A bill essentially legalizing Bush’s warrantless surveillance program just sailed through the Democratic House and is expected to sail through the Democratic Senate. It would expand wiretapping powers against foreign targets, extend the grace period of warrantless domestic eavesdropping on Americans at home, and grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that cooperated in illegal domestic spying. The New York Times calls it “the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years,” but it is also just the latest example in 30 years of Democratic betrayals of the Fourth Amendment.

In 1978, Democratic President Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into law. A meager response to Nixon’s surveillance of peaceful activists and other such abuses, FISA established a secret court within the Justice Department to issue special warrants for wiretapping foreign suspects. Even when spying on a “United States person,” intelligence officials now had 72 hours before they needed a warrant. Carter said in his signing statement, “This is a difficult balance to strike, but the act I am signing today strikes it.” The Fourth Amendment lost its teeth.

From 1979 to September 11, 2001, more than thirteen thousand FISA warrants were issued. Not a single application was rejected.

Last week brought two images that we never thought we would ever witness. First there was television footage of a demolition in North Korea, as Pyongyang kept its promise to blow up a cooling tower at its nuclear reactor in Yongbyon. And then came a televised statement by President Bush that he was removing North Korea off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, in response to Pyongyang's cooperation in dismantling its nuclear program.
All this without a shot being fired or single casualty. What happened last week was proof that diplomacy can work to defuse tensions, even tensions that place the West and enemy states on a collision course.

If only Mr. Bush had used diplomacy to force similar cooperation from Saddam Hussein. Perhaps then Iraq would never have become a battlefield that has claimed the lives of more than 4,000 American troops.

For most Europeans, President Bush's second–term North Korea policy is a welcome relief from his earlier unilateralist cowboy–ism. Recent photos of the Yongbyon reactor's cooling tower collapsing are soothing evidence that Washington's foreign–policy establishment has reasserted itself. Can direct US negotiations with Iran be far behind? In fact, what is collapsing is not the North's nuclear program but President Bush's foreign policy.

North Korea has violated every significant agreement ever reached with the United States, and all indications are that the North is again following its traditional game plan. It is quite adept at pledging to give up its nuclear program, having done so several times in the past fifteen years. Not once, however, has it actually taken decisive steps to do so. Indeed, quite the opposite.

No matter how the story is spun, tracking Iraqi army movements with American spy satellites does not suggest a relationship built on mutual trust.

Certainly there is no love lost between supposed allies. U.S. forces rolled through the Iraqis in 2003, and then dissolved the military and sent everyone into unemployment and onto insurgent recruiters.

WASHINGTON—We tend to judge this year’s food crisis, marked by seemingly indomitable prices, from the point of view of those who are suffering. It might be useful to judge the crisis also from the point of view of those who are causing it. That’s where the real lessons will be learned.

Let’s take Argentina, one of the world’s top producers of grains and soybeans. Agriculture, both traditional and industrial, employs a third of the country’s work force and accounts for half of its exports. Three months ago, President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner declared war on the countryside by raising taxes on farm exports. The decision took an already alarming tendency to new heights—both her government and that of her husband, Nestor Kirchner, whom she succeeded, have squeezed farmers in order to maintain a political machine based on patronage and wealth redistribution under a populist state.

The expanded use of formal rules on Capitol Hill is unprecedented and is bringing government to its knees.

The slaughter last April of 32 people at Virginia Tech University by a mentally disturbed student using a variety of guns he had purchased brought about an unusual, quick consensus in the political arena: guns should not be in the hands of people who are mentally ill.

Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D–NY), whose husband was shot and killed on a commuter train by a deranged individual, quickly drafted a bill to provide grants to states to put more information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System of those individuals with criminal backgrounds and found by courts to pose a danger because of mental illness. The National Rifle Association endorsed the bill, as did the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. It passed the House unanimously in June, and seemed to be cruising toward enactment—a rare moment of cooperation not just between gun–oriented groups but across party lines in Congress.

WASHINGTON, D.C. –– Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, whose stock as Sen. Barack Obama's possible vice presidential running mate had been rising, may have ruined his chances with his belittling attack on Sen. John McCain's war record.

