At Last, Consservative Competition for AARP

Taking on the big guys

TownHall.com
Jul 21, 2005
by Brian McNicoll

Jerry Barton doesn't need this. He's made a fortune as an executive in the company that made NAPA auto parts a household brand. He lost that fortune and made another. But as he looks around, he sees that something isn't right. The lead organization in America that purports to represent all seniors has come, in Barton's view, to represent only those on the left.

AARP, he fumes, fights President Bush on Social Security reform when only the president's proposal offers real promise. It also doesn't speak for America's seniors on tort reform, on Medicare and Medicaid reform and on a variety of other seniors issues.

So, as he's done all his life, he's doing something about it. Barton, who lives in the Atlanta area but no longer next door to radio talk-show host Neil Boortz as he did for years, is putting together an organization to rival AARP and speak for the growing number of senior conservatives.

Barton is a longtime supporter of conservatives and their causes. He served as finance chairman for one of Mitch McConnell's Senate campaigns. He has worked with John Linder, Johnny Isaacson and Saxby Chambliss.

Now, he wants to use his connections ? Boortz is going to host a coming-out gathering for the group in August, Sean Hannity is reportedly ready to help, and Peter Marshall, the former game-show host, is the honorary chairman and national spokesman ? to take on AARP. Why? "He believes it's becoming one of the most dangerous organizations in America," says his son, Stuart, who will help honcho the new organization, known as the National Association for Senior Concerns (http://www.nascon.org on the web). "He wants to punch AARP in the nose."

And what about USA Next, the longtime voice of conservative seniors for whom Art Linkletter is the national spokesman? If attacking AARP is the goal, USA Next is well on its way. Items on its web site include "Seven Deadly Sins of AARP" and "AARP against taxpayers" and "AARP against trustees of Social Security."

Stuart Barton says the group has had its chance and has yet to make a dent. "We have a plan to make an impact for our members on the issues they care about," he says. "It's taken them 20 years to get 1.5 million members. We'll have that in 18 months."

Nascon plans to offer the usual array of discount programs, travel assistance and other services that AARP and similar organizations offer their members. As far as Congress goes, it plans to focus on questions such as Social Security reform, Medicare/Medicaid reform, tort reform, fighting judicial activism and reducing dependence on government. Nascon favors a tax code that can be understood and a government that can be counted on to do, if not depended upon.

"We want less government in general," says Jerry Barton. "But we understand government has to do some things, and we want it to do those things better. It's important that someone look out for the interests of seniors, and we don't think AARP does that."

In addition to the rollout party in Atlanta in August, the Bartons and their spokesman, Phil Kent, former editor of the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle and spokesman for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, will appear Sept. 21 at the National Press Club in Washington.

Hallelujah!!! I am all in favor of this. AARP has been parading around too long posing as a non-partisan advocate for the elderly, when their agenda has been anything but non-partisan. Their nearly incessant attacks on President Bush and the repeated lies they told about the Bush Tax Reform Plan, belies their claim to being impartial. AARP is full of people who are Socialists at heart. NASCON is going for their jugular. They don't offer all of the discounts that AARP offers yet, but it is a good bet they soon will. I joined just this night, as soon as I read about them. I will be touting them as much as I can on this and all of my websites.

Full Story: Tolling AARP's Funereal Bell

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Idiot Floridian Republicans Eating Their Own.

Rep. Harris upbeat on Senate run
Now a long shot, Harris says she's focused on Senate run

By JOE FOLLICK
Sarasota Herald Tribune
TALLAHASSEE BUREAU

TALLAHASSEE -- It would seem that few in Florida politics suffered through a more miserable 2005 than Katherine Harris.

The Longboat Key congresswoman's attempt to replace incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson in the 2006 election was impeded by her own Republican Party leaders who engaged in a public attempt to find another candidate.

Polls show her trailing Nelson badly, she failed to meet her own fund-raising targets, and the caricatures from her role in the 2000 presidential election were resurrected.

Worried? Not she.

"It's been a great year," she said, rattling off a list of accomplishments in Congress and praising a re-energized campaign team.

Her former campaign manager cited Harris' fixation on her work in Congress as a reason for abruptly leaving his post earlier this year. Harris says she's now fully focused on the campaign.

She cites a fund-raising tour that will begin next month with Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity as the host in six Florida cities.

"Whenever you have to get into a campaign, I think there's always a mental transition it takes me to get there. I'm certainly focused now and excited," she said.

Harris said the media "kind of jumped the gun on me" by devoting so much attention to her campaign.

"I hadn't really intended to start the campaign so early," she said, decrying the "fabrications" of her campaign's woes as "neither true nor having an effect."

She notes that the nonpartisan Cook Political Report still lists the race as competitive, despite polls repeatedly showing Nelson with up to a 20-percentage point lead.

"That may be the hopes of the media," she said. "I don't think they'd be writing about it if they weren't worried we'd win."

Republicans spent much of 2005 trying to find someone else to run against Nelson, fearing Harris' controversial role as Florida's secretary of state in the 2000 election would make her a long shot.

The biggest sign of desperation came when House Speaker Allan Bense, well-respected in Tallahassee but little-known around the state, was courted in a White House meeting with President George W. Bush's top advisers.

On top of that, Harris' fund-raising ability -- assumed to be a strength given her national fame from her role in the 2000 presidential election as Florida's Secretary of State -- has instead disappointed, falling short of the $1 million she predicted. She has about $470,000 in her0 in her campaign account compared to nearly $6.5 million for Nelson.

I am really tired of these GUTLESS, SPINELESS, TURNCOAT, BACKSTABBING, (did I SAY GUTLESS?) GUTLESS, SPINELESS,, Republican career politicians who are fighting Katherine Harris' bid to be the next Senator from Florida. Yeah, Yeah, I understand it is their state and not mine, but Harris has earned her spurs. She stood up forthrightly and did her job AS DIRECTED IN THE FLORIDA ELECTION LAWS in spite of the immense pressure being applied on her by the SCOFLA and the "Whining Gore Posse" during the 2000 Presidential Election. Her reward for carrying the Florida Republican Party's water, snide remarks about her appearance, typical Left-wing attacks, from members of her own party. As far as I can see, she has done a great job in the House, and deserves the shot. It is time for Jeb and the other Republicans to stop playing games and let the people decide. When Republicans begin to mimic Democrats, I know we are in trouble. You Go Katherine!!!

Full Story: Disgusted With Floridian Republicans

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

A Well Reasoned Suggestion from the Post? Is It Snowing Down There?

