Printer Friendly
June
Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary
The Morning Murmur – Tuesday, June 6, 2006
1. Rice Warns Iran Against a Slow Response - Associated Press
Secretary Rice made clear that if the first major public negotiations in more
than 25 years involving Washington and Tehran go ahead, "This is not an
offer of a grand bargain somehow with Iran. This is not an offer to let
bygones be bygones and to forget the record of terrorism or the human
rights."
2. Supreme Court to Hear Schools Race Case - Associated Press
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether skin color can be
considered in assigning children to public schools, reopening the issue of
affirmative action. The court's announcement provides the first sign of an
aggressiveness by the court under new Chief Justice John Roberts.
3. Birthright Sale - RealClear Politics
In Washington, the Senate immigration bill has been selling our birthright for
a message of political pottage. Far from "controlling the borders" as
advertised, this bill reduces our existing control of the borders.
4. Air Traffic Intimidation - Wall Street Journal Op-ed
When it comes to intimidation tactics, the federal air traffic controllers'
union has always been a trailblazer. But even this bunch is reaching new
heights (or lows) with its latest maneuvers to land one of the biggest
government payouts ever.
5. Rangel 'Trips' Over Ethics - New York Post
Rep. Charles Rangel has 'fessed
up to having violated congressional ethics rules by taking his son to Cuba
in 2002 on a trip paid for by Fidel Castro's government.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. Rice Warns Iran Against a Slow
Response - Associated Press
By NEDRA PICKLER
Sunday, June 4, 2006; 10:11 AM
WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put Iran on notice Sunday
that the incentives offered by the West to suspend its nuclear program are
not open-ended, although she declined to say Tehran had a firm deadline to
respond.
"I'm not one for timelines and specific schedules, but I think it's fair to
say that we really do have to have this settled over a matter of weeks, not
months," Rice said.
Asked whether the U.S. and its allies expected an answer by mid-July when
the world's economic powers attend a summit in Russia, Rice said, "We'll see
where we are at that time."
"No one among these six powers is prepared to let this simply drag out with
Iran continuing to make progress on its nuclear program," she said. Rice
said it was essential that Iran suspend suspect nuclear activity because
"you don't want the negotiations to be used as a cover for continued
progress along the nuclear front."
The six nations _ the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, France, China and Russia
_ agreed Thursday to offer Iran new incentives if it would give up uranium
enrichment.
Rice said the proposal represented "a major opportunity" for Iran. "It's
sort of a major crossroads for Iran and it's perhaps not surprising that
they will need a little bit of time to look at it.
"But the fact is there are two paths, and we hope they're going to choose
the path that is a path away from confrontation and toward a solution," the
chief U.S. diplomat said.
The nations said they would punish Iran, through the U.N. Security Council,
if it refused to accept the terms.
"We are absolutely satisfied with the commitments of our allies to a robust
path in the Security Council should this not work," Rice said.
The United States and other Western nations suspect Iran's nuclear program
is intended to produce weapons. Tehran insists it is only for generating
electricity.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Saturday that a breakthrough was
possible and welcomed unconditional talks with all parties, including the
United States.
But Iran's top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted Sunday that his
country would not give up the right to produce nuclear fuel. He also warned
that energy supplies from the Gulf region would be disrupted if Iran came
under attack from the United States. Rice dismissed that talk.
"I think that we shouldn't place too much emphasis on a threat of this
kind," Rice told "Fox News Sunday."
She cited Iran's heavy dependence on oil revenue. "So obviously it would be
a very serious problem for Iran if oil were to be disrupted on the market,"
she said.
Rice also made clear that if the first major public negotiations in more
than 25 years involving Washington and Tehran go ahead, "This is not an
offer of a grand bargain somehow with Iran. This is not an offer to let
bygones be bygones and to forget the record of terrorism or the human
rights."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400236.html
2. Supreme Court to Hear Schools Race
Case - Associated Press
By GINA HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether skin
color can be considered in assigning children to public schools, reopening
the issue of affirmative action. The announcement puts a contentious social
topic on the national landscape in an election year, and tests the
conservatism of President Bush's two new justices.
The outcome could mark a new chapter for a court that famously banned racial
segregation in public schools in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Since then, race questions have been hugely divisive, both for the court and
the public.
Three years ago, more than 5,000 people demonstrated outside as the justices
considered whether public universities could select students based at least
in part on race. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor broke a tie to allow it in a
limited way.
The court's new interest is in public schools, far more sweeping than
universities. And O'Connor is gone, replaced by conservative Justice Samuel
Alito.
The justices will hear appeals this fall from a Seattle parents group and a
Kentucky mom, who argue that race factors improperly penalize white
students.
Doug Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor and former Reagan
administration lawyer, said the case will affect students everywhere. "This
is not quite at the level of Brown v. Board, but it will be argued in the
style of that case," Kmiec said.
ustices will look at the modern-era classroom, no longer under court
desegregation orders but in some places still using remnants of those
policies.
At its heart, the court will consider whether school leaders can promote
racial diversity without violating the Constitution's guarantee against
discrimination.