It's probable that the political and economic integration of South America will still be a distant dream after 11 presidents and one vice president representing the nations of South America signed the Constituent Treaty of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) on May 23rd in Brasilia. The potential of the organization lies in its 400 million inhabitants, in its being one of the largest freshwater reserves on the planet, in having the Amazon which regulates global ecological equilibrium, and in its oil and gas reserves for the next 100 years, not to mention its enormous biodiversity.

WASHINGTON –– Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, an advisor to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, says being shot down in an airplane doesn't qualify one to be president, a reference to Sen. John McCain's experience in Vietnam. He is absolutely correct. But it also doesn't make him any less qualified.

In fact, it gives McCain a perspective on war and its horrors that his opponent, who quickly disavowed Clark's unapologetic comment, certainly doesn't have. And from that standpoint it puts the presumptive Republican nominee even further up on the Oval Office qualifications meter.

It is doubtful many voters would base their vote for McCain solely on the fact that after losing out to a surface–to–air missile he spent five years in a Vietnamese detention center under conditions that makes Guantanamo look first class. But that character–shaping ordeal will be one of the factors under consideration when Americans inclined to look at the entire picture cast their ballots come November.

Will Gen. Colin Powell endorse Sen. Barack Obama? It's the question rippling through Washington's chattering class conversations. These conversations were sparked by the National Journal's report that the two met privately on June 18 in Powell's Alexandria, Va. office and talked for about an hour.

The McCain campaign privately and through surrogates insists no such endorsement is pending. In fact, GOP sources predict when and if Gen. Powell makes an endorsement, his support will go to McCain, as the two are close allies. Whether that's true or not, it's more important to look at why Powell would consider a revolt against his own party.

WASHINGHTON –– Back in the good old days (or dark ages, take your pick) political candidates believed that nobody paid attention to what they said until after Labor Day and the lazy mood of summer had passed.That theory, however, went out with modern telecommunications and the 24/7 news cycle. It's as outdated and useless as those big fat gas–guzzling SUVs the auto industry can't unload these days.

Both Sen. Barack Obama, D–Ill., and Sen. John McCain, R–Ariz., are using this period to retool their images and organizations, preparing for the intensifying warfare beyond their party conventions.Obama is shedding his protective cloak of benign intellectual superiority to reveal a practical, hard–headed politician, not much different at the core from that scorned "old" political hand Hillary Clinton.

BUTTE, Mont. –– Is Barack Obama close to being shadowed by giant flip–flops and, worse, having the image stick with people all the way to the voting booth?

BUTTE, Mont. (AP) | It was a family Fourth of July for Democrat Barack Obama as his wife, daughters, sister and other relatives helped him make an Independence Day play for this reliably conservative state.

I think we are beginning to see the full measure of the Obama general campaign strategy, framed along ten or so key directives that can allow the election of the most leftward candidate in American political history.

So far the candidate himself needs no coaching, inasmuch he has proved to be one of the most pragmatic, flexible, and ambitious figures in recent memory, with superb handlers who understand the challenge of getting such a hard leftist past the suspicious American electorate.

1. “Maturing” Views. Move to the center on as many problematic issues as possible — whether FISA, NAFTA, talking to dictators, the death penalty, etc. Disguise blatant flip–flops by talking about McCain’s changes of heart — such as his opposition to tax cuts eight years ago. And just as dreams of Obama’s father were once essential in cementing his questionable racial bona fides in Chicago, now the thing to do is drop most mention of the African connection, and instead resurrect his grandparents as proof of his more influential midwestern, working–class Americana credentials. Think “Dreams from My Grandmother.”

Sen. Barack Obama talks a good game. There's talk about hope and change, and hope and change, and even more hope and change. What exactly is he hoping to change? No one really knows, but one thing is clear: the more we get to know him, the more we realize that his actions are quite different than his "hope and change" rhetoric.

As an example, take his recent speech about pay discrimination between men and women. Obama told the audience in Albuquerque, NM that he supports "a Senate bill to make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination." Yet, upon a review of Obama's payroll, we learn that women are paid less than men. Keep talking Sen. Obama.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me," Barack Obama told the audience at a Jacksonville fundraiser last month. "He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?" Obama was doing here by inference what many of his supporters do more explicitly. Obama's candidacy, in their view, puts American voters to the test: Are they open–minded enough to vote for a black candidate? Or are they still so overcome by racial prejudice as to reject the first black candidate with a serious chance to win?

