About Me

Name: Defend America
Email: guy.ratki@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Holder "Forgot" Some More Briefs

More Holder briefs acknowledged



By KASIE HUNT | 3/12/10 4:02 PM EST

Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t tell the Senate Judiciary Committee about seven Supreme Court amicus briefs he prepared or supported, his office acknowledged in a letter Friday, including two urging the court to reject the Bush administration’s attempt to try Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant.

“It has come to our attention that some but not all briefs submitted to the Supreme Court by or on behalf of Attorney General Holder as counselor amicus were supplied to the Committee in the course of his confirmation process last year. We regret the omission,” Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy.

Weich supplied a list of seven briefs that White House lawyers missed when they prepared Holder’s confirmation questionnaire, in the cases Padilla v. Hanft, Johnson v. Bush, Miller-El v. Dretke, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Dretke v. Haley, Missouri v. Seibert and McDonald v. United States. Holder was party to the amicus brief in all of the cases except McDonald v. United States, in which he was the lawyer who prepared the brief.

Holder’s questionnaire listed three: D.C. v. Heller, Miller-El v. Cockrell and a different brief in Johnson v. Bush.

The Justice Department was forced to dig up the briefs after former Bush administration officials Bill Burck and Dana Perino pointed out the two Padilla briefs in an article in the National Review Online.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34346.html



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Yeah about that Pledge, Never Mind

Posted: March 12th, 2010 05:22 PM ET

From

Washington (CNN) – House Democrats appear to be softening their pledge to allow the public 72 hours to review the health care reform package online before a House vote. "We will certainly give as much notice as possible, but I'm not going to say that 72 hours is going to be the litmus test," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Friday.

"The House bill or Senate bill, as proposed, has been online for some two-and-a-half months, otherwise known about 75 days," Hoyer added, referring to the November and December dates each chamber passed its version of health care legislation.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/12/democrats-soften-pledge-for-three-day-posting-of-health-bill/?fbid=6IoXIXqiSxB
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SEIU Issues Threat to Democrats

SEIU Warns Dems: If You Don’t Back Reform, We Won’t Back You

Hardball time.

In what seems intended as a shot across the bow of House Dems wavering on health reform, top officials with the labor powerhouse SEIU have bluntly told a Democratic member that they will pull their support for him — and will likely field a challenger against him — if he votes No on the Senate bill.

Dem Rep Mike McMahon of New York met yesterday with a top SEIU official and told him he’s likely to vote No, the official tells me. The official: Mike Fishman, president of SEIU 32bj, the largest property workers union in the country, with 120,000 members in eight states.

Fishman told McMahon that the union would not support him if he voted No — and suggested the hunt for a primary or third-party challenger would follow.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/labor/big-union-warns-dems-if-you-dont-back-reform-we-wont-back-you/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Justices and Politicians Should Boycott the State of the Union'

Justices and politicians should boycott the State of the Union

Friday, March 12, 2010

The increasingly puerile spectacle of presidential State of the Union addresses is indicative of the state of the union and is unnecessary: The Constitution requires only that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union." But a reaction may be brewing against these embarrassing events. Speaking in Alabama, Chief Justice John Roberts said "to the extent that" this occasion "has degenerated into a political pep rally," he is "not sure why we're there." He was referring to Supreme Court justices. But why is anyone there?

Roberts was responding to a question concerning the kerfuffle about Barack Obama's January address, wherein Obama criticized -- and flagrantly mischaracterized -- a recent Supreme Court decision that loosened limits on political speech. The decision neither overturned "a century of law" nor conferred an entitlement on foreign corporations to finance U.S. candidates. Nevertheless, the Democratic donkeys arrayed in front of Obama leapt onto their hind legs and brayed in unison, while the six justices who were present sat silently. Justice Samuel Alito, in an act of lèse majesté, appeared to mutter "not true" about Obama's untruths.

When Republican presidents deliver these addresses, Republican legislators, too, lurch up and down like puppets on strings. And Congress wonders why it is considered infantile.

Most of the blame for the State of the Union silliness, as for so much else, goes to The Root of Much Mischief, a.k.a. Woodrow Wilson. But a president whose middle name was Wilson made matters worse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102276.html



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'The Death of the Iran Won Myth'

The Death of the ‘Iran Won’ Myth
In the Left’s eyes, Iran was the greatest beneficiary of the Iraq War. Let’s look at the reality.

Did the fall of Saddam Hussein and the violent birth of Iraqi democracy really empower Iran?

