Obama 2012 – Four More Wars!

It’s important to remember that I support military action, including first-strikes, in certain limited ways and in certain limited circumstances. I’m not a fan of war, but it is sometimes quite necessary. This article is not about my views, but about the hypocrisy of the left with regard to military action.

Who’d of thunk it? A ‘progressive’ President starting wars. Can’t be, right? Wrong. It’s quite a tradition. In fact, in the 20th Century, major world wars and major US involvement in regional was, without question, generally a province of Democrats.  Don’t believe it? Aren’t Democrats the ‘anti-war’ party? Aren’t progressives opposed to war? Some are, but certainly not when they get into power. To wit:

  • World War I—After promising not to do so (“He Kept us out of War”) Wilson involved the US in WWI, joining on the side of France and England.
  • World War II—Before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was wholly involved in England’s war with Germany (Bases for Destroyers and the Atlantic Charter). Add to that the embargo on Japan, and it’s clear where Roosevelt stood. By the way, this can probably be laid nicely at the feet of Wilson as well. Not to mention that Truman, a Democrat, is the only leader ever in history to use nuclear weapons.
  • Korea—Although under the guise of the United Nations (which the Soviet Union was conveniently boycotting and Taiwan was recognized as the official Chinese government-the reason for the Soviet boycott), this was a US-led action. One could argue that it was the continuation of WWII (I do), but it was clearly Truman who led the world into war over Korea.
  • Viet Nam—Although a few military advisors had ben sent to liaise with the South Vietnamese government under Eisenhower, it was John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson (who promised not to do so)—both Democrats—that introduced combat troops and escalated to full-scale war. At one point, Johnson called the corrupt leader of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, ‘The Winston Churchill of Asia”. The war ultimately spread to Cambodia and Laos.

The one major action in the 20th century that did not fit the above was the First Iraq War, begun by George HW Bush (not to be confused with his son, George H Bush). The various interventions in Central America are fairly balanced between the parties, and none of them were full-scale wars.

Of course, if we expand this to military interventions, then the picture looks a bit different, of course. That said, the Democratic Left proclaims at the top of their lungs that the right are ‘war mongers’ and ‘interventionists’ when the claim can just as well be laid at their feet.

Since Obama took office, he has wound-down Iraq and is starting to wind-down Afghanistan. But, he has attacked Libya and Yemen and is now sending combat troops as ‘advisors‘ to Uganda, in order to fight an insurgency. That’s how Viet Nam started. It’s really no surprise, since Obama threatened an attack on Pakistan during his presidential campaign.

Bottom line-if you hate war, you are no better off with Democrats than you are with Republicans, and insisting that you are is a bald-face lie, intentional ignorance or duplicity. The evidence is there for anyone willing to look at it. Hypocrisy, duplicity or ignorance, what a choice.

This is what government controlled health care does!

Start with a simple, basic drug that has been used for over 2500 years, was brought to America by Benjamin Franklin and cost about $7 for a three-week supply.  A drug which pre-dated the FDA, which meant it was grandfathered. Add in a government which says that anything not approved by the government must automatically be suspect, toss in a cooperative drug company. What do you get? A drug than now costs $185 for a three week supply.  Nothing changed at all except that it now has FDA certification. Oh, and the price, of course. Feel free to read the article yourself, and see what I’m talking about.

The truly scary part of this is the statement by the FDA (as I noted above):

FDA official Deborah Autor spoke to CBS News as head of the office of unapproved drugs. “Well, for me, unapproved drugs present current risks,” Autor said. “We don’t know what’s in them. We don’t know if they’re going to work properly. We don’t know how they’re made and that’s a real concern.”

Note well that this drug has been on the market for 100 years, has been prescribed by medical practitioners (all of them licensed by the government, mind you), and was effective. Yet, the FDA calls it a risk. Why? Because they didn’t approve it. Don’t use the drug in question? I bet you might use another one that is just as old, far more commonly used and certainly predates the FDA, given that it was first use 350BC! What drug am I talking about? Aspirin. It currently costs pennies per dose, and is widely available in many forms and brands, and is added to other over-the-counter drugs. If some company were to follow the same program for aspirin as URL Pharma did, there is a chance that aspirin might not be approved, and if it were approved, that the cost would go from pennies a dose to a dollar or more a dose.

Think this is hyperbole? Think again. The FDA has a program that will effectively eliminate all non-approved drugs, including grandfathered drugs from the market. Think aspirin can escape? Nope. The FDA regulations say that it is illegally grandfathered! Why? Because even a change in the label is sufficient to disqualify it! Note well—the drug does not have to change, just the package! That’s insane.

Does anyone really believe (besides the big-government, control-freak types) that government approval somehow makes Colchicine better? Or that it would improve the safety or efficacy of aspirin? These compounds have been used for 2500+ years because they work. Government help wasn’t needed to create, test or improve them, or determine the correct doses. That was done by doctors and their patients over the course of centuries.

