Will Congress listen to the people? According to Rasmussen Reports:
As President Obama and his congressional allies search for a way to pass their proposed health care plan, most voters remain opposed to the legislative effort.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% favor the plan while 53% are opposed. These figures include just 20% who Strongly Favor the plan and 41% who are Strongly Opposed.
Last week,support for the health care plan inched up to 44% following the president's televised health care summit. However, that mild bounce has faded, and support is back to where it was for months. With the exception of last week's results, overall support for the president's health care plan has stayed in a very narrow range from 38% to 42% since Thanksgiving.
As has been the case for months, Democrats overwhelmingly favor the plan, and Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 32% favor the plan, and 64% are opposed.
Doug Bandow, American Conservative Defense Alliance
The British media is reporting that the local councils in England have been installing microchips in the standardized garbage bins that people are required to use. The microchips can register how full the bin is and the long term intention is reportedly to punish people who are regarded as producing too much garbage. As always, the move is being promoted in a feel good way as an environmental measure to encourage people to recycle, which is already mandatory. The local councils will be able to set acceptable levels of garbage generation per capita and will be able to bill people who exceed their quotas. Britain is already the most surveilled country in the world with CCTV cameras on nearly every street corner and blanketing every major roadway but garbage monitoring might be regarded as a new low in the attempt by the nanny state to regulate every aspect of daily life. - Phil Giraldi, American Conservative Defense Alliance
Why is the national security community treating the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010," introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday as a standard proposal, as a simple response to the administration's choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt? A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity. Read the bill here, and then read the summarized points after the jump.
According to the summary, the bill sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning.
The post goes on.
There is no distinction between U.S. persons--visa holders or citizens--and non-U.S. persons.)
It would require these "belligerents" to be coded as "high-value detainee[s]" to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team established by the president. (The H.I.G., of course, was established to bring a sophisticated interrogation capacity to the federal justice system.)
This begs the question, what is a "belligerent" and how loose will this definition become with time?
It is commonly thought that liberal Democrats are defenders of civil liberties. But as advocates of big government, the Left is no principled defender of freedom. Barack Obama is the worst sort of status quo Big Government liberal--adopting George W. Bush's wars and attacks on civil liberties as his own.
although they will try, it will be extremely difficult even for his most devoted loyalists to deny the fundamental cowardice of Barack Obama. Think about how many times this will have happened:
During the primary campaign, Obama unequivocally vowed to filibuster any FISA bill that contained telecom immunity, only to turn around -- once the nomination was secure -- and vote against a Democratic filibuster of such a bill, and then in favor of the underlying bill itself; in other words, he blatantly violated his own unequivocal vow in order to avoid being called Soft on Terror (but did so assuring his believing supporters that, once in office, he'd fix the surveilllance excesses he helped enact; don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen). Then, last May, Obama announced that he would comply with two court decisions by releasing photographs of detainee abuses in the Pentagon's custody, only to turn around two weeks later and completely reverse himself after Liz Cheney and friends accused him of Endangering the Troops and Helping Terrorists. If, in the face of "GOP demands" that Mohamed be denied a civilian trial, he again reverses himself -- this time on the highest-profile civil liberties decision of his administration -- he will unmistakably reveal himself, even to his most enamored admirers, as someone so utterly devoid not only of principle but also of resolve: you just blow on him a little and he falls down and shatters into little pieces.
Even just as a political matter, is there any better way to ensure that Americans will view him as weak than by abandoning one key decision after the next as a result of the slightest pressure? What kind of person could possibly admire a "leader" who does this?
There are few dedicated defenders of liberty in the political square these days. Barack Obama certainly is not one of them. In fact, we might as well talk about the Bush-Obama administration when it comes these issues.
Doug Bandow, American Conservative Defense Alliance
For a window into the possible future of U.S. domestic policy, I make sure to "monitor" the flamboyantly Orwellian policies of the United Kingdom. Here's the latest from British Brother:
All dogs are to be compulsorily microchipped so that their owners can be more easily traced under a crackdown on dangerous dogs to be unveiled today.
The idea, as home secretary Alan Johnson put it, is to ensure the public's right to feel safe in their homes and on the street. Here is the proposal that will allegedly make Britains feel safer:
Under the scheme a microchip the size of a grain of rice is injected under the skin of the dog between its shoulder blades. The chip contains a unique code number, the dog's name, age, breed and health as well as the owner's name, address and phone number. When the chip is "read" by a handheld scanner the code number is revealed and the details can be checked on a national database.
Why don't they just cut to the chase and try chipping the owners? Or better yet, chip everyone just in case they might have thoughts about owning a poodle.
