23 State Attorneys General To Attorney General Holder: "No Semi-Auto Ban"

NRA-ILA

On June 11, the top law enforcement officials of nearly half the states signed a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, expressing their opposition to reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.

"We share the Obama Administration's commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting law-abiding Americans' access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems," the letter said.

The letter notes congressional opposition to bringing back the ban, and calls for increasing enforcement of existing laws.

We encourage NRA members to let these state officials know we appreciate them standing up to the incessant clamor for gun control that is currently coming from anti-gun groups and their media allies.

The 23 state Attorneys General, in alphabetical order, by state, are:

Arkansas – The Honorable Dustin McDaniel
Alabama - The Honorable Troy King
Colorado - The Honorable John W. Suthers
Florida - The Honorable Bill McCollum
Georgia - The Honorable Thurbert E. Baker
Idaho - The Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden
Kansas - The Honorable Steve Six
Kentucky - The Honorable Jack Conway
Louisiana - The Honorable James D. Caldwell
Michigan - The Honorable Mike Cox
Missouri - The Honorable Chris Koster
Montana - The Honorable Steve Bullock
Oklahoma - The Honorable W.A. Edmonson
Nebraska - The Honorable Jon Bruning
Nevada - The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto
New Hampshire - The Honorable Kelly A. Ayotte
North Dakota - The Honorable Wayne Stenehjem
South Carolina - The Honorable Henry McMaster
South Dakota - The Honorable Lawrence Long
Texas - The Honorable Greg Abbott
Utah - The Honorable Mark L. Shurtleff
Wisconsin – The Honorable J.B. Van Hollen
Wyoming - The Honorable Bruce A. Salzburg

Death by Obamanomics?

by Irwin M. Stelzer

Death by a thousand cuts. Or in the case of the efficiency of the U.S. economy, by at least four: energy policy, health care policy, trade union resurgence, and fiscal madness.

Start with energy. The world is awash in it. The wind blows and the sun shines, at least some times and somewhere. Oil and gas wells gush, and substantial oil- and gas-rich areas have never even been explored. Coal abounds. Nuclear power can be had at a cost. So why has Barack Obama made energy policy one of his three top priorities -- education and health care are the other two -- in a country in which inexpensive energy has produced the world's most productive agriculture, a population capable of navigating America's huge spaces in air-conditioned comfort, and permitted the substitution of energy-plus-brain-power for back-breaking labor?

One problem is that oil is largely in the hands of very bad actors. Still another is that almost all sources of energy have significant impacts on the environment: solar panels consume acres of space; wind machines are considered eye sores by those who can spot them; oil, natural gas and coal emit CO2, responsible for claims that the globe is warming; nuclear power generates long-lived and dangerous waste.

Some of these problems are soluble, although not without cost. Domestic producers of natural gas tout their product as a substitute for petrol in trucks, busses and other vehicles. Progress is apparently being made in developing cars and trucks that run on at least partly on batteries. The efficiency of vehicles is being increased, albeit in response to inefficient government edicts rather than to more efficient price signals. Never mind that the infrastructure for these various gasoline substitutes has not been developed, and that the cost of these technologies exceeds that of the gasoline-fuelled internal combustion engine by a good margin. They must be listed in the possible column. That's the good news.

The bad news is that even if these technologies do develop, we will still need lots of oil and gasoline to fuel the existing capital stock, and that oil is in the hands of the bad guys. The Saudis and their OPEC allies control the bulk of the world's oil reserves, and use the proceeds of their cartel-based oil sales to fund the spread of radical Islam and jihadism. Hugo Chávez uses the (dwindling) receipts from his increasingly clapped-out oil industry to fund his takeover of Venezuela's private sector and his anti-American activities. Iran's mullahs survive their disastrous economic policies only because they have oil revenues with which to bribe the masses, pay for their nuclear-arms program, and fund international terrorism.

The problem of the unfortunate location of oil reserves can't be solved by research into alternatives to oil, or by conservation; as far ahead as we can see, we will need the bad guys' oil, and Europe will need natural gas from an increasingly bellicose Russia. Both problems can be ameliorated by diversifying sources of supply. Investment in the oil industries of Canada and Mexico certainly seems worthwhile for the United States, as does investment in natural gas pipelines that by-pass Russia for the EU. And maintenance of a military strong enough to guard supply routes and protect the Saudi fields from falling into even worse hands seems essential.

It is the environmental issues that seem intractable. At one time a united environmental movement was of one mind on important issues. No longer. President Obama and greens favor the development of solar and wind power, but other environmentalists oppose dedicating substantial swathes of desert land to solar panels, and Senator Ted Kennedy is leading the charge against building windmills in sight of his family compound on Cape Cod. Some environmentalists see pollution-free nuclear power as an important part of future energy supply, others oppose new plants because there is no political agreement on the disposal of nuclear waste. If environmentalists in America agree on anything it is that coal presents the greatest threat to the environment, and that the courts can be used to drag out the permitting process until most projects are abandoned.

All of this means that the electrical energy needed to power battery-driven vehicles won't come cheap, if indeed it is available. Industry sources fear that with coal and nuclear more or less off the table, at least for now, we will end up rationing electricity.

Energy is not the only sector that is likely to be less efficient than in the past. It is no coincidence that America's superior productivity performance has coincided with the decline of trade unions. We have seen how union compensation scales and work rules contributed to the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler -- a fate the non-union car manufacturers have avoided. Yet Congress and the president are preparing to spur union growth by eliminating the secret ballot in union-recognition elections and, rumor has it, by writing advantages for union members into the tax laws, perhaps by exempting them from taxes on their employer-sponsored health-care benefits while imposing such taxes on non-union employees.

There is worse. The president is about to engineer the takeover of the health care sector. Unless Congress refuses to go along with the establishment of a government insurer -- voter enthusiasm for this "reform" is minimal -- competition from an entity that has no need to make a profit and can count on taxpayer funding if premiums prove inadequate will surely doom private insurers. Estimated cost over ten years: $1.3-$1.6 trillion, adding to the upward pressure on taxes, especially on wealth-creating entrepreneurs, created by the administration's runaway deficits.

The administration simply has no credible plan to reduce those deficits, and instead talks vaguely of cutting entitlements or the savings from universal health care coverage -- never mind that more coverage means higher costs, and the proclaimed goal of prolonging live, however admirable, will drive costs up, not down. Obama's huge deficits already have purchasers of Treasury IOUs worried that they will be repaid in devalued dollars, which will eventually force wary investors to price the risk of inflation into the price they are prepared to pay for government IOUs. Interest rates rise, economic growth slows.

Two thoughts pierce the gloom. The first is that the American economy might be large enough, and resilient enough, to remain competitive even bearing the weight of the new inefficiencies. The second is that voters will demand a change of course before Obamanomics is permanently embedded in our system. Voters worry that they are leaving their children a mountain of debt. Already Obama's approval rating among independent voters, whom Wall Street Journal analyst Gerald Seib calls "the canaries in the coal mine of American politics", has fallen from 60 percent to 45 percent. Even if the president doesn't get the message, Congress, faced with an election next year, just might.


Irwin M. Stelzer is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, and a columnist for the Sunday Times (London).

Pretentious Liberal Snobs

by Ashley Herzog

Let’s put aside the fact that David Letterman’s jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughters were sexist, as NOW and other feminist groups have acknowledged. We should also ask why he thought it was a cutting insult to compare Palin to a flight attendant—and other normal Americans that upper-crust liberals would never associate with.

