The esteemed senior senator from California yesterday issued a press release in support of H.R. 810, which would authorize the use of federal funds to perform embryonic stem cell research beyond the currently existing stem-cell lines. In other words, it would authorize federal funding of the destruction of human embryos for scientific research.

At this time, the official Senate website has not yet posted the record votes for today, but I will assume that Senator Feinstein — and Senator Boxer — voted in favor of the bill. I have read elsewhere that the bill passed, and that President Bush is expected to veto it. The 63 votes in favor are not enough to override the veto.

It is important to realize that this bill is not necessary. The federal government already funds research on existing embryonic stem-cell lines. Adult stem cells and stem cells from umbilical cord blood have already been shown effective. Crossing the moral line and authorizing government-sanctioned destruction of human embryos for scientific research is not necessary to further investigation into possible new medical treatments.

[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write on many topics other than the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.]

If you live outside of California, you may be excused for not know the name of the Republican candidate opposing Dianne Feinstein for re-election this year.

What's sad is that most residents of California are unlikely to know his name, or even that he exists. With almost no visibility, he has done little to dispel the belief that Senator Feinstein is running unopposed.

His name is Richard "Dick" Mountjoy, and I have added him to my Squidoo Lens on California's delegation to the United States Senate.

And we don't mean getting between floors of a department store in downtown Beirut.

What does the esteemed junior Senator from California have to say about the shooting now going on in southern Lebanon? Senator Boxer sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and so should be fast off the mark — but, no. Radio silence. No press release on her official Senate website supporting Israel in its efforts to fumigate its northern border. No mention on her political action committee website.

Can we look for insight and guidance from the esteemed senior Senator from California? Senator Feinstein sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. She surely knows more than the public. Senator Feinstein's campaign website talks about carbon dioxide and changing the mission in Iraq, but nothing about Hezbollah. However, her official Senate website, in contrast to the void at Senator Boxer's website, contains a press release dated July 113th concerning Israel's latest effort to continue its existence:


Senator Boxer is trying to thread the needle here. She wants to present herself as a thoughtful stateswoman weighing all options and gently prodding a reluctant Administration to Do The Right Thing. If she's very very careful, she can signal to the Democratic base that she's with them while not looking like a wild-eyed Leftist to those right of center.

She is unwilling to lay the blame on Israel. Good for her!

She calls out not only Hezbollah but also Hamas. Bully for her!

Most striking, she continues the trail to Syria — which supplies Hezbollah and wants to control Lebanon — and beyond to the puppeteers in Iran. Well done, Senator.

The bit about "destabilizing the Middle East" is laughable, though. When was the last time the Middle East was stable? Five thousand years before Christ, they were fighting there.

The straighforward assertion of defensive rights ("Israel has the right and the obligation to defend its citizens.") is admirable.

But she loses me on the last sentence, where she makes a partisan swipe in favor of further ineffectual political outgassing.

President Clinton engaged in "high-level and sustained American diplomacy" and got nothing sustainable for his efforts.

Israel pulled out of Gaza and was rewarded with intifada, suicide bombings, and rockets.

Israel pulled out of the buffer zone in southern Lebanon that prevented Hezbollah from lobbing short-range missiles into Israeli territory, and was answered with renewed rocket bombardments and the kidnapping of its soldiers.

The Islamists don't believe in peaceful coexistence, or even uneasy coexistence. Their creed requires subservience from anyone not adhering to that creed. If not subservience, then destruction.

For diplomacy to work, all parties must be willing to give a little and take a little.

The Islamists are willing to give nothing and take a lot.

Further release of hot air by slick diplomats won't change that.

Any politician holding the position that diplomacy can be used with Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Syria, or Iran, is not being serious during serious times.

The current escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, ignited by Hezbollah and responded to with vigor by Israel, with a continuo of handwringing by the Lebanese government and punctuated by threats from Iran, leaves both members of the California delegation silent, so far.

One might argue that neither Senator is in charge of foreign relations for the United States, but that didn't stop them from earlier comments: both Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer were quick on the draw when North Korea test-launched missiles.

Senator Feinstein sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and is likely privy to much sensitive information regarding the Middle East. She could offer an informed statement supporting Israel.

Senator Boxer sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and should be versed in the conditions faced by Israel, a country surrounded by enemies. She could stoutly express her positive assessment of Israel's response to provocation.

[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write on many other topics than the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.]

I received this email from Senator Barbara Boxer in response to my request for an explanation of why we need both FEMA and USEMA:


Note that this is non-responsive to the question asked, but doesn't miss an opportunity to take a swipe at FEMA.

For more on USEMA, please see earlier posts here at Red-Flagged.

[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write on many other topics than the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.]

Another three record votes were taken in the Senate yesterday, on three amendments to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. As it turns out, the esteemed members of the California delegation to the U.S. Senate scored a perfect zero: they voted against all three amendments, and I would have voted for them. Their Red-Flagged Tracking Scores now stand thusly:


Two of the amendments were to fund increasing border security and enforcement of existing immigration laws. These failed. The other amendment was to prevent confiscation of legal firearms during an emergency or major disaster. This passed.

