PDA

View Full Version : How the NSA Scandal Is Roiling the Heritage Foundation




jct74
10-19-2013, 11:00 AM
How the NSA Scandal Is Roiling the Heritage Foundation

Posted By Shane Harris
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 4:52 PM

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/files/168161006_0.jpg


Ever since ex-senator and Tea Party kingmaker Jim DeMint took over the Heritage Foundation earlier this year, mainstream Republicans have been fretting that he'd turn the prominent conservative think tank into a political proxy for the most extreme elements of the GOP. The debt-deniers and defund-Obamacare die-hards who propelled the government into a shutdown have found a political, if not quite intellectual center of gravity at Heritage. Now, hawkish Republicans who have long embraced strong national security authorities have reason to believe that Heritage is mounting an opposition on that front, too.

Recently, Heritage refused to publish two papers about the National Security Agency's surveillance programs written by a prominent conservative attorney. Why? Because he concluded that the programs were legal and constitutional, according to sources familiar with the matter. It was a surprising move for a think tank that has supported extension of the Patriot Act -- which authorizes some of NSA's activities -- and has long been associated with right-of-center positions on national security and foreign policy.

But the paper's conclusions did not sit well with DeMint, the sources said, who worried about offending or alienating more libertarian lawmakers such Sen. Rand Paul, a DeMint ally and leading critic of NSA's collection of Americans' phone records, as well as Tea Partiers, who according to a recent poll think that government counterterrorism policies have gone "too far" in restricting civil liberties. It's those groups that brought DeMint his greatest influence as a lawmaker and made him a national political heavyweight.

It was not clear that DeMint personally ordered the papers be spiked, but sources who would not speak on the record strongly implied that it was his call.

...

For some Republicans who describe themselves as closer to the party's center, or to its traditional roots in strong executive branch security authorities, Heritage's decision not to publish Bradbury's NSA defense was just another example of the hard-right turn the group has taken since DeMint became its president.

...

A former intelligence official who recently met with members of the Heritage staff about national security issues says he came away feeling that "they were looking for a hard right agenda. Anything that the administration did was wrong. And they had that right wing paranoia with regards to intelligence. What the NSA was doing and how they were doing it."

...

Another prominent conservative, who spoke anonymously, described the evolution at Heritage more bluntly: "The lunatics have taken over the asylum."

to read rest of article and bypass subscription firewall:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthecable.foreignpolicy.com%2Fpost s%2F2013%2F10%2F16%2Fnow_the_nsa_scandal_is_roilin g_the_heritage_foundation&ei=9LZiUvb7L4XOyAHnpYHQDA&usg=AFQjCNFmtm2ix2Qe_qqb0MPYPYD61r2UQQ&bvm=bv.54934254,d.aWc

direct link:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/16/now_the_nsa_scandal_is_roiling_the_heritage_founda tion

HOLLYWOOD
10-19-2013, 01:16 PM
Just laughable on the opening statement.
...mainstream Republicans have been fretting that he'd turn the prominent conservative think tank into a political proxy for the most extreme elements of the GOP. Uh, mainstream Republicans aka 'Establishment-Career-Corrupt-Crony-Racketeering-Lying-Insider Trading-Elitists-Prostitutes'

'The Most extreme elements of the GOP' want the people to keep their money and liberties... yeah, how extreme of them :rolleyes:

Varin
10-19-2013, 01:22 PM
DeMint seems to bee doing great work at Heritage.

Anti Federalist
10-19-2013, 01:23 PM
Heritage created ObamaCare.

I need to worry about what they think of me, why, exactly?

angelatc
10-19-2013, 01:23 PM
Good.

angelatc
10-19-2013, 01:25 PM
Heritage created ObamaCare.

?

No they didn't. Liberal talking points. I hate liberals, partly because they're so good at this crap. Doesn't matter if it's true, half-true or just a flat out lie. Once the liberal machine puts it out there, it is ingrained on the national psyche as truth.

FrankRep
10-19-2013, 01:34 PM
Heritage created ObamaCare.

I need to worry about what they think of me, why, exactly?


Heritage created RomneyCare, not ObamaCare.

FSP-Rebel
10-19-2013, 02:00 PM
Turning hard right? Is that how they really plan to explain the libertarian streak of advocating for a more friendly policy towards civil liberties and less executive powers? Fine with me cause it kinda validates what Ron has been saying all along in that real republicans favor following the Bill of Rights and no blank check for executive powers. LOL, they mad! One of their major policy engines is being transformed away from evil and I'm sure it burns them deeply.

juleswin
10-19-2013, 02:09 PM
Heritage created ObamaCare.

I need to worry about what they think of me, why, exactly?

They proposed the individual mandate during hiliarycare debate.

twomp
10-19-2013, 02:09 PM
Heritage created RomneyCare, not ObamaCare.

Oh so there's a difference now? One has an (R) and one has a (D) behind them?

pcosmar
10-19-2013, 02:10 PM
Heritage created RomneyCare, not ObamaCare.

OK,,

same difference.

juleswin
10-19-2013, 02:34 PM
No they didn't. Liberal talking points. I hate liberals, partly because they're so good at this crap. Doesn't matter if it's true, half-true or just a flat out lie. Once the liberal machine puts it out there, it is ingrained on the national psyche as truth.

Oh how long I have been waiting for you to correct another person on this. The article I am about to highlight was written by the former head of the Heritage health work. He wrote an article trying to dispel the myth that they came up with the original idea, he did but in the process incriminated themselves for proposing it but they just were not the 1st to do propose it.


The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage)


But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others.


Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.

Essentially, a tax penalty on everybody who refuses to buy health insurance


So why the change in this position in the past 20 years?
First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn't needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage

I think that sounds like an admission to me, they proposed an individual mandate as a way to shield the insurance companies from outright bankruptcy. So next time someone tries to tell you that it is "Liberal talking points", you know the article to show them and confidently tell em its not

Continue reading http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1