The obvious answer: they’re snobs.

It’s why they laughed along with another Letterman monologue likening Palin to members of the lowly working class. “She looks like the waitress at the coffee shop who draws a little smiley face on your check,” he said. “She looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway. She looks like the nurse who weighs you and then makes you sit alone in your underwear for 20 minutes.” This was funny to people who look down upon nurses and grocery store workers.

It’s why the status-obsessed Keith Olbermann brags about his “Ivy League” credentials when he actually went to a state school affiliated with Cornell—as if there were something shameful about a public education.

It’s why Michael Moore writes book after book haranguing Americans for being racist, lamenting in Stupid White Men, “[I’m] trying to clock how long it is before I spot a black man or woman who isn’t wearing a uniform or sitting at a receptionist’s desk.” But as of 2005, Moore was spending two-thirds of his time in Central Lake, Michigan—a town that doesn’t have a single black resident.

Obviously, penning sanctimonious screeds about American racism is the job of rich liberals. But actually living in racially diverse neighborhoods is for the working class. (This also explains why popular vacation destinations for the liberal elite, such as Aspen and The Hamptons, are almost entirely white. Conversely, you’ll never see Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi hanging out at the Jersey Shore or other spots frequented by riffraff.)

It’s why a group of Hollywood aristocrats, including Barbra Streisand and David Geffen, illegally constructed fences to keep ordinary people off the public beaches near their Malibu homes. They’re all about the interests of the “little guy”—just as long as the peasants don’t obstruct their view of the ocean.

It’s why the Queen of Liberal Pomposity, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, suggested that George Bush was unfit for the Presidency because her friends made disparaging remarks about him at a Georgetown cocktail hour—as if any normal person cares about liberals’ insipid chitchat at their little parties. (The average home price in Georgetown: $1,435,180.)

It’s why they sneered at former Representative Tom Delay for building a successful pest extermination company (how blue-collar!). They instead admire people who inherited or sued their way to wealth, like John Kerry and John Edwards.

It’s why the liberal media elite fawn over Michelle Obama’s designer shoe collection, while joking that Sarah Palin looks like she belongs “at a TGI Friday’s happy hour.”

Hilarious, but only to liberal snobs who wouldn’t be caught dead hanging out at TGI Friday’s—or any other place they might encounter the “little guys” they claim to represent.

Freedom Can't Be Rationed

By Rep. Mike Pence

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free!"

As Congress prepares to consider health reform, P. J. O’Rourke’s famous quip provides an important context to the debate. President Obama and Democrats in Congress have proposed a government-run health care plan that would “compete” against private health coverage. Estimates have suggested that such “competition” would encourage employers to reduce costs by eliminating their health benefits for employees. As a result, as many as 119 million Americans will lose their coverage, forcing most of them into the government-run plan. In his budget, the president proposed nearly $1 trillion in new spending as a mere “down payment” to fund this “free” health care gimmick.

The truth is, government-run health insurance takes away citizens’ freedom, forcing them to accept a government decree about intensely personal health decisions. At a time when Medicare faces unfunded obligations of nearly $86 trillion, dumping more than half of all Americans with private coverage into a government program will dramatically jeopardize our fiscal future. To make matters worse, it will take away citizens’ freedom to choose their doctors—and the freedom to choose, with their doctors, the treatment option that best meets their health needs.

Democrats have admitted both their desire for government to control health carew and the effect of such control on ordinary Americans. A provision in the recent “stimulus” bill will spend $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research. While few would dispute the wisdom of scientific research comparing the medical benefits of various treatment options for a given ailment, Democrats have shown a strong desire to use such research to examine the cost-effectiveness of medical treatments—as a precursor to government rationing of care. In fact, a draft committee report produced by the Democratic majority noted that “more expensive [treatments] will no longer be prescribed” as a result of rationing sparked by effectiveness research.

Peter Orszag, President Obama’s new budget director, was candid about the impact of government control on health care when he cited studies in a 2007 report noting that “patients who might benefit from more expensive treatments might be made worse off” if the government rations access to costly—but potentially life saving—care. In other words, the true cost of “free” government-run health insurance will be a loss of freedom for millions of Americans who will be forced to give up their freedom to choose medical treatments that will actually work for them.

Here’s how one Michigan mother expressed her exasperation with the government-run Medicaid program: “You feel so helpless thinking, something’s wrong with this child and I can’t even get her into a doctor….When we had real insurance, we would call and come in at the drop of a hat.” This mother’s helplessness in a vast government bureaucracy is the antithesis of freedom—lack of freedom to choose one’s doctor resulting in a lack of access to care.

Our nation needs health reforms that expand Americans’ freedom. Removing the current inequities in the tax code that force individuals whose employers don’t offer health coverage to use after-tax dollars to buy insurance—and pay 30 to 50 percent more as a result—would put coverage within reach for millions of Americans. Allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines would increase consumer choice while expanding insurance coverage for as many as 12 million individuals. Just as important, these options would ensure that doctors and patients, not government bureaucrats, make important health care decisions.

While Democrats argue that a government-run plan is more “efficient,” I strongly believe that the nationalized plan would look a lot like Medicaid does today—cheap, broken, and government-rationed coverage that most Americans do not want. The American people want to keep their health care freedom—and Republicans need to respond to their call.

We Were at War- The Legal Consequences of 9/11

by William J. Haynes II

Editor's Note: Even as Uighur detainees, once trained in al Qaeda camps, frolic in the Bermuda surf, enjoying their release from the U.S. detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, newly captured detainees in Afghanistan are being read their Miranda rights, as if they were common criminals. The legal framework under which the U.S. government prosecutes the war on terror remains as unstable and controversial as ever. The speech below, delivered in March 2008 by William J. Haynes II, who was just then stepping down from his position as general counsel at the Pentagon, thus remains highly topical. Rare in this debate, it is also eloquent and highly accessible to the non-specialist. We thus reprint it in full and commend it to our readers' attention.

In September 2005, I was sitting in a window seat on a commercial flight from Madrid to Philadelphia. It was mid-afternoon on a Tuesday. The plane was above the clouds in the sunshine, halfway across the Atlantic.

I was returning from a long trip in Europe. It was typically frenetic--six countries in five days, visit after visit with politicians and businessmen, diplomats and soldiers. I was tired, but marveling at what a great job I had. It's like being the chief legal officer of a medium size country. Any conceivable legal issue conjured up by the Department's more than ten thousand military and civilian lawyers could end up in my lap. I remember my head buzzing with those possibilities as I began to doze.

And then it hit me with
a jolt. I knew this flight. It was the same flight that we had tracked four years earlier on September 11, 2001.

You know the story: Nineteen hijackers on four planes murdered almost three thousand innocent people in an atrocity unlike any in American history. What you may not remember as well is that on that day the Department of Defense tracked two suspicious international flights--one over the Pacific, and this one over the Atlantic--suspecting they, too, were hijacked and heading towards an American skyline. And we steeled and readied ourselves to shoot them down.

All of us remember where we were that day. I was in my office on the phone with my wife, telling her to turn on the TV, when I saw the plane hit the second tower. I raced down to one of the Pentagon command centers with some others, to set up a crisis action cell. As the American Airlines plane hit the other side of our building, I felt only a shudder pulse the monstrous concrete structure. And then it was like I was in a movie playing fast forward. Smoke and confusion, multiple conversations between the President and the Secretary, sending my own deputy off with the Deputy Secretary to a survival site in the event that another plane came at our side of the Pentagon, hearing situation reports about dead and wounded being treated in the Pentagon courtyard.