The result of this government control freakery? Higher prices, lower availability, rent-seeking (URL Pharma sued all other producers of Colchicine to get it off the market), and no added benefits. Once again, we see regulations that have seriously perverse effects while adding no value at all. The FDA has no supervision, answers to nobody (well, in theory to Congress, but they aren’t going to override any decisions made by the FDA) and has plenipotentiary power to approve, ban or otherwise control drugs. This uncontrolled, unlimited power is a threat to liberty, to heath and to the consent of the governed. At least in this case, the government did not have the best interests of the people who use this drug in mind. Only their own power to control that usage. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes indeed.

Crazy, anti-liberty, anti-capitalist, anti-freedom ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Demands

Although disclaimed as not ‘official’ by the owners of occupywallst.org, a list of demands has been posted. I’m going to address those, as well as the protest in general. Let me say that I absolutely support the right of the protesters to peaceably assemble in public spaces, to present demands, to picket and otherwise exercise their First Amendment rights. No police or other government agency ought to interfere with peaceful protests. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the protests can’t be challenged by other view, or that they have some kind of monopoly on protests. We’re all entitled to our point of view, and the marketplace of ideas is open to all. In the end, we elect representatives to decide which viewpoint carries the day (at least so long as it is in line with the Constitution).

So what about the demands?  I fully acknowledge that the demand list I’m addressing is the work of one poster, but the comments attached seem to indicate some fairly broad-based themes and ideas that make this list a useful way to respond. So here they are:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

That’s more than one demand, but counting aside, there are quite a few problems with this demand both from an economic liberty point of view, as well as basic economics. Effectively, this demand is a call for an end to global trade, and an expression of ignorance about basic economics. Let’s assume your local burger joint or your local pizza place has to pay double to triple their current wages to the kid making hamburgers or pizzas. Do you think that they can keep the price of the pizza or the double-cheeseburger the same? Not a chance. And so the prices will go up in proportion to the minimum wage, or, if the public won’t bear the new, higher costs, then fewer people will be employed or the business will simply close. Price-fixing cannot make people richer, except in raw dollar terms, but that means nothing. Does it matter if I make 10x as much is everything costs 10x as much? Maybe to someone’s ego, but not to their wallet!

As for increasing tariffs in a misguided effort to force manufacturing back into the US, once again, this will increase prices for everyone and create a scarcity of goods. Even assuming that the US can produce everything it needs (a false assumption), we don’t have all the natural resources we need and I find it highly likely that the countries with those resources will raise costs enough to offset the tariffs. And when other countries also raise their tariffs, all global trade is choked off and this hurts everyone globally. Artificial price floors created by tariffs do not enrich anyone.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors

Using Medicare as an example, we find that the only way to cut costs is to either deny treatment or reduce reimbursement for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. Medicare for everyone, even if 100% of current private insurance premiums went straight into the program would still have limit both services and reimbursements. Congress has kicked this down the road every year, refusing to cut reimbursement rates further. Why? Because doctors and hospitals would drop out of the system, reducing the availability of care. Every country where single-payer systems has been implemented is looking for ways to reform and reduce cost, including privatization. In the UK, private health care is available, after having been banned. In Sweden, costs are being pushed back onto the consumers of health care. And these are countries with effective personal income tax rates much higher than those in the US. Bottom line, care will have to be rationed. One can either do it by market forces, or by fiat. Doing it by fiat will fail just as every centrally planned economy has failed.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

This appears to mean that one receives a ‘living wage’ when one is unemployed. The main result of such a policy, especially if it were exactly as written, would be to reduce the number of people who work. Why work when you can live ‘free’ on the taxpayer? Sweden ran into this problem—you started receiving sick pay at 60% of your income on the first day out. This was abused since there was no real way to control for people actually being sick. So they instituted a minor change to the law-you only started receiving benefits on the second day off work. Almost immediately single-day absenteeism disappeared.  That’s what’s in store for America if wages do not depend on work.

Demand four: Free college education.

College education can NOT be free. It could be taxpayer funded, but that’s a far cry from ‘free’. It also begs the question—does everyone need a college education? The answer is clearly ‘no’. In fact, I would argue that far too many people go to college today, and for may of the wrong reasons. No matter how great you make the economy, someone still needs to be a cashier, a gardener, a carpenter and a host of other jobs, some skilled, some unskilled, that by no means need a college education. The taxes those people pay would fund this ‘free’ college education. In other words, the non-college educated would be taxed to pay for college educations.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

