If you want to think about great American traditions, there’s no tradition more central to the tradition of being an American than the Bill of Rights. The guarantees of freedom established in the Bill of Rights are what made America great. Among the amendments in the Bill of Rights is the fourth amendment, which reads,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Every single aspect of the fourth Amendment is violated by the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304, which was passed by the House of Representatives a week and a half ago and will be voted on by the Senate a week from now.
- The FISA Amendments Act retroactively legalizes gigantic dragnet searches of millions of personal communications by Americans, not particularly noting the places, persons or things to be targeted.
- The FISA Amendments Act supports searches and surveillance of Americans’ papers and “persons” without any search warrant
- The FISA Amendments Act removes the requirement of probable cause, allowing government spying and physical searches without any proof that the people being searched and spied upon are even suspected of a crime
The FISA Amendments Act is an insult to the American tradition of constitutional freedom. Yet, many members of Congress have already voted in favor of the proposed law.
Pence is being opposed in the election this year by Barry Welsh, who is running a campaign founded upon respect for the American tradition of liberty rooted in the Constitution. Would Barry Welsh have voted for the FISA Amendments Act?
I spoke to Mr. Welsh on the subject yesterday, and here’s what he had to say:
I would not have been able to vote for the bill in its current configuration. A couple of things really troubled me, and the telecom immunity is probably the main troubling spot.
It’s not a situation where I want to necessarily be prosecutorial towards the telecoms. My concern deals with the attempted acquisition of immunity. My concern is that the immunity is not so much for the telecoms as it is possibly as a cover for the current administration.
The reason I say that is that I go back to the Nixon years in Washington D.C., and in the Nixon White House. When Nixon resigned, everything was forgotten, if you will. There were few investigations after that, and it seemed that once the President left town, everything was rosy, and that wasn’t the case. We didn’t do due diligence during the Nixon Administration, and several of those players popped their heads up again throughout the Reagan and this, the George W. Bush Administration.
So, I don’t want to see the same thing happen again. I want to make sure that we’ve got all the people that have bent the law for their own benefit and taken advantage of the people, I want to make sure that we don’t allow those people to slip away again. Quite honestly, I have a feeling that the immunity through the telecom is more of a potential cover for the Administration than necessarily for the telecom community.
In Illinois’ 5th Congressional District, Rahm Emanuel is running for re-election as a member of the Democratic Party. But Rep. Emanuel has a problem — a constitution problem. You see, on June 20 2008, Emanuel violated his Oath of Office in he solemnly swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Rep. Emanuel violated that oath when he voted for H.R. 6304, a bill that shreds the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. H.R. 6304 gives the stamp of law to warrantless wiretapping, electronic surveillance and even physical searching of foreigners and American citizens alike. Sure, a judge can object under the provisions of H.R. 6304. But the president’s Attorney General can determine that for the public safety the information gathered unconstitutionally by the president can be used anyway — and only the Attorney General can determine whether the Attorney General has been right to do so. What a kangaroo process! What a derangement of the power of American government. What an endangerment of American civil liberty.
Rahm Emanuel supported all this when he voted YES to H.R. 6304. So why should you support Rahm Emanuel?
You don’t have to — Alan Augustson is running as a Green Party candidate for Congress, and he opposes legislation like the FISA Amendments Act. To turn this country back in the right direction, consider giving Alan Augustson your time, energy, and your vote in November of 2008.
Congressional candidate Barry Welsh has found an interesting way to explain the importance of equal marriage rights for all Americans. He’s spent a great deal of his life as the pastor of a church, and so he tends to look at things from a religious perspective.
That doesn’t mean, however, that Welsh is interested in shoving his ideas down other people’s throats. Instead, he wants churches, and the people who attend those churches, to have the freedom to express choose a form of family life that fits their religious beliefs. That freedom must apply not just for that narrow segment of the population that insists upon rigid adherence to one particular family structure.