I spent nineteen hours in the Pentagon that day, mostly at the elbow of then-Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld and then-Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dick Myers. Most of the time I was in two Pentagon command centers, reacting and contemplating possibilities I had never expected to face. These scenarios had nothing to do with corporate transactions, environmental cleanups, government contracts, class action litigation, or any of the other issues that had been on my mind when I first took the job, barely four months earlier.

That day, we considered whether to shoot civilian airliners from the sky, and we wondered what would come next. Were there more terrorists on the ground in America's cities? Did they have suitcase nukes? After New York and D.C., were Chicago, Atlanta, or Los Angeles next?

The legal questions were legion. What were the rules of engagement? How do the Fourth and Fifth Amendments apply to a decision to shoot down an American airliner en route to a U.S. city? Should any captured enemies be treated as criminal suspects or enemy combatants?

Smoke lingered in the Pentagon for days. We could not totally extinguish fires because the water itself threatened to shut down the electrical and information systems of the building. But as the smoke dissipated, some things soon became clearer. We were attacked by a non-state organization known as al Qaeda. The President decided that we would fight this enemy with all our national power, including the armed forces. We were at war.

At the time, this was widely accepted. In those weeks following 9/11, both the United Nations and NATO concluded we had suffered an "armed attack," thereby invoking the U.N. Charter and the NATO charter provisions for collective military action. The Congress on September 18, 2001, passed a breathtakingly broad Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The decision to go to war also followed recent precedent; President Clinton had ordered cruise missile strikes against al Qaeda in response to the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Going to
war had many legal consequences.

It meant we could attack al Qaeda with deadly force. It meant we could detain captured fighters for the duration of hostilities. It meant we could ask questions without reading Miranda warnings. It meant we could seek to intercept their communications to learn their intentions and foil their future plots. It meant we could use military commissions to try them for war crimes.

I was tempted to give a detailed defense for these matters here today. Bob Fiske told me that you all have heard many speakers criticize the government's legal policies and that you'd give me a fair hearing for rebuttal.

But I decided against that. On Monday, I'm leaving this job, after almost seven years. Rather than justify the answers the President and Congress have come up with, I want to look to the future. As the national and global dialogue continues, as you all participate, and as our democracy considers new legal policies, I ask you to consider three questions important to all Americans and maybe particularly important to those of us in the legal profession.

First, how does the law affect the government's ability to fight and win wars?

The obvious approach to this question is to think about the rules we place on the government.

In the aftermath of 9/11, we've seen reforms in this mold. Removing the "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence. Creating the Department of Homeland Security. Creating the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. These legal reforms have been aimed at restructuring the government to be more effective.

I encourage you, however, to consider the law's impact on national security, from other perspectives, beyond just the rules we place on government.

Think about how the law sets incentives and disincentives for others besides the government.

What incentives does the law set for our enemies?

In a way, the threat of al Qaeda makes some applications of the law of war to this conflict unprecedented. On the other hand, the bedrock documents underlying the law of war had this conflict squarely in mind. The Geneva Conventions were consciously written with the purpose of encouraging combatants to follow certain basic rules, to place bounds on an inherently violent and barbaric enterprise--war.

The heart of this effort is to separate fighters from civilians. If the two are separated, civilian populations will be spared killing and destruction. So the law of war requires combatants to distinguish themselves from civilians--usually by wearing a uniform and carrying their weapons openly. In turn, fighters must also refrain from targeting civilians and may not use civilians as human shields.

The law of war attempts to encourage everyone to follow these rules through incentives. People who follow the rules receive a privileged status. Lawful fighters get combat immunity. Although they may kill and be killed on the battlefield, once removed from the fight, they may not be prosecuted for lawfully fighting. Lawful fighters, if captured, also get a special status called prisoner of war. This status comes with many privileges--access to athletic uniforms, musical instruments, access to a canteen where one can purchase tobacco and sundries, the right to whatever military justice system the enemy uses to try its own troops.

Al Qaeda's reason for being, its method of operation, strikes at the core of the law of war. Al Qaeda does not want to be distinguished from the civilians that surround them. The September 11 hijackers did not wear uniforms or carry weapons openly. They posed as businessmen and students. They did not distinguish between combatants and civilians. They attacked civilian aircraft and used those aircraft to attack civilian targets.

Should we afford prisoner of war status to al Qaeda fighters, notwithstanding their conduct? Amplifying that, should they get more than what POWs get? Here, you have to think about the incentives going forward. If you give more protections and privileges to al Qaeda fighters than to lawful fighters, then you will strip away any legal incentives for people to fight according to the rules. Countries and groups will have strategic incentives to enjoy the benefits for clandestine warfare without bearing any of the consequences of doing so. Ultimately, you increase the savagery of future conflicts.

This new series of rights affects the incentives of those on the front line combating terrorist organizations. In fighting, our military personnel may be buying a long series of civilian judicial proceedings, trials, accusations, and the prospect that our opponents will be released before the war is over. These were never prospects that military personnel faced in prior conflicts against conventional enemies. One must ask, what effect will this new web of legal requirements have on battlefield decisionmaking?

And consider this: We have hundreds of habeas cases from persons the United States holds at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and I'm concerned about the impact these cases might have on the incentives provided by the law of war.

During World War II, the United States detained more than 400,000 German and Italian prisoners of war in camps sprinkled around the United States, and had zero successful habeas petitions.

Today, we have less than 300 unlawful enemy combatants detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and 246 ongoing habeas cases in the federal courts to go with them. These cases are in addition to the administrative processes the Executive Branch has developed on its own to review the detention of enemy combatants. And those administrative processes have been endorsed by Congress.

The legal process afforded these detainees far exceeds anything that German or Italian soldiers enjoyed at any time during their captivity within our borders.

Think beyond our naval base in Cuba.

Coalition forces hold tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and over a thousand Afghanistan. If the detainees in Cuba receive habeas, should those detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan receive it as well? Instead of hundreds, why not tens of thousands of military detainee habeas cases in federal courts?

This is an incentive to violate the law of war. As some have said, what's in it for any foe of the United States to abide by those rules if one gets better treatment upon capture by violating them?

Another example of an area where it's important to consider the incentives the law creates for national security is FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The FISA statute, written in 1978, must be updated to account for remarkable advances in communications technology since then. That is one challenge before Congress now.

But another issue in FISA reform is whether private companies can be sued for cooperating with a Government request for information--for information on suspected al Qaeda operatives. When it comes to private corporations, even the prospect of liability--the very existence of litigation--is enough to cause them to turn the Government down. Allowing private lawsuits to go forward is a consequence of the political branches not making tough policy decisions. They deprive our political process of a real chance to consider what surveillance against our enemies should be permitted. Faced with the prospect of lawsuits, private entities will say "no" in the first instance, and there will be no decision for Congress and the President to make.

The prospect of litigation against individuals--our troops and government officials--also affects the decisions we make. When it comes to foreign lawsuits, the prospect of an adverse reaction--not by our Executive Branch, by our Congress, or by our courts, but by a foreign tribunal or prosecutor, is affecting the decisions military personnel and civilian leaders make.

We've had cases against individual servicemembers in foreign courts.

