December 10th, 2003 - Washington, DC – The Family Research Council awarded Senator Norm Coleman its True Blue Award today. The commendation was made in recognition of the Council’s 100% support of Coleman’s voting record.
“I’m honored to receive this award,” Coleman said.
Now, in case you think Family Research Council is something besides a propaganda front for the Bush-Cheney way things are, the way the nation has been run under Bush-Cheney stewardship, and adopt the, "Oh, well they are focused on family [that is anti-reproductive rights] issues, and that's independent of simple partisan trashing of the Democrats as a primary mission, by questioning their patriotism for example, on things remote from their family issues, things like the Iraq invasion, etc.," then think again.
Consider this reported matter [with a range of interesting reader comment] showing that Norman Coleman's inexcusible questioning of Paul Wellstone's patriotism was also a 100% lockstep bellringer with the aims of this Coleman-allied propaganda organization:
Family Research Council's Perkins: Feingold's call for censure is "borderline treasonous behavior"
Summary: Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called Sen. Russ Feingold's introduction of a resolution to censure President Bush "borderline treasonous behavior."
On the March 13 [2006] edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, asserted in a discussion with host Joe Scarborough that the resolution to censurePresident Bush introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) on March 13 is "borderline treasonous behavior." Feingold proposed the censure for what he said was Bush's violation of the law in authorizing warrantless domestic eavesdropping.
The Family Research Council is a conservative political organization that, according to its website, "shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family."
From the March 13 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:PERKINS: You know that Senator Feingold is out in left field when [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [CA] is distancing herself from him. I mean, this is -- in a time of war, this is borderline treasonous behavior. I mean, this takes politics to a new low. I mean, this literally -- what he is doing -- puts our military and our nation at greater risk by sending the message that we're divided, that we're not intent on protecting our nation against terrorists. This is a bad move on his part. And you can tell.
[Emphasis as in the original, links differ.] From the linked to bio of FRC head, Perkins, he's from Louisiana, a former state legislator and unsuccessful 2002 GOP candidate for the US Senate. He/his group allegedly puchased David Duke's mailing list. He goes beyond "family values" to proselytize as Coleman does, an ever more unpopular failed and from the start falsely characterized oil war where fallen soldiers are even denied the dignity of having their flag draped coffins photographed, as counterproductive, or bad press.
This GOP tactic of questioning the partiotism of opponents is getting cold and old. A while back the following was being posted and emailed a lot, and it is entirely relevant to the coarse, crass questioning of opposition patriotism - a tried and true weapon in the Coleman arsenal of discord not unlike the tired and untrue Ron Carey mantra that anyone but his anointed GOP favorites are "out of touch tax and spend liberals not in tune with or wanting to conform to and represent the mood and character of their district":
While Norman Coleman is not a Nazi and I am not calling him one or implying that in any way, he nonetheless has used against Paul Wellstone that very tool and tactic - much as his President Bush early on phrased things as "You're either with us or against us," and Wellstone, bless his spirit, like Feingold in appreciating hard won liberties that require vigilance to protect, had the absolute good sense and rectitude to stand up and say no to folly, falseness, and Dick Cheney's Halliburton oil profiteering and policy rapaciousness.
Again, the Feingold remarks on introducing the censure resolution are more relevant now with an election soon upon us, than on March 13, 2006, when he spoke:
Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.
The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President’s actions.
All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President’s conduct was wrong.
At moments in our history like this, we are reminded why the founders balanced the powers of the different branches of government so carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong, and that others in the government will then bear the responsibility to do right.
To date, members of Congress have responded in very different ways to the President’s conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know he is breaking the law, we do not know the details of what the President has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow it, yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal conduct. To approve the President’s actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law.
Others in Congress have taken important steps to check the President. Senator Specter has held hearings on the wiretapping program in the Judiciary Committee. He has even suggested that Congress may need to use the power of the purse in order to get some answers out of the Administration. And Senator Byrd has proposed that Congress establish an independent commission to investigate this program.
As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.
It is your freedom and mine that is at risk by such lawbreaking. And it is a GOP propagandist who 100% approves of Norman Coleman's character and record who has termed this wake-up call from Senator Feingold as "borderline treasonous behavior."
Feingold's press release from before the resolution was introduced with the above quoted remarks, set the issue clearly, in line with the remarks:
“The President must be held accountable for authorizing a program that clearly violates the law and then misleading the country about its existence and its legality,” Feingold said. “The President’s actions, as well as his misleading statements to both Congress and the public about the program, demand a serious response. If Congress does not censure the President, we will be tacitly condoning his actions, and undermining both the separation of powers and the rule of law.”
The President’s illegal wiretapping program is in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The FISA law makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order. The Bush Administration has obtained thousands of FISA warrants since September 11th and has almost never been rejected by the FISA court. FISA even allows wiretaps to be executed immediately in an emergency as long as the government obtains a warrant within 72 hours.
You be the judge. Would you rather dark secret eavesdropping where citizens are not even told it is going on, then when discovered citizens are not even told its scope or purpose or justification, if any, or would you rather as Feingold and Wellstone represented us, a government subject to the rule of law and full sunshine on all of its activities promulgated in our name as best for us.
For me, the choice is clear. I will vote for Al Franken, not Bush-Cheney-Coleman tactics and policies. They stink. They get in the way of my freedom. In the way of my feeling I can trust my government to be the government it should be and the government the founders tried their best to create. The Bill of Rights was not passed as an expedient propaganda tool. Remember that. Remember, as a practical current matter, it means whatever within it the government honors and does not breach. And it means less than originally intended if there is an official breach of our liberties and it goes undenounced, or as Norman Coleman would have it the breach, once discovered, is made into law after its discovery, despite the disturbing manner of the breach being secretly brought to existence.
Our freedoms under the Bill of Rights and our other protections such as requiring a warrant are always at risk at the hands of those wanting powers that were wisely not granted or intended, and wanting present expediency over the cautious rule of law.