Three Lessons From Vietnam

By Dale Andrade
Washington Post
Thursday, December 29, 2005; Page A23

It's not uncommon these days to hear talk of "lessons" learned in Vietnam and their application to current U.S. conflicts. Unfortunately, most observers have ignored the uniqueness of the Vietnam War, picking and choosing the lessons learned there with little regard for their application to the present.

This is particularly true with the current buzz over the "clear and hold" concept, which has gained popularity in some circles. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice invoked it during Senate testimony in October, and columnist David Ignatius reported in his Nov. 4 op-ed that many Army officers are reading historian Lewis Sorley's book "A Better War," which argues that the United States could have prevailed in Vietnam if the military had used Gen. Creighton Abrams's ideas earlier in the war.

This simplistic notion may resonate in Washington, but it means little to troops on the ground. Marines in Fallujah or soldiers in Baghdad or near the Syrian border will tell you that they have been "clearing" areas for more than a year now, but "holding" them is a different matter. That takes a lot of troops, not small teams.

So much for simple lessons from Vietnam. But for better or worse, Vietnam is the most recent example of American counterinsurgency -- and our longest -- so it would be a mistake to reject it because of its complex and controversial nature. Stripped to essentials, there are three basic lessons from the war. All must be employed by any counterinsurgency effort, no matter what shape it takes.

First, there must be a unified structure that combines military and civilian pacification efforts. In Vietnam that organization was called CORDS, for Civil Operations and Rural Development Support. Formed in 1967, it placed the disjointed and ineffective civilian pacification programs under the military. This was accomplished only at the insistence of President Lyndon Johnson, who took an active interest in seeing the pacification process function smoothly under a single manager: Gen. William Westmoreland. CORDS gave the pacification effort access to military money and personnel, allowing programs to expand dramatically. In 1966 there were about 1,000 advisers involved in pacification, and the annual budget was $582 million; by 1969 that had risen to 7,600 advisers and almost $1.5 billion. This rapid progress was possible only because of CORDS's streamlined system under Defense Department control.

In Afghanistan, the provincial reconstruction teams have viewed CORDS as a model, but there is no truly integrated system yet. In Iraq, the old Coalition Provisional Authority suffered from the same problems that caused the formation of CORDS, in particular a dual chain of command that failed to coordinate military and civilian efforts. Not enough has been done since the CPA's dissolution in 2004 to integrate nation-building into military planning.

The second lesson involves attacking the enemy's center of gravity. An insurgency thrives only if it can maintain a permanent presence among the population, which in Vietnam was called the Viet Cong infrastructure, or VCI. This covert presence used carrot and stick -- promises of reform and threats of violence -- to take control of large chunks of the countryside. U.S. planners were aware of VCI, but until 1968 only the CIA paid it much attention. Under CORDS, however, the United States implemented the much-maligned Phoenix program, which targeted VCI and resulted in the capture or killing (mostly capture) of more than 80,000 VCI guerrillas. Criticisms of Phoenix abound, and there were many problems with the system, but the fact is that a counterinsurgency plan that ignores the guerrilla infrastructure is no plan at all.

The application of intelligence aimed at guerrillas' ability to live among the population is obvious. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are weak enough that their ability to influence the people is limited, but failure to watch them as they try to worm their way back into the villages will bring disaster later.

In Iraq, the situation is different in that the guerrillas have not made a concerted effort to mobilize the people. A large part of the Sunni population seems to support the insurgency, but the guerrillas are not forming local shadow governments or attempting to establish their own political and economic programs. Still, it makes sense to aim intelligence directly at the guerrillas' recruiting process to try to disrupt it.

I believe this is the first reasonable examination of the Iraq war strategy I have seen, certainly in the Post. Mr. Andrade's evaluation and implicit suggestions seem to have a great deal of merit. There is no strategy during war that doesn't need re-evaluating occasionally. Vietnam can serve as a perfect example of what to do and what not to do. Mr. Andrade is correct in stating that the failure to deny the North Vietnamese Army bases within South Vietnam was one of the causes for the collapse of South Vietnam. He fails to state the primary reason however, the failure of the mostly Democrat (67%) Congress to live up to the commitments it made to the South Vietnamese Government in the Paris Peace Accord. That is a perfect example of why we cannot afford to have Democrats in control of our foreign policy. Had the Democrats lived up to their commitments, very likely South Vietnam would still exist as a free and democratic nation.

Full Story: Better Coordination Between Civilian and Military Efforts

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Proof Positive: Being Canadian Causes Brain Damage

Canada blames U.S. for gun violence
Toronto shooting is latest death in a record year

CNN.COM International
Wednesday, December 28, 2005 Posted: 0254 GMT (1054 HKT)

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Canadian officials, seeking to make sense of another fatal shooting in what has been a record year for gun-related deaths, said Tuesday that along with a host of social ills, part of the problem stemmed from what they said was the United States exporting its violence.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Toronto Mayor David Miller warned that Canada could become like the United States after gunfire erupted Monday on a busy street filled with holiday shoppers, killing a 15-year-old girl and wounding six bystanders -- the latest victims in a record surge in gun violence in Toronto.

The shooting stemmed from a dispute among a group of 10 to 15 youth, and the victim was a teenager out with a parent near a popular shopping mall, police said Tuesday.

"I think it's a day that Toronto has finally lost its innocence," Det. Sgt. Savas Kyriacou said. "It was a tragic loss and tragic day."

While many Canadians take pride in Canadian cities being less violent than their American counterparts, Toronto has seen 78 murders this year, including a record 52 gun-related deaths -- almost twice as many as last year.

"What happened yesterday was appalling. You just don't expect it in a Canadian city," the mayor said.

"It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto," Miller said.

Miller said Toronto, a city of nearly three million, is still very safe compared to most American cities, but the illegal flow of weapons from the United States is causing the noticeable rise in gun violence.

"The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto," he said.

Miller said that while almost every other crime in Toronto is down, the supply of guns has increased and half of them come from the United States.

Miller said the availability of stolen Canadian guns is another problem, and that poverty in certain Toronto neighborhoods is a root cause.

"There are neighborhoods in Toronto where young people face barriers of poverty, discrimination and don't have real hope and opportunity. The kind of programs that we once took for granted in Canada that would reach out to young people have systematically disappeared over the past decade and I think that gun violence is a symptom of a much bigger problem," Miller said.

The escalating violence prompted the prime minister to announce earlier this month that if re-elected on January 23, his government would ban handguns. With severe restrictions already in place against handgun ownership, many criticized the announcement as politics.

