Obama's Kill Doctrine

I can't say it any better than Jonathan Turley, so I won't even try.  His take, from ForeignPolicy.com:

On Monday, March 5, Northwestern University School of Law was the location of an extraordinary scene for a free nation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder presented President Barack Obama's claim that he has the authority to kill any U.S. citizen he considers a threat. It served as a retroactive justification for the slaying of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki last September by a drone strike in northeastern Yemen, as well as the targeted killings of at least two other Americans during Obama's term.

What's even more extraordinary is that this claim, which would be viewed by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution as the very definition of authoritarian power, was met not with outcry but muted applause. Where due process once resided, Holder offered only an assurance that the president would kill citizens with care. While that certainly relieved any concern that Obama, or his successor, would hunt citizens for sport, Holder offered no assurances on how this power would be used in the future beyond the now all-too-familiar "trust us" approach to civil liberties of this administration.

In his speech, Holder was clear and unambiguous on only one point: "The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war -- even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen." The use of the word "abroad" is interesting because senior administration officials have previously asserted that the president may kill an American anywhere and anytime, including within the United States. Holder's speech does not materially limit that claimed authority, but stressed that "our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan." He might as well have stopped at "limited" because the administration has refused to accept any limitations on this claimed inherent power.

Holder became highly cryptic in his assurance that caution would be used in exercising this power -- suggesting some limitation that is both indefinable and unreviewable. He promised that the administration would kill Americans only with "the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States." He did not explain how the nation in question would consent or how a determination would be made that it is "unable or unwilling to deal" with the threat.

Of course, the citizens of the United States once consented on a relevant principle when they ratified the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights. They consented to a government of limited powers where citizens are entitled to the full protections of due process against allegations by their government. That is clearly not the type of consent that Holder wants to revisit or discuss. Indeed, he insisted that "a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to 'due process.'"

Holder's new definition of "due process" was perfectly Orwellian. While the Framers wanted an objective basis for due process, Holder was offering little more than "we will give the process that we consider due to a target." And even the vaguely described "due process" claimed by Holder was not stated as required, but rather granted, by the president. Three citizens have been given their due during the Obama administration and vaporized by presidential order. Frankly, few of us mourn their passing. However, due process appears to have been vaporized in the same moment -- something many U.S. citizens may come to miss.

What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. If the president can kill a citizen, there are a host of other powers that fall short of killing that the president might claim, including indefinite detention of citizens -- another recent controversy. Thus, by asserting the right to kill citizens without charge or judicial review, Holder has effectively made all of the Constitution's individual protections of accused persons matters of presidential discretion. These rights will be faithfully observed up to the point that the president concludes that they interfere with his view of how best to protect the country -- or his willingness to wait for "justice" to be done. And if Awlaki's fate is any indication, there will be no opportunity for much objection.

Already, the administration has successfully blocked efforts of citizens to gain review of such national security powers or orders. Not only is the list of citizens targeted with death kept secret, but the administration has insisted that courts do not play a role in the creation of or basis for such a list. Even when Awlaki's family tried to challenge Obama's kill order, the federal court declared that the cleric would have to file for himself -- a difficult task when you are on a presidential hit list. Moreover, any attorney working with Awlaki would have risked being charged with aiding a terrorist.

When the applause died down after Holder's speech, we were left with a bizarre notion of government. We have this elaborate system of courts and rights governing the prosecution and punishment of citizens. However, that entire system can be circumvented at the whim or will of the president. The president then becomes effectively the lawgiver or lifetaker for all citizens. The rest becomes a mere pretense of the rule of law.

Holder was describing the very model of government the Framers denounced in crafting both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison in particular warned that citizens should not rely on the good graces and good intentions of their leaders. He noted, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The administration appears to have taken the quote literally as an invitation for unlimited authority for angels.

