Crunch Time for #NeverTrump

The Rules Committee for the Republican Convention meets this Thursday July 14, 2016. Gordon Humphrey and Kendal Unruh are cofounders of an organization called Delegates Unbound. In prior years (1979 – 1990) Gordon Humphrey, a delegate to the convention, served two terms as a Republican Senator from New Hampshire. Kendal Unruh, also a convention delegate, serves on the Rules Committee. It is the Rules Committee that will vote on whether convention delegates will be required to vote on the first ballot for a nominee based on the results of that State’s primary or caucus, or whether they will be permitted to “vote their conscience”.

 

Humphrey and Unruh contend that the delegates are already permitted to vote for the person they consider to be the Party’s best nominee. They are already unbound; the delegates are not, and should not be a rubber stamp. They want that reality to be formally reflected in the convention rules.

 

The law seems to be on their side. David French, an attorney and staff writer at National Review, argues that laws regulating how delegates to a convention must vote are an impermissible intrusion by the state on the business of a private organization. The idea that the state can compel members to vote in certain ways is a violation of both freedom of speech and association.

 

To buttress his argument French cites the case of Cousins v. Wigoda. The dispute centered around two delegations competing to be seated as the Illinois state delegation at the Democratic Convention in 1972. One delegation argued that it was seated in accordance with Illinois State law. But the other delegation was actually seated at the convention. In deciding the matter the Supreme Court held that National Party Rules should be accorded primacy over state law in determining the qualifications and eligibility of delegates to the party’s National Convention, and the rival slate was seated. In short, the Court held it was none of the State’s business.

 

So it seems that Delegates Unbound has a pretty convincing case on the legalities. What about the merits?

 

Gordon Humphrey does not mince words. He describes Trump as “…a sick sociopath… [who] has severe personality disorders and is not fit to be president”. A quick trip to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders suggests that Humphrey is not simply engaging in hyperbole. A summary of the essential elements of sociopathy can be found (where else) in Wikipedia at this link.

 

But let’s leave aside the armchair psychoanalysis. If nominated, Donald Trump would easily qualify as the most ignorant and least qualified person ever to have secured a major party nomination for President. It is also without question the case that Donald Trump embodies virtually everything that self-declared Republicans claimed to abhor prior to 2016.

 

His attack on free-trade turns 50 years of economic policy upside down, not to mention 140 years of economics. He similarly tossed aside 50 years of well thought out foreign policy when he encouraged nuclear proliferation in Asia and the Middle East, and suggested abandoning NATO. His appeals have had more than a tinge of race baiting; he has encouraged violence at his rallies; he has attacked the independence of the judiciary and he appears to be utterly clueless about the separation of powers. And up until he was 69 years old, Trump was a fan of abortion on demand.

 

Unruh says they have the votes of the 28 delegates on the Rules Committee needed to send the resolution to unbind the delegates to the convention floor (as a minority report). Then it’s up for a vote by all the delegates. That will be the test. The Republican Party will have to decide to either find a spine or abandon even the pretense of principle.

 

If Donald Trump becomes the nominee, the Republican Party, as we know it, will cease to exist. There will no longer be an organized party to argue for limited government and individual freedom. Where the party of Lincoln once stood there will be a hollow vessel devoid of principle waiting to be captured by the next demagogue. We already have one of those. We don’t need two.

 

JFB

Please follow and like us:
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Crunch Time for #NeverTrump

FBI Director Comey Goes to the Hill

FBI Director James Comey went up to the Hill to answer Congressional inquiries about his stunning decision to lambaste Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of highly sensitive classified data, but then to refrain from recommending that she be criminally charged. And he did not back down on his assertion that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge her, because there was a lack of evidence that Clinton showed criminal intent.

 

Let’s put this in perspective. To begin with, Comey made his public statement before giving his recommendation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. That effectively precluded Lynch from prosecuting even if she wanted to. And just to ice the cake he torpedoed any possibility of a criminal charge by gratuitously asserting that “no reasonable prosecutor” would take the case, making it impossible for any prosecutor to present the case to a jury. Lynch took the cue and within hours announced that neither Clinton nor anyone on her senior staff would be prosecuted over the mishandling of classified data.

 

So Comey boxed in his boss who was supposed to be responsible for making the decision after listening to his recommendation. He then proceeded to trash the case, making it impossible to prosecute. And he used his office to upbraid Clinton for what he called her “extremely careless” behavior even though he insisted she was not guilty of a crime. It begs the question: Since when is it proper for the FBI Director to use the platform provided by his office to castigate a citizen he himself insists is innocent of a crime?