That conventional wisdom might have been true in the shorter term during the chaotic Iraqi insurrection, but it was never an accurate assessment over the longer haul — as we are beginning to see, nearly seven years after the Iraq War began.
In the last twelve months, mass civil disobedience has spread throughout Iran, most notably when nearly a million people hit the streets to protest last summer’s rigged elections. There is unrest in Iraq as well, and a myriad of conflicting interests, but note that the tension is of a completely opposite sort. Whereas in Iran an unpopular government uses violence to squelch a majority that seeks free elections, in Iraq a legitimately elected government enjoys public support against occasional attacks from small cadres of terrorist extremists. So in an Iran supposedly at peace, more died voting than in an Iraq purportedly at war.

The use of Saddam Hussein as a proper balance to
Iran was always an atrocious idea — and it is bizarre to hear critics of the war cite post facto his obscene government as a once-necessary check on the Iranian theocracy. Given Saddam’s genocidal policies, and America’s war against him in 1990–91, there was no way that the United States should ever again have used his dictatorship to thwart Iran’s. And while the present democratic government of Iraq is dominated by Shiites — logically, given demographic realities — it is not true that they are all pro-Iranian Muslims who have forfeited their Iraqi identities. In time, a stable democratic Iraq may be one of the very few mechanisms by which Iranian regional influence can be checked.

That is why
Iran for the last five years has done its best to destroy Iraqi democracy, by supplying money and weapons to cross-border terrorists. Yet Iraq has survived, and it is now slowly proving subversive to Iran, albeit in quite a different manner — by reminding Iran’s uneasy Shiite population that free elections are not incompatible with their religion, as they can now readily see from the free, uncensored media across the border. The percentage of Iraqis who turned out for this round of voting was greater than the percentage of Americans who turned out for our landmark election of 2008.

http://article.nationalreview.com/427456/the-death-of-the-iran-won-myth/victor-davis-hanson
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Why Health Reform is Bad Politics'

Why Health Reform Is Bad Politics

Contrary to all the theories, Democrats will not benefit from ObamaCare.


Another week, another episode of health-care drama, another round of headlines proving the end is not yet nigh. The polls are dismal, the Democratic caucus is in disarray, it is spring of 2010. Yet the ObamaCare dozer grinds on, and on, and on.

What has been driving the machine these past few painful months is the fantastical (at this point) Democratic belief that somewhere at the end of "comprehensive" health care rests good politics. The left in particular is pushing these Democrats-must-pass-health-care-for-their-own-political-good arguments, and clearly some of President Obama's advisers buy it. In the interest of sanity, let's go through the theories.

The most popular might be termed the "If We Build It, They Will Come" hypothesis. The White House loves this one, and has been peddling it to any Blue Dog it can coax to the Oval Office. Americans just don't understand the health bill. Democrats haven't done a good job selling it. Once it is in place, the polls will improve.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575116062353991490.html?mod=rss_opinion_main


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Hop Aboard the Nanny Train'

Hop Aboard the Nanny Train

Metro's inherent liberalism.

BY Ike Brannon

March 12, 2010 12:00 AM

Washington, D.C.'s Metro remains a great manifestation of liberalism today. Although it was created at the zenith of the Great Society, and although its union workforce gains overly generous pensions and maintains ridiculous job security, it is Metro's management of its passengers—its attempt to save passengers from their own idiocy—that earns it this title.  

Metro riders receive all kinds of helpful announcements: They’re told to cover their mouths while they cough, pick up their newspapers when they’re done reading them, not to leave their cellphones behind, wash their hands regularly, not to sit on the escalator stairs or stand too close to the edge of the platform, that inclement weather can make floors slippery, and to stand clear of the closing train doors. Repeatedly.

Despite the best efforts of the sybarites at the Cato Institute we have largely become a non-smoking society. In Washington, D.C., smoking hasn’t been allowed in public places since 2006. So people know not to smoke indoors in Washington, D.C.

However, one entity still feels obliged to provide constant reminders that smoking is not allowed on its premises—the Washington Metro. Despite the fact that smoking has never been permitted in the Metro, and I have never witnessed (or heard of) anyone doing in a Metro train, during any given commute riders can expect to hear at least one announcement reminding them that smoking is prohibited on Metro.

Metro also feels obliged to give a welcome to new riders—every five minutes or so, by my estimation—and to provide them a quick tutorial (train doors do not function like elevator doors, stand to the right on escalators). To make sure all new riders understand these tips, they even run a few variations of the announcement.

Metro also thanks its riders—a lot—and also asks them to keep an eye out for unattended packages and to report anything unusual either to a station attendant or to Metro police, whose ten-digit phone number Metro helpfully provides. 

And, just to make sure its announcements are heard, Metro prefaces them with two loud chimes.

In short, Metro bombards riders with announcements, ranging from the banal, the irrelevant, to the redundant, from the moment they step into a station until they walk out.