Of course, even those who hold an angelic view of Obama today may come to find the next president less divine. In the end, those guardian angels will continue to claim to be acting in the best interests of every citizen -- with the exception, of course, of those citizens killed by them.

Original link:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/06/obama_s_kill_doctrine?page=full#.T1dXtEmgxbM.email

Winds of Change

This is what happens when the government meddles with the free market - supply, demand, production costs, and consumer prices are all unnaturally affected, resulting in waste.  The government can't force demand for particular products or services to increase, or make cost-effective those things the market is not able to do on its own.  But this doesn't stop our omniscient government from trying.

In its grand strategy of forcing green energy to take over the marketplace, rescuing the globe from human destruction, the government subsidizes various companies and "invests" in green energy (government never really invests in anything - it just spends money).  Of course, just because the government says that wind power, for example, should be a cost-effective energy option for companies and consumers alike doesn't make it so.  And when the government's meddling fails, it fails big.

Taxpayers and consumers are now going to have to shoulder the burden of government's misguided market-steering in America's Pacific Northwest.  Wind farms there, built with government subsidies and maintained with tax credits, are now being paid to shut down.  The wind energy companies, which exist not on their own merits but only via government subsidies, are going to be compensated for lost revenues as well, in one instance to the tune of $50 million.  Left to its own devices, the free market would never have supported these wind companies, and resources would not have been diverted from useful means to wasteful ones.  Until it comes into its own as a cost-effective and efficient item for companies and consumers, wind power will have no valid place in the market.  By faking it, the government actually makes things worse, not better.

It's Solyndra all over again.  In fact, there seems to be a never-ending string of Solyndras - companies pegged by the government as the next big thing, surviving on handouts and pumping out products and services that have no real demand behind them.  And without real demand, the supply is the culmination of wasted resources.  It's paying a company to produce pink widgets, not because anyone needs or wants pink widgets, but because the government wishes people wanted pink widgets, because pink widgets, the government has determined, will cure our economic ailments once everyone owns one.  So the government takes money from us and redistributes it to a startup pink widget company to put out tons of unwanted pink widgets, with the idea that, although no one wants or needs them, the pink widgets will catch on because people will realize that their individual sacrifice will lead to a grand utopia where all our problems fade away from the wondrous economic healing power of the pink widgets.

It's why the Chevy Volt is a disaster - Chevy is only cranking them out because the government is paying them to.  But no one actually wants a Volt because they are expensive and take 10 hours to charge up a battery that will only last for 20 miles of driving, whereupon it switches to gasoline like every other ordinary car.  In essence, it's a terribly inconvenient gasoline powered car that instead of simply filling the tank, one must invest additional time, effort, and expense to charge a battery that causes more problems than it solves.  All in the name of making the world a better place to live - according to the government.

The government's job is to merely protect our rights in a free market, not to create a fake market.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/wind-power-companies-paid-to-not-produce/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews

"USA! USA!"

Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with high-schoolers chanting "USA!  USA!" during sporting events.  I'm as patriotic as the next person, and we can fairly assume that all these kids are patriotic too.  But to say that the kids who chanted "USA!" after their basketball team's win were merely being patriotic is totally disingenuous.  Racist?  No.  Poor sportsmanship?  Probably.

Alamo Heights' mostly white basketball team had just beaten Edison High School's mostly hispanic basketball team on the court, and following the win, the Alamo students and players began chanting "USA!  USA!"  Both schools are based in Texas.  It seems pretty clear that the chant was intended to point out how much more American their school was than the hispanic school, impliedly referencing the high number of illegal hispanic (Mexican) immigrants in Texas.  Since both schools are based in the USA, it isn't a very persuasive argument to say that the winners were merely chanting something in victory that applauded both teams' efforts - if your victory chant doesn't point out who won, then what's the point?  It's pretty obvious the white kids from Alamo were expressing their patriotism and dissatisfaction with illegal immigration by using the losing, mostly hispanic team as a symbol of that illegal immigration problem.  It matters not whether the hispanic school is American, or whether any of its students or players are actually illegal immigrants - the point is that Alamo used the situation and the hispanic school as an impromptu symbol of illegal immigration and expressed their view on the subject at Edison's expense.

