With the partisan furor over the National Security Agency dominating headlines, the debate over renewal of the Patriot Act has been pushed off the front pages. In this morning's New York Post, New York Congressman Vito Fossella offers a good summary of why extension of the act is so important. Among other things, he identifies two terrorist plots that have been uncovered using the act's tools:

Bin Laden's impotence is due not to a lack of trying, but rather to new and enhanced U.S. security measures. Since 9/11, U.S. officials and forces have disrupted 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated 3,000 operatives worldwide and captured or killed nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's senior leaders.

One key element has been the Patriot Act, which finally armed law enforcement and the intelligence community with the legal means to detect, disrupt and stop terrorists before they could strike.

The Patriot Act took laws already approved by the courts to fight organized crime and drug trafficking — such as roving wiretaps and delayed-notice search warrants — and applied them to terrorism. Gone are the days when law enforcement could conduct electronic surveillance to investigate mail fraud — yet couldn't do the same for terror-linked crimes like chemical-weapons offenses. Now the government can track and pursue Osama bin Laden as it does the Gotti family.

The 9/11 Commission skewered the federal government for its bans on information-sharing among the law-enforcement, intelligence and defense communities. The Patriot Act tears down this infamous wall so investigators can "connect the dots" to uncover and stop our enemies before they attack.

Indeed, that's precisely how nine terrorists affiliated with a violent Islamic extremist group with ties to al Qaeda were captured and jailed in the "Virginia Jihad" case in 2004. Law enforcement and prosecutors used information obtained through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to investigate members of the Dar al-Arqam Islamic Center and dismantle their terrorist cell.

While al Qaeda embraced the digital age by using the Internet and satellite phones to conduct business, law enforcement was forced to wage its battle with laws from the rotary-phone era. The Patriot Act modernized the law to match today's technology. For instance, a provision to extend the trap-and-trace surveillance technique to online communications helped law enforcement identify several of the terrorists who kidnapped and murdered American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002.

For what it's worth, I think the Patriot Act will be renewed, although no doubt watered down here and there. The Democrats want to make noise about the Act to cater to their far-left base, but they don't want to take responsibility for the consequences if the Act were allowed to expire, and successful terrorist attacks resulted.

Although the ad won't air until tomorrow, it can be today at the ABJ's website

powertline.com-john

-poltical blog

          Gas prices could go up because of Hurricane Wilma; and the holidays are just weeks away. Interest rates are rising and Iraq is going down hill. The people around here (Laurens SC) are saving there money and car pooling. Which I don't blame them, we don't have big bussiness around here excapt up the road to Greenville. So this sounds a little depressing well thats how it started in the First Depression.

-Political Blog

Here's One I Won't Be Seeing

I shuddered when I heard that a movie called North Country was being made out of the Jenson case, in which a group of female miners sued the owner of a taconite mine in northern Minnesota. I happen to know something about that case, which inspired a book called Class Action. The movie was said to be loosely based on the book and the actual case, and I could imagine how distorted Hollywood's product would be.

The movie is now out; it stars Charlize Theron, who was no doubt cast for her striking resemblance to the miner she plays. The film's is remarkably preachy, posturing the movie as a landmark in the battle against sexual harassment. The of North Country confirms that the movie is awash in liberal stereotypes. But one jarring note jumped out at me:

Inspired by Anita Hill's testimony at the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Josey talks Bill, a local hockey-hero-turned-lawyer (Woody Harrelson, in his best work in years) into mounting a lawsuit. And like Hill, Josey is confronted by the mine owner's "nuts and sluts" defense that focuses on her own sexual past.

The Washington Times speculates about the prospect that Harriet Miers' nomination will be withdrawn. President Bush is not one to back down, that's one of the reasons I like him, but Miers herself may decide she wants out. Alternatively, if a few key Republican Senators do what Barry Goldwater did during the Watergate era, that might signal the end. I wouldn't expect that to happen prior to the hearings, though. But look for grass-root conservatives to apply more pressure against this nomination next week.

If you add the odds that the nomination will be pulled and the odds that it will be defeated, you may get a number in excess of 50 percent. However, a good performance by Miers before the Judiciary Committee (if things get that far) would tilt the equation back in her favor.

powerline.com-john

-political blog

The Washington Times speculates about the prospect that Harriet Miers' nomination will be withdrawn. President Bush is not one to back down, that's one of the reasons I like him, but Miers herself may decide she wants out. Alternatively, if a few key Republican Senators do what Barry Goldwater did during the Watergate era, that might signal the end. I wouldn't expect that to happen prior to the hearings, though. But look for grass-root conservatives to apply more pressure against this nomination next week.