For example, in April 2003, in Baghdad, a U.S. tank under enemy fire returned fire and killed a Spanish cameraman. More than four years later thousands of miles away, a Spanish judge indicted three U.S. soldiers for violating a Spanish law.

Another case. In March 2005, soldiers at a U.S. checkpoint in Iraq killed an Italian intelligence agent after his speeding vehicle ignored multiple warnings and failed to stop. Almost two years later, an Italian judge indicted a U.S. soldier on homicide charges.

In Great Britain, U.S. Air Force pilots involved in tragic "friendly fire" incidents in Iraq--pilots whose conduct was investigated and cleared by U.S. and UK military investigators--are the subject of multiple county coroner inquests that have accused our pilots of negligent homicide.

Each of these cases proceeds notwithstanding that the U.S. government thoroughly investigated and determined that no administrative or judicial action was warranted.

But litigation isn't just a problem for troops at checkpoints, policy-makers have also been targets.

Lawsuits have been filed against senior military and civilian officials alleging human rights violations. One advocacy group has repeatedly filed complaints with German, Belgian, and French prosecutors requesting that senior civilian and military officials be prosecuted for conduct associated with the defense of our country.

The relationship between law and national security is complicated. It isn't just the rules we place on the government. It's the incentives we set for our enemies and for our own citizens. It's the rules others might try to place on us.

The second question, I'd pose is, 'Can we preserve the American legal system?'

We have a remarkable criminal justice system.

It's an adversarial system. It seeks to restrain government power and to preserve space for individual freedoms, and it's the most solicitous of individual rights of any in the world.

Our criminal law system is remarkable because of how much it is not focused on putting criminals behind bars.

It's a system where it's more important that innocents be found innocent than that the guilty be punished. Therefore, the standard of proof is very high--beyond a reasonable doubt. As Blackstone formulated--"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

It's a system where it's more important to keep the government playing by the rules, than to punish the guilty. We have the exclusionary rule, where, as Judge Cardozo put it, "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered."

How would we adapt this gold standard of criminal law to deal with al Qaeda?

Is it better that ten al Qaeda operatives escape, than that one innocent be wrongly detained? Should al Qaeda members go free if the government blunders?

Many might answer, 'Yes!' But remember what only nineteen people were able to do nearly seven years ago. Some believe such doctrinaire logic applied without reflection is unwise. It could, as Justice Robert Jackson once warned, "convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Indeed, nearly all who seriously consider the question view criminal prosecution in the federal courts, under rules currently in place as a viable option for only a handful of al Qaeda members.

Adapting our domestic criminal justice system to 9/11-type terrorists could entail a compromise between our long tradition of individual rights and the new public need to thwart mass murder and destruction.

Academics and pundits have proposed such compromises--special terrorism courts. These courts might detain individuals for long periods of time, in spite of reasonable doubts. They might overlook blunders by constables, if those blunders found credible evidence. They might consider secret evidence, ex parte.

Do we want to inject those practices into our domestic legal system?

Consider Justice Jackson's dissent in the World War II case of Korematsu v. United States. There, he argued that the courts should abstain from judging the military's claim that it was necessary to exclude Fred Korematsu from the West Coast on the basis of his race. Justice Jackson thought that judges should not review claims of military necessity, because doing so would import unwanted doctrines into our jurisprudence. Once a practice like racial discrimination is imported and validated by a judge, then it:

lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of urgent need. Every repetition embeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes.

Justice Jackson went on to contrast the ephemeral nature of military orders with the enduring work of the court.

A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image.

Adapting our civilian legal system to cover al Qaeda has its perils. If we choose this path, we must take care that we do not endanger our long-held principles and values.

Once we add special, relaxed procedures in the criminal justice system for al Qaeda, can we keep those procedures confined to the hardest cases? How will we prevent those who follow from using them as convenient ways to bypass the rigors of the criminal justice system?

We must be mindful of these matters as we begin to change the law.

My third question is, 'Can we preserve our adherence to the rule of law?'

Today, the threat of terrorism seems distant to many Americans. Polls show that people are more concerned with the economy and health care than terrorism. And, for many of the military and civilian personnel in government, this is our proudest achievement. By preventing attacks, the government has returned to the people a sense of safety.

But, as we continue to refine the laws, we should not just assume today's sense of security and safety. We should also ask ourselves how people will think, feel, and act when the next attack comes?

And it will come!

We can be sure that when the next attack comes, the American people will rally to the government and demand that it take action to protect the nation.

Writing the laws today, how do we write them so the government has enough flexibility to deal with tomorrow's crises? But what if we err? What if a future President is put in the position where he must choose between following the law and doing what he or she believes is necessary to protect the nation?

This is an awful choice.

The founding fathers recognized this when drafting our constitution. I quote from Madison in Federalist 41.

It is in vain to oppose Constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions.

We must be careful that the country can act lawfully in self-defense.

I've shared with you some of my perspective on law and national security. In a word, my perspective is conservative. I mean that literally. There is so much in our country worth conserving, worth preserving, worth protecting. The lives of our citizens, the liberties we enjoy, our legal traditions, our belief in government under law.

As enemies threaten us, as the world changes, how do we best preserve all of that?

My first job out of law school was as a clerk to Judge James B. McMillan, in the Western District of North Carolina. I learned a lot from the judge, including: "never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity"; and "your job as my clerk is to keep me from making unintended errors"; and, "the government has no rights, only responsibilities." While I didn't always agree with the judge, I have always carried his lesson that the awesome powers of the government exist only to fulfill its responsibilities to the people.

Throughout my time as General Counsel of the Department, I've seen the Department's actions not so much as an exercise of lawful executive power or government rights, but as an appropriate discharge of a difficult executive responsibility. The Constitution confers upon the President the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that the American people are safe and secure, especially in wartime, and the Constitution gives the President the power to fulfill that responsibility. Exercising this power is discharging the most basic of all presidential duties.

Of course, the other branches have Constitutional duties as well. And we've seen the dialogue between the Congress, the Courts, and the President on these national security issues. This dialogue is how our constitution is supposed to work.

Without presuming to speak for anyone other than myself, allow me to speculate a bit in closing.

I think history will be kinder to the decisions this administration has made than current accounts might indicate. This country has not--and I knock on wood as I say this--suffered another devastating domestic attack from al Qaeda since 9/11. And most of the stories told thus far have been by outside critics, people who do not know the whole story.

I'm reminded of the late '40s and early '50s. It took those years and new leadership from another party before the country as a whole adopted the containment strategy that ultimately--40 years later--toppled the Soviet Union.

I believe our challenge as citizens now is to find ways to deal with this deadly and likely enduring threat that we can agree to sustain over time and across party lines. Ways that protect the ability of our country to win wars, to protect our systems, and to abide by the law.

How do we manage to live in a long period under threat, when we're fighting people somewhere in between criminals and combatants? When we're in a state somewhere in between war and peace, what will be the balance between security and liberty?

Justice Jackson, speaking in 1951 at the beginning of the Cold War, offered his thoughts on "wartime security and liberty under law." After discussing our Constitutional history, including the arguments between President Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney, Justice Jackson concluded with the following:

The problem of liberty and authority ahead are slight in comparison with those of the 1770s or 1860s. We shall blunder and dispute, and decide and overrule decisions. And the common sense of the American people will preserve us from all extremes which would destroy our heritage.

