Thursday, January 17, 2008

Is this another high profile low result case?

OK here is the headline:

Ex-Congressman Charged in Terror Case

and the second paragraph:
Mark Deli Siljander, a Michigan Republican when he was in the House, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about being hired to lobby senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

and waaaaaaaaaay down in the 15th graph:
It's not clear whether Siljander ever engaged in the lobbying push, said John Wood, U.S. attorney in Kansas City. Nevertheless, IARA paid Siljander with money that was part of U.S. government funding awarded to the charity years earlier for relief work it promised to perform in Africa, the indictment says.

I'm just remembering that the terror cell that was found 2 years ago turned out to be a bunch of homeless guys being led by an FBI informer to record FBI HQ. and don't forget the clip I play on the show from time to time:


Anonymous said...

Isnt it interesting that Harry Reid wanted Clear Channel to repudiate Rushs comments. They knew this little LIBEL secret.

"Censorship is closely related to the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression."

"Persons engaged in legislative debate in Congress are granted complete immunity from libel and slander suits so long as they are speaking from the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives."

The intent of this letter is so obvious. The reason they are getting away with it is obvious also.

Why pay 2.1 million for an insignificate piece of paper MT?


Michael T Justice said...

Let's try this one more time...
I don't think it is an insignificant piece of paper. I don't believe I ever said it was. It was WRONG for the Senators to use the well of the Senate floor to make their call for other Senators to join in signing the letter. But when it is all said and done, it was a LETTER. It is interesting that they had cover from a libel suit because they used the floor of the Senate. Although, you could argue that they weren't in legislative debate. Now when you say "they are getting away with it" I'm not sure what you are expecting. An impeachment or censure? According to the dictionary on my computer, censorship is an official act. I'll grant you that we have both (along with society writ large) taken to using the term imprecisely. but I think the topic is done as far as our discussing it goes. The whole thing backfired on the Democrats in a major way anyway.

Now if you want to talk about official letters, I would certainly entertain a discussion of the Star's letter detailing the implementation of the complaint procedures. Off air of course.

Anonymous said...

Have you seen your contract? I see the section of discussion in my

You have a strong point concerning the legislative actions by a governing body. I never said there was against Limbaugh, There are many aspects to consider. There was no real legislation because no law was being made or amended.

However; their actions and deliberate power move may have well been the "tell" (poker)...the tell i needed to confirm who will censor political activity of the "right wingers" in direct violation of the Supreme Courts latest decision. I know these libs like the back of my

Knowing full well, the duck and water look calm, but his feet are churning a mile minute.

MT.Most of those signatures of from those who support the fairness doctrine and its re-introduction efforts. BTW these past and present legislators have already legislated and have tried to re-introduce such legislation.

Backed up by what Anthony was saying about the Fairness Doctrine.

Care to argue legislation hasnt already began?

In fact this situation should worry you more than "9-11 nutjobs at KKFI"(Anthonys blog)....LMAO!!

Supreme Court 1969 decision:

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SUPREME COURT DECISION!!! (yes im yelling like i always

It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Democratic Party operatives were deeply involved in the Red Lion case since the start of the litigation. Wayne Phillips, a Democratic National Committee staffer described the aftermath of the ruling, explaining that "Even more important than the free radio time was the effectiveness of this operation in inhibiting the political activity of these right-wing broadcasts”.

The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.

In 1984, the Court's majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech," and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.


Remember you said LESS GOVERNMENT? The Branches are to powerfull...remember?

Sounds to me like Hillary and Barack have no problem with MORE GOVERNMENT and violating someones freedoms in the market place (freedom of speech market), you know the one we all live in daily.


M said...

blah blah blah blah. Waaaaaaaaaa. After years of rush saying that other people should shut their mouth, be arrested, even die for things that they say, someone actually complained about him.

It may not have been the best way to do it, but when CFR members own most of the media, i can't think of a better way

miles said...

sry, my whole name didnt show up

Miles said...

Simple fact is, you want to scream conspiracy theorists because we see holes in 9/11 instead of talking about rush limbaugh, he has his own press he can talk about that shit all day.

What I want to know is: You know about Able Danger. You know how much we spend on defense. You know there was no OFFICIAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION into 9/11. YOU KNOW THAT NOBODY has been held accountable for THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE LARGEST MILITARY ON THE PLANET BEING ATTACKED. How can you justify that in your mind?

Bush can fire the head of FEMA after Katrina, but nobody is responsible for failures in our defense?

Rumsfeld should have been gone by Oct 2001

Anonymous said...

Blah Blah Blah...waaaaaaa? Is that what you think about the actions, on the floor of the senate, against freedom of speech? You liberals are deranged.

What holes in 9-11? I see the holes you 9-11 nutjobs are trying to make, with know real facts to back anything up. In fact you bring each point for debate here and i will respond in rebutal.

Let me get this straight Miles...An act of war is now being charged as a criminal act in your mind? WTF Miles, are you for real?

BTW fuck rummy.