In my last post, I presented the reasons that the embassy closings were possibly real, and speculated that the closings portended the start of WWIII. Anthony Martin at the Liberty Sphere has an entirely different take , saying that the embassy closings are a way to take the heat off scandals at home. I must admit that it seems equally probable. By pointing to the embassy closings they are saying "See, we need to spy on you to find out about these bad guys!" Except, of course, that the embassies are all over there, and have nothing to do with the 300 million American citizens at home who will never in their life times visit these countries, or even have a phone conversation with such people. But if the NSA can identify someone who has called a terrorist, or vice versa, then the government has probable cause to obtain a warrant to snoop into that persons telephone records and internet usage. Since they know these things are happening in real time, they don't actually need to scoop up everything everybody says and does electronically.
After some consideration, I think Anthony's analysis is correct. The embassy closings are nothing but a red herring drawn across the trail to distract us. This is nothing more than the typical misdirection by the left hand so we don't see what the right hand is doing.
Oh, and too the NSA agent assigned to read this blog, "The package has been delivered." Repond in the comments.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Sunday, August 4, 2013
The Real Reason Embassies are Closing
Friday, the news came that the government was closing a number of embassies and consulates in the Middle East. We were told that an unspecified, but very likely terror threat had been detected, and that the level of "chatter" among known terrorists had greatly increased. Most of us probably received the news with a yawn, and went back to whatever we were doing. But, not so fast, America. As Fay Voshell points out today at the American Thinker in an article entitled World War III?, such closings usually signal something ominous. Mere terrorist threats don't usually result in closing embassies. Indeed, the closing of an embassy signals that any hope of a diplomatic solution has been lost, that the talking is done, and now the only thing left is armed conflict. Ms. Voshell:
With that in mind then, I want to bring in Doug Hagmann of the Canada Free Press in the article Unmasking the Embassy Threat. Hagmann has been on the Benghazi story almost from the beginning. With the evidence Hagmann has uncovered, and the recent CNN reporting on the subject, I think it fairly certain that far from being a random act, the attack on our consulate at Benghazi was planned to stop the United States from running guns and other weapons, illegally I might add, to the Syrian rebels. The attack had the desired effect as it stopped or greatly reduced such weapons smuggling. But why would these terrorists want to do that? The answer apparently is that they are allied with Russian and Chinese interests in Syria. So we find ourselves currently involved in a proxy war with Russia and China. Hagmann:
Pray for our country, and pray for Israel.
For some time, the power-struggles of the listed nations have been largely characterized as civil wars among various Muslim factions, including the Muslim Brotherhood. But civil wars are confined within national boundaries. Once the boundary lines have bled into one another, as is presently the case with Syria, the wars become a generalized struggle, with various factions joining with the likeminded of surrounding nations. As World Wars I and II demonstrated, when war escapes national boundaries or aggressive entities invade other national boundaries, nations with a vested interest in maintaining or extending their power bases begin to team up with one another according to ideological empathies. The fighting then spreads as more and more nations get sucked into a black hole of conflict.snip...
Now, however, the national boundaries established in 1919 are becoming increasingly meaningless, as the Islamist movement is more about empire-building than nation-building. The West, with its long tradition of democracy, has never fully grasped the Islamist preference for authoritarianism and empire, and so it has believed that the national lines it drew would encourage the growth of democracy. What the Islamist impulse for empire means, however, is that war among the Middle East and North African nations is inevitable, as national boundaries mean nothing to those determined to re-establish the equivalent of a caliphate.So, how does all this affect us here at home? A lot of people believe that we should just put enough nuclear bombs on countries like Iran and the various Arabian countries to turn their deserts into glass, and be done with them. Of course, that is not the Christian way, and we are, despite what the President has said, a Christian nation. What must be understood, is that Islam is a twisted form of Christianity turned into a political authoritarianism for the purpose of giving the ruling elite at the time a divine basis for ruling, and increasing their empire. You can read more about that here. But note well that whether or not it is as I have characterized it, the faithful to Islam believe it. They believe it because it clearly sanctions their killing of anyone who doesn't submit. They believe it because it gives them an excuse to pursue a global caliphate. That means, of course, that sooner or later they will bring the fight to us. When they do, they will no longer be merely terrorists, but nation states with the full sovereign power to bring resources and people to bear. The only way to survive such a war is to well and truly beat them until either they surrender, or the lose the ability to carry on the fight. There can be no half measures, for this enemy to too dangerous.
With that in mind then, I want to bring in Doug Hagmann of the Canada Free Press in the article Unmasking the Embassy Threat. Hagmann has been on the Benghazi story almost from the beginning. With the evidence Hagmann has uncovered, and the recent CNN reporting on the subject, I think it fairly certain that far from being a random act, the attack on our consulate at Benghazi was planned to stop the United States from running guns and other weapons, illegally I might add, to the Syrian rebels. The attack had the desired effect as it stopped or greatly reduced such weapons smuggling. But why would these terrorists want to do that? The answer apparently is that they are allied with Russian and Chinese interests in Syria. So we find ourselves currently involved in a proxy war with Russia and China. Hagmann:
It is vital to understand that the embassy closures are a signal of the rapidly escalated intervention in the region by the US. It is a modern day equivalent to the Bay of Pigs, except Barack Hussein Obama is no John F. Kennedy. Those old enough might recall that the CIA trained and inserted a group of “freedom fighters” into Cuba to oust Castro. Exactly like the rebels in Syria, those fighters could never overthrow Castro without direct U.S. military intervention and assistance. The situation is exactly the same in Syria today.
The difference is that Kennedy saw the plan for exactly what it was - a globalist plan not to defeat communism, but to engage us in a larger war to the benefit of the globalists and the military-industrial complex. He refused to take the bait and in so doing, bought the world time by avoiding World War III.Note in the last paragraph the belief that Obama is not sufficiently his own man and continues to follow the plans of others. I don't think so. I think Obama wants this precisely because it will destroy the United States. He believes we are an unjust country established by evil rich white men for the benefit of evil rich white men, who stole and looted the rightful wealth of the poor. This is what he was raised to believe. At the end of a WWIII, no matter who ultimately wins, and the odds are not in our favor, America will find itself like England did after WWII. What brought the English back was support from the United States. But there is no one to support us, and no one will try. This country, if it survives at all, will need several generations to return to anything resembling prosperity. That's if we return at all.
Pray for our country, and pray for Israel.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
It Never Hurts to Put Yourself in Someone's Shoes
An article appearing today at the American Thinker entitled After Zimmerman: Lessons for a Citizen Carrier by Paul Jacobson is worth a read. He makes some good points that Zimmerman didn't do everything right, though the law doesn't require a person to do everything necessarily right. Rather, the law asks whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have done what Zimmerman did. Still:
There was a time, not so long ago, that when a man's honor was impugned, he was duty bound to prove to the world his honorable nature by fighting a duel. Now, if the slanderer was confronted, and immediately apologized, then a gentleman was duty bound to accept the apology. But, if our slander raised the defense that what he said was in fact true...well, there's the rub. After the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression) the law began to take over such private disputes, and these matters more and more were settled in courts. In general, I agree that fighting it out doesn't really prove who is in the right, only who is the better shooter. After I started carrying, I found there were all sorts of situations that I had previously gotten in peoples face over, that now I don't even acknowledge. I just walk away. I am the most careful of drivers, the most agreeable of partners, because of what my instructor admonished his students.
In the movie Sling Blade the main character says that "Some folks just need killin'." That may be, but the Lord says "Vengeance is mine." My old Karate Sensei said that you will never lose a fight you don't have. All good advice.
So then, what would I have done in George Zimmerman's shoes? First of all, Zimmerman fell right into the middle of the Rule #1 trap the moment he lost sight of Martin. The 911 transcript makes it clear that Martin had seen him and that Zimmerman knew it; Martin's disappearance alone converted the location to high-risk. But Zimmerman seems to have naively, absentmindedly let down his guard, making himself a sitting duck for Martin's sudden, close-up reappearance and criminal assault with no way for Zimmerman to back off.
When Martin disappeared, Zimmerman should have resorted to Rule #2 while continuing to wait for the police: get in the truck, make sure the windows are closed, lock the doors and start the engine... and put the Kel-Tec PF9 over on the passenger seat. This situation would have provided something of a barricade if Martin had reappeared with, say, a crowbar and started bashing windows. It would also have provided a possible means of escape; if Martin had showed up with a gun, that gas pedal would have been down there on the floor waiting to be tromped. Shooting accurately at a moving target is notoriously difficult.
How about Rule #3? In short, it has no relevance to this incident, notwithstanding AG Holder's bogus attempt to link the case to stand-your-ground laws. The prosecution tried all the facts -- and lies -- it could muster but failed to prove beyond a reasonable or even unreasonable doubt that Zimmerman stalked Martin with intent to kill. The charge was utterly baseless: when the 911 operator said, "We don't need you to [follow Martin]" Zimmerman's response was, "OK." This is one thing Zimmerman did right. However, observing Rule #2 as elaborated above would obviously have eliminated all possibility of making the stalking charge.Well, maybe, and maybe not, but it never hurts to play Monday morning quarterback and try to put ourselves in a situation, and play it out in our heads. I particularly remember on admonition by my own instructor: "Whenever you get into a confrontation, you know there is at least one gun." What he meant by that is that one should avoid confrontations at all costs.
There was a time, not so long ago, that when a man's honor was impugned, he was duty bound to prove to the world his honorable nature by fighting a duel. Now, if the slanderer was confronted, and immediately apologized, then a gentleman was duty bound to accept the apology. But, if our slander raised the defense that what he said was in fact true...well, there's the rub. After the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression) the law began to take over such private disputes, and these matters more and more were settled in courts. In general, I agree that fighting it out doesn't really prove who is in the right, only who is the better shooter. After I started carrying, I found there were all sorts of situations that I had previously gotten in peoples face over, that now I don't even acknowledge. I just walk away. I am the most careful of drivers, the most agreeable of partners, because of what my instructor admonished his students.
In the movie Sling Blade the main character says that "Some folks just need killin'." That may be, but the Lord says "Vengeance is mine." My old Karate Sensei said that you will never lose a fight you don't have. All good advice.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Strangling Fracking in the Crib
Our planet has been in a constant state of change since if first solidified out of rocky bits circling the sun. The first thing that changed the environment was the emergence of photosynthesizing plants, like algae. These plants, deriving their energy from the sun, took in great quantities of carbon dioxide, belching forth from the pervasive volcanoes, and exhaling oxygen. Soon enough, the oxygen content of the atmosphere was such, that oxygen breathing bacteria emerged. The next great change to the environment was when plants began colonizing the earth, not just the oceans. More plants, more oxygen, larger and more complex animals followed. But you would not recognize the plants that dominated the earth then. They were mostly giant fern like plants, and spread not seeds but spores to reproduce. The next great change, and it changed the environment with it was the rise of the flowering plants. Today, flowering plants dominate the landscape, including the grasses, which cover more area of the earth than any other plant. Some believe the dinosaurs were done in by a giant meteor. Personally, I think they were as much done in by the changes occurring do to the rise of flowering plants, which had a negative affect on their food sources. For every animal depends, at rock bottom, on the photosynthesis of plants for their energy source. Carnivores can only exist if there are herbivores on which to prey.
With that as background, I point my readers today to a piece at the American Thinker entitled Why Environmental Professionals Hate All of the Above by Jeffrey Folks. Folks:
While some wish to see man eradicated from the planet, though they are not leading by example, others nostalgically look to man's agrarian past as the golden age. Everything man accomplished in this pre-industrial age was by muscle power, with the help in some cases of beasts of burden. Of course, when we look at this past, we see it was not so golden. People often lived in filth with their animals, ate poorly processed grains, so that by 25 or so their teeth were ground down to nubs, and lived short, hard scrabble lives. If their crops failed, they didn't eat that winter except what could be hunted or begged from neighbors. Even when harvests were good, a not insubstantial percentage of their crop was eaten by rats and mice.
By contrast, with the invention of the tractor, a farmer could plow many more acres of land, with less pollution per unit of work, and for more hours per day. Tractors were also versatile, giving the farmer a power take off for a saw and other power tools. It could be used to haul his crop to town where it could be sold to others for cash. Long haul trucks could haul it to far cities, where the residents didn't necessarily have space for a garden. Trucks don't tire out, and they move things faster than the old teams of horses, and again produce less overall pollution per unit of work. But the internal combustion engine made other things possible. Think of how things were moved around the warehouse before the invention of the forklift. By relieving men of the need to haul heavy stuff around all day, they could extend their working lives, thus feeding their families and being around longer to help with older children. Now that children didn't need to work to feed their families, they were free to get an education.
Most people, I think, see through the energy alarmists, and recognize that they are living in the golden age right now. And our politicians are too cynical to actually believe any of the hype surrounding the energy sector. They also realize reality, that so called "green energy" will always be a niche industry. So what is driving the push to limit the American energy sector from achieving net exporter status? I think it is here in this article from Hot Air.
With that as background, I point my readers today to a piece at the American Thinker entitled Why Environmental Professionals Hate All of the Above by Jeffrey Folks. Folks:
In terms of carbon emissions, natural gas is twice as clean as coal. That was once good enough to earn it lukewarm praise from many green supporters. Now, with the U. S. Energy Department projecting that gas will be the fastest-growing global fuel source through 2040, environmental leaders have turned against it. They now claim that hydraulic fracturing causes catastrophic damage to the earth, air, and water, and that natural gas was never that clean to begin with.
What's behind this change of heart? Maybe it's the need to continue the struggle. Admitting that natural gas is clean and that America has enough of it to power the country for a century -- where would that leave the leaders of environmental groups that now raise hundreds of millions in donations? It might leave them having to make a living like everyone else.And it could be that they just need to keep things stirred up in order to raise money. Certainly the race hustler industry has found that to be true, and capitalized on it. But in this case, there is more to it. Many extreme environmentalists have stated their belief that man, as a species is destroying the planet. They believe that man does not belong here, that unlike the other creatures who follow their nature, man should not be following his. They will not be happy until the earth is returned to its state before man came along and mucked things up. But, at what stage are they referring to? Is it after flowering plants, but before man evolved? Is it before flowering plants, or before plants at all. Because as we have seen, the most humble of creatures on earth the, blue green algae, changed the world in the most profound ways. The earth's atmosphere was literally suffocating before these plants came along, and as they slowly raised to oxygen content to it's 20 percent today, we animals could evolve.