A nice idea. One I support. But even on a fast-track you are talking decades before we can eliminate fossil fuels. And who is going to pay for this? You are talking about wholesale replacement of infrastructure, vehicles and industry. The costs are staggering. Assuming that by ‘fossil’ fuels they mean coal and oil, but not biofuels and ethanol, the cost would be high. If they really mean carbon-based fuels (which I think they do), then the costs are astronomical. With deficits already running in the trillions, how is this going go be paid for? Add in the later demands for eliminating nuclear power and we have a situation where electrical generation is limited to solar, wind and hydro power which, even if their efficiency increased 5-fold could not power current demands (let alone the demands of a manufacturing economy they desire to restore by fiat). Oh, and as an aside, much of the material necessary to build these non-carbon based power sources has to come from overseas, but in demand one they wrecked global trade. No amount of spending on science is going to fix that problem.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

 Not sure where this money is supposed to come from. Government spending is already consuming more than 20% of the GDP. The demands for taxpayer funded health care and college education above will create a further strain on spending. Borrowing is out (see the later demands on this). That means printing money or massive tax increases, more likely both. This will result in out of control inflation and reduction in disposable income, both of which will hurt the lowest income people the most.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Again, not sure where the money is supposed to come from. Even with Obama’s ‘millionaire tax’, that if implemented would collect enough money over 10 years to cover 4 months of deficit spending. Of course, this demand ignores the fact that forest levels are relatively unchanged since 1950. Any massive reforestation would necessary displace people and farmland, something that would likely hurt the poor and family farmers the most. Decommissioning nuclear power plants would take 20% of all electrical generation off the grid. Replacing it immediately would require new carbon-fueled power generation on a massive scale, which defeats the entire environmental platform suggested here.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

It exists. It’s called the 14th Amendment. It guarantees every person equal protection of the laws. Nothing more is needed. Unless, of course, they are seeking privileges for non-whites and women. Evidence suggests exactly that. The goal is to push white men out of the way and silence them. This is explicitly racist and goes against this demand!

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Well, I agree. Those who support economic liberty  support the feee movement of capital, goods, ideas and people. But this demand is not compatible with the demand for trade protectionism. Limiting the flow of goods and capital will massively distort the migration of people. In addition, if the US guarantees a living wage (a demand above) to every person who lives here, and there are no border controls, then millions upon millions will move to the US to gain that benefit. Free migration of people only works when capital and goods are free to flow as well.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

There isn’t anything particularly wrong with this demand, other than being inefficient. Of course, it’s also vital that only those entitled to vote are allowed to vote, so combining the above with an identification system would create a very secure, very clean election. Of course, this demand is really only for ensuring that all the ballots in the ballot box are counted accurately, not ensuring that the only ballots that get into the box are valid! And both matter.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

I can’t think of a better way to destroy the world economy, and wipe out the savings of many seniors as well as their pension and retirement funds. One of the most common investment vehicles for older Americans is municipal bonds. Wiping those out (they are debt) will destroy the life savings of most retirees. And the ones who aren’t wiped out by the elimination of the bonds will be wiped out when all banks fail since they would have no assets with which to pay their depositors. Every bank account is wiped out.

This also means that nobody would ever again lend money. Why take the risk. And this means no purchasing of goods or services unless you can pay cash on the spot. No mortgages to allow anyone to buy a house, no car loans, nothing. An immediate halt to the entire global financial system and an immediate collapse of every currency. It would make the Great Depression look like a kindergarten field trip.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

I’m assuming they mean credit rating agencies (i.e. Moody, S&P, etc). Since the banks are all wiped out, all corporations are wiped out and the financial system destroyed, they aren’t necessary. Especially since nobody will worry about ‘credit worthiness’ since nobody in their right mind would lend money, even if they had it.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Card-check on steroids. I’m fine with this so long as every worker has the choice to opt-in or opt-out. Those who opt-out do not pay dues nor are they forced to join or participate in union activities. And they are free to opt-out at any time, for any reason. Of course, this isn’t what the demand wants, which is forced unionization and elections controlled by union thugs who can intimidate workers into signing the union card.

In conclusion, I suppose I could think of a quicker way to destroy the world economy, reduce the standard of living for everyone, drag the world back into the pre-industrial error and create massive starvation, wars and misery. But I would have to think a long hard time to be able to do a more thorough job than this list. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of basic economics and complete lack of understanding about how real wealth is created. And because of that, proposes an economic armageddon the likes of which the world has never seen.

Leadership

There are so many ways to think about Steve Jobs, but to me, it comes down to one thing—true leadership. That’s what set Steve Jobs apart from other CEOs (and politicians, for that matter). Jobs did not look at where the public was going, jump out in front and claim to be leading them as so many so-called ‘leaders’ do. Rather, he blazed a trail to places people didn’t even know they wanted to go. His detractors claim that Apple invented nothing, that they stole or copied everything. Whether that claim is true or not, there is one thing that they certainly didn’t copy—the failed business models of so many other companies that involved a race to the bottom driven by cost accounting. Because Steve Jobs knew better.

