The Victorious Opposition

Last fall we discussed whether the legislation that defunded ACORN was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. ACORN was granted a preliminary injunction in District court, and the DoJ appealed. Yesterday the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against ACORN (PDF file). T. David Kopel at The Volokh Conspiracy wrote a really good summary of the decision; I’m recommending you go read it rather than trying to do my own summary.

One interesting point was the government trying to argue that ACORN didn’t have standing (we’ve debated the issue of standing on more than one occasion). The Circuit Court appears to me to have said “the bloody law names them explicitly; in what context do you think that doesn’t grant standing in and of itself?”, which seems eminently logical (so it’s probably wrong ).

The analysis of the issues related to Bill of Attainder seems quite thorough to me, distinguishing this case from the precedent cited by the District Court.

At this point, the case is being remanded back to the District Court for proceedings on ACORN’s First Amendment and Due Process claims, but the Bill of Attainder issue appears to be dead, unless ACORN tries for an en banc appeal or certiorari to the SCOTUS.

Some people really mean it, I suppose:

At the US Embassy in London, there is a waiting list that none of the officials likes to discuss. On the list are Americans hoping to give up their citizenship, as they seek shelter from the Internal Revenue Service.

...

The backlog at the US Embassy, where no appointments are available until February, stems from a rise in the number of American expatriates living in the UK who have been seeking to escape paying US tax on their worldwide income and capital gains since the simplification of US tax laws in 2008.

...

The tax difficulties faced by US executives pose challenges for their employers. And the steady rise in expatriations by Americans in the UK also creates additional work for human resources departments.

My only problem with this story is that it’s nearly completely anecdotal.  How many Americans have actually renounced their citizenship since 2008?  If we’re talking about a couple of hundred, I guess that’s interesting but not really indicative of anything major.  On the other hand, it is hugely significant when we’re talking about thousands and rising.

Flight to avoid taxes is usually the first indicator that your nation/empire/kingdom/etc is already suffering brain-drain thanks to stupid tax policies or excessive taxation and that discontent is mounting against the government.  The track goes: Tax Avoidance=> Tax Evasion=> Tax Revolt=> ?  If this really is a trend that is gaining momentum, it’s a scary one for our nation’s future (as most trends are nowadays, it seems).

Honestly, I’d have no objections at all to leaving the US with my family if I found good work overseas in a country we could happily live in and I could easily see us renouncing US citizenship for tax reasons right now.  At what point would you be willing to do the same, not just for tax reasons but any reason?

We’ve discussed Constitutional Amendments a number of times. As you may recall, Article V provides two mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended:

• An amendment can be proposed to the States for ratification by a vote of 2/3 of both Houses of Congress
• A Constitutional Convention will be called upon application of 2/3 of the State legislatures

The former has happened numerous times; the latter has never happened.

The records of Congress contain all the various Congressional proposals for amendments. But what about records of the State proposals? Those records have never been collected for analysis.

Now The Article V Library is working on exactly that:

Article V of the Constitution, and the amendment process it sets forth, is a fascinating area of study for legal scholars. Unfortunately, researchers often experience a great deal of frustration when delving into Article V topics because of difficulties in accessing even relatively recent source material. Many documents are available in differing versions, with different citations. Congress maintains no consistent records and has no standard procedures for handling state convention applications. Large portions of those documents are often not found in the common database services used by researchers. While collections have been made, articles written, and reprints published, each one to date has included errors and omissions that have perplexed and exasperated later generations of researchers. To say that many wild geese have been pursued to exhaustion is a vast understatement. In addition, the end product of most researchers’ work is necessarily limited in length and scope, so that the complete body of useful information gathered never makes it into print.

The Article V Library was started so that researchers could benefit from the notes and research trails already explored by previous generations. The goal is to have copies of all original source materials made available electronically, with accurate citations, research notes, and searchable by full text. We intend to do what Congress has failed to do: Maintain a complete and public index of all state Article V applications and related documents. We hope that you find it useful.

