This morning, I received a statement from People With Hart, the campaign committe for Melissa Hart. Ms. Hart lost in the 2006 midterms but is running again to retake that seat. Here’s the content of Rep. Hart’s statement:

REALITY CHECK- JASON ALTMIRE’S MISLEADING ADS BEGIN
When will he come clean about his votes in Washington?

Cranberry Township, PA - Former Congresswoman Melissa Hart calls on Jason Altmire to tell the people of the Fourth Congressional District the truth about his his voting record, which is how he really represents them in Washington, D.C.

Earlier this week, Jason Altmire began airing a campaign ad patting himself on the back for ensuring that U.S- manufactured Steel is used to build the fences that protect our borders.

What the voters are not told is, that the border fence Altmire touts in his campaign advertisement is the same fence he voted against fully funding last year (Roll Call Vote 490, 6/15/07).

Jason Altmire voted to only provide enough funding for 370 miles of the 850 miles of border fence required by the Secure Fence Act of 2006. That leaves more than half of the border unprotected. (continue reading post »)

The more I read about Jeff Beatty, the more I’m impressed with him. This op-ed is a perfect example of why we need Jeff Beatty in the United States Senate. Check out how Mr. Beatty goes after Sen. Kerry on energy policy:

The U.S. Senate, including Sen. John Kerry, could have acted recently to resolve our current fuel crisis by voting for a comprehensive energy plan.

Instead, Kerry characteristically shirked his responsibility to the people of Massachusetts. He and the Senate leadership ducked for cover, allowing a comprehensive energy reform bill, which included lifting Congress’s moratorium on offshore drilling, to die.

Kerry and others then exited the U.S. Capitol for the August recess, a five-week vacation most of us cannot afford, leaving a steadfast few who demanded a vote on this issue literally standing in the dark of the House chamber with the American people left in the lurch.

The citizens of Massachusetts would be wise to pick Jeff Beatty because he has a plan to improve their lives. Compare that with Sen. Kerry. He’s been in the Senate sin 1984. Since then, he’s been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue. His accomplishments are thin to nonexistent. That begs the question: Why vote for someone who’s had a remarkably mediocre career when you can pick someone whose policies would help his constituents and who brings a wealth of experience on homeland security matters?

This paragraph is another reason why Massachusetts needs Jeff Beatty’s leadership: (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, I posted something about Sen. Kerry’s idiotic statement that Sarah Palin was just another Dick Cheney. A half hour after I first read that, I finally got my laughter under control. Simply put, Sen. Kerry needs to be forced into retirement. That’s where Jeff Beatty comes in. Mr. Beatty is running against Sen. Kerry. He’s mounting a serious challenge, too. I suspect that Massachusetts voters are taking him seriously because of Mr. Beatty’s position on America’s energy independence:

Energy Plan
We must control our own destiny, our own future. The world is a volatile place and we cannot rely on foreign suppliers of energy. We must become more self reliant. With that in mind Jeff will push to bring online more sources of energy, not just for tomorrow, but for the next 20 or more years it will take to bridge the gap to advanced Hydrogen Cars and other new technologies.

Oil. We must access the oil we have by increased drilling. That includes Oil Shale, ANWR and Offshore. Strategically, we need to increase our refining capacity.

Clean Coal. This resource can carry a large part of the electrical generation needs and we must continue to use it extensively.

Natural Gas. In addition to power generation, as an interim measure, Natural Gas can be also used as fuel for our Cars. It is a resource we are rich in.

Nuclear. We must increase Nuclear Power use. Not only can we use it here but it is an outstanding potential export. Land based US Technology Nuclear Plants need to be exported to help reduce worldwide demand for oil. Nuclear Power Barges (like the Army’s Sturgis) show how we can create, sell and deploy Nuclear Power while still maintaining control of the technology. (continue reading post »)

That’s essentially the question Ralph Peters is asking in this column. Based the evidence, it’s clear that we’re safer now than we were during the Clinton administration. Here’s the first proof Col. Peters offers:

Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where’s the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.

And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11. A record to be proud of.

Democrats have put forth their propaganda for the past 6+ years and no one’s called them on it. Until now. Allegations aren’t proof. Allegations shouldn’t be treated with respect. They should be ridiculed, which is what’s happening in Col. Peters’ column.

Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can’t launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can’t show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).

Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda’s been beaten down to violent-fugitive status. (continue reading post »)

Tuesday night, I attended our local Republican Party’s Summer Social. Predictably, one of the subjects of conversation was the high gas prices. After Rep. Dan Severson gave his presentation, out party chairman asked me to deliver an update on what were the hot topics on the blogosphere. I’m not an accomplished public speaker but this was an easy speech to make.

I said that gas prices were the dominant topic on the blogosphere by a wide margin. I said that this should excite the GOP faithful because Democrats don’t have the solution to the gas crisis. I stated first that the crisis was artificial in nature, meaning that it’s a crisis that was entirely avoidable.

The reason why Democrats don’t have an answer to this crisis is because they don’t believe in oil exploration. That isn’t just an opinion. Check out the picture from this post on Powerline. What better proof do you need that Democrats don’t have a solution than to show that House Democrats announcing on Tuesday that they’d be holding a press conference this morning, then cancelling the event?

As I pointed out here, Tim Walz is using the Democrat mantra that “we can’t drill our way out of this crisis.” Last night, I told our group about how I argued against that mantra. I said that we could use the same information whether we’re talking aboout Tim Walz, Al Franken, El Tinklenberg or whoever. (continue reading post »)

Initially, Russ Feingold said that he’d fight the FISA legislation currently making its way through the Senate but that he wouldn’t filibuster it. When his Nutroots puppeteers heard that, they changed his mind fast. Now he’s singing a totally different tune. Here’s some of the new ‘lyrics’:

The Wisconsin Democrat voiced considerable frustration with members of his own party, who, he says, have enabled the sweeping new legislation. “Sen. Dodd and I and Sen. Leahy are going to do everything we can to stop this mistake,” Feingold noted, referring to fellow opponents of the bill. “But I’m extremely concerned that not only virtually every Republican… but far too many Democrats will vote the wrong way.”