If you are like me, the notion that inflation could climb to double digits seems almost absurd. But have years of U.S. Federal Reserve success lulled us all into a false sense of security?

Economists tend to be cautious about the things they say in public. If, heaven forbid, you find yourself in a room filled with dismal scientists this month, you are likely to hear whispered private conversations that become almost apocalyptic about inflation.

It is by no means certain that the worst will happen, but if it does, the economic consequences could be, as they were in the early–1980s, crushing for an already weak economy.

Celebrate the courage of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in the fight for freedom. He has shown tremendous courage in signing the Louisiana Science Education Bill, an important blow for academic freedom.

"Our freedom to think and consider more than one option is part of what has given America her competitive edge in the international marketplace of ideas,” said biology scientist Caroline Crocker to the Louisiana House Committee on Education. "The current denial of academic freedom rights for those who are judged politically incorrect may put this in jeopardy.”

Crocker was testifying on the bill allowing supplemental materials into Louisiana public school science classrooms about evolution, cloning, global warming and other debatable topics. The legislature went on to unanimously (35–0) pass the bill. Now it has become law because of Gov. Jindal’s courage.

Some four decades after the advent of collective bargaining in public education, the labor agreements it has produced––and their operational equivalents in non–collective–bargaining states––now touch virtually all aspects of school district operations, from how teachers are paid and assigned to how they can be evaluated, how or whether they can be disciplined or fired, when and where they complete professional development, and how much time off they are allowed for union activities.

Teachers unions, like all unions, fight for provisions that are favorable to union members––not necessarily to students. They consistently favor contract provisions that protect jobs, restrict demands placed on employees, and limit teacher accountability for student performance. But unlike, say, unions that protect auto workers or pilots, teachers unions are in the unique position of being able to help choose the management (e.g., the school boards or mayors) with whom they negotiate due to their influence in local elections. Teachers unions are also active in state politics, where they are frequently able to enshrine favorable provisions in state law (which, from a union perspective, is preferable to having to win the same concession in district after district).

When it comes to vilifying big evil corporations, the accusations made about oil companies never disappoint. The latest controversy centers on whether the government should allow more drilling for oil and natural gas on federal lands. A widely cited report (pdf) from the congressional Committee of Natural Resources gives all manner of statistics showing that oil companies aren’t using the land they already have under lease, and so don’t deserve any more favors. But a quick analysis shows that these claims are ludicrous.

TESTIMONY
House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming

I thank the committee chairpersons, ranking members,and other members for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Lee Lane, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. AEI is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization conducting research and education on public policy issues. AEI does not adopt institutional positions on issues, and the views that I express here are solely my own.

The committees are to be commended for addressing the issues covered in this hearing. Climate change is one of the most important and difficult issues facing the world. I have worked for the last eight years on developing economically efficient solutions to it. All of us, I think, are concerned with America's security. So the committees have certainly focused on matters of prime importance.

Geoengineering’ may not be a panacea for global warming, but it deserves more attention from policymakers.

As Congress debates legislation to mandate reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a more radical type of intervention to reduce global warming has gotten relatively little attention. Earlier this month, the American Enterprise Institute held the first in a series of conferences to examine the scientific and policy implications of “geoengineering.” The event was hosted by AEI scholars Lee Lane and Samuel Thernstrom. As AEI President Christopher DeMuth noted in his introduction, mitigating GHG emissions is very expensive; but while scientists and engineers have been discussing geoengineering for years, it has not yet made its way into policy discussions.

Just in time for Independence Day, the bible of the American left, The New York Times, continues to opine that the United States is a "nation in decline." Hoping to see a Democrat in the White House, the newspaper has been hammering home that theme on its editorial pages.

The Times bases its claims on two primary situations: The negative view of America abroad and income inequality at home. So, let's take a look at the supposed "decline."

Overseas, the world is largely a mess. Africa remains a chaotic cauldron of corruption, China continues its authoritarian rule, and there's no letup in the India–Pakistan hatred. Would you like to live in those countries?

Throughout history, political thinkers have fretted about the public good (or public interest, common good, general welfare, etc.). Usually they came up with massive plans or enchanting visions. Plato’s teacher, Socrates, was the great–granddaddy contributing to this tradition, what with his strictly imaginary totalitarian society, the Republic.