It is interesting to watch as Canada goes the way of the rest of Western Europe. There is a progression in Western Europe away from God and Reason. Canada is showing definite symptoms of the same illness. It is the argument of a the intellectually dihonest to blame the availability of guns for the increase in violent crime. It is the increase in criminal behavior which leads to the increase of murders in Toronto. Such an argument provides an easy target and scape-goat for the failures of the Canadian socialist agenda. Tolerance of bad behavior causes increases in bad behavior. We saw it in California two weeks ago when the left came out in protest over the execution of "Tookie" Williams. A multiple murderer who refused to apologize for his crime was being lauded by the left and internationally as a "hero" and the "Govenator" was being vilified by those same individuals. Forcing your population to obey the law and be responsible for their actions is a much more difficult job than just laying blame on "American exportation of violence." Canadians need to hold Paul Martin to account for his failures. If you re-elect him, don't look to us for sympathy.

Full Story: Canadian Cop-Out

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Post Op-Ed That Actually Faces Entitlements Reality...Amazing

Our Entitlement Paralysis

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, December 28, 2005; Page A21

As noted by recent cover stories in Newsweek and Business Week, the first of the roughly 77 million baby boomers turn 60 in 2006. J. Walker Smith of the polling firm of Yankelovich Partners told Newsweek that many boomers "think they're going to die before they get old" -- a reference to one survey in which boomers defined old age as starting around 80. Business Week asserted that fifty- and sixtysomethings consider their "middle age a new start on life" to indulge hobbies, begin new careers or remarry. These portraits of vigorous baby boomers clash with another reality: Their huge federal retirement benefits may seriously damage the economy and American politics.

Our continued unwillingness to address this disconnect counts as one of 2005's big stories. We should ask ourselves: Why? After all, the need is well known. Consider the Congressional Budget Office's just released projections. By 2030, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid may cost 15 percent of national income -- almost double their level in 2000 and equal to 75 percent of today's federal budget. Left alone, these programs would require massive tax increases, cause immense deficits or crowd out other important government programs. We also know of at least partial solutions: curb costs by slowly raising eligibility ages and cutting benefits for wealthier recipients.

Still, we fiddle. The paralysis is understandable. No one wants to offend older voters, so we dance around the issues without truly engaging them. President Bush's ill-fated plan for "personal" investment accounts in Social Security was a perfect example. The president complained about unaffordable entitlement spending but never said how his plan would cure that problem. There was a reason: It wouldn't. In its first decades, it would mean more spending, not less. Government would pay for personal accounts and traditional benefits.

Democrats correctly saw Bush's proposal as a political attempt to steal their signature issue -- Social Security. For younger voters, the "personal accounts" might make the program a Republican product. It might cease being liberalism's crown jewel. Naturally, Democrats and the AARP denounced Bush's plan. People shouldn't depend on "risky" stocks for Social Security, they said. By July, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 57 percent of the public thought personal accounts a "bad idea." Even many Republicans abandoned Bush.

Doubting Bush's motives is easy, because in 2003, he had engaged in a similar political makeover for Medicare, through his drug benefit. It aimed to ingratiate the president with elderly voters in 2004. But the potential cost is huge. By 2015, the drug benefit could increase Medicare costs by 30 percent, says the CBO. All of Bush's complaints about runaway entitlement spending reek of hypocrisy.

But ascribing today's deadlock exclusively to Bush's clumsy partisanship is too glib. It ignores the many years in which Democrats have shamelessly exploited for political advantage any threats to Social Security and Medicare benefits. It also overlooks the deeper and more intractable source of our stalemate: competing moral claims.

I don't think I'd be so cynical as to describe President Bush's efforts as an effort to turn Social Security into a Republican issue, it was an attempt to turn SSI into what should have been the original intent, a privately supported pension plan independent of government and corporate control. However it is refreshing to see the pages of this bastion of Liberal thought facing the harsh realities of the shortcomings of the socialist model. It is time for American lawmakers to get their collective snouts out of the public trough long enough to solve this problem before we wind up with a bunch of 80-year old pan-handlers under our bridges. Yes this nation is supposed to be based on self-responsibility, but I am neither so naive as to expect everyone in the nation to attend to their responsibilities, nor so cold as to say "let them eat cake" and allow those irresponsible individuals to starve to death. Perhaps public "poorhouses" for the indigent elderly would be the way to proceed.

Full Story: The (Rapidly Approaching) Entitlement Crisis

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Washington Post Relentlessly Anti-Bush

The Economy and Mr. Bush

Washington Post Editorial
Wednesday, December 28, 2005; Page A20

THE PAST YEAR has been remarkable for the economic disasters that did not happen. The huge U.S. trade deficit, which threatened a collapse in the dollar and a destabilizing spike in U.S. interest rates, actually delivered neither. High oil prices, which peaked dramatically after hurricanes devastated the Gulf Coast, created neither gas lines nor the wider economic fallout that many had anticipated. Instead, the U.S. economy kept growing at a rate close to the impressive 4.2 percent notched up in 2004, which many had assumed was unsustainable. All this testifies to the flexibility of the economy and the wisdom of the Federal Reserve -- though it shouldn't be assumed that the trade deficit, even bigger now than it was a year ago, will remain forever free of consequences.

Yet on one important measure, the economic news hasn't been as good. The majority of workers have not felt the benefits. The issue is not joblessness: Ten years ago economists debated whether unemployment could fall below 6 percent without triggering inflation, but in November joblessness stood at just 5 percent, down from 5.4 percent a year earlier -- a feat that the euro zone, with an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent, can only envy. Rather, the problem for workers lies in take-home pay. Wages for blue-collar manufacturing workers and non-managers in services have remained stagnant since the economic recovery began in November 2001.

Part of the reason lies in the rising cost of non-wage benefits, especially health insurance. The value of benefits received by the average civilian worker rose 5.1 percent in the year to September, and that increase followed two years in which benefit costs were roaring ahead at a rate of more than 6 percent. These increases, which outpaced inflation, help explain disappointing wages. If it costs more to provide medical insurance to workers, employers will pay themselves back by holding wages down.

But it may also be true that technology and globalization are contributing to wage stagnation; if workers can be replaced by machines or foreigners, they have limited bargaining power. In the four years since the recovery began, inflation-adjusted compensation (that is, wages plus benefits, as measured by the government's Employment Cost Index) has risen just 0.8 percent per year on average, less than in past recoveries and less than gains in productivity would seem to justify. One might expect wage gains to improve as the recovery matures and the economy reaches full employment. This may yet happen: After all, neither technological progress nor globalization prevented solid wage gains in the 1990s. But so far there's no clear evidence that the corner has been turned.

