The FY 13 NDAA Keeps Terrorists Off U.S. Soil without Compromising Civil Liberties

Guest post from Rep. Louie Gohmert, Rep. Jeff Landry, and Rep. Scott Rigell

This week, the House will fulfill our most important constitutional duty by debating the FY 13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In accordance with the framer’s intent, this act is the primary check that Congress can apply to the Executive Branch on defense and national security policy.

Last year, constitutional conservatives raised the alarm bell about some provisions in the FY 12 NDAA; provisions that many were concerned would grant President Obama far reaching powers to detain American citizens without trial. The bill ultimately passed, but has become the subject of countless town hall meetings, tweets, and Facebook posts in the months since.

The debate has become so heated that many believe that the NDAA is a bill that deals strictly with detaining terrorists. It is much more than that. Aside from dictating how the military can handle any al Qaeda terrorists they capture, the FY13 NDAA deals with the full scope of national security issues. There is much in it, from a rejection of the Obama administration’s effort to raise health care fees on military retirees; to making sure the President doesn’t trade our missile defenses away to the Russians, that Conservatives can be proud of.

The real question before us is how to adjust the language from last year that has made so many so uncomfortable while still ensuring that we can fight and win the War on Terror. The base bill has already made important steps in the right direction. It includes the Rigell / Landry reassertion of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This language firmly states that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the FY 12 NDAA detainee provisions do not allow for the detention of any person in the United States without the right of redress. Under this provision, all Americans have access to the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The underlying language is being further strengthened by the Gohmert / Landry / Rigell Amendment which further states that no citizens’s constitutional rights will be denied in an Article III court pursuant to the AUMF. The best way to protect our rights is to put simple and clear language in the NDAA that lays those rights out. Between the new language in the base bill and our amendment, we are confident we have done that.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-MA) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) have a competing amendment that simply goes too far. Their bill extends constitutional protections beyond U.S. citizens to any terrorist who is captured in the United States. We share the concerns of legal experts who worry that by granting terrorists greater rights if they are captured in America than if they are captured overseas, we are actually giving terrorists a profound incentive to attack us here at home. The Smith/Amash amendment grants foreign terrorists or foreign soldiers rights our own military do not have in court under the Constitutional Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Our approach is the better alternative. It protects our constitutional rights, but does not extend them to the very men who have been fighting for a decade to tear that great document down.

View the original article here

It’s Deja Vu All Over Again With Debt Ceiling Fight

“ Once the Democrats know that the debt ceiling will invariably be raised, they have no incentive to play ball. The end result will be another raw deal that is worse than doing nothing.”

There is much hullabaloo in the media about John Boehner’s shot across the bow in the upcoming battle over the debt ceiling this fall.  Specifically, Boehner warned that he “will again insist” on the” simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase.”

The question is what Boehner means by insisting “again” on spending cuts greater than the debt ceiling increase.  Does he view the failed Budget Control Act (BCA), super committee, and sequester of defense spending as a success?  He has yet to denounce last year’s failure, so why should we look forward to a repeat performance?

The first step in remedying our debt ceiling strategy is to acknowledge the failures of the past.  When Republicans caved on raising the debt limit last year, we referred to the final Boehner proposal as a ground ball into a double play.  Not only did Boehner fail to secure any transformational downsizing of government in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, he actually stymied our leverage in future budget battles.  As we’ve noted, Mitch McConnell and House appropriators have already signaled that they will never cut one cent below the discretionary budget caps established in the BCA.  Hence, the BCA served only to lock in the record spending levels of the Obama-era.  The only real cuts that originated from that deal were the sequester cuts to the military that Boehner agrees we should now vitiate.  So how would he do things differently this time?

