First Republican Debate

It's no secret that Ron Paul is my candidate, so I'm not going to post this under the guise of  being impartial. I liked Ron going into this, and I like him even more coming out. As for the rest of them, here's what I thought.


Tim "T-Paw" Pawlenty:

This dude reminded America no less than five times during the debate that he grew up in a meatpacking town. He is really trying his best to paint a good picture of his personal life. He wants to be the everyman, the stately next door neighbor. And while I am personally not buying it, it's an interesting strategy. To me, Tim Pawlenty is "President in a can". Every time he opened his mouth, the answers sounded, quite literally, canned. He brings nothing new to the table, just your usual conservative talking points. Here he is talking about how he used to be for cap and trade.






Rick Santorum:

This guy, to me, is the scariest presidential candidate. At one point during the debate, he said something to the effect of "I'm against foreign aid, unless it is used as extortion against nations to get them to do what we want." Although he is running as a "social conservative," what it comes down to is that he's an authoritarian. He openly said that he wants to go back to a Bush foreign policy. Why anyone would come out and say this, I'm not sure. Luckily, I'm rather certain that he isn't going to be the nominee. Perhaps the silliest thing he did all night was when he was asked about social issues. You can see it for yourself in the video below, but he basically talks about how we need to defend liberty by only defending exercises of liberty that Santorum agrees with.











 Gary Johnson:


Let me start out by saying that I like Gary, he's a good guy, and I agree with a lot of his views. I didn't think he had a very strong first debate, partially because Fox didn't ask him many serious questions. It was almost cute the way he would stop talking as soon as his time was expired, you could definitely tell that this was his first debate.  He did have a few shining moments though, and I'm sure he gained at least a few supporters due to the fact that no one even knew about him before tonight. In any case, I certainly prefer him to the two above. Here is Gary talking about drugs:




Herman Cain:

Herman, Herman, Herman, what can be said about this guy? His only credentials are that he is the former CEO of Godfathers Pizza. If you watched the debate (and if you haven't i hope that you do) you probably noticed that for almost every question, Herman found a way to incorporate counting out the solution. For example, the moderator would ask "Mr. Cain, how would you solve problem X" and Herman would reply "Well, there are three things, first," and when he said this he would point to his first finger and explain the first step. He would proceed to count out 3 to 4 steps for each solution. My friend, with whom I was talking on facebook, at one point said "This cat loves to count," and this was spot on. To me it was kind of funny so I encourage you guys to watch for this when you see the debate. As to the content of what Mr. Cain was saying, I found it to be mostly talking points with no real solutions. I think he did better than Pawlenty though, because at least Cain's talking points were original and not your average conservative ones. Cain was actually declared the winner by Fox News' infamous "focus group", but they've been wrong before and I found them to be wrong this time as well. Cain almost never offered a specific fix to the problems he was asked about, he merely said things that sounded good. Here is a clip from Cain in arguably his best moment from the debate.




Ron Paul:

This brings me to my man, Ron Paul. Yes, I think he won. And luckily, so does the only scientific poll to my knowledge that asked people who they thought won the debate. This can be viewed here. He really just seems on a different level than the other candidates intellectually. Ron's main weakness is his tendency to stammer. My theory is that he has an encyclopedia's amount of knowledge in his head, and he struggles finding the best way to let it all out in a timely and efficient manner. However, for the most part tonight, I thought he did a pretty good job of maintaining his composure and speaking clearly. I understand him even when he stammers though because I almost always know where he's going with a thought even if he doesn't complete it, so please let me know if you feel that he was unclear in any of his answers. I genuinely thought it shined through to the average viewer that Ron had clear philosophic principles to back up all of his stances on issues. Here is Ron when they asked him about legalizing drugs at the federal level:




Here is the debate in it's entirety, let me know what you think.

For Liberty,
Ryan Vest

Joey's Choice

Our assistant commander in chief faces the difficult choice between upholding the constitution and political power. I'm sure many of you have read stories or seen videos like the one below where Senator Biden very clearly states his position on the executive branch going to war without congressional approval. He threatened to impeach Bush back in 2007 if Bush attacked Iran. Here is Biden's exact quote from back in 2007 when he was running for president.

QUESTIONER: I have a great fear that say you’re elected as the nominee of the party. Next August sometime during the summer, Dick Cheney and George are going to bomb Iran.
BIDEN: Legitimate concern.
QUESTIONER: What can you do about it?
BIDEN: I am not one, who if you’ve observed me for some time, I am not one who’s engaged in excessive populist rhetoric. I’m not one that pits the rich against the poor. I’m not one who’s gone out there and made false threats against presidents about, and god love him he’s a great guy, I’m not Dennis Kucinich saying impeach everybody now. But let me tell you, I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
I asked them to put together [for] me a draft, which I’m now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the Untied States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran. And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him.