While some wish to see man eradicated from the planet, though they are not leading by example, others nostalgically look to man's agrarian past as the golden age. Everything man accomplished in this pre-industrial age was by muscle power, with the help in some cases of beasts of burden. Of course, when we look at this past, we see it was not so golden. People often lived in filth with their animals, ate poorly processed grains, so that by 25 or so their teeth were ground down to nubs, and lived short, hard scrabble lives. If their crops failed, they didn't eat that winter except what could be hunted or begged from neighbors. Even when harvests were good, a not insubstantial percentage of their crop was eaten by rats and mice.
By contrast, with the invention of the tractor, a farmer could plow many more acres of land, with less pollution per unit of work, and for more hours per day. Tractors were also versatile, giving the farmer a power take off for a saw and other power tools. It could be used to haul his crop to town where it could be sold to others for cash. Long haul trucks could haul it to far cities, where the residents didn't necessarily have space for a garden. Trucks don't tire out, and they move things faster than the old teams of horses, and again produce less overall pollution per unit of work. But the internal combustion engine made other things possible. Think of how things were moved around the warehouse before the invention of the forklift. By relieving men of the need to haul heavy stuff around all day, they could extend their working lives, thus feeding their families and being around longer to help with older children. Now that children didn't need to work to feed their families, they were free to get an education.
Most people, I think, see through the energy alarmists, and recognize that they are living in the golden age right now. And our politicians are too cynical to actually believe any of the hype surrounding the energy sector. They also realize reality, that so called "green energy" will always be a niche industry. So what is driving the push to limit the American energy sector from achieving net exporter status? I think it is here in this article from Hot Air.
Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has warned that the kingdom’s oil-dependent economy is increasingly vulnerable to rising U.S. energy production, breaking ranks with oil officials in Riyadh who have played down its impact.Prince Alwaleed has huge influence in this country. He sits on the boards of many corporations, and if he is afraid of losing the strangle hold OPEC has had on the world, he can make at least some of the politicians dance to his tune. Whether they will be able to stop it completely remains to be seen.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Restaurant Carry Passed NC Legislature
Here in North Carolina, the legislature has passed H. B. 937, Amend Various Firearm Laws. It now goes to Governor McCrory to sign. Among the things included in this bill are provisions allowing the carrying of concealed handguns by concealed carry licensees (CHL) in restaurants that serve alcohol, and carrying venues that charge a fee for entrance.
Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) has long fought for restaurant carry. Opponents charge that if they allow concealed carriers to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, that there will be shoot outs in restaurants where they and their kids are, causing blood in the aisle, over an undercooked hamburger, because some drunk decides to play vigilante. Besides that, there is a general feeling among hoplophobes that they just don't want to believe that they could be sitting next to someone who is carrying a gun. GRNC has pointed out that even if people with a CHL can carry in these restaurants, they can not drink alcoholic beverages while carrying. We have pointed out that States and Commonwealths around us, including Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia all have restaurant carry, with no ill effects. Virginia is a good example, as they had restrictions, but lifted them. One year after lifting restrictions, there was no change in the crime rate at restaurants that serve alcohol.
The restriction from carrying in places that charge a fee for entrance was, I suspect, a case of painting with too broad a brush. The term includes rock concerts and the State and County fairs, but also includes movie theaters and your daughter's ballet recitals. North Carolinians with a CHL can now, under this bill, carry in these venues unless they post a "no guns" sign.
The bill was held up by the North Carolina Sheriff's Association (NCSA) because they did not want to lose the funding that comes from issuing pistol permits to people without a CHL. The pistol permit is a Jim Crow era law, originally designed to keep blacks and certain other undesirables from obtaining pistols. It is both an embarrassment, and a redundancy. It is embarrassing because of the discriminatory nature of the law. It is redundant because now that we have the NICS background checks in place, there is no reason to have a second background check. As Paul Valone said in an alert sent late yesterday:
Overall, H. B. 937 is good law, and I urge the Governor to sign it.
Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) has long fought for restaurant carry. Opponents charge that if they allow concealed carriers to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, that there will be shoot outs in restaurants where they and their kids are, causing blood in the aisle, over an undercooked hamburger, because some drunk decides to play vigilante. Besides that, there is a general feeling among hoplophobes that they just don't want to believe that they could be sitting next to someone who is carrying a gun. GRNC has pointed out that even if people with a CHL can carry in these restaurants, they can not drink alcoholic beverages while carrying. We have pointed out that States and Commonwealths around us, including Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia all have restaurant carry, with no ill effects. Virginia is a good example, as they had restrictions, but lifted them. One year after lifting restrictions, there was no change in the crime rate at restaurants that serve alcohol.
The restriction from carrying in places that charge a fee for entrance was, I suspect, a case of painting with too broad a brush. The term includes rock concerts and the State and County fairs, but also includes movie theaters and your daughter's ballet recitals. North Carolinians with a CHL can now, under this bill, carry in these venues unless they post a "no guns" sign.
The bill was held up by the North Carolina Sheriff's Association (NCSA) because they did not want to lose the funding that comes from issuing pistol permits to people without a CHL. The pistol permit is a Jim Crow era law, originally designed to keep blacks and certain other undesirables from obtaining pistols. It is both an embarrassment, and a redundancy. It is embarrassing because of the discriminatory nature of the law. It is redundant because now that we have the NICS background checks in place, there is no reason to have a second background check. As Paul Valone said in an alert sent late yesterday:
Although full repeal of the Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit law did not remain in the bill, thanks to your input and the efforts of Senator Buck Newton (R-Johnston, Nash, Wilson, GRNC ****), the following improvements were made:
-
Prohibits sheriffs from limiting the number of permits issued;
-
Prohibits additional fees for permits;
-
Requires sheriffs to list statutory reasons for denial;
-
Requires sheriffs to keep de-identified records on why permits are denied; and
-
Places the burden on sheriffs to revoke permits from those commit disqualifying offenses.
Overall, H. B. 937 is good law, and I urge the Governor to sign it.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Will we survive Global Cooling?
Its about time for something different, don't you think? In my former life, I was in charge of, among other things, following the climate warming/climate change debate for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. As I do with most things, I read and followed the "logic" of the climate alarmists, but I also followed the climate skeptics. Interestingly, the work of people like S. Fred Singer, Anthony Watts, and others makes more sense, and the logic of the skeptics fits together better than that of the alarmists. This piece, by S. Fred Singer appeared at the Heartland Institute in April, 2013 entitled Climate Change Conversation Aborted. This piece from Anthony Watts appears on his blog Watts Up With That. Watts and a volunteer team first gained prominence by going around and checking the earth based temperature stations around the U. S. and discovered that there was a bias toward these stations being located in heat islands. Singer's claims come from satellite data that show no warming in the atmosphere, despite theory that says it should. What I found was that the skeptics made more sense than the climate alarmists. Even Bjorn Lomborg, a Greenpeace activists thinks the alarmists have it wrong, or at least that we could use our money better by investing in ways that would help us survive a warming trend.
Well, here it comes. We have been experiencing a period of no climate change for the last decade or so. But now comes word that we are entering a global cooling period. Jeffrey Folks has the story at the American Thinker entitled Sunspots and the Great Cooling Ahead. To be honest, from my little individual assessment here in Raleigh, NC, I like the weather pattern we have been experiencing this year. Until this week, we have not had temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Usually, temperatures top 90 degrees as early as late May to early June, and they stay there until late September to early October. This year has not been too bad. But my gardening buddies tell me that they are having crops rotting in the field because of too much rain. It either pours, or you have a drought. But enough about me in my little corner of the world.
According to Folks, there are real consequences to our current policies, and global cooling. With crop failures in the United States comes the real possibility of famine in the rest of the world. It just doesn't make sense to burn our corn crop as fuel for cars, when we have so much oil that can be used for that purpose. People around the world will be needing that corn as food. Moreover, at some point we are going to see the effects of the "quantitative easing" that has been propping up the stock markets. The inflation that follows will, indeed already has begun to, destroy the wealth of the middle class. Now, I realize that this is what Obama intends, but it will mean possible famine here in the United States too. Note to FLOTUS, I'll need that body fat when the time comes.
As with global warming, the coming global cooling is unstoppable. It makes more sense to put in place policies that make as many of our people as prosperous as they can be. Man can adapt to either extremes in temperature, if he has enough wealth, and the freedom to use it for his own interests.
There are two principles of economic thought here that come into play. The first is the idea of opportunity costs, the fact that once money is invested in one place, it is not available to be invested in another. The other is diminishing returns. The idea that if achieving 90% of a goal costs x dollars, it will take another x dollars to achieve 95%, and another x dollars to achieve 98% and so on and the costs go up dramatically for each 1% beyond that point. The environmentalists should look around and declare victory on their original program. The environmentalists have achieved 98% of their goal, and good for them. But instead of investing ever more and more money in environmental costs, which then are not available for other things, we need to invest in those things that will improve our ability to survive the coming cooling, as well as the warming sure to come after that.
Well, here it comes. We have been experiencing a period of no climate change for the last decade or so. But now comes word that we are entering a global cooling period. Jeffrey Folks has the story at the American Thinker entitled Sunspots and the Great Cooling Ahead. To be honest, from my little individual assessment here in Raleigh, NC, I like the weather pattern we have been experiencing this year. Until this week, we have not had temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Usually, temperatures top 90 degrees as early as late May to early June, and they stay there until late September to early October. This year has not been too bad. But my gardening buddies tell me that they are having crops rotting in the field because of too much rain. It either pours, or you have a drought. But enough about me in my little corner of the world.
According to Folks, there are real consequences to our current policies, and global cooling. With crop failures in the United States comes the real possibility of famine in the rest of the world. It just doesn't make sense to burn our corn crop as fuel for cars, when we have so much oil that can be used for that purpose. People around the world will be needing that corn as food. Moreover, at some point we are going to see the effects of the "quantitative easing" that has been propping up the stock markets. The inflation that follows will, indeed already has begun to, destroy the wealth of the middle class. Now, I realize that this is what Obama intends, but it will mean possible famine here in the United States too. Note to FLOTUS, I'll need that body fat when the time comes.
As with global warming, the coming global cooling is unstoppable. It makes more sense to put in place policies that make as many of our people as prosperous as they can be. Man can adapt to either extremes in temperature, if he has enough wealth, and the freedom to use it for his own interests.
There are two principles of economic thought here that come into play. The first is the idea of opportunity costs, the fact that once money is invested in one place, it is not available to be invested in another. The other is diminishing returns. The idea that if achieving 90% of a goal costs x dollars, it will take another x dollars to achieve 95%, and another x dollars to achieve 98% and so on and the costs go up dramatically for each 1% beyond that point. The environmentalists should look around and declare victory on their original program. The environmentalists have achieved 98% of their goal, and good for them. But instead of investing ever more and more money in environmental costs, which then are not available for other things, we need to invest in those things that will improve our ability to survive the coming cooling, as well as the warming sure to come after that.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
The Left's goal comes into view: Repeal Stand Your Ground
Various commenters are opining about the race hustlers ginning up anger in the black community over the Zimmerman verdict. Some feel as though the race baiters need to do this to remain relevant, and to keep money coming in. There is no doubt that both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made untold millions from there ability to scrape the scab off the wound, and little has been written about how specifically that has been accomplished. But the IRS is unlikely to look into or leak the details of Rainbow/PUSH or to leak its donor list. They are too busy asking of conservative groups about the content of their prayers. I see this as partly true, in that the race baiters are doing what comes naturally, all hoping for a pay off from the civil suit they are likely to file.
Then there are those who frame the race baiters actions within the framework of the Left. They point out that the Left, who claim the mantel of tolerance, diversity, and compassion, are almost always the intolerant haters. A piece in the American Thinker today makes the case that the only hate crime committed in the Zimmerman case was that of the left in Hate Crimes, Indeed by Jeffrey T. Brown. I find again a partial truth, in that the Left is doing what comes naturally, making up "facts" to fit a narrative, and not letting the truth interfere with their narrative. In this narrative, Zimmerman is "white," not Hispanic. In their story line, every white person is born with the original sin of racism, and it is this that drove Zimmerman to shoot Martin in cold blood out of malice and spite. And of course, the enlightened ones of the left know so well the dark heart of the average American.
But I think ultimately, the real goal of the left can be found in this article from Townhall.com. The Left has been "gunning" for "Stand Your Ground" laws ever since they were first passed by Florida. Stand your ground does two things. First, in a self defense case, you no longer have a duty to retreat. In many cases, one is attacked fast and from an angle the defender was not looking. The attacker is on the defender and keeping him off balance. There is no opportunity to retreat, and this can be used by anti-gun prosecutors to persecute someone for the "crime" of carrying a gun. In some jurisdictions, every gun death was prosecuted as murder. Some managed to get off, but many were caught up in a smoke and mirrors cloud of theories of whether or not they had retreated as far as they could before they finally took action. Literally, your back must be against the wall, with nowhere to go, and your attacker is on you before you can begin to defend yourself. It gave both the criminal, and the anti-gun prosecutor (but I repeat myself) a huge advantage.
The victim in all this, the guy who used a gun to defend himself was victimized three times before "stand your ground" became law. The first time when he was assaulted. The second time by the criminal justice system, and the third time by the civil courts. Often the crook's family would file a civil suit asserting wrongful death. In civil court, the plaintiff does not have to prove his case, the defense must prove his innocence of the charges. No wonder the plaintiffs often win, ruining a person. Of course, the only person getting rich in this are the lawyers.
I believe the real goal of the Left is becoming clear. Keep the citizens distracted and upset, while going after and repealing "stand your ground." The fact that Florida has recently reconsidered these laws and decided not to change anything seems to have no bearing on their opinion. the Left wants this even though blacks disproportionally benefit from "stand your ground." They want to go back to the days when they could harass gun owners under color of law. How great was that?
Then there are those who frame the race baiters actions within the framework of the Left. They point out that the Left, who claim the mantel of tolerance, diversity, and compassion, are almost always the intolerant haters. A piece in the American Thinker today makes the case that the only hate crime committed in the Zimmerman case was that of the left in Hate Crimes, Indeed by Jeffrey T. Brown. I find again a partial truth, in that the Left is doing what comes naturally, making up "facts" to fit a narrative, and not letting the truth interfere with their narrative. In this narrative, Zimmerman is "white," not Hispanic. In their story line, every white person is born with the original sin of racism, and it is this that drove Zimmerman to shoot Martin in cold blood out of malice and spite. And of course, the enlightened ones of the left know so well the dark heart of the average American.
