RssGeni

I'm not an expert on the law of federal preemption. For what it's worth, however, I don't believe Judge Bolton got the preemption issues right today when she granted a preliminary injunction blocking key portions of Arizona's new immigration enforcement law. There are a number of issues and sub-issues in her ruling. The most important one, I think, is her finding that certain provisions of the law dealing with the treatment of arrestees are preempted because they will (1) result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and (2) burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities.

Judge Bolton based her ruling regarding harassment of lawfully present aliens in part on her view that the statute requires Arizona to determine the immigration status of every person arrested in the state. That may well be the best reading of the statutory language, but Arizona has repudiated this construction, arguing that immigration status must be determined only when there is a reasonable suspicion that a person arrested is an illegal alien.

Many judges might have accepted this interpretation pursuant to the practice of favoring the construction of a statute that avoids striking down a law as unconstitutional. Other judges might have waited to see how Arizona implemented the law before striking it down based on a construction Arizona has repudiated. Judge Bolton did neither.

Judge Bolton also appears to have overstated the burden the Arizona law places on lawfully present aliens. According to Heather Mac Donald and Mark Krikorian, the number of lawfully present aliens who cannot instantly establish their right to be in the country is small. And even as them, their right to be here probably can be established quickly by contacting federal authorities.

In the weighing of interests required before a preliminary injunction is issued, it would seem that Arizona's interest in coping with half a million or so illegal immigrants and the havoc this influx is causing outweighs the small burden the law may impose on a relatively small number of lawfully present aliens. In any event, I don't believe the contrary view is established in advance of seeing how the law actually works.

What about the "burden" on federal resources and the "impeding" of federal enforcement priorities that Judge Bolton claims will result from inquiries by Arizona law enforcement officials to the feds about some aliens who are arrested? Again, I think these problems are highly speculative at this juncture and so should not serve as a basis for striking down the law in advance of its implementation. Perhaps the feds would be swamped with inquiries to the point that federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws, such as they are, would be set back. But why assume this ahead of time?

The argument also strikes me as curious on its own terms. If the state has apprehended someone it suspects is an illegal alien, and that person can't produce papers establishing his or her right to be in the country, why isn't it a priority for the federal government to check the status of this person? The Arizona law doesn't require federal agents to abandon the hot pursuit of narco-terrorists in order to check the federal database in response to an inquiry from a local sheriff. But apprehending illegals who have been arrested must rank pretty high on the list of federal priorities. If not, the government's lawyers should so state. To my knowledge, they have not.

There's much more that could be said, but I'll leave the saying of it to those who know more than I do about preemption law and immigration law.

Andrew Klavan wrote a book called Empire of Lies. It was slated to be published in France by Seuil Policiers, but the editor who bought the book left that firm, and the new editor decided not to publish Klavan's book. This wasn't because she thought it wouldn't sell; it wasn't an economic decision at all, as Klavan had already been paid. Rather, the editor explained that "she can not publish . . . because of the political and religious aspects of the story." That is, the book's protagonist is a conservative Christian. Not only that, the liberal media is a sort of collective villain.

Klavan applies this experience to recent headlines here in the U.S., and contrasts liberals with conservatives:

[E]verywhere, the Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more. Everywhere, the Left seeks to disappear its opposition, whereas the Right is willing to meet them head-on. ...

Take the e-mails that the Daily Caller obtained from the now-defunct lefty Web service Journolist. Never mind the personal or psychological implications of a radio producer who lovingly imagines Rush Limbaugh's death or a law professor who doesn't know that the FCC has no power to deprive Fox News of a license or a reporter who wants to smear Fred Barnes and other right-wing commentators as racist in order to distract the public from the hateful radicalism of Jeremiah Wright, then Obama's pastor. The point is not these people's animus or ignorance or wickedness. The point is that what they desired was not victory in open debate but silence--the silence of censorship, intimidation, or the grave.

When has Rush Limbaugh ever wished a liberal's mouth closed forever? Really, who can deny that Rush would happily argue a point with absolutely anyone anywhere? When has Fox News ever done anything to its rival cable stations but trounce them in a free competition for ratings? When has Fred Barnes ever tried to bully or intimidate someone into shutting up?

And, of course, Andrew Breitbart, everyman as journalist, figures in this schema. It's an interesting question: do liberals try to silence their opponents because of an inherent authoritarian tendency, or merely because they are losing the argument? I think it's a combination of the two.

Earlier today, Paul reviewed breakdowns of poll data in individual races to assess the likelihood of the Democrats losing control of the House in November. Michael Barone takes a macro-view of the election, and arrives at an optimistic conclusion: "House Democrats head for a thumping at the polls."

[T]ake a look at the generic ballot question -- which party's candidate will you vote for in elections to the House? The current realclearpolitics.com average shows Republicans ahead by 45 to 41 percent. Ten of this month's 15 opinion polls asking the question had Republicans ahead; Democrats led in four (twice by 1 percent), and one poll showed a tie.

