California Conservative

John Culberson’s use of technology and the internet has helped fuel the House Republicans’ rebellion against Speaker Pelosi’s dictatorial closing of debate on energy bills. This Houston Chronicle article explains Rep. Culberson’s motivation:

His text messages may be cryptic and hurried on the instant messaging network known as Twitter (www.twitter.com). And his shaky and furtive camera-phone interviews with colleagues posted on Qik (www.qik.com) may resemble hostage videos. But they are vanguards of the future for a technology buff who still lovingly describes his first telescope.

House rules bundle restrictions on state-of-the-art electronics with provisions governing “decorum and comportment” on the House floor.

Lawmakers “may not wear a hat or remain by the clerk’s desk during the call of the roll or the counting of ballots,” the rules state. “A person may not smoke or use a wireless telephone or personal computer on the floor of the House.”

In practice, lawmakers routinely use cell phones and BlackBerries on the House floor for text messaging, e-mail and access to the Internet. The sergeant-at-arms only enforces a restriction on talking on the cell phones from the House floor. (more…)

That’s the headline for this LA Times op-ed by Jacob Heilbrunn. I’ve never suspected that ‘Big Oil’ was causing our problems but it was a nice shot in the arm to see that headline in the LA Times. The downside is that Heilbrunn still advocates using less energy instead of producing more:

The recent past suggests that, in fact, efforts to influence the supply of energy can actually boomerang, driving up prices and consumption. Rather than demonize Big Oil, lawmakers should focus on tamping down demand.

Had Mr. Heilbrunn taken an all of the above approach, I might’ve praised him. Instead, he took the liberal ‘we must do more with less’ approach. He had the chance to ignore the global warming myth but he didn’t. Too bad. To be fair, though, he makes some worthwhile points. Here’s one of those points:

Consider Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has been lambasting “oil barons” as though we were back in the bad old days of John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil cornering the market. He is touting a Consumer-First Energy Act that would, among other things, punish oil producers with a complicated 25% windfall profits tax and create a government program to reinvest that money in renewable energy, perhaps with some of the same companies. That’s too much government, too little common sense.

Anytime the government strongarms the ‘free’ market into doing something, the result is predictably disastrous. Likewise, anytime Harry Reid has a solution to a problem, rest assured of the fact that it’ll make matters worse. (more…)

Rep. Michele Bachmann has an op-ed in Saturday’s Strib in which she chastizes the House Democratic Leadership for letting the Protect America Act lapse. Here’s how she states her case:

One of the critical tools that has allowed us to keep the homeland safe after 9/11 has been the Protect America Act. It updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to deal with new, deadly challenges in this age of terror — enabling intelligence services to immediately listen to phone calls made between foreign terrorists.

But on Feb. 16, the Protect America Act expired — even though the Senate voted to reauthorize it with a strong, bipartisan vote, and even though the same bipartisan support exists in the House as well.

Why, then, has it expired?

Because the House Democratic leadership has simply refused to allow a vote, knowing it will pass. In fact, 21 House Democrats wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging her to bring the bill to the floor.

While this inaction may score cheap political points with the fringe elements of the Democratic caucus, American families are needlessly imperiled. This is not an exaggeration. This is not hyperbole. This is fact, confirmed by our intelligence community and agreed upon by Republicans and Democrats alike.

The House Democratic leadership won’t pay attention to their own representatives because they’re interested in having their trial lawyer friends sue the government. The reason why they want that is for the documents they hope to unearth during discovery. They’re hoping they’ll discover some damning document during discovery.

Meanwhile, our intelligence-gathering agencies can’t operate at peak efficiency: (more…)

Matthew Continetti has a great column up on the House Democrats’ failure to renew the FISA bill that lapsed. Harry Reid & Dick Durbin have tried defending the lapsing of this important reform. Here’s something that Durbin said:

Says Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, “The FISA law–even if we do not change it, gives ample authority to this president to continue to monitor the conversations of those who endanger the United States.”