Here’s how Welsh puts it:
“A Church has the right to choose whom they allow, or do not allow, to enter into marriage. This is an example of the separation of Church and State. A Church should not be forced to perform any marriage that goes against that church’s doctrine.
However, the act of uniting in a marriage also carries with it societal benefits including spousal rights. When people are denied those rights, that is discrimination. That discrimination exists now, and quite simply it is wrong.
A Church should keep the act of marriage within the church and in those conditions, continue to decide who should be united in marriage and who should not, but when the government performs civil unions for any consenting adults while denying other consenting adults, it is discrimination and it must end.
I believe citizens of this country should be able to live without fear of discrimination in the workplace, in the government, or in their own private lives.”
Barry Welsh is running for Congress in Indiana’s 6th congressional district, which includes the city of Muncie. His opponent is incumbent Mike Pence. Please consider giving the Welsh for Congress campaign your support.
There are three Democratic candidates for Congress in the primary election in Montana today, but you might have a difficult time telling so by looking for information online. Two of the candidates, Jim Hunt and Robert Candee, have solid, informative campaign web sites. The third, John Driscoll, does not.
Of the two online candidates, both seem to have a reasonable mainstream progressive agenda. Jim Hunt has a bit of an edge over Robert Candee in his ability to pick a candidate. So, if I were voting in Montana today, Jim Hunt would be my choice.
John Driscoll would not be my choice. It’s possible that, abstractly, John Driscoll is the best candidate. However, it’s difficult for ordinary Montanans to make that judgment for themselves, because Driscoll has failed to make himself available for scrutiny online.
It’s not enough any more for a political candidate beyond the local level just to have insider connections and to show up for political party club meetings. It’s an important responsibility, especially in a state as large as Montana, to have an appropriate level of communication online.
Driscoll may win. He’s a political veteran, former speaker of the Montana state House. Perhaps he’s got slick television ads to send a message out to a large number of Montana Democrats. However, when it comes down to trust, TV can’t hold a candle to the Internet. On a TV screen, a 30-second advertisement gives a superficial amount of information. A campaign web site must withstand more sustained attention.
If Driscoll can’t get a web site online for his campaign, then he isn’t going to be able to communicate with the people of Montana well as a representative in far-off Washington D.C. My hope is to see Jim Hunt grab the nomination tonight.
Most people know that tomorrow, the last two Democratic presidential primaries are taking place, in Montana and South Dakota. What many people are unaware of is that there are congressional primaries tomorrow too, in the following states:
Alabama
California
Iowa
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
South Dakota
Next week, the following states will have their congressional primaries
Maine
North Dakota
Virginia
South Carolina
There are 13 more states to go after that.
Congress is coequal with the Presidency. No single congressional leader has the kind of power the President wields, but collectively, members of Congress have just as much heft - if they choose to use it, rather than engaging in the spineless acquiescence of the years under George W. Bush.
The bottom line is that these congressional primaries are every bit as important as the presidential primaries. Pay attention to them.
Tuesday, June 3rd isn’t just a day of primary elections for presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It’s also a day of the Democratic Party primary in Iowa’s 3rd congressional district, where State Representative Ed Fallon is challenging incumbent Leonard Boswell.
Why is Ed Fallon asking for voters’ permission to replace Boswell? Here’s Fallon’s answer:
“On most of the key issues, this new majority has let America down. Simply stated, too many Congressional Democrats, including Congressman Leonard Boswell, vote too often with President Bush and against the priorities of the American people. That’s why I’m running for Congress. Our country needs and wants change. I’m ready to take on the corporate interests who have corrupted our federal government. I’m ready to give working families and the poor a voice in national politics. I’m ready to do what I can to see that environmental issues are taken seriously inside the beltway. I’m ready to apply what I’ve learned during 23 years of public service in Iowa and be a part of the new solution in Washington.”