Keep in mind that the generic ballot question historically has tended to underpredict Republican performance in off-year elections. Gallup has been asking the question since 1950 and has shown Republicans leading only in two cycles, 1994 and 2002, and then by less than the 7 and 5 points by which they won the popular vote for the House in those years.

So the Republicans' current lead in the generic ballot question suggests they may be on the brink of doing better than in any election since 1946, when they won a 245-188 margin in the House -- larger than any they've held ever since.

As you would expect, the Republicans are doing even better among likely voters. The current Rasmussen survey has them ahead by ten points, 46-36 percent.

The most interesting fact in Barone's column, however, was this one:

Two years ago, Obama was elected president with a historic 53 percent of the vote -- more than any other Democrat in history except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.

I infer that the public's skepticism of Democratic Presidential candidates has deep roots.

In the United Kingdom, decentralization of the National Health System is being planned in response to widespread revulsion with rising costs and lousy health care. The latest case in point: Babies died after junior surgeon left to cope on his own.

Four babies died at an NHS heart unit where managers were trying to raise the number of patients being treated in order to avoid closure, according to a damning report.

The infants died within three months of each other after being operated on by a relatively junior surgeon who was appointed to raise patient numbers at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, an external review has found.

Caner Salih, who was left alone on his second day in the post, complained about the age of the equipment and poor working practices at the children's cardiac unit. He blew the whistle to bosses after four of his patients died within three months and asked to stop operating.

His concerns were ignored and it was only when journalists began to ask questions that the trust managers informed the Strategic Health Authority [SHA] and the health care regulator, the Care Quality Commission, says the report. The report, conducted by senior doctors at the SHA, recommends that operations at the unit should never take place again because it is unsafe.

That's socialized medicine for you. It's great for bureaucrats and dangerous only if you're a patient. Meanwhile, House Republicans put out this chart that shows the structure of Obamacare as enacted earlier this year. It will employ a great many bureaucrats, just like the NHS. Click to enlarge:

A federal judge in Arizona has issued a preliminary injunction blocking key enforcement provisions of the new Arizona immigration law from taking effect until the legality of these provisions is fully litigated. The judge, Susan Bolton (a Clinton appointee), found that the Justice Department's preemption argument is likely to prevail at trial.

I haven't had time to analyze the opinion. Andy McCarthy has, and finds it unpersuasive .

It's clear to me that the Arizona law doesn't conflict or interfere with immigration legislation Congress has passed. If there is any interference or conflict, it is with the way the Obama administrtion wants to enforce such legislation -- i.e., passively at best.

UPDATE: Heather Mac Donald provides a blistering critique of Judge Bolton's ruling.

I've been surfing around various political websites trying to get a feel for the race for a majority in the House of Representatives. Larry Sabato's breakdown is interesting because as of July 8 he has 13 Democratic-held seats leaning Republican and 26 Democratic-held seats rated a toss-up. If the Republicans were to win all of these seats, they would pick up the 39 needed to control the House. They would not need to win any of the 22 Democratic-held seats that Sabato says "lean" Democratic. But they would, of course, have to hold the 8 Republican seats Sabato thinks are in play, including 3 that he rates "lean Democratic." I suspect, at a minimum, that the Dems will capture Mike Castle's seat in Delaware.

To the extent one trusts Sabato's analysis, we might, in rough terms, consider the 26 Democratic-held toss-up seats to form the core battleground this year. These seats are:

AL-2
AR-1
AZ-1
CO-4
FL-8 and 24
ID-1
IL-14
IN-8 and 9
KS-3
MI-1 and 7
NC-8
NV-3
NY-24
PA-7, 8 and 11
SD-AL
TX-17
VA-2 and 5
WA-3
WI-7
WV-1

A post by Jim Geraghty suggests that not all of these races actually are toss-ups. In PA-7, a new poll has Republican Mike Kelly leading Democratic incumbent Kathy Dahlkemper 48-37, with 51 percent saying Dahlkemper does not deserve re-election.

Polls from the past seven weeks show the Republican ahead in four other races on Sabato's toss-up list:

PA-11, where Republican Lou Barletta leads Democratic incumbent Paul Kanjorski 56- 37;

SD-AL, where Republican Kristi Noem leads Democratic incumbent Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 49-44;

VA-2, where Republican Scott Rigell leads Democratic incumbent Glenn Nye 41-35;

VA-5, where Republican Robert Hurt leades Democratic incumbent Parriello by a whopping 58-35

Geraghty also refers to a few polls showing the Republican ahead in districts that Sabato rates "leans Democratic" or even "likely Democratic." So the juxtaposition of Sabato's breakdown and the polls Geraghty cites suggests, as many have said, that the House Dems are in serious trouble.

CORRECTION: It looks even worse for Pelosi. The Dahlkamper race is in PA-3. Sabato rates that race "leans Democratic." It seems, though, to be leaning Republican.