Obviously, Joe takes this very seriously. Why, then, do we see no protest now?

Fox News' Anti-Ron Paul Stunt

     In case you haven't heard, Ron Paul has won the presidential straw poll at CPAC for the second year in a row. This has invited the usual calls of "He can't win," and "Straw polls mean nothing," that came last year when he beat out candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
     Despite the conventional "wisdom" that Ron Paul can't win a presidential election, his consecutive CPAC victory has gotten him a lot of airtime on the various news networks. Yesterday, Ron appeared on Fox News, as he did last year post-victory. Before the interview began Fox News showed video from CPAC, announcing the winner of the straw poll, and it struck me as odd how many boos there were in the background. I had watched the live version of the announcement, and it seemed to me that there were more cheers. I shrugged off my apprehension and simply watched the rest of the interview. Today, however, while looking through various Ron Paul-related news articles, I came across one that was truly unsettling.         
     Apparently, Fox News used last year's CPAC footage instead of this year's during their introduction to Ron's interview. The difference between the two is that last year the Ron Paul supporters were late getting to the results ceremony because Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty Group meeting ran long. This forced them to have to wait in an overflow room, separate from the main chamber where the results of the poll were announced, and so the main chamber was filled predominately with supporters of Mitt Romney and other candidates. So, naturally, there were a lot of boos when none of these candidates were announced as the winner.
     It was easy for Fox News to switch the footage; the same man announced the same results in front of an identical backdrop. I don't see how this could've been done accidentally, it seems to me that this is a blatant attempt by Fox News to marginalize Ron Paul by giving the illusion that his victory was unpopular.

See it for yourself: 

Congressman Paul on Fox News

 Actual footage of CPAC victory (skip to 8:45 to see reaction)

News story that confirmed my suspicions

Video outlining deceit

Letter to Renee Ellmers

For the political science class in which I am currently enrolled, I have to write a letter to the representative of my district. In my case, this is the freshman tea-partying congresswomen Renee Ellmers. I would've sent this letter regardless of the class assignment, but its always good to kill two birds with one stone: my homework, and the comically named USA PATRIOT act.

The USA PATRIOT act is an acronym for The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. It was signed on October 26 by George Bush. That's 1 month and 15 days after the 9/11 attacks, which is hasty but possibly understandable. We had just endured the most psychologically damaging attack in US history; everyone was terrified and the consensus was to trade some of our liberties for perceived safety. Many of the provisions in the bill were set to expire in December of 2005 and then voted to be extended. Now, a vote to extend the three most controversial parts of the bill is scheduled for later today. They tried to quickly pass this bill by getting a two-thirds majority last week, but failed to do so thanks to some new tea party republicans who believe, as I do, that the PATRIOT Act is a breach of our civil liberties. Here are the provisions to be extended as described by Julian Sanchez of the CATO Institute.

Lone Wolf

So-called “lone wolf” authority allows non-citizens in the U.S. who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities to be monitored under the broad powers afforded by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), even if they are not connected to any overseas terror group or other “foreign power.” It was passed after FBI claimed the absence of “lone wolf” authority stymied efforts to monitor the infamous “20th 9/11 Hijacker”--but a bipartisan Senate report found that this failure was actually the result of a series of gross errors by the FBI, not any gap in government surveillance powers. Moreover, Lone Wolf blurs the traditional--and constitutionally significant--distinction between foreign intelligence, where the executive enjoys greater latitude, and domestic national security investigations. The way the statute is written, Lone Wolf authority is only available in circumstances where investigators would already be able to obtain a criminal terrorism wiretap. Given of the sweeping nature of FISA surveillance, that more narrow criminal surveillance authority should be employed when the special needs imposed by the involvement of a “foreign power” are not present.

Roving Wiretaps

Roving wiretap authority allows intelligence wiretap orders to follow a target across multiple phone lines or online accounts. Similar authority has been available in criminal investigations since 1986, but Patriot’s roving wiretaps differ from the version available in criminal cases, because the target of an order may be “described” rather than identified. Courts have stressed this requirement for identification of a named target as a feature that enables criminal roving wiretaps to satisfy the “particularity” requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Patriot’s roving taps, by contrast, raise the possibility of “John Doe” warrants that name neither a person nor a specific “place” or facility--disturbingly similar to the “general warrants” the Founders were concerned to prohibit when they crafted the Fourth Amendment. Given the general breadth of FISA surveillance and the broad potential scope of online investigations, John Doe warrants would pose a high risk of “overcollecting” innocent Americans’ communications. Most civil liberties advocates would be fine with making this authority permanent if it were simply modified to match the criminal authority and foreclose the possibility of "John Doe" warrants by requiring either a named individual target or a list of specific facilities to be wiretapped.