Truly an amazing conclusion in this editorial. We have had one of the shallowest recessions in history in spite of the major blow to the economy that was 9/11/01 as well as the increased expenditures necessary for security which followed. In addition, we have survived unbelievable hits on the economy this year, as pointed out in this editorial, yet still managed to have a 4.2% growth and a vigorous economy. In spite of this impressive accomplishment, including the statistics given in the editorial, the Post's editorial position is Bush has us on the wrong path. Simply breathtaking in its hubris and lack of intellectual consistency.

Full Story: Post: Robust Economy is Bush Failure?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Eugene Robinson: Combining Lies with Straw Men, Claiming Moral High Ground?

Power That Bush Can't Just Take

By Eugene Robinson

Tuesday, December 27, 2005; Page A25

Since the holiday season is a time of generosity and goodwill toward all -- even those who torture the Constitution and hoodwink the nation into ill-advised wars -- let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that George W. Bush's claim of virtually unfettered presidential power is not just an exercise in reclaiming executive perks that Dick Cheney believes were wrongly surrendered after Watergate. Let's assume that Bush genuinely believes he needs the right to blanket the nation with electronic surveillance, detain indefinitely anyone he considers a terrorist suspect, make those detainees disappear into secret, CIA-run prisons, and subject them to "waterboarding" and other degradations. Let's assume for the moment that the president's only desperate motivation is to prevent another day like Sept. 11, 2001.

Let's go even further and assume he decided to invade Iraq for the same reason. Even in a thought experiment, we can't forgive the way he snowed the country into believing there was some connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks; nor can we forget the way he hyped the flawed intelligence about weapons of mass destruction -- we're being generous here, not stupid. But let's assume that however calculated and cynical the machinations, and however wrongheaded the decision to go to war, the underlying motive was purely to avoid another catastrophic terrorist attack.

All right: Given these overly kind assumptions, can this administration's usurpation of power somehow be justified?

Every time I work it through, the answer I come up with is no. The president has no right to ignore the rule of law as if it were a mere nuisance.

The problem is that if the president really were determined to do anything it takes to prevent another terrorist strike, why not suspend habeas corpus, as Lincoln did during the Civil War? That way you could arrest everyone who could possibly be a terrorist, or who once lived next door to a suspected terrorist's uncle, and you could hold those people as long as you wanted. Why stop at surveillance of international telephone calls and e-mails? Why not listen in on, say, all interstate calls as well? Or just go for it and scarf up all the domestic communications the National Security Agency's copious computers can hold?

Why stop at waterboarding? Why not go all the way and pull out some fingernails, if that would give Americans another tiny increment of security? Wouldn't electric shocks make us safer still? Just order the White House lawyers to draw up yet another thumb-on-the-scale legal opinion explaining how torture isn't really torture, and have at it.

I can only assume that Eugene is Brain damaged. That is the charitable thought path. Less charitable, but probably more accurate, he is intent on decieving his readers for the sake of his undefendable political position. So to help our brain damaged friend, let's make some information available.

1. In order to Lie, you have to have the intent to deceive.
2. The NSA's electronic surveillance does not "blanket the nation with electronic surveillance." They are not interested in the Nation at large, only al Qaeda connected and sympathetic groups and individuals.
3. A President cannot "usurp" powers to which he is already entitled. See Presidential Executive Order 12139, P.E.O. 12333, P.E.O. 12949, the statement by Jamie Gorelick in 1995 before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the 2001 Joint Senate (23) and House (64) (resolutions) which authorize the President to use "any and all means necessary" to defend the nation against another attack by terrorists.
4. We don't torture. It is against the law, and has been for some time. The techniques being use in interogations do not amount to torture.

So now Eugene, you can rest easy none of those terrible things you allude to are occurring. Of course, I know you don't care about the truth, only your misrepresentations.

Full Story: More Lies from the Post

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

E.J. Dionne, Jr. Surprise! We are not a Socialist State.

When the Cutting Is Corrupted

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005; Page A25

With indicted superlobbyist Jack Abramoff reportedly ready to cooperate with prosecutors and his partner, Michael Scanlon, already singing, 2006 is expected to be the year of congressional scandals.

Lord knows, a housecleaning in the Capitol is definitely in order. But the Abramoff scandal is just part of the corruption of our political system. There is another level of special-interest influence that cannot be handled by prosecutors: Only the voters can render a judgment on a politics of favoritism that has created a new Gilded Age. It's clear that the national government has placed itself squarely on the side of the wealthy, the privileged and the connected.

Rarely does a single action by Congress serve as so powerful an example of how the system is working. The recent budget bill, which squeaked through the House and Senate just before Christmas, is a road map of insider dealing. It shows that when choices have to be made, the interests of the poor and the middle class fall before the wishes of interest groups with powerful lobbies and awesome piles of campaign money to distribute.

Republican majorities in the Senate and House insisted that they wanted to cut the federal budget. But the Senate and House offered competing plans for achieving savings. When it came time to meld the two proposals, almost every choice congressional leaders made favored the interest groups.

Consider federal health programs. The House bill proposed substantial cuts for Medicaid beneficiaries, but the Senate bill -- partly because of pressure from moderate Republicans -- did not include those cuts. Instead, the Senate proposed to save taxpayer money by eliminating a $10 billion fund to encourage regional preferred-provider organizations, known as PPOs, to participate in the Medicare program. It also sought more rebates to the federal government from drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid.

Note the difference: Instead of imposing cuts on the poor, the Senate sought savings from corporate interests. Surprise, surprise: The final bill dropped the $10 billion cut to the PPOs and most of the rebate demands on drug manufacturers. Instead, the agreement hammered Medicaid recipients with $16 billion in gross cuts over the next decade. (The net cuts are lower because of new Medicaid spending, partly to help cover the scattered victims of Hurricane Katrina.)

The Medicaid cuts include increased co-payments and premiums on low-income Americans, and the budget assumes savings because fewer poor people will visit the doctor. As Kevin Freking of the Associated Press reported: "The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that such increases would lead many poor people to forgo health care or not to enroll in Medicaid at all -- contributing to some of the $4.8 billion in Medicaid savings envisioned over the next five years."

Ah, say their defenders, but these cuts will be good for poor people. According to the New York Times, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.), an architect of the Medicaid proposals, said the higher co-payments were needed to "encourage personal responsibility" among low-income people. Spoken like a congressman who never has to worry about his taxpayer-provided health coverage.