In retrospect, it would have been better to pass a clean increase of the debt ceiling and live another day to fight in future spending battles than to pass the BCA.  The BCA ruined our leverage for the next ten years as Democrats and Republicans alike refuse to spend below those statist levels.  Moreover, it has engendered a gratuitous schism in the conservative coalition by pitting spending hawks against defense hawks and forcing Republicans to go through the embarrassment of undoing their own scheme.  Finally, the deal failed to achieve the primary objectives of averting a credit downgrade and slowing the national debt.  The debt has increased another $1.3 trillion in the 9 ½ months since the debt ceiling was raised.  That’s about $5 billion per day.  After the hyped dollar-for-dollar cuts, there is not a single major program or agency that has been eliminated.

The irony is that the debt has increased so rapidly following last summer’s deal that we are already talking about the next debt ceiling battle.  Do we really want a repeat performance?

Going forward, there are only two options: A) Republicans can telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never raise the debt ceiling without prior passage of something similar to Cut, Cap, and Balance – and that they would be willing to go to the brink.  B) They admit that they are too scared to take this to the brink, and as such, agree to let Obama raise the debt ceiling.  There is no option C, which would repeat the mistakes of last year.  In other words, it is insane to tell the Democrats that you would never let the deadline pass, yet demand concession for the debt ceiling increase.  Once the Democrats know that the debt ceiling will invariably be raised, they have no incentive to play ball.  The end result will be another raw deal that is worse than doing nothing.  This has occurred time and again throughout every budget battle and it’s time we end this insanity.  We don’t need to hear the tough talk and bravado if there is no intent to carry through with it.

Boehner noted at his speech before the Peter G. Peterson Foundation Fiscal Summit that “we shouldn’t dread the debt limit. We should welcome it.”  He punctuated that belief by calling the debt ceiling “an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction.”

Undoubtedly, the debt ceiling will provide us with yet another opportunity to expose the Democrats as the statist European-socialists who are apathetic to our debt crisis.  However, there are all sorts of actions; some are good and some are bad.  Grounding into a double play is worse than striking out.  Sadly, based on our painful experience from last year, inaction might be superior to the action that will evolve from the ranks of the consultant class of the Republican Party.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

View the original article here

Washington Post Promoting Misleading Filibuster Arguments

Today Ezra Klein at the Washington Post put out a piece promoting Common Cause’s lawsuit to have the Senate filibuster declared unconstitutional.  Klein repeats myth after myth about the filibuster.  This piece should commence an interesting national debate finally putting the argument to bed that the filibuster is somehow unconstitutional.  Abolition of the filibuster will lead to a Senate with less time for debate and limited transparency for the American people.

It is interesting to note that these short sighted leftists may be laying the table for an easy repeal of ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and extending the Bush tax cuts.  Clearly, Republicans control of the Senate is within reach (see RCP analysis of Senate polls).  There is also a 50-50 chance that Republicans win the presidency.  Liberals are trying to get rid of the one tool they would have to stop Republicans from dismantling the Obama legacy of higher taxes and more regulation.

I have to imagine that some Republicans will want to take liberals up on the offer of ridding the Senate of the filibuster in January of 2013. 

First of all, many of the voices on the left are hypocrites.  Many of the same groups calling for filibuster reform, were defending the filibuster in 2005.  When it served the purpose of obstructing President Bush’s agenda in 2005, they were 100% for the filibuster (see here).

It is ironic that Common Cause is fighting for filibuster reform.  In 2005 they were singing a different tune.

Jonathan H. Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy writes in a post titled, Common Cause’s Filibuster Flip:

In 2005, Common Cause vigorously defended the filibuster when some Republicans proposed invoking the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster of judicial nominees.  From a 2005 press release: Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate leaders to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominees to silence a vigorous debate about the qualifications of these nominees, short-circuiting the Senate’s historic role in the nomination approval process. “The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals,” said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. “That’s abuse of power.” (Hat tip: Don Surber)

Now it seems that Common Cause supports the “abuse of power.”   I did a Google search to find the text of a Common Cause press release titled “Filibuster shouldn’t be tossed aside to convenience Senate majority” and it has been taken off the web site.

