Could very well be. The whole controversy is "bad for the Jews," as they say, as it reinforces paranoid suspicions of AIPAC controlling the US government.

Time to question the timing?

Leaks of highly classified NSA wiretaps don't just happen. Someone has to have a purpose, and have confidence that they will not become the subject of prosecution for leaking the material. While the leak may have some relationship to the upcoming trial, I think it is more likely that the leak is an attempt to set supporters of Israel back on their heals in light of a growing U.S.-Israel dispute over Israel's alleged plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel denies have imminent plans to attack, although one would not expect such acknowledgment anyway.

Israel's plans to attack Iran have been receiving increased press attention, drawing a public voice of disapproval from U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

Short background: the Bill of Rights speaks of limitations of the federal government over citizens. It does not, by its own operation at least, restrict how the states may limit freedoms.

However, the 14th Amendment states the privileges and immunities of citizenship shall not be abridged by the states. Most (but not all) rights in the Bill of Rights have been "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment over time, case by case. Only a small few rights haven't been incorporated -- stuff like whether or not a jury must (as it does in federal courts) consist of 12 persons.

And, notably -- the 2nd Amendment was never incorporated as a right of each and every citizen, which could be vindicated in a suit against the state government as well.

Gabriel alerts me to break out the flaming skull, as he says the Ninth Circuit just did so.

I'm now reading it myself to confirm this.

Yup: At page 4476 (the opinion is short, about 20 pages; the page reference regards were it will appear in an entire volume of collected opinions) they get around to addressing the incorporation issue squarely.

I'm not done yet, but Gabe isn't reading anything into it here. The question is whether the 14th amendment incorporates the 2nd, and the answer appears to be yes.

Gabe's Summary: I'm still gettin' to the good parts, but Gabe offers--

The opinion follows the Heller Court's historical framework for determining that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental one, meaning “necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” There is an extensive discussion of the history of firearms ownership and usage. The Ninth Circuit emphasizes that the right to keep and bear arms was not merely important in itself, but important to the maintenance of all other rights.

Because it is fundamental right it must, under Supreme Court precedent, be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee which prevents any State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Now, as big a victory as this is, note that the gun ordinance being challenged was in fact upheld. I suppose this will be the style of analysis then: Yes, you superficially have 2nd Amendment right, but we are going to read that as being an extremely limited one.

Even so, if that is the game, this is important. Even if it's being interpreted to provide as little actual rights as possible, it still imposes some restrictions on state and local government, and still grants some genuine rights to citizens.

More from Gabe:

Is this an important decision?

The Ninth Circuit is now the only circuit to apply the Second Amendment against state and local governments. This sets up a circuit split. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court will be called to answer the incorporation question first raised in Heller. The only question, to my mind, is whether the Ninth Circuit will take another swing at it en banc. My guess is "yes."

Is this unusual?

Uh, yeah. It's the Ninth Circuit. The Left-ist circuit. The most overturned circuit in the nation. Such a pro-gun opinion would not have been my expectation.

Who were the judges?

The unanimous panel was Judge O'Scannlain (Reagan appointee), Judge
Alarcon (Carter appointee), and Judge Gould (Clinton appointee).

An "en banc" rehearing is a second hearing with all of the judges on the circuit, not just a three-judge panel. The full en banc court could overrule the three-judge panel. Which they very well might do; the Ninth Circuit isn't called the "Ninth Circus" for nothing. It's a very liberal court.

Still, that would lead to an appeal to the Supreme Court, which I imagine would have to be heard.

Still More: At Volokh.

The right was not incorporated by the privileges and immunities clause (as I implied), but instead by the due process clause (both in the 14th Amendment). From what I gather this decision was made simply to void as little precedent as possible; a previous case had already stated the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated via the privileges and immunities clause.

The Due Process route is one of "selective" incorporation. The court must find the right is "fundamental" to incorporate it. They so found here.

From the concurrence to the opinion...

Concurrence by Judge Gould (a Clinton Appointee) in the Second Amendment Incorporation Case: It seems worth quoting, especially because Gould was one of the two Democrat-appointed judges on the panel (paragraph breaks added):
I concur in Judge OÂ’ScannlainÂ’s opinion but write to elaborate my view of the policies underlying the selective incorporation decision.

First, as Judge O’Scannlain has aptly explained, the rights secured by the Second Amendment are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “necessary to the Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.

Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.

Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment.

The actual opinion says as much:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited.

Both quotes taken from Volokh.

Posted by: Ace at 08:36 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 1246 words, total size 8 kb.

An analogy to drive home how weak this silly shit is:

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut? By $3 over the course of the year--approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

Posted by: Ace at 08:15 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh boy.

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In return, Harman expected her interlocutor to lobby soon to be Speaker Pelosi into naming Harman the head of the House Select Intelligence Committee. The post ultimately went to Silvestre Reyes.

The cherry on top? The Bush administration, through AG Gonzalez, may have given her a pass on criminal charges to keep her support on surveillance programs.

Harman denies any wrongdoing.

Read the whole thing. If true, it's an ugly and messy story. If true, it's also more proof, if any were needed, that Gonzalez was one of the most incompetent men to hold the office of Attorney General in history.

BTW- The report also says Harman knew she stepped into it by making this deal. At one point she is reported to have said...

“This conversation doesn’t exist.”

Ooops. It apparently does.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:29 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

It's not that I think his position is awesome (I'm personally indifferent to supportive of same sex marriage but mostly indifferent) but it means he's going to run for Governor next year.