But I think ultimately, the real goal of the left can be found in this article from Townhall.com. The Left has been "gunning" for "Stand Your Ground" laws ever since they were first passed by Florida. Stand your ground does two things. First, in a self defense case, you no longer have a duty to retreat. In many cases, one is attacked fast and from an angle the defender was not looking. The attacker is on the defender and keeping him off balance. There is no opportunity to retreat, and this can be used by anti-gun prosecutors to persecute someone for the "crime" of carrying a gun. In some jurisdictions, every gun death was prosecuted as murder. Some managed to get off, but many were caught up in a smoke and mirrors cloud of theories of whether or not they had retreated as far as they could before they finally took action. Literally, your back must be against the wall, with nowhere to go, and your attacker is on you before you can begin to defend yourself. It gave both the criminal, and the anti-gun prosecutor (but I repeat myself) a huge advantage.
The victim in all this, the guy who used a gun to defend himself was victimized three times before "stand your ground" became law. The first time when he was assaulted. The second time by the criminal justice system, and the third time by the civil courts. Often the crook's family would file a civil suit asserting wrongful death. In civil court, the plaintiff does not have to prove his case, the defense must prove his innocence of the charges. No wonder the plaintiffs often win, ruining a person. Of course, the only person getting rich in this are the lawyers.
I believe the real goal of the Left is becoming clear. Keep the citizens distracted and upset, while going after and repealing "stand your ground." The fact that Florida has recently reconsidered these laws and decided not to change anything seems to have no bearing on their opinion. the Left wants this even though blacks disproportionally benefit from "stand your ground." They want to go back to the days when they could harass gun owners under color of law. How great was that?
Saturday, July 13, 2013
The Zimmerman Trial is Over. Will Justice Be Done?
As I write this, the Zimmerman trial is in the hands of the jury. All the evidence is in now, so that I don't believe I could influence the trial in any way, (lest one of the two people who read this blog happen to be on the jury:-)
I have been watching as much of the trial of George Zimmerman as I can, and watching people bend the facts, or even totally ignore them in favor of a narrative that has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts. This disturbes me, that grown men and women, of supposed intelligence, can do this with a straight face.
The facts of the trial are basically this: George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain and concealed carry permit holder noticed Trayvon Martin wandering through his neighborhood and acting suspiciously. There had been a series of break ins and robberies for which Martin fit the description. Zimmerman got out of his truck, called 911, and started to follow Martin. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and according to Zimmerman, he turned around and headed back to his truck. At some point, Martin jumped out of the bushes and sucker punched Zimmerman, then proceeded to jump on him and beat him badly. Zimmerman's jacket rode up exposing his gun. Martin went for it saying "Tonight you die." Zimmerman caught Martins hand as he went for his own gun, pulled it and shot Martin one time. This is Zimmerman's story, and it hasn't really changed. Moreover, the Prosecution never managed to prove that any part of Zimmerman's story was substantially false. In a normal situation, Zimmerman would be able to walk free based on self defense and Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws. He would not even be arrested, much less tried. But these were not normal circumstances, and I think Zimmerman was railroaded.
The first thing to note is that Zimmerman is a light skinned Hispanic person, and Trayvon Martin was a black youth. The NYT coined the term "White Hispanic" to drive home the nature of the "crime." Of course, Martin was anything but the 8 year old kid we constantly saw pictures of in the media. In fact, Martin was a strapping 6 foot 2 inches 17 year old coming into the prime of life. He was angry, and he was criminal. Indeed, the reason he was in Sanford, Florida, was because he was expelled from school for possessing burglary tools and stolen women's jewelry. He had gone to live with his father and his father's girlfriend, after being kicked out of the house by his mother.Nice kid, huh! Martin also had a tough guy image of himself, getting into fights, and carrying on a sort of 'fight club' lifestyle. He was also into drugs, and the Skittles and Arizona Watermelon, along with Robitussin cough medicine from the father's girlfriend's medicine cabinet would make a drink called "Lean" to get Martin high. There is some evidence also that Martin probably consumed marijuana before the confrontation with Zimmerman, impairing his judgement to some degree. See the American Thinker article published in June 2012 entitled What the media choose not to know about Trayvon. Apparently, the prosecution chose to ignore this evidence as well.
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the Department of (In)Justice Community Relations Service showed up in the weeks following the incident to whip up emotions, hold demonstrations, and incite riots. That the media, constantly showing the 8 year old boyhood picture instead of showing the angry young man helped to further inflame the people. NBC, in a particularly egregious move, edited the 911 tape to make it sound as if Zimmerman were profiling Martin. Profiling has become the latest sin in the lexicon of the Left. In fact, when the entire tape is played, a different set of facts comes to light. Zimmerman was responding to a question by the 911 dispatcher asking for a description of Martin. The tone of his voice was indeed matter of fact, something you wouldn't expect if someone was racially profiling Martin.
Many on the Left seem to think that Zimmerman was a wussy, and couldn't tolerate a beating. People like Bob Beckel, who claims to have gotten into innumerable fights as a youth, and Juan Williams, who claims to be an expert fighter, having been taught by his father, seem to think that the fight going on the night of the killing was some kind of childhood fight, with kids exchanging unaimed blows, becoming exhausted, and going home to play a video game together. Unfortunately, a person can be killed with fists, and it is more common than you might think. Testimony suggests that the initial sucker punch may have stunned Zimmerman. Other testimony places Martin on top, raining blows down on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman screaming for help. Zimmerman's defense claims that in addition, each blow to the head caused Zimmerman's head to strike a concrete sidewalk. If I were Zimmerman in that situation, stunned and losing consciousness with each blow, unable to stop the blows, I would be in fear for my life. So Zimmerman claims.
Then there is the judge in the trial. She seems to have been in the tank for the prosecution from day one according to this report by Anthony Martin at the Liberty Sphere. Martin:
What is most disturbing about this case is that many on the left seem to feel that Zimmerman had an obligation to take whatever Martin was prepared to mete out that night, and die. In some way, they seem to feel that Zimmerman's death at the hands of Martin would wash away the ancient sin of slavery and discrimination with Zimmerman's blood, and with which each white person is born. How else to explain the complete ignoring of the facts in favor of a made up story line? And really, are the race baiters going to stop? Did the election of our first black President heal the wounds? Of course it didn't, and of course they won't. The only way the wounds of slavery and discrimination will ever be healed is when blacks themselves say to the race baiters "Enough is enough. You don't speak for us. We can speak for ourselves."
Beckel, Williams, and other commentators have reiterated that Martin didn't do anything. He was a innocent boy (of eight years in their minds) who went out to buy Skittles and Arizona "Iced Tea" for his little brother. He was innocently walking back to his house when he was confronted by big bad Zimmerman who shot him in cold blood out of some sort of malice against him. Martin, in this scenario dies through no fault of his own. Zimmerman supposedly followed Martin as if to keep an eye on him. He "stalked" him in some tellings. First of all, it was not illegal for Zimmerman to get out of his truck, nor was it illegal to follow Martin while contacting police. They counter with the fact that it wasn't illegal for Martin to be walking through the neighborhood either. While true, I don't see the relevance. Martin apparently confronted Zimmerman to ask if he had a problem with him. That was also not illegal. The first illegal act by either party was when Martin sucker punched Zimmerman. At that point, Martin became the aggressor, and Zimmerman had to defend himself. Had Martin punched, knocked Zimmerman down, then run, Martin would no longer be the aggressor, and Zimmerman would have had no cause to shoot him.
Beckel constantly makes a point of the fact that Zimmerman knew the law concerning self defense and implies that therefore he somehow maneuvered (again the 8 year old ) Martin into looking like the aggressor so as to be able to shoot him. Again, how does one do such a thing to a strapping 17 year old, 6 foot 2 inch man? Of course Zimmerman knew the rules concerning lawful use of force. Anyone with a concealed handgun permit knows the rules, because you don't want to do anything that puts you in jeopardy of prosecution for unlawfully shooting someone. But beyond that, no one wants to have to shoot. If you have to shoot, you life at the least will be turned inside out.
Something not brought out in the trial, but certainly should have been discussed by commentators was that Martin was taking a terrible risk hitting Zimmerman. He assumed he was a better fighter than Zimmerman, but that needn't have been the case. Had Zimmerman been better trained in hand to hand combat, he might have deflected Martin's punch, and delivered a strike to one of the vital points on the body causing unconsciousness or death. If Martin had managed to get him down, and again assuming Zimmerman were a better street fighter, several quick knife strikes to the Martin's kidney would have had the same effect a gun. Whether Martin knew it, or not, or whether he analysed his situation or not, he chose to become the aggressor, and took on the risk that he could be killed. The arm chair tough guys can call Zimmerman a wuss all they want, but those are the facts.
At the end of the trial, the Prosecution decided to add lesser charges to the one for which Zimmerman was being tried, Second Degree Murder. The one charge that the Judge allowed was Manslaughter, which still carries with it 30 years in prison. First of all, by adding these charges the State is acknowledging that the State has not proved Second Degree Murder beyond a reasonable doubt. But then to add Manslaughter at the end, after they know the defense's case seems cowardly, and extremely unfair. Going strictly by the evidence presented, Zimmerman should be acquitted of all counts on the basis of self defense. The Prosecution is counting on some jury members feeling that while the evidence for Second Degree Murder is not there, that in some cosmic justice sort of way he should be punished for something. It will be interesting to see. If they do convict on Manslaughter charges, I would expect the Judge to sentence him to the maximum time. Such is the racial pressure on the State to punish Zimmerman for a "crime" he didn't commit.
Of course, what then does that say for those of us who carry a gun for self defense and defense of our loved ones? If confronted by a black youth, and sucker punched, are we too obligated to take it and die. Because if we defend ourselves, the State will destroy our lives, put us behind bars, and make us wish we had? Look, Martin got justice. Had Martin even punched Zimmerman, then run home, he would be alive now. Everything that happened to Martin happened because of decisions Martin made. What I want to know is where is justice for George Zimmerman?
Update: Martin's behavior may have been profoundly affected by his use of "Lean." See The Conservative Treehouse which has done the yeoman's task of digging into the Zimmerman case. It makes Martin's violence seem more reasonable.
Update 2: Last night the jury found Zimmerman not guilty on all counts. So, everyone it seems has been served justice. Except of course that Zimmerman will forever have a cloud over his head, and of course must pay 10s of thousands in attorney's fees. but as far as this trial is concerned, justice was done.
The facts of the trial are basically this: George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain and concealed carry permit holder noticed Trayvon Martin wandering through his neighborhood and acting suspiciously. There had been a series of break ins and robberies for which Martin fit the description. Zimmerman got out of his truck, called 911, and started to follow Martin. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and according to Zimmerman, he turned around and headed back to his truck. At some point, Martin jumped out of the bushes and sucker punched Zimmerman, then proceeded to jump on him and beat him badly. Zimmerman's jacket rode up exposing his gun. Martin went for it saying "Tonight you die." Zimmerman caught Martins hand as he went for his own gun, pulled it and shot Martin one time. This is Zimmerman's story, and it hasn't really changed. Moreover, the Prosecution never managed to prove that any part of Zimmerman's story was substantially false. In a normal situation, Zimmerman would be able to walk free based on self defense and Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws. He would not even be arrested, much less tried. But these were not normal circumstances, and I think Zimmerman was railroaded.
The first thing to note is that Zimmerman is a light skinned Hispanic person, and Trayvon Martin was a black youth. The NYT coined the term "White Hispanic" to drive home the nature of the "crime." Of course, Martin was anything but the 8 year old kid we constantly saw pictures of in the media. In fact, Martin was a strapping 6 foot 2 inches 17 year old coming into the prime of life. He was angry, and he was criminal. Indeed, the reason he was in Sanford, Florida, was because he was expelled from school for possessing burglary tools and stolen women's jewelry. He had gone to live with his father and his father's girlfriend, after being kicked out of the house by his mother.
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the Department of (In)Justice Community Relations Service showed up in the weeks following the incident to whip up emotions, hold demonstrations, and incite riots. That the media, constantly showing the 8 year old boyhood picture instead of showing the angry young man helped to further inflame the people. NBC, in a particularly egregious move, edited the 911 tape to make it sound as if Zimmerman were profiling Martin. Profiling has become the latest sin in the lexicon of the Left. In fact, when the entire tape is played, a different set of facts comes to light. Zimmerman was responding to a question by the 911 dispatcher asking for a description of Martin. The tone of his voice was indeed matter of fact, something you wouldn't expect if someone was racially profiling Martin.
Many on the Left seem to think that Zimmerman was a wussy, and couldn't tolerate a beating. People like Bob Beckel, who claims to have gotten into innumerable fights as a youth, and Juan Williams, who claims to be an expert fighter, having been taught by his father, seem to think that the fight going on the night of the killing was some kind of childhood fight, with kids exchanging unaimed blows, becoming exhausted, and going home to play a video game together. Unfortunately, a person can be killed with fists, and it is more common than you might think. Testimony suggests that the initial sucker punch may have stunned Zimmerman. Other testimony places Martin on top, raining blows down on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman screaming for help. Zimmerman's defense claims that in addition, each blow to the head caused Zimmerman's head to strike a concrete sidewalk. If I were Zimmerman in that situation, stunned and losing consciousness with each blow, unable to stop the blows, I would be in fear for my life. So Zimmerman claims.
Then there is the judge in the trial. She seems to have been in the tank for the prosecution from day one according to this report by Anthony Martin at the Liberty Sphere. Martin:
Interestingly, the judge in the case is a Jeb Bush appointee. The undercurrent in the trial points to the fact that she, too, has been under intense pressure to ram through a guilty verdict, or at the very least create a scenario in the courtroom that would make it difficult for the jury to find Zimmerman not guilty.
Radio talk show host and attorney Mark Levin, who worked in the Reagan White House, stated that in all of his years as a practicing attorney he has never witnessed such outright disregard for the law, for the rules of evidence, for proper court procedure, or for basic fairness. The judge, he said, clearly has been in the tank for the prosecution from day one.
