Indefinite Detention and the National Defense Authorization Act

Why aren't our Senators standing up [to] the President when he writes stuff like this:

The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.

Repeal the 17th Amendment and our Senators will once again stand up for decentralized power, and they will enforce limits on the president and the rest of the federal government.

Senate Gives More Power To Federal Reserve

Because who better to issue price controls for debit card access than the Federal Reserve? These people are insane.

Senators led by Richard Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who pushed to include the fee caps in the Dodd-Frank Act, turned back the proposed delay Wednesday in a 54-45 vote that left the amendment six short of the 60 needed for approval.


"We should let the Federal Reserve issue this rule," Durbin said before the vote. "If more needs to be done, I'm on board, but the notion that we can't even trust the Federal Reserve to come up for a rule on this is just plain unfair."

A few more frustrating details:

The provision requiring the Fed to set fair debit card fees was included in last year's financial overhaul law by a 64-33 Senate vote and was written by Durbin. There was no separate House vote on the issue.

There was no separate House vote because Dodd-Frank was passed by a process known as reconciliation, which means that a committee wrote the final bill that the President signed without either the House or Senate having to pass the actual legislation.

How can you fight against this kind of blatant corruption?

The effects of the bill were predictable. Price controls cause shortages:

San Francisco's Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc., the world's biggest payment networks, dropped the most since Dec. 16 after the vote. Visa fell 3.11 percent to $76.71 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, after falling as low as $74.37. MasterCard declined 1.53 percent to $270 after reaching a low of $258.34. Shares of U.S. banks also slipped.


The Fed now has until July 21 to implement the final rule on capping the fees, which accounted for more than $16 billion in 2009, according to the Fed.

Don't worry about our politicians, though. They'll always have access to the credit and banking system they want. They just want to prevent the people from having that access.

Giving yet more power to the Federal Reserve through a transparently corrupt process, yet another reason to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Most Corrupt Senators Of 2010

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Senator Boxer is Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. But it appears she still needs an ethics lesson. Boxer presided over a year-long investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee into whether two of her Senate colleagues, Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND), received preferential treatment from Countrywide Financial as part of the company’s “VIP” program. (Senate ethics rules prohibit members from receiving loan terms not available to the general public.) In fact, according to The Associated Press, during an Ethics Committee hearing Boxer asked “the bulk of the questions.”


However, Boxer failed to mention (or disclose on her official Senate Financial Disclosure documents) that she and her husband have signed no less than seven mortgages with Countrywide! At the time of the hearing, Boxer reportedly indicated she had paid off two Countrywide mortgages, but did not mention the others.


The evidence clearly showed that Dodd and Conrad knew they were receiving preferential treatment despite repeated denials. Yet Boxer’s Senate Ethics Committee allowed Dodd and Conrad to wriggle off the hook with a light admonition that suggested the two Senators should have exercised better judgment. The same, apparently, can be said of the Committee’s own chair, who either neglected to mention or outright lied about her own dealings with the corrupt mortgage company.


Senator Ensign: In a scandal that first broke in 2009, Senator Ensign publicly admitted to an affair with the wife of a long-time staffer. And the evidence indicates Ensign then tried to cover up his sexual shenanigans by bribing the couple with lucrative gifts and political favors.


According to The New York Times, after Ensign’s aide, Douglas Hampton, discovered the affair, “Mr. Ensign asked political backers to find a job for…Hampton. Payments of $96,000 to the Hamptons also were made by Senator Ensign’s parents, who insist this was a gift, not hush money. Once a lobbying job was secured, Senator Ensign and his chief of staff continued to help Mr. Hampton, advocating his clients’ cases directly with federal agencies.”


These lobbying activities were seemingly in violation of the Senate’s “cooling off” period for lobbyists. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Under Senate rules, former Senate aides cannot lobby their former colleagues for one year after leaving Capitol Hill.” Hampton began to lobby Mr. Ensign’s office immediately upon leaving his congressional job.


Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. And despite the claims of Ensign and his parents, the $96,000 in “gifts” provided to the Hamptons were clearly hush payments.


Nonetheless, on December 1, 2010, the Obama Justice Department announced it will file no criminal charges against Ensign, while the Federal Election Commission has also dismissed a related ethics complaint. If there is to be justice for Ensign, it will have to be up to the corrupt (see Boxer entry above) Senate Ethics Committee, which is still considering the charges against the Nevada Republican.

Hat tip: Bytestyle TV

Sen. Bennet: "It's All Rigged"

A hot mic left on during a Senate vote Tuesday morning on the Food Safety Act caught a senator complaining that process of setting the agenda during the lame-duck session is “rigged.”

“It’s all rigged. The whole conversation is rigged,” said Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet. “The fact that we don’t get to a discussion before the break about what we’re going to do in the lame duck. It’s just rigged.”

Obama Eliminates U.S. Senate

Satire from the Onion:

In an effort to reduce wasteful spending and eliminate non-vital federal services, the U.S. government announced plans this week to cut its long-standing senator program, a move it says will help save more than $300 billion each year.

According to officials, the decision to cut the national legislative body was reached during a budget review meeting on Tuesday. After hours of deliberation, it was agreed that the cost of financing U.S. senators far outweighed the benefits they provided.

"Now more than ever, we must eliminate needless spending wherever possible," President Obama said at a press conference Wednesday. "When we sat down to go over our annual budget, we asked ourselves, where can we safely trim back? What programs can we do away with without negatively impacting the American people? Which bloated and ineffective institutions can we no longer justify having around?"