It’s quite an interesting site. Numerous states have proposed calling a general Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, starting with Virginia and New York in 1989 (the first session of Congress). The first proposal for a Balanced Budget Amendment from the States was in 1957.

Give it a look-see.

I wouldn’t believe this if I hadn’t lived here for so long.

Two much-debated City Hall issues are expected to converge this week when the Los Angeles Police Department’s red light camera program moves to the front of the line for an exemption from the city’s contracting boycott of Arizona over that state’s new immigration enforcement law.

On Tuesday, the City Council is scheduled to consider — and appears likely to approve — an exception to the boycott allowing a 10-month extension of a multimillion-dollar agreement with Scottsdale-based American Traffic Solutions.

The firm operates cameras at 32 city intersections that catch tens of thousands of red light violators each year. The council’s Public Safety Committee says the exception is justified because red light cameras provide a “significant benefit to public safety.”

» Don’t miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.

Critics and some researchers have challenged the safety benefits of photo enforcement systems, arguing that they appear primarily designed to generate revenue for private firms and cities.

The boycott exemption request comes as a new financial analysis of Los Angeles’ red light camera program has found it is costing the city about $300,000 a year.

Last month, a lopsided majority of the council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa suspended most travel and contracting with Arizona in protest over a new state law requiring police officers to determine the status of people they lawfully stop and also suspect are in the country illegally. The law encourages racial profiling and violates constitutional rights, according to Los Angeles officials, a charge Arizona’s governor and other backers of the law deny.

In addition to extending the current red light camera agreement, the council is scheduled to consider asking for bids on a new contract to operate and expand the photo enforcement program to more intersections starting next year.

That action could further entangle the two issues. In addition to the current vendor, a top competitor for the new contract — Redflex Traffic Systems — also has its headquarters in Arizona.

“Industry wide, they’re two front runners,” noted Matthew Crawford, a senior administrative analyst in the city’s budget office.

Councilman Ed Reyes, whose district stretches from Koreatown to Lincoln Heights, has been an outspoken supporter of the boycott. But he said he would support the one-time exemption to temporarily continue the contract and prevent a sudden shutdown of the traffic enforcement program. “I would not jeopardize Angelenos,” he said.

Man, this development stinks like a Porta-potty in the summer sun. Reyes is one of the most vocal supporters of the boycott, obviously pulling on his Latino rage machine for his cues. However, his last line is especially disturbing for anyone who actually supports a boycott over the Arizona Immigration BIll. For the record, I am opposed to the boycott. I don’t believe it’s any of California’s business to tell Arizona how to run shop, as Arizona has no right to boycott California over measures it might not like such as Medical Marijuana (one can only imagine how much trafficking over state lines must happen from “legal” Californians vacationing in Arizona and not wanting to miss those desert sunsets without a little pick me up).

The “read between the lines” statement here is that, while Southern California government (not the people) indeed feels that boycotting Arizona is the only way to get the opposition to the bill across, let it not interfere with the idea that they will allow it to crimp the city coffers. It’s not like they’re really working in the interest of the people, anyway. If they were, we probably wouldn’t have these cameras in the first place. I digress, but to make an audible in the boycott explicitly where it overrides a comfort zone is just rank hypocrisy. Not to imply that Arizona is explicitly nefarious, but if the State does feel that Arizona is in the wrong, shouldn’t the boycott be all encompassing? How is it that they can demonize the state, and then turn around and say “but they do make a good red light camera, so strike that contract from the boycott.”

LAPD Lt. Ron Katona, who oversees the camera enforcement program, said the department wants to maintain the program. He said that the boycott is likely to be a factor in choosing a new contractor but that he doubted the city would select a firm that was rated poorly or was far more costly just because it was not in Arizona.

Why even have a boycott at all, if the prevailing logic is to not allow for these kind of tough decisions to be made? Why not send a clear message to Arizona and boycott the cameras outright, allowing California’s oppressed illegals to not generate revenue for the city (and by proxy-the State of Arizona)? Isn’t that what the goal of a boycott is?