At first, this seems almost clichéd. "Common sense"? Surely the great expositor of the Steel Seizure case had something more satisfying? But I think what Justice Jackson meant was this. The logic of liberty and the logic of security, if blindly followed, each leads to impractical regimes. Carried to its extreme, the logic of liberty is a suicide pact. Patrick Henry's famous cry. Carried to its extreme, the logic of security is a government which can bend every law with a claim of urgent necessity. A government by fiat, not law.

Between these two extremes, we must chart a middle course. Since ideology and dogmatic logic lead us to crash at either end, then I suppose we must rely on common sense to point the way. As I leave government, as you all take up these challenges, may it guide you as well.

The Honorable William J. Haynes II served as General Counsel of the Department of Defense from May 2001 until February 2008. This speech was delivered as the Lewis Powell Lecture to the American College of Trial Lawyers in Tucson, Arizona, on March 8, 2008.

Boxer, the U.S. Senator, Chides Brigadier General for Calling Her 'Ma'am'

Fox News

In case you forgot, Barbara Boxer is a senator.

The feisty California lawmaker felt the need to remind an Army brigadier general of that fact Tuesday during a hearing before her Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, where the military officer testifying had the apparent gall to call Boxer "ma'am."

Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was testifying on the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He began to answer one of Boxer's questions with "ma'am" when Boxer immediately cut him off.

"You know, do me a favor," an irritated Boxer said. "Could say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?'"

"Yes, ma'am," Walsh interjected.

"It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you," she said.

"Yes, senator," he responded.

However, Walsh surely meant no disrespect, as military protocol advises that officers may use "sir" or "ma'am" when addressing anybody higher than them on the chain of command.

"We would call them 'sir' or 'ma'am' or 'senator such-and-such'," Army spokesman Lt. Col. Nathan Banks said. Banks said any of those terms would be "appropriate" when addressing a senator.

According to one guide, the Navy and Coast Guard typically use "mister" or "miss" to address officers below the rank of commander, and "sir" or "ma'am," or a specific title, to address anyone at that rank or higher.

"You can never go wrong by using 'Sir' or 'Ma'am,' but it is a nice touch if you can properly address a senior officer," says the guide, Military Protocol: Uniformed Services.

Tuesday's hearing was hardly the first time a military officer used those terms during sworn testimony.

The same day at a Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearing, two Navy officials repeatedly referred to Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., with the title, "sir."

"Yes, sir," Navy Vice Adm. Bernard McCullough said when answering questions.

Wicker raised no objections.

Robocop's Comment:

This is why I am not a General:


"You know, do me a favor," an irritated Boxer said. "Could say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?'"

"Ok BITCH, and you can call me "Daddy" Robocop interjected.

Safeguarding the military vote

CORNYN & BEGICH

In recent elections, American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have encountered substantial roadblocks in the voting process. This has been especially true of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. To address this national embarrassment, we have introduced a bipartisan bill, the Military Voting Protection Act.

Our military service members put their lives on the line to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans. In return, it is our responsibility to support them in every way we can. The nature of the global war on terror and the high tempo of U.S. military operations - including our surge in Afghanistan - will require overseas service by our troops for the foreseeable future. It is imperative that American service members abroad be able to participate in our democratic process even as they fight to defend our democracy.

Yet the country they defend has repeatedly denied our troops one of our most sacred rights - the right to vote. During the 2006 election cycle, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, less than half of the military voters who requested absentee ballots successfully cast them. According to a 2006 report, just 59 percent of surveyed service members even knew where to obtain voting information on their installations, and just 40 percent had received assistance from their designated voting assistance officer. A recent survey of seven states with high military populations shows that the problems continued in 2008, as more than a quarter of the ballots requested by uniformed and overseas voters went uncollected or uncounted.

Our troops report many procedural hurdles when trying to participate in federal, state and local elections. Most states have inadequate processes and unreasonable timelines for transmitting blank absentee ballots to our troops, and the methods available to these service members for returning completed ballots to local election officials are slow and antiquated. Moreover, there are myriad absentee voting rules and regulations that are extremely confusing and vary widely with each state.

The process clearly is broken, and there is no excuse for not stepping up to challenge the status quo and streamline the process. We ask so much of our troops, and in return, we have given them a voting system that is perplexing, frustrating, slow and often dysfunctional. They deserve better.

The bill we introduced can help address one of largest of these procedural hurdles. The Military Voting Protection Act would give our troops a louder and clearer voice at the polls by ensuring that their completed absentee ballots are delivered back home in time to be counted and do not get lost on the way. Our bill would reduce delays in the absentee voting process by requiring the Defense Department to take a more active role in the process. The bill would require the department to be responsible for collecting completed ballots from overseas troops and then express-shipping them back to the United States in time to be counted, enabling troops to track their ballots while the ballots are in transit and confirm their delivery at local election offices.

We should pass this bipartisan bill quickly so elections officials have time to prepare for the 2010 election cycle. Meaningful reform will not come overnight, but now is the time to take up the cause of military voters. There are 18 months until the next election, which is enough time to implement significant improvements. If we fail, disenfranchisement of many more military voters could result next year.

This bill can be an important step toward solving the numerous and complex problems with our current military voting system. The Americans who answer the call to serve are national treasures, and we honor their selfless sacrifice and commitment to the defense of freedom. In the eighth year of the global war on terror, they continue to voluntarily raise their right hands to defend our nation and our freedom - which often requires immeasurable personal sacrifice by them and their loved ones.

Members of our newest "greatest generation" deserve nothing less than the same constitutional rights and individual liberties that they safeguard for their fellow citizens back home.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, is a member of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the constitution. Sen. Mark Begich, Alaska Democrat, is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Tax as you go

Washington Times

President Obama said on Tuesday that "Entitlement increases and tax cuts need to be paid for. They're not free." To look like he's getting tough on the deficit, he's promoting the "pay as you go" rule, which provides a justification for raising taxes. Mr. Obama shouldn't go there.

The proposal would require lawmakers to make up for new spending programs and tax cuts by cutting other programs or raising other taxes. The rule wouldn't be retroactive, so it would not pay for the extravagant spending programs Mr. Obama already has introduced, such as the $787 billion stimulus bill he signed in February. The mandate wouldn't apply to the $2.5 trillion worth of new spending priorities that the Obama administration plans to enact in the future. Steps toward nationalized health care would be exempt.

Mr. Obama has been pretending to be a deficit hawk since his presidential campaign last year. On the hustings, he continually blamed last fall's financial crisis on the deficit, which he promised to cut by shrinking government spending. During the presidential debates, he complained of an "orgy of spending and enormous deficits" and promised to correct the costly spending cycle.

His rhetoric didn't change after he moved into the Oval Office. Mr. Obama told C-SPAN on May 23 that "we are out of money now," and said at a May 14 town meeting in New Mexico that our deficit spending is "unsustainable." But the president continues to spend at record levels.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will surge over the next 10 years from $6 trillion to $15 trillion. In 2019, debt will exceed 80 percent of the gross domestic product. For comparison, in the 2007 budget, the last fiscal year that Republicans controlled Congress and the presidency, the annual deficit was $162 billion. In 2006, it was $248 billion - and Republicans were hardly frugal. CBO's estimated deficit for this year is $1.8 trillion, but that figure does not account for the soaring unemployment rate that took off after the calculation was made.