Also, it is a convenient myth for Klein and opponents of the filibuster to argue that “the filibuster was a mistake.” History does not prove this assertion to be true.

John Quincy Adams wrote in his memoir that the early Senate rejected a rules change that would have limited debate, because in 1806 Vice President Aaron Burr argued that a rules change was not necessary to end debate on a question.  According to the late Senator Robert C. Byrd’s in The Senate, 1789–1989, “Henry Clay, in 1841, proposed the introduction of the ‘previous question’ but abandoned the idea in the face of opposition.”  Byrd also noted that “when Senator Stephen Douglas proposed permitting the use of the ‘previous question’ in 1850, the idea encountered substantial opposition and was dropped.” According to Byrd, “An effort to reinstitute the ‘previous question,’ on March 19, 1873, failed by a vote of 25–30.” Byrd cited the following: “Between 1884 and 1890, fifteen different resolutions were offered to amend the rules regarding limitations of debate, all of which failed of adoption.” This is evidence that the filibuster was not an accident of history, yet it was an accepted practice that was validated by Senate votes.

James Madison wrote in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 that one of the purposes of the Senate was to protect the people against the temporary feelings Members of Congress may posses.

In order to judge of the form to be given to [the Senate], it will be proper to take a view of the ends to be served by it. These were first to protect the people against their rulers: secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.

Finally, the Constitution specifically delegates rule making authority to the House and Senate in Article I, Section 5, “each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.”  The filibuster is constitutional and the federal courts have no jurisdiction to litigate this political question.

To argue that supermajority votes are unconstitutional, is to ignore the many supermajority rules  as part of the statutory budget process, explicit rules of the Senate and tradition.  Today, the Senate will hold a series of votes on legislation to extend the life of the Export-Import Bank, and amendments to the legislation, with a 60 supermajority required to pass as agreed to by both parties.  This practice is commonplace in today’s Senate.

The Senate and House frequently have votes on matters that are subject to supermajority votes.  In the House, a suspension of the rule vote is a supermajority vote.  In the Senate there are 60 vote points of order, suspension of the rules and a supermajority to shut off debate are a weekly occurrence.

The big question is whether this full court press by the left is merely setting up a liberal talking point that Republicans are obstructionists or if this is a serious effort to set the table for changing the filibuster rule.

View the original article here

Romney: Obama’s reckless spending fans a ‘prairie fire of debt’

Speaking in Des Moines, Iowa this afternoon, Romney took President Obama to task for his incessant spending and borrowing:

“Today America faces a financial crisis of debt and spending that threatens what it means to be an American. Here in the heartland you know in your hearts that it’s wrong.  We can’t spend another four years talking about solving a problem that we only make worse every day. When the men and women who settled the Iowa prairie saw a fire in the distance, they didn’t look around for someone else to save them or go back to sleep hoping the wind might blow another direction. They knew their fate was in their hands and so it is today.  A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation and every day we fail to act we feed that fire with our own lack of resolve.”

Romney went on to hit Obama for the so-called stimulus, the ever unpopular ObamaCare and the more than five trillion dollars the Obama deficits have added to the national debt:

“President Obama started his days in office with the trillion-dollar stimulus package – the biggest, most careless one-time expenditure by the federal government in history.  And remember this: the stimulus wasn’t just wasted – it was borrowed and wasted.  We still owe the money, we’re still paying interest on it, and it’ll be that way long after this presidency ends in January.

Then there was Obamacare.  Even now nobody knows the exact cost of that new program.  And that uncertainty has done great harm to our economy.  Employers aren’t hiring, entrepreneurs are worried, all because of a massive, European-style entitlement that Americans didn’t want and can’t afford.

Through his own decisions, this President has added more than five trillion dollars to the national debt, which now stands at 15.7 trillion dollars.”