PA-7, which Sabato calls a toss-up, is an open seat in which the Republican, former US Attorney Patrick Meehan, leads the Democrat in one poll by 47-26.

Other districts where Sabato gives the edge to the Dem, but where Geraghty has identified polls favoring the Republican, are NM-1, AZ-8 (essentially a dead-heat), and OH-13.

According to British Prime Minister David Cameron's speech in Ankara this week, Gaza is a prison camp and Israel is the jailer. Barry Rubin assesses what Cameron has wrought in "In speech to Turkey, PM David Cameron goes full idiot." I'm not sure how far Cameron had to go to get there, but Rubin makes a persuasive case that he has arrived. At full idiocy, that is.

Rubin reflects: "It crossed my mind that the speech was written by the Foreign Office for the express purpose of making Cameron look foolish, but then I realized that he and his top advisors probably have no idea why it was such a disaster." Rubin deems the speech "a fitting symbol for the entire contemporary Western diplomatic approach to the Middle East, and much more to the world as well. By the way," he adds, "it is doomed to fail miserably."

Reading the scholarly work of Woodrow Wilson is an educational experience. It is shocking to read the expressions of his disaffection for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. As R.J. Pestritto has demonstrated, the intellectual roots of modern liberalism lie in an assault on the ideas of natural rights and limited government. They eventuate in an administrative state and rule by supposed experts. Obamacare represents something like the full flowering of modern liberalism.

Wilson's expressions of disapproval are the precursor to Barack Obama's disdain for the Constitution and the Warren Court. Obama perfectly reflected Wilson's views in his 2001 comments on the civil rights movement and the Supreme Court. In the course of the famous radio interview Obama gave to WBEZ in Chicago, Obama observed that the Warren Court had not broken "free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." To achieve "redistributive change," the limitations of the Constitution would have to be overcome by the Court or by Congress.

Franklin Roosevelt touted welfare state liberalism in the "second Bill of Rights" that he set forth to Congress in his 1944 State of the Union Address. "Necessitous men are not free men," Roosevelt asserted, and enumerated a new set of rights, among which were the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation, the right of every family to a decent home, and the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

Implicitly arguing that the teaching of the Declaration had become obsolete, Roosevelt asserted: "In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed."

Abraham Lincoln's argument with Stephen Douglas also came down to a disagreement over the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln articulated this disagreement with special gusto in his critique of Douglas on July 10, 1858.

According to Douglas, the teaching of the Declaration had no general applicability beyond the immediate situation that confronted the Founding Fathers. Restating Douglas's argument, Lincoln asked "in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form." This is certainly one of the question that is raised in acute form by the doctrine of welfare state liberalism in general and by Obamacare as a case in point.

The economic "rights" asserted by Roosevelt in his second Bill of Rights differ and conflict with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are claims on the liberty of others. If I have a right to medical care, you must have a corresponding duty to supply it. If I have a right to a decent home, you must have a duty to provide it.

The argument for the welfare state belongs in the same family as "the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden." That's Lincoln again.

Lincoln memorably derided the underlying principle as "the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it."

William Voegeli's Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State is one of the books of the year. George Will drew attention to Voegeli's book in his excellent column "The danger of a government with unlimited power." Michael Lind attacks Will and comes to the defense of liberalism. William Voegeli strikes back in "Why liberalism is dangerous." Voegeli has reignited a profoundly important argument that ultimately requires us to recover a basic understanding of limited constitutional government.

Earlier this month, I reported on the destruction during the Kagan hearings of the Democrats' attempt to use Lilly Ledbetter to attack the Roberts court as "activist." Ledbetter appeared as a witness to argue that the decision in her case left plaintiffs who don't discover concealed discrimination for many years unable to overcome the statute of limitations defense, and thus unable to remedy wrongdoing. Ed Whelan and Robert Alt shredded this claim.

Now, prompted by Senator Leahy, Ledbetter tries to resurrect her story. She does so in the same way she has perpetuated the story -- through false, misleading, and irrelevant statements.

Let's begin with some background, for those who aren't familiar with this saga. Ledbetter lost her pay discrimination case because she did not complain to the EEOC in timely fashion about the alleged gender-based pay disparities she sued over. The Ledbetter-based attack on the Roberts court is predicated on Ledbetter's claim, post litigation, that she didn't know about the alleged pay discrimination until "someone left an anonymous note in my mailbox showing my pay and the pay for the three males who were doing the same job, just on different shifts." According to Ledbetter, "when I saw that note, it just floored me. I was so shocked at the amount of difference in our pay for doing the same exact job. And I went immediately to EEOC."

Had this been the first Ledbetter heard of pay discrimination against her, she would have survived the defendant's claim that she waited too long to go to the EEOC. The time for filing a charge with the EEOC does not begin to run until a plaintiff has reason to think she was discriminated against.