On April 14, Mr. Obama boasted: "Already we've identified $2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade." The claim was too much for the liberal New York Times, which reported, "Three-quarters of those 'reductions' reflect assumptions that the nation would have had as many troops in Iraq in 10 years as it does now, even though President George W. Bush signed an agreement with Baghdad before leaving office that will result in the withdrawal of all American forces within three years." Administration spokesmen continue to repeat this misleading figure even though the supposed savings resulted from Mr. Bush's action, not Mr. Obama's.

"Pay as you go" rules provide politicians with a ready excuse to raise taxes. If deficits are projected, they can point to the rule and say the law requires them to compensate for the revenue shortfall. Spending cuts are a better way to fill budget gaps, but it's never easy to pry nickels and dimes from profligate politicians, let alone billions. Mr. Obama's "pay as you go" proposal opens the door to massive new taxation to pay for out-of-control government spending - and it does nothing to address his growing deficits.

Robocop's Comment:

This comming from the "man" who made the Federal Deficit such a hot topic.

F-22 Raptor Program Cancellation: Will we learn from it?

Defense Review

By David Crane
defrev (at) gmail (dot) com

May 29, 2009

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision to halt production of the costly Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor low-observable/stealth fighter aircraft is perhaps not the best long-term strategic decision he could have made, it’s certainly understandable. Given the U.S. government’s–and thus DoD’s–current money crunch vs. the program’s high cost and lack of current combat-utility in Iraq and “Stan” (Afghanistan), cutting the Raptor program’s reported $3.5 billion per year cost certainly has some logic to it. Some programs simply have to go, and we might as well start with the expensive ones that don’t have any seeming immediate tactical or strategic utility for the two wars we’re currently fighting, right? Let’s face it, air superiority is not exactly an issue right now in either theater. We’ve got the air, and we don’t need F-22s to maintain it.

So, what’s wrong with cancelling the Raptor? Well, for one thing, we finally got the production cost down to approximately $143 million per aircraft. If they cancel the F-22 program at 187 total aircraft–56 aircraft short of the 243 aircraft the U.S. Air Force had stated as its requirement–the F-22 Raptor will really come in somewhere around $350 million apiece, with the last four aircraft coming off the line at an estimated cost of approx. $200 million per, due to the $147 million “end-of-production expenses” that will be rolled into their procurement price. Understand that the Air Force originally wanted 750 aircraft, but they wittled that number down to 442 aircraft, then 381, then 243, and then 183, before bring that number back up to 187.

This leads us to the second reason why F-22 Raptor program cancellation is a bad idea. Strategically, 187 F-22 Raptors simply isn’t an adequate number for a future war against China and/or Russia, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also made by Lockheed Martin, simply doesn’t have the Raptor’s air-to-air combat capability, so it can’t fulfill the same air-superiority role against the latest Russian fighters, let alone their Gen-5 fighters that are currently either under development or on the drawing board–and Russia likes to export their fighters. DefenseReview would therefore feel much more comfortable with a quiver of at least 1,000 Raptors for a war against the Dragon or the Bear. Both countries are currently developing low-observable, supermaneuvarable 5th Generation fighter aircraft, and Russia’s latest 4th-Gen. Sukhoi and MiG aircraft are arguably superior to our latest F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft in a number of aspects.

But, having stated the above, do we have any sympathy for the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, or Boeing? No, and here’s why. First, it’s they’re own fault. They brought this situation on themselves. The fact is that the F-22 Raptor took WAY too long and cost WAY too much money to develop, period, end of story. There is simply no reasonable explanation for it to have taken almost 16 years for the F-22 to have entered service from the time of contractor selection. Actually, it really took about 19.5 years if you start the clock from the Air Force’s request for proposal (RFP) in July of 1986, which resulted in the YF-22 and YF-23, and over 24 years if you start the count from the inception of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program in 1981.

There is simply no justifiable reason why ANY new tactical fighter aircraft, or any new combat aircraft of any kind, for that matter, should take longer than 5 years to develop from initial concept to combat (production and procurement). And it definitely shouldn’t take longer than 5 years for any aircraft system to go into production from the time the Air Force selects a contractor. Don’t agree? Well, here’s our retort, consisting of four examples:

1) The North American Aviation (NAA) P-51 Mustang, the most advanced piston-engined fighter aircraft of World War II (WWII) was developed in approx. 120 days. That’s 4 months, folks. Wikipedia provides more specifics: “The prototype NA-73X was rolled out just 117 days after the order was placed, and first flew on 26 October 1940, just 178 days after the order had been placed — an incredibly short gestation period.”

2) The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe (Swallow), the world’s first operational jet fighter aircraft and the most advanced fighter aircraft of WWII went operational within 5 years from the start of development. This was a truly revolutionary aircraft for its time, and was arguably more revolutionary than the F-22 relative to contemporary aircraft of both models.

3) The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird was brought from concept to production by Lockheed Skunk Works as a black project within 5 years. The SR-71 and its precurser aircraft (the A-12 and YF-12A) were truly revolutionary aircraft in a number of ways (design aspects, speed, capability, materials, manufacturing requirements, maintenance requirements, etc.), every bit as revolutionary as the F-22 Raptor, if not more so, relative to their contemperary aircraft.

4) The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15 Eagle, our most advanced and capable 4th-Gen. fighter aircraft (and a very large leap ahead of the F-4 Phantom), went into production within 5 years of contractor selection.

So, what happened with the ATF and subsequent F-22 Raptor programs in the 1980’s, 1990’s, and 2000’s? In a word, racketeering. In another word, corporatism. Here’s one more: corruption, corruption of the U.S. military procurement system. Somewhere along the line, someone (or a number of people) somewhere in the U.S. military industrial complex discovered that they could accomplish a number of objectives by dragging system (including aircraft) development time out over many more years, instead of developing and fielding a finished product as quickly as possible. The private sector/contractors figured out that they could make a lot more money, squeezing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars from the Department of Defense (DoD) before ever going into production. After all the development money, the actual production contract was just a bonus, the icing on the cake, if you will. And, the public sector/military folks realized that they could safeguard or prolong careers and create a more advantageous public-sector-exit/private-sector-entry strategy for themselves. Synergy. Of course, you can apply this to pretty much all areas of current U.S. military procurement.

And so went the F-22 Raptor, which has cost the U.S. government approx. $11 billion–that’s “billion” with a “b”–for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) alone, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). That’s before you even get into production! According to GlobalSecurity.org, “as of 2002, DOD had [already] spent $26 billion of the $69 billion planned for the F-22 program.” $69 billion…for an aircraft program.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is the F-22 program’s suppression of evolutionary 4th-Gen. figher aircraft design concepts. The F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE) is a perfect example. What, you think Boeing just came up with Silent Eagle in the last few months? Anyone reading this who doesn’t think that significant capability and performance upgrades haven’t been available for the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, and F/A-18 Hornet–including low-observability/stealth upgrades, thrust vectoring, canards, and upgraded flight software and systems, (for supermaneuverability), conformal fuel tanks (CFT), integrated flight and fire control (IFF) and ramjet missiles with tail control, just to name a few–for the last 20-25 years while the F-22 Raptor has been ravenously and rapaciously eating taxpayer dollars, well, let’s just say I’ve got some swamp land in Florida I’d like to sell you. All of a sudden, just as the Raptor is getting cancelled, here it is (Silent Eagle)! As the Church Lady might say, “Well…isn’t that convenient!”