What is most disturbing about this case is that many on the left seem to feel that Zimmerman had an obligation to take whatever Martin was prepared to mete out that night, and die. In some way, they seem to feel that Zimmerman's death at the hands of Martin would wash away the ancient sin of slavery and discrimination with Zimmerman's blood, and with which each white person is born. How else to explain the complete ignoring of the facts in favor of a made up story line? And really, are the race baiters going to stop? Did the election of our first black President heal the wounds? Of course it didn't, and of course they won't. The only way the wounds of slavery and discrimination will ever be healed is when blacks themselves say to the race baiters "Enough is enough. You don't speak for us. We can speak for ourselves."
Beckel, Williams, and other commentators have reiterated that Martin didn't do anything. He was a innocent boy (of eight years in their minds) who went out to buy Skittles and Arizona "Iced Tea" for his little brother. He was innocently walking back to his house when he was confronted by big bad Zimmerman who shot him in cold blood out of some sort of malice against him. Martin, in this scenario dies through no fault of his own. Zimmerman supposedly followed Martin as if to keep an eye on him. He "stalked" him in some tellings. First of all, it was not illegal for Zimmerman to get out of his truck, nor was it illegal to follow Martin while contacting police. They counter with the fact that it wasn't illegal for Martin to be walking through the neighborhood either. While true, I don't see the relevance. Martin apparently confronted Zimmerman to ask if he had a problem with him. That was also not illegal. The first illegal act by either party was when Martin sucker punched Zimmerman. At that point, Martin became the aggressor, and Zimmerman had to defend himself. Had Martin punched, knocked Zimmerman down, then run, Martin would no longer be the aggressor, and Zimmerman would have had no cause to shoot him.
Beckel constantly makes a point of the fact that Zimmerman knew the law concerning self defense and implies that therefore he somehow maneuvered (again the 8 year old ) Martin into looking like the aggressor so as to be able to shoot him. Again, how does one do such a thing to a strapping 17 year old, 6 foot 2 inch man? Of course Zimmerman knew the rules concerning lawful use of force. Anyone with a concealed handgun permit knows the rules, because you don't want to do anything that puts you in jeopardy of prosecution for unlawfully shooting someone. But beyond that, no one wants to have to shoot. If you have to shoot, you life at the least will be turned inside out.
Something not brought out in the trial, but certainly should have been discussed by commentators was that Martin was taking a terrible risk hitting Zimmerman. He assumed he was a better fighter than Zimmerman, but that needn't have been the case. Had Zimmerman been better trained in hand to hand combat, he might have deflected Martin's punch, and delivered a strike to one of the vital points on the body causing unconsciousness or death. If Martin had managed to get him down, and again assuming Zimmerman were a better street fighter, several quick knife strikes to the Martin's kidney would have had the same effect a gun. Whether Martin knew it, or not, or whether he analysed his situation or not, he chose to become the aggressor, and took on the risk that he could be killed. The arm chair tough guys can call Zimmerman a wuss all they want, but those are the facts.
At the end of the trial, the Prosecution decided to add lesser charges to the one for which Zimmerman was being tried, Second Degree Murder. The one charge that the Judge allowed was Manslaughter, which still carries with it 30 years in prison. First of all, by adding these charges the State is acknowledging that the State has not proved Second Degree Murder beyond a reasonable doubt. But then to add Manslaughter at the end, after they know the defense's case seems cowardly, and extremely unfair. Going strictly by the evidence presented, Zimmerman should be acquitted of all counts on the basis of self defense. The Prosecution is counting on some jury members feeling that while the evidence for Second Degree Murder is not there, that in some cosmic justice sort of way he should be punished for something. It will be interesting to see. If they do convict on Manslaughter charges, I would expect the Judge to sentence him to the maximum time. Such is the racial pressure on the State to punish Zimmerman for a "crime" he didn't commit.
Of course, what then does that say for those of us who carry a gun for self defense and defense of our loved ones? If confronted by a black youth, and sucker punched, are we too obligated to take it and die. Because if we defend ourselves, the State will destroy our lives, put us behind bars, and make us wish we had? Look, Martin got justice. Had Martin even punched Zimmerman, then run home, he would be alive now. Everything that happened to Martin happened because of decisions Martin made. What I want to know is where is justice for George Zimmerman?
Update: Martin's behavior may have been profoundly affected by his use of "Lean." See The Conservative Treehouse which has done the yeoman's task of digging into the Zimmerman case. It makes Martin's violence seem more reasonable.
Update 2: Last night the jury found Zimmerman not guilty on all counts. So, everyone it seems has been served justice. Except of course that Zimmerman will forever have a cloud over his head, and of course must pay 10s of thousands in attorney's fees. but as far as this trial is concerned, justice was done.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Don't Steal! The government doesn't like the competition
While driving in a car the other day, I saw a bumper sticker on another car that said "Don't Steal. The government doesn't like competition." Everyone in the car had a good laugh at that. Unfortunately, it has become all too true, as pointed out by Daniel J. Mitchell at Townhall.com today in an article entitled Yes, you have something to fear even if you are a law abiding person. Michell:
The fact is that our legal system continues to become more and more unjust, granting undeserved grace to those who know the right people, or who display the politically correct opinions, while grinding the wrong people, or the politically incorrect into dust. Reynolds provides some food for thought as to how some of the injustices might be curbed. I like the "loser pays" option, but then I always have. For lawsuits, for example, this one provision will stop hundreds of nuisance lawsuits designed to simply harass a company some group doesn't like. Toward the end of his article, Mitchell points to another post in which he has a list of horribles. Go read some of the injustices done in our name.
The IRS persecution of an innocent man is particularly instructive. The IRS agent, one Mr. Norlander, goes about looking for things seemingly out of place. If a person drives a expensive car, for example, Norlander will look to see how much he makes, and if he can afford it. But he goes to extremes, prying into their personal lives, dumpster diving their trash, and even sending in an attractive women wearing a wire to get them to say something incriminating. Then there's the woman who was arrested for child neglect because she allowed her kids to ride their bicycles in the cul-de-sac while she sat on in a chair on the front lawn and supervised them. Or the case of the Sacketts, whose years long battle with the EPA was finally resolved in their favor. The government though has given itself all the odds, brooking no appeal from its edicts.
I have long noted that our President and his Attorney General are increasing lawless. In saying that the employer mandate in ObamaCare will, by executive order be delayed, he is making the case for the Republicans to do nothing on immigration. After all, if he can simply nullify one law, what makes them think he couldn't do it to another duly enacted law? But Congress let him get away with disobeying laws already on the books in Fast and Furious. Effectively, by not taking the proper actions when it occurred, they have given this President license to pretty much rule us, rather than execute our laws faithfully as required. And it is trickling down to the IRS, the NSA, the EPA, the DHS, and other agencies, whose scandals we probably simply haven't uncovered yet.
People, I hate to sound like a broken record, but we need to turn around, and go back to governing our nation according to the Constitution. True justice demands it.
Whether we’re talking about NSA spying, cross-border collection and sharing of private financial data by tax-hungry governments, pointlessly intrusive money-laundering laws, or other schemes to give the state more power and authority, we’re often told that “if you’re a law-abiding person, you have nothing to fear.”
But that assumes government is both competent and trustworthy.
The IRS scandal is just one recent example of politicians and bureaucrats behaving badly. Heck, this blog is basically just a collection of examples illustrating the incompetence and venality of the public sector, augmented by my snarky comments and economic evangelizing.The problem, we soon find out is that governments at all levels have too much prosecutorial discretion. Mitchell cites an article by Glenn Reynolds in the Columbia Law Review Reynolds uses the David Gregory case, the television journalist who violated Washington D.C. law on television, by displaying a supposedly dangerous magazine while interviewing the NRA. Yet Gregory was not prosecuted, even though anyone else would have been. Then there is George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in what he claims was self defense. The police who investigated could find no evidence against his story. Yet egged on by racism on the part of the Martin family, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and it now appears, Attorney General Eric Holder, he is being prosecuted for second degree murder. As the trial comes to an end, the evidence seems to show that Zimmerman was correct. Yet he still faces a jury who, and its any body's guess how they will find him.
The fact is that our legal system continues to become more and more unjust, granting undeserved grace to those who know the right people, or who display the politically correct opinions, while grinding the wrong people, or the politically incorrect into dust. Reynolds provides some food for thought as to how some of the injustices might be curbed. I like the "loser pays" option, but then I always have. For lawsuits, for example, this one provision will stop hundreds of nuisance lawsuits designed to simply harass a company some group doesn't like. Toward the end of his article, Mitchell points to another post in which he has a list of horribles. Go read some of the injustices done in our name.
The IRS persecution of an innocent man is particularly instructive. The IRS agent, one Mr. Norlander, goes about looking for things seemingly out of place. If a person drives a expensive car, for example, Norlander will look to see how much he makes, and if he can afford it. But he goes to extremes, prying into their personal lives, dumpster diving their trash, and even sending in an attractive women wearing a wire to get them to say something incriminating. Then there's the woman who was arrested for child neglect because she allowed her kids to ride their bicycles in the cul-de-sac while she sat on in a chair on the front lawn and supervised them. Or the case of the Sacketts, whose years long battle with the EPA was finally resolved in their favor. The government though has given itself all the odds, brooking no appeal from its edicts.
I have long noted that our President and his Attorney General are increasing lawless. In saying that the employer mandate in ObamaCare will, by executive order be delayed, he is making the case for the Republicans to do nothing on immigration. After all, if he can simply nullify one law, what makes them think he couldn't do it to another duly enacted law? But Congress let him get away with disobeying laws already on the books in Fast and Furious. Effectively, by not taking the proper actions when it occurred, they have given this President license to pretty much rule us, rather than execute our laws faithfully as required. And it is trickling down to the IRS, the NSA, the EPA, the DHS, and other agencies, whose scandals we probably simply haven't uncovered yet.
People, I hate to sound like a broken record, but we need to turn around, and go back to governing our nation according to the Constitution. True justice demands it.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
The NSA, the 4th Amendment, and Criminal Aliens
As time moves on, it has become clear that my earlier enthusiasm for what Edward Snowden did was premature. As more information has been revealed, it becomes clear that Snowden was not the "Hero of the Republic" I described, but neither is he the traitor that others have made him out to be. I still agree that he should have made the public aware that all of its signals records were being stored and in some cases read. Apparently, the meta data of cell phone calls is stored, but if they need to go back and listen to a conversation, that meta data allows them to do so, and to know where you were, when you called, the phone number you called. With PRISM, they apparently can read every email you send, and that is sent to you. I myself simply delete a lot of the stuff that winds up in my in-box from companies and people I don't know, and have nothing to do with, but the NSA thinks it is all important, apparently. Perhaps I need to put in a FOIA request to find out when the shoes I ordered online will arrive.
Today, at the American Thinker, J. R. Dunn has an article entitled Conservatives and Snowden that makes the point that conservatives on both sides of the argument about Snowden, but sticking to a white hat vs. black hat model, risk burying the lede of the story. Dunn:
Taking a slight tangent at this point, I note that the NSA apparently also has the cell phone records of all 11 million criminal aliens in this country. Now, they failed to catch Maj. Hassan, shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the Boston bombers, even though those bombers exhibited what is known as probable cause. Indeed, the claim that these programs have stopped dozens of terrorists we never heard about is suspicious. But, why couldn't they find these "shadows" the criminal aliens are hiding in. If they know the date, time, and location of every call I make, and the location and telephone number I call, why don't they know this information for illegal aliens? If they do know it, why can't they report it to ICE to have them deported? The Senate keeps saying that...gosh...we have legalize them to find out where they are, but it seems to me we already know, if someone were to ask.
Today, at the American Thinker, J. R. Dunn has an article entitled Conservatives and Snowden that makes the point that conservatives on both sides of the argument about Snowden, but sticking to a white hat vs. black hat model, risk burying the lede of the story. Dunn:
One of the axioms utilized by H.L. Mencken in analyzing politics in the United States stated that Americans were unable to grasp arguments on their face and instead needed them recast in pure Manichean terms, with the most repellent of devils on one side and the purest of angels on the other.Edward Snowden is a criminal, but not a traitor. His is a sad case, and eventually the government will likely catch up with him. The real lede of the story is that our 4th Amendment rights are being violated each and every day. Government officials in both the Executive and Legislative branches are lying to the American public. A secret agency is carrying out a broad program to capture the private effects of Americans, and this represents an unreasonable seizure of such effects. Since most Americans are not terrorists, and have done nothing to give the government probable cause to think they might be, collecting this information goes against the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Supposedly, the NSA is doing this under the watchful eye of a Court which is also secret, and whose rulings nobody seems to know. Apparently, though, this secret Star Chamber has allowed the government to obtain these effects through a generalized warrant, in contravention to the Constitution. This must stop.
Taking a slight tangent at this point, I note that the NSA apparently also has the cell phone records of all 11 million criminal aliens in this country. Now, they failed to catch Maj. Hassan, shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the Boston bombers, even though those bombers exhibited what is known as probable cause. Indeed, the claim that these programs have stopped dozens of terrorists we never heard about is suspicious. But, why couldn't they find these "shadows" the criminal aliens are hiding in. If they know the date, time, and location of every call I make, and the location and telephone number I call, why don't they know this information for illegal aliens? If they do know it, why can't they report it to ICE to have them deported? The Senate keeps saying that...gosh...we have legalize them to find out where they are, but it seems to me we already know, if someone were to ask.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments
In my last post, I said I thought that the radical turn from limited Constitutional governance occurred in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Others probably understand better than I the issues swirling through the nation at the time. I should find out more, but what were the people of the United States thinking? In any case, the American Thinker today has an article up entitled How to Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments by Theodore Koehl. It's an interesting idea that should be explored by Constitutional scholars. In essence, it is a kind of secession without formally seceding from the Union. The States can declare that they no longer think these Amendments are in their best interest, and if 3/4 of the States vote to repeal the 16th and 17th
Amendments, and files those Acts with the National Archivist, then those Amendments are repealed. It would probably require coming up with model language that has been worked on by a committee of lawyers, but it could be done, peacefully.
