previous confessions be allowed, even though he confessed to being responsible for the planning of 9/11 “from A-Z”? Will our military now be compelled to read Miranda rights and collect evidence on the battle field?

Even Judge, Michael Mukasey, who presided over the trial of the blind sheikh Omer Abdel Rahman says “the plan seems to abandon the view that we are involved in a war”. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants will now be given a forum to disseminate hatred and propaganda. A civilian trial will compel the US government to reveal intelligence and how it was obtained, thus hindering US efforts to combat terrorism. Al Qaeda will better understand our intelligence gathering techniques and respond accordingly.

Should Zacarias Moussaoui have been tried by military commission? In 2001, President Bush established military commissions, a wartime system of justice used during the Revolutionary and Civil wars as well as World War II. Congress approved these procedures in 2006, long after Moussaoui’s Grand Jury indictment. Military Commissions have since been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The actions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were acts of war against the United States and should be prosecuted by a military commission. The world is too dangerous of a place to continue sending mixed messages regarding our commitment to fight terrorism, whether we want to use the name “Terrorism” or “Man-caused Disasters”.