Of course, the F-15 Silent Eagle is only the latest in succession of F-15 and F-16 upgrade/improvement/modernization concepts. It’s been preceded by the F-15 ACTIVE (Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles), F-15 S/MTD (Short Takeoff and Landing/Maneuver Technology Demonstrator) a.k.a. STOL Eagle, and the AFTI F-16, just to name a few. “AFTI” stands for “Advanced Fighter Technology Integration”, by the way.

Note: DefenseReview has been informed by an aerospace insider that an even lower-observable/stealthier F-15 than the Silent Eagle was flown across the continental United States without detection by radar during the 1980’s, and that it’s possible to make an F-15 just as low-observable/stealthy as an F-22. Since we only have one source and no confirmation or documentation on this ’80’s-era low-observable F-15, we have to consider it as an unconfirmed/unverified report for now, no matter how trustworthy our source is (but this source is very trustworthy). If anyone out there has any more information on this unconfirmed low-observable F-15 project, we’d love to hear from you on it.

The bottom line is that we could have had F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s with low-observable design upgrades, thrust vectoring, canards, conformal fuel tanks, IFF, better missiles etc. a long time ago had these types of upgrades to our 4th-Gen fighter aircraft not been considered a threat to our 5th-Gen fighter program (F-22 Raptor) and therefore suppressed. In other words, F-22 Raptor program survival trumped viable upgrades that would have brought our 4th-Gen. aircraft into flight-capability parity with the latest Russian Sukhoi and Mikoyan fighter aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI Flanker-H and Su-35 Flanker-E, and Mikoyan MiG-29OVT, and MiG-35 Fulcrum-F.

So, while Defense Review likes the F-22 and thinks we should build more of them (again, at least 1,000) to be help to ensure U.S. air dominance even if China and/or Russia become a serious military threat or enemy in the future, we’re not going to cry about it, since the Air Force and contractors (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) could have developed the F-22 much more quickly and at significantly lower cost. If they had done it the right way, we could have had operational Raptors by the 1996-1997 time frame and had the full compliment of 750 aircraft–or possibly even DefenseReview’s desired 1,000. Let this be a lesson to the United States Air Force. Do it right, do it better, next time.

Think about it. If another country can develop a next-gen fighter in 5 years, but it takes us 15-25 years to develop one, that puts us at an obvious and very significant deveopment-cycle and cost disadvantage, and potentially a strategic warfighting disadvantage, as well, since the technology might be obsoleted by other countries’ tech by the time development is done. So, U.S. Air Force, give us an operational next-gen aircraft (fighter, CAS, tanker, transport, whatever) within five years. That’s 5 years from concept to combat. We need to be able to do that, and we can do that. After all, we’re still the United States of America, at least for the time being.

Tennessee Legislature Overrides Governor's Veto of HB 962

NRAILA

Fairfax, Va. – In a strong reaffirmation of the self-defense rights of Tennesseans, the Tennessee House and Senate have successfully overridden Governor Phil Bredesen’s veto of House Bill 962. This NRA-supported bill will enable law-abiding right-to-carry permit holders to carry firearms for self-defense in restaurants. HB 962 passed both the House and Senate with broad bipartisan support, but Gov. Bredesen vetoed the bill on May 28, disappointing more than 200,000 right-to-carry permit holders in his state. While an override of the veto only needed a simple majority vote to pass, it cleared both chambers with overwhelming, bi-partisan support. Passage of the measure will allow law-abiding Tennesseans to protect themselves and their families. This measure was overridden today in the Senate by a margin of 21-9.

“Until today, Tennessee law has prevented right-to-carry permit holders from having the chance to defend themselves from criminal attack while in a restaurant,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "This veto override proves Tennessee legislators trust permit holders and understand this is a common sense measure that must become law in their state, just as it is already law in 35 other states. HB 962 will allow permit holders the opportunity to protect their own lives and the lives of those they love.”

HB 962 is crucial because crime does happen in restaurants. On April 2, 2009, Benjamin Felix Goeser was gunned down at Jonny's Sports Bar on Nolensville Road in Nashville. His wife, Nicole Goeser, has a right-to-carry permit, but she had to keep her gun locked in the car because of Tennessee law. Mrs. Goeser actively lobbied for the passage of this measure.

According to the Tennessee Legislature’s legal staff, this common sense law will go into effect July 14, per Tennessee state law.

“Bill sponsors State Senator Doug Jackson (D-25) and State Representative Curry Todd (R-95), Tennessee leaders Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey (R-02) and Speaker Kent Williams (R-04), as well as many other members of the Tennessee Legislature, should be applauded for their steadfast efforts to pass this important bill that will give good, law-abiding Tennesseans the chance to defend themselves and their loved ones while dining out,” concluded Cox. “A special thank you to Nikki Goeser who actively worked on the passage of this legislation in memory of her late husband.”

Featured Douche 06.13.09

The Winner: The Homeowners Association (HOA) for The Woodlands II on The Creek

The Story:

DALLAS - Frank Larison is a disabled veteran with more than 14 years of service, including more than a year of combat duty in Vietnam.

The 58-year-old former Marine now finds himself under attack by his Dallas homeowners association for displaying seven decals on his vehicle supporting the Marine Corps.

"To me, it's being patriotic, and it shows that I served," the veteran told FOX 4.

The board says the decals are advertisements that violate HOA rules, and must be covered or removed.

Otherwise, the homeowners association for The Woodlands II on The Creek --- where Larimore has lived for eight years --- says in a letter it will tow the car at Larimore's expense. The board also threatens to fine him $50 for any future incident.

Larimore says the decals, ranging from the Marine emblem to Semper Fi slogans, aren't advertisements for anything. "You can't buy freedom," he reasoned.


Some neighbors are outraged.

"That is his identity," said neighbor Mary Castagna. "He goes to a lot of the veteran meetings, and it means a lot to him. Everyone else agrees with it; it doesn't bother anybody."

"He's in the Marines, and he's proud of it, and I don't blame him," said neighbor Paul Hardy. "If I'd gone through what he's gone through, I'd be kind of proud of it myself."

The letter from the board states you can't have any form of advertisement anywhere on your car on your property. FOX 4 cameras spotted bumper stickers for political parties, health causes, and other non-commercial interests on the property as well.

One board member said he was unaware the HOA presidents sent the letter and did not know of any issue with Larimore's vehicle.

"I will be looking into it," said board member Art Bradford. "I didn't know anything about this. I haven't seen this."

The board president was out of town and unavailable. The condo management company did not want to comment.

Robocop's Comment:

More proof that HOA's are out of control and un-American.

Speak Softly and Carry a Big Teleprompter

By Mark Steyn.

What does a nuclear madman have to do to get America’s attention? On Memorial Day, the North Koreans detonated “an underground atomic device many times more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” as my old colleagues at the Irish Times put it. You’d think that’d rate something higher than “World News In Brief,” see foot of page 37. But instead Washington was consumed by the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who apparently has a “compelling personal story.”

Doesn’t Kim Jong Il have a compelling personal story? Like Sonia, he grew up in a poor neighborhood (North Korea), yet he’s managed to become a nuclear power, shattering the glass ceiling to take his seat at the old nuclear boys’ club. Isn’t that an inspiring narrative? Once upon a time you had to be a great power, one of the Big Five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, to sit at the nuclear table: America, Britain, France, Russia, China, the old sons of power and privilege. But now the mentally unstable scion of an impoverished no-account backwater with a GDP lower than that of Zimbabwe has joined their ranks: Celebrate diversity!