This situation is nothing like the "USA!" chant following America's dramatic win over the Soviet Union in the 1980 Olympic hockey contest.  That game was essentially a proxy cold war on ice, not a run-of-the-mill basketball game between two Texas high schools.  One cannot compare the motive, intent, and purpose of Alamo's students' "USA!" chant to those of the Americans' cheers following our Olympic conquest of a sworn geopolitical enemy in 1980.

I can understand why the losing team was offended by the chant, and it was in poor taste.  But I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was racist or deserving of anything more than a lecture on sportsmanship.  Should they have done it?  No.  But let's not crucify a bunch of kids for simply being kids.  I agree with their patriotism and their view on illegal immigration, but to taunt an opponent after a loss with such gusto-esque disdain, as if the opponent is the actual embodiment of illegal immigration, is inappropriate.  Hopefully, these kids will learn from the experience and display better sportsmanship in the future and refrain from taunting their opponents, American or not.

Here's an article on it with lots of quotes about the gravity of the students' actions.  The quotes reflect a wide range of reactions, from allegations of racism and calls for stiff penalties, to the simple recognition that the students engaged in poor sportsmanship and should apologize.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-says-%e2%80%9cusa-usa%e2%80%9d-chant-is-racist.html

Is the Constitution "Good and Substantial" Enough for You?!

A federal judge in Maryland invalidated a Maryland law that required citizens to provide a "good and substantial reason" in order to obtain a concealed carry handgun permit.  According to the law, not wanting to be mugged and wanting to protect yourself against assailants did not count as "good and substantial" reasons for needing to carry a gun.  If that's not the very essence of a good and substantial reason for needing to carry a gun, then no such reason exists - which is actually what the Maryland government was obviously aiming for.  It was an attempt at circumventing the 2nd Amendment by requiring citizens to satisfy an impossible standard.

Smith & Wesson's New .500 Magnum Revolver

At least I can appreciate the honesty with the governments in D.C. and Chicago which simply banned all guns outright - the United States Supreme Court threw those laws out too.

So our right to keep and bear arms is safe for now.  But don't let your guard down, because the government that is there to protect your rights will undoubtedly continue its assault against them, especially the one most important in preventing that government from ever becoming too tyrannical. 

More on the MD law invalidated:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/maryland-handgun-permit-provision-unconstitutional-federal-judge-rules/2012/03/05/gIQAq02htR_story_1.html

"Rush Limbaugh Sux"

Media Matters is officially a non-profit organization claiming to be a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." (This statement is directly from the "About Us" section on their website)  They got themselves in a bit of a jam recently when it turned out that their entire existence was aimed towards taking down Fox News (I think this was gleaned from leaked memos from the organization's higher-ups).  For a bunch of legal reasons that I won't go into here, an organization cannot maintain tax-exempt status if it's goal is to wage war against a specific person or entity.  So, while they currently pay no taxes in their ongoing crusade to destroy the most popular news channel in America, they are at risk of losing their tax-exempt status and might actually have to pay taxes like the rest of us soon.

In any event, for a "progressive research and information center," they sure don't strive too hard for comprehensive coverage of anything. 

Evil Twins:  Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

Here is a list of topics from their blog posts, in order from newest to oldest...

