TAYLOR CONFLICTED?

The judge who ruled against the government and ruled the NSA terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional may have had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Anna Diggs Taylor also serves as a trustee and officer to an organization that donated $45,000 to the Michigan chapter of the ACLU -- which happened to be one of the plaintiffs in the case (via Hot Air):

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

As Allahpundit notes, this does not appear to violate the legal canon of ethics, at least not explicitly, but it does seem rather too close for comfort. Many judges probably either belong to the ACLU or have given it support, but in this case it would appear unseemly for Taylor -- as an officer of an organization that is a major benefactor -- to have presided over a lawsuit the Michigan chapter brought. I doubt she will get any official sanction, but I also think it will dent her reputation than her opinion in the case has already done.

However, we should not get too triumphal about this development. The defendants of the lawsuit will almost certainly raise this question on appeal, but the real questions about the legality of the program still must find an answer. Even if the appellate court dismisses the decision on this basis, it only postpones a truly substantive review of the issue -- which Taylor didn't bother providing in the first place. The sooner that the Supreme Court reviews the issue, the better off we all will be.

SOME BAD NEWS FOR THE GLOBAL WARMING FANATICS

What bad news?

The hurricane season. Things aren't quite going the way the global warming crowd predicted. There have only been three tropical storms thus far. This is about average for the short term, but if you average it out over multiple years this would be below average.

Hurricanes? Thanks for asking, but there hasn't been one as of yet. None. Nada. Zip. Nunca. Averaging between 19044 and 2005 we would have seen about 1.5 hurricanes thus far. Again ... we've seen none.

According to weatherstreet.com the National Weather Service predicted 12 to 15 named storms by December of this year. There were 27 last year. Now it looks like the 12 to 15 prediction may be a bit high.

OK ... so the global warming nuts were wrong. They predicted a horrible hurricane season. It isn't happening. So ... what's different? What happened? Here's where you global warmistas need to sit down. Surface temperatures on the world's oceans are getting ...... cooler. According to a paper to be published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, between 2003 and 2005 globally averaged temperatures in the upper levels of the ocean have cooled. They've cooled not just a little ... but dramatically. Sea surface temperatures in the western Atlantic .. where hurricanes are fueled ... are now slightly below normal.

Oh well. Whatchagonna do!

There's always the glaciers you can go to in order to prove your global warming scenario.

More news. A soon-to-be released study by a Danish university says that Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for most the past 100 years. The study of 247 of the 350 glaciers on Disko island shows that 70% of these glaciers have been retreating at a rate of about 8 meters a year since the end of the 1880s. There was apparently a real surge in glacier melting caused by a warming of the earth's atmosphere during the 1920s.

Damned SUVs. The 1920 General Motors Yukon is being cited as a significant cause.

OK you global warmistas. Back to the drawing boards. Surely you'll find something new to use in your efforts to slow down the economy of the United States.

BLABBERMOUTH DAMAGE, AGAIN

By Michelle Malkin

Patterico takes a closer look at that bone-headed ruling against the NSA terrorist surveillance program, and finds more damning evidence of how the blabbermouths have underminded national security:

According to the plaintiffs — lawyers, scholars, journalists, and others who communicate internationally with terrorists — the disclosure of the surveillance program has caused terrorists to discontinue international telephone and e-mail communications:

Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP [”Terrorist Surveillance Program”] has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect. For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations. In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations, and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients. All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted.

Let me put that into plain English: terrorists and their associates will no longer communicate with these plaintiffs via e-mail and telephone — in other words, ways that the government could monitor under the surveillance program — because the terrorists are aware of the surveillance program. It’s not the Terrorist Surveillance Program itself that has caused terrorists to cease these international communications. It’s the fact that the terrorists now know about it.

Read the whole thing. It's an important refutation of the blabbermouth meme that the terrorists already knew about the program and the NYTimes' smug insistence that it did no harm in splashing the details all over its front page.

The newspaper of wreckage marches on...

***
Previous:

When blabbermouths lie: question the timing
The newspaper of wreckage
How about a nice big glass of...
The terrorist-tipping Times
More blabbermouth posters
Messages for the blabbermouths
Backlash against the blabbermouths
NYTimes blabbermouths strike again

ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNORS RACE

IN 82 DAYS the people of California are going to vote for our next Governor. The winner will either be Arnold Schwarzenegger or Phil Angelides (no, the porn star Mary Carey won’t get 161,000 signatures to get on the ballot). At the end of the day, Governor Schwarzenegger will win by 7 to 10 points. Due to lack of strong energy for either candidate, lack of over riding issues–even with massive bonds on the ballot–distrust of both candidates, from the middle and the right–the turnout could be as low as 40%–in 2002 it was 49.6%. Part of the turnout problem is that if Angelides tanks, as I believe he will about three weeks out, the left will join the hard right in not going to the polls. This will make the mushy-middle a larger portion of the voters, giving Arnold an even bigger victory.

