California Conservative

Ann Aiken, a judge appointed by Bill Clinton, has ruled parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional:

Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow secret wiretapping and searches without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, “now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”

Judge Aiken should dust off the law books. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. Court after court has ruled that warrantless searches are constitutional. If her ruling stands the appeals process, it would cripple the intelligence community’s ability to surveil.

Let’s be blunt about something: It’s time that we junked FISA. In the past, ConLaw professors have said that it’s unconstitutional. Let’s test that theory. Let’s file a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. Let’s do something so judges like Ann Aiken can’t write opinions like this:

“For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law, with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised,” she wrote.

The reality is that jurists have recognized the legitimate right of warrantless surveillances. Judge Aiken should’ve read this post by Powerline’s John Hinderaker before making her ruling. Had she read it and taken it to heart, she wouldn’t have ruled the way she did. (more…)

That isn’t a startling headline since it’s parroted by practically every presidential candidate. This quote will haunt her during next fall’s campaign, though:

“It cannot be American policy, period,” Clinton (D-N.Y.) told debate moderator Tim Russert, who asked if there should be a presidential exemption to allow the torture of a terror chieftain if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn’t know where it was.

That definitive statement will cause Hillary lots of problems next fall because she all but admitted that she won’t do everything in her power to protect Americans from future terrorist attacks. While the anti-torture position is popular inside the Beltway, it isn’t popular in the Heartland. People that I talk with want the feds to do everything in their power to protect us. (more…)

Let’s certainly hope that Republicans have learned their lesson about spending like Democrats. Let’s hope that they’re back to being a reform-minded political force. This John Boehner op-ed foretells of a step in the right direction.

I’ve never made a secret of my distaste for worthless pork. Just a few months after being elected as majority leader last year, we enacted comprehensive reforms that brought the earmark process out into broad daylight. All taxpayer-funded earmarks had to be publicly disclosed and subject to challenge and debate. If you sponsor a project, we argued, you ought to be willing to put your name on it and defend it, and if not, you shouldn’t ask taxpayers to pay for it. These reforms were the right thing to do, and they still are.

The Democratic majority came to power in January promising to do a better job on earmarks. They appeared to preserve our reforms and even take them a bit further. I commended Democrats publicly for this action.

Unfortunately, the leadership reversed course. Desperate to advance their agenda, they began trading earmarks for votes, dangling taxpayer-funded goodies in front of wavering members to win their support for leadership priorities.

The Democrats’ retreat began quietly, with passage of a “continuing resolution” in February that contained hidden earmarks. It steadily became more blatant. A troop funding bill was loaded with pork-barrel spending for things like spinach and peanuts, which one top Democrat publicly conceded was only in the bill to buy votes. Members were denied the ability to challenge individual earmarks on the House floor, stepping back from our original reforms and leaving members with no way to force a floor debate and vote on any earmark, even if it violated the rules or was particularly egregious.

David Obey started the slide by telling appropriators not to include earmarks until the conference committee:

Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to President Bush.

Such requests total billions of dollars.

This could be a winning issue for the GOP because it would provide a stark contrast as to which is the reform-minded political party. The last thing John Murtha, Jim Oberstar or Robert Byrd want is transparency with regards to earmarks. It isn’t a stretch to think that John Murtha hates earmark transparency as much as vampires hates wooden stakes. (more…)

The Seattle Times has another editorial about Gen. Petraeus and the MoveOn.org ad. It’s written by someone named John Tuttle. Mr. Tuttle’s contention is that the headline isn’t how MoveOn’s ad should be judged. In his editorial, he argues that the ad should be based on the content of the ad. I’d submit that it should be judged mostly on its accusation in the subtitle. Here’s what Mr. Tuttle’s editorial says:

Your editorial criticized MoveOn.org’s advertisement about Gen. David Petraeus, but did you actually read the ad or only the headline? [ “MoveOn.org’s demeaning attack” Editorial, Sept. 23]. If so, what do you dispute in the text of the ad?

That “every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge has failed.” Or that, “the Pentagon has a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on the violence” such as “assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head, not the front.”

Do you dispute that “we’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.”

Do you disagree with the assertion that “Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war”? (Incidentally, MoveOn.org has links to various independent articles and reports substantiating the points in their ad.)

As far as the headline, why didn’t you point out that Gen. Petraeus has political ambitions? Not only has he expressed interest in running for president, he has been promoted as a potential presidential candidate by such right-wing luminaries as Kathryn Jean Lopez and Bill Kristol.

As a military guy with political ambitions and a spokesman for the Bush administration’s failed Iraq policy, political organizations have every right to criticize him and his self-serving spin on our “achieved progress” in Iraq. Why should he be immune from criticism just because he is wearing a fancy uniform and is supposedly a “well-respected” general?