Think about Apple for a moment—they make fantastic products and charge premium (compared to the rest of the commodity electronics market) prices. And people line up to buy them. They can’t be kept on the shelves. And it’s not just a small segment of the population that is queueing up for these devices either. Yes, people line up for concert tickets, or pay premium prices for the Super Bowl, but those are very limited situations—there are only a few concerts by a group that the average person could attend and going to the Super Bowl might be a once-in-a-lifetime event. Not so with Apple. We’re talking mass-market consumer devices. If you are patient, you’ll get one. And yet, people still queue. Amazing.

Did Apple fail at times? Sure. Anyone who knows about their history knows about the Lisa and Pippin (neither of which are Jobs’ products, by the way). But their successes so far outweighed those missteps that Apple has become one of  the most successful technology companies ever. Those successes came from Steve Jobs’ vision and the hard work and innovation of the amazing team he assembled. At every turn detractors wrote critical articles, pointing out why the product being discussed had to fail. And yet, the public snapped them up. Do you know anyone who has a music player that isn’t an iPod? Apple owns that market. And despite stiff competition from Android, Apple makes the number one and number two best-selling mobile phones in the world (in 2011, the iPhone 4 sold 30 million units, the iPhone 3GS 12 million units, the Samsung Galaxy II 10 million). And the iPad is currently the only commercially successful consumer tablet (though the Amazon Fire looks like a potential serious challenger).

These devices didn’t come about because consumers were clamoring at the doors of technology companies (sure, some of the digerati or technorati were, but those same folks often dissed every product Apple produced because the didn’t like Apple’s business model). They came about because of the vision and will of one man who saw the future and showed people how wonderful it could be. The technologies were disruptive, even subversive, and the entrenched powers that be (especially the Recording and Movie industries) fought tooth and nail to defend their old distribution models. But the public ate them up and demanded changes to the distribution models. The battle here isn’t won, but Steve Jobs led the way.

Fundamentally, Steve Jobs understood true leadership. He understood that his vision had to be communicated and actualized, and he had to have people believe it. And he did it. He didn’t apologize, he didn’t shy away, he put his entire self behind the effort. And people followed him, to the point where the dissenters and the disenchanted proclaimed that Steve Jobs had some kind of swami-like powers—a Reality Distortion Field. For detractors, it was old-school hucksterism or snake-oil salesman behavior. They are wrong. Sure, if the products Apple sold were phony, didn’t live up to his claims or were otherwise fraudulent, that would be a legitimate claim. No, what Steve Jobs was doing was altering reality for everyone—making them see things his way. And it worked. He changed the world. Because he thought he could and he wasn’t afraid to try. Perhaps his best statement ever was the following, part of his commencement address at Stanford University in 2005:

Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything—all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure—these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart…

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

Can you imagine what America would be like if our leaders in business, politics, religion or any other field thought and lived like this? I know some who did, and they created America. Would that we followed their lead.

Democrats propose a future with no free speech and no elections

Let me explain first that I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I used to be a Republican, way back in 1984 when I voted for Ronald Reagan (my first ever vote for Presidential Electors). I’ve never been a Democrat. And I hold no illusion that either national party has a monopoly on unconstitutional, anti-liberty behavior. The Patriot Act, a product of the Republican administration, is a stain on America and an affront to liberty. Of course, Democrats have happily renewed it despite excoriating it when campaigning. Such is political life in Washington. That said, the latest nutty ideas to take away the last vestiges of liberty, or perhaps, better said to remove the veneer of liberty come from Democrats in New York and North Carolina.

I’ll address the latter first, since it’s so clearly beyond the pale that it won’t come to pass. North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue said:

“You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It’s a little bit more contentious now but it’s not impossible to try to do what’s right in this state. You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

She now claims that this was hyperbole or a joke. I don’t buy that. The idea expressed above appears to be a well-thought-out idea, and from all press reports, there was no indication of any kind that it was said with arched-eybrow, smirk or any such cue that it was anything more than a serious proposal. For a governor of a state to suggest a patently unconstitutional act is appalling. It’s not surprising, though. I am sure someone would ask why she might suggest this when Republicans hold the House. I would speculate that reading the tea leaves, the election for the House next year will be such a blowout for Republicans that standing pat for a couple of years would be in their best interest. This would especially be true if they could also suspend Senate elections, as then they could maintain their majority, which will be difficult at best. Of course, this could never come to pass, as nothing short of actual insurrection would lead courts to permit a blanket suspension of elections for federal offices.

Moving on to something that actually has a real risk of implementation, four New York state senators are proposing (in all CAPS, even!) that our constitutional view of the 1st Amendment change such that free speech is a government-granted privilege, not a natural right. I recommend reading what Eugene Volokh has to say on this on his blog.  This very idea is so antithetical to the entire principles underlying the foundation of the United States that it’s almost hard to believe that it could be seriously suggested. But alas, we have been trending this way for years (cf ‘speech codes’ imposed by colleges, high schools censoring student newspapers and attempting to censor their communication on social networks). I will also point out that, as it says in the Torah/Old Testament—’There is nothing new under the sun’.