Ledbetter did not attempt to avail herself of this rule because the argument was precluded by her sworn deposition testimony. At her deposition she admitted that she knew by 1992 (six years before she complained to the EEOC) that her pay was out of line with her peers. She also testified that in 1995 (three years before her complaint), she spoke to her supervisor about the problem, telling him that "I knew definitely that they were all making a thousand at least more per month than I was and that I would like to get in line."

Clearly, then, the ruling in Ledbetter's case did not stand for the proposition that employers can get away with hidden pay discrimination. It stands for the proposition that Ledbetter could not avoid a statute of limitations defense by relying on the current effects of past discriminatory pay decisions that she failed timely to challenge.

Against this background, and having been called out by Whelan and Alt, Ledbetter attempts to salvage whatever might be left of her credibility. First, she complains that she lacked the opportunity to confront Whelan and Alt. Second, she tries to take on the merits of their testimony.

On the first point, Ledbetter is aided by the ever-helpful Chairman Leahy. He was not present when Whelan and Alt testified; nor, as I understand it, was any Democratic Senator except for the very junior Sen. Kaufman, who was stuck with the task of presiding. But word of the Whelan-Alt demolition clearly got back to Leahy. He thus invited Ledbetter to respond to Whelan's "crude allegation" that she waited more than five years to file her EEOC charge and to Alt's statement that the Democrats' Ledbetter narrative is "fictional."

Ledbetter responded in part by whining that the hearings were "supposed to be about Solicitor General Kagan's qualification for the Court." In addition, she sniffed that "if I'd known that Professor Alt and Mr. Whelan were going to use the hearings to attack me personally, I'd have stayed around so they could do it to my face."

This line is disingenuous at multiple levels. First, Ledbetter's claim that the hearing was supposed to be about Kagan overlooks the fact that (a) she has no expertise regarding Kagan's fitness for the Supreme Court and (b) she was brought in by Committee Democrats for the sole purpose of rehearsing her attack on the decision in her case (as Petula Clark might be brought to a struggling night club to sing "Downtown" one more time). With the exception of a few sentences, that's what her testimony was about. It is absurd and cowardly for Ledbetter now to claim that her attack should go unanswered because the hearing pertained to Kagan.

Second, it was Leahy who insulated Ledbetter from what he probably knew was going to a withering attack by scheduling her for a panel that did not include Whelan and Alt. I know from communications I had with Alt's office that he understood Ledbetter would appear with him on the panel. Alt even obtained a copy of Ledbetter's deposition transcript with which to confront her. He was relishing the opportunity to use it "to her face." The Democrats spared her that humiliation.

Third, Ledbetter has been confronted with her deflating testimony before. Eric Dreiband, former General Counsel of the EEOC, did so when they testified on the same panel on January 24, 2008. Ledbetter had no good answer then and, as demonstrated below, she has none now.

Ledbetter admits in her letter to Leahy that "for some time I had suspected that I was getting paid less than men." But, she adds, when she told her manager about this, he denied any discrimination.

However, Ledbetter's sworn testimony was not that she "suspected" she was making less than comparable males. She testified that she knew by 1992 that her pay was lower than her peers and that she learned about the amount of the difference "probably about 1994 and '95." She also testified that In 1995, she spoke with her supervisor about her pay and "told him at that time that I knew definitely that they were all making a thousand at least more per month than I was and that I would like to get in line."

It may well be that Ledbetter's supervisor denied that she made less than male employees. But a plaintiff cannot delay the filing of a lawsuit or a complaint until the defendant admits wrongdoing.

That, of course, is why Ledbetter never argued to the Supreme Court that her failure to go to the EEOC until 1998 was excused by lack of information about how her pay compared to similarly situated males. This argument has been conjured up, after the fact. And it has been made only in a political context, where it is far more difficult to expose and where Ledbetter's Democratic handlers can run interference for her, as they are trying to do now.

Ledbetter, in sum, is not an injured party in the Kagan confirmation hearings. She is instead an offending party -- her offense being a disregard for the truth.

If Chairman Leahy thinks otherwise, let him hold a special hearing on "the Ledbetter decision and 'judicial activism,'" and have Ledbetter testify alongside Whelan and/or Alt. And let Leahy stick around this time for the fun.

From the New York Post:

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank caused a scene when he demanded a $1 senior discount on his ferry fare to Fire Island's popular gay haunt, The Pines, last Friday. Frank was turned down by ticket clerks at the dock in Sayville because he didn't have the required Suffolk County Senior Citizens ID. A witness reports, "Frank made such a drama over the senior rate that I contemplated offering him the dollar to cool down the situation." Frank made news last year when he was spotted looking uncomfortable around a bevy of topless, well-built men at the Pines Annual Ascension Beach Party. Frank's spokesperson confirmed to Page Six that his partner, James Ready, asked the ticket office for a regular ticket for himself and a senior ticket for Frank, "but was turned down because Frank didn't have a resident ID."

I mentioned this article yesterday. A federal grand jury is asking questions about Nathan Deal’s business deals (pun intended).