Evidently, some compelling personal stories are more compelling than others. In the Washington Post, Stephen Stromberg argued that Kim’s decision to drop the Big One on a three-day weekend was evidence of his appalling news judgment. Other blasé observers shrug that it’s now an American holiday tradition. It began when Pyongyang staged the first of its holiday provocations on Fourth of July 2006, and, amidst all the other fireworks displays, America barely noticed. No doubt there’ll be another Hiroshima on Labor Day or Thanksgiving. Geez, doesn’t the hick in the presidential palace get it? There’s no point launching nukes when everyone’s barbecuing chicken or watching football.

Well, you never know: Maybe we’re the ones being parochial. If you’re American, it’s natural to assume that the North Korean problem is about North Korea, just like the Iraq War is about Iraq. But they’re not. If you’re starving to death in Pyongyang, North Korea is about North Korea. For everyone else, North Korea and Iraq, and Afghanistan and Iran, are about America: American will, American purpose, American credibility. The rest of the world doesn’t observe Memorial Day. But it understands the crude symbolism of a rogue nuclear test staged on the day to honor American war dead and greeted with only half-hearted pro forma diplomatese from Washington. Pyongyang’s actions were “a matter of . . . ” Drumroll, please! “ . . . grave concern,” declared the president. Furthermore, if North Korea carries on like this, it will — wait for it — “not find international acceptance.” As the comedian Andy Borowitz put it, “President Obama said that the United States was prepared to respond to the threat with ‘the strongest possible adjectives . . . ’ Later in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test ‘supercilious and jejune.’ ”

The president’s general line on the geopolitical big picture is: I don’t need this in my life right now. He’s a domestic transformationalist, working overtime — via the banks, the automobile industry, health care, etc. — to advance statism’s death grip on American dynamism. His principal interest in the rest of the world is that he doesn’t want anyone nuking America before he’s finished turning it into a socialist basket-case. This isn’t simply a matter of priorities. A United States government currently borrowing 50 cents for every dollar it spends cannot afford its global role, and thus the Obama cuts to missile defense and other programs have a kind of logic: You can’t be Scandinavia writ large with a U.S.-sized military.

Out there in the chancelleries and presidential palaces, they’re beginning to get the message. The regime in Pyongyang is not merely trying to “provoke” America but demonstrating to potential clients that you can do so with impunity. A black-market economy reliant on exports of heroin, sex slaves, and knock-off Viagra is attempting to supersize its business model and turn itself into a nuclear Wal-Mart. Among the distinguished guests present for North Korea’s October 2006 test were representatives of the Iranian government. President Bush was much mocked for yoking the two nations together in his now all but forgotten “axis of evil” speech, but the Swiss newspaper Neue Zuercher Zeitung reported a few weeks ago that the North Korean–built (and Israeli-bombed) plutonium production facility in Syria was paid for by Tehran. How many other Iranian clients are getting nuclear subsidies? It would be interesting to learn who was on the observation deck for the Memorial Day Hiroshima reenactment, but North Korea is one of the most closed societies on the face of the earth, certainly when compared with the more closely scrutinized corners of the Middle East. In other words, it’s the perfect partner for any state that wants to pursue certain projects under the Western radar screen.

It is remarkable in just five years how the world has adjusted to the inevitability of a nuclear North Korea and a nuclear Iran. Nudge it on another half-decade: Whose nuclear ambitions will be unstoppable by 2015? Syria’s? Sudan’s? Selected fiefdoms in Somalia?

Barack Obama came to power pledging to talk to America’s enemies anywhere anytime. Alas for America’s speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-teleprompter diplomacy, there are no takers for his photo-ops. In the ever more pitiful straw-clutching of the State Department, America is said to be banking on a post-Kim era. He’s apparently had a bad stroke, and might be dead within a decade or three. So what? It’s a safe bet that whoever emerges from a power struggle between the family, the party, and the military is committed to nuclearization as the principal rationale of the state. Likewise in Iran’s imminent election, both “extremists” and “moderates” are pro-nuke. You want an Iranian moderate? Here’s Hashemi Rafsanjani, the moderate guy who lost to that crazy Ahmadinejad last time round: He called Israel “the most hideous occurrence in history” which the Muslim world “will vomit out from its midst” with “a single atomic bomb.” Nuking the Zionist Entity is as bipartisan as motherhood and apple pie.

More to the point, the feeble bleatings from the State Department that there may be internal change down the road emphasize the central feature of the present scene: the absence of meaningful American power. While America laughed at North Korea, Iran used it as a stalking horse, a useful guide as to the parameters of belligerence and quiescence a nuclearizing rogue state could operate within. In what Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post calls “the post-American world,” other nations will follow that model. We are building a world in which the wealthiest nations on the planet, from Norway to New Zealand, are all but defenseless, while bankrupt dysfunctional squats go nuclear. Even with inevitable and generous submissions to nuclear blackmail, how long do you think that arrangement will last? In the formulation of Janet Napolitano, we are on the brink of “man-caused disaster.”

NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

NRAILA

Fairfax, Va. – Today, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.

“The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year's landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans'. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The Seventh Circuit claimed it was bound by precedent from previous decisions. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

“It is wrong that the residents of Chicago and Oak Park continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” Cox concluded. “It’s time for the fundamental right of self-defense to be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country.”

Robocop's Comment:

Can those judicial activists say Heller vs. District Of Columbia? What a bunch of dumbasses.

"Illegal religious gatherings"

From The Washington Times.

Religious freedom recently clashed with arrogant bureaucracy in San Diego County, Calif. Religious freedom prevailed.

For five years, the Rev. David Jones and his wife Mary have held Bible studies at their home in Bonita, Calif. With the impeccable timing of a soulless bureaucrat, on Good Friday morning, a San Diego County Code Enforcement officer appeared at the Jones residence, taking photographs and subjecting Mrs. Jones to a sharp interrogation. Did they sing at their meetings? Did they say amen and "praise the Lord?" After Mary responded in the affirmative, the officer declared that these were illegal religious gatherings which must stop immediately.

On April 14, the Joneses received a citation warning them to "cease/stop religious assembly on parcel or obtain a major use permit." Obtaining the permit could cost tens of thousands of dollars, and failure to do so would result in fines starting at $100 and escalating to $1,000. After that, the county official reportedly had warned, "it will get ugly."

But the situation was already ugly. The First Amendment prohibits government from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or the right of people peaceably to assemble. Common sense argues that a weekly Bible study group that attracts an average of 15 people would be protected from any form of state intrusion.

The Joneses had no intention of ceasing their Bible studies. Attorney Dean Broyles of the Western Center for Law & Policy, who represented the couple, told us he advised them that they should "obey God, not man." The county dug in on its position until local news organizations picked up the story and a barrage of criticism erupted, at which point the county wisely chose to back down.

County Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard released a statement saying "no one would find the infringement of such rights more abhorrent." Officials now contend that the issue was really about parking, which Mr. Broyles said is "completely absurd" since the matter was never raised in the weeks during the dispute.

Similar cases have occurred in Connecticut and Florida, threatening the survival of prayer groups and other private religious gatherings. But as this case shows, out-of-control administrators will fold when their schemes are exposed. This is a useful illustration of the power of the press and common sense in defending religious rights. In many government agencies, a refresher course on civil liberties is in order.