You see, attempts to limit free speech began almost immediately, with the passage of the ‘Alien and Sedition Acts‘ which effectively made it a crime to criticize the Government of the United States. Right from the earliest times, Free Speech came under attack. These acts, passed in 1798 were never addressed by the Supreme Court, but reading the text makes it pretty clear that they were attempts to censor opposition, and were unconstitutionally broad. Given that this started so early, is it then any surprise that limitations are being attempted today?

As is often the case, the censorship attempt comes in the guise of protecting some group of people who are ‘abused’ by free speech. With university speech codes it was women, blacks, members of the LGBTQ community or some other group which the university felt needed ‘protection’. In this instance, it’s children and bullying. And, unfortunately, history shows that when one invokes the magical phrase ‘think of the children’ all manner of rights go by the wayside in a misguided attempt to child-proof society. As an aside, I insist that society is not designed for, nor run form, the benefit of children, nor should it be.

Adult freedoms should not be limited simply because someone, somewhere perceives some kind of risk to children. Children must learn to deal with society as it is, not as some utopian wants it to be. We as parents should take action to protect them, but also to teach them to deal with the ‘dark’ side of freedoms-that people will say and do things which upset them or otherwise trouble them. See my commentary on the First Amendment’s protections, which addresses the issue of ‘bad’ speech. Trying to protect children from ‘bad’ speech by censorship is bad policy and bad for society.

The principle they are proposing is bad enough:

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

The implementation they propose makes the proposal downright chilling and frightening. Here are some of their ideas on the criteria that the government might use to determine that you no longer have free speech rights (the CAPS are theirs, not mine):

LEAVING IMPROPER MESSAGES ON ONLINE MESSAGE BOARDS OR SENDING HURTFUL AND DAMAGING MESSAGES TO OTHERS;

“FLAMING” (HURTFUL, CRUEL, AND OFTENTIMES INTIMIDATING MESSAGES INTENDED TO INFLAME, INSIGHT, OR ENRAGE);

“TROLLING” (DELIBERATELY AND DECEITFULLY POSTING INFORMATION TO ENTICE GENUINELY HELPFUL PEOPLE TO RESPOND (OFTEN EMOTIONALLY), OFTEN DONE TO PROVOKE OTHERS);

EXCLUSION (INTENTIONALLY AND CRUELLY EXCLUDING SOMEONE FROM AN ONLINE GROUP).

The first red flag is ‘improper’—a terribly broad word which could be used to censor just about anything. The rest of the language is just as broad (hurtful, damaging). Next, we have an attempt to prevent any kind of heated discourse (if you’ve never seen a UseNet flame-war, you’ve not really experienced the internet), which would seem to mean that even otherwise benign political statements could be included (someone should also tell them it’s ‘incite’ not ‘insight’). Trolling is a long tradition on the internet—”don’t feed the trolls” is a well known phrase to the denizens of UseNet and message boards. But how could you ever legally define this? It’s not too hard of a thought experiment to see that positing something like “Al Gore is a Lizard Creature from Outer Space” or that “Tom Cruise and John Travolta are part of a space alien cult” would be classified as trolling and subject the poster to penalties and limitations on his or her speech. (By the way, I don’t have any information on Icke’s claims about Al Gore, but the comment about Cruise and Travolta is accurate. :-) )

All of that is bad enough, but the ‘exclusion’ provision is downright scary. No longer are you allowed to select your friends or your group members. Anyone who wants to be a member now must be permitted, on pain of being accused of exclusion. Would this mean that teens now have to accept every friend request in order to avoid an accusation of exclusion? How crazy is this? Now, in addition to censorship, we have forced association. So much for the First Amendment. May as well toss it in the trash. The ‘chilling effects‘ this would have on communication are not worth any perceived or proposed value that might derive from their proposal.

I don’t claim to know who to solve this (and I’m not sure it can be solved completely given human nature), but I do know that tearing up the First Amendment is not the solution. Period.  Perhaps the best answer is to insist that  any solution start with parents, who must teach their children about free speech, their responsibilities and their rights, and teach them how to deal with adversity (across the board, not just with regard to speech). Parents need to be involved in their children’s lives enough to know what’s going on. Your kids might object, but in my house, having a Facebook account required friending mom and dad and allowing us to see what was posted. Beyond parents, teachers have an obligation to teach kids how to deal with adversarial situations, debates and dialogues. Schools must cease censoring student newspapers and must be open to all ideas, even ones that some people do not like. In this way, our children will learn to deal with such situations.