Despite fines and fees for running red lights, which can total more than $500, the city’s chief administrative officer this month issued a report concluding that the camera enforcement program costs about $300,000 a year after all income is considered. Most of the fines and fees paid by motorists go to the state and courts. American Traffic Solutions receives up to $3.1 million annually under the contract, the report says.

Supporters of the program say there are indirect savings because there are fewer accidents, injuries and deaths, and there are benefits from freeing up traffic patrol officers for other tasks. And the city report says public safety benefits cited in a recent LAPD study justify continuing the program.

Last week, what could have been the first exemption from the boycott — an LAPD request for officers to attend an Arizona training conference — was withdrawn after some council members voiced concern. This prompted the police officers’ union to complain that political correctness at City Hall was taking precedence over public safety.

This is the icing on the cake. The proponents of the Arizona Bill claim that the reason to have the bill is that the feds aren’t doing their job, and public safety is being compromised in the name of “political correctness”. How utterly ridiculous for California to now claim that they have a need to do business with these undesirables in Arizona because the need for “public safety” trumps whatever political correctness measures are in place?

I’m not a big fan of the Arizona BIll, but I am not in Arizona. However, I am a Californian, and do believe that a boycott is the kind of diversionary stupid that only we could cook up as a diversionary measure to our important political issues. It would be hilarious to see us end our boycott over that ubiquitous “safety” concern that seems to make all logic turn on its head wrt to rights. Well California, way to go. You’re now guilty of the very thing you seem to be boycotting.

How many times did we hear that tired old cliche that Bush was a cowboy, armed with blinders he never listened or wanted help from anyone else, even our allies. Shucks, we have heard that nonsense here countless times.

But it seems that our president has one upped him and decided that he knows better and can handle this mess all by himself, so those offering assistance just got eighty-sixed.

And when the federal government isn’t sapping the initiative and expertise of local governments, it has been preventing foreign governments from helping. Just three days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the Dutch government offered to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms and proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. LA Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) supported the idea, but the Obama administration refused the help. All told, thirteen countries have offered to help us clean up the Gulf, and the Obama administration has turned them all down.

And who are these benefactors that just got the short shrift?

Late Wednesday evening, the State Department emailed reporters identifying the 13 entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations. 

Gee, we wouldn’t even have to use commie booms and dictator owned skimmers. Since the spill occurred on federal lands and the feds have made no bones about them being responsible for the clean up and containment (not the capping, of course) why this hoidy toidy attitude? I would accept help from the N. Koreans if I thought it would do some good, save some beach,and protect wetlands. And none of this would be important if everyone (anyone) thought he and the feds were doing a bang up job, but 50 some days later, they are still racked by indecisiveness and inaction.

According to one Dutch newspaper, European firms could complete the oil spill clean up by themselves in just four months, and three months if they work with the United States, which is much faster than the estimated nine months it would take the Obama administration to go it alone.

I doubt these experts pulled that 3 month figure out of a hat so that is properly an educated guess, although I don’t know how you can project a clean up date when oil is still being spilled,making the damage worse. But what is interesting is the opinion that with help the clean up could be accomplished in one third the time as projected by the current gun slinger.

So far, about the only guy that has looked good in this whole debacle in Gov. Jindal, and he has tried to work with all the red tape involved, but even he has lost his patience.

Eight weeks into the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of the Mexico, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal   has told the National Guard that there’s no time left to wait for BP, so they’re taking matters into their own hands.

In Fort Jackson, La., Jindal has ordered the Guard to start building barrier walls right in the middle of the ocean. The barriers, built nine miles off shore, are intended to keep the oil from reaching the coast by filling the gaps between barrier islands.

The Dept. of the Interior, the MMS, and the Army C.O.E.‘s will not like this, back doring them without the proper permits (which are still sitting on their desks). And Jindal is not the only one.

Badges? They no need no stinkin’ badges!

Florida’s Okaloosa county is telling the federal government it will no longer take orders in responding to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a decision made in response to the county’s deep frustration with the Obama administration’s response to the spill.

I guess somebody has to do something.