Hey E.J. the middle class is supposed to take care of itself. The government is not supposed to be funding welfare programs for the middle class. It is not even supposed to be funding welfare for the poor. None of that can be found in the Constitution. I have a really great suggestion for E.J. and the National Council of Churches and Nancy Pelosi and all of those Liberals, gather together, take all of your extra money, you know the money that you want the government to take from you in higher taxes, and give it to all of those poor people. You Liberals are always real generous with the taxpayer's money. Why don't you put your money where your mouths are. You don't need that 6 or 7 figure income in order to live. Just give 60 to 70% of your income to charities. We could really slash the budget then. What's the matter E.J.? Maybe you don't really believe that you should sacrifice for the "good of the poor" people.

Full Story: Times Continues Socialist Philosophy

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Time for Indians to Drop Their Pseudo"Independence"

Homeless for Over a Century, a Tribe Awaits U.S. Redemption

By JIM ROBBINS
Published: December 24, 2005

GREAT FALLS, Mont. - Here at the base of a rise called Hill 57, a steady, cold wind blows on a cloudless day as James Parker Shield and Russ Boham tell of life for the landless Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians.

The tribe, its land taken away more than a century ago, squatted in Great Falls and elsewhere in north-central Montana through the late 1960's, living as many as 12 to a tar-paper shack without plumbing, and scavenging at the dump for scrap metal, rags and food. Parents often ran afoul of state child welfare officials. "They'd see you sleeping in a car body and take you away from your family," said Mr. Boham, who, like Mr. Shield, was among those shipped to the state orphanage when he was a child.

Today, with most of its members living in public housing around Great Falls, Mr. Shield and Mr. Boham are leading a protracted fight for government recognition of the tribe. Recognition would allow their people to gain control of federal money to buy land here for a tribal headquarters and housing, and to win back a measure of dignity.

The 112 families led by Chief Little Shell lost their North Dakota homeland to the government in 1892 when a chief of the Pembina Chippewa signed away their rights to it, without their authority and in their absence. The Little Shell had left home, in the Turtle Mountain area, to go hunting, and an Indian agent forced the other Chippewa to accept the Ten Cent Treaty - so called by Indians because it bought about 10 million acres of Chippewa land, including that of the Little Shell, for a million dollars.

Ever since, the Little Shell have known only diaspora.

Most came to Montana, where they lived near dumps and on the streets of Great Falls, Helena and other towns. In 1896, angry whites asked the government to do something about them, and the Army rounded them up at gunpoint, put them on boxcars and shipped them to Canada. "Most of them made their way back," said Mr. Shield, the vice president of the tribal council, which Mr. Boham serves as assistant.

The three other surviving Chippewa tribes from the Turtle Mountain area - the Turtle Mountain, the White Earth and the Rocky Boy - were all less scattered and received federal recognition over time; they now have reservations. But the 4,500 or so Little Shell still await official recognition from the Office of Federal Acknowledgment at the Interior Department, a quest for which they have gained the support not only of other tribes in Montana but also of the Montana governor's office, the State Legislature and Cascade County, which includes Great Falls.

The recognition process was created by the government in 1978 to make reparations to tribes that had been forced to move from place to place throughout American history. There are now 562 federally recognized tribes in the United States.

Roughly 220 others have expressed interest in recognition, but such efforts are often strongly opposed. Some of that opposition comes from tribes, already recognized, that are eager to protect their vast casino gambling income, and from states that do not want recognized tribes within their borders, because a bid for recognition is occasionally a ploy of relatively few Indians with dubious historical ties simply to open a new casino.

"We're running into the ripple effects of gaming and politics," Mr. Shield contended. "But the gaming has nothing to do with us. If you take a hard look at the gaming opportunities in Montana, there's no market and no population. We want a home."

James E. Cason, an associate deputy interior secretary who oversees Indian affairs, denied that the gambling issue had been a factor in the case of the Little Shell, who first applied for recognition in 1984, who received preliminary approval in 2000 and who have spent much of the time since then engaged in assembling the documentation needed for final approval. (The final draft of their petition was sent to the government earlier this year.)

"It doesn't have anything to do with gaming - it's a nonissue," Mr. Cason said, adding that the Little Shell had been "in control of this process the last five years and have asked for extensions."

With the final draft now in hand, "we will try to do it as expeditiously as we can," he said.

You know what, I don't care! I'm sorry that some of the people are suffering, and for that I do care, but if these people want our goverment to take care of them, they need to become part of our society. It is time to close the reservations down. They serve no purpose but ego stroking by providing cover for the lie that these people are independent. I really don't care about the fact that they were here before us, that's ancient history. In a clash of societies, one side always wins and the other loses. The American Indians lost. Western culture won. I don't give one wit about a century old feud. We already spend our tax dollars to support their people, it's time for them to become our people and be a part of the American Nation. I don't see those wealthy Indian Nations going out of their way to support their poorer brethren, so why should my tax dollars be spent that way. If they wish to become citizens of the United States of America and commit to our way of life, then they are entitled to the rights and privilleges of a citizen otherwise, tough. Life is not fair.

Full Story: Put Up or Shut Up

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

New YorK Times Still Attempting to Create Its Own Watergate

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
Published: December 24, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.

As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

The government's collection and analysis of phone and Internet traffic have raised questions among some law enforcement and judicial officials familiar with the program. One issue of concern to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has reviewed some separate warrant applications growing out of the N.S.A.'s surveillance program, is whether the court has legal authority over calls outside the United States that happen to pass through American-based telephonic "switches," according to officials familiar with the matter.

"There was a lot of discussion about the switches" in conversations with the court, a Justice Department official said, referring to the gateways through which much of the communications traffic flows. "You're talking about access to such a vast amount of communications, and the question was, How do you minimize something that's on a switch that's carrying such large volumes of traffic? The court was very, very concerned about that."

Since the disclosure last week of the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance program, President Bush and his senior aides have stressed that his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to the monitoring of international phone and e-mail communications involving people with known links to Al Qaeda.

What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.

The current and former government officials who discussed the program were granted anonymity because it remains classified.

Bush administration officials declined to comment on Friday on the technical aspects of the operation and the N.S.A.'s use of broad searches to look for clues on terrorists. Because the program is highly classified, many details of how the N.S.A. is conducting it remain unknown, and members of Congress who have pressed for a full Congressional inquiry say they are eager to learn more about the program's operational details, as well as its legality.

Officials in the government and the telecommunications industry who have knowledge of parts of the program say the N.S.A. has sought to analyze communications patterns to glean clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, and the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages. Calls to and from Afghanistan, for instance, are known to have been of particular interest to the N.S.A. since the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said.

This so-called "pattern analysis" on calls within the United States would, in many circumstances, require a court warrant if the government wanted to trace who calls whom.

