On the merits, Salazar voted against Southwick, who was confirmed by a 59-38 vote with three Senators not voting. 

Every Republican, as well as Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, voted for Southwick on the merits, as did the following Democrats (all Senators not voting were Democrats; all Senators opposing the nomination were Democrats except Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, who is an Independent). 

Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Benjamin Nelson (D-NE) and Mark Pryor (D-AR). 

Like Salazar, Democrats Thomas Carper from Delaware and Daniel Inouye from Hawaii also refused to filibuster the nominee, while voting against the nominee on the merits.

Wikipedia sums up the opposition to Southwick based largely upon intolerant racial and homophobic views expressed in his judicial opinions while serving on the Mississippi Court of Appeals from 1994 to 2006.

This choice is often unstated but implied, like the debate over the USA Patriot Act, the issue of detention of citizens and non-citizens, or the willingness to be patted down at the the airport security line.

Sometimes the debate is overt. A couple of years ago, an oil company sponsored an essay contest on exactly that topic. And this week the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science dealt directly with this issue in a report entitled Science and Security in a Post 9/11 World.

Science thrives on the free exchange of ideas among individuals, institutions, across borders. The NAS tried to find out whether …

“… concerns about our country’s need to protect itself from terrorist threats had resulted in policy changes that were altering our ability to attract the best and brightest scientists and engineers and to undertake and conduct leading-edge research.”

The issue is whether the U.S. should reduce its transmission of scientific findings to the scientists of other countries, and restrict the access of foreigners to our schools.

The concerns of the security community were considered important and were taken seriously by the committee that prepared the report — which included Gary Hart Former U.S. Senator (D-Colo.), and Wirth Professor of Public Policy University of Colorado.

These concerns were: that terrorists posing a s students (or actual students who were also terrorists) would come to the U.S. and harm citizens; that terrorists might use the country’s own advanced technology against us; that enemy states might gain a technical advantage by access to scientific and technical information; and “that America’s economic well-being is founded on the maintenance of its scientific and technological edge and that foreign countries could seek to penetrate U.S. universities (as well as U.S. businesses) for the purpose of obtaining early access to technology in order to supplant U.S. capabilities and reap the economic gains for themselves.”

So the NAS got the input of many of the agencies involved in national security — the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Department, the military services, the National Security Agency and so on — along with universities and researchers to try to determine what restrictions on the free flow of scientific information would benefit the security of the U.S.

And considering the players — the national security world, bristling with yellow alerts, secrets and classified information and the usually timid, grant-hungry university world — it is surprising to hear that the answer generally favors freedom, not restriction. In the words of the report:

“Interestingly, even with such a divergent range of committee expertise and speaker/participant input, an overwhelming consensus was apparent that to keep the country secure and to maintain our freedoms, we must strive to keep U.S. universities open- welcoming students and scholars from around the world and participating in international  research.”

In fact, the report concludes that the free flow of information actually favors the United States in its quest for safety. Because our technology and research are so advanced, we are better able to make use of the information that flows to us than a potential enemy is.

Take, for instance, the case of potential biological hazards. Previously technically unsophisticated nations or groups could conceivably learn enough from open-source scientific information to acquire and use dangerous biological materials against U.S. citizens. Remember anthrax?

But the NAS concludes that work on these issues is being done elsewhere. The U.S. is not the only — in many cases not even the major — source of research on many potentially dangerous materials. By allowing the free flow of information, the U.S. is in a better position to counter these potential threats, protecting our citizens.

In other words, freedom is good for us. It makes us safer. So the next time the debate of freedom versus security comes up, we can point to the NAS report as an argument that more freedom means more security.

“Clearly the brave anti-evolution stances of Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee have got science on the run. Now’s the time to press our tack. So Congressman Tancredo, from now on you don’t believe in geology either. Diamonds are just Jesus’s tears.

Watch the video from the Colbert Report here.

“It saddens me that my fellow Spartans would display this type of behavior. They are racist. It’s sad we need police to come to control these radical leftists.”

The protestors’ signs, however, insisted Tancredo was the racist.

After the fire alarm was pulled several times, one student implicated God as the culprit:

Randy McPherson, whose sign read “Where’s the wall to keep you out?” came to protest when he heard that the congressman would be speaking.

“God works in mysterious ways,” said McPherson, a food science and premedical junior, after the second fire alarm was pulled. “(Tancredo) shouldn’t be here.”

But locals aren’t likely to catch a glimpse of the Ice Queen’s trademark blonde mane (which is slightly reminiscent of 90′s rock duo Nelson) unless they’ve forked over $150 to attend tonight’s 22nd Annual Founders’ Night at the Independence Institute.

But for those who want to hear Coulter talk about herself and insult liberals, you can tune in to Friday’s broadcast of Independent Thinking, hosted by Independence Institute president Jon Caldara. It airs at 8:30 p.m. on KBDI Channel 12.

Back in July, Colorado Confidential wrote about Fred Elbel: spokesman for the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR) and co-chair of Defend Colorado Now.

Now, the Rocky Mountain News reports that Elbel is raising money to help pay legal fees for Cory Voorhis, the ICE agent who could be facing federal charges. From the News article:

What was not mentioned in the article, were Elbel’s numerous connections to white supremacy.

• Elbel has written for the Social Contract Press, a website that reportedly publishes viewpoints of white nationalists. Publisher John Tanton is also considered to be a founding father of the anti-immigration movement. 