It is easy for someone in California, someone not personally affected by the devastation, to not grasp the total gravity of the miseries suffered in the gulf states (although, no doubt, I will share that misery in the form of higher gas prices which is sure to come) but if I lived in the area and just found out that Obama turned away help that would of lessened the damage, I would be spitting nails.

There’s a lot of furor over whether or not Arizona’s new anti-illegal-immigration law is Constitutional. Specifically, whether or not it is preempted by Federal immigration law under the Supremacy clause. This is an interesting debate for those interested in such things - if one argues that Arizona is making immigration law, then it is preempted; conversely, if one argues that Arizona is defining implementation of Federal immigration law, then it isn’t preempted. FWIW, I’m currently in the latter camp, but I can see how arguments for the former position can be made.

Arizona Republican legislators appear to be proposing some new legislation that appears to be unequivocally preempted:

A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation’s toughest immigration law.

John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called “anchor babies,” said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

“If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens,” said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070—the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents’ residency status.

Let’s look at what the Constitution has to say on the matter.

First, Article I, Section 8 lists the explicit powers of Congress. This includes:

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization

Next, Article VI has the Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Then we have the 14th Amendment, which says right at the start:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Rep. Kavanagh, quoted above, may well be correct that it was never the intent of the Framers to allow children of illegal immigrants to be citizens. But they never said that. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment is pretty explicit - “all persons born ... in the United States”. There are no qualifiers. And Article I, Section 8, combined with the Supremacy Clause, makes it pretty clear that the States do not have the power to decide who is and who is not a citizen of the United States - there’s no remotely valid Federalism argument to be made in this area.

I’m ambivalent to the underlying question of whether children of illegals should become citizens if born in the US; I haven’t thought enough about it to be persuaded one way or the other. But from a Constitutional perspective, this proposed Arizona law is a non-starter, and they’re setting themselves up for expensive, futile litigation if they go forward with this.

Consider this an open thread on current events. I’ll just make a few comments about some stuff that’s in the news that I don’t feel warrant a full post from me, but are probably worthy of discussion.

Proposed Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

The House voted, largely along party lines, to add repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the defense appropriations bill currently being debated; the final House vote may be today. The Senate Armed Services committee voted yesterday in favor of an identical amendment to its version of the bill, also largely along party lines (one defector from each side). The Senate bill likely won’t be voted on until next month.

As is probably a surprise to nobody, I’m quite pleased with this development. DADT is self-defeating and needs to go. The text of the amendment is fairly politically savvy. It ostensibly puts the decision when (and if) to actually implement the change in policy in the hands of the military, not political, leaders. It explicitly calls out that DOMA (another piece of legislation that needs to be repealed) is not impacted by this. My Senator is the one who crossed the aisle to vote against it; I’ll be writing to him about that.

Conservatives are in an uproar over this, of course. John McCain is threatening to filibuster the appropriations bill unless this amendment is removed, but I don’t see a filibuster succeeding. What GOP candidate wants to be on record voting against funding the military in an election year? It’s also interesting that this issue has Lieberman (who sponsored the amendment) and McCain on opposite sides - something of a rarity in defense/military matters in recent years. The Religious Right is in an absolute uproar over this; the Family Research Council is claiming that repealing DADT will increase the incidence of gay rape in the military. The bizarre logic that it’s better to have closeted gays than open gays sets my head spinning. It makes no sense.

Anyhow, I’m hoping that this actually makes it through into the final legislation. My guess is that it gets taken out in conference, and everyone will have good press and good political messaging in the end - the Democrats can claim “well, we tried”, the Republicans can claim “we won”, and Obama gets the political cover he needs on the issue (since he’s a faint-hearted LGBT-rights supporter if ever there was one).

Speaking of Obama and cover…

I missed this one earlier in the week with being out and about. More outrageous nonsense from the Democratic House leadership - and not on a subject you’d be expecting them to lead on. H.R.4614: “Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010”

(2) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection:

(A) MINIMUM DNA COLLECTION PROCESS- The term ‘minimum DNA collection process’ means, with respect to a State, a process under which the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is searched at least one time against samples from the following individuals who are at least 18 years of age:

(i) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element of kidnaping or abduction punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more.