Liberty is far too precious to sacrifice on the altar of political correctness or for utopian goals. It means dealing with the bad stuff, no matter what our age or station in life. It’s hard, but we have to do it.

Anwar al-Awlaki and the Bill of Rights

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki raises some troubling questions. Specifically, the President is claiming the authority to assassinate American citizens, based solely on his order, in certain circumstances. There are significant constitutional issues involved here, and it’s telling that the President didn’t even resort to the ‘tame’ FISA courts for warrants or approval, he simply acted with naked power, and has even refused to address the issues raised (see the video linked in my co-blogger’s post on this very same topic).

Let’s first establish a few things. Regulars here, and those who know me, are quite aware that I do not oppose the use of force when personal or national security is in question, nor do I reject the initiation of force (for often the mere threat that I would do so deters the bad guys from acting). Let’s also establish that I feel that targeted killing of enemy leaders (military or civilian) in time of war is also acceptable (see, for example, Operation Vengeance, the American action taken to kill Admiral Yamamoto Isoruku during WWII). That said, let’s examine the circumstances here:

  1. We are not at war with Al Qa’eda. Despite repeated claims to the contrary (‘War on Terror’). We cannot be ‘at war’ with an organization, only a country (‘nation state’).
  2. Anwar al-Awlaki is an American Citizen
  3. Anwar al-Awlaki is accused of planning, conspiring to commit and committing terrorist acts
  4. The action was carried out by the Executive Branch with, with no judicial involvement
  5. Per the Executive Branch, nothing more than a Presidential Finding/Executive Order was necessary to conduct this operation

Those are the facts we know at this point. I’m assuming that there was some kind of Congressional oversight in the matter (likely invoking the special national security rules so that only the 4 leaders of the Intelligence Committee were notified of the action). Assuming the facts in evidence, we now must look to the limitations placed on the government and the rights of American citizens.

Firstly, let me say that I believe that terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war. Al Qa’eda is not a government nor a country, but a criminal gang akin to the mafia. As such, criminal law applies to Al Qa’eda just as it applies to the mafia. I’ll note that I’m not addressing the status of members of Al Qa’eda who are not American citizens—that is a far different discussion. Foreign nationals are covered by different rules (mostly established by treaties). American citizens are covered by the Constitution which has some clear requirements.

Reading the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, we can rule out a few things right away: al Awlaki was not a member of the Armed Forces nor of the militia, so that exception does not apply. Bad guys have rights, too. Protecting their rights protects all of our rights. Since no other exclusions are listed, the US Government was required by the Constitution to seek an indictment before a Grand Jury. Per the aforementioned video (a press conference) this was not done. Since this is the only way to ‘hold’ someone (i.e. detain and arrest and bring before a court) for a capital crime (i.e. one that leads to the death penalty), the government had no way to try him. They also had no arrest warrant. And Mr. al-Awlaki was not permitted a speedy trial, or any other such guarantees of the Bill of Rights. This was unilateral action by the President, with no apparent oversight. As I keep saying—Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It’s instructive that the Executive effectively did something Congress is expressly forbidden (Article I, Section 9) to do—pass a bill of attainder. The purpose of this clause was to ensure separation of powers, and to ensure that Congress could not bypass the judiciary and pass a bill that punished someone without trial. But this is exactly what the President did. He issued an order to do something that is expressly forbidden to the Congress (and by implication the Executive since they are to execute the laws). In other words, the President violated the Constitution.

The President had no Constitutional authority to carry out the action. If the government can, by decree, declare someone to be outside the protection of the laws, then none of us are safe. All it takes is a Presidential declaration to end-run the Constitution. Without Constitutional authority, what he did was engage in a conspiracy to murder an American citizen and a conspiracy to deprive that citizen of due process of law. Those are both impeachable offenses, and offenses for which he ought to be removed from office and the indicted and given a fair, public trial. Something he denied to Mr. al-Awlaki.

Move aside Carnivore, here comes Stingray!

Remember Carnivore—the FBI software that was designed to scan all email traffic on the net? Enter Stingray, a system for tracking people by listening to the signals sent by their cellphones (WSJ article, Techdirt article). The system works by pretending to be a cell phone tower, communicating with the phone and providing signal strength information. The vehicle (Stingray units are often mounted in vehicles) then moves and measures the signal strength one or more times (‘triangulation‘) and determines the location of the device. The phone only has to be turned on (i.e. you don’t have to be making a call or sending a text, or browsing the internet).