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/metros-inherent-liberalism


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Al-Qaeda Suspect Worked at 5 U.S> Nuclear Plants

Al Qaeda Suspect Worked at 5 U.S. Nuclear Plants

Friday, March 12, 2010

HADDONFIELD, New Jersey  —  Before he was rounded up in a sweep of suspected Al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen, Sharif Mobley was a laborer at five nuclear plant complexes in Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Authorities are investigating whether he might have had any access to sensitive information that would have been useful to terrorists.

Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog of the nuclear power industry, said the case raises questions about security at the nation's nuclear power plants — even though Mobley has not been linked to any wrongdoing at any of them.

Some of the information used to give temporary workers like Mobley clearance comes from other nuclear power companies and is sometimes incomplete, Lyman said.

"The real question is: Was there information that the NRC or utilities could have seen that would have led to his disqualification?" Lyman asked.

Meanwhile, a law enforcement official said Friday that the U.S. government was aware of Mobley's potential extremist ties before Yemeni officials arrested him, but did not provide a time frame or details about what exactly was known about him.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589022,00.html


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi Says No Public Option, But as Soon as the Bill Becomes Law it will be a Public Option

Pelosi: Public option will not be in health bill despite liberal efforts

By Jordan Fabian - 03/12/10 05:00 PM ET

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that the public health insurance option will not be included in a package of fixes to healthcare reform legislation.

Pelosi's comments throw a wrench into liberal efforts to reintroduce it to the bill. She shut the door on a possible pathway opened by Senate Majority Whip Dic* Durbin (D-Ill.), who said earlier on Friday that he would "aggressively" push senators to vote for the plan if the House included it in the fixes.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/86447-pelosi-public-option-will-not-be-in-health-bill
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Memo Outlining Time Line for House Health Care Vote

Van Hollen memo lays out time line and messaging

The office of Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who is the assistant to Speaker Pelosi, sent a memo to Democratic staffers today telling them to clear members' schedule for next weekend, saying a vote could come as early as Friday or Saturday, and noting that it was no coincidence that President Obama pushed back his trip abroad from March 18 to March 21st.

The Van Hollen memo also advised members to avoid talking about the process.

"At this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off and have a vote -- up or down; yes or no? Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL," the memo says. "People who try and start arguments about process on this are almost always against the actual policy substance too, often times for purely political reasons."

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/Van_Hollen_memo_lays_out_time_line_and_messaging_.html?showall

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi wants "Certain Assurances" from Senate Before House Health Care Vote

Pelosi to seek Senate 'assurances' before House health vote

By Jared Allen and Jeffrey Young - 03/12/10 12:56 PM ET

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday said she will need “certain assurances” from Senate Democrats before the House votes on healthcare reform as early as next week.

Pelosi did not say what those assurances would be, but acknowledged that extracting them would be necessary to counter lingering concerns from within her caucus that the Senate will not be able to pass a reconciliation bill.

“With reconciliation, a simple majority, a constitutional majority, I think members are much more comfortable with the fact that this reconciliation will happen,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. “Nonetheless, there are certain assurances that they want, and that we will get from [Senate Democrats] before I ask them to take the vote.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/86481-pelosi-wants-senate-assurances-before-house-vote-on-healthcare

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

House is Ready to Move Forward without a Deal on Abortion Says Hoyer

Hoyer: House ready to move forward without a deal on abortion

By Jared Allen and Jeffrey Young - 03/12/10 10:58 AM ET

House Democrats are ready to “forge ahead” on healthcare without a deal on abortion, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Friday.

Hoyer said hopes for a deal have all but evaporated with a dozen Democrats who want tougher restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion services than are included in the Senate’s healthcare bill.

Democratic leaders have been trying to reach an agreement with Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and his allies before moving forward with a vote.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/86427-hoyer-house-ready-to-move-forward-without-a-deal-on-abortion

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sarkozy Criticizes the United States Over Protectionism

U.S. setting bad example on protectionism - Sarkozy


LONDON, March 12 (Reuters) - President Nicolas Sarkozy of France accused Washington on Friday of setting the wrong example on protectionism, suggesting there had not been a level playing field in the race for a $50 billion refuelling plane contract.

U.S. defence contractor Northrop Grumman and its European partner EADS withdrew on Monday from a renewed competition to supply tankers to the U.S. Air Force, saying the rules favoured rival bidder Boeing, the top U.S. exporter.

Boeing is now the sole known bidder for the contract.

Asked what he thought of the issue during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Sarkozy delivered a scathing attack on how the United States had handled the tender.

"I did not appreciate this decision ... This is not the right way to behave," Sarkozy said.

"Such methods by the United States are not good for its European allies, and such methods are not good for the United States, a great, leading nation with which we are on close and friendly terms," he said.

"If they want to be heard in the fight against protectionism, they should not set the example of protectionism."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62B1CG20100312?type=marketsNews



Tags: Sarkozy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345Next »