It is amazing how often congressmen and congresswomen describe themselves as one way back home and while campaigning, and then vote a different way in Congress. In regards to Washington State’s congressional delegation, there were two amendments voted on by the House of Representatives on July 20, 2005 that are very illuminating.

The first was an Amendment proposed by Dana Rohrabacher of California (H.AMDT.487) "to express the sense of Congress that the capture, detention and interrogation of international terrorists are essential to the successful prosecution of the Global War on Terrorism and to the defense of the U.S., its citizens, and coalition partners from future terrorist attacks; and that the detention and lawful, humane interrogation by the U.S. of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is essential to the defense of the U.S. and its coalition partners and to the successful prosecution of the Global War on Terrorism."

The following Washington Congressmen and Congresswoman voted "Aye"

Dicks (D)
Baird (D)
Larsen (D)
Smith (D)
Reichert (R)
Hastings (R)
McMorris (R)

The following Washington Congressmen and Congresswoman voted "Nay"

McDermott (D)
Inslee (D)

The second Amendment was proposed by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida (H.AMDT.488) "to restate and affirm that it is the policy of the U.S. to pursue a transfer of responsibility for Iraqi forces only when they are ready to assume such responsibility and not to withdraw prematurely the U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq. Requires any withdrawal to be done only with careful coordination with a decision by the elected government of Iraq which shall be reached jointly when it is clear that the aim of the establishment of a free and stable Iraq that is at peace and not a threat to its neighbors has been or is about to be achieved."

The following Washington Congressmen and Congresswoman voted "Aye"

Dicks (D)
Baird (D)
Reichert (R)
Hastings (R)
McMorris (R)

The following Washington Congressmen and Congresswoman voted "Nay"

McDermott (D)
Inslee (D)
Larsen (D)
Smith (D)

Read the language of the amendments carefully.

The first amendment simply says it is a good thing to capture international terrorists and interrogate them humanely at our detention center at Guantanamo Bay. You could vote for this amendment and still oppose sending allegedly innocent people to Guantanamo. You could vote for this amendment and still oppose alleged inhumane treatment at Guantanamo.

So when "Baghdad" Jim McDermott and "Carpetbag" Jay Inslee voted "nay" they let us all know they don't want terrorists rounded up. They welcome the attack on civilization – "burn baby burn." I expect as much from an extreme leftist like McDermott but am amazed that Congressman Inslee has shown his allegiance to the socialist left so openly.

The second amendment says nothing more than that the United States will not cut and run from Iraq. It does not say the military action in Iraq was good. It does not say the military action in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. It does not try to justify the military action in Iraq in any way. It simply says we will not abandon the Iraqis to the chaos and the jihadist terrorists.

McDermott, Inslee, Smith and Baird are saying that they want us to cut and run. They aren't concerned that Iraq is turning into a quagmire – they want it to be a quagmire. In short they want America to lose. McDermott and Inslee have already shown they are members of the radical left, regrettably Congressmen Smith and Baird join them in their yearning for America’s defeat. Shame on them all.

Remember these votes when you hear anyone try to describe Smith, Baird, and especially Inslee, as a "moderate." McDermott at least does not hide that he is a radical leftist. The other three are out in the open now. Remember that two-thirds of the Democrats in Washington State's delegation in the House of Representatives have voted for defeat and surrender.

Finally, kudos to Norm Dicks and Brian Baird, who know when to do the right thing.

Hat tip to Cool Blue.
- posted by Thomas @ 1:10 PM 0 comments

 
The Spokesman Review has an editorial in which they chastise WSU President V. Lane Rawlins for failing to criticize hecklers who drowned out a student's performance of the student's play called "Passion of the Musical." I gather that the play is an intentionally offensive spoof of "The Passion of the Christ" and, according to the Spokesman Review’s editorial, "contained racial epithets, ethnic stereotypes and irreverent jokes about religion."

The editorial is mostly right. Allowing a "heckler’s veto" is directly contrary to the freedom of expression - a core value of any decent university. The proper response to offensive speech is more speech - not censorship, certainly not mob censorship.

My minor complaint, however, is in the closing paragraph in which the editorial stated that Mr. Rawlins sided with the hecklers against the First Amendment.

Bzzzt, wrong.

The First Amendment protects religion and speech from government interference – it has nothing to do with private individuals. If you advocate a stupid position and your neighbors call you a nitwit you don't have a First Amendment violation. In fact the First Amendment actually protects their right to call you a nitwit.

Too bad that a newspaper doesn't understand the First Amendment. Pathetic, isn't it?
- posted by Thomas @ 4:19 PM 0 comments

 
On Thursday, July 13th, the Washington State Supreme Court failed us all. In a 6-3 vote in the case of Washington State Farm Bureau Federation et. al. v. Sam Reed, the court held that the legislature could declare an emergency for the purpose of evading the tax and spending limitations in I-601.

The Court endorsed a declaration of emergency based on the flimsiest of precedents. From now on, a legislature's declaration of emergency need not pass even the laugh test.

To understand how bad the decision is you have to have to look back to 1992 when the voters passed I-601. Prior to I-601, the state budget was habitually in a state of crisis as legislatures would spend every dime of surplus revenue in economic upswings and then, when the inevitable economic downturn came, raise taxes to cover the shortfall their wild spending had left in the budget.