"The answer was obvious," Obama added. "The U.S. Senate just needed to go."

It's funny, if you don't stop to think about it too much. Maybe the Onion is predicting the future, because there certainly doesn't seem to be any interest in understanding the role the Senate was originally designed by the Constitution to play. As it is now, it only serves to create a vast federal bureaucracy.

Satire serves to highlight how ridiculous people can be sometimes. For example:

In fact, the program has gone unchecked for so long that many in Washington are now unable to recall what purpose U.S. senators were originally meant to serve.

...

Moreover, the study found that the U.S. government already funds a fully operational legislative body that appears to do the exact same job as the Senate, but which also provides a fair and proportional representation of the nation's citizens and has rules in place to prevent one individual from holding the operations of the entire chamber hostage until he is guaranteed massive federal spending projects for his home state of Alabama.

Reform the Senate by repealing the 17th Amendment to restore its role as protector of the Constitution. The only way this can happen is if we reach out, educate, and lead enough people into understanding why we have a Senate in the first place.

Peter Schiff on Education

Hat tip: Kristee Kelley and Independence Caucaus

Peter Schiff for Senator of Connecticut

Senate Moves to Finalize Health Care Takeover

Just got word via Michelle Malkin that the Senate will clear the defense authorization bill tonight and make way for the health care bill.

The Senate needs 60 votes for cloture. Which Republican will take Senator Nelson's place? Snowe? Collins? Maybe both?

The Republicans will give up as many votes as needed to pass this and still try to take credit for opposing it.

Get rid of all of them. Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Rand Paul on Health Care Reform

Rand Paul is running for Senate in Kentucky.

Senate Moves to Nationalize Health Care

Today, the Senate votes to open debate on Sen. Reid's health care reform proposal. The House has already passed a version, so the only way for the Senate to block it is to filibuster it. If the Senate passes its version, the two bills will be reconciled and re-voted on by both houses, with the biggest difference being that the Senate won't be able to filibuster that vote. That vote will pass with a simple majority, which will be easy for them.

Here's the schedule for today:

10 am-6pm: Each party controling alternating hours, with Democrats controlling the first hour.

6-6:30 p.m. Democrats' time.

6:30-7:15 p.m. Republicans' time.

7:15-7:30 p.m. Democrats' time.

7:30-8 p.m. Time controlled by leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell.

8 p.m. Roll call vote on the motion to proceed.

You can have an impact, especially if you live in Louisiana, Nebraska, Arkansas, or Indiana. Call your Senators, even if you don't live in those states. Get all your friends to call your Senators. It can make a difference, so please do everything you can to stop them from voting "yes" on this bill:

Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
202-224-5824

Ben Nelson of Nebraska
202-224-6551

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
202-224-4843

Evan Bayh of Indiana
202-224-5623

Yes, this bill really is that bad.

There are not many times when we truly can say that we are at a turning point. If anything close to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi plans passes, there will be one last chance in November 2010 to stem the tide of government control. It is not too much to say that several more years of Democratic control will result in an almost irreversible economic and political disaster, at least for people who prefer capitalism and individual liberty.

Tonight's vote is procedural, on whether to open debate. In a few weeks there likely will be a vote on some bill. That vote needs to be fought with every lawful means, recognizing that our tax dollars will be used to bribe Senators with pork projects to win their votes.

But the real battle comes in November 2010.

I believe Barack Obama when he says that he would rather get his way on health care legislation even if it meant he were a one-term President.

Obama knows what is at stake. Do we?

They're putting everything they have into this, including requiring states to include abortion coverage.

There's nothing redeemable in this bill. It must be stopped. Melt the phones. Tell your friends. Use whatever legal means possible to prevent this legislation from passing.

And then repeal the 17th Amendment so that the socialists in this country can learn how bad their ideas are before forcing them on the rest of us.

Update: Here's a great video to help demonstrate the point.



Update: You can watch the debate live here.

Reid Buys Sen. Landrieu's Vote for $100M

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

If Senators were accountable to state legislatures, this kind of thing wouldn't happen. State legislatures wouldn't give up their power for any amount of money, nor would they allow Senators to vote for pork-laden bills that they'd have to pay for.

With such blatant vote-buying, our politicians have shown that they'll do whatever it takes to pass this freedom-stealing bill. REAL ID? Patriot Act? They have nothing on a bill putting your health in the government's hands.

This is the last nail in our freedom's coffin. The bright side? You're not hit for taxes for expatriation if you make less than $139K/year.

I know the saying is not to trust the government, but I gotta tell ya, I don't trust the electorate that put these tyrants in power. As bad as this government is, when people start freaking out as the dollar crashes, there's no telling what these lunatics will do.

Gag Me

Let's repeal the 17th Amendment and get rid of these nausea-inducing, pathetic, ignorant, self-righteous hypocrites.

Since We're on The Subject...

Sonia Sotomayor was reversed by the Supreme Court in 3 of her 5 opinions:

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

But opponents have an uphill battle.

Ms. Sotomayor's nomination is a direct affront to the ideal that we are a nation of laws. The "empathy" standard itself violates the concept of equal justice. The only way to stop her from being confirmed is to turn public opinion against her so that Senators won't vote for her. If we didn't have a 17th Amendment, Senators would be held accountable by state legislatures which would demand that they only support candidates who would maintain decentralization of power. Until the 17th Amendment is repealed, judicial nominations will continue to be circus events, filled with political posturing and absolutely certain to result greater and greater politicization of what is supposed to be an impartial and objective judiciary.