UPDATE: My  mistake. The three amendments above were part of a batch of seven records votes from today, not yesterday. Incorporating the three from yesterday plus the other four from today (which include the vote on the bill as a whole), their Red-Flagged Tracking Scores now stand:



[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write about many other topics than the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.]

Here is the description of FEMA's mission, from the FEMA website:

On March 1, 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FEMA's continuing mission within the new department is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program.

An exercise for the reader: compare and contrast with the mission of USEMA (previously posted).

The current level is Yellow, "Significant Threat of Terrorist Attack," according to the FEMA homepage.

According to Thomas, the legislative information service of the Library of Congress, the mission of the United States Emergency Management Authority (USEMA) will be:

    (1) lead the Nation's efforts to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the risks of natural and man-made disasters, including catastrophic incidents;

    (2) partner with State and local governments and emergency response providers, with other Federal agencies, with the private sector, and with nongovernmental organizations to build a national system of emergency management that can effectively and efficiently utilize the full measure of the Nation's resources to respond to a catastrophic incident or other natural or man-made disaster;

    (3) develop a Federal response capability that, when necessary and appropriate, can act effectively, rapidly, and proactively to deliver assistance essential to saving lives or protecting or preserving property or public health and safety in a natural or man-made disaster;

    (4) fuse the Department's emergency response, preparedness, recovery, mitigation, and critical infrastructure assets into a new, integrated organization that can effectively confront the challenges of a natural or man-made disaster;

    (5) develop and maintain robust Regional Offices that will work with State and local governments and emergency response providers to identify and address regional priorities;

    (6) under the leadership of the Secretary, coordinate with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Director of Customs and Border Protection, the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the National Operations Center, and other agencies and offices in the Department to take full advantage of the substantial range of resources in the Department that can be brought to bear in preparing for and responding to a natural or man-made disaster;

    (7) carry out the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.);

    (8) provide funding, training, exercises, technical assistance, planning, and other assistance, to build local, State, regional, and national capabilities, including communications capabilities, necessary to respond to a potential natural or man-made disaster;

    (9) implement an all-hazards-plus strategy for preparedness that places priority on building those common capabilities necessary to respond to both terrorist attacks and natural disasters while also building the unique capabilities necessary to respond to specific types of incidents that pose the greatest risk to our Nation; and

    (10) promote, plan for, and facilitate the security and resiliency of critical infrastructure and key resources, including cyber infrastructure, against a natural or man-made disaster, and the post-disaster restoration of such critical infrastructure and key resources.

So now I have dig up an official description of FEMA's mission and compare the two.

The questions of the day: what's the difference between FEMA and USEMA? Why do we need both?

(USEMA is the United States Emergency Management Authority, established by S.Amdt. 4560 to H.R. 5441, the Homeland Security appropriations bill. H.R. 5441 has not yet been voted on as a whole by the Senate.)

Last week I posted about tracking my voting preferences against the recorded votes of the esteemed members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.

Yesterday, there were three record votes taken, on amendments to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, H.R.5441.

So this morning, I updated the Red-Flagged Tracking Score for Senators Feinstein and Boxer:


Note: these scores may change after I do further research on responsibilities of the "United States Emergency Management Authority." I reflexively vote against enlarging governmental bureaucracy, so my No vote for S.Amdt. 4560 might change after I do a bit of digging.

I have created a Squidoo Lens to organize information about the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate. A link to the Squidoo Lens has been added to the righthand rail. The Lens will be updated as new information is unearthed.

The senior Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, is up for re-election this year. Her campaign website lists Judges as an important election-year issue.

I will be watching for any public reaction from Senator Feinstein regarding the ruling yesterday by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring the proposed state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

But the SJC justices ruled that the word ``reversal" has been interpreted by the SJC in other cases to mean the overturning of a specific case. The amendment, they wrote, seeks not to reverse the decision per se but merely to enact a new law prohibiting gay marriage.

Had the SJC agreed with the argument put forward, it would have handed dictatorial powers to every judge in the state.

Will Senator Feinstein comment publicly?

[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write on many other things than the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.]

According to an article in today's Opinion Journal, the Senate Judiciary Committee will meet tomorrow to hear testimony in regards to the nomination of William "Jim" Haynes II to a seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

The Opinion Journal article looks at the dilemma faced by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee who has expressed reservations about the nominee.

However, it's also a dilemma for the esteemed senior member of the California delegation to the United States Senate. Dianne Feinstein is a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, and her re-election campaign website lists "Judges" prominently as an issue in this year's campaign.

Opponents of the nomination have attempted to construe Mr. Haynes as an advocate of torture based on a legal opinion he wrote at the request of President Bush in regards to treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. That charge is deliberately misleading.

Will Senator Feinstein, "an independent voice for California," fall into partisan line, paint Mr. Haynes as an advocate of torture, and use that as an excuse to vote against a qualified nominee?

I'll be watching. And posting.

[You are invited to visit www.cehwiedel.com, where I write on many other topics than the members of the California delegation to the United States Senate.]

The Townhall.com "inappropriate language" filter has struck again. I don't know what in this post caused it to block posting, but you may read the entire post at my other blog, Red County, California.