Koehl makes the same arguments that I do about the negative affects of both amendments on our liberty. With so much money coming in from direct income taxes, the Federal government now had the resources to become a national busybody, taking the decisions that people made out of their hands, and placing them in the hands of unelected Federal bureaucrats. But it is not just Federal bureaucrats, the State and local governments get in on the act, often at the behest of the Feds, by virtue of granting back to the States some of the money that shouldn't have been taken from them in the first place. Thus, the education of your children, the curriculum, and how they are taught, have become national problems, with national solutions, and you have no say any more. What was once a strictly local matter has become a national one, and you have lost one more liberty, the right to bring your children up with your values. In the same way, he also points out the loss of sovereignty that has come to the States through the loss of a voice in Congress. The Senate no longer represent the States, but act as an at-large member of the House.
Note though, that even with the States returned to their rightful place, it will not be a picnic for the citizens. While I do not believe for a moment that the States will return to racism, and Jim Crow, as Leftists would have you believe, they will have more power over things like eminent domain. It is difficult to build and maintain a lasting national machine, but it is easier to do at the State level. Collusion between the three branches of State government, as we have seen in Mississippi, where a minority is acting to deny open carriers their rights, will be easier, and will have more impact. On the other hand, States will show more variability, and we will have more choices as to a place to live that suits our needs.
We must starve the beast, and we must get back the notion that the States are sovereign, that they only delegated to the Federal government certain powers, and that they retain plenary powers within their respective borders.
Amendments, and files those Acts with the National Archivist, then those Amendments are repealed. It would probably require coming up with model language that has been worked on by a committee of lawyers, but it could be done, peacefully.
Koehl makes the same arguments that I do about the negative affects of both amendments on our liberty. With so much money coming in from direct income taxes, the Federal government now had the resources to become a national busybody, taking the decisions that people made out of their hands, and placing them in the hands of unelected Federal bureaucrats. But it is not just Federal bureaucrats, the State and local governments get in on the act, often at the behest of the Feds, by virtue of granting back to the States some of the money that shouldn't have been taken from them in the first place. Thus, the education of your children, the curriculum, and how they are taught, have become national problems, with national solutions, and you have no say any more. What was once a strictly local matter has become a national one, and you have lost one more liberty, the right to bring your children up with your values. In the same way, he also points out the loss of sovereignty that has come to the States through the loss of a voice in Congress. The Senate no longer represent the States, but act as an at-large member of the House.
Note though, that even with the States returned to their rightful place, it will not be a picnic for the citizens. While I do not believe for a moment that the States will return to racism, and Jim Crow, as Leftists would have you believe, they will have more power over things like eminent domain. It is difficult to build and maintain a lasting national machine, but it is easier to do at the State level. Collusion between the three branches of State government, as we have seen in Mississippi, where a minority is acting to deny open carriers their rights, will be easier, and will have more impact. On the other hand, States will show more variability, and we will have more choices as to a place to live that suits our needs.
We must starve the beast, and we must get back the notion that the States are sovereign, that they only delegated to the Federal government certain powers, and that they retain plenary powers within their respective borders.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Before the Declaration of Independence, there was John Locke
On this July 4th Independence Day, it is well that we take a look at the man on whom the Founder's relied for so much of our governments founding principles. At the American Thinker, an article entitled Our True Founding Principles by Jerome Huyler asks where did our country first go off the rails, and what has happened since. I am always pleasantly surprised to learn how much I know, that ain't so, and this article surprised me. Huyler believes the government of the United States began going off the rails...well, let him tell it:
The 16th Amendment allowed the Congress to lay taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, and without apportionment among the several states, without regard to census or enumeration. It gave access to a huge pool of money that could be taxed, enabling not only the large standing military we carry today, but the social welfare and entitlement programs that are today overwhelming our system as Francis Fox Piven envisioned. It allowed the Congress to create a "progressive" income tax system. We have been fighting about how much income should be taken in taxes, how much is enough and how much is too much ever since. Obama, who probably sees all income as essentially his, talks endlessly about a rich person's "fair share." But people as diverse as Sean Hannity and Bill Mahr point out that they earned this money, and that they are being taxed enough already.
What nobody notices, or what no one will openly say, is that the rich are getting ripped off. The rich and the poor alike share equally in the legitimate powers exercised by government. If government confined itself to its legitimate powers, a flat tax would be enough except in time of war. But in the illegitimate powers, the rich get very little, and the poor get most of it. (Corporate welfare is as bad as welfare for the poor, and even less justified, but it is also much less that welfare programs for the poor.) If one takes all the fancy words and justifications for having a progressive income tax out of the argument, it comes down to the fact that the government is stealing some peoples property, and giving it to others in return for votes. Income no less than real estate and personal property, is the most fundamental property of all. You trade your time and skills to others in return for money that presumably you and your employer have agreed on. The rarer your skill, the fewer people who can do what you do, the more you can command for your time. Thus, sports figures can make fabulous sums, at least for the few years they are at the top of their game. You then trade the money earned for goods and services including shelter, food and water, and so forth. You should be able to dispose of the excess you have earned to your heirs or whomever you see fit.
We can probably never get rid of the income tax entirely, but by going to a flat tax, where everyone must declare their entire earnings, and pay a flat amount, we would come closer to true fairness. If we eliminate the social engineering involved in the various deductions and entitlements, we eliminate the shenanigans that have plagued the IRS of late, and a lot of the fraud that is found usually not by the IRS. When everyone has to pay a portion, and nobody is getting benefits, then we may find the people want government out of their lives.
The other change that occurred in 1913 was the ratification of the 17th Amendment that made Senators popularly elected. Previously, the House was elected every two years by popular elections. Indeed, that is the purpose of the census, to apportion the House members to each state, and for the states to draw up the new voting districts, ensuring an equal vote to every person entitled to vote. The Senate, by contrast, was appointed to six year terms by the state legislature, and served at their pleasure. Thus, the sovereign states had a voice in the Federal government, as did the people. Under the old system, programs like Medicade and Medicare would likely not have been signed into law because the Senate would have wisely blocked them. Indeed, many "progressive" programs would have likely been squashed because the Senate would have reckoned the cost to the states to be too high. Once the Senators became popularly elected, the states lost their voice in the Federal government, and the Senators now had an incentive to push for giving entitlements to the people in exchange for their votes.
With the ratification of these two amendments to our Constitution, the self correcting nature of our Republic was destroyed. Government now had the means to take everything we have, and the body that was supposed to stop such bad ideas became an accessory to them.
Happy Independence Day!
By Locke's reckoning, the fateful shift came with the second bill signed into law by the nation's first president. The Tariff Act of 1789, in addition to raising revenue, something certainly sanctioned by the Constitution, authorized Congress to "encourage domestic manufactures." It could impose a "protective" tariff, raising the price of goods coming from Europe, inviting retaliatory measures and curtailing the trans-Atlantic trade, but not without raising consumer prices for farmers and planters and depriving many of those who made their living in the seafaring trades of their livelihoods...While there were abuses of citizen's property rights to be sure, and dubious actions and miscalculations were made by Presidents and Congresses throughout the 19th Century, my own fateful moment of change occurred in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments.
The 16th Amendment allowed the Congress to lay taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, and without apportionment among the several states, without regard to census or enumeration. It gave access to a huge pool of money that could be taxed, enabling not only the large standing military we carry today, but the social welfare and entitlement programs that are today overwhelming our system as Francis Fox Piven envisioned. It allowed the Congress to create a "progressive" income tax system. We have been fighting about how much income should be taken in taxes, how much is enough and how much is too much ever since. Obama, who probably sees all income as essentially his, talks endlessly about a rich person's "fair share." But people as diverse as Sean Hannity and Bill Mahr point out that they earned this money, and that they are being taxed enough already.
What nobody notices, or what no one will openly say, is that the rich are getting ripped off. The rich and the poor alike share equally in the legitimate powers exercised by government. If government confined itself to its legitimate powers, a flat tax would be enough except in time of war. But in the illegitimate powers, the rich get very little, and the poor get most of it. (Corporate welfare is as bad as welfare for the poor, and even less justified, but it is also much less that welfare programs for the poor.) If one takes all the fancy words and justifications for having a progressive income tax out of the argument, it comes down to the fact that the government is stealing some peoples property, and giving it to others in return for votes. Income no less than real estate and personal property, is the most fundamental property of all. You trade your time and skills to others in return for money that presumably you and your employer have agreed on. The rarer your skill, the fewer people who can do what you do, the more you can command for your time. Thus, sports figures can make fabulous sums, at least for the few years they are at the top of their game. You then trade the money earned for goods and services including shelter, food and water, and so forth. You should be able to dispose of the excess you have earned to your heirs or whomever you see fit.
We can probably never get rid of the income tax entirely, but by going to a flat tax, where everyone must declare their entire earnings, and pay a flat amount, we would come closer to true fairness. If we eliminate the social engineering involved in the various deductions and entitlements, we eliminate the shenanigans that have plagued the IRS of late, and a lot of the fraud that is found usually not by the IRS. When everyone has to pay a portion, and nobody is getting benefits, then we may find the people want government out of their lives.
The other change that occurred in 1913 was the ratification of the 17th Amendment that made Senators popularly elected. Previously, the House was elected every two years by popular elections. Indeed, that is the purpose of the census, to apportion the House members to each state, and for the states to draw up the new voting districts, ensuring an equal vote to every person entitled to vote. The Senate, by contrast, was appointed to six year terms by the state legislature, and served at their pleasure. Thus, the sovereign states had a voice in the Federal government, as did the people. Under the old system, programs like Medicade and Medicare would likely not have been signed into law because the Senate would have wisely blocked them. Indeed, many "progressive" programs would have likely been squashed because the Senate would have reckoned the cost to the states to be too high. Once the Senators became popularly elected, the states lost their voice in the Federal government, and the Senators now had an incentive to push for giving entitlements to the people in exchange for their votes.
With the ratification of these two amendments to our Constitution, the self correcting nature of our Republic was destroyed. Government now had the means to take everything we have, and the body that was supposed to stop such bad ideas became an accessory to them.
Happy Independence Day!
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Syrian Rebels Behead Priest
A short article today at the American Thinker highlights the absolute absurdity of the Obama foreign policy. Rick Moran has the story at Catholic Priest Beheaded by Syrian Rebels Obama Wants to Arm
The Moran post is linked to a Catholic Online story, which in turn is linked to video of the horrible tragedy. Go watch it at your own risk. I have done so, and it isn't pretty. One wonders how people can be so cruel to one another, and yet history has shown time and again that people are indeed capable of such cruelty and murderous blood lust. We have seen already Syrian rebels eating the hearts of their enemies in a strange ritual that goes back to primitive times. If this is what Islam teaches, can it be the teaching of God? And if it is not what Islam teaches, why will no one stand a say so. There must be a religious authority somewhere that believes these people have rejected God's truth for their own beliefs.
Meanwhile, the Obama regime apparently intends to send arms to these savages. These arms would of course be sent in our name. I don't know about you, but I am certainly not in favor of Muslims beheading priests, nor am I in favor of Muslims eating the hearts of their enemies. Please, write or call your Congressman and urge him to put a stop to this.
Update: David Codrea (War on Guns) has some additional information on this story at Obama's Gun Policy and Supporters Favor Jihadists over Patriots. He points to a Rasmusen poll that shows Leftists fear the TEA party more than they fear Muslims.
The Moran post is linked to a Catholic Online story, which in turn is linked to video of the horrible tragedy. Go watch it at your own risk. I have done so, and it isn't pretty. One wonders how people can be so cruel to one another, and yet history has shown time and again that people are indeed capable of such cruelty and murderous blood lust. We have seen already Syrian rebels eating the hearts of their enemies in a strange ritual that goes back to primitive times. If this is what Islam teaches, can it be the teaching of God? And if it is not what Islam teaches, why will no one stand a say so. There must be a religious authority somewhere that believes these people have rejected God's truth for their own beliefs.
Meanwhile, the Obama regime apparently intends to send arms to these savages. These arms would of course be sent in our name. I don't know about you, but I am certainly not in favor of Muslims beheading priests, nor am I in favor of Muslims eating the hearts of their enemies. Please, write or call your Congressman and urge him to put a stop to this.
Update: David Codrea (War on Guns) has some additional information on this story at Obama's Gun Policy and Supporters Favor Jihadists over Patriots. He points to a Rasmusen poll that shows Leftists fear the TEA party more than they fear Muslims.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
What would tyranny look like in America? Look around.
Congressman Jim Bridenstine asks the question on the House floor, and in 1 minute provides the answer. You can see his talk at TheBlaze.com here. Too bad that the Congressman only had a minute, but he didn't mince words, and his analysis was accurate and precise.
He noted in particular that Congress was partly to blame for delegating so much law making power to the Executive. Whether because they didn't know how these laws would be stretched and twisted, or because they did know, but wanted the onus for making unpopular decisions to fall on someone immune to We the People, they have created this Leviation, which seems to be beyond their ability to control. In the case of Fast and Furious, Eric Holder has been held to be in contempt of Congress. What are the consequences of that? Anyone? The IRS scandal drags on, with IRS agents apparently pleading the 5th and getting away with it. We still don't know who ordered the stand down of the military in the Benghazi scandal, and probably never will, at least not until the culprit is beyond justice. The Federal government is spying on American citizens, violating our 4th Amendment rights, and the only person who is taking consequences for it seems to be the whistle blower who called the NSA out, Edward Snowden.
Time was when Congress actually wrote the laws, for better or worse. The Executive enforced the laws, and the Judiciary reviewed the laws in specific cases. The alphabet soup of agencies came about with the progressive era, and the belief that life is too complicated for the average person. Instead, good government consisted of having "experts" who know the gory details and would guide us, nudge us in the right direction. The days of the renaissance man were dead, as human knowledge was growing too fast for anyone to keep up with it.
But here's a funny thing that nobody predicted at the time. A true "expert" on something tends to know a great deal about on thing, but less about anything else. Now, in our daily lives this reliance on "experts" makes a great deal of economic sense. We take our car to the car mechanic for repairs, and we go to the doctor when we are ill, because to know all about what medicines do what, and how to break down a car exhaust probably doesn't leave us much time to learn our own profession. But does it make sense to give a car mechanic the power to tell everyone what to do? He might decree that everyone must change their oil at 3,000 mile intervals on pain of a 10 year prison sentence. You see, a persons expertise tends to blind him to other considerations. His specialty area looms so large in his mind, that it can become all important, to the exclusion of other considerations. This is what makes so many environmentalists zealots.