The court's announcement that it will take up the cases this fall provides
the first sign of an aggressiveness by the court under new Chief Justice
John Roberts. The court rejected a similar case in December when moderate
O'Connor was still on the bench. The outcome will most likely turn on her
successor, Alito.
Both Roberts, 51, and Alito, 56, worked as Justice Department lawyers during
the Reagan administration to limit affirmative action.
Alito was asked during his Senate confirmation hearings in January about the
2003 case. Without stating his views on affirmative action, he said he
taught a college seminar on civil liberties to a diverse class. "Having
these people in the class with diverse backgrounds and outlooks on the
issues that we were discussing made an enormous contribution to the class,"
he said.
The court's announcement followed six weeks of internal deliberations over
whether to hear the appeals, an unusually long time.
"This is a very dramatic move. I expect it will create a big national
discussion," said Gary Orfield, who heads the Harvard University Civil
Rights Project and supports affirmative action.
A ruling against the schools "would be pretty devastating to suburban
communities, small towns that have successfully maintained desegregation for
a couple of generations," he said. "The same communities that were forced to
desegregate would be forced to re-segregate."
In one of the cases, an appeals court had upheld Seattle's system, which
lets students pick among high schools and then relies on tiebreakers,
including race, to decide who gets into schools that have more applicants
than openings. Seattle put the system on hold during the legal fight.
The Supreme Court also will also consider a policy in Kentucky, also upheld
by lower courts. That case is somewhat different, because the metropolitan
Louisville, Ky., school district had long been under a federal court decree
to end segregation in its schools. After the decree ended, the district in
2001 began using a plan that includes race guidelines.
The Kentucky parent, Crystal Meredith, asks the court to overturn its 2003
affirmative action rulings. Her son's district still requires most schools
to maintain a black enrollment of 15 percent and prevent it from going above
50 percent.
"It's a quota arrangement," said her lawyer, Ted Gordon. "The blatant
segregation we once had is long gone."
The cases are Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School
District, 05-908, and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education,
05-915.
Associated Press Writer Elizabeth Dunbar in Louisville, Ky., contributed to
this report.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_SCHOOLS_RACE?SITE=WSAW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
3. Birthright Sale - RealClear Politics
By Thomas Sowell
Many stores held sales over the Memorial Day holidays. In Washington, the
Senate immigration bill has been selling our birthright for a message of
political pottage.
Far from "controlling the borders" as advertised, this bill reduces our
existing control of the borders. Under a provision inserted at the eleventh
hour by Senator Arlen Specter, the Senate bill forbids the federal
government from building a fence without first consulting with the Mexican
government.
In fact, state and local governments are also forbidden by this bill to take
any border control actions without first consulting with their Mexican
counterparts. In other words, if the city of San Diego wants to put up any
sort of barriers, it would have to consult with the municipal authorities in
Tijuana before doing so.
This legislation was never about border control. The laws already on the
books at this very moment allow us to control the borders, to build any
fence we choose, without consulting the government of Mexico.
The laws already on the books allow any illegal alien to be arrested and
expelled. Those laws are simply not being enforced. If a Los Angeles
policeman arrests an illegal alien and reports him to the federal
authorities, it is the Los Angeles cop who will be in big trouble.
Border Patrol agents can knock themselves out capturing people trying to
enter the country illegally but nothing happens to most of those people,
even the ones organizing the smuggling of people and drugs into this
country.
An Associated Press dispatch reports: "The vast majority of people caught
smuggling immigrants across the border near San Diego are never prosecuted
for the offense, demoralizing the Border Patrol agents, according to an
internal document obtained by the Associated Press."
In other words, we have make-believe border control and the current Senate
legislation will weaken even that, all the while talking about "tough"
enforcement. That "tough" enforcement is a promise but legalizing illegal
aliens is immediate and irrevocable and its consequences irreversible and
lasting far into the future.
"Border control" is just political cover for legalizing illegal aliens. The
two things are put together in a package deal that is like horse-and-rabbit
stew, whose ingredients are one horse and one rabbit. Border control is the
rabbit.
The word games played about "amnesty" deliberately confuse the issue of
violations of American law with the issue of acquiring American citizenship.
The fact that the Senate bill has requirements -- described as "tough," like
everything else -- for acquiring citizenship is irrelevant to the question
of letting the violations of law go unpunished.
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, who has over the years done some
of the most incisive analysis of census and other statistical data, projects
the actual consequences of legalizing the existing illegal alien population
in the United States to extend far beyond the 12 million estimated to be
here now.
These 12 million people are not test tube babies. They have parents and they
will have children. Nor are their other family members likely to be kept out
after the illegals are made legal.
Over the following 20 years, Dr. Rector projects that the real increase in
this population living in the United States to be 103 million, not the 12
million that everyone is talking about.
This is one of the most reckless gambles with the future of this nation ever
taken by supposedly responsible members of Congress. The idea that we must
consult with Mexico before controlling our own borders is staggering -- and
revealing.