“We met with Sen. Reid on Friday morning,” said Feingold, speaking of himself and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., “and we indicated our desire that this thing not just be jammed through, we’ll be requiring key procedural votes and we’ll also be taking some time on the floor this week to indicate the problems with this legislation.”

While Feingold hasn’t changed his mind on the legislation being awful, he’s changed his mind on whether he’d attempt to stop it with a filibuster and through procedural votes. Democrats can’t be seen as not getting a FISA reform bill to President Bush’s desk before the current set of warrants expire.

If those warrants expire, Republicans will spend August telling the voters that Democrats put their trial attorney allies’ priorities ahead of national security. It’s unlikely that Democrats will want to be put in that defensive posture for an entire month, especially since they’re already in a defensive position on oil exploration. (continue reading post »)

“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”
-Bill Burton, Obama Campaign spokesman
October 24, 2007

“There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority… But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program”
-Sen. Obama, speaking after the passage of the bill
June 20, 2008

“He has talked repeatedly about making sure somebody watches the watchers. I don’t think you should necessarily trust an Obama Administration anymore than you should trust a Bush Administration or a McCain Administration.”
-Robert Gibbs, Obama Spokesman
June 23, 2008

So, just to keep everything straight….Obama promised to filibuster something, but didn’t. He believes that President Bush broke the law on FISA, and promises that as President, he won’t do that….but his Spokesman says he’s no more trustworthy than Bush. Is that right?

Jim Geraghty over at National Review recognizes the contradiction here, too.

I just tried contacting Rep. Reyes’ office in the hopes of getting a clarification on his March 20 Strib op-ed. Instead of getting a clarification, I got typical Washington runaround. Here’s what Chairman Reyes said that I wanted clarified:

As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I am committed to taking this fight to the terrorists, but I remain convinced that we can do that while stopping this administration, or any administration, from conducting warrantless spying on Americans. Our responsibility includes not only the safety of the American people but also the safety and sanctity of the American Constitution. We must protect both.

The question I wanted answered was this: What does the PAA have to do with the wiretapping of Americans?

Instead of the clarification, here’s what I got:

Initially, I visited Rep. Reyes House website. After a bit of searching, I finally found his contact information. Rather than just submitting my question via contact form, I decided to call his DC office.

The gentleman who answered the phone gave me the phone number of the House Intelligence Committee. He then said to call them for a clarification. (continue reading post »)

On March 25, I submitted a counterpoint editorial to the Star Tribune rebutting the flimsy arguments made in Silvestre Reyes’ op-ed on the FISA reform legislation launguishing in the House of Representatives. This afternoon, the Strib’s Tim O’Brien returned my phone message. Here’s the content of Mr. O’Brien’s email:

Gary,

I’m sorry it took so long to get back to you. We aren’t going to be able to use your submission.

Tim O’Brien

It’s certainly the Strib’s right to not run editorials. Not running this counterpoint didn’t make sense to me so I sent him this email:

Tim, That’s your decision. What I’m wondering is why you won’t “be able to use” my counterpoint.

Gary

I’ll update this post if Mr. O’Brien replies to my email. Let me set up why I submitted this counterpoint. It all started with this March 14 op-ed by my representative, Michele Bachmann. A week later, the Strib ran this op-ed submitted by Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

I decided to submit a counterpoint editorial after I read Chairman Rep. Reyes’ demagogic reply. Here’s the counterpoint editorial that the Strib chose not to run:

Silvestre Reyes should be ashamed of the spin and misinformation he put into his March 20 op-ed about the lapsing of the Protect America Act. The PAA was a reform of the FISA laws. Here’s the most egregious example of his misinformation:

As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I am committed to taking this fight to the terrorists, but I remain convinced that we can do that while stopping this administration, or any administration, from conducting warrantless spying on Americans. Our responsibility includes not only the safety of the American people but also the safety and sanctity of the American Constitution. We must protect both. (continue reading post »)

Silvestre Reyes’ dishonesty is showing. Here’s where Rep. Reyes goes wrong in his March 20th Strib op-ed:

As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I am committed to taking this fight to the terrorists, but I remain convinced that we can do that while stopping this administration, or any administration, from conducting warrantless spying on Americans. Our responsibility includes not only the safety of the American people but also the safety and sanctity of the American Constitution. We must protect both.

Rep. Reyes is spinning this beyond acceptable levels. He’s writing about Rep. Michele Bachmann’s op-ed about the expiration of the FISA reform bill known as the Protect America Act (PAA). In the law that expired, FISA was updated temporarily. It expired after 6 months.

Everyone who knows anything about intelligence gathering knows that FISA deals only with foreign surveillance, hence the name Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has nothing to do with surveilling Americans.

Let’s first examine why the PAA was enacted. A FISA Appellate Court judge ruled that foreign communications that passed through an American telecommunications switch needed a warrant because it was deemed a domestic communication. In this judge’s mind, it didn’t matter that the sender and recipient weren’t Americans. It didn’t even matter that neither the sender or recipient weren’t even in the United States. All that mattered was that the communication passed through an American switch.

DNI Chairman Mike McConnell testified to this in Congress. He repeated that information to FNS’s Chris Wallace:

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell recently told Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace that by summer 2007, “We were in extremis, because we had lost…about two-thirds of our [surveillance] capability.”

Director McConnell testified that he was writing out warrants for known terrorists because of the FISA court ruling. (continue reading post »)