Maggie's Farm

I asked Tom Campbell pointed questions about his stance toward Israel, and his replies are below.

Tom Campbell, who leads in the Republican primary to unseat unhinged Barbara Boxer as US Senator from California, has come in for criticism of his support for Israel being inadequate, if not even hostile.

For example, Jennifer Rubin today wrote:

Tom Campbell, who has zipped into the lead in early polls, is quite another story [than Fiorina]. During his time in the House, Campbell was one of the few Republicans with a consistent anti-Israel voting record. In 1999, he introduced an amendment to cut foreign aid to Israel. This amendment, titled the Campbell Amendment, was defeated overwhelmingly on the House floor by a vote of 13-414. In 1999, Campbell was one of just 24 House members to vote against a resolution expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. In 1997, Rep. Tom Campbell authored an amendment (also titled the Campbell Amendment) to cut foreign aid to Israel. The resolution failed 9-32 in committee. In 1990, Campbell was one of just 34 House members to vote against a resolution expressing support for Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.  The resolution passed the House 378-34. But Campbell has taken positions on more than just aid that have raised concerns about his views on Israel. As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2000, Campbell, in his losing race against Dianne Feinstein, “told numerous crowds–including Jewish groups–that he believes Palestinians are entitled to a homeland and that Jerusalem can be the capital of more than one nation.”

Several weeks ago, concerned about Campbell's stance toward Israel, I contacted someone within the Campbell campaign for clarification of Tom Campbell’s views on Israel.  I was told that Campbell’s actions in the ‘90’s were about aid funds being taken from sub-Saharan Africa to add to Israel’s economic aid, and he thought this harming the more needy.  Similarly, Campbell is a strong supporter of the Vietnam era 1973 War Powers Act, requiring Congressional approval for US forces to be in a prolonged conflict.  In 2000, the Supreme Court, however, rejected his and 30 other members of Congress’ petition, re: the continued use of US air power in Kosovo beyond the War Powers Act’s 60-days, as lacking standing. (Congressional Research Service 2004 history of War Powers Act.)

Tom Campbell is known for not being sheepish about his views. In my questions, below, I asked for unequivocal answers, and Tom Campbell did personally reply without equivocation. Every politician should be asked the same direct questions for direct replies. See below:

When all else fails them to explain their failures in majority governance, particularly the drubbing of ObamaCare, Democrats trot out Germany’s pre-Hitler Weimar Republic collapse reasons: the commoners just don’t understand the enlightenment and react from irrational fears, and proportional representation minority parties undermine the better sense of enlightened democrats.

Los Angeles Times’ uberliberal Tim Rutten demurs from saying the US has fully entered its Weimar phase, while saying we’re nearing it.

When people's mistrust of their elected officials and the parties reaches these levels, there is little for political leaders to do but take counsel from their own anger and anxieties -- and, these days, the popular mood fairly seethes with both those things. Discontent with the present and apprehension about the future have become the background noise of our politics, yet both sides of the congressional aisle seem deaf to the din.

In one of his magisterial explorations of German politics between the wars, the historian Ian Kershaw mused that "there are times -- they mark the danger point for a political system -- when politicians can no longer communicate, when they stop understanding the language of the people they are supposed to be representing."

It would be reckless not to insist that this country and its politics remain, in crucial ways, far distant from Weimar. It would be rash, though, to pretend that the distance remains as great as it once was.

On the other hand, traditional puckish liberal Mickey Kaus is more on point, our politicians weren’t hamstrung by procedures, they listened and rejected ObamaNonsense.

Needless to remind, but we do not have proportional representation; our Democrats control the White House, have an overwhelming grip on the Congress, and froze out Republicans.  Needless to remind, we don’t have large, violent Nazi or Communist parties, nor are our corporate interests pre-WWI royalists.  Needless to remind, we’re in recession but hardly bankrupt, paying impoverishing WWI reparations, or suffering the Great Depression.

We do have, instead, defenders of Constitutional protections, economic sense, centrist opposition to transparent corruption, and preference for improvements in individual choice over statist schemes. As Krauthammer notes:

[Democrats, instead,] understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid, and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Hardly Weimar, except for those liberals who, themselves, are exposed as opposed to our Republic’s democracy.

Oh, there is this reminder, burning money then and now:

President Obama epitomizes Abba Eban’s summation of the Palestinians, never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Palestinians insist on destroying Israel, regardless of concessions, declining steps that improve relations, repeating bromides that fail to meet facts.  President Obama, likewise, insists on a total upheaval of modern health care, regardless of compromises, declining widely supported incremental steps, repeating support for the various Democrat health care bills whose details are overwhelmingly rejected by Americans.

Instead of cooperating for widely supported steps to improve health care, President Obama called for a televised half-day “summit” in which Republicans are supposed to take as their starting point the Democrats’ health care bills, instead of starting from scratch with Republican proposals. The New York Times labels it a “gambit” in the first paragraph of its report. Then,

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said in a statement that he welcomed the bipartisan meeting on health care and called on the president to begin the dialogue “by shelving the current health spending bill.”