Ed Fallon is right. Instead of finding a way to end high gasoline prices, Leon Boswell has been busy co-sponsoring frivolous legislation like a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Whether you like flag burning or not, the truth is that burning flags just isn’t a big problem in the lives of most Americans. Gasoline prices are, but Congressman Boswell hasn’t brought us any results - just talk.
Leonard Boswell has helped George W. Bush create a royal mess in Iraq, throwing away trillions of American dollars and thousands of American lives as if they were garbage. In 2002, Representative Boswell voted yes on rushing to war in Iraq.
Ed Fallon listens to the Democrats he represents. Leonard Boswell listens to Karl Rove and George W. Bush.
That difference presents a very clear choice to Iowa voters, and that choice is Ed Fallon in 2008.
We’ve got a genuine economic crisis on our hands, with gasoline prices above four dollars a gallon and headed toward five dollars a gallon by the end of the summer. The crisis in Iraq continues, bleeding America of young lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ve got real problems in America.
So what is Alabama’s Congressman Robert Aderholt working on? Making it harder to get married. With all the real difficulties people in his home district are going through, Representative Aderholt has just signed on to a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it more difficult for people to get married.
Apparently, Robert Aderholt thinks that the biggest crisis that America faces is that too many Americans are getting married. I hope the voters in his home district know better.
Democratic candidate Bob Lord is staging a smart campaign to unseat incumbent Republican John Shadegg from his House seat for the 3rd District of Arizona. Lord’s campaign has sent out five blistering news releases asking the boastful Shadegg why he won’t cosponsor H.R. 5740, the 21st Century GI Bill. Here was the first, sent out on April 29, 2008:
PHOENIX — Today Bob Lord endorsed Congressman Harry Mitchell’s 21st Century GI bill and is asking Congressman John Shadegg why he isn’t supporting the bipartisan plan to strengthen education benefits to post-9/11 combat veterans.
The bill would provide military veterans with educational benefits ranging from college tuition to living stipends.
“We have a sacred duty to support our veterans and their families because they have sacrificed for us,” Bob Lord said. “It’s hard to imagine why my opponent isn’t supporting this bill.”
Shadegg represents a district where 56,000 veterans live, but he is not supporting the bill.
The Washington Post reported this morning that veterans returning home from Iraq are finding the current GI Bill has not kept pace with educational costs. (Link to story)
Decades after the first GI Bill, another generation of veterans is returning home — more than 800,000 as of last summer. What the new veterans find is quite different from the comprehensive benefits that once covered all the costs of an education. The current GI benefit covers just half the national average cost for tuition, room and board, according to the Post.
“We must pass the 21st Century GI Bill, which will provide educational and other benefits to all veterans serving since Sept. 11, 2001, through the end of the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Lord said.
Now, Mitchell’s 21st Century GI Bill carries 241 co-sponsors, including 71 Republicans. Shadegg is not one of them.
Shadegg’s counterparts, prominent Republicans such as U.S. Sens. John Warner of Virginia and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska are lead sponsors of the Senate version.
Veterans groups such as the American Legion and Military Officers’ Association of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and Vietnam Veterans of America have endorsed the legislation.
“It is baffling to see how out of touch John Shadegg is with his own district and Arizona,” said Andrew Eldredge-Martin, Lord’s campaign manager. “Shadegg just has different priorities than most Arizonans.”
Under this legislation:
* Service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan, including active-duty National Guard troops and reservists, would receive up to 36 months of education benefits, including stipends for housing and books;
* Veterans would have up to 15 years after they leave active duty to use their education benefits;
* Veterans would have the ability to use their benefits for program fees, tuition, books and housing;
* Veterans would be able to use the Yellow Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program, in which the federal government will match, dollar for dollar, any voluntary additional contributions to veterans from institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum educational assistance provided under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill.
… and here’s the most recent, sent out on May 1:
Congressman John Shadegg isn’t supporting the 21st Century
GI bill, but he also has consistently failed to support disabled veterans, records show.