The use of similar data-mining operations by the Bush administration in other contexts has raised strong objections, most notably in connection with the Total Information Awareness system, developed by the Pentagon for tracking terror suspects, and the Department of Homeland Security's Capps program for screening airline passengers. Both programs were ultimately scrapped after public outcries over possible threats to privacy and civil liberties.

The Desperate Times is still trying to create a big scandal where there is none. They apparently believe that if they can come up with their own "Watergate," they might be able to regain some of their lost readership. They are desperately trying to make the NSA "spying scandal" into something that is is not. Their drive to do this leads them to repeated willingness to compromise American security. I'm sure it won't be long until there is a nickname given to these anonymous "current and former government officials." HINT TO NYTIMES: Deepthroat has already been taken.

Full Story: NYT: Creating News Where There is None

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

In U.K. Free Speech is Hate Crime

Police tell Christian couple view on gays 'close to hate crime'

By David Sanderson
The Times December 23, 2005

POLICE questioned a retired couple for 80 minutes about their “homophobic” views after they asked their local council if they could display their Christian literature next to gay rights leaflets, it was reported last night.

Joe and Helen Roberts said that police officers warned them that their actions “were close to a hate crime” after they complained to Wyre Borough Council about its gay rights policies.

The couple claimed that the police told them they were “walking on eggshells”.

Mr Roberts, from Fleetwood, Lancashire, said he had been offended because of the council’s distribution of the gay rights leaflets and its promotion of its theatre as a venue for civil partnership ceremonies.

He said he complained to Paul Deacon, the council officer responsible for Wyre’s part in the Navajo Charter Mark campaign being run by several local authorities to offer assistance to gay and lesbian people.

Mr Roberts, 73, told the Daily Mail: “I told him I was offended. I asked him if I could put Christian literature on display alongside the gay material. He said I couldn’t because it would offend gay people.

“I said we had no objection to gay people, but we thought that homosexual practice was wrong and we were offended by the gay culture which the council is promoting.

“They warned me that being discriminatory and homophobic is in line with hate crime. The phrase they used was that we were ‘walking on eggshells’. I asked the officer, if I phoned the police with a complaint that the council were discriminating against Christians would he go to interview them?”

Lancashire police said its visit to the Robertses’ family home was a matter of routine after a complaint from the council. A spokesman added: “Words of suitable advice were given and we will not be taking any further action.”

Why the surprise? This is nothing new. Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" were warnings about this kind of intolerance. Those on the Left are intolerant of the very freedoms they claim to support. Don't you remember the '60s and '70s? Every time a Conservative got up to speak in public, those on the Left would attempt to shout them down. We see the same thing in modern time. We witness it with the attempts by those on the Left trying to intimidate Ann Coulter and Pat Buchannon by throwing pies or other substances at them. The Left hate free speech if it is in opposition to what they believe. Liberalism as a political philosophy is anti-freedom.

Full Story: Tolerance of Nothing

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Come On Chief, It's Not the Time for Political Correctness

Face of homicides changing, HPD says Killings up 23%;
chief is reluctant to blame evacuees

By MÓNICA GUZMÁN and CYNTHIA LEONOR GARZA
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

An upward swing in the city's homicide rate — up by nearly a quarter from last year —isn't the only thing concerning Houston police. Officers say they are seeing more stranger-on-stranger crime, a resurgence of gang activity and more violence around apartment complexes, especially those swelled with an influx of Katrina evacuees.

Though officials acknowledged that at least eight of the homicides involved hurricane evacuees, Houston Police Department Chief Harold Hurtt said Wednesday that it was incorrect to assume that "the reason that crime is up in the last quarter of this year is evacuees from Louisiana. A lot of this is (attributed) to homegrown citizens."

To date, 324 homicides have been reported this year, unofficially, compared with 263 in the same period in 2004, he said. That's up more than 23 percent.

Most of the spike has come since mid-November, when 14 homicides were reported during the four-day Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Police and city officials, who said they already had been aware of an increase in crime since earlier this year, then launched a series of initiatives intended to increase police presence in high-crime areas.

Late last month and under pressure from city officials concerned about police manpower, Hurtt instituted a $4 million overtime program designed to free up officers for patrol duty.

And last week, the chief announced an initiative to "dramatically" increase patrols in five of the most crime-ridden local apartment complexes.

Overall crime is down

Though violent crime is up 2.3 percent through November of this year compared with the same period last year, HPD officials said overall crime is down 2.2 percent.

In recent months, violent crimes appear to be on a dramatic rise, and police say, is undergoing some disturbing changes.

Fifty-one homicides were reported in November and December — a 70 percent increase from the same period last year, Hurtt said.

Hurtt also said he has seen a "tremendous change" in how killers and victims are acquainted. Twenty to 25 years ago, most killings involved friends or family members, but that is no longer the case — and it's making murders harder to solve, he said.

Sorry folks, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It may not be a pleasant thing to contemplate, we always like to believe the best of people, but considering the timing of this upsurge and the infusion of so many refugees from New Orleans, it hardly seems a coincidence. I suspect that there are a lot of territorial battles going on between locals and the former denizens of New Orleans' mean streets. Remember most of those refugees were unable to flee because they didn't have cars. They come from the poorest and consequently the highest crime rate areas of New Orleans. It's time for Mayor White to pull a "Rudy" and order the crackdown on all crimes, minor and major. It worked in New York and it will work here.

Full Story: Refugees Arrival's Confluence With Higher Crime No Coincidence

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Give DeLay His Day in Court

DeLay's request for speedy trial denied

By JANET ELLIOTT
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN - - A state appeals court has rejected motions filed by U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay to help him get a speedy trial, an essential step in the Sugar Land Republican's efforts to regain his congressional leadership post.

In an order made public today, the intermediate appeals court rejected DeLay's bid to be tried on a money laundering charge while prosecutors appeal the dismissal of a related charge accusing DeLay of violating the election code.

DeLay's attorneys said they would take the matter to the state's highest criminal appeals court.

The panel of two Democrats and one Republican also overruled a motion to expedite the appeal by shortening the time for filing briefs from the customary 20 days per side to five days.

DeLay's lead lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said DeLay will seek emergency relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

``We're not through. We're going to the top,'' said DeGuerin.

DeGuerin said he will ask the high court to intervene in the appeal filed last week by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

He will argue that a long legal battle would disrupt congressional business. DeLay had to step down as U.S. House majority leader when he was indicted by a Travis County grand jury in September.

"Ronnie Earle, a local county prosecutor, is affecting the business of the United States by his foot dragging and his frivolous appeals, and we're not going to stop,'' said DeGuerin.

Kevin Madden, DeLay's spokesman, said: "The court's decision allows Mr. DeLay the opportunity to move past intermediate courts and go right to the highest appeals court to make a case for dismissal of Ronnie Earle's baseless charges."