 

Comey’s argument hinges on his contention that a lack of evidence of criminal intent on Clinton’s part precluded a criminal charge. This despite the fact that the statute does not require proving intent to sustain a criminal charge; gross negligence is sufficient. Moreover, it is pretty difficult to find intent if you aren’t looking for it, and don’t want to find it.

 

Consider the elaborate cover-up of the server scheme Clinton set up, complete with the deleted e-mails; the lies about the e-mails she didn’t turn over; the lies about how the e-mails were vetted, and the lies about never having sent or received classified data over her non-secure system. These are evidence of intent to conceal what she knew or should have known, namely that her exclusive use of a private server outside the government system was prohibited. Referencing this type of behavior is typically how a prosecutor would go about demonstrating that the defendant had the requisite guilty mind needed to sustain a criminal conviction. Comey and Co. just ignored it.

 

For this Congressman Trey Gowdy (R, SC) a former prosecutor, took him to school. He ripped the cover off the fiction being sold by Comey, that intent was required and that there was no evidence of it. Gowdy’s questioning of Comey is on display on the You Tube below, and should be watched.

 

 

JFB

Please follow and like us:
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on FBI Director Comey Goes to the Hill

Politics and the Law

After making an ironclad case for Hillary Clinton to be criminally charged for mishandling classified information, FBI Director James Comey announced he would not recommend that the Justice Department move to prosecute her. Comey offered the rationale that the FBI found no evidence that Clinton intended to violate laws relating to the handling of classified materials, even though the statute does not require intent. As a consequence, he asserted, “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge her. It turns out that one of those unreasonable prosecutors is none other than Rudy Giuliani. He can be seen on Morning Joe  discussing this at some length. Please see the video below.

 

After Comey announced he would not recommend prosecution, he proceeded to describe in excruciating detail the long list of actions Hillary Clinton took and the lies she told to cover up her malfeasance. The New York Times weighed in and  editorialized that Comey was right both on the legal issue and on his public rebuke of Hillary Clinton’s behavior. That counts as the surest sign that Comey got it wrong on both counts.

 

Let’s take the second part first.

Comey’s editorializing was flat-out improper. The FBI is an investigative agency. It does not make prosecutorial decisions. His job is to make a recommendation to the Attorney General (AG). His recommendation should be based on the evidence. If, in the FBI director’s opinion, there is insufficient evidence to seek an indictment, the matter should end there. Since a person is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise, the FBI Director has no business going before the Washington press corps to present a a slew of accusations against that person unless those accusations are contained in an indictment. When he did so, the FBI director abused his office.

 

And he did it for a reason. He knows she is guilty as sin. This was his way of trying to protect what is left of his tattered reputation after caving in to political pressure.

 

Past Cases

 

Now let’s take a quick look at a past case. In spite of the fact that the statute only requires “gross negligence” and not criminal intent to establish criminal liability, Comey insisted that intent was an important, if not crucial factor. So he has a lot of explaining to do. Particularly with respect to the case of Bryan Nishimura.

 

The case of Nishimura is right on point. In 2007 and 2008 Nishimura, a reservist and an engineer in the U.S. military, was deployed to Afghanistan. There he placed copies of classified information on his laptop. Prosecutors say he took the materials with him off base in Afghanistan, and then took them home with him after his deployment ended. The FBI searched his home in 2012 where they found classified and unclassified military records in both hard and soft form. According to the FBI’s own website, the FBI found no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.

 

Nishimura pleaded guilty to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials. A judge fined him $7,500 and ordered him to surrender his security credentials. He was placed on probation for 2 years and told never to seek a security clearance again. His attorney, William Portanova, said the violation was technical and unintentional, but the DOJ thought it needed to punish him “to make its point”. A point apparently lost on James Comey and Hillary Clinton.

 

Loretta Lynch: How I Got My Job Through the New York Times

 

Let’s put the whole “tarmac summit” in context. We now know that Bill Clinton took extraordinary measures to “accidentally” bump into Lynch. (See the story at this link for details.) And he clearly did so because he had a lot more to talk about than golf and grandkids. Like tying up loose ends. Perhaps he asked her if she liked being Attorney General.

 

And lo and behold, in a July 3 New York Times story, Patrick Healy reports, “…Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be Attorney General, who took office in April 2015”. That ought to make sure that Lynch keeps the career prosecutors at the Justice Department in line. Let’s not forget that, Comey notwithstanding, it still remains the AG’s call on whether or not to prosecute.