Since 1999, Disabled American Veterans has rated Shadegg at an average of 27.6% percent, or an F, and the majority of those years, Shadegg has received a 0 rating from the Disabled American Veterans.
When Shadegg first took office in Congress, he earned $133,600 as a
Congressional salary. Today, Shadegg earns a Congressional salary of $165,200, an
increase of $31,600.
“Our veterans put themselves in harms way to defend this country and John Shadegg doesn’t think they deserve decent pay and a decent education,” said Andrew Eldredge-Martin, Bob Lord’s campaign manager. “You have to remember that Shadegg voted himself pay raises nine times and accepted pay raises in excess of $31,000 - but he voted against giving our men and women in uniform a $1,500 pay raise. Bob Lord will stand up for our troops and veterans in Congress. Shadegg hasn’t.”
I appreciate how Bob Lord has focused the campaign around a concrete policy issue instead of trying to ride his way to Congress on insubstantial issues like hair or lapel pins. This is a consequential issue as well, since no matter how you feel about the war it is a disgrace that American veterans are being dumped by their government without the resources to get their lives moving forward with employment and with their health. It was especially good to see Lord send readers on to solid reporting on the subject carried out by the Washington Post. This is how a good campaign on the issues is run.
Two days after Bob Lord’s latest press release, John Shadegg still isn’t listed as a cosponsor. It’s possible that John Shadegg is too stupid to realize how bad he looks in failing to support American veterans in a war he was so gung-ho to get started. It’s also possible that Shadegg so disregards the veterans he sent off to war that he just doesn’t care.
Goodness me, but after all the highfalutin’ talk about being independent and purging the American political system of its corruption, I would have expected better of Ron Paul. Silly me. I should have known better.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul is one of the top two Fossil Fools in the United States House of Representatives.
How did Ron Paul earn this distinction? It all comes down to Ron Paul’s dirty money. Of all the members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Ron Paul has taken an extremely high amount of money during the 2008 election cycle from big oil and gas corporations. He has taken $92,742 from big oil this election cycle.
You might be tempted to think that Ron Paul just got all this crude oil cash because he ran for President. You need to remember, however, that Ron Paul was not the only member of the U.S. House of Representatives to run for President this year. Dennis Kucinich did too, and so did Duncan Hunter. Duncan Hunter is a Republican, like Ron Paul, but he isn’t even in the top 20 recipients of big oil money
Duncan Hunter got only $1,800 for his presidential campaign from oil companies, and he’s not running for re-election to Congress. Wouldn’t you know it? Oil company executives didn’t bother giving money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign either, because it was clear from the start that Ron Paul would not win the Republican nomination. The oil corporations have given to Ron Paul’s congressional re-election, because they knew he will likely win re-election there, and so that’s the race they can show influence over.
Why would big oil corporations want to help Ron Paul go back to Congress? That answer is an easy one. Ron Paul is a strong opponent of government regulations to restrict the air pollution that comes from burning petroleum products. Ron Paul doesn’t even believe in global warming, and thinks that there isn’t a single thing in his life that he does that damages the environment. In fact, Ron Paul wants to help big oil corporations completely evade government efforts at environmental protection, allowing them to do whatever they want, with no laws to stop them, and the vehicles that use their fossil fuel products, from fouling the environment.
Ron Paul is an oil corporation executive’s dream candidate. He’s the real deal - a genuine Fossil Fool.
With the news that Republican John Shadegg will not be running for re-election to Arizona’s 3rd District House seat, the prospects of Democratic candidate Bob Lord have just risen. What do you know about Bob Lord? What kind of a Democrat is he? Is a he a progressive who will promote a positive social vision for this country, or another podlet cast off as a spore from the mother fungus of Arizona xenophobia? From what I can see, Lord offers something mixed. Let’s flesh this fellow out: tell me what you know about Bob Lord.
An independent chronicle of the battle for and squabbles within the U.S. House and Senate, covering the most interesting campaigns and the most controversial legislation.