Of course the GOP position on illegal aliens and the massive bond proposals will also have an affect on the voter turnout. If the GOP looks like it is confused or supportive on the amnesty question, that will lower turnout. If the GOP appears, as a body, to be supporting $42 billion in bonds, that will make California Republicans look like the out of control D.C. GOP’ers on spending–again, lowering turnout. Still Angelides has no traction, no theme, no reason (other than to raise taxes) to be Governor and the voters will see that.

There are three reasons Arnold should win in November:

1. We don’t want to punish our children or businesses
2. We want less government, not more. Angelides guarantees significantly larger government
3. It benefits Republicans to re-elect Governor Schwarzenegger

First reason to re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger is so we don’t punish our children and businesses.

A few weeks ago in Warwick, Rhode Island I heard one of the great conservative strategists in this nation give a 30 minute, off the cuff speech on how to vote in November. Rod Martin of Florida is a true leader and thinker. A solid conservative, no one questions his credentials. Rod is a leading member of the NFRA and the CNP. I have known him for about ten years and know him to have only the good of America in his heart.

His speech was on a national level, why we should support all Republican candidates on the ballot. Rod went over the litany of transgressions in D.C.–over spending, the Bush promotion of amnesty for illegal aliens, the out of control earmarks, and he went on and on. Yet, through all that, Rod Martin said, “We should not punish our children”. He made the case that the Democrats would stop the effective War on Terror of President Bush, taxes would go up and the morale of the military would return to the dismal days of Clinton. This would, as he says, punish our children since it will take years to correct the bad policies. He reminded us that we still haven’t rolled back the incompetent and corrupt “War On Poverty” by LBJ. The minority community is still being punished by that Democrat administration three decades ago.

The bottom line, he said, is that you can be mad at Bush and the D.C. Republicans, but don’t punish your businesses or children with something we know will be worse.

In the same way, while only 50% of judicial appointments by the Governor are Republicans, that is still 50% more than Angelides would appoint. Phil has promised to raise taxes, Arnold has vetoed tax increases.
Phil would sign a bill granting illegal aliens drivers licenses, Arnold has said NO to Gil Cedillo on this subject. Though he lost the Special Election last year, at least he tried–more than others have done. Yes, many of his Commission appointments are Democrats, but many are also Republicans. Angelides would only appoint Democrats, that we know. Arnold did campaign for George Bush, while PA actively worked for Kerry.

The policies of Angelides would absolutely harm the economy of California, while the Governor is trying to stop those harmful policies. On cultural issues, we can at least speak to the Governor and his staff, PA would make California the hedonist capital of our nation. Only traditional families and moral values would be opposed by a Governor Angelides.

The second reason to re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger is because we want less government, not more. Angelides guarantees significantly larger government.

Though Arnold has proposed numerous big government programs, they are molehills compared to what PA would do, including a plan for universal health care that would bankrupt small business (watch for the recession of jobs that is about to hit San Francisco, due to Mayor Newsom’s massive tax increase–that what a mandatory program is, a tax increase–for his universal health care program), and cause many businesses to leave the State. We know that the Governor has worked hard to veto job killer bills, prevent tax increases and to create business opportunities in the State. PA is a front for the unions that have created a $100 billion unfunded pension liability and over $70 billion in unfunded healthcare liabilities in California governments. How could he say no to them? Just as Gray Davis showed his real colors in 2003, PA would do even worse.

The Governor is a supporter of charter schools, PA believes in a government monopoly in education. He feels that all students should be held hostage by government. The governor has talked about the pension crisis of massive unfunded liabilities, PA’s supporters are the cause of it. Instead of fixing the situation as Arnold wants, Phil would raise employer “contributions” (taxes). Yes, both the Governor and PA supported stem cell research–Arnold because he wants cures and PA because he wants government control of drug research. Arnold respects corporations. Phil, except for his own wetland killing development company, prefers the state to decides priorities for businesses, hiring practices, quotas, who they can sell to or buy from.

Find an issue and Angelides wants government to make the decision. Arnold, does approve, most of the time, allowing those who invest and take financial risks to make the decisions. Arnold is a moderate toward government, while Angelides is a radical believer in government as the first resort. Even an aide to Feinstein was quoted as saying all Phil wants to do is raise taxes.

The third reason to re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger is because that benefits Republicans

As a Republican, with a Republican governor we can get some things done, get some appointments and be a part of the discussion. Angelides would bring us back to the Jerry Brown days of only the most radical of thinkers will get heard. Under PA, we go back to the days of rose Bird and her “Supremes”. Do we really want to have to do another Recall of Justices? While the governor is appointing Democrats to the key commissions, we still get a few traditional GOP’ers on these commissions. Do you think Phil would be so ecumenical? We must have a governor that vetoes bad legislation–and in most cases Arnold has done that.