(B) ENHANCED DNA COLLECTION PROCESS- The term ‘enhanced DNA collection process’ means, with respect to a State, a process under which the State provides for the collection, for purposes of inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of DNA samples from the following individuals who are at least 18 years of age:

(i) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of a specified offense against a minor (as defined in section 111(7) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911(7)), or an attempt to commit such an offense.

(iv) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of burglary or any attempt to commit burglary.

(v) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of aggravated assault.

That’s right. “Arrested”, “charged”, “indicted”. Not “convicted”.  The bill passed the House in true bi-partisan fashion, 357-32 (41 not voting). All 32 “no” votes were Republican; all 234 Democratic votes and 123 Republican votes were in favor.

Interestingly, perhaps somewhat disturbingly, the most detailed discussion of the ramifications of this I’ve found so far is a note on the tech blog that CNet runs:

Although I probably align more closely with the Heritage folks, I like CATO a lot as well, conservatism with a conscience, a hip more realistic form of libertarianism,  a clearer message of smaller more limited government and more capitalistic freedom without the family values and moral insipidity of the far right.

I have said it before, as with any new and exciting political movement, the initial attraction will bring in many folks, some you might not want on your side. The first step in putting up and filling the tent, that’s been done, now they need to refine their message, set parameters for support, and define themselves as a movement. And following the advice on this video would go a long way in articulating the message.

The message of trading party for principal is a good one. The GOP has a sordid history with regards to abandoning their core principals of smaller limited government and it’s intrusions in our lives. Although for 2010, I want a rigid inflexible push towards draining the swamp, and that involves a shift from Democrat influences. A GOP tsunami is needed, if nothing else, to change all the committee leadership positions and to show these bastards that they can only rent the position, they can’t buy it. A nervous politician is more apt to do the people’s bidding over his own. But nobody in Washington should ever feel safe, throwing the bums out should be inclusive.

Regarding his assertion that some T.P. people like big government, a realistic approach should include a capitulation that all government services in the future will need to be paired down, including Social Security and medicare, whether this includes a reduction in benefits or a raising of the age where benefits can kick in, I don’t know. But in defense of those seniors that are clamoring for a protection of these services, they did pay into them so it is only fair to provide some return on their money. Saying to them ,“Too bad, we are broke so you are just going to have to make due without it” is unfair, they will work with you, put don’t pull the rug out entirely.

I also concur with the “lack of restraint abroad” position, to a point. Yes, we are stretched pretty thin through out the world. Places like Europe, Japan, S. Korea and much in the Middle East provide examples where the locals are perfectly capable of fending and defending themselves without American money and support. But we can not ignore the fact that many countries reside under our nuclear umbrella, and it makes for a safer world if they stay there. And, the simple fact remains that much of the world is a dangerous place with country’s in direct opposition to our interests. Both Russia and China are flexing their muscles, the headlines of Russia squeezing the Ukraine for contracts for their Black Sea fleet, and those of China cruising the high seas with their shinny new fleet right in Taiwan’s and Japan’s sovereign sea lanes adds to the fact that America must remain strong militarily.

People should appreciate the T.P. movement for what it is doing (or trying to do), limiting the federal government, enforcing the Constitution, and bringing a new era of federalism to the country, all good stuff. If more attention could be placed on the voracious and growing entitlement programs that will be our undoing,the out of control spending, and the encroachment of Washington onto the jurisdictions of the states, then I really don’t see a down side to their numbers increasing.

This is funny. Even better because even the Congressional Research Service can’t figure out what the law says, although the implications are pretty funny, that that sad, pathetic, “WTF were you thinking” form of “funny”:

It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

Zing. Here’s the crux of the issue:

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

In addition, the report says, Congress did not designate anyone to resolve these “ambiguities” or to help arrange health insurance for members of Congress in the future.

Of course, I’m certain that Congress will move quickly to fix this problem - and most likely take the opportunity to make things more onerous and/or more expensive for everyone.