Deal, for his part, says he is not the subject of any federal investigation — which either means he is right or United States Attorneys are randomly subpoenaing people to talk to federal grand juries about Nathan Deal for no reason other than politics. Riiiigggghhhhtttttt.

This will be the first election since passage of the Voting Rights Act that Republicans do not control the White House during redistricting. That makes solidifying Republican majorities in as many states as possible crucial as we head into redistricting in 2011.

A federal grand jury investigating Nathan Deal could seriously undermine the Republicans’ chances in November should he be the nominee. But to understand why, we need to back up to March 29, 2010.

On that day,

[T]he Office of Congressional Ethics released its report [despite Deal's resignation], concluding that Mr. Deal appeared to have improperly used his office to pressure Georgia officials to continue a vehicle inspection program that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family’s auto salvage business.

The 138-page report details how Mr. Deal and his chief of staff intervened in 2008 and 2009 on behalf of the company, Recovery Services Inc., also known as Gainesville Salvage and Disposal. The report also said Mr. Deal had improperly failed to disclose that he was a corporate officer at the company, meaning that the $75,000 he earned from the business in 2008 violated a House limit on members’ outside income.

Certainly the Deal campaign can say this was a partisan move. Once a congressman resigns, the ethics show is over. But, were Deal to do that, the next question must become: did Nathan Deal resign to pre-empt ethics report?

If you remember, Deal intended to resign sooner than he did. But the outcry over him leaving before the health care fight kept him in. Ironically, in doing so, it also kept the Ethics Committee’s investigation going.

And what did House Ethics Committee find? Six ethical violations of House Rules.

That brings us forward to now. A federal grand jury is investigating now.

When the House Ethics Committee takes the unusual step of laying serious smack down on members of congress for outside business dealings personally benefiting the members of congress, federal investigations typically ensure. Those federal investigations are generally serious.

With a lot at stake headed into the general election, including Georgia picking up a congressional district, the Geogia GOP is taking a serious gamble against the odds in choosing Nathan Deal to challenge Roy Barnes.

Word of the federal investigation is only the beginning. The Democrats will use it to get independent voters on their side. With dissatisfaction toward Washington at an all time high, the Georgia GOP might want to think carefully before choosing a 20 year Washington insider under a federal investigation as its horse on which to ride into November.

For those of you who have not heard, my book is coming out in two months. Some of you have emailed to ask why my front page postings have been lighter than normal, both here and at Peach Pundit. Well, now you know — I’ve been writing, just not here.

You can pre-order Red State Uprising: How to Take Back America right here via the RedState Store at Amazon.

Below are the opening paragraphs (subject to editing) to give you a flavor of what the book is about. And yes, the first chapter is a denunciation of the GOP’s failures over the past decade. I have a hard time intellectually attacking the Democrats for stuff the GOP did without also beating up the GOP. So my co-author, Lew Uhler, and I take them both on and provide some ideas to fix the problems.

Here’s the opening:

They’re all terrible. All of them. Democrats. Republicans. The so called “leaders” of both parties do nothing but compromise away our freedoms. The good guys are few and far between and need reinforcements.

Ask yourself a simple question: when is the last time the Democrats ever compromised in favor of the free market? Can’t think of one? That’s because it rarely happens. It’s always the Republicans who compromise in favor of big government.

George W. Bush gave us steel tariffs in Pennsylvania, No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, TARP, and the auto bailout. His father before him gave us his lips on which we read a lie. They, like so many other Republicans, paraded around in conservative’s clothing while having little in common with actual conservatism.

The Republicans gave us progressivism (read up on Robert LaFollette and Teddy Roosevelt). The Republicans gave us the Environmental Protection Agency. Heck, Republicans gave us Earl Warren, Nelson Rockefeller, Dede Scozzafava, Charlie Crist, and the list goes on and on and on.

The Democrats, by contrast, have given us over to European socialism, degenerated our moral society, destroyed the nuclear family, never met a race they didn’t bait, and mushroomed the GOP’s spending programs.

For too long the Republican Party has decided to be the Democrat-lite party, and the American voters in 2008 decided to just go with the real thing. Turns out, there is a difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. While both may be terrible, the Democrats are worse.

Therein lies the terrible conundrum for voters. We’re not choosing the lesser of two evils. We are choosing between the assorted evils of two lessers. The problem is compounded by a very simple fact: there are no betters than these two lessers. No third party is or will ever be viable. The deck is stacked against them.

Contrary to what we may say and the polemical frustration conservatives too often are forced to express about the Republican Party, there remain very real differences between the two parties—life and death differences that cannot be underestimated or ignored.

It is easy to say both parties are appalling. They are. It becomes very difficult to figure out what to do about it. There is, however, a starting point. As bad as you or I may think the Republican Party is, at least it will not sell us down the river to our nation’s enemies. At least it will more often than not support businesses and individuals against the government. At least it will support you working for yourself over you working to give money to someone else.