 

 

So let’s recount how we got here. As far back as April of 2016 President Obama was already opining that while Hillary Clinton had been “careless” she had not endangered national security. This, while the investigation was ongoing, allowing him to  signal his preferred outcome. Then AG Lynch meets alone with Bill Clinton, whose wife is the target of the investigation. Shortly thereafter, the FBI conducts its final interview with the Hillary Clinton, the subject of the investigation. Then the Director of the FBI publicly makes the case that Hillary Clinton committed all the acts needed for an indictment, but declines to recommend one because she was merely “careless”. But it is AG Lynch, who still has responsibility for making the ultimate decision. To make sure she stays on the team, she has re-appointment in a future Clinton Administration dangled before her through a New York Times story that quotes anonymous senior Democrats.

 

Thus far there has been little objection to this coming from progressive quarters. They pretend to believe that no criminal law was violated. The house organs of progressive politics have gone further. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times have applauded the refusal to recommend indictment; the Times also cheered the Comey scolding. Why bother with the rule of law when a little theatre will do instead? That progressives have fallen in line is not in the least bit surprising. At the end of the day, progressive ideology necessarily leads back to a variation of Louis the XIV’s famous “L’Etats, c’est moi”.

 

JFB

 

 

Please follow and like us:
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Politics and the Law

Hillary Clinton Dodges Another Bullet, Comey Takes One

FBI Director James Comey presented a strong case for Hillary Clinton’s prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 793 (f) which creates criminal liability for gross negligence in the mishandling of certain classified information related to the defense of the U.S. And then, inexplicably, Comey proceeded to announce that he would decline to recommend prosecution.

 

Comey’s investigation found that both Clinton and her staff mishandled classified information. They also determined that any reasonable person in Clinton’s position would have known that the information should not have been outside secure government servers. Finally, they determined that Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of the information. And then, even after noting that the statute does not require intent, seemingly by way of justification Comey went on to say that he would not recommend prosecution because the FBI found no evidence that Clinton intended to harm the U.S.

 

Which is to say that Comey singlehandedly rewrote the statute, a practice that seems to be habit forming in the Obama Administration. That is, unless there is a difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence”. Except there isn’t. It is a textbook example of a distinction without a difference. The logical conclusion to draw is that Comey buckled under the political pressure.

 

Consider that within a week’s time, the AG recused herself in the case after meeting with the target’s husband; the FBI conducted its final interview and declined to recommend prosecution despite its own damning fact-finding. Within hours of the FBI announcement, the President, who had already endorsed the target, hit the campaign trail with said former target. That is how banana republics work.

 

Democrats may be sorry they got what they hoped for. It is a truly unfortunate twist that aside from Hillary Clinton, the biggest beneficiary of this episode is none other than Donald Trump, a man who is by far the worst qualified person to ever secure the Presidential nomination of a major party. By effectively pronouncing Hillary Clinton guilty on all counts but refusing to recommend prosecution, Comey has saddled the Democrats with a severely, and possibly mortally wounded Hillary Clinton as their standard bearer. She is the only candidate that Donald Trump can conceivably beat in what would otherwise be a Democratic landslide both up and down the ballot.

 

JFB

 

 

Please follow and like us:
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Dodges Another Bullet, Comey Takes One

The Veepstakes Etc.

Gingrich or Christie?

 

Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie are reportedly at the top of Donald Trump’s VP short list. The advantage Gingrich has is that he actually has a brain. Unfortunately, he only puts it to use about 50% of the time. On Liberty Watch (OLW) is not sure which half appeals to Trump.

 

On the other hand, Christie has repeatedly demonstrated appallingly bad manners, questionable judgment, and a tenuous relationship with the truth. This, in addition to sporadic behavior that is normally associated with a 15-year old having a bad day. Give the edge to Christie.

 

 Elizabeth Warren for Veep. Seriously?

 

Secretary Clinton has taken Senator Elizabeth Warren (D. Mass) out for a test drive, perhaps just to flatter her. In any event, Warren, a bankruptcy lawyer with an undergraduate degree in speech pathology and a law degree from Rutgers, fancies herself as an expert in finance and capital markets. Her public pronouncements on the subject, full of the fire and brimstone so beloved by the clueless, provide little evidence that she actually knows what she is talking about. And plenty that she doesn’t.

 

Warren is passionate about Social Security and is insistent about the need for increasing benefits, notwithstanding the fact that the system is insolvent. In present value terms, the Social Security funding deficit is conservatively estimated to be in the vicinity of $9 trillion.

