http://www.nytimes.com/…

In years to come, when the oil-and-gas billionaire David H. Koch attends a gala performance of New York City Ballet or City Opera at Lincoln Center, the building he enters in black tie will bear his name.

Mr. Koch, recently called the wealthiest resident of New York City, has agreed to contribute $100 million toward the renovation of the New York State Theater, which is home to the two companies. His gift will be the largest private capital donation in Lincoln Center’s history and a triumph in a period of growing economic uncertainty.

“They seem to like me there, and I like them, so I think we’ve got a deal,” Mr. Koch, 68, said in a telephone interview on Wednesday from Boston, where he was traveling. “Its obvious that this theater needs modernization.”

“I’ve been going to the New York State Theater for 40 years,” he said. “I can assure you, I would not make a gift of this magnitude unless I was absolutely convinced that the quality of the work was world class.”

Mr. Koch, a major contributor to the Republican Party and supporter of conservative causes, was the vice presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket in 1980. In 2003 he helped establish the nonprofit Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which supports free-market policies and promotes government spending limits. It split off from an earlier Koch-backed enterprise, now called FreedomWorks, which promotes similar goals.

He’s on the board of directors for both the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation.

There is just something wrong about all this…

The things that the libertarian movement could do with that kind of money. Assuming McCain/Feingold didn’t exist think of what the Ron Paul or Bob Barr campaigns could do with half that? Or what the Free State Project could do with 1% of it?

It’s one thing for a “libertarian” not to give money to the cause. It’s another to voluntarily give money to the State. Why not buy this theatre? Why not build your own? It’s not like he doesn’t have the money to cover the extra cost.

http://rasmussenreports.com/…

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.

The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.

Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.

Voters hold little positive sentiment about the future. Just 41% find it at least somewhat likely that Congress will address important problems facing our nation in the near future, while 55% find this unlikely.

And yet most of the criminals in DC will still be there this time next year.

Far better then when Ron Paul was on This Week.

http://www.antiwar.com/…

Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.

The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.

In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.

He missed the vote because he was speaking at the Montana state GOP convention.

http://arstechnica.com/…

Floor debate on the measure, which expands executive branch surveillance authority and provides retroactive amnesty for telecoms implicated in warrantless NSA wiretapping, consisted largely of mutual congratulation. Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) lauded the bill as a shining example of “what we can do when we come together,” a sentiment echoed by Rep James Langevin (D-RI), who said that the compromise “illustrates what this House can do when it deliberates with care, holds steady against fearmongering, and acts in the best interests of the country and its citizens.”

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) interrupted the good vibes briefly to charge Democratic leaders, who had blocked a vote on a previous version of reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with “playing potliics with national security.” But even he managed to close on a positive note, stressing that “when this House is allowed to vote, we can come together and accomplish things for the country.” Perhaps most effusive was Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the chief architect of the deal, who after being introduced as a man with the “wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job” delivered an encomium to his colleagues and staff so fulsome that I found myself searching in vain for the golden statuette.

Some Democrats nevertheless felt obliged to assure skeptics that the compromise bill did not simply represent a capitulation to White House demands. Intelligence Committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), for instance, distinguished the bill from legislation passed in the Senate by noting that “in this bill, Congress does not grant immunity. Congress isn’t deciding the question of immunity; the district court will.” Which is true: The Senate language granted immunity from lawsuits to any telecom that received a written directive from the attorney general, regardless of whether the company believed its actions to be lawful. The new, improved language instructs a federal court to grant immunity from lawsuits to any telecom that received a written directive from the attorney general, regardless of whether the company believed its actions to be lawful.

Lone When the votes were tallied, just under half of House Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the bill. A lone Republican,  Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL), voted against it. A spokesman told Ars that Johnson “voted that way, consistent with all of his past votes on the FISA bill, because he’s worried about its impact on civil liberties, and he belives that the necessary authority for the intelligence agencies already exists. He’s talked to people on the front lines, and the system works very effectively now.”

Lone Republican voted Na and it wasn’t Ron Paul??? Well unfortunately he had the long planned speaking position at the Montana GOP convention. He didn’t get any of the delegates even though he came in 2nd in the Montana GOP caucus over McCain’s 3rd place showing. Tell me again how it’s unfair that Paul supporters were trying to get more delegates then their percentage of the vote?

Anyway, this capitulation by the Democrats while not surprising is no less disappointing. If they want to stop it they could have but they don’t. Just like they don’t want to stop the war in Iraq or impeach president or vice president for gross violations of the Constitution.