  The Center For New Community, a Chicago based civil-rights group, issued a report on the site last summer:

  Working closely with Tanton as the editor of The Social Contract is Wayne Lutton, an ardent white nationalist. Lutton has spoken at the biannual conference of the white nationalist group American Renaissance, is a trustee of the American Renaissance parent organization, the  New Century Foundation, and is on the editorial advisory board of the Council of Conservative Citizens Citizen Informer and the white nationalist journal The Occidental Quarterly. He has also written numerous, pseudonymous articles for the Journal of Historical Review, the Holocaust denial journal founded by Willis Carto.

  The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), another civil rights organization, has decried the Press for its contributors:

  The Social Contract has published articles by James Lubinskas of the racist American Renaissance magazine; Brent Nelson, who like Lutton is on the advisory board for the CCC’s periodical, and Sam Francis, current editor of the CCC tabloid.

  John H. Tanton, publisher of The Social Contract Press and founder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, was instrumental in a 1996 effort to add an anti-immigration plank to the Sierra Club platform, a move that nearly split the environmental group permanently.

  More on John Tanton and the Social Contract Press

• Elbel has worked with Brenda Walker and Virginia Abernethy, who have been connected to white supremacist organizations.

  In July, the News reported on Elbel and his links to Brenda Walker:

  Brenda Walker, a Sierra Club associate of Elbel’s who joined in unsuccessful effort to elect immigration control candidates including Lamm to the club’s board of directors in 2004, had harsh words on her blog on a white nationalist Web site, VDare. Her claim is that the church needs Latino immigrants who are more passive and unquestioning.

  “Apparently, as good authoritarians, the Catholic hierarchy prefers passively obedient parishioners -rather than educated Americans who are capable of critical analysis,” Walker wrote. “Credulous Mexicans fresh from the pueblo are seen as ideal fillers of pews.”

  
  Then there is Virginia Abernethy, the SPLC reports:

  Although Abernethy denied being a supremacist, telling the Arizona Daily Star that she was merely a white “separatist” who preferred to be “with my own kind,” she was immediately denounced by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR, which helped pay to gather signatures for the referendum but later broke angrily with McKee, described Abernethy’s views as “repugnant.”
  …
  FAIR cites on its Web site a man named Fred Elbel, who is [Protect Arizona Now's] webmaster and also heads the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform – another group which Abernethy advises. Elbel is tied to FAIR founder John Tanton.

  More on VDARE.com

• One of Elbel’s groups, Defend Colorado Now, has its own links to white supremacists.

  From a Colorado Confidential report:

  “Unfortunately, [Dick Lamm] has a long history of activism with these national anti-immigrant groups with ties to white nationalists,” Devin Burghart, director of the Center, said in an interview.

  Defend Colorado Now (DCN), a state-based issue committee, was trying to get an initiative on the ballot which would have-as it reads-denied “non-emergency” services to  illegal immigrants. The amendment was trashed however, when the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the wording did not meet requirements mandated in the constitution. Lamm was one of DCN’s supporters, leading the charge.

  In the report it was revealed that approximately 30% of the committees funding came from U.S. Inc, run by John Tanton-a man accused of having multiple connections with hate groups. It was also found earlier this week that Tanton has given money to Rep. Tom Tancredo.

  And the Rocky Mountain News:

  But critics of [Defend Colorado Now] are saying that its outside money came with a taint.

  Its largest contributions have come from a national group whose longstanding campaigns for immigration cuts, border defense and official English have brought it some fringe and sometimes unwelcome bedfellows – racists.

  More on Defend Colorado Now

It’s not known why the Rocky failed to disclose these facts about Elbel, since the paper had written previously about him and Defend Colorado Now.

But with friends like these, Cory Voorhis’s help could be a blessing…or a big mistake.

Tancredo’s Democratic opponent, Bill Winter, is not convinced however, and is speaking out about the rally held a few days ago in South Carolina From the News article:

Winter responded later with a press release.

“How can Mr. Tancredo claim to be representing the people of Colorado when he is pandering to hate groups in South Carolina?” he said. “How can Mr. Tancredo sit in our Nation’s Capitol and claim to speak for the people of this district and all Americans when he addresses groups dedicated to the secession of all Southern states?”

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the civil rights organization that first reported on the rally, is sticking to its claims.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based watchdog group, is reporting that Tancredo appeared at a rally in South Carolina yesterday, and spoke to what the Center has called a “hate group.”From the report:

Political blogs like Daily Kos and Square State have also picked up on the news.

Last July, the Colorado Confidential reported on VDARE.com, a conservative website that covers immigration issues. On the site, one author has called Hmong people “drug-addicted polygamists.” Another author correlated the United State’s Mexican population with “high teenage birthrates, poverty, ignorance, and disease.”This controversial content led to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights group, to label VDARE a “hate site” in 2003.

In the previous Confidential story, an SPLC spokesman was quoted saying the following about the VDARE’s owner, Peter Brimelow:

On VDARE, an essay authored by the Congressman has been posted about the Denver Public Library and a controversy involving bilingual books, apparently with Tancredo’s permission.  Tancredo has also gone on the record defending Brimelow, in Salon magazine.

Brimelow, on the other hand, has admitted to having “white nationalist” authors post on his site, although he claims that they are not “white supremacist.”

According to the report, Coffman, a former marine and soldier, walked away from a pro-Iraq war rally because he had problems with Tancredo’s draft history.From the article* (see bellow):

Then it came out that Tancredo was put to the bottom of the draft list because of previous episodes with depression and anxiety.

In a radio interview from last July, Tancredo was quoted saying “I did not serve. I could not serve, but I certainly wish that I had that opportunity.”

* Coffman Left Rally To Protest Tancredo; Lawmaker Supports Iraq War But Didn’t Fight In Vietnam, Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO) March 27, 2003