But it isn't only environmentalists. Temperance crusaders, gun grabbers, some gun enthusiasts no doubt, and others become zealots unable to see that life consists in making decisions for oneself and one's family every day. Too much salt in the diet causes some people to have high blood pressure. So the zealots want to ban salt for everyone. But of course most of us need salt, and a moderate amount improves the flavor of most foods. The banning of salt in restaurants is just one example, and a petty one at that. But this is just one example.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction of the navigable waters of the United States. But they have stretched this jurisdiction to include jurisdiction of waters that flow into navigable waters, which pretty much includes any waterway in the United States. Then they defined something they call an upland wetland. Now this upland wetland doesn't have to be wet. It merely has to have soil types that indicated that at one time, water flowed into this pocket. So, you could dig a ditch, and after a few years, you would have yourself an upland wetland. Now, in some jurisdictions, you can not disturb a wetland for various distances on either side, not even to mow it, or go walking in it. Now imagine that the ditch runs in front of your house, and your house is in that zone? Now it is unlikely that you will be booted out of your house, but the law is in place to allow them to do it. Certainly people have been prevented from building a house on land they bought because of such laws.
This is what happens when you allow so called "experts" to make and interpret the laws, with little or no oversight. You lose more and more of your liberty, because increasingly the decisions are taken out of your hands, and given to "experts" in Washington. Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the law to find out what was in it. She said it with such enthusiasm, perhaps Ms. Pelosi likes surprises. But the rest of us learned long ago not to buy a pig in a poke, and thats what Congress keeps foisting on us. I am glad to see that at least one Congressman understands, and I pray he will get others to understand as well. We have had 100 years of steady declines in liberty. Perhaps its time to send the government "experts" packing.
He noted in particular that Congress was partly to blame for delegating so much law making power to the Executive. Whether because they didn't know how these laws would be stretched and twisted, or because they did know, but wanted the onus for making unpopular decisions to fall on someone immune to We the People, they have created this Leviation, which seems to be beyond their ability to control. In the case of Fast and Furious, Eric Holder has been held to be in contempt of Congress. What are the consequences of that? Anyone? The IRS scandal drags on, with IRS agents apparently pleading the 5th and getting away with it. We still don't know who ordered the stand down of the military in the Benghazi scandal, and probably never will, at least not until the culprit is beyond justice. The Federal government is spying on American citizens, violating our 4th Amendment rights, and the only person who is taking consequences for it seems to be the whistle blower who called the NSA out, Edward Snowden.
Time was when Congress actually wrote the laws, for better or worse. The Executive enforced the laws, and the Judiciary reviewed the laws in specific cases. The alphabet soup of agencies came about with the progressive era, and the belief that life is too complicated for the average person. Instead, good government consisted of having "experts" who know the gory details and would guide us, nudge us in the right direction. The days of the renaissance man were dead, as human knowledge was growing too fast for anyone to keep up with it.
But here's a funny thing that nobody predicted at the time. A true "expert" on something tends to know a great deal about on thing, but less about anything else. Now, in our daily lives this reliance on "experts" makes a great deal of economic sense. We take our car to the car mechanic for repairs, and we go to the doctor when we are ill, because to know all about what medicines do what, and how to break down a car exhaust probably doesn't leave us much time to learn our own profession. But does it make sense to give a car mechanic the power to tell everyone what to do? He might decree that everyone must change their oil at 3,000 mile intervals on pain of a 10 year prison sentence. You see, a persons expertise tends to blind him to other considerations. His specialty area looms so large in his mind, that it can become all important, to the exclusion of other considerations. This is what makes so many environmentalists zealots.
But it isn't only environmentalists. Temperance crusaders, gun grabbers, some gun enthusiasts no doubt, and others become zealots unable to see that life consists in making decisions for oneself and one's family every day. Too much salt in the diet causes some people to have high blood pressure. So the zealots want to ban salt for everyone. But of course most of us need salt, and a moderate amount improves the flavor of most foods. The banning of salt in restaurants is just one example, and a petty one at that. But this is just one example.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction of the navigable waters of the United States. But they have stretched this jurisdiction to include jurisdiction of waters that flow into navigable waters, which pretty much includes any waterway in the United States. Then they defined something they call an upland wetland. Now this upland wetland doesn't have to be wet. It merely has to have soil types that indicated that at one time, water flowed into this pocket. So, you could dig a ditch, and after a few years, you would have yourself an upland wetland. Now, in some jurisdictions, you can not disturb a wetland for various distances on either side, not even to mow it, or go walking in it. Now imagine that the ditch runs in front of your house, and your house is in that zone? Now it is unlikely that you will be booted out of your house, but the law is in place to allow them to do it. Certainly people have been prevented from building a house on land they bought because of such laws.
This is what happens when you allow so called "experts" to make and interpret the laws, with little or no oversight. You lose more and more of your liberty, because increasingly the decisions are taken out of your hands, and given to "experts" in Washington. Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the law to find out what was in it. She said it with such enthusiasm, perhaps Ms. Pelosi likes surprises. But the rest of us learned long ago not to buy a pig in a poke, and thats what Congress keeps foisting on us. I am glad to see that at least one Congressman understands, and I pray he will get others to understand as well. We have had 100 years of steady declines in liberty. Perhaps its time to send the government "experts" packing.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Problem: Existing voters don't like us. Solution: Get new voters
Here we go again. Immigration "reform" is being sold to the public as bringing true border security, so that the only immigrants are of the legal type, and the estimated 11 million criminals in our country illegally will have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, etc before becoming citizens. Sounds good. And it is all a lie. Marco Rubio may well have ruined any chances he may have had for higher office, as he has proved that he doesn't actually believe the things he says. Too bad.
An article today at American Thinker entitled Passage of the Amnesty Bill Will Spell the End of Our Republic by James Simpson spells out what this bill would really do. Among the many ways that the bill undermines what we are being told by supporters are:
If we had not been down this road before, perhaps we might be convinced that Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and gang are genuinely trying to solve a problem that has been plaguing our country for decades. But we have been. We were promised more safety if we passed gun control. We got the control, but not the safety. We were promised a fence, that has never been completed, and that includes a open section for illegals to pass through. We were promised spending cuts for tax increases. We got the tax increases, but not the spending cuts. So, when Jonah Goldberg states:
Interestingly, all this brouhaha over immigration reform fails to get at the real problem, the corrupt Mexican government's abuse of its own people. Mexico is a land rich in resources. It has huge oil reserves, ranked 17th worldwide, and natural gas (18th.) They have large silver deposits, along with a variety of other minerals. Mexico also has a population that can learn to manufacture anything from shoes to airplanes. Many may be low skilled, but that is not to say that they are less intelligent, just less educated. But the system of laws in Mexico, coming as they do from Spain, do not strongly support property rights, and the people have a cultural tradition of allowing the oligarchy to make and enforce the laws. No wonder Senator Schumer is salivating over immigration reform. He believes himself to be an oligarch anyway, so importing a bunch of voters used to oligarchical rule must look like heaven to him.
Update 6/27/2013 Karin McQuillan makes many of the same points in today's American Thinker in an article entitled Republican Party Won't Survive Amnesty Bill, and Neither Will America
An article today at American Thinker entitled Passage of the Amnesty Bill Will Spell the End of Our Republic by James Simpson spells out what this bill would really do. Among the many ways that the bill undermines what we are being told by supporters are:
Legitimizes illegal immigration: Section 2302 says if you overstay your visa in the future you can still apply for a green card and become a citizen. It is permanent lawlessness... They cannot do that legally under current law!
Has no requirement to deploy technologies: The Corker amendment would give the Secretary of Homeland Security full discretion as to how technology would be deployed, or whether it would be deployed at all.
Has no fencing requirement: Similarly, building a fence is left to the discretion of DHS. (Note: since a fencing law, with money attached, passed years ago, and has been blithely ignored by the Obama administration, the amendment simply codifies Obama's open defiance of current law.)
Increases fees on visas for legal immigrants, but keeps the same low fees and fines for those applying for amnesty - favoring illegal over legal immigrants.
Under the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $38 billion. (The Gang-of-Eight claims the bill is fully funded by immigrant fees).
Delays promised hiring of 20,000 new Border Patrol agents until somewhere between 2017 and 2021.According to Ammoland, Harry Reid has again been giving out Christmas tree ornaments in a bid to win votes to get the numbers up over the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Bernie Sanders (Socialist, VT) got $1.5 million for a jobs program that the supporters of the bill implausibly say is unnecessary, because the bill won't reduce wages for the low income worker. Senators who can't vote for the bill on principle and conscience can apparently be bought with pork for their constituency. I don't know about you, gentle reader, but this does not inspire confidence that the immigration bill is good for the country as a whole.
If we had not been down this road before, perhaps we might be convinced that Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and gang are genuinely trying to solve a problem that has been plaguing our country for decades. But we have been. We were promised more safety if we passed gun control. We got the control, but not the safety. We were promised a fence, that has never been completed, and that includes a open section for illegals to pass through. We were promised spending cuts for tax increases. We got the tax increases, but not the spending cuts. So, when Jonah Goldberg states:
The hitch is that the right is just not in a trusting mood. They feel, with ample justification, that Washington, including the GOP, has been betraying them -- by accident or on purpose -- for too long. I can understand that completely. What baffles me is why rank-and-file Democrats don't feel the same way.in today's Townhall.com opinion piece, he is tuning in to the thoughts of a large cross section of Americans. Most Americans are fully aware that the nation has all the laws it needs to defend its sovereignty, and either keep out, or deport those who have arrived illegally. It has provisions for farmers to temporarily import workers to perform seasonal tasks. It has special provisions to allow high tech companies to import specialty labor not available in the States. It even has provisions to make hiring these criminals illegal. In short, we do not need another law that will be ignored by our executive branch. Congress needs to call the DHS the Social Security Administration, the Justice Department and others on the carpet for failures to perform their jobs. When asked why Obama wasn't enforcing the existing laws, Obama reportedly said that if he did, he would never get comprehensive immigration reform. 'Nuff said.
Interestingly, all this brouhaha over immigration reform fails to get at the real problem, the corrupt Mexican government's abuse of its own people. Mexico is a land rich in resources. It has huge oil reserves, ranked 17th worldwide, and natural gas (18th.) They have large silver deposits, along with a variety of other minerals. Mexico also has a population that can learn to manufacture anything from shoes to airplanes. Many may be low skilled, but that is not to say that they are less intelligent, just less educated. But the system of laws in Mexico, coming as they do from Spain, do not strongly support property rights, and the people have a cultural tradition of allowing the oligarchy to make and enforce the laws. No wonder Senator Schumer is salivating over immigration reform. He believes himself to be an oligarch anyway, so importing a bunch of voters used to oligarchical rule must look like heaven to him.
Update 6/27/2013 Karin McQuillan makes many of the same points in today's American Thinker in an article entitled Republican Party Won't Survive Amnesty Bill, and Neither Will America
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Report Recommends Republicans Pander to Youth
I have tried to stay out of party politics, after a short stint as a precinct captain in my callow years. The elected Democrats disgust me, displaying a win at all costs, lying to the American public, cheating including election fraud, underhandedness in getting bills passed against the public will, which no body has read, until it is too late, attitude. I have often thought that the entire Democrat party (not the average guys in the street, but the DNC and elected officials) should be prosecuted under RICO. But to do so, one would need to find an independent, non partisan prosecutor. Good luck.
On the other hand, the Republicans also disgust me. In their case, it is that they seem to believe that they must offer up a less offensive version of every stupid nincompoop idea the Democrats promote. Why not just say "No"? When we Conservatives do get a guy or gal elected to Congress, then we have to keep on their back to get them to do what they promised us they would do to get elected. And Boehner, don't get me started on John Boehner.
The Republican party has been trying to figure out why it keeps losing presidential elections. There has been much soul searching wearing of sack cloth and ashes, and gnashing of teeth among the party establishment. First they offered up Senator McCain, the Republican Maverick, and Darling of the Press. Except, the press turned on him the moment he was nominated, as predicted by Rush Limbaugh and others. Additionally, his reputation as a maverick was based on his countless betrayals of conservative voters, including his McCain-Feingold Act. To make matters worse, he was up against a candidate who used his color against McCain to silence him. Why McCain allowed himself to be silenced is something we will never know. But McCain, who had to have some dirt on Obama from oppositional research, refused to use it.
Then, in a bid to prove just how mind numbingly stupid they really are, the Republicans put up an Eastern liberal the second time around. Now, I have no doubt that Romney is a nice guy, a boy scout by all accounts, and a straight shooter. Conservative, he is not. We would be having many of the same issues and scandals with a Romney presidency and we have with an Obama presidency. In terms of policies, they are both big government people. The notion that the Republicans can run Democratic programs with more efficiency and less cronyism doesn't get to the real point. The point is that programs like Social Security, Medicare, ObamaCare, and the various welfare programs etc, etc, etc, are all unconstitutional, and should have been struck down, or better yet, repealed, years ago.
(Note, the Republican punditry constantly claims there is no Republican establishment operating behind the scenes to put certain people into the White House. The fact is, though that the big money donors get to make their voices heard over everyone else. And they don't seem to much care for the Conservative voter, thinking of us as gun toting, tobacco spitting, rednecks: the kind of people who would drink out of the finger bowls. They are embarrassed by us, and don't really care about having a strong competitive party. What they care about is making money, and they can make money with anybody in power, so long as the party in power keeps the competition down. Oh, and we need to change the incentives for Republican consultants. If they don't win, they don't get a dime.)
Romney might have pulled it out had it not been for massive voter fraud in certain precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and perhaps in Virginia as well. But committing voter fraud doesn't really matter because the candidate who benefits from it gets to keep his office anyway. Just look at "funny man" AlFrauster Franken. I don't know why Republicans don't make more out of blatant voter fraud. Perhaps because they are committing it too, but they are dumber about it. Or maybe they don't want to look like sore losers. But when evidence comes to light from groups like Project Veritas nothing seems to happen. Oh yes, the lady in Houston did get fired, but what happened to her afterward? Did she get hired by another Democrat operation? Do the candidates that benefited from voter fraud have to run again in a clean election?