Setting aside the clear problem of deleting evidence before trial without judicial review (see the linked WSJ article), there are several issues that need to be examined with regard to this, and several possible angles from which to approach it. We have questions of what kind of warrant is need to do this (if any), what it means to be ‘secure’ in your home, what ‘home’ means, how all of this applies to electronic transmissions and the like. Here are some salient points about the current state of affairs:

  • In general, under US law (FCC regulations), any unencrypted radio communication may be listened to by any person, so long as they do not re-transmit or otherwise communicate the content of that transmission in an illegal way.  For example, listening to police band radio is perfectly legal, but using the information you gathered from that to help someone avoid the police is not. Note that GSM speech is encoded, but by nature of the negotiated shared secrets, the initial contact is not encrypted and thus is, in effect, a ‘public’ broadcast in the clear.
  • In general, if something in your home is visible to a casual observer from the street, you have neither a privacy nor 4th Amendment protection relating to searches. In other words, if you have your drapes open and the marijuana plants are able to be seen from the sidewalk, your claim that the police didn’t have a warrant will fail.
  • At present, the courts insist that ‘wiretapping’ (i.e. listening to a conversation) requires a warrant (though secret FISA warrants may be used) when the parties are both in the Untied States (the rules for tapping international calls are somewhat less strict, and given the Patriot Act and FISA, effectively non-existent).
  • Police may conduct searches based on probable cause when there is imminent likelihood that evidence will be destroyed if they try to get a warrant (this is a highly debated area of jurisprudence and significant cases are working their way through the courts at this time).
  • Intentional public acts (or acts that the person should have known would be public) are not subject to warrants. For example, it would not be a violation of the 4th Amendment for the police to record the plate numbers of every car that passes a certain point on a public road, or to enter a home to search for a suspect when they have a warrant for the person’s arrest and their car is parked in the driveway.
  • Historically, the police have not been empowered to require individuals who are otherwise obeying the law provide identification (though they are able to do so in certain situations, such as demanding a driving license if you are driving your car and are pulled over). This has been under assault for years, and the courts have provided the police far more leeway in making such demands.

What does all of this mean? It’s an open question how the courts will come down on this. I would say that more than likely, based on current jurisprudence, the court will state that such actions by the government are not violations of the 4th Amendment. Fundamentally, since the phone is transmitting control signals to any and all base stations (this is how a cellular or mobile phone works), intercepting such a broadcast transmission is not a violation of FCC regulations. A technical defense to this might be made if the phone was not set to roam (i.e. configured to only talk to cellular base stations from your specific carrier), though I don’t know how well this would hold up, since you still aren’t encrypting the data. In addition, since the LEOs are not listening to your call (only the control signals), wiretapping laws (as they currently exist) do not come into play, and the Supreme Court has held that listening to the control signals on telephone calls does not require a warrant, and Congress provided that they only need an ex-parte (i.e. one-sided, where the other side does not have to be informed) court order (this originally related to PEN registers for telephone calls, but the same idea applies).

All of which is to say, that consistent with current law and court rulings, Stingray is perfectly OK.  (Note though, that given that the government was allowed to delete the evidence (per the WSJ article) prior to trial, the case might be dismissed without ever reaching the merits.)

All of the above aside (including as well all the search and seizure rulings since Mapp v. Ohio), what kind of protection ought the 4th Amendment provide in such cases? Is what is going on good public policy? And if it’s allowed, who is supposed to watch over it (you know I had to throw Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes into this, didn’t you? :-) ) First, here’s the text of the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

First off, the above does not limit itself to actual ‘paper’ any more than ‘Freedom of  the Press’ limits itself to manually run screw press used by Benjamin Franklin. In other words, the Constitution is not limited to or by technology. We apply the general principle described without reference to the actual devices used. The 4th Amendment has been applied to telephones, computers, and all other manner of technology. Cellular phones should not be a special case, and the 4th Amendment protections apply.

That said, the cellular phone is broadcasting  and is configured to respond either to any cellular base station. One can select (on many phones) whether or not to limit the communication to the base stations provided by the carrier or to any compatible base station (i.e. roaming). The question is, should this communication be considered ‘public’ in the same way as an unencrypted radio or television transmission? I would say not in this case, for the specific reason that a two-way communication is being established (per the article, the Stingray device ‘pings’ the phone). This is not simply passive listening to an otherwise public communication, but an intentional invasive act. That must require a warrant.

What if Stingray were purely passive? If that is the case, then one could argue that it is legitimate for the government to look at the signal, since it is being broadcast over the air (and not contained purely inside one’s home or place of business. It becomes a public act, no different than walking down your street, driving your car or attending a hockey game. In other words, if you make yourself visible in public, via technology or otherwise, your expectation and right to privacy are limited or non-existent. There is no legitimate complaint about loss of liberty if the police see you driving down the street and stop you for an outstanding warrant based on checking your license plate.

The question is, though, do we want the government to have this power? Do we want to live in a surveillance society where every public act is monitored and tracked? And who watches the watchers and ensures that they stay in line? I think the answer to the first two is no, and the third is a serious issue. In the internet age, nearly everything we do is public (in the sense that it is disclosed to third parties voluntarily). We post to Facebook, Google+ and the like. We carry cellphones and even check-in manually with FourSquare or similar location services). We share these with ‘friends’ but again, they are voluntarily disclosed the third parties, which effectively makes them “public” (at least as interpreted by the courts). I would argue that this is bad public policy and has a chilling effect on the public at large.