 

Perhaps a bankruptcy lawyer is a good choice for VP after all.

 

More Fallout in Hillary Land

 

While the campaign scrambles to contain the damage caused by Bill Clinton’s latest foray into the field—his “social call” on AG Lynch—another problematic story has surfaced. Newly released e-mails show that while she was Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton shared classified and “protected” State Department information about prospects for a Greek bailout with her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Around this time her son-in-law Marc Mezvinsky, set up a series of offshore funds through Goldman Sachs, some of which were speculating in—Greek bonds.

 

Preet Bharara, alleged scourge of inside traders, might want to take a look at this.

 

The Rigged System

 

During the primaries, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, routinely bragged about buying politicians. He would then go on to complain that the system was “rigged” and then argue, rather implausibly, that he was the true “outsider” who would uproot “the establishment”. He is not the only establishment figure to feign outsider status (think Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ted Cruz, Barack Obama). But he is the only one to simultaneously denounce transactional politics and publicly laud his own skill at the game. In so doing he has assembled an impressive coalition of the gullible, who willingly take their places on line at the slaughterhouse.

 

JFB

 

Please follow and like us:
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on The Veepstakes Etc.

Hillary Clinton Measures the Drapes–but Maybe for Prison

It looks like Hillary Clinton’s chance of going to the Big House just got a lot better (or a lot worse) depending on how you look at it.

 

The uproar created by the “unplanned” meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Clinton apparently prompted the Attorney General to agree to accept the guidance of the FBI in the Clinton e-mail investigation. According to the New York Times Lynch said, “…She would accept whatever prosecutors and the F.B.I. director decide on charges related to Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server.” Since FBI Director James Comey is universally regarded as above board, this cannot be good news for Clinton.

 

While we are on the subject of the Clinton e-mail server, let’s clear up a few things. The first is that the assertion by Hillary Clinton that she never intended to send or receive classified information through her private server is utterly irrelevant to the factual question of whether she violated the law. In this case intent only comes into play with respect to sentencing, not guilt or innocence.

 

The law in question is USC 18 §793, which says in part:

 

“(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

 

It is crystal clear that through gross negligence (1) some of Hillary Clinton’s files relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody and (2) it happened with her permission. After all, she ordered it, and the guy who set up the system is now busy asserting his Fifth Amendment rights. Neither did she report this set-up to her superior (President Obama) as she was required to by law. These violations alone (ignoring for the time being the long list of lesser potential violations) could earn her fines and imprisonment “…not more than ten years, or both”.

 

As it turns out, the situation is actually getting worse. According to press reports, the Attorney General met with Bill Clinton in a private off-the-record meeting in an airplane at a Phoenix airport. Lynch claimed it was merely a social meeting and they just talked about grandkids. Come on. A junior assistant district attorney knows better than to have a private meeting with the target of a criminal investigation his office is conducting.

 

Accordingly, Judicial Watch is now calling for an investigation of Loretta Lynch. Among other things, they cite Executive Order 12674 as modified by E.O. 12731, which reads in part: “…Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards promulgated pursuant to this order”. In addition they cite the Department of Justice regulations that specify the circumstances that disqualify Justice Department employees from participating in a criminal investigation when they have a personal or political relationship with the subject of the investigation.

 

And if that is not enough, another 165 pages of Clinton e-mails surfaced that were not previously turned over to the State Department. And long time aide Huma Abedin, under oath in a legal proceeding brought by Judicial Watch, said that Clinton did not want “…e-mails on her private computer server to be accessible to anybody”. All of which strongly suggests that Clinton’s set-up was specifically designed to avoid the record-keeping requirements that are the duty of the Secretary of State.

 

It should be pretty clear to roughly everybody in the world that Hillary Clinton is caught in a trap of her own making. She violated the criminal law and is in the midst of a massive effort to cover it up, contain the political damage and avoid prison. The only question remaining is which aide will be the first to be sacrificed to protect the chief culprit.

 

JFB

 

 

 

Please follow and like us:
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Measures the Drapes–but Maybe for Prison

Quick Hits: Terror and Trade

While at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Secretary of State John Kerry says ISIS attacked Istanbul Airport because they are desperate and know they are losing. “If you are desperate and if you know you are losing, and you know you want to give up your life, then obviously you can do some harm” he said.

Good thing he cleared that up.

 

In the meantime CIA Director Brennan says [He’d] “be surprised if Daesh is not trying to carry out that kind of attack in the United States”. At least this time they didn’t call it “workplace violence”.