There are real differences, but too often Republican leaders try to find ever shrinking common ground with the left, than make a stand on opposing ground fighting for free people and free markets against the leviathan of government. With the rise of the tea party movement, conservatives must unite to clean up the Republican Party. If they don’t, voters will keep rejecting Republican pseudo-socialists in favor of authentic socialists.

Here is a not so secret dirty little secret. For the past month a lot of conservatives have been nervous over Sharron Angle’s Senate bid in Nevada. Her campaign seemed uncoordinated and unprofessional — amateurishly caught off guard by the hell unleashed on her.

Behind the scenes, Sharron Angle recognized she needed to regroup and reassess. For the past couple of weeks there has been a reorganization, some new faces, and renewed commitment to winning. Angle realizes a lot more is at stake than just beating Harry Reid.

Conservatives went with Angle against Sue Lowden. If Angle screws us, there will be a lot of egg on a lot of conservatives’ faces by the “we told you so” crowd — some of whom would actually like to see Harry Reid win so they can rub it in.

I’ve now been on the ground in Nevada, met with Sharron Angle, gotten to know her updated campaign team, and talked to Nevada voters. Harry Reid should be scared.

Take a look at the various surveys of Nevada, including the latest Rasmussen survey that has it 45% to 43% in favor of Reid, and I’m not so worried about Sharron Angle being two points behind the incumbent Majority Leader of the United States Senate.After left-wing groups have poured more than $11 (ELEVEN) million into Nevada to tar and feather both Sharron Angle and the tea party movement, she is only two points behind. More troubling for Reid, after all the shift in support away from Angle, Reid hovers at 45% and can’t get most of the undecideds to come to him.

It is as if the undecideds want to see some signs of good faith and competence from Angle and they’ll go back to her. Given the Reid ground game in Nevada, it is apparent that he understands this too.

Dive into the numbers and it is easy to see what has Harry Reid so scared and his son afraid to use his last name in his own gubernatorial race.

Angle leads among white voters 48% to 41%.

Angle leads among seniors 48% to 43%.

Among unaffiliated voters, Reid barely wins 41% to 39%. This one is within the margin of error.

Then there are the negatives:

• Voters who have a strongly negative opinion of Harry Reid outnumber those who have a strongly negative opinion of Sharron Angle 48% to 41%.
• Seniors who have a strongly negative opinion of Harry Reid outnumber seniors who have a strongly negative opinion of Sharron Angle 47% to 36%; and
• Unaffiliated voters who have a strongly negative opinion of Harry Reid outnumber unaffiliated voters who have a strongly negative opinion of Angle 52% to 44%.

Add to that data from Rasmussen that 62% of Nevadans have a negative view of Barack Obama and there are lots of danger signs for Harry Reid.

Here is a not so secret dirty little secret. For the past month a lot of conservatives have been nervous over Sharron Angle’s Senate bid in Nevada. Her campaign seemed uncoordinated and unprofessional — amateurishly caught off guard by the hell unleashed on her.

Behind the scenes, Sharron Angle recognized she needed to regroup and reassess. For the past couple of weeks there has been a reorganization, some new faces, and renewed commitment to winning. Angle realizes a lot more is at stake than just beating Harry Reid.

Conservatives went with Angle against Sue Lowden. If Angle screws us, there will be a lot of egg on a lot of conservatives’ faces by the “we told you so” crowd — some of whom would actually like to see Harry Reid win so they can rub it in.

I’ve now been on the ground in Nevada, met with Sharron Angle, gotten to know her updated campaign team, and talked to Nevada voters. Harry Reid should be scared.

Take a look at the various surveys of Nevada, including the latest Rasmussen survey that has it 45% to 43% in favor of Reid, and I’m not so worried about Sharron Angle being two points behind the incumbent Majority Leader of the United States Senate.After left-wing groups have poured more than $11 (ELEVEN) million into Nevada to tar and feather both Sharron Angle and the tea party movement, she is only two points behind. More troubling for Reid, after all the shift in support away from Angle, Reid hovers at 45% and can’t get most of the undecideds to come to him.

It is as if the undecideds want to see some signs of good faith and competence from Angle and they’ll go back to her. Given the Reid ground game in Nevada, it is apparent that he understands this too.

Dive into the numbers and it is easy to see what has Harry Reid so scared and his son afraid to use his last name in his own gubernatorial race.

Angle leads among white voters 48% to 41%.

Angle leads among seniors 48% to 43%.

Among unaffiliated voters, Reid barely wins 41% to 39%. This one is within the margin of error.

Then there are the negatives:

• Voters who have a strongly negative opinion of Harry Reid outnumber those who have a strongly negative opinion of Sharron Angle 48% to 41%.
• Seniors who have a strongly negative opinion of Harry Reid outnumber seniors who have a strongly negative opinion of Sharron Angle 47% to 36%; and
• Unaffiliated voters who have a strongly negative opinion of Harry Reid outnumber unaffiliated voters who have a strongly negative opinion of Angle 52% to 44%.