Not, however, until the American Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence did a truly credible official idea of the public good finally emerge. Others did, of course, educate the Founders, most notably the 17th century English philosopher John Locke.

Curiously, even paradoxically, it took a bunch of individualists to finally come up with a sensible notion of the public good!

It’s one of the most hated Supreme Court decisions in decades, and it happened just three years ago. I’m talking about Kelo vs. New London, where a bare majority of the justices decided that it was OK for local governments looking to increase tax revenue to take land from their citizens and give it to a developer.

Now, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution permits the use of eminent domain for “public use.” But over the decades, the courts had expanded the meaning of “public use” from takings for roads, schools and hospitals—things anyone can use or benefit from—to takings for “public benefit.” That meant urban renewal efforts and other plans for economic development, the argument being that eventually the public would benefit from the increased tax revenue.

My old boss, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R–Iowa, one of the few non–lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee, used to tell me about how Congress has the power to regulate the federal courts.

"Constitutionally, we could reduce the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice sitting in his chambers at a card table if we wanted to," he would say.

I thought of that unused congressional authority as I pondered why it is that the Supreme Court tends to pull its members to the left.

During the tenure of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Army was the military service in the doghouse. Under his successor, Robert Gates, it appears to be the Air Force. Recently, Secretary Gates took the unprecedented step of firing the top civilian and military leaders of the service for its snafus with nuclear weapons and components. And then there was also the Air Force’s favoritism in contracting and its failure to be a team player in the counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite the Secretary’s dramatic actions, vested interests will probably thwart his desire to reform the service.

Since the Vietnam War, the “essence” of the Air Force has been promoting and flying high performance tactical fighter aircraft. The service’s concentration on heavy bombers that could deliver nuclear weapons waned as the Cold War dragged on, and its attention to nuclear delivery systems fell into oblivion after the Berlin Wall fell. The Air Force’s de–emphasis of its nuclear mission is in part responsible for bomber crews carrying nuclear weapons across the country without knowing it and mistakenly sending fuses for nuclear weapons to Taiwan. Yet despite the firings, and most likely to compensate the Air Force for them, Secretary Gates promised to reward failure by increasing the service’s budget for nuclear activities.

The Mississippi River pushed relentlessly past dozens of levees this month. Towns were submerged, their buildings tiny islands in murky water. Ducks paddled on ponds that had once been farmland. Some flooding was inevitable, given the force of the swollen Mississippi. But a poorly managed flood–defense system did not help.

For the past few years, it has been hard to ignore the crumbling infrastructure, from the devastating breach of New Orleans' levees after Hurricane Katrina to the collapse of a big bridge in Minneapolis last summer.

In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that $1.6 trillion was needed over five years to bring just the existing infrastructure into good repair. This does not account for future needs. By 2020 freight volumes are projected to be 70 percent greater than in 1998.

WASHINGTON –– For the capital of a car–crazed nation you would think Washington, D.C., would be on top of its game when it comes to actually driving one. But apparently not.

A study by Allstate Insurance shows that Washington's drivers are the worst, averaging an accident every 5.4 years. Maybe it has something to do with presidential terms. After four years with the same leader we lose focus and then the fifth year –– bam!

(Actually Washington might not be uncontested for having the most accident–prone drivers. Boston is regularly a consensus choice for that honor but wasn't included because Allstate doesn't write policies in Massachusetts –– and what does that tell you?)

It's actually something of a mystery why the capital's residents would have such a high accident rate. To get into a wreck, at least one car has to be moving and Washington's traffic doesn't move. The capital area is regularly a runner–up to Los Angeles for the worst congestion.

I made a note to myself last month to write a column about Don Imus, commending him for keeping his word about using his new show to make amends and do good. He recently complicated matters by either sticking his foot in his mouth or not letting it be clear that his tongue was planted in his cheek.

Last year, Imus lost his gigs with CBS radio and MSNBC for his racially and sexually derogatory remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team. After a few months off the air, he was hired by WABC radio in New York City for a show simulcast on RFD–TV. On his first show last December he said, "I will never say anything in my lifetime that will make any of these young women at Rutgers regret or feel foolish that they accepted my apology and forgave me."