All of this came flooding into my mind as I read Grand Old Propaganda by Linda Harvey at the American Thinker today. Her article is sparked by a report that the Republican party must change its platform to get hip to the youth vote. Now, I take umbrage with the term "youth vote" to begin with because it implies that all young people think, act, and vote the same way. In other words, it is identity politics, and there is little evidence that because a person is a certain age, or has certain pigmentation, or is of a certain gender, that they all think, act, and vote the same way, and the Republican party should not be engaging in identity politics, nor the pandering to identity groups. Anyone who sees their own primary identity as a member of a certain group should be seen to have real psychological problems in any case, and should not be pandered to.
If the Republican party wishes to start winning elections again, they need to stand for timeless principles, as they did when they were founded. The Republican party rose to national prominence because they stood against slavery, against the forcing of one individual to work for the benefit of another. All mankind is born free, not just the white folks. Now they have become the party of "me to, only better managed." Stand up instead for timeless principles. Write them down, shout them to the world, base your platform on them, and hold candidates feet to the fire of those principles. That is the way to win elections. As it stand, if the Republicans are going to offer to do what the Democrats do, only more efficiently, it hardly seems worth it to come out on a cold November morning, stand in line in the dark, just to vote for a guy with an "R" after his name.
Update: While we are on the topic of the Republican party, here is a post from Timothy Birdnow at the American Thinker entitled The Colonization of 21st Century America. The report is harsh on a number of RINOs for passing, or supporting massively unpopular legistlation such as the current immigration bill in the Senate. Why, for instance is Rubio so keen to pass this bill against the opposition of the average American? Why is he resistant to having true border security? What secret agenda is driving him? Go read "The Colonization of 21st Century America."
On the other hand, the Republicans also disgust me. In their case, it is that they seem to believe that they must offer up a less offensive version of every stupid nincompoop idea the Democrats promote. Why not just say "No"? When we Conservatives do get a guy or gal elected to Congress, then we have to keep on their back to get them to do what they promised us they would do to get elected. And Boehner, don't get me started on John Boehner.
The Republican party has been trying to figure out why it keeps losing presidential elections. There has been much soul searching wearing of sack cloth and ashes, and gnashing of teeth among the party establishment. First they offered up Senator McCain, the Republican Maverick, and Darling of the Press. Except, the press turned on him the moment he was nominated, as predicted by Rush Limbaugh and others. Additionally, his reputation as a maverick was based on his countless betrayals of conservative voters, including his McCain-Feingold Act. To make matters worse, he was up against a candidate who used his color against McCain to silence him. Why McCain allowed himself to be silenced is something we will never know. But McCain, who had to have some dirt on Obama from oppositional research, refused to use it.
Then, in a bid to prove just how mind numbingly stupid they really are, the Republicans put up an Eastern liberal the second time around. Now, I have no doubt that Romney is a nice guy, a boy scout by all accounts, and a straight shooter. Conservative, he is not. We would be having many of the same issues and scandals with a Romney presidency and we have with an Obama presidency. In terms of policies, they are both big government people. The notion that the Republicans can run Democratic programs with more efficiency and less cronyism doesn't get to the real point. The point is that programs like Social Security, Medicare, ObamaCare, and the various welfare programs etc, etc, etc, are all unconstitutional, and should have been struck down, or better yet, repealed, years ago.
(Note, the Republican punditry constantly claims there is no Republican establishment operating behind the scenes to put certain people into the White House. The fact is, though that the big money donors get to make their voices heard over everyone else. And they don't seem to much care for the Conservative voter, thinking of us as gun toting, tobacco spitting, rednecks: the kind of people who would drink out of the finger bowls. They are embarrassed by us, and don't really care about having a strong competitive party. What they care about is making money, and they can make money with anybody in power, so long as the party in power keeps the competition down. Oh, and we need to change the incentives for Republican consultants. If they don't win, they don't get a dime.)
Romney might have pulled it out had it not been for massive voter fraud in certain precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and perhaps in Virginia as well. But committing voter fraud doesn't really matter because the candidate who benefits from it gets to keep his office anyway. Just look at "funny man" Al
All of this came flooding into my mind as I read Grand Old Propaganda by Linda Harvey at the American Thinker today. Her article is sparked by a report that the Republican party must change its platform to get hip to the youth vote. Now, I take umbrage with the term "youth vote" to begin with because it implies that all young people think, act, and vote the same way. In other words, it is identity politics, and there is little evidence that because a person is a certain age, or has certain pigmentation, or is of a certain gender, that they all think, act, and vote the same way, and the Republican party should not be engaging in identity politics, nor the pandering to identity groups. Anyone who sees their own primary identity as a member of a certain group should be seen to have real psychological problems in any case, and should not be pandered to.
If the Republican party wishes to start winning elections again, they need to stand for timeless principles, as they did when they were founded. The Republican party rose to national prominence because they stood against slavery, against the forcing of one individual to work for the benefit of another. All mankind is born free, not just the white folks. Now they have become the party of "me to, only better managed." Stand up instead for timeless principles. Write them down, shout them to the world, base your platform on them, and hold candidates feet to the fire of those principles. That is the way to win elections. As it stand, if the Republicans are going to offer to do what the Democrats do, only more efficiently, it hardly seems worth it to come out on a cold November morning, stand in line in the dark, just to vote for a guy with an "R" after his name.
Update: While we are on the topic of the Republican party, here is a post from Timothy Birdnow at the American Thinker entitled The Colonization of 21st Century America. The report is harsh on a number of RINOs for passing, or supporting massively unpopular legistlation such as the current immigration bill in the Senate. Why, for instance is Rubio so keen to pass this bill against the opposition of the average American? Why is he resistant to having true border security? What secret agenda is driving him? Go read "The Colonization of 21st Century America."
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Conflating Corporate Data Mining and Government Spying
Many supporters of the governments PRISM program have made the argument, in essences, that corporations are already mining our data for private gain. Many of them lean left, and believe that such data mining is fundamentally evil, and by making money from it, the evil is compounded. Indeed, many of them are quite exercised about corporate data mining.
Such is the case with Lou Dobbs. In his discussion segment with Bruce Schneier, author of the book Liars and Outliers, Dobbs continually conflated the data mining that corporations do with the data mining in which the government is engaged. Let's be clear, here. Corporations perform data mining in order to sell advertising. They add value to the advertisers, who can target their product advertising to those people most likely to be in the market, and the add value by bringing targeted advertising to those people looking for such ads. I am not the least bit offended that products I may be interested inshow up in the advertising I read on line. Lady's dresses may be of interest to some, but I pretty much ignore them, since the wife doesn't wear them. On the other hand, advertisements for the latest concealed carry products interest me, and I am likely to click on such ads. Of course, I don't necessarily purchase the products just because I click on the advertisement. Indeed, it is impossible for a corporation to do anything to me if I don't buy their product. Nothing they can do can make me hand over my money. Now, is it a little creepy that advertisements for shoes appear on my computer right after I have been looking for something inexpensive to replace my worn out pair? Sure, but I know how the trick is done.
On the other hand, government is force. Government can send me to prison, or worse. As Bruce Schneirer said last night, if a corporation gets it wrong, the worst that happens is you get an ad for something you don't want, but if government gets it wrong, you can go to jail. The consequences to an individual, thus, are orders of magnitude greater for the government than for corporations. Therefore I want to know that my government only snoops on those who have been identified with probable cause to have been guilty, and they have sworn out a warrant under penalty of perjury, and that a judge has signed off on that warrant, after duly considering the evidence of probable cause. That is the way the system works. If that means some terrorists get away with it, it also means we can be secure in our papers and personal effects.
Another line of reasoning, which is of course the utilitarian argument, is that we are all safer because the NSA is spying on everyone. Presumably, these are the same people who think their neighbors harbor homicidal thoughts about them and are only constrained by lack of a gun. The other night, Miss Alabama, one Mary Margaret McCord gave the perfect answer for this crowd. You can see, and hear it at New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer. Miss McCord wants to feel safe at movies, the mall, and airports. But apparently she doesn't want to put in the work necessary to be safe. She apparently wants to run around in condition white, oblivious to her surroundings, trusting that the NSA is watching over her, and others will spring into action should someone do something to endanger her precious life. Here's some advise. Grow up! You are not a child anymore, and you (and you alone) are responsible for your safety, and that of any children you may eventually have. Get a gun, learn to use it, carry it everywhere. Make up your mind now that if it comes to you or someone who means to kill you, you are going to ensure it is him or her. Learn to look around, observe what is going on around you, and constantly have a plan to defend yourself and your loved ones. That is the only way to be safe in this world; to rely on others is an illusion.
Such is the case with Lou Dobbs. In his discussion segment with Bruce Schneier, author of the book Liars and Outliers, Dobbs continually conflated the data mining that corporations do with the data mining in which the government is engaged. Let's be clear, here. Corporations perform data mining in order to sell advertising. They add value to the advertisers, who can target their product advertising to those people most likely to be in the market, and the add value by bringing targeted advertising to those people looking for such ads. I am not the least bit offended that products I may be interested inshow up in the advertising I read on line. Lady's dresses may be of interest to some, but I pretty much ignore them, since the wife doesn't wear them. On the other hand, advertisements for the latest concealed carry products interest me, and I am likely to click on such ads. Of course, I don't necessarily purchase the products just because I click on the advertisement. Indeed, it is impossible for a corporation to do anything to me if I don't buy their product. Nothing they can do can make me hand over my money. Now, is it a little creepy that advertisements for shoes appear on my computer right after I have been looking for something inexpensive to replace my worn out pair? Sure, but I know how the trick is done.
On the other hand, government is force. Government can send me to prison, or worse. As Bruce Schneirer said last night, if a corporation gets it wrong, the worst that happens is you get an ad for something you don't want, but if government gets it wrong, you can go to jail. The consequences to an individual, thus, are orders of magnitude greater for the government than for corporations. Therefore I want to know that my government only snoops on those who have been identified with probable cause to have been guilty, and they have sworn out a warrant under penalty of perjury, and that a judge has signed off on that warrant, after duly considering the evidence of probable cause. That is the way the system works. If that means some terrorists get away with it, it also means we can be secure in our papers and personal effects.
Another line of reasoning, which is of course the utilitarian argument, is that we are all safer because the NSA is spying on everyone. Presumably, these are the same people who think their neighbors harbor homicidal thoughts about them and are only constrained by lack of a gun. The other night, Miss Alabama, one Mary Margaret McCord gave the perfect answer for this crowd. You can see, and hear it at New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer. Miss McCord wants to feel safe at movies, the mall, and airports. But apparently she doesn't want to put in the work necessary to be safe. She apparently wants to run around in condition white, oblivious to her surroundings, trusting that the NSA is watching over her, and others will spring into action should someone do something to endanger her precious life. Here's some advise. Grow up! You are not a child anymore, and you (and you alone) are responsible for your safety, and that of any children you may eventually have. Get a gun, learn to use it, carry it everywhere. Make up your mind now that if it comes to you or someone who means to kill you, you are going to ensure it is him or her. Learn to look around, observe what is going on around you, and constantly have a plan to defend yourself and your loved ones. That is the only way to be safe in this world; to rely on others is an illusion.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Try Something Different for a Change. Try Using the Constitution
Two pieces today at the American Thinker together illustrate the box those wishing to return to Constitutional governance, with limited powers properly applied find themselves in. The first is Paul Kengor's Liberalism's Willing Executioners. The Second is Daren Jonescu's Barack Obama: Hell's Lightning Rod.
First Kengor's piece, because it explains the nature of liberals, why they act as they do, and what effect this has on society. Kengor:
Thus, the current scandals. When a substantial part of an entire bureaucracy is composed of liberals, or people who feel they must spout the party line to maintain their comfortable lifestyles, what you get are people who, despite the laws, believed what they were doing was right.
Please read Kengor's piece in its entirety first, then go to Jonescu's piece. While Kengor explicates the source of the scandals that have rock the present administration, that fact of the matter is that we will always have people who are easily led by an appeal to their emotions. We will also always have people around who are ready to exploit such people by tugging on their heart strings. The idea is not to let them become so powerful that they can dictate what rights they will allow you to have. Jonescu:
Right now, we have a regime that is untethered from the Constitution, and even above the laws they have written. But it will be no different when a Republican steps into the Oval Office unless he is prepared to address the Unconstitutionality of the laws, not only those being written, but those already on the books. Currently, the Constitution stands as a rebuke to all three branches of government. The courts do not say what the document says, because the Constitution speaks for itself. In the recent NSA scandal in which we find out that the government has been storing hundreds of millions of our phone call records, and now under PRISM, our e-mail communications, and social media postings, all under something called a blanket warrant. Blanket warrants are not Constitutional. Sifting through the private phone conversations of innocent people is not Constitutional. Ambassador Bolton pointed out on Fox News that PRISM is legal, because all three branches of government signed off on it. But they didn't have the authority, granted by the Constitution to make these laws, and Ambassador Bolton should know that if the law does not comport with the Constitution, then the law is null and void. Indeed, the same goes for hundreds of laws that people trip over daily. In this way, the use of authorities not granted takes away our freedom and our liberty.
We have been heading down the road to socialism and serfdom for a while now, and things have only gotten progressively worse. We have elected philosopher king after philosopher king, of both parties, only to discover that they were...well...ordinary men who put their pants on like everybody else.What do you say we try something different? Why instead of electing the latest philosopher king with a made up image from Madison Avenue, why don't we limit the scope of the power he wields over us? Why not try going back to the Constitution?
A book came out in 1996 called Hitler's Willing Executioners, by Daniel Goldhagen. The book remains controversial with (rightly so) plenty of detractors. But Goldhagen's principal argument has merit -- namely, that Adolf Hitler himself never killed a single Jew; rather, it took countless thousands and millions of ordinary Germans to carry out -- to execute -- Hitler's plan. In this, Goldhagen was exactly right, and his observation ties back to Meyer's thesis and, more so, what I've long feared is happening with the American Left.
What Hitler and his minions did was thoroughly demonize their enemies, convincing the German masses that Jews and other despised groups were subhuman, untermenschen. A major factor in Hitler's political advancement was his amazing ability to fabricate an assortment of handy scapegoats for the nation's ills. He got away with blaming anyone but himself for whatever calamity or misfortune. As he did, his followers assented, nodding their heads and bleating like sheep.