Then Romney promised to lead us out of this debt and spending crisis:

“As president, I will approach debt and spending differently.  My time spent building businesses and leading state government taught me that we need to hold every department and agency to a simple test: If something can be done better and more efficiently outside the federal government, then that’s where it belongs.  Wherever we have the option of returning functions back to the states, to local governments, or, better still, to the private sector, that’s what we will do.  We will make the federal government simpler, smaller, smarter – and, by the way, more in keeping with the vision of the Framers of our Constitution.”

The excerpts are from Mitt Romney’s speech as prepared for delivery.  The excerpts are from Mitt Romney’s speech as prepared for delivery. The entire transcript is available here.

Last month the Romney campaign released a video highlighting President Obama’s broken promises on spending, deficits and the national debt. You can watch the “Broken Promises: Spending” video here.

Today the national debt is 15,674,182,767,474.36 or $15.7 trillion, it was when President Obama took office it was $10,626,877,048,913.08 or $10.6 trillion.

In 2004, when the deficit was $413 billion and the national debt was $7,419,244,676,835.15 or $7.4 trillion, Obama said the “monstrous federal deficit” was an “enormous problem.” On July 3, 2008, presidential candidate Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” Nevertheless, President Obama added more than $5 trillion to the national debt in three years.

President Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first time at least five times:

February 23, 2009: Obama Pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.February 24, 2009: Obama pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.May 26, 2009: Obama pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in officeDecember 8, 2009: Obama pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.February 14, 2011: Obama pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.

Despite those promises Obama has racked up the largest deficits in U.S. history:

FY2009: The federal budget deficit was $1.413 trillion, the highest in U.S. history. (“Monthly Budget Review: November 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)FY2011: The federal budget deficit was $1.299 trillion, the second highest in U.S. history. (“Monthly Budget Review: November 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)FY2010: The federal budget deficit was $1.294 trillion, the third highest in U.S. history. (“Monthly Budget Review: November 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)The CBO projects the deficit at the end of Obama’s first term will be $1.253 trillion, Obama’s fourth straight trillion deficit. (“An Anlysis Of The President’s 2013 Budget,” Congressional Budget Office, 3/16/12)

You shouldn’t be shocked by Obama’s failure to reduce the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. He did warn us there would be “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come.”

View the original article here

It’s Time to Dump Upton for Jack Hoogendyk in MI-6

It’s hard to think of a more liberal Republican that occupies a more consequential position in Congress than Fred Upton.  It’s not just the fact that the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the most powerful House panels, is a big supporter of green energy.  It’s not just the fact that this same man was the Thomas Edison of the incandescent light bulb ban.  It’s about Republicans shedding an image of hypocrisy.

Upton is charged with oversight over Obama’s Solyndra-like loan guarantees, yet he pushed for the same type of loan for United Solar Ovonics, whose parent company recently filed for bankruptcy.  If we’ve learned anything from the past decade of congressional politics, it’s that we need a clean break from the Republican party of the past – the party that supported practically everything that we now hold against Obama and the Democrats.

Whether it was green energy venture-socialism, bailouts, stimulus, campaign finance reform, handouts to labor, expansion of government-run healthcare, price and wage controls, tax increases, funding for abortions, funding for the UN, or bloated spending bills, Upton was a leading voice for big-government and a centrally planned economy.  In fact, the only time he became a penny pincher was when it came to missile defense.  Is this the man we need running the most important domestic policy committee?

Fortunately, we are no longer stuck with a liberal in such a position of leadership.  Once again, staunch conservative former state rep. Jack Hoogendyk has stepped up to the plate for the daunting task of challenging a 26-year veteran chairman.  In 2010, he came out of nowhere to garner 43% of the vote against Upton, even though he was outspent 20-1.

