New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans

THE REAL STORY OF THE FIRST THANKSGIVING

On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? >From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.

"But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness," destined to become the home of the Kennedy family. "There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.

"When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats." Yes, it was Indians that taught the white man how to skin beasts. "Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. "Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part [of Thanksgiving] that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.

"All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.

"That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.

"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.' Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?

"Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' Bradford doesn't sound like much of a..." I wrote "Clintonite" then. He doesn't sound much like a liberal Democrat, "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes.

"Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47) In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'" Now, other than on this program every year, have you heard this story before? Is this lesson being taught to your kids today -- and if it isn't, why not?

Can you think of a more important lesson one could derive from the pilgrim experience? So in essence there was, thanks to the Indians, because they taught us how to skin beavers and how to plant corn when we arrived, but the real Thanksgiving was thanking the Lord for guidance and plenty -- and once they reformed their system and got rid of the communal bottle and started what was essentially free market capitalism, they produced more than they could possibly consume, and they invited the Indians to dinner, and voila, we got Thanksgiving, and that's what it was: inviting the Indians to dinner and giving thanks for all the plenty is the true story of Thanksgiving. The last two-thirds of this story simply are not told.

Now, I was just talking about the plenty of this country and how I'm awed by it. You can go to places where there are famines, and we usually get the story, "Well, look it, there are deserts, well, look it, Africa, I mean there's no water and nothing but sand and so forth." It's not the answer, folks. Those people don't have a prayer because they have no incentive. They live under tyrannical dictatorships and governments. The problem with the world is not too few resources. The problem with the world is an insufficient distribution of capitalism.

Mexico's frustration with U.S. immigration policy builds

Government, advocates are calling for measures to influence U.S. public opinion.

U.S. general says Qaeda fighters move to north Iraq

Sunday talk show tip sheet

Al Gore Wrong Again

Reid Threatens Funds for Iraq War

SAY THANKS TO A VETERAN TODAY

'We love America,'

USS Cole Bomber Released

TAX CUTS WORK

MORE MAN MADE GOLBAL WARMING NEWS

EAT SHIT MURTHA

The Worst ‘Notable Quotables’ of the Past 20 Years

THE AWARD FOR KOOKS

The Problems of Victory

Are Members of Congress Accountable for Anything?

Are Congressmen above the law? The case of Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich against Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) tests this basic question.


Of course there are other reasons to ask the same question. In a year when Congressional committees see no limits to what they will subpoena from the executive branch or about what they will interrogate its officers and employees, they rushed to court to keep the Department of Justice from subpoenaing the records of a Congressman caught with tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer.


Bad as shielding suspicious Congressional cold cash from view may be, insulating Congressmen when attacking ordinary citizens, or worse yet active duty Soldiers, is an invitation to tyranny. We are all potential targets if this holds true. Are they totally unaccountable for their conduct against ordinary citizens? I certainly hope not, but if that ultimately proves to be the case in court, I hope we have the strength to demand a change in the law.


The news that Staff Sgt Wuterich was going to be permitted to proceed to discovery in his defamation suit against Congressman Murtha was a cheering note to people like me who have consistently considered the Congressman's conduct unacceptable. As you will recall on November 19, 2005 there was an incident in the then-insurgent infested town of Haditha in which a number of people were killed. Beginning in May of 2006, long before a full official inquiry, and prompted by a very suspect bit of anti-US propaganda in Time, Congressman Murtha hit the media circuit repeatedly. He publicly and falsely accused SSgt Wuterich and the men of the Marines' Kilo Company of being involved in cold-blooded (premeditated) murder and of covering up the events of that day.


Wuterich sued Murtha, alleging he'd been libeled, that Murtha had repeatedly asserted "false and malicious lies" about Wuterich and his Company, that these lies were made with full knowledge that they were false and libelous and with gross negligence or reckless disregard for the truth, invading Wuterich's privacy and placing him in a false light. Further, the complaint alleges that since these lies were disseminated throughout the world by others, Wuterich has a new cause of action each time these false and defamatory stories were repeated publicly by any news outlet,


The statement carried around the world and referred to in Count III (Republication) was this one:

"‘There was no firefight. There was no IED...that killed those innocent people,' Representative Murtha, D. Pa., said during a news conference on Iraq. ‘Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood, that is what this report is going to say'."
To date, charges have been dropped against a number of the members of the Company. Wuterich has not even had an Article 32 hearing (the military justice equivalent of a grand jury). His counsel notes:

The charges alone, and the Marine Corps press conference that was held at the time of the announcement, already actually unequivocally refute many of Mr. Murtha's outrageous statements such as that the killings were committed in ‘cold-blood'(premeditated) and that Wuterich and his Marines were not fired upon."
Wuterich offered Murtha an opportunity to resolve the dispute with a simple retraction. Congressman John Kline acknowledged that similar statements made by him were "premature and inappropriate" and issued a public apology. Murtha has refused to do so and is the subject, therefore, of this suit.


Following a successful suit against Senator Proxmire, Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 122 (1979) Congress amended the Federal Tort Claims Act to cover Congressmen. The issue in this case has nothing to do with whether Murtha's remarks constitute defamation: they are libel per se. Immunity from suit under the Tort Claims Act depends on whether or not he can make a plausible claim supported by fact that this defamation was made within what is called the "scope of his employment". The plaintiff argued that he needed to depose Murtha and get some discovery from him -- discovery as to the context in which Congressman Murtha made these statements, what factual basis he had for them, and his motive for making them.