The legislature's boom to bust budgeting benefited one group primarily: government employees, especially public school teachers. In good times, they got new members and raises. In bad times the taxes were increased to cover it all. This resulted in a one-way ratchet of ever increasing state budgets, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the State’s economy. The public finally got sick of this scam, however, and passed I-601.

I-601 addressed the problem in two principal methods; a requirement of a 2/3 vote to raise taxes and a budget growth cap limited to population growth plus inflation.

The limits imposed by I-601 served us well for more than a decade. Then the Democrats finally won complete and total control over the Governor’s office (with the dubious "election" of Ms. Gregoire) and both houses of the legislature. Even worse, the leaders were unapologetic liberals who never met a spending program they didn’t like. With the enthusiastic support of the public employee and teachers unions, the leftist Democrats (as opposed to the centrist Democrats) rammed through increases in spending and taxes the likes of which we hadn’t seen for more than a decade. Ms. Gregoire then signed the bills with great relish.

I-601 was still an obstruction to this spending frenzy that the leftists had to overcome. They did this by a bare, party line, majority vote – neatly sidestepping the supermajority requirements. Then – and this is the galling part – they passed a clause stating that this bypass was an “emergency.” This was how they planned to eliminate the public’s right to repeal the bypass by referendum.

The citizenry was undeterred. Shortly after the legislature adjourned, supporters filed a referendum with the Secretary of State’s office seeking to gather signatures anyway. In an absolutely unprecedented move, Secretary of State Sam Reed refused to file the referendum.

The proponents of the referendum understandably were not pleased with this turn of events. They filed an action directly with our State Supreme Court. They asked two things: 1) to hold that the “emergency” clause was invalid insomuch as there was no real emergency and everybody knew it; and 2) to tell the Secretary of State to do his job and file the referendum (this is called a Writ of Mandamus).

Unfortunately, six members of the State Supreme Court showed that their hearts were with the big spenders in Olympia rather than with the voters.

Furthermore, five of them saw nothing wrong with Secretary of State Sam Reed deciding for himself what referendum he would file and which he would not. It used to be that the constitutionality of a referendum was for the courts to decide, not the Secretary of State who was supposed to perform only the clerical task of filing. Justice Alexander, in slight mitigation of his vote for preposterous emergency declarations, filed a concurring opinion saying that the court really wasn’t deciding if the Secretary of State could "just say no" to referenda he didn’t like.

Fortunately, the majority decision was poorly written and future courts might be able to wriggle out of adhering to this wretched precedent. This is the remaining sliver of hope for citizens who think the State Constitution's guarantee of referenda and initiative is an important check on the Olympia culture.
- posted by Thomas @ 11:00 AM 0 comments

 
Diversion. It was John Kerry’s convenient excuse for opposing the invasion of Iraq. It allowed him to pander to the anti-American left while trying to convince the rational center that he wasn’t going to leave us wide open to more terrorist attacks.

Despite the fact that Kerry’s position was recognized by the majority of the voters to be an opportunistic dodge, it is now a well established matter of faith for the left that Iraq is a diversion from the Great War on Terror (GWOT). As such the fighting in Iraq "makes us less safe."

There are two glaring problems with the logic of the left’s argument: 1) there is no evidence that any resource (personal or organization attention, logistical supplies, etc.) has been denied to actions in Afghanistan as a result of actions in Iraq; and 2) it narrows the definition of the Great War on Terror (GWOT) to military action in Afghanistan directed at persons responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In other words, the left believes that the War on Terror means hunting for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Period. Anything else is a "diversion." Yankee go home.

A review of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole illustrates the flaws of the left’s argument. The U.S.S. Cole is a Navy destroyer that was anchored at Aden, Yemen on October 12, 2000 for refueling. During this stop, a small boat packed with explosives came up alongside and detonated – essentially a boating version of the suicide bomber. The explosion killed 17 sailors and injured many more. We later learned that it was planned and carried out by al-Qaeda operatives located in Yemen.

After the Cole attack we did nothing militarily – it was the Clinton administration after all. We sent FBI agents to help investigate what was considered to be a crime. No arrests were forthcoming.

Eleven months later on 9/11, al-Qaeda struck again, this time with airplanes and this time in the United States. Thousands died. We quickly determined that the people behind the 9/11 attacks were located in Afghanistan. The United States, with support from our allies, invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. The hunt for Osama was on.

More than a year later, On November 4, 2002, we were still hunting for Osama in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan. The Taliban was forced from power and a civil government was being formed.

At that same time, the CIA was operating a Predator drone over Yemen's northern Province of Marib. The operators of the Predator located an al-Qaeda team travelling in their vehicle and fired a Hellfire anti-tank missile at them. The attack killed Ali Senyan al-Harthi – the mastermind of the USS Cole operation and a key al-Qaeda leader in the region. .

In my opinion, blasting these guys to bits was a clear victory for us and a clear step forward in the GWOT. If you apply the "diversion" test, however, this attack was wrong. Yemen is south of Saudi Arabia. It is considerably farther from Afghanistan than Iraq. Therefore it had nothing to do with the fighting in Afghanistan. Furthermore, there was never any demonstrated link between Ali Senyan al-Harthi and 9/11.

No Afghanistan? No Osama? Must be a "diversion."

Rational and intelligent people will agree that that the CIA was helping to win the GWOT on November 4, 2002 by sending Ali Senyan al-Harthi and his fellow travelers to their just reward. We call it a "victory." Leftists call it a "diversion." If so, we should all hope for more such diversions.
- posted by Thomas @ 2:18 PM 0 comments