1.  Rush Limbaugh
2.  Rush Limbaugh
3.  Rush Limbaugh
4.  Rush Limbaugh
5.  Rush Limbaugh
6.  Fox News's inaccurate reporting on gas prices
7.  Rush Limbaugh
8.  Rush Limbaugh
9.  Rush Limbaugh
10.  ABC's inaccurate reporting on gas prices
11.  Rush Limbaugh
12.  Rush Limbaugh
13.  Rush Limbaugh
14.  Random Twitter tweet of crass nature by no one of any significance
15.  Sheriff Joe Arpaio
16.  Rush Limbaugh
17.  Rush Limbaugh
18.  Rush Limbaugh
19.  Reporters from local TV station suspended
20.  Rush Limbaugh

I kid you not.  And that's just page one of their blog.  I don't blame you if you don't believe me - check it out for yourself...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/

So what did Rush do that deserves constant blogging on one of the most laughable, yet widely read, liberal media outlets on the web?  Well, on his radio show this week, Rush picked on a woman who complained about not getting her birth control for free (which she claimed cost her thousands of dollars per year - that's a lot of condoms and birth control pills!) - Rush called her some not-very-nice names, and then apologized in the days following the insults.  He has since lost many advertising sponsors and immediately became the target du jour for liberals.

Regarding Media Matters, how's that for "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media?"  They ought to just streamline their entire operation down to a guy at a table in the Wal-Mart parking lot selling "Rush Limbaugh Sux" bumper stickers.  Our national debt has skyrocketed by 75% under Obama, and Rush insulted a woman who wants thousands of dollars of free birth control each year - which do you think matters more?  Oh, did I mention that Media Matters doesn't pay any taxes?

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

Here's a good write-up from the Cato Institute providing an example of how the government engages in central planning, stealing money from taxpayers and giving it away to companies it has deemed important enough to receive "free" money.  Of course, every handout comes from someone else, namely us in the form of taxes.  The government should not be engaged in choosing winners and losers in the marketplace - if a company has a product or service that is so good, it will stand on its own merits and doesn't need government subsidies.  If it needs subsidies to survive, then perhaps it's not a company that should survive in the first place.  In any event, most of these handouts are simply political favors by politicians trying to gain votes in their districts by showing them the money.  It warrants saying again:  power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

USDA Turning Taxpayer Money Into Wine

Today’s example of how the federal government has become too darn big is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Value-Added Marketing Grant program. This (relatively) little slice of corporate welfare will hand out approximately $56 million in taxpayer dollars this year to “producers of agricultural commodities” who can use the money “for planning activities and for working capital for marketing value-added agricultural products.”
A big winner this year appears to be wine producers:

• $33K for the Outer Coastal Plain Vineyards Association in New Jersey.
• $50K for the Ozan Vineyard and Cellar in Alabama.
• $94K for the Wild Wines winery in Oregon, plus $23K for the Southern Oregon Winery Association.
• $50K for the Feather River Vineyards in Nebraska (the USDA kindly kicked in another $50K to Nebraska’s Knotted Wood Distillery to help them market their whiskey).
• Three wineries in New York received $300k combined. The wine grants were complimented quite nicely with a $120K grant given to a New York cheese maker.

The USDA, the politicians who take credit for the awarding of the grants, and the recipients all say that these subsidies are good because the wineries will produce job, economic growth, etc, etc. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But as I often stress – to the point that I become blue in the face – federal subsidies are not a free lunch. Every dollar that the federal government spends helping wineries is a dollar that is taxed or borrowed from the private economy. When the federal government subsidizes particular businesses it’s merely transferring economic resources from one entity to another – a.k.a. central planning.

The $56 million Value-Added Marketing Grant program is a pretty small outlay in a $3.8 trillion federal budget. However, it’s not so much the size of the program that’s the problem. Rather, the program symbolizes the problem with allowing the federal government to spend other people’s money on virtually anything that the politicians on Capitol Hill desire. Given the government’s rising debt load, that situation must be remedied before Washington sends the economy off the cliff.

Sigh…somebody pass me a bottle of wine.