His issue position statements read like a wish-list of a well-informed Tea Party conservative – from private Social Security accounts to proposed elimination of four government departments.  But in Hoogendyk’s case, he has a record to back up those commitments.  He was rated the most conservative lawmaker in the state House of Representatives for several years during his three-term tenure.  He was a leader on all social and fiscal conservative issues; from fighting affirmative action and big labor to pushing for spending cuts and government transparency.

Since leaving the state legislature a few years ago, Jack has led numerous grassroots and tea party organizations.  He has fought for ballot initiatives against several social liberal causes.  In a state where there are many Big Labor Republicans, Hoogendyk is leading the charge to make Michigan a right-to-work state.  This is exactly the type of comprehensive conservative fighter we need in Congress.

In 1986, Upton primaried a sitting Republican by running to that man’s left.  He has been running to the left field foul line ever since.  Now it’s time to return the favor.  Hoogendyk has everything going for him; all he needs is our support.  Like all liberal incumbents, Fred Upton is now attacking his conservative challenger “from the right.”  He has voted for an RSC budget for the first time in his career, and has even opposed the Ex-Im Bank!  He is clearly worried because he has spent more money on attacking Hoogendyk than he has against any past primary opponent.  His crony venture-socialists are coming to the rescue with a $2 million bailout to save him from a candidate that has raised $80,000.

We have some time left until the August 7 primary.  Fred Upton helped shut the lights off on American households; it’s time to shut the lights off on his special interest congressional career.  Anyone who cares about liberty, free markets, and the future of a bold-colored Republican Party should help out Jack Hoogendyk or the PACs that are supporting him. Let’s get to work.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

View the original article here

Daily Links – May 15, 2012

Today is May 15th. On this date in 1618, Johannes Kepler discovered the Harmonic Law, or the Third Law of Planetary Motion. This law governs where and when a person can play a harmonica unironically. On this date in 1768, France purchased Corsica from Genoa. But only 18 grams, any more than that and France could have been charged with possession with intent to distribute. On this date in 1756, the Seven Years War began. Tragically, only 3 years survived. Also on this date, in 1856, L. Frank Baum, author of the Wizard of Oz books, was born. The L. stood for “Love Me Some Obama”. #ObamaInHistory And finally, today is National Sea Monkey Day, a horrifying day marked by the traumatic singing of the traditional holiday song “Sea Monkey See, Do, Monkey, Do”. Consider this an Open Thread.

The Left Is Getting Clobbered On Twitter | PowerLine
“In the skirmishing so far, one perhaps surprising media advantage has become clear: the right is clobbering the left on Twitter.”

Blogger Confronts Newspaper that Stole His Article with $500 Invoice | PJM
“As both his editor and a peer in the new media world a sense of pride sweeps over me while watching Duane calmly, professionally LAY DOWN THE LAW and GET PAID”

The Facebook effect | The Economist
“But back-of-the-envelope calculations by Mr Sisney suggest that California might get a windfall of $2 billion over the current and coming fiscal years, and possibly billions more if the shares trade well.”

Air Force Eliminates Test Flights for New Light Attack Plane | PJM
“Would you buy combat airplane without knowing whether it can even fly? The guys on Pawn Stars wouldn’t do that — but apparently the United States Air Force will.”

Inside The Secret Miami Meeting Of George Soros’ Liberal Conspiracy | Free Beacon
“A secretive network of left-wing billionaires and their political operatives descended on the luxurious Biltmore Hotel in Miami over the weekend to discuss strategy for the coming elections.”

The Left’s War on Wisconsin” from briansikma.

altiloquent (awl-TIL-uh-kwuhnt): noun High-flown or pretentious language.
(Via Thesaurus.com)

View the original article here

Count Romney, Ahh Ahh Ahh

Background: Because Mitt Romney worked for Bain Capital, and one of Bain’s acquisitions went out of business 10 years after Bain took over, Obama says Romney is a vampire. The only vampire I see is the one in charge, spending our money, while thousands of people remain out of work. Read more Here.

View the original article here