The Mexican government has already shown its utter contempt for our laws by
publishing booklets advising its citizens how to enter the United States
illegally and how to take advantage of American welfare state provisions.
Mexican president Vicente Fox has even had the nerve to warn that his
"friendship" with the United States is at risk if we pass immigration laws
he doesn't like. Consulting with his government is truly putting Vicente Fox
in charge of the hen house.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/birthright_sale.html
4. Air Traffic Intimidation - Wall Street
Journal Op-ed
April 17, 2006; Page A16
When it comes to intimidation tactics, the federal air traffic controllers'
union has always been a trailblazer. But even this bunch is reaching new
heights (or lows) with its latest maneuvers to land one of the biggest
government payouts ever.
The Federal Aviation Administration recently declared an impasse with the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association, or Natca, over contract
negotiations that have dragged on for nine months. This is no surprise, as
the union had shown zero signs of agreeing to even modest changes to a
contract that pays top controllers more than cabinet secretaries. No
surprise either that Natca's first move after the impasse was to unveil a
multi-million-dollar advertising campaign suggesting that, if it doesn't get
what it wants, airplanes may start crashing all over America. But what is
new is Natca's attempt to bring Congress to its aid and to muzzle the FAA.
Natca is one of the few federal unions allowed to bargain over wages and
benefits -- a political gift bestowed by the Clinton Administration in 1996.
The union has used that power for all it's worth, negotiating a contract in
1998 that lifted air controller compensation by 75% -- to an average of
$166,000 and at a cost of nearly $2 billion. The FAA wants smaller raises
from now on, while the union is asking for an astonishing $2.6 billion more.
Standing in Natca's way is a separate provision in the 1996 deal, which was
meant to balance its new negotiating power. Specifically, should the FAA and
the union ever reach an impasse, the two offers go to Congress to decide.
And should Congress not act in 60 days, the FAA's offer is binding.
Natca's response has been to shower taxpayer-funded union dues across
Capitol Hill. President John Carr brags on his blog about the dinners,
golfing, helicopter rides and "schmoozathons" with Members. His efforts have
already produced legislation in both the House and Senate -- supported by
Democrats and labor-friendly Republicans -- that would eliminate the FAA's
power to impose a contract after 60 days. Both sides would instead go to
endless mediation, which would suit Natca fine since its current rich
contract would stay in force.
The union's problem is getting the bills passed. With Congress under fire
for runaway spending, and the air-traffic system in desperate need of costly
capital upgrades, the last thing Natca wants is the FAA informing the public
or Republicans about just how much lucre the union is seeking. So its
strategy has been to attempt to gag the agency, which has been doing its job
of informing the public and Congress about the negotiations.
A classic bit of nasty hardball was Mr. Carr's recent letter to Department
of Transportation Acting Inspector General Todd Zinser, demanding an
investigation into any FAA communications about the deal. "To my shock and
consternation, FAA has engaged in direct lobbying of Congress using federal
funds and equipment in order to prevent this legislation from being passed
and, worse yet, to prevent a fair hearing on the legislation itself," the
letter reads. Mr. Carr claims the FAA's decision to inform Congress about a
contract it may vote on is a violation of an obscure 1919 statute.
Mr. Carr misses the irony that the law in question was passed to discourage
agencies from lobbying government to give them more money. The Government
Accountability Office has long said the provision mainly prohibits
"grassroots" lobbying in which an agency explicitly encourages constituents
to contact Congress to demand support for said agency.
Mr. Carr's dodge around this legal history is to claim that proof of the
FAA's grassroots lobbying is its "success in persuading newspaper editorial
boards to write pieces against the legislation." He can only be referring to
us, dear readers, since Mr. Carr sent his letter four days after we
published a February editorial laying out his tactics. For the record, we
didn't need any "persuading" about the news value of exposing a fat and
happy union trying to soak taxpayers for even higher salaries and benefits.
All of this would be amusing if Mr. Carr's letter didn't have real
consequences. As a practical matter, the Justice Department has never
indicted anyone in the executive branch under the 1919 law. Yet inspector
generals have a duty to investigate complaints, so it is a safe bet that Mr.
Zinser's staff has commenced an inquiry that is a clear attempt to
intimidate FAA employees into shutting up about the contract negotiations.
Let's hope it fails. The FAA has both a right and obligation to inform
Congress and the public about how taxpayer dollars are being spent. If that
information leads to Mr. Carr's union getting a reasonable contract, rather
than breaking the bank, so much the better.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114522769726127138.html
5. Rangel 'Trips' Over Ethics - New York
Post
By IAN BISHOP
Rep. Charles Rangel has 'fessed up to having violated congressional ethics
rules by taking his son to Cuba in 2002 on a trip paid for by Fidel Castro's
government and New York grocery titan John Castimatidis.
Rangel amended his 2002 travel-disclosure report and repaid Cuba and
Castimatidis $1,922 last April for his son Steven's expenses - but he did so
only after inquiries by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity.
Under House rules, private sponsors can foot only the travel bill for a
lawmaker and one relative, in this case Rangel's wife, Alma.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69617.htm
### |