That doesn’t pass the laugh test. If FISA were adequate in its 1978 version, then why was it changed in the PATRIOT Act? That’s the one thing that Sen. Durbin isn’t willing to answer. Herre’s some more Democrat spin:

Says House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes: “We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution.” Democratic national-security-adviser-in-waiting Richard Clarke writes that “FISA has and still works as the most valuable mechanism for monitoring our enemies.”

Rep. Reyes’ statement is pure spin. There’s nothing in that statement that’s defensible. Rep. Reyes would have us believe that to renew the Protect America Act would violate the principles of the Constitution. Simply put, I’d ask him to explain why he thinks that renewing the PAA would lead to the “suspending the Constitution”? As a follow-up, I’d ask this: if the bill requires “suspending the Constitution”, why did it pass? Why didn’t it the courts overturn the bill if it was unconstitutional? The courts didn’t overturn it because it wasn’t unconstitutional.

As for Richard Clarke’s statement, Mr. Continetti simply says this: (more…)

As I posted earlier, Republicans walked off the floor when Democrats refused to debate the FISA bill. Here’s Michele Bachmann’s statement about the GOP Walkoff:

American’s safety must come before partisanship

(Washington, D.C) Today, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) released the following statement after Democrats allowed the Protect America Act to expire:

“It is unconscionable that with America’s security on the line, the Democrats chose to spend Congress’ time on pointless partisan posturing. As a member of Congress, I serve no higher duty than to help keep our friends, families and loved ones safe. The Protect America Act has been a critical part of the effort to prevent, interrupt and foil terrorist attacks. Yet with it set to expire in just two days, the Democrats refused to work with Republicans to reauthorize it.

“The Protect America Act provides vital updates to the original 1978 FISA provision, allowing law enforcement and intelligence services to meet the threat posed by the enemies of today. For over six months House Democrats have refused to bring a comprehensive, long-term FISA bill to the floor.

“Even the Senate passed a bipartisan reauthorization bill. And the President cleared his schedule to ensure that terrorist chatter wouldn’t slip through the cracks while our intelligence officers awaited these important surveillance tools.

“But the Democrats were more interested in establishing commemorative weeks, honoring groups and taking cheap shots at Administration officials. About the most substantive thing they had planned for today were technical corrections to a 36-year-old fungicide bill. And so I joined my fellow House Republicans in walking off the floor today in protest.

“America’s safety must come before partisanship. Democrats need to work with Republicans to pass long-term FISA reform. I hope that today’s Republican action will help propel a FISA bill onto the floor so we can get back to the business of protecting the American people.”

If that isn’t bad enough, Democrats now are prepared to let the Protect America Act lapse: (more…)

Last August, I said that Anna Diggs-Taylor’s ruling in the ACLU v. NSA wouldn’t stand. This morning, I was proven right:

A divided U.S. appeals court dismissed a challenge to the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program, ruling that the American Civil Liberties Union and others lacked the legal right to sue over the spying.

The 2-1 decision today by the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that said the eavesdropping without court warrants violated the Constitution and federal law. The appeals panel directed the trial court judge to throw out the case.

At the time of the initial ruling, David Corn made this declaration:

Once again, a court has told Bush that he is not all-powerful. He cannot create military tribunals on his own. He cannot detain American citizens as enemy combatants without affording them some elements of due process. Taylor’s decision will probably be appealed by the Bush administration, and the case will wind its way toward the Supreme Court. But this decision reaffirms, and puts into practice, the bedrock principle that a president’s power does not trump the workings of a republican government, even when it comes to war.

I don’t blame Corn for thumping his chest like that. That’s his right. This ruling essentially said that his taking a victory lap was premature at best. The true message behind Diggs-Taylor’s ruling was that America can’t afford liberal judges if it hopes to vanquish the jihadists. (more…)

Last Saturday, I called into King’s and Michael’s show like I usually do. During the first hour, Michael said that his perspective on campaigns was to “never bring a knife to a gun fight”, a position that I wholeheartedly subscribe to. In fact, when I called, I said that “We can be sure that the DFL is bringing ‘a gun’ to the campaign so let’s adopt this slogan: ‘It’s time to break out the double-barrels’”. This Hill magazine article is another reminder that Democrats are trying to silence us in a variety of ways so it’s time to break out the double-barrels. This time, our target is the (un)Fairness Doctrine.

House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

First of all, the statement that “Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits…” is utter nonsense. What conservatives are upset about is that (a) the (Un)Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment, (b) it’s based on a report that presumes a number of questionable conclusions, all of which can easily be contested. (more…)

According to this article, Fred Thompson’s website ImWithFred.com is a new step in using the internet as a campaign tool. I totally agree.

His organization has opted for a slightly different approach to the Web. Thompson’s website doesn’t have the dizzying array of content blocks the other candidates we mentioned have posted. His main content section is a blog, kept up to date by an administrator at times when the candidate himself isn’t posting.

The important concept Thompson’s people seem to get is the need to have their supporters engage traditional media. His site features specific links to encourage people to write to newspaper editors or call talk radio. Those two sections allow the visitor to pick a state followed by a media market. A results page shows the options available for contacting the media outlet of choice.

It’s universally acknowledged that JFK started ‘the TV Age’ of presidential campaigning. While TV is still an important tool in today’s presidential campaigns, Fred Thompson has started the first true omnimedia presidential campaign. He’s hitting all the radio and TV talk shows. He’s written op-eds for NRO. He’s got his own blog at his ImWithFred website and he’s posted at RedState. He’s used YouTube and other similar types of media to ridicule Michael Moore and to ‘air’ his interview with Peter Robinson.

In other words, he’s taken the internet seriously. In the ‘good old days’ of the 2000 election cycle, the buzz was about whether the candidates had their own websites and how this ‘new’ phenomenon would affect future campaigns. Eight years and a lifetime later, Fred Thompson’s media operations model is light years different . The result? He’s using YouTube and his blog to have a conversation with the American people. (more…)

The goal of yesterday’s hoopla and fanfare about a breakthrough on immigration was to make it sound like a signing ceremony was inevitable. I don’t believe it is. In fact, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are signaling that they’ve got concerns about the legislation. That’s music in my ears because their concerns aren’t that it needs to get tougher but that it gets more permissive. If changes happen during the legislative process, it’s possible to stall the legislation like it stalled last time.

“I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration,” Reid said. “We need to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process.”

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, which must also pass the bill, echoed Reid’s sentiments. “While the bipartisan Senate agreement starts the process, I have serious concerns about some elements of this proposal, the bill must be improved in the Senate,” she said.

When Reid says that the legislation puts “undue limitations on family immigration”, he’s really saying that that section of the legislation isn’t lenient enough. If the legislation seems too permissive, then this bill will head to the trash heap fast. (more…)

According to this article, Rep. Marsha Blackburn has introduced a bill that would make it illegal for financial institutions to issue credit cards to illegal immigrants:

U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, (R-TN), introduced legislation Monday that would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving credit cards from American financial institutions.

The Photo Identification Security Act would require banks to use what Blackburn calls “secure forms of identification” to obtain credit. In a statement put out by her office, she says that Bank of America “has come under fire in response to reports that it allows illegal immigrants access to credit cards without proper documentation.”

This legislation wouldn’t have been proposed if Bank of America hadn’t announced that it would start issuing credit cards to illegal aliens a couple weeks ago. I haven’t confirmed which committee this legislation will be assigned to but I’m guessing that it’ll be the House Banking Committee, which Barney Frank chairs. Rep. Blackburn sits on that committee, as does my representative, Michele Bachmann, and CAIR’s congressman, Keith Ellison. (more…)