What do we need to do to fix this? Here are some basic steps:

  • Eliminate the use of secret warrants (e.g. FISA warrants) and ex-parte warrants for search/seizure activities
  • Demand that the Courts act impartially and require the government to defend their warrant applications
  • Change the legal understanding of ‘public’ to mean things which are intentionally disclosed to the general public, not things which are disclosed to third-parties via social networks, cellular phone control signals, telephone dialers and the like.
  • Ensure that the activities of law enforcement are monitored and require justification for actions which violate privacy without proper justification

Will the above make things harder for law enforcement? Yes. And that’s a good thing. As Patrick Henry stated:

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.

Missing this point misses the entire point of the US Constitution and the Revolution which preceded it. We have come to a point where the default is that the government may do almost anything without limitation, and many people accept this notion. Some of those people are misguided, and need only to be taught the true intent of the Founders. Others disagree with the very intent-it is these who are dangerous and must be fought at every turn. They believe that the government should control the people. They are enemies of liberty who often disguise themselves as proponents of liberty, while at every turn seeking to limit it. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.  George Washington neatly summed this up when he said:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

All those who love liberty should resist government encroachment of their rights. The technology that is empowering us is being used against us. And we must put a stop to it. Right now. If we wait too long, bloodshed will be required to seize back our liberties. There is still time to do it peacefully, but we must stand together to resist these actions by the government and we must do it now.

 

 

Americans have no property rights!

The right to own and use property is a foundational right—many other rights and privileges flow directly from this basic right. In theory, the US Constitution protects private property (see, e.g. Amendments 4 and 5), but years of chipping away and outright end-runs on the Constitution have yielded the following:

  • Property may be taken for ‘public use’ which includes transferring it to someone who promised to pay more property tax
  • Property may be taken for ‘public’ use via trumped-up ‘blight’ declarations to change the character of a neighborhood
  • Property may be taken via ‘forfeiture’ by any government entity if it is alleged to be in some way related to a crime and the original owner must prove that it is not related to a crime
  • Property may be taken by zoning regulations which make it unfit for the purpose it is currently being used for or intended to be used for
  • Property may be taken by zoning regulations which render the property effectively worthless
  • Property may be seized for failure to pay taxes, not just on the property, but any taxes at all
  • Property may be so heavily regulated that it loses its value and thus is worthless
  • Use of firearms (or other means) to defend your property are highly limited and more often than not prohibited

All of the above are ‘takings’ whereby the government appropriates the property (or the value of the property) for public use without compensation. In fact, things are little different than feudal times when individuals were required to pay rents to the Lord for land. They could be arbitrarily kicked off the land, have their rents raised or otherwise be denied use of the land at the whim of the Lord. There is no real difference between property taxes and feudal rents, although there is the facade of elections covering the taxes.

And this applies to all property that you ‘own’—land, goods, currency, bank accounts, etc. Any and all of them can be seized through civil forfeiture with little more than the flimsiest of evidence. Try carrying large amounts of cash anywhere. If you ever get stopped by the police, it will likely be seized and you will have to fight lengthy court battles to try to get it back. Don’t hold your breath, though, since the authorities play games of transferring these seized assets to other government entities causing you to have to jump through even more hoops. All to attempt to prove that the property was not related to a crime in any way, something that is difficult to do even in the best of circumstances. Remember, the government has the property based solely on a claim and has no burden of proof.

What’s the solution here? There are several things that should be done to restore property rights:

  • End all civil forfeiture immediately. If the property is the gain from a crime, handle it in criminal court.
  • Reduce property taxes dramatically, and base them on revenue generated by the property, not the theoretical value were it sold. This requires reforming the financing of public services as well (often paid for by property taxes).
  • Reduce regulation and eliminate zoning, handing issues of property use as torts if they interfere with another person’s property
  • Require all regulations that are imposed to assess the economic impact on property and pay the owner for the reduction in value caused by the regulation
  • Restrict ‘eminent domain’ seizure of land to very specific public use, and prohibit transfer of private property from one owner to another

Other abuses of property rights, such as infinite extensions on copyright, government ‘ownership’ of huge tracts of land (and denying public access to it) and prohibitions on owning certain types of goods need to be dealt with as well (and I’ll cover them in the future), but the above is a good start.

As John Locke (no, not the Lost character, the ‘real’ John Locke) said:

The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.

And yet, our society does exactly the opposite—interferes with the preservation of property at every turn, supposedly in the name of the ‘common’ good. How quickly people forget the ‘tragedy of the commons’ and what happens when property is public and not private.