 

The House Panel investigating the Benghazi attack that left 4 Americans dead including the Ambassador, showed that there should be no doubt that Hillary Clinton lied to the public when she mischaracterized the attack as a protest inspired by a video. Then again, catching Hillary Clinton in yet another preposterous lie is, as they say, “Old News”.

 

For her part, Hillary Clinton says, “…it’s time to move on”.

 

Moving on to free trade…Without question, free trade agreements (including NAFTA) have been hugely beneficial, both to producers and consumers. These agreements have dramatically lowered trade barriers thereby generating increased competition, lower consumer prices, and reduced production costs. In addition, lowered trade barriers have increased economic growth, and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

 

Needless to say Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump continue to express their firm opposition. Hillary Clinton, who was instrumental in negotiating the Trans Pacific Partnership, now opposes the deal she once referred to as “the gold standard”.

 

Well, let’s compare Donald Trump’s bombast with Milton Friedman’s analysis, which we can do with the You Tube video at this link. That should (but won’t) settle the question.

 

JFB

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please follow and like us:
Posted in Policy, Politics | Comments Off on Quick Hits: Terror and Trade

The Day (or Two) After Brexit

The sullen driver sits behind the wheel of his car while a policeman writes a ticket. In protest the driver points to the tree blocking his view of the Stop sign he just ran. He argues that no one was coming the other way; that it was raining; that he was driving below the speed limit, and that the streets are deserted anyway. He talks about all kinds of extenuating circumstances. Except all the empty beer cans he tossed into the back seat.

 

Talk about anything but the beer.

 

So it is with Brexit the day after as the good and the great scold the voters who ignored their dire predictions. Talk about anything and everything but the real issue.

 

We are, for instance, told about the resulting “chaos” in financial markets. Apparently a selloff of 3.5% in the S&P 500 and a fall in Treasury bond rates of about two-tenths of a percentage point counts as chaos. Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post wrote without a hint of irony that “Elected leaders were swept aside” apparently unaware that the only elected leader to be “swept aside” was David Cameron, who resigned because he lost the vote. So mighty was the sweep that it will take place in October after the Conservative Party votes on a new leader.

 

We are told, again by Applebaum, that as a result of the vote “The Dutch prime minister, the German chancellor or the French president, consumed with fighting off political challenges at home, will not have time to think creatively about their own economies…”. Those pesky voters once again have ruined the creative planning the EU had in store for them.

 

Sebastian Malloy of the Council on Foreign Relations chimes in to tell us that the vote may be the tipping point where “…The idea of the West finally ceases to be plausible…”. Not to be outdone, Jochen Bittner writes in the New York Times that younger voters opted for “Remain” while older voters went with the “Leave” camp and blames the loss on “…angry old men”. He goes on to say “The angry old men will not be mollified, their xenophobia cannot be controlled or channeled into constructive cooperation”. So, we are left to conclude, those who voted “Leave” are ignorant racists, who cannot be controlled.

 

The Bloomberg Editorial Board calls June 23 “A Bad Day for Europe”. They argue that the immediate risk to Britain’s economy is “grave”. And they fret that “If, against the odds, [the Brexit] succeeds other EU members could be tempted to do the same”. What a horror, Britain may succeed and other countries might emulate success. So let’s root for failure.

 

The comments of stunned elites give away the game. By all means obfuscate. Talk about anything but the beer. So they continue to (a) focus on the allegedly wicked motivations of “Leave” voters and to (b) frame the result in economic terms when in fact it was a political decision about the locus of sovereignty. The central question—the political question—that the voters decided was this: What is the proper source of political authority? Is it the nation-state, or is it the dysfunctional European Union, run by and for powerful bureacratic elites?

 

Britons clearly and decisively answered that the source of legitimate political authority is the nation-state. They said “No” to the sovereignty “pooling” of the EU that would inevitably serve to solidify the grip of the sclerotic bureaucracy of the EU over their lives.  No amount of name-calling can change that; neither can changing the subject. And it is undeniable that the stateless “experts” of the bureaucratic elite were rejected in a free and fair vote.