Minimum Wage

The minimum wage has been law in this country for quite some time.  However, it has done more harm than good for the workers whom it is designed to help.  In this post, I will provide an outline of why the minimum wage is detrimental to the economy, marketplace, wages, and workers.  It is has been in place for so long that people just assume it is a natural and must-needed law in order for everyone with an unskilled job to have a wage allowing them to live at what the government has determined is the minimum level of quality of life that unskilled workers are entitled to.  I have no doubt that it will continue to be the law for many years (decades?) to come, but does anyone actually question whether it is actually a good idea?  Here are some things to consider regarding the minimum wage:

(1)  The minimum wage violates one of the most fundamental principles of freedom this country was founded on - the right of people to contract for work.  An oversimplified example would be John Doe seeking employment with Acme Industries, Inc.  Mr. Doe meets with the president of Acme to discuss potential employment.  Mr. Doe has been unemployed for quite some time and desperately needs a job to put food on the table for his family.  Acme desperately needs another employee in order to crank out the number of widgets that yields a profit, allowing Acme to stay in business and put lots of food on the table of Acme's president.  Having no job, any wage that Mr. Doe can obtain from Acme would be an improvement for him.  He doesn't need $15/hour, or $10/hour, but even $5/hour would help Mr. Doe make ends meet.  He tells Mr. Acme president that he's worked with widgets before and is willing to work for Acme for $3/hour, thereby undercutting the offers from other prospective employees so he can get the job.  At $3/hour, Acme would get an economic benefit from Mr. Doe's employment at $3/hour.  Mr. Doe's wage plus all the other costs of production would yield a slim profit for Acme, so Acme's president offers Mr. Doe a job at $3/hour.  Both Mr. Doe and Acme reach a voluntary, informed agreement that would benefit both.  But alas, the government steps in and tells Acme and Mr. Doe that they are not allowed to voluntarily agree to a $3/hour wage - the minimum wage is $7/hour, which means Acme would lose money each hour that Mr. Doe works, and Mr. Doe remains unemployed.  So both Acme and Mr. Doe are harmed by the government's interference with their right to contract for work.  The basic freedom to contract for services which Mr. Doe and Acme should enjoy has been prevented by the government, all in the name of helping workers like Mr. Doe.  Instead of hiring Mr. Doe, Acme hires no one, and simply requires increased production quotas from their current employees and raises the costs of widgets for its customers.  Acme's workers now work longer hours, work harder, and consumers pay more for the widgets.  Once again, the government has prevent two parties from freely and voluntarily contracting for work - this is a violation of basic freedom.

(2)  If the goal of a minimum wage is provide unskilled workers a wage that improves their standard of living, why not set the minimum wage at $20/hour, or even $100/hour??  Why set it so low?  I've yet to hear a logical argument from those in favor a minimum wage why it shouldn't just be set at a very high amount so that all such workers can have a very nice standard of living.  After all, wouldn't $20/hour be much more beneficial to the minimum wage workers?  Sometimes I hear the reason that "Well, if it's set too high, it will be too costly for the companies to pay and they won't be able to make a profit."  This seems to be an admission that an imposed minimum wage does hurt private companies, and does interfere with their business model, but I guess as long as the interference isn't too harmful, it's ok - so the reasoning seems to be that it's ok for the government to interfere and hurt companies a little, but not too much.  Well, if the government is stepping in and hurting companies, then the degree of the harm isn't relevant - it's the fact that the government is stepping in to hurt companies that is the point, whether it's a lot of harm or a little harm.  Either way, the government is purposefully hurting private companies and frustrating the freedom of contract between employers and employees.  This is well beyond the constitutional limitations of the government.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow the government to interfere with agreements between individuals concerning work for wages.

(3)  As the minimum wage increases, those jobs become more attractive to the younger generation.  It increases high school dropout rates because high schoolers can obtain higher and higher paying jobs without graduating high school.  As the minimum wage increases over time, more and more high schoolers drop out to get a job that is increasingly profitable, allowing them to get an apartment, car, and other necessities and wants without a high school diploma. 