The Westfall Act, as the amendment to the Federal Tort Claims Act 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(h) is known (after the case which spurred its passage), allows the government to defend such cases and move for their dismissal if it appears that the defendant was acting in the scope of his employment. The government has sovereign immunity from suit unless it agrees otherwise and the federal government has never waived this immunity with respect to tortious conduct like defamation.


The leading case on this is Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno (94-167), 515 U.S. 417 (1995). .


The Supreme Court there, and the District Court in the Wuterich case, make clear that the government may not be substituted for the defendant and move to dismiss under the Westfall case unless it can establish that the conduct was made within the scope of the original named defendant's employment. And establishing that requires more than a perfunctory, conclusory affidavit on the issue:

c) Construction of the Westfall Act as Lamagno urges--to deny to federal courts authority to review the Attorney General's scope of employment certification--would oblige this Court to attribute to Congress two highly anomalous commands. First, the Court would have to accept that, whenever the case falls within an exception to the FTCA, Congress has authorized the Attorney General to sit as an unreviewable judge in her own cause--able to block petitioners' way to a tort action in court, at no cost to the federal treasury, while avoiding litigation in which the United States has no incentive to engage, and incidentally enhancing the morale--or at least sparing the purse--of federal employees. This conspicuously self serving interpretation runs counter to the fundamental principle that no one should be a judge in his own cause, and has been disavowed by the United States. Pp. 8-11.


(d) Second, and at least equally perplexing, Lamagno's proposed reading would cast Article III judges in the role of petty functionaries, persons required to rubber stamp the decision of a scarcely disinterested executive officer, but stripped of capacity to evaluate independently whether that decision is correct. This strange course becomes all the more surreal when one adds to the scene the absence of any obligation on the part of the Attorney General's delegate to conduct proceedings, to give the plaintiff an opportunity to speak to the scope of employment question, to give notice that she is considering the question, or to give any explanation for her action. This Court resists ascribing to Congress an intention to place courts in the untenable position of having automatically to enter judgments pursuant to decisions they have no authority to evaluate. Pp. 11-12. [Source]
In fact that is what the Department of Justice unsuccessfully tried to do in the Wuterich case -- get it dropped without offering conclusive proof that these outrageous statements were made within a Congressman's scope of employment and without allowing the defense to probe the facts by deposition and document discovery to establish that the conduct complained of was outside that scope and that Murtha, therefore, must defend the case on his own dime and be liable for any defamatory statements he made.


Wuterich argues that many of Murtha's comments were made outside the scope of his employment. He notes that Murtha has claimed to have been provided the defamatory information by others such as General Hagee who have challenged his recollection of how he came to be in possession of the information. (Hagee has said he never spoke to Murtha until well after Murtha began making these charges.)


In particular, Wuterich raised the following concerns about the affidavit submitted by the Department of Justice certifying that Murtha made these statements in the scope of his employment "at the time of the alleged incidents":


(1) The certification did not detail even one fact upon which it relied in coming to this conclusion. Murtha made many such statements and every single one had to be within the scope of his employment for him to avail himself of statutory immunity.


(2) The government Certification contains no details nor explains the bases for its conclusion.


Affirmatively, Wuterich asserts that Murtha relies solely on the declaration of his former Communications Director, but she never specifically addressed the factual circumstances in dispute; she doesn't indicate she is even familiar with any of the relevant facts in this matter; nor does she address each and every one of the statements made by Murtha nor any republication of those statements by others.


Wuterich concedes that in other circumstances the courts have held that

"speaking to the press is a critical part of the expected and authorized conduct of a United States Congressman."
"However," Wuterich argues,

"there is no indication, nor case law, that would seemingly endorse a view that every single circumstance where a congressman speaks to a member of the media falls within the scope of employment and is thereby entitled to immunity."
The court agreed, and said, despite the Certification, the Government will not be substituted for Murtha (and the case therefore dismissed) until after Wuterich has had an opportunity for discovery to determine whether or not these statements come within the scope of his employment.


What can we expect the plaintiff will explore in this limited discovery?


a. He will want to find out where all these statements were made and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews. Three of the interviews cited in the complaint, he notes, were made in Murtha's "campaign office", not his district or D.C. offices;


b. Murtha will be asked to state what legislative responsibilities pertained to his actions. None seem evident.


c. Wuterich will explore whether Murtha commented upon Wuterich "for his own personal gain outside of his role as a representative for his constituents" If he did, his conduct is not cloaked in statutory immunity. In this context, Wuterich notes that Murtha made these statements at a time when he was vying for the role of Majority Leader, anticipating the Democrats would gain control of the House.


d. Wuterich will certainly seek all records in Murtha's possession of all comments to the media made on this issue and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews.


e. Wuterich will explore who provided Murtha the information he said he relied on. His pleadings refer, in fact, to leakers from among people inside the Department of Defense.


I think that there was no legislative purpose in smearing Wuterich and Kilo Company. Personal aggrandizement and political ambition motivated this Murtha media blitz. I think the very fact that a number of the statements were made in Murtha's campaign office rather than his official offices supports the claim that these statements were not made in the scope of his employment as a Congressman.


It is my understanding that the court-ordered discovery will take place in November, and we will not know whether the suit will proceed until it is completed. But if Congressmen are protected by statutory immunity from accountability after making facially libelous statements based on no solid evidence against the troops in time of war, something is wrong with the law.

Clear Channel CEO responds to Reid

Dow Jones Passes 14,000 for Record High

Al Qaeda on the ropes