But, with a GOP governor we have opportunities to raise money for ballot measures, threaten to create ballot measures and to raise money for our candidates. Under Davis the business community gave almost exclusively to Davis and his hand picked candidates. At least with Arnold we have a shot at equality from business.

Primaries are for debate and division. General elections are for the Party to come together. We need a strong victory by Arnold to bring in the under ticket of McClintock, Poochigian, McPherson, Strickland, Parrish and Poizner. We need a strong showing by Arnold to help Senator Dick Mountjoy. We might even win a couple of legislative seats–won;t say which in a public forum, if Arnold wins big so, for political purposes we need the Governor to win re-election. The bigger the Arnold landslide the more statewide GOP nominees win, and we can get several more legislative seats. If Arnold wins big, the GOP wins big.

That does not mean that I, and others, won’t speak out on public policy issues when the Governor is going beyond GOP principles. But on November 7th I will be voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor.

MAJOR PREDICTION: Without hesitation or fear I will be wrong, guaranteed, in 2010 the Republican nominee against Barbara Boxer will be Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Will you vote for Arnold against Phil? Would you vote for Arnold against Boxer for Senate in 2010? How do you see this election ending the night of November 7th?

—

Steve Frank is the publisher of California Political News and Views and a Senior Contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is also a consultant currently working on gambling issues and advising other consultants on policy and coalition building.

Read more of his work here or at his blog.

THE NUMBERS ON THE HISPANIC INVASION

That's right. The invasion is still underway. Even while the world was pressuring Israel to cave in to Hezbollah. Even while were watching this strange little man confess to a murder he probably did not commit .. the invasion continues.

Here's an interesting website for you. It's called immigrationCounters.com The #1 Site for Real-Time Immigration Statistics. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information on this site .. but it sure does get your attention. Here are the stats as of about 6:00 this morning:

• Illegal Immigrants in Country 20,426,887
• Money wired to Mexico $23,575,296,302
• Cost of Social Services for Illegal Immigrants $397,469,111,828
• Illegals Enrolled in Government Schools K-12 3,749,373
• Cost of Illegal Immigrants Enrolled in K-12 $14,489,987,299
• Illegal Immigrants Incarcerated 315,460
• Cost for Incarcerations of Illegal Immigrants $1,446,245,595
• Illegal Immigrant Fugitives 623,761

Here's a statistic from elsewhere, one that I did check out. Out of all of the outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles, 95% of them are for illegal aliens.

One more thing: You do remember that immigration fuss in the Congress some weeks back, don't you? The House had one version that called for the borders to be controlled and contained no guest worker program, the Senate had a bill calling for amnesty and only a token attempt to control the borders. Nothing got done. The Senate bill was written by Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy. It contained a provision for about 370 miles of fencing along the Mexican-U.S. Border. But .. here's what you probably didn't know. That fence can only be built with after consulting Mexico as to its location. Well isn't that special! Mexico gets to decide where we put our border fences!

THE WIRETAP RULING

I really hate to disappoint my loyal listeners, but as of this time I'm really not ready to jump on U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for her ruling yesterday [pdf] .. a ruling which says that Bush's wiretap program is unconstitutional. I want to read the full ruling first .. then I'll jump if a leap is warranted.

There is one thing that bothers me from the get-go, and that is what I feel to be Judge Taylor's animosity toward the president. There is some language in the excerpts of her ruling that I've already read that seem to be just a bit harsh. That remark that "there are no hereditary kings in America" would be an example.

Here's something I want you to think about though. Let's consider a scenario. U.S. Intelligence forces are eavesdropping on the cell phone conversations of an Islamic terrorist in Pakistan. It is starting to become clear that this Islamic terrorist is in the final steps of implementing a terror attack on a U.S. target ... let's say a large shopping mall. Our intelligence agents are on pins and needles because it looks like this man is preparing to call the Islamic goons who will carry out the attack and give them the go-ahead. As our intelligence people watch their monitors it suddenly becomes clear that the terrorist is making a phone call to the United States. This could be it! He may be calling his contact to discuss the final details and timing of the attack!

Under Judge Taylor's ruling will our intelligence folks have the authority to listen to the conversation, or will they have to hang up? If they can listen, fine. If they have to get a warrant a few days later from that super-secret court, fine. If they have to hang up .. not fine.

When this story first surfaced the media seemed to make a group decision to refer to the wiretapping as "domestic." It wasn't. As I understand the situation, only international calls were monitored, and then only international calls wherein the party outside of the U.S. was suspected of a connection to Islamic radicals.

Now .. as an aside ... there was one line that Judge Taylor used in her ruling that really intrigues me. She wrote that there are ".. no powers not created by the Constitution." Izzat so? Then pray tell, Judge Taylor, just how can our Imperial Federal Government seize 14% of my paycheck and slam it into an income-redistribution program that may or may not -- there is no guarantee -- pay me some of that money back when I retire?