The appeals court said that Senior Judge Pat Priest was correct to postpone any action on DeLay's money-laundering charge while the state was appealing the dismissed charge.

Sure looks suspiciously like these Democrat judges are playing politics. I really and truly don't like to make those kinds of assumptions about judges allowing their petty political ambitions affect their decision making, but it has become painfully obvious over the last few years that judges are finding it easier and easier to disregard their obligation to be objective adjudicators. We have seen, far too often, judges willing to play partisan politics with the courts decisions. DeLay's request is reasonable in light of the imposition these delays are posing on his ability to perform his job. Given the highly questionable behavior of Ronnie Earle in all of this, I think there is no reason to make DeLay wait for Earle's appeal. What is it lawyers like to say? "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Full Story: Courts Delay DeLay

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Fee, Fie, Foe, FISA, I Smell the Mendacity of Democrat Judges

Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 22, 2005; Page A01

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

"The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?"

Such comments underscored the continuing questions among judges about the program, which most of them learned about when it was disclosed last week by the New York Times. On Monday, one of 10 FISA judges, federal Judge James Robertson, submitted his resignation -- in protest of the president's action, according to two sources familiar with his decision. He will maintain his position on the U.S. District Court here.

Other judges contacted yesterday said they do not plan to resign but are seeking more information about the president's initiative. Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who also sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, told fellow FISA court members by e-mail Monday that she is arranging for them to convene in Washington, preferably early next month, for a secret briefing on the program, several judges confirmed yesterday.

Two intelligence sources familiar with the plan said Kollar-Kotelly expects top-ranking officials from the National Security Agency and the Justice Department to outline the classified program to the members.

The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information.

Still, Bush and his advisers have said they need to operate outside the FISA system in order to move quickly against suspected terrorists. In explaining the program, Bush has made the distinction between detecting threats and plots and monitoring likely, known targets, as FISA would allow.

Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

"For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up."

Gee, i wonder who that anonyous "government official" was, some left-over political hack from the Clinton era, a useless government bureaucrat on the Federal dole. What an absurd statement. The reason for the need to bypass the FISA court in these cases is simply a matter of time. Not time for the judge to make the approval, time to provide the information FISA requires for one of these taps. This is what ids required for a FISA warrant:

(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
(2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the
President of the United States and the approval of the Attorney
General to make the application;
(3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of
the electronic surveillance;
(4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by
the applicant to justify his belief that -
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic
surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used,
by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
(6) a detailed description of the nature of the information
sought and the type of communications or activities to be
subjected to the surveillance;
(7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch
official or officials designated by the President from among
those executive officers employed in the area of national
security or defense and appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate -
(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought
to be foreign intelligence information;
(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to
obtain foreign intelligence information;
(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by
normal investigative techniques;
(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence
information being sought according to the categories described
in section 1801(e) of this title; and
(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification
that -
(i) the information sought is the type of foreign
intelligence information designated; and
(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by
normal investigative techniques;
(8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be
effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to
effect the surveillance;
(9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous
applications that have been made to any judge under this
subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places
specified in the application, and the action taken on each
previous application;
(10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic
surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of
the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use
of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not
automatically terminate when the described type of information
has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the
belief that additional information of the same type will be
obtained thereafter; and
(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other
surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular
proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices
involved and what minimization procedures apply to information
acquired by each device.

Yep, all of that just to tap a brief call from a phone in Afghanistam and America. The FISA system was set up to deal with matters from a 30 year old technological standpoint. Satelite and cell technologies have rendered the FISA law useless in tracking these terrorists.

As for Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, you guessed it, she's another Clinton appointee. Who knows maybe she's in earnest, but I wouldn't bet the farm. We've seen far too often what these Liberal judges think about involving their own personal political opinions in making their decisions. We saw it in the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 when they chose to tell the states executive branch to disregard state law and continue to count the votes, in direct violation of the Constitution, as we saw when they were twice reversed by the SCOTUS.

Full Story: Democrat judges want in on the act as well

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

For Democrats: The Hits Just Keep Coming

Economy Grows at Fastest Pace in 1 1/2 Years

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
Dec 21 8:37 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy turned in a remarkably strong performance in the summer despite surging energy prices and the battering the Gulf Coast states took from hurricanes, although business growth was slightly lower than the government previously estimated. The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that the gross domestic product, the nation's total output of goods and services, rose at an annual rate of 4.1 percent in the July-September quarter. It was the fastest pace of growth in 1 1/2 years.

While down slightly from the 4.3 percent GDP estimate made a month ago, the new figure demonstrated that the economy kept expanding at a strong pace during the summer, led by solid increases in consumer demand, especially for autos, and business investment.

The third quarter performance was up substantially from a 3.3 percent GDP growth rate in the April-June quarter and was the best showing since the economy expanded at a 4.3 percent rate in the first three months of 2004.
Analysts believe growth has slowed substantially in the current quarter to around 3 percent, reflecting slower increases in consumer spending now that attractive auto incentives have been removed.

The increase in third quarter growth came despite the fact that the country was hit by Katrina, the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history, and by Rita.

Yep it's another disaster for Democrats. The "Bush Economy" is booming. Those horrible tax cuts for the rich, you remember those, the ones which "wouldn't work," the ones that were "improperly targeted," seem to be driving the economy at full throttle.

Original Post: Killer Economy Shows little sign of slowing

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More Bad News for Liberals: Alito Popular Pick

Majority of Americans Support Alito Nomination

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; 6:00 AM

A majority of Americans now support the confirmation of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court to fill the seat of retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 54 percent of the public say the Senate should confirm Alito while 28 percent say he should not be approved. That marks a modest increase in public support for Alito since November, when 49 percent said he should be confirmed and 29 percent said he should not. In both surveys, about one in five Americans said they did not yet know enough about the nominee to have an opinion.

Alito now is about as popular as Chief Justice Roberts was on the eve of his Senate confirmation hearings last September, the survey found. Roberts easily won Senate approval, breezing through his hearings and winning the vote of all 55 Republican senators and half of their Democratic colleagues. It is uncertain whether Alito will pass so effortlessly through his Senate confirmation process, which is scheduled to start Jan. 9 with hearings. The Senate hopes to hold a final vote on Alito by Jan. 20.

The new poll found some evidence that the abortion issue plays an important but not decisive role in shaping public perceptions of Alito. While his current views on abortion are not publicly known, memos that he wrote two decades ago, while he was a lawyer in the Reagan administration Justice Department, indicated he opposed Roe v. Wade , the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

Alito will sail through. I said it when he was nominated, he is a lock on confirmation. The Liberals have all fired their best shots to no avail. The man is rock-solid and will win confirmation with at least 70 votes. Cry Freedom!