What the American Left has done to its enemies is not entirely dissimilar, even while certainly not approaching the crass, deadly level of the Nazis. But whether it's Obama himself, or his campaign, or Media Matters or MoveOn.org or any number of left-wing groups and websites and publications and media outlets, the American Left has been merciless in thoroughly demonizing opponents. Liberals don't just politely disagree, or agree that people can disagree; no -- too often they caricature those who disagree as vile reprobates with no possible good intentions or reasoning for their positions. It's a very illiberal thing to do.Kengor then goes on to illustrate the demonization of the TEA parties as racists neanderthals and those standing up for traditional marriage as haters. Once these Left wing groups started to demonize the TEA parties, or traditional marriage supporters, it was picked up by the mainstream media, and became part of the "common wisdom." Liberals are driven by emotion. They don't seem to ask themselves hard questions, or think critically or carefully. Instead, they seem to simply absorb the zeitgeist . Kengor again:
As conservatives, we saw from the outset that this was pure politics -- actually, pure political demagoguery. Conservative talk-shows played clips from select liberals (such as Chuck Schumer) admitting as much. We saw right through it. But liberals don't think that way. They aren't wired that way. They're incredibly emotional people who can be easily prodded by their party/ideological elite, especially with the spontaneity and instant communication of social media -- the new mother's milk of the liberal mob. They really are prone to fads and fashions and mass behavior in ways that conservatives plainly aren't. I've seen it again and again. Conservatives aren't perfect, and have their own quirks and vices, but they don't tend toward this kind of group thinking and collective action. For conservatives, the ability to think logically and independently, based upon beliefs and values deeper and timeless, and to not be seduced by what Pope Benedict XVI calls the "anonymous power" of the latest fads and fashions, is what makes them conservative to begin with.
And so, when word was out among the Left that the Tea Party was comprised of genuine evildoers, the wider liberal masses, whether at blogs and nonprofits and Facebook or working for the IRS not only responded; they retaliated. They acted naturally. They didn't need Obama to tell them what to do. Exactly as Herb Meyer says, there was never any need for a printed order from Obama
Thus, the current scandals. When a substantial part of an entire bureaucracy is composed of liberals, or people who feel they must spout the party line to maintain their comfortable lifestyles, what you get are people who, despite the laws, believed what they were doing was right.
Please read Kengor's piece in its entirety first, then go to Jonescu's piece. While Kengor explicates the source of the scandals that have rock the present administration, that fact of the matter is that we will always have people who are easily led by an appeal to their emotions. We will also always have people around who are ready to exploit such people by tugging on their heart strings. The idea is not to let them become so powerful that they can dictate what rights they will allow you to have. Jonescu:
The American Founders, great statesmen standing on the shoulders of great philosophers, derived from the wisdom of the ages an all-important lesson, one subsequently distilled for all time by British historian Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In other words, any normal man is susceptible to the temptations of power, from which it follows that a society that wishes to remain free and just must avoid granting its governing authority excessive powers. Placing one's trust in the integrity of one's elected officials while handing them "legal" means to wipe out or circumscribe all your natural rights at their discretion is, as the great advocates of (true) liberalism understood, foolhardy in the extreme, for such blind trust presumes exactly what history and sound reasoning teach us never to presume, namely that the world is comprised of pure and untainted souls on one side, and evil and corrupt souls on the other, such that choosing good leaders is merely a matter of electing one of the "pure" souls.
Obviously, Barack Obama is a Marxist subversive, so there is every reason to fear that excessive power cannot be trusted in his hands. It does not follow, however, that such power can or should be trusted in the hands of a better man. To reason that way would be to forfeit or deny the awareness of man's inherent imperfection, an awareness which used to be standard issue with every new package of adult common sense.
Right now, we have a regime that is untethered from the Constitution, and even above the laws they have written. But it will be no different when a Republican steps into the Oval Office unless he is prepared to address the Unconstitutionality of the laws, not only those being written, but those already on the books. Currently, the Constitution stands as a rebuke to all three branches of government. The courts do not say what the document says, because the Constitution speaks for itself. In the recent NSA scandal in which we find out that the government has been storing hundreds of millions of our phone call records, and now under PRISM, our e-mail communications, and social media postings, all under something called a blanket warrant. Blanket warrants are not Constitutional. Sifting through the private phone conversations of innocent people is not Constitutional. Ambassador Bolton pointed out on Fox News that PRISM is legal, because all three branches of government signed off on it. But they didn't have the authority, granted by the Constitution to make these laws, and Ambassador Bolton should know that if the law does not comport with the Constitution, then the law is null and void. Indeed, the same goes for hundreds of laws that people trip over daily. In this way, the use of authorities not granted takes away our freedom and our liberty.
We have been heading down the road to socialism and serfdom for a while now, and things have only gotten progressively worse. We have elected philosopher king after philosopher king, of both parties, only to discover that they were...well...ordinary men who put their pants on like everybody else.What do you say we try something different? Why instead of electing the latest philosopher king with a made up image from Madison Avenue, why don't we limit the scope of the power he wields over us? Why not try going back to the Constitution?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
The NSA and the 4th Amendment
My post of Saturday, June 8, 2013 was intended as a humorous take on what is, unfortunately, a very serious issue. The NSA capturing the phone records (or at least that is what the government is telling us) and the e-mail and other Internet traffic of American citizens who have done nothing wrong, nor even contemplated doing anything wrong, goes against the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. The 4th Amendment states:
The courts over the years have introduced a "balancing test" in which your reasonable expectation of privacy is weighed against "compelling state interests" in "protecting the public." In the case of electronic communications, they note that hackers get into systems all the time, and that with the right radio equipment anyone can listen in on cell phone conversations. The equipment is easily available on the commercial market outside the United States, and is available for purchase by law enforcement inside the U.S. Therefore, they conclude that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. But hackers and people voyeuristically listening in on your private phone calls are, by definition, criminals. Should their actions be discovered, they risk prosecution. Since We the People can not do it, it begs the question how someone working for the Government, which only has those powers delegated to it by us, is able to do it. And how the courts can maintain with a straight face the idea of a "balancing test" in which, surprise, surprise, the "compelling state interests" always outweighs individual rights is a mystery beyond all understanding. I guess they figure that if they use enough big words that nobody will notice.
We now learn that the person who outed the NSA to the UK Guardian was a 29 year old analyst working for Booz Allen Hamilton as a contractor at an NSA site in Hawaii named Edward Snowden. Snowden's thin resume may or may not be a red flag. People have become excellent in computers without having a college degrees, as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs can attest. But the fact that the Government gave him access to the wide array of information he claims to have had access to is surprising, and does raise eyebrows. In any case, whether or not Snowden actually took an oath of office or not, every American's loyalty should be to the Constitution of the United States. Every American should understand that laws that are not Constitutional, whether declared as such by the Supreme Court or not, are null and void. Whether or not Snowden actually obtain these materials himself, or is the fall guy for others up the chain who want to remain in the shadows, Snowden is a Hero of the Republic. I have to agree with Bob Beckel, and evidently with (ugh) Michael Moore on this one. Congress should subpoena this man with full immunity to tell the public what he knows. Listen to what Snowden told the Guardian and think about the IRS scandal now developing. Still believe it isn't possible in America?
Karl Denninger has an outstanding take on the relative risks of being killed in a terror attack versus other ways in which an individual could die. (A hat tip to Anthony Martin of the Liberty Sphere) What we learn from this comparison is that there is no reasonable excuse for the Government to suspend our Constitutional rights. Moreover, there has been no "national debate" on the subject. I have said all along that I will take my chances with the terrorists rather than have my rights and my dignity infringed by a Federal Government going on a fishing expedition into my personal life. That goes for the TSA and the DHS as well, but we are speaking now specifically about the NSA. Again, they have no warrant (or more specifically, the warrant is invalid) to collect the data of Americans for whom they have no probable cause to believe they have done anything wrong. Snowden seems to have connected the dots, despite his thin resume, so either he is a very astute individual, or he has done a lot of reading.
Now, if you are still thinking that this is all a big mistake, that the NSA didn't mean to collect all this data for seven whole years, please read Adina Kutnicki on the existence of a political dissidents list. Note that a grain of salt is needed here, as her source is not named, and we can not verify what he tells her. Never the less, With all the above, is it really that implausible? Political dissidents are of concern only to tyrannical dictatorships, who insist that everybody must think and act the same, and who are afraid that if dissenting ideas come out, they will lose power. But it is not the American way. We have always known that the truth will eventually dawn on people if it is presented to them. Unfortunately, the people have not gotten the message due to a media compliant with the dictators, and a dumbing down of our education system. But the spectre of Big Government rooting around in everybodies' private e-mails and phone conversations may just be the catalyst to wake everybody up. Otherwise, I fear we are headed for a long nightmare.
Update: The Huffington Post says there is more, much more, to come on the NSA. We'll be watching Mr. Greenwald.
Update 2: From TheBlaze.com comes the pro surveillance argument. I would point out first that there is no evidence that collecting the records of everyone for 7 years has stopped even one terrorist plot. It certainly didn't stop the Boston bombing, or point to who did it. So, why is it necessary again? Second, our WaPo correspondent seems to be conflating terrorists abroad and American citizens. The government can record terrorist abroad to its hearts content. If they have probable cause, they can swear out a warrant from a judge and snoop whatever they want. If that snooping leads to another American, they can go to the judge again and swear out another warrant. It is not as if we had been defenseless before. These things are spelled out in the Constitution. Try using it for a change.
Update 3: On Wednesday, Ben Shapiro had an interesting piece entitled 7 Reasons to Worry About Federal Surveillance. He asks a number of practical questions, for instance, does it make sense to have everyones' personal information in one place where the Chinese can hack it? The IRS has our personal financial information, ObamaCare will make available our medical information to the government, and now the NSA seems to have the rest. What remains private in America?
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.[1]This is pretty absolute language, and by no means would the the Founders' 4th Amendment have contemplated a fishing expedition like that being conducted by the NSA, yet the official party line is that all this is nice and legal like. What gives? How can they say this without laughing at the ridiculousness of what they are saying?
The courts over the years have introduced a "balancing test" in which your reasonable expectation of privacy is weighed against "compelling state interests" in "protecting the public." In the case of electronic communications, they note that hackers get into systems all the time, and that with the right radio equipment anyone can listen in on cell phone conversations. The equipment is easily available on the commercial market outside the United States, and is available for purchase by law enforcement inside the U.S. Therefore, they conclude that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. But hackers and people voyeuristically listening in on your private phone calls are, by definition, criminals. Should their actions be discovered, they risk prosecution. Since We the People can not do it, it begs the question how someone working for the Government, which only has those powers delegated to it by us, is able to do it. And how the courts can maintain with a straight face the idea of a "balancing test" in which, surprise, surprise, the "compelling state interests" always outweighs individual rights is a mystery beyond all understanding. I guess they figure that if they use enough big words that nobody will notice.
We now learn that the person who outed the NSA to the UK Guardian was a 29 year old analyst working for Booz Allen Hamilton as a contractor at an NSA site in Hawaii named Edward Snowden. Snowden's thin resume may or may not be a red flag. People have become excellent in computers without having a college degrees, as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs can attest. But the fact that the Government gave him access to the wide array of information he claims to have had access to is surprising, and does raise eyebrows. In any case, whether or not Snowden actually took an oath of office or not, every American's loyalty should be to the Constitution of the United States. Every American should understand that laws that are not Constitutional, whether declared as such by the Supreme Court or not, are null and void. Whether or not Snowden actually obtain these materials himself, or is the fall guy for others up the chain who want to remain in the shadows, Snowden is a Hero of the Republic. I have to agree with Bob Beckel, and evidently with (ugh) Michael Moore on this one. Congress should subpoena this man with full immunity to tell the public what he knows. Listen to what Snowden told the Guardian and think about the IRS scandal now developing. Still believe it isn't possible in America?
Karl Denninger has an outstanding take on the relative risks of being killed in a terror attack versus other ways in which an individual could die. (A hat tip to Anthony Martin of the Liberty Sphere) What we learn from this comparison is that there is no reasonable excuse for the Government to suspend our Constitutional rights. Moreover, there has been no "national debate" on the subject. I have said all along that I will take my chances with the terrorists rather than have my rights and my dignity infringed by a Federal Government going on a fishing expedition into my personal life. That goes for the TSA and the DHS as well, but we are speaking now specifically about the NSA. Again, they have no warrant (or more specifically, the warrant is invalid) to collect the data of Americans for whom they have no probable cause to believe they have done anything wrong. Snowden seems to have connected the dots, despite his thin resume, so either he is a very astute individual, or he has done a lot of reading.
Now, if you are still thinking that this is all a big mistake, that the NSA didn't mean to collect all this data for seven whole years, please read Adina Kutnicki on the existence of a political dissidents list. Note that a grain of salt is needed here, as her source is not named, and we can not verify what he tells her. Never the less, With all the above, is it really that implausible? Political dissidents are of concern only to tyrannical dictatorships, who insist that everybody must think and act the same, and who are afraid that if dissenting ideas come out, they will lose power. But it is not the American way. We have always known that the truth will eventually dawn on people if it is presented to them. Unfortunately, the people have not gotten the message due to a media compliant with the dictators, and a dumbing down of our education system. But the spectre of Big Government rooting around in everybodies' private e-mails and phone conversations may just be the catalyst to wake everybody up. Otherwise, I fear we are headed for a long nightmare.
Update: The Huffington Post says there is more, much more, to come on the NSA. We'll be watching Mr. Greenwald.
Update 2: From TheBlaze.com comes the pro surveillance argument. I would point out first that there is no evidence that collecting the records of everyone for 7 years has stopped even one terrorist plot. It certainly didn't stop the Boston bombing, or point to who did it. So, why is it necessary again? Second, our WaPo correspondent seems to be conflating terrorists abroad and American citizens. The government can record terrorist abroad to its hearts content. If they have probable cause, they can swear out a warrant from a judge and snoop whatever they want. If that snooping leads to another American, they can go to the judge again and swear out another warrant. It is not as if we had been defenseless before. These things are spelled out in the Constitution. Try using it for a change.
Update 3: On Wednesday, Ben Shapiro had an interesting piece entitled 7 Reasons to Worry About Federal Surveillance. He asks a number of practical questions, for instance, does it make sense to have everyones' personal information in one place where the Chinese can hack it? The IRS has our personal financial information, ObamaCare will make available our medical information to the government, and now the NSA seems to have the rest. What remains private in America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)