If you add the odds that the nomination will be pulled and the odds that it will be defeated, you may get a number in excess of 50 percent. However, a good performance by Miers before the Judiciary Committee (if things get that far) would tilt the equation back in her favor.

powerline.com-john

-political blog

            But I believe that America will never be at peace as long as there are terrorist's, dictators, and Communist governement's. A few countries such as: China, North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Yes, I said China, but why China? I believe if a president elected from the south where there have been textile plant closures. Attacking China will be a personal war and it is said that China was working on increasing there military something should be done about this. Confronting China will be the best idea, since our military is stratch to its limit. If Taiwan was to declare its independence from China, America has allready said it will help Taiwan on this matter.

           North Korea and Syria are more life long fears of a nuclear war. North Korea has omitted they had nukes and this problem is decreasing; for if we give them a reactor the will disairm. But recently the U.N. has found false play in the Libanese Prime Minister and Syria had somthing to to with the murder. Today the United States told the U.N. to do something about Syria. It seems that America ain't going to have a rest for a while, and I guess all we can do is watch and see what happens.

Political Blog-Daniel

This is a transcript of Tom DeLay's remarks, delivered this morning at the Texas State Capitol. I think all Republicans--especially the Bush administration--can learn from DeLay's uncompromising response to unfair attacks by Democrats:

This morning I appeared before the court and emphatically stated what I have maintained all along during this unfortunate episode: I have committed NO WRONGDOING. I know that, and more importantly, Ronnie Earle knows it.

You may be surprised to hear me say this, but I find this to be a good day. Today I was provided the opportunity to go before the Court and refute these baseless charges that are the result of a political vendetta being acted out by Ronnie Earle.

Unfortunately for Ronnie Earle, the facts and the law are on MY SIDE.

The ONLY reason I had to stand in that courtroom today was because Ronnie Earle has abused his prosecutorial power and pursued these contrived and baseless charges.

Because of actions that I took through the democratic process to rid this very legislature of years of unfair gerrymandering by Texas Democrats, I became a target of Ronnie Earle.

Because I was successful in exercising my right to be involved in a political process that elected more Republicans, I became a target of Ronnie Earle.

And because Ronnie Earle and the Democratic Party could not beat me at the ballot box, could not beat me on the floor of the House of Representatives, they are now desperately trying to challenge me in a courtroom.

In short, I have been charged for defeating Democrats, advocating constitutional representation, and advancing the Republican agenda.

Ronnie Earle and the Democrat campaign behind him will be unsuccessful. I will fight this prosecutor's abuse of the legal system and I will be absolutely exonerated.

I will not let a prosecutor who pursues his political enemies by abusing the law and manufacturing baseless charges wreck our justice system. Grand jury shopping and make-the-law-up-as-you-go injustice by the District Attorney will not rule the day. The facts and the law will rule the day.

A fair trial with an impartial jury will look at the facts and understand that--without a doubt-I committed no wrongdoing whatsoever.

I look forward to presenting the facts and putting my faith in the law in order to welcome my inevitable exoneration.

Thank you once again for this opportunity to talk with you all. Have a nice day.

As we noted yesterday, DeLay's lawyers have also filed motions to transfer the venue of the case and for recusal of the trial judge, Robert Perkins. The recusal motion is very interesting; it recites Judge Perkins' support for many Democratic candidates and causes, itemizing no fewer than 34 such contributions. (Perkins apparently has never contributed to a Republican.) Most significant are the judge's contributions to the Democratic National Committee and MoveOn.org. Perkins contributed to MoveOn.org at the very time that that group was, in its fundraising solicitations, raising money to attack DeLay. The relevant Texas rule is that a judge must recuse himself in any matter where his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

DeLay's lawyers have also filed a 24-page brief in support of their motion to dismiss Earle's second indictment. (It appears to be a foregone conclusion that the first indictment, alleging conspiracy, will be dismissed.) The brief sets out multiple grounds for dismissing the second indictment, several of which appear, on their face, to be persuasive.

UPDATE: The New York Times' report on today's court hearing is here. The Times suggests that Judge Perkins reacted negatively to DeLay's recusal motion, but Perkins did recuse himself under very similar circumstances, when Earle brought a laughable prosecution against Kay Hutchison just after she was elected to the Senate. In that case, Earle suffered the ultimate humiliation for a prosecutor: he got as far as the courthouse steps, and then had to tell the judge that he was unable to go forward, and the case was dismissed.

-powerline.com-john

-political blog

       I think that its normal that children what to know about this, but need to talk about it to their parents. They hear stuff about this at school and most of the time around their "friends". So what should the government do? What do you think it should do? It is basicly un constitutional to stop all porn industries this is America and you can do basicly anything. I do think that these websites should have a page with no adult content on the page and request a credit card varvacation. In all the best way to stop free porn where "kids" and some "husbands" and "wifes" can not get in trouble.