The storyline continues. The editorialist says that Gen. Petraeus is a “military guy with political ambitions” and that he’s “a spokesman for the Bush administration’s failed Iraq policy” who shouldn’t be “immune from criticism.” (more…)

Earlier today, I posted something on a pair of editorials attempting to discredit Gen. David Petraeus. I said then that I didn’t think it was coincidental. I asked if it was the New Liberal Smear Campaign Against Gen. Petraeus. I googled Gen. Petraeus’ name again this evening. Here’s another editorial spewing the same vitriolic garbage. Here’s the key section of the editorial:

The war rages on but the only plan the minority party can come up with is one of misdirecting the public away from its inability to deal with ending it.

The MoveOn.org ad [”MoveOn.org’s demeaning attack,” Times, Editorial, Sept. 23] asks if Gen. David Petraeus will tell the truth based on his history of following the Bush administration’s practice of manipulating the facts, and concludes, correctly, that he most likely would not. Woe be to those who thought their speech was protected by the First Amendment when they actually do speak out.

What The Times and those distraction-seeking Republicans in Congress failed to report is that MoveOn’s biggest sin was not questioning Gen. Petraeus’s veracity, but its plagiarism of the exact word used to describe Petraeus by officers on the ground long before the ad was published.

This still isn’t conclusive proof that MoveOn.org is behind this batch of editorials but I’d bet that it isn’t a coincidence either. Let’s examine this editorial in teh Seattle Times with David Mendenhall’s editorial in the Arizona Republic:

Gen. David Petraeus has been so politicized in the past several months that he has become identified with the executive branch of government. As such, he is subject to the same scrutiny as any other political figure, and pejorative comments are to be expected from opposing factions.

The message that Patrick Stults tried conveying in his Seattle Times editorial isn’t substantially different than the message David Mendenhall tried conveying. Mendenhall said that military figures are fair game if the Left chooses to politicize them whereas Patrick Stults cuts to the chase by saying that Gen. Petraeus is a liar and that MoveOn.org’s ad wasn’t bold enough for him.

Mr. Stults’s comment that “Gen. David Petraeus…has become identified with the executive branch of government” is laughable for its stupidity. In case Mr. Stults hasn’t noticed, the military has always been part of the executive branch of government. Therefore, it should be “identified with the executive branch of government.” (more…)

Teaming with Blanche Lincoln, (D-AR), Pete Domenici, (R-NM) & Kit Bond (R-MO), Norm Coleman helped ensure that veterans wouldn’t get shortchanged. Here’s Sen. Coleman’s official statement on the legislation:

In an effort to improve mental health services for military personnel and their families, Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Kit Bond (R-MO) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) successfully included an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 in response to a recent reduction in reimbursement rates received by mental health professionals who treat military servicemembers.

Specifically, the amendment gives the Secretary of Defense the flexibility to increase mental health reimbursement rates for TRICARE, the healthcare program for members of military and their families, if access to mental health services is threatened. The amendment is also cosponsored by Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI). (more…)

That’s a quote from Brian Baird in this article on CBS’s website. That isn’t the only thing he’s said that I found noteworthy but it’s why Rep. Baird should get a Profile in Courage award. Unfortunately, that’s isn’t likely considering the Democratic Party is the mouthpiece to MoveOn.org’s ventriloquism.

“They are driving the agenda far too much, and it’s the wrong direction for this country,” he said. “We all agree that we can’t stay forever there, but how we withdraw and when we withdraw and why we withdraw matters a great deal to ourown security, the legacy we leave in Iraq and our public image internationally.”

If the Kennedy Center won’t give Rep. Baird a ‘Profile In Courage’ award, I will. Frankly, he’s earned it and then some. That isn’t the only impressive display of political courage. Listen to this impressive quote:

“There were a few who felt I undermined the message, but I could really care less,” he said Tuesday. “Some were mad at me that I was going off message. In fact, even some of the people who had been pro-war said that to me. … They were so quickly jumping to criticism of someone with a different position. It’s unfortunate that we’re being driven by such an extreme wing right now.”

This type of certitude is what drove Dennis Miller from the Democratic Party immediately following 9/11. It isn’t a stretch to say that Rep. Baird’s principled stand is similar to that of Sen. Leiberman’s. While I’m certain I don’t agree with Rep. Baird on many issues other than this, I can’t turn my back on him after he’s taken such a steadfast position on the defining issue of our generation. Such steadfastness should be heartily applauded.

Intellectual honesty demands as much.

Technorati Tags: Brian Baird, Iraq War, Joe Lieberman, Profiles In Courage, John Murtha, MoveOn.org, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

I just googled David Petraeus’ name. As I scanned the links, I noticed two editorials that essentially called Gen. Petraeus a mouthpiece for the Bush administration’s policies. Call me cynical but I’m having trouble believing that the MoveOn.org types aren’t orchestrating a campaign to discredit Gen. Petraeus. Here’s what Thomas LaPointe said in his Des Moines Register editorial:

As a former Marine, it is difficult for me to argue with a four-star general and a distinguished ambassador. However, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker failed to use their recent appearances before Congress to offer a total reassessment on Iraq. They offered an amended version of “stay the course.”

There seems to be little success getting the Iraqis to secure themselves or govern with a sense of national reconciliation. Now, even with the president’s proposed 30,000-troop draw-down, troop levels will remain at the January 2006 levels. We are where we were 18 months ago; we have not moved decisively.