Full Story: Alito Proves Strong Candidate

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrats: "On the Highway to Hell"

4 GOP Senators Hold Firm Against Patriot Act Renewal
More Safeguards Needed, They Say

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A04

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) could barely conceal his anger.

"The Patriot Act expires on December 31, but the terrorist threat does not," he told reporters at the Capitol yesterday. "Those on the Senate floor who are filibustering the Patriot Act are killing the Patriot Act."

There was just one problem. Well, four problems, actually. Four of the 46 senators using the delaying tactic to thwart the USA Patriot Act renewal are members of Frist's party. It is a pesky, irritating fact for Republicans who are eager to portray the impasse as Democratic obstructionism, and a ready-made rejoinder for Democrats expecting campaign attacks on the issue in 2006 and 2008.

The four Republican rebels -- Larry E. Craig (Idaho), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), John E. Sununu (N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) -- have joined all but two Senate Democrats in arguing that more civil liberties safeguards need to be added to the proposed renewal of the Patriot Act. The law makes it easier for FBI agents to monitor phone calls, search homes and obtain business records of terrorism suspects. The four stand calmly at the center of a political storm that soon will determine whether the law, enacted soon after the 2001 terrorist attacks, is renewed in a modified form or allowed to expire in 11 days.

The House passed the Patriot Act renewal Dec. 14, but two days later the four Republicans joined most Democrats in the Senate in blocking action on the bill.

The four Republicans' concerns about the proposed Patriot Act renewal are basically the same as those of most Senate Democrats. They say the bill is slanted too heavily in the government's favor when it comes to letting targeted people challenge national security letters and special subpoenas that give the FBI substantial latitude in deciding what records should be surrendered. The targeted people should have a greater ability to challenge such subpoenas and require the government to show why it thinks the items being sought are connected to possible terrorism, the Republicans contend.

Their Republican colleagues try to look the other way, but Democrats are delighted to have some bipartisan cover. "In a full-court press by the White House to demonize Democrats, it's great to see we've got at least four Republican profiles in courage," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Charles Babble-ton, 4 Republicans are not going to provide cover for 42 Democrats pursuing a policy which is detrimental to American Security. They are fully visible in their ill-thought out, ill-chosen, lemming-like path. In their efforts to defeat Republicans, they have lost sight of what is good for America and its people. Ambition is great in its place, but if in pursuing your ambition, you endanger your nation, then your priorities have become distorted.

Once more, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Full Story: Endangering America for Politics

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President IS the Power During Wartime

Clash Is Latest Chapter in Bush Effort to Widen Executive Power

By Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01

The clash over the secret domestic spying program is one slice of a broader struggle over the power of the presidency that has animated the Bush administration. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney came to office convinced that the authority of the presidency had eroded and have spent the past five years trying to reclaim it.

From shielding energy policy deliberations to setting up military tribunals without court involvement, Bush, with Cheney's encouragement, has taken what scholars call a more expansive view of his role than any commander in chief in decades. With few exceptions, Congress and the courts have largely stayed out of the way, deferential to the argument that a president needs free rein, especially in wartime.

But the disclosure of Bush's eavesdropping program has revived the issue, and Congress appears to be growing restive about surrendering so much of its authority. Democrats and even key Republicans maintain Bush went too far -- and may have even violated the law -- by authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens' overseas telephone calls in search of terrorist plots without obtaining warrants from a secret intelligence court.

The vice president entered the fray yesterday, rejecting the criticism and expounding on the philosophy that has driven so many of the administration's actions. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it -- and to some extent that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them," Cheney said. In wartime, he said, the president "needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired."

Speaking with reporters traveling with him aboard Air Force Two to Oman, Cheney said the period after the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War proved to be "the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy" and harmed the chief executive's ability to lead in a complicated, dangerous era. "But I do think that to some extent now we've been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency."

For Cheney, the post-Watergate era was the formative experience shaping his understanding of executive power. As a young White House chief of staff for President Gerald R. Ford, he saw the Oval Office at its weakest point as Congress and the courts asserted themselves. But scholars such as Andrew Rudalevige, author of "The New Imperial Presidency," say the presidency had recovered long before Cheney returned to the White House in 2001. The War Powers Act, the legislative veto, the independent counsel statute and other legacies of the 1970s had all been discarded in one form or another.

"He's living in a time warp," said Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and Reagan administration official. "The great irony is Bush inherited the strongest presidency of anyone since Franklin Roosevelt, and Cheney acts as if he's still under the constraints of 1973 or 1974."

Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) said: "The vice president may be the only person I know of that believes the executive has somehow lost power over the last 30 years."

The tug over executive power traces back to the early years of the republic, and presidents have traditionally moved to expand their reach during times of war. John Adams, fearing a hostile France, presided over the imprisonment of Republican critics under the Alien and Sedition Acts. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson jailed Socialist Eugene V. Debs, who had run against him for president, for protesting the entry into World War I. Franklin D. Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II. And Ronald Reagan circumvented a Cold War congressional ban on providing aid to contra rebels in Nicaragua.

The Bush administration rejects comparisons to such events and says its assertions of authority in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have been carefully tailored to meet the needs of a 21st-century war against a nebulous foe. At his news conference Monday, Bush bristled at the notion that he sought "unchecked power" and said he had consulted with Congress extensively.

Yet Bush supporters believe that other branches should take a subsidiary role to the president in safeguarding national security. "The Constitution's intent when we're under attack from outside is to place maximum power in the president," said William P. Barr, who was attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, "and the other branches, and especially the courts, don't act as a check on the president's authority against the enemy."

Guess what, William P. Barr is right. During a time of war, we do expand the President's power greatly. That is because, though Congress has the power to declare war, it is the President's job to run the war. We lose some of our freedoms and liberties during war. We always have. Remember rationing? The government told you how much beef, rubber, gasoline, and pretty much everything, one could buy. The power during war rests with the President.

I will repeat this until you finally comprehend it. We live in a REPUBLIC not a democracy. We elect people to run our government for us. In doing so, we invest these people with trust. We do not elect the press. They are not employed by the people to be a "watchdog" for us. They are self-appointed in their assumed role. I trust the President, not the New York Times to run the war on terror.

Full Story: George Bush was Elected, not New York Times

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Political Hack Judge Resigns FISA Court...Good! Another Liberal Judge Gone

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest
Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.

The hearings would occur at the start of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war could figure prominently in House and Senate races.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a p