The former mayor, in an extended interview with The Post, also predicted that Gov. Paterson's high-profile effort to legalize gay marriage would anger many New Yorkers and spark a revolt that could help sweep Republicans into office in 2010.

"This will create a grass-roots movement. This is the kind of issue that, in many ways, is somewhat beyond politics," said Giuliani, a two-term mayor who unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination last year.

"I think gay marriage will obviously be an issue for any Republican next year because Republicans are either in favor of the position I'm in favor of, civil unions, or in many cases Republicans don't even favor civil unions," he continued.

Giuliani, who is slated to address a Republican fund-raising gala in Albany tonight in what is widely described as further proof of his interest in running for governor, said he's committed to the traditional definition of marriage.

Patterson is taking this gamble because he's polling somewhere just ahead of Eliot Spitzer and somewhere just below a random name from the Utica phone book. This is his way of shoring up his base and moving hard left in an attempt to fend off an expected primary challenge from Andrew Cuomo (probably should have sent him to the Senate Dave, just saying).

Meanwhile, this push could prove interesting in the state Senate where the Democrats took over this year for the first time in decades. Back in January, 3 Democratic senators threatened to caucus with the Republicans, which would have allowed the Republicans to keep control of the chamber. One of the big issues? The "Gang of 3's" opposition to same sex marriage.

As a political junkie, the thought of Rudy going toe to toe with Andrew Cuomo is simply delicious. The thought of Rudy taking on a barely breathing David Paterson strikes me as more lambs to the slaughter than anything. Either way, it's good to see Rudy getting back in the game.

FTR- I wasn't a Rudy guy last year. I didn't think his style would translate well to the national and world scene. For want of a better term, I thought he was too New York to be President (I say this life long New Yorker who grew up in NYC). In Albany? Oh Hell yes.

Of course, I'd take a caustic and combative Rudy over this milquetoast fool we have now.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:57 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

I thought it was a joke when I read it and it's still funny but in that slightly uncomfortable way because you realize the person telling it thinks you are an idiot.

President Obama plans to convene his Cabinet for the first time today, and he will order its members to identify a combined $100 million in budget cuts over the next 90 days, according to a senior administration official.

Although the budget cuts would amount to a minuscule portion of federal spending, they are intended to signal the president's determination to cut spending and reform government, the official said.

$100 million isn't even a rounding error in the federal budget. It's not even a rounding error in a single agency's budget.

I get the feeling this is going to become the next often repeated mantra from the Obama administration (like the 'tax cut for 95% of Americans", which is no such thing). They will cut like $500,000 from 200 programs and then spend the next year saying "we've cut the budget of hundreds of programs!". Of course the stenographers in the MSM will eat it up. Meanwhile behind the curtain, spending is going up by a trillion or so dollars.

On the upside, I'm thinking this scam (it's not even a token attempt) of budget cutting means the whole Tea Party thing might have gotten them a little worried.

MORE: How much is $100 million? Someone did the math and it's about as much as the daily interest on the so-called "stimulus" bill.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:16 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Goodbye, cruel world. Hello, breakfast.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:11 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

5:00 P.M. Friday is a long long time away. Make the most of your remaining few hours of freedom

First up, Iowahawk is honing his screenwriting skills with a documentary about The Red Scare for the Department of Homeland Security. Of course this film is a contemporary update in which the new Red Menace is you, at least according to the report DHS released last week on the rise of right-wing extremism. The report is accurate in the sense that all of you are indeed a menace, but gets the reasons all wrong. Mostly youÂ’re a tripping hazard to people who have to step over you as you lay passed-out on various sidewalks, stairs, in doorways and such.

Second, Bruce over at “And Still I Persist” has penned a well-thought-out and extensive review of Atlas Shrugged with a comparative analysis between events in the book and the current situation. Spoiler Alert: Various plot elements are revealed, so you’ve been warned.

Spoiler Alert Update: If and when you read the review, please don't post anything in the comments here that would be considered a spoiler. No one's done that, but I just want to make sure it doesn't happen. Thanks.

TonightÂ’s overnight open thread is brought to you by the Aye-aye.

Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to xgenghisx@gmail.com. Otherwise send tips to Ace.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:07 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

A little after 6 p.m. CDT, April 15th, 2009, I went Galt on S-CHIP. I haven't smoked since.

I've gone cold turkey, for the most part. Every now and again I'll use a lozenge, but I've yet to consume a full one. The hardest part is filling the time I used to fill with smoking. But, my long neglected PS3 is a start.

As a rabid fan of Robert E. Howard's Conan series (and L. Sprague DeCamp, he finished many of the Conan stories after Howard's death), I give this video gift to Ace. more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 01:25 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

I flirted with the idea of an online book club before, before abandoning it.

I'm still not sure if it's a good idea or if I'd make any kind of decent moderator. Most books, even if I like them, I don't really care to discuss very much, except for Chris Farley Show type stuff like "Remember when Yossarian saw everything twice...? Wasn't that great?"

But, as an experiment to see how this might work (or not work): As I just linked Beyond the Black River and am, in fact, re-reading it again now (this would be like the sixth time, but the first time since high school), hell: Okay, here's an attempt at some kind of internet book club.

Yeah, it's not a book, per se, and it's not exactly Moby Dick, but it's free on the internet, and can be read in a couple of hours, so why not?

More of an experiment than anything else. I just did, inadvertently, the "introduction to the book/background" sort of post, so that part of it is already taken care of.

If it works, we can try it with actual warning lead-time and an actual book, and a self-nominated moderator/nominee of the book in question.

Posted by: Ace at 12:26 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.