 

That is not to say that the economic ramifications of the vote are unimportant. To the contrary they are extremely important. If Britain makes the wrong economic policy decisions, its economy, and its citizens, will suffer. But that is true for the EU and its policy making as well, an obvious fact that apparently escaped the attention of the “Remain” apologists. Unless of course what they are really saying sub rosa is that more centralized command-and-control is what is really needed. But given the history, there is good reason to believe that Britain’s economic policy making will continue to be superior to the economic policy making of the EU. After all, Britain has been a leader in free trade for a couple of centuries. It has one of the strongest, most robust and innovative economies in the world. And its economic performance has been generally superior to that of the EU. Britons are right to ask why they should be taxed to pay for EU policy failures. Like Greece.

 

According to the latest data published by Eurostat, the 28 countries of the Eurozone had an employment rate of 65.6% in 2015. By contrast, the UK had an employment rate of 72.7%. For young people (aged 15 to 24) the employment rate in the UK was just under 50%, far higher than the 28 Eurozone countries that clocked in at about 30%. When it comes to innovation, think about Nobel prizes. The UK swamps the Eurozone in Nobel awards both in absolute terms and with respect to population. The UK has about 13% of the population of the EU and 25% of the Nobel prizes. It has won more Nobel prizes than any other EU member state. Expressed per unit of population size, UK citizens have been awarded 19.315 prizes per 10 million, more than double the EU’s 9.225. The difference is even larger when the sciences are considered alone. The UK has 15.928 per 10 million in population, which is 2.38 times the 6.691 awarded to the EU.

 

Achieving efficiency gains from trade does not require political integration. NAFTA, despite the nonsense being peddled by populist politicians, has been a roaring success in terms of economic efficiency and wealth creation. Unlike the 28 member states of the European Union,  Canada, Mexico and the U.S. have not surrendered their sovereignty. Their political systems are independent; each has its own (tradable) currency, and for the most part each determines its own fiscal and regulatory policies, subject to Treaty obligations. Their sovereignty has not been surrendered to a supra-national bureaucracy.

 

The UK has the political and intellectual infrastructure needed for continued success. It has a long history of adhering to the rule of law, maintaining political stability, and protecting individual and property rights in addition to an enviable record of scientific and artistic achievement. Not to put too fine a point on it, the UK’s record in these areas compares well to the major players in the EU. There is every reason for Britons to feel proud of their culture and to resist a statist one-size-fits-all EU bureaucracy. And as long as Britain keeps to a path of free markets under the rule of law—which is what they have usually done albeit with bumps along the road—they will continue to thrive. Moreover, because the British political system is far more accountable than the EU is, mistakes are easier to spot and easier to correct. The mandarins at the EU should be taking lessons from Britain when it comes to economic policy making, not the other way around.

 

Finally, take note of the language used by the mourners. Remember what Sebastion Malloy said: “The angry old men will not be mollified, their xenophobia cannot be controlled or channeled into constructive cooperation”. Control, not freedom, is the mission of the EU. It has been right from the beginning.

 

British voters have correctly responded: “No thank, you”.

 

JFB

 

Please follow and like us:
Posted in Political Economy, Politics | Comments Off on The Day (or Two) After Brexit

The Progressive Attack on the Bill of Rights Continues

When the U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller (2008) that the second amendment means exactly what it says, namely that the people have a constitutional right to bear arms, it provoked a howl of outrage from progressive quarters. The intensity of that howl was possibly superseded only by the 2010 Citizens United decision, in which the Court held that the first amendment means exactly what it says, namely that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. Those expressions of progressive angst however stand in stark contrast to the cheers following Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and later the Court’s discovery of a fundamental liberty right to abortion embedded in the 14th amendment under Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

 

Such is their commitment to democracy and free expression, Democratic Members of the House decided to stage a sit-in on the floor of the House in order to grind business to a halt and, not coincidentally, shout down anyone in the majority who dared to offer a different opinion. They have threatened to keep it up until they get their way and get a vote scheduled on legislation to deny 2nd amendment rights to purchase a gun to anyone on a “no fly list” or other similar law enforcement list. Keep in mind that similar proposals (2 versions by Republicans and 2 by Democrats) were offered in the Senate. All four failed to pass.

 

For the time being let’s put aside the juvenile antics and examine the merits of the case, bearing in mind that the Court found in Heller (see above) that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution guarantees individual citizens the right to bear arms. Note that the Constitution does not grant these rights—the Constitution secures a pre-existing right.

 

So how big are these no-fly / suspected terrorist lists anyway?

 

According to the ACLU, the no-fly list is a list of people the U.S. has designated as known or suspected terrorists. Designated, not adjudicated. It is a subset of a much larger list called the Terrorist Screening Data Base (TSDB) operated by the FBI Terrorist Screening Center. The TSDB is the central terrorist watch list that consolidates