(4)  As a corollary to number 3, above, even those who don't drop out of high school look for jobs at higher rates as the pay increases.  With more teenagers in the job market, fewer older job seekers can find work, and these are the ones with families they need to support and mortgages they need to pay.  It just stands to reason that the more teenagers enter the job market, the fewer people with dependent children are able to gain employment.  Increased unemployment in this group ends up costing the taxpayers much more money, because government safety nets are used to help these people support their families.  If they can't get a job because some high school kid got it, they need to rely on welfare, food stamps, etc. in order to support their families and make ends meet.  Imagine if the minimum wage were $50/hour - how many high schoolers do you think would forego seeking a job, or stay in school to get a diploma, go to college, rack up college debt, and get a skilled job that pays just a bit more than the minimum wage.  Why go through all that work to make just a few dollars more than minimum wage.  When the job market is flooded with youngsters, adults with dependents have a harder time finding work, and not only do they suffer, but the safety net programs that are used cost taxpayers much more money, and we all suffer - all except the teenager who now makes enough to buy that fast car to show off at the mall on the weekends while they spend their money on clothes, CD's, etc. - instead of rent since they still most likely live with their parents.

(5)  The more a company has to pay in wages, the more it charges for its goods and services.  As the minimum wage goes up, these companies don't sit by idly and watch their profits decline without concern.  They raise the costs of their goods and services in order to maintain their bottom line.  So as the minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of things for consumers. 

(6)  Instead of hiring more individuals, when the minimum wage goes up, a company may only employ 100 people instead of 150 people, since it now costs more to employ them.  They may outsource to other countries where it is cheaper to employ people, or require more productivity from their current employees rather than hire new ones; or replace workers with robotic or computerized workers that costs virtually nothing after installation and programming.  This leads to higher unemployment overall, which is never a good thing in an economy.

(7)  The bottom line is that the market will determine what a worker's value is worth.  If there are hundreds of people without jobs who are willing to put widgets into boxes, but less than hundreds of job openings, the market will determine what the proper wage for such work is.  If the company can fill all the positions by paying $3/hour, than that is what the wage will be.  If a competing widget company wants to pay $5/hour, they will attract better qualified applicants, and the quality of their products and services will be better than its competitor who is paying a lower wage, and the higher-paying company will ultimately get more customers, forcing its competitor to take action to stay in competition.  As companies compete, wages will naturally rise, and we will all be better off.

(8)  With a minimum wage, companies competing know that there is a floor for wages, so they all set their wages at the floor, meaning that no companies will be willing to pay any more than that.  So instead of having a variety of wages for the same unskilled jobs, all of them will receive the minimum wage set by government.  This minimum wage means companies won't offer higher wages, so all unskilled workers are left with an almost colluded level of pay across the board, instead of a competition driven array of wages.  There is no incentive for workers to improve the quality of their work because they know they will receive the same pay everywhere.  There is likely no incentive for companies to pay higher wages, since they know the good workers and less good workers will all receive the same pay, so why should they pay the good ones more than the less good ones.  It unnaturally corrupts the free market when the government sets a minimum wage and interferes with the freedom to contract for wages based on quality, supply, or demand.

This is a sufficient part one for why the minimum wage is not a good idea.  The most compelling reason is freedom - people should be free to work for whatever wage they can agree on with an employer.  With unemployment currently in excess of 8%, there are surely tons of people who would rather work for $3/hour than not at all.  And there are companies that are willing to pay them $3/hour for work.  But the government, with its minimum wage laws, is preventing these people the freedom to voluntarily work for agreed-upon wages, so the unemployment rate remains higher than it should be.

Remember, whenever the government interferes with our freedoms, we are always worse off.  $3/hour is better than nothing, and people should be free to work for whatever they can agree on with an employer.  The days of worker exploitation are over - there are numerous worker safety laws on the books, unlike in the early days of the industrial revolution, so let people and companies freely compete and contract for work and wages and the entire system will benefit employers, employees, and consumers.