Or they could just go to the doc-in-the-box down the street like the rest of the poor schlubs living in DC

H/T: The Volokh Conspiracy

I see so many of these items, especially in my newly-theocratic home state of Virginia, that I’ve almost grown inured to them. But today we have two exceptionally gratuitous items. First, from the great state of Oklahoma:

Two bills are making their way through the House and Senate, and the bills’ proponents have made it clear they intend for this legislation to promote Christianity and undermine church-state separation.

After all, no legislation is necessary for public schools to teach about the Bible. Public schools can already offer Bible courses, so long as the class is taught from an academic perspective and teachers don’t proselytize.

But Rep. Todd Russ (R-Cordell) and Sen. Tom Ivester (D-Elk City) don’t think that is enough.

“This bill allows schools to represent our American heritage from a Christian, biblical perspective without fear for retribution, and I think they should be able to do so,” said Russ. “It wasn’t Hinduism or Buddhism that motivated the move to these shores. It was Christianity and the desire to worship freely.”

Russ said teaching the Bible in schools will allow Americans to hold onto that heritage. Otherwise, he suggested, Americans will not always be Christians.

“The way things are going, we’re not going to have any Protestants left in government,” Russ said yesterday before the House Common Education Committee passed Ivester’s Senate version of the bill.

Ah, the persecuted Christian majority. Cry me a river, big boy. From that last statement, I’m guessing he’s from the “Catholics aren’t real Christians” fundietard camp.

Last year we discussed a Texas bill on teaching the Bible, and as I said at the time, while there are some potential slippery-slope issues with the implementation of that bill, the bill as written doesn’t raise any particular concerns. This bill, on the other hand, is a completely different ball of wax - straight up theocratic “Christian Nation” stuff, explicitly tied to Protestant Christianity. No, my friends. The Constitution is quite clear that this is unequivocally over the line.

Now, for our second helping, we have the chief blogger for the American Family Association telling all the Muslims to get gone (it is interesting that there’s a disclaimer on this that the AFA hasn’t taken a position on this issue, given that this is posted on AFA’s own blog, by their own blogger):

[T]he most compassionate thing we can do for Americans is to bring a halt to the immigration of Muslims into the U.S. This will protect our national security and preserve our national identity, culture, ideals and values. Muslims, by custom and religion, are simply unwilling to integrate into cultures with Western values and it is folly to pretend otherwise. In fact, they remain dedicated to subjecting all of America to sharia law and are working ceaselessly until that day of Islamic imposition comes.

The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries, where they can live in a culture which shares their values, a place where they can once again be at home, surrounded by people who cherish their deeply held ideals. Why force them to chafe against the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West?

In other words, simple Judeo-Christian compassion dictates a restriction and repatriation policy with regard to Muslim immigration into the U.S.

Why do I have visions of Korematsu when I read this (except aimed at religion rather than race)? Good grief.

(For those who wonder why I included this 2nd item here, Bryan Fischer and the AFA get quite a large amount of time from various Right Wing types in Congress, so they bear watching for people who worry about the Religious Right’s influence).

H/T: Right Wing Watch

An unbelievable video of Congressman Hank Johnson questioning Admiral Robert Willard, Commander of US Pacific Command:

It really makes you wonder what’s going on in Georgia’s 4th Congressional District, especially when you consider Congressman Johnson’s predecessor was none other than Cynthia McKinney, former Green Party Presidential nominee and all-around crazy.  Apparently not content with a conspiracy nut, the residents of the Georgia 4th elect a Congressman (a Congressman!), who worries that the island of Guam might tip over!

And props to Admiral Willard, who by the way is the supreme military authority for half the planet, for keeping his cool in the face of such incredible ignorance (I love how he says “we can get that to you” when the Congressman wonders about Guam’s land area figure).  I’m not so sure I’d have been able to resist asking the Congressman to “clarify his question”.

H/T: Hot Air

Cato had this on their blog today. I just had to post it to Facebook in response to someone telling me I just didn’t understand how our Republic works. A lot of people need to go back to school.

The wisdom of Schoolhouse Rocks.