Section 215

Section 215 expanded the authority of the FISA Court to compel the production of business records or any other “tangible thing.” While previously such orders were limited to narrow classes of businesses and records, and required a showing of “specific and articulable facts” that the records sought pertain to an agent of a foreign power, Patriot stripped away those limits. The current law requires only a showing of “reasonable grounds” to believe records are “relevant” to an investigation, not probable cause, and has no requirement that people whose information is obtained be even suspected of any connection to terrorism. And the recipients of these orders are barred from Proposals to restore some of the previous checks on this power--requiring some demonstrable connection to terroris--initially received bipartisan support last year, but were torpedoed when the Justice Department objected that this limitation would interfere with a secret “sensitive collection program.” Several senators briefed on the program have expressed concern that this sweeping collection authority was being reauthorized without adequate public understanding of its true purpose

Here, in comparison, is the fourth amendment to the constitution

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.

The PATRIOT act represents an erosion of the fourth amendment. Not a complete reversal - a slow erosion. This is the way the constitution is marginalized: slowly, and largely without notice. 

Congress hasn't been talking about the PATRIOT Act until this week; it is my understanding that they used the same type of maneuver the last time the act was extended in 2005. No one discusses it until the deadline, and then the only voices heard are those of the pundits and legislators that suggest democracy, freedom, and America itself are at stake unless the vote is passed. I will have a more detailed write up on my opinions on the PATRIOT Act after the vote tonight. Until then, here is my letter to Congresswoman Ellmers and her response.

Congresswoman Ellmers,

 I urge you to vote ‘No’ on the extension of the PATRIOT act. It is a denial of our fourth amendment rights and is an example of the excessive government involvement that the tea partiers abhor. The fourth amendment states "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." The PATRIOT Act is an example of hasty legislation in response to fear. The fear was completely understandable, we were viciously attacked by terrorists and this legislation appeared as though it may help. However, in the same way that we shouldn't give up second amendment rights in response to the Arizona shooting, we also shouldn't give up our fourth amendment rights in response to 9/11. To echo Congressman Paul, just because a law may make us somewhat safer, it is not a justification for the government to do anything it wants. Mr. Paul gave the example of putting a camera in everyone's house in order to stop child abuse and domestic violence. Would this make us safer? Possibly, but at what cost?

Thank you,

Ryan Vest

And, her response:

February 11, 2011

 

 

Dear Ryan:

 

Thank you for letting me know that you are concerned that I voted to temporarily extend three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. I am opposed to government intrusion and regulation that stifles growth and our constitutional guarantees. But I also believe it is the role of the federal government to keep us safe and I, and many of my constituents believe the Patriot Act has kept us safe for the last ten years using the tools provided by the law to provide enhanced investigative tools that were necessary to bring the law up to speed with technology and the new threat of small groups or individuals working to harm us.

 

The three provisions we just voted to extend were the three most controversial provisions enacted when the Congress passed them after the 9-11 attack on our country and so they were subjected to a sunset clause, causing them to expire automatically after 10 years. The “Lone Wolf” provision simplifies the standard needed to obtain a court order to target a non-U.S. individual suspected of international terrorism for the same type of surveillance used to monitor foreign intelligence agents or members of an international terrorist organization. The “Roving” wiretap allows multipoint taps that follow a target, not the location or device. Previously, investigators had to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone or computer that needed to be monitored, making it impossible to tap modern day electronic devices. And finally the” Business Records” provision broadens the types of records and tangible item! s that can be obtained with warrants. Some say this allows government officials to go on fishing expeditions, but the requests for such a warrant are actually subjected to more judicial scrutiny than in criminal investigations and must be renewed every six months.

 

Not having been in Congress when the law was originally passed, I voted for the short term extension of these provisions because I thought it was the responsible thing to do. I feel that the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in the 112th Congress should have the time they need to publically debate potential changes and exercise proper oversight and thoughtful analysis about whether the need to continue these provisions for the long term is warranted when weighed against the cost to our liberties.

 

I did not think it advisable to allow these provisions to simply expire without revisiting the need for them, and discussing their role in thwarting the last several terrorist attempts against us. I have heard from many constituents who agree with me. I agree that government must be kept to a minimum, but I also think it is essential that the federal government be tasked with the responsibility to keep the nation and its citizens safe.

 

Sincerely,

Renee Ellmers

Member of Congress

RE/PS