“The fact is Senate Republicans held hundreds of town halls and met with their constituents across the country last year on the need for health care reform, outlining ideas for the step-by-step approach that Americans have asked for,” Mr. McConnell said. “And we know there are a number of issues with bipartisan support that we can start with when the 2,700-page bill is put on the shelf.”

When asked by Ms. Couric if he would agree to discard the bill and start over, the president said he would not. The starting point, aides said, would be with the proposals that passed the House and Senate.

Obama insists on 1967 or 1947 lines despite “facts on the ground” a la Palestinians, instead of working together.  Indeed, as Senators Grassley and Snowe found when trying to work together, the Democrats my-way-or-the-highway forced them to take the high way, the Democrats taking the low way.

I outlined last Friday, in a 711 word op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune, ten separable, incremental steps to health care improvements.  They don’t require thousands of tiny type pages of imposed, centralized, statist regulations like the Democrats’ schemes.  They don’t require throwing out the baby with the bath water.  They build on what successfully exists, which most Americans are satisfied with.  Most Americans agree with these steps.  They are not partisan.  Indeed, they contain many elements of Democrat preferences. There are other such steps that a true summit could address.

Instead, Obama wants a campaign-mode, one-sided event, never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Jules Crittendon adds an "ouch" and then some to Obama's "reality TV."

Is wearing fraudulent medals of valor just a harmless pick-up line?

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University's law school who is not involved in the two cases, said the Stolen Valor Act raises constitutional questions because it bans bragging or exaggerating about yourself."Half the pickup lines in bars across the country could be criminalized under that concept," he said.

The AP reports that defense attorneys in two Stolen Valor prosecutions are challenging the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, passed unanimously in the US Senate and by acclamation in the House in late 2006. They say, the AP reports, “the First Amendment protects almost all speech that doesn't hurt someone else. Neither man has been accused by prosecutors of seeking financial gain for himself.” In rebuttal, “Craig Missakian, a federal prosecutor in the California case, said deliberate lies are not protected. He said that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to raise and support an army and that this includes, by extension, ‘protecting the worth and value of these medals.’ ”

First Amendment scholars may find this case "interesting," but it means more than an item of interest to those affected.

A noted First Amendment defender, law professor Eugene Volokh filed an amicus brief, in which his draft says, although “the [Supreme] Court has never articulated a clear rule for which knowingly false statements of fact are constitutionally protected and which are not,”

… But though the Stolen Valor Act does treat some false statements differently from others, it appears to fit within one of the exceptions to the R.A.V. principle: “the nature of the content discrimination is such that there is no realistic possibility that official suppression of ideas is afoot.” Id. at 390. False claims of military honors are not limited to any particular viewpoints, or even particular topics of debate. They can equally be raised by people who are anti-war, who are pro-war, or who are just trying to get themselves elected to an office that is entirely unrelated to the military.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Stolen Valor Act, if read to apply only to knowingly false representations, is likely facially constitutional.

 

I spoke with BJ Burkett, whose book Stolen Valor led to the 2006 Act.  Burkett says, as does the federal prosecutor above,“The decorations are part and parcel of the Constitution creating the military, and anything that denigrates that weakens the Constitution.”  In an age where strict respect for the Constitution is chancy, that argument may not hold.  But, the fraud statutes are not challenged, at least where fraudulent gain is involved, and specific frauds do have additional prohibitions.  Further, false claims that demonstrably cause harm to others are upheld, from “yelling fire in a crowded theater” to falsely claiming not to carry H.I.V. and infecting a bar pick-up.

So, where does that leave the constitutional issue in the Stolen Valor challenges? Many liberals and conservatives should be in a quandary. Many liberals support “hate crime” and “hate speech” laws when aimed at designated groupings.  Many conservatives oppose restrictions on “freedom of speech.”  On the other hands, veterans in general, and medals of valor recipients in particular, are a grouping that earned elevated respect, and free speech is constitutionally limited when causing demonstrable harm.

So, is there demonstrable harm in falsely claiming medals of valor?

It is clear that almost all veterans and medals of valor recipients, along with a unanimous Congress, believe there is, which should be prosecuted.  It is clear that such frauds gain honors they do not deserve.  Indeed, many also materially gain, in direct benefits and prestige used to further their careers.  For example, there are more claimants at the VA to being POWs, who receive a medal, than were. Taxpayers are harmed, as well as other vets who are placed on lower priority.

This is not a right to burn the flag, our nation’s flag not being specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and not analogous in that burning a symbol may hurt patriots’ feelings but falsely claiming medals of valor directly contravenes the sole lawful authority of the DOD to issue them.

It is important to note here that the reluctance of the DOD to create a comprehensive database of legitimate medals of valor recipients is inexcusable.  (I wrote about it here.)

Burkett hopes that the prominence of this challenge may lead to the DOD getting its act together, and to raising the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony.  Look at this gay clown claiming unearned medals of valor to support "gay rights."