Political Blog-Daniel 

It's difficult not to feel sorry for Harriet Miers -- by all accounts a fine person. She gets no love from liberal Senate Democrats, and is bound to lose any good will they may have for her once she refuses, during the hearings, to commit herself to Roe v. Wade. She gets no love from conservative Senate Republicans because there's little evidence that she'a a strong conservative.

For a while it looked like Arlen Specter was ready to adopt her. After their meeting earlier this week, Specter gushed about how well Miers remembered the facts of her underground easement case. But after their "misunderstanding" about her position on privacy and the Constitution, and her written answers to the Judiciary Committee's questions about her cases, Specter is said to be annoyed with Miers.

Who is left? Well, there's the gang of 14. Since this group cares little about ideology and lots about avoiding conflict (at least where conflict might threaten their privileges as Senators or their popularity back home), Miers seems made-to-order from its perspective. Indeed, all of her main career accomplishments -- law firm head, state bar leader, White House facilitator -- suggest the ability to put ideology aside and work around differences. Plus, most of this group always wanted a daughter, not a son.

However, the gang of 14 isn't really monolithic. Some members may be nervous about a Texas Christian fundamentalist, particularly one with a strong pro-life position. In any case, the gang's power resides in its status as a collection of swing voters. But if enough liberals and conservatives oppose Miers, the 14 won't be swing voters this time. Imagine -- 14 Senators not being able to control the Senate.

The odds probably still favor Miers if she does reasonably well at her hearings. But I'd like her chances better if I could name a single Senator with a strong reason to support her without reservation.

Power Line.com/paul

-political blog

DePaul University in Chicago has invited Ward Churchill to its campus to speak on--of all things--human rights. The college's Republicans have tried to mobilize opposition to Churchill's visit, but have been blocked by the college's administration. Amazingly, the Republicans were denied the right to post flyers criticizing Churchill's visit on the ground that the flyers were "propaganda"!

Filmmaker Andrew Marcus has set up a terrific web site to follow the controversy, called Mental Ward. The site contains a wealth of information, including a video interview with the President of DePaul's Republicans. This is a great example of a single-purpose web site.

-Power Line.com-john

-Political Blog

If all you did was read newspaper headlines, you'd think the Democrats would be in clover. Day after day, Republicans seem to be taking a beating on all fronts. And yet, for some reason, it's the Republicans, not the Democrats, who keep winning elections.

Donald Lambro of the Washington Times discusses a new report by two long-time Democratic political strategists, William Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck, which warns the Democrats that they need to reposition themselves closer to the center if they want to be more successful. Democratic members of Congress are now being briefed on the report, which tries to dispel a series of "myths":

• "The myth of mobilization." Democrats are not going to be able to win with the old liberal orthodoxy by simply energizing the party's base and bringing voters "to the polls in record numbers." In an electorate "where conservatives outnumber liberals 3-2 ..., Democrats cannot win the game of 'base' ball."

• "The myth of demography." Democrats are fooling themselves if they think the population growth among major minorities such as Hispanics "will secure a Democratic majority for decades to come. Along with rising Hispanic voter rolls has been a dramatic increase in Hispanic incomes,...

• "The myth of prescription drugs is our shorthand for the proposition, which seems to bewitch Democratic political consultants, that Democrats can win present-day national elections by avoiding cultural issues, downplaying national security, and changing the subject to domestic issues such as health care, education and job security."

Galston and Kamarck blame the Democrats' weakness on security and cultural issues for a precipitous drop in support among Catholics and married women.

Here's a cheerful note: the authors wrote a similar report after the 1988 election. The Democrats didn't listen then; will they now? I doubt it. The Democratic Party has lost much of its influence to far-left grass roots groups like MoveOn.org, which are funded not primarily by the party's traditional constituencies, but by the far left, especially the far-left super-rich. The issues on which Galston and Kamarck urge the party to move toward the center--the war on terror, the American military generally, and social issues like gay marriage--are precisely the issues that motivate the most partisan Democrats. I'm not sure there are many Democrats left who are willing to compromise on those core issues, which is one reason I'm not as confident as most people that Hillary Clinton has the '08 nomination more or less wrapped up.

Over the last nine months, events have gone about as badly as they could for the Republicans. Maybe yesterday's election in Iraq was the beginning of a turnaround, and prospects will look brighter by next November. But even if the next year proves tough for the Republicans, they will still have their ace in the hole: they get to run against Democrats. Whether that will be enough remains to be seen.

-Power Line.com-john

-Political Blog

www.electionstudio.com