Add to that data from Rasmussen that 62% of Nevadans have a negative view of Barack Obama and there are lots of danger signs for Harry Reid.

A key story from today centers on John Dingell and his criticism of Chairman Julius Genachowski and the Obama FCC. Hillicon Valley reports that Dingell is criticizing the Commission harshly for failing to justify its Title II Reclassification plans to Deem and Pass Net Neutrality regulation of the Internet, and is telling them to stop and let the Congress do its job. Seriously, this is strong language from Democrat to Democrat:

“Unfortunately, the paucity of substantive responses to my [questions] has served only to substantiate my fear that the commission’s proposed path with respect to the regulation of broadband is based on unsound reasoning and an incomplete record, and is thus fraught with legal risk,” Dingell said.

He said the commission should instead look to Congress to grant it more power.

“In this way, the Congress and the commission may ensure the establishment of a steadfast legal foundation for an open Internet,” Dingell wrote.”

The fact is that the Free Press/Google “third way” to Net Neutrality is an illegal power grab online. Support for it is the radical extremist position.

Speaking of Free Press, Digital Society rips them for some terrible logic. Free Press is equating iPhone jailbreaking (the process by which people circumvent Apple’s limits and install whatever software, or run on whatever wireless network, they want) with Net Neutrality.

Nick Brown at Digital Society makes good points against that argument, but I have a simpler one: Net Neutrality is like the App Store, not unlike it, because it creates a central authority to regulate all activity in the name of better operations. If you like jailbreaking your iPhone, then oppose Net Neutrality regulation so we don’t have to jailbreak the whole Internet.

This one’s a little more technical than usual, but it’s funny. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or North Korea (pictured in our Tech at Night logo in the literal darkness of tyranny) has a website. But it has a problem: It wasn’t written very competently. The regime seems to have since fixed the oddity, but it’s still good to laugh at Communists, whether the old Stalinist/Juche kind, or the neo-Marxist Free Press kind.

Are you afraid of Google monitoring your Internet activities? If you use Mozilla Firefox, get the Google Alarm which will warn you whenever Google’s trying to spy on your activities. I’m using dramatic language (and the Alarm certainly uses a a dramatic warning), but the technology is there and the possibility is real. The databases exist, and if they exist, they can be broken into by bad guys, subpoenaed by the government, or anything else.

Some people think that things on the Internet aren’t “real.” You see people distinguish between “IRL” friends and online friends, or get indignant when people demand basic manners during online activities, replying that the Internet is not “serious business.” But it is, and Wikileaks was a party to treason by Americans, says Peter King.

One more for the road, though I have to hurry because it’s now 11:59PM on Wednesday as I write this. If you want to know why I think the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is overbroad, and that the right to reverse engineer Digital Rights Management (DRM) should be retained in all cases, read this story about 12,000 people effectively ripped off by Valve.

Hot Air has the story about Jennifer Keeton. Keeton, trying to graduate from Augusta State University in Augusta, Georgia, has been told she cannot get certification in counseling unless she abandons orthodox teachings of her Christian faith.

You guessed it — Keeton, a Christian, is not supportive of “gay rights”.

CNN has an interesting roundtable on the case of Jennifer Keeton, who has sued Augusta State University to keep from getting expelled for not repudiating her statements about homosexuality. Keeton expressed her biblical perspective on the subject in and out of class while working toward a degree in counseling, and the school mandated a “remediation plan” that appears to have required her to renounce her Christian doctrine in order to gain a diploma from the school.  The school has responded that a bias against homosexuality would disqualify Keeton from certification, a position that would put most Christians in Keeton’s position.

Christians should be more than a little troubled by the University’s bias.

I hope Georgia’s legislators are paying attention. Augusta State’s position seems to be that a bias against Christians is preferable to Christians holding on to orthodox teachings of their faith.

You can call President Bloodworth over at August State at 706-737-1440 and let him know what you think.

[UPDATE:] In Michigan, a federal judge has upheld the expulsion of a graduate school student for believing homosexuality is morally wrong.

The other day I noted that Congressman Nathan Deal, back in 1993, voted to explicitly fund abortions via Planned Parenthood. I was wrong. The vote was to implicitly allow Planned Parenthood to fund abortions.

As Congressman Deal explained Monday night:

Politicians who vote to give your money to abortion providers can spin it anyway they like, but taxpayer dollars for one service frees up money elsewhere to provide abortion services”

Buried in the comments from Deal about this is not just an admission against interest that his vote for funding offset tax dollars to free up money for abortion, but also an attempt to play dumb on what Planned Parenthood was all about.

Explaining his 1993 vote, Deal initially said “a lot of us were not fully convinced of where … Planned Parenthood was and what they were doing with their money.”

Really? Seriously?