Obviously, Mr. LaPointe hasn’t been paying attention to events on the ground in Iraq. In fact, I’d bet that he doesn’t realize that they’re shifting their mission from eliminating AQI terrorists in Anbar and Diyala provinces to killing al-Sadr’s militias in the south. Saying that Gen. Petraeus “offered an amended version of ’stay the course’” is insulting. It’s also factually indefensible. (more…)

I don’t recall ever having the pleasure of fisking something like Al Franken’s op-ed in today’s Strib. Here goes:

It is, of course, ridiculous that the United States Senate spent a day debating and voting on a resolution condemning an advertisement while our troops remained in Iraq, fighting a war with no end.

Why does Mr. Franken think it’s ridiculous spending a day debating something as important as MoveOn.org’s defamation of a commanding general in wartime? Is it because Mr. Franken thinks it’s ok to smear a career officer because he hates our President?

What’s delicious is how Franken turns from predator to victim:

Frankly, I’m used to this kind of smear; it’s what happens when you speak truth to power in George W. Bush’s America. But I think Minnesotans have had enough of this kind of political gamesmanship.

Poor little baby. Why should Mr. Franken get away with not speaking out against a radical fringe organization after they’ve accused Gen. Petraeus of lying before they’ve even heard what he said a word? Let’s flip this around. Would Franken stay silent if a Republican called Hillary a liar? Of he wouldn’t stay silent nor would anyone expect him to. (more…)

That’s the word from this Daily Planet article. There’s interesting quotes in the article. Here’s the most interesting section of the article:

Conyers’ legislative aide, Joel Segal, broke down the national health insurance
plan for the audience, a packed theater of union members, legislators, members of the Minnesota State Nurses Association, health care advocacy groups and many people for whom the current health care system had failed.

“The main barrier to care in this country is that you don’t have a right to be a patient in the wealthiest country in the world,” explained Segal. “You have to either get a job which has insurance, which is a big problem because a lot of people don’t have jobs, and even if you do have a job you may not be able to afford the insurance, and even if you do get that insurance it’s probably not going to be that good because you’re going to have excessive copays, deductibles and bills at the end,” he said. “What [House File] 676 seeks to do is to eliminate all barriers to care between the patient and the physician. ”

The plan outlined in the bill is not incredibly complicated and simply makes the government the sole health insurer. Insurance premiums would be paid in the form of taxes.

When someone is born, he or she is automatically issued a national health insurance card. That person, throughout a lifetime, can visit any hospital, doctor, mental health provider, or treatment center of the individual’s choosing. Physicians and other health care staff are reimbursed within 30 days of services rendered, and that reimbursement is mandated to be at current pay grade which, according to Segal, would result in a raise after the 25 percent cost of working with multiple health plans, formularies and payment systems is eliminated. Hospitals would also receive “global budgets” each year based on previous year’s costs.

“Nothing is going to change except there will be no more stock market, investor-owned doctors’ offices or hospitals,” said Segal.

Mr. Segal obviously got Rep. Conyers’ approval before saying this on the record. Therefore, it isn’t a stretch to think that Rep. Conyers and Rep. Ellison believe in socialist economic policies rather than trusting in capitalist economic policies.

It’s worth pointing out that we wouldn’t have seen the types of research breakthroughs over the past 25 years if capitalism wasn’t at the heart of our health care system. Does any thoughtful, informed person think that we would’ve seen the advances made with a socialist health care system?

Here’s another interesting paragraph from the article:

Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and John Conyers, D-Mich., hosted a community forum Sunday at the Heights Theatre in Columbia Heights on the United States National Health Insurance Act (HR 676), a bill that would “expand and improve Medicare for all.” The act, synonymous with single-payer health care, would cut costs for both individuals and the government and has the support of a majority of the populace, advocates said. Nevertheless, the bill faces a steep uphill battle, with a likely veto by the president.

Saying that government-run healthcare enjoys the support of a majority of Americans isn’t just spin; it’s an outright lie. If a respected polling company like Rasmussen or Gallup polled that question, I’d be shocked if government-run health care would get more than 25 percent support nationwide.

This isn’t shocking, though. Conyers has been talking down to people for fifty years and Ellison has been a radical his entire adult life. Therefore, we shouldn’t expect to hear this pair advocating mainstream ideas. Listen to who attended the event:

Conyers’ legislative aide, Joel Segal, broke down the national health insurance plan for the audience, a packed theater of union members, legislators, members of the Minnesota State Nurses Association, health care advocacy groups and many people for whom the current health care system had failed.

TRANSLATION: The audience consisted of Democratic activists (union members, legislators), lobbyists (health care advocacy groups) and victims (many people for whom the current health care system had failed). In other words, the usual suspects. This also tells us what the DFL’s agenda for the next legislative session will be. This isn’t surprising; it’s just something that we need to get prepared for. It’s time to educate ourselves so we can defend our capitalist-based system in a coherent, compelling way.

Technorati Tags: Keith Ellison, john Conyers, Socialism, Health Care, Capitalism, Democratic Activists, Lobbyists, Unions, Victims

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog