“Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." –William Penn.
1) The WikiLeaks Assault on the Rule of Law and National Security
The publication of over 91,000 classified U.S. military documents on Afghanistan by WikiLeaks has, as White House national security adviser Jim Jones said, “put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk.” The documents include raw intelligence reports whose disclosure could not only endanger lives, but risk revealing the methods and means of gathering information vital to success in Afghanistan. WikiLeaks’s founder, Julian Assange, an Australian who has made no secret of his opposition to the war, is unapologetic about the disclosure. He obviously believes it will help the political agenda that he pursues with WikiLeaks.
See:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/26/the-wikileaks-assault-on-the-rule-of-law-and-national-security
2) Judge Blocks Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law
PHOENIX (AP) ― A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
No, you’re not “free” or at “liberty” to break our laws. When I travel overseas, what do you think happens to me when I get stopped by the police without papers? We are the kindest nation in the world to immigrants. But keep trying our patience.
See:
http://cbs5.com/wireapnational/Judge.blocks.controversial.2.1828122.html
2a) Morning Bell: Surviving the Obama Assault on the Rule of Law
Hours after yesterday’s decision by President Bill Clinton judicial appointee Susan Bolton to preemptively stop enforcement of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), told The New York Times: “This is a warning to any other jurisdiction.” Just in case the message from the Obama administration and its leftist allies was not clear, Obama appointee U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke told The Associated Press: “Surely it’s going to make states pause and consider how they’re drafting legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework.”
But no amount of pause by states and localities could ever possibly satisfy the Obama administration, its amnesty allies, and activist judges like Bolton. In a textbook case of judicial activism, Judge Bolton rewrote the Arizona law to her own needs, invented her own facts and ignored clear federal law. President Jimmy Carter appointee and immigration law professor at Yale Law School Peter Schuck told The New York Times: “She rushed to judgment in a way I can only assume reflects a lot of pressure from the federal government to get this case resolved quickly.”
…Taken alone, the White House’s behavior on this issue is troubling enough. But put into the broader context of the first 18 months of this Administration, a truly pernicious pattern emerges. First, there was the Obama Justice Department’s decision to dismiss voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. Then there was the Obama administration’s use of TARP to bail out its union allies in what bankruptcy law scholars have called “so outrageous and illegal that until March of this year [2009], nobody even conceptualized it.” Then there was the Obama administration’s shakedown of BP in the White House’s Roosevelt Room. Less than a week later after a federal court found its first oil drilling ban to be “arbitrary and capricious,” the Obama administration issued a second oil drilling ban that was wider and killed even more jobs than the first.
See:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/29/morning-bell-surviving-the-obama-assault-on-the-rule-of-law
3) Bill on political ad disclosures falls a little short in Senate: Good news for free speech!
Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation requiring fuller disclosure of the money behind political advertising, derailing a major White House initiative and virtually ensuring an onslaught of attack ads during this year's midterm election season.
The vote -- in which Democrats fell just shy of the 60 votes needed to avoid a GOP filibuster -- marks a major setback for President Obama, who has railed against the influence of special interests in elections and pushed for the legislation as a counterpoint to court rulings freeing up the use of corporate money in politics.
The development also represents a significant victory for Senate Republicans and business groups, which portrayed the measure as a Democratic attempt to tilt the playing field by discouraging corporations and other likely critics from spending money on political ads. The measure is the latest in a series of Democratic initiatives that have been approved by the House only to die in the Senate, including comprehensive climate-change legislation abandoned last week.
Opponents of the Disclose Act -- which would force corporations, unions and other groups to reveal the donors behind their political ads -- said the vote marked a victory for free-speech rights, including the rights of corporations to spend as much as they want on political advertising.
See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704656.html
4) Movement to Bypass the Constitution in Presidential Elections
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ooKpo8wDSk
5) Text of H.R. 5741: Universal National Service Act
To
require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42
to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in
civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services,
and for other purposes (emphases mine).
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Fortunately, this is not out of committee yet (so it can not yet be voted upon), but…
WHAT THE HECK????
See: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-5741
6) White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity
The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.
But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an
expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records (emphasis mine).
…The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data -- records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information -- outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.
…The administration has asked Congress to amend the statute, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, in the fiscal year that begins in October.
…Marc Zwillinger, an attorney for Internet companies, said some providers are not giving the FBI more than the four categories specified. He added that with the rise of social networking, the government's move could open a significant amount of Internet activity to government surveillance without judicial authorization. "A Facebook friend request -- is that like a phone call or an e-mail? Is that something they would sweep in under an NSL? They certainly aren't getting that now."
And the Left thinks The Patriot Act took away our privacy and freedom…ain't seen nothin' yet!
See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html?hpid=topnews
7) Democrats are betting that ending tax cuts for the rich will play in their favor
President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are setting the stage for a high-stakes battle over taxes in the final weeks before the November congressional elections, betting that their plan to eliminate tax breaks for the wealthy will resonate with voters who have lost houses and jobs to what many see as an era of Wall Street greed.
“Tax breaks for the wealthy”. Right. As I previously reported, the Bush tax cuts don’t just affect the wealthy. It WON’T resonate with voters who have lost “houses and jobs” unless those voters are completely uninformed. Keep it up, Democrats.
See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/24/AR2010072402428.html
8) Panel hits Rangel with 13 ethics charges
WASHINGTON – House investigators accused veteran New York Rep. Charles Rangel of 13 violations of congressional ethics standards on Thursday, throwing a cloud over his four-decade political career and raising worries for fellow Democrats about the fall elections.
The allegations include failure to report rental income from vacation property in the Dominican Republic and hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income and assets on his financial disclosure statements.
Other charges focused on Rangel's use of congressional staff and stationery to raise money for a college center in New York named after him; accepting favors and benefits from the donors that may have influenced his congressional actions; use of a subsidized New York apartment as a campaign office instead of a residence; and misuse of the congressional free mail privilege.
Note: This is the same Congressmen who proposed The Universal National Service Act. See story #5. Laws and conscripted service for thee, but not for me.
See:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/ap_on_go_co/us_rangel_ethics
9) Sen. Kerry Snaps Over Yacht Tax Scandal
Sen. John Kerry on Monday snapped at reporters and tried to dodge questions about his new $7 million, 76-foot yacht.
On Friday, the Boston Herald reported that the Massachusetts Democrat had berthed his yacht Isabel in Rhode Island and suggested he was seeking to avoid paying about $437,000 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of around $70,000 that would be levied if he berthed the vessel in Massachusetts.
Rhode Island has no sales tax on yachts.
Following his first public appearance since the story broke, Kerry tried to dash off to his SUV but was intercepted by reporters who asked about the yacht controversy.
“Wait a minute. Let’s get this straight,” Kerry snapped. “I’ve said consistently we’ll pay our taxes. We’ve always paid our taxes. It’s not an issue, period!”
Kerry said he docked the yacht in Rhode Island so it could have work done and that he would eventually move it to Massachusetts.
Fox News political editor Joe Battenfeld then noted that Kerry’s yacht, which he bought in March, had been spotted in Nantucket, Mass., where the senator summers with his wife Teresa Heinz. That would make Kerry liable for the sales tax.
Battenfeld asked Kerry point-blank if he had berthed the vessel in Massachusetts.
“That depends upon who owns it, Joe,” Kerry said, then told his driver, “Can I get out of here, please,” before he slammed the SUV’s door and drove off.
No comments:
Post a Comment