The Democrats are going to pass this scam legislation come hell or high water.

Obama actually made an attempt to kill the bargains used to buy the votes of recalcitrant Democrats in December (Nebraska and Louisiana, for example). But he backed off after the Senate insisted on keeping their bribes - to get the House to vote for the Senate bill?

In addition, the deals alienated conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats in the House. While Democrats no longer need 60 votes in the Senate (under reconciliation they only need a simple majority), they do need Blue Dog votes to pass the bill in the House. That is why President Obama pledged to eliminate the deals. But this past weekend the White House began backtracking. The reason? If the deals are cut to appease conservatives in her caucus, Pelosi may lose the votes of liberals. At least 45 House Democrats who voted for health-care legislation the first time around come from states that would reap rewards from the backroom deals. They would be in the awkward position of having to vote against provisions directly benefiting their constituents.

Now, if that’s not bad enough - the House so distrusts the Senate on the reconciliation process that they don’t want to pass the Senate bill and then do a separate reconciliation bill, because they fear the Senate will renege on any agreements made to “fix” the Senate bill. So they’ve created an entire new scam - they’re not going to vote on the Senate bill. Instead, they’ll vote on the reconciliation bill, and in the process “deem” that they passed the Senate bill:

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate’s health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic—known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass”—has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

The one thing you have to admire about Nancy Pelosi is that she doesn’t even try to cover up being a conniving scumbag:

“It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know,” the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. “But I like it,” she said, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”

That’s a refreshing bit of candor out of Congress, isn’t it? Good god…

I’m sure by now most of you have seen or heard about the keynote address delivered by Glenn Beck at this years Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).  Despite a killer speech by George Will, it seems Mr. Beck is the one who got all the attention, calling on conservatives to have a “come-to-Jesus” moment.  Beck expressed a lot of the feeling many of us share here at the VO, including the need for the GOP to own up to its failures and win back the trust of the American people.

Perhaps Beck’s critics were surprised to hear such criticism levied at Republicans, but I was not.  Like many “intellectual” conservatives, I’ve found myself distancing myself from Beck, calling his rhetoric “over the top” and counterproductive to the cause.  But ever since I got his latest book (”Arguing with Idiots:  How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government”) for Christmas, my opinion of him has slowly been changing for the better.  That positive change in opinion crystallized when I gave Beck an entire hour of my open-minded attention by watching his CPAC speech (which is probably more than many of his critics have given).

Granted, I did not agree with everything he said.  I am especially disappointed at his criticism of my favorite President, Theodore Roosevelt, for reasons that are better explained by someone more knowledgeable and eloquent than me.  But the man made many great points, drawing on facts and history to stitch together a compelling narrative that explains much of the predicament our country and the conservative movement find themselves in.  I was especially moved by this passage from a post by JE Dyer at HotAir:

Conservative commentators fill different roles, and sensitizing his audience to history is – surprisingly, perhaps, for a self-styled rodeo clown – a key element of Beck’s.  He gets it right more often than not, and he highlights things no one else with such an audience does, like the history demonstrating the essential, philosophical antithesis of left-progressivism and limited-government constitutionalism – and the fact, known by hardly anyone today, that presidents as revered as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were on the side of the former.

The popularizing of rare intellectual insights is never pretty.  But it’s necessary.  I’d rather it were happening than not, especially in such a time as this.

What Dyer and other commentators seem to be getting at is that Beck serves an important role in the resurgent conservative movement.  His equal-opportunity criticism of Republicans as well as Democrats is helping to keep the conservative movement honest, and conveys arguments and sentiment that are shared by a large number of Americans.  He has been ringing the bell for some time about the “day of reckoning” that many of us know is coming—where we finally feel the consequences of the fiscally unsustainable and statist course our country is on.  It’s clear from reading his book and watching his speech that he seriously studies the lessons of history and is trying his damnedest to make sure that we don’t repeat the mistakes we’ve made in the past.

So maybe Beck isn’t the imbecilic blowhard everyone seems to think he is.  I, for one, will be paying a little closer attention to what he has to say.