Back in the 1984 Planned Parenthood very publicly refused to comply with Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Protocol. In fact, the organization went to court and obtained a court order allowing it to ignore the Mexico City Protocol. (SOURCE)

Planned Parenthood also vigorously opposed the nomination of Robert Bork.

During the George H. W. Bush administration, Planned Parenthood actively opposed the nomination of Georgia native Clarence Thomas. (SOURCE)

In 1992, the year the media famously dubbed the “Year of the [Liberal] Woman, Planned Parenthood was active around the country funding pro-abortion candidates. This is the same year Deal ran for office. (SOURCE)

Nathan Deal says he had no clue what Planned Parenthood was really all about. He either didn’t pay attention or is just playing dumb.

Step back for a minute. It is a “known fact” that BP’s actions and handling of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon caused the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is an actual fact that the oil spill did not start until after the oil platform sunk.

There is a growing body of evidence that the Coast Guard and fire team handling the blaze on the platform made a series of mistakes that contributed to the oil spill. In fact, in one of the first lawsuits filed, the plaintiffs aren’t even going after British Petroleum, but are instead going after the fire crew alleging the crews should have ignored orders from the Coast Guard.

“It was the flooding of the Deepwater Horizon and the resulting sinking of the rig that directly caused the piping to break and begin spewing millions of gallons of oil into the ocean,” Lloyd Frischhertz and Gerald Maples, lawyers for the spill victims, said in a complaint filed in federal court in New Orleans.

The lawsuit doesn’t seek damages from BP, rig-owner Transocean Ltd. or the U.S. Coast Guard, which helped direct the firefighting effort. The plaintiffs claim the fireboats violated industry standard procedures that warn against using water cannons to attack pressurized oil fires aboard marine vessels.

The Center for Public Integrity has an investigative report out that backs this up, but implicates the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard has gathered evidence it failed to follow its own firefighting policy during the Deepwater Horizon disaster and is investigating whether the chaotic spraying of tons of salt water by private boats contributed to sinking the ill-fated oil rig, according to interviews and documents.

Coast Guard officials told the Center for Public Integrity that the service does not have the expertise to fight an oil rig fire and that its response to the April 20 explosion may have broken the service’s own rules by failing to ensure a firefighting expert supervised the half-dozen private boats that answered the Deepwater Horizon’s distress call to fight the blaze.

More troubling, it appears that the chaos and lack of Coast Guard supervision may have directly contributed to measures that altered the ballast of the oil rig causing it to list then sink.

There is a lot more to be determined here, but it seems more and more the Coast Guard did not follow its own procedures. This might also explain why the Obama Administration has not been as hard on BP as many on the left would like.

What did the President know about the Coast Guard’s handling of fire? More importantly, why has the White House withheld the fact that the Coast Guard did not follow its own rules and take charge of the firefighting efforts?

Then, of course, we have to ask another question: if the Coast Guard’s actions caused the rig to sink and we already know the oil leaking didn’t start significantly until after the rig sank, is the federal government complicit in the damage?

We cannot and should not avoid blaming British Petroleum. We know from what happened prior to the fire, BP has a lot to answer for. But it seems the federal government’s initial response potentially magnified the problem.

I know there is a great deal of anger and frustration out there… amongst the 70% of you who are racists that believe immigration laws should be enforced… about Federal Judge Susan Bolton’s willingness to be bought by Obama and the Holder DoJ, but all I can do is laugh…and I mean gut-wrenching, jiggly mid-section guffaw. Seriously…relax people, get some popcorn and consider the pretzel logic of this hilarity:

“Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.

I just can’t stop myself…I feel like that kid in church that just loses it when his big brother does something goofy in the middle of the sermon…

So, if I have this right, what this “Judge” has just told us is that the time spent while we wait for Law Enforcement to “run” our licenses and plate numbers is time during which our liberties are being restricted. Please let me be the next white guy to get pulled over so I can tell a State Trooper he is not allowed to run my numbers because it would be a burden on me, and it would restrict my liberty…that right there is made of teh awesome…but wait! There’s more:

Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.

“I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right,” said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. “It’s the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us.”e-expired tourist visa…hunh-nothing wrong with THAT now, is there?

You do the math there folks? Here since 1989 on a since-expired tourist visa…hunh-nothing wrong with THAT now, is there? And of course, Judge Bolton steps in it even deeper by suggesting:

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law),” Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be “swept up by this requirement.”

Just how will we wrongfully arrest legal aliens? Never mind; I’m running out of popcorn.

Don’t miss the hilarious sideshow via the LA Times about Union thugs and pro-Federal-law-violation-by-non-Americans activists…caravaning to AZ to protest the law that never made it to the streets of AZ because of this so-called federal Judge.

Check the calendars folks, and wait for the date to be published for the appeals process…I take cash and credit cards… I BET the appeals will be delayed until that magical and mysterious date of November 3, 2010…a day AFTER all those illegal votes can be cast to keep Democrats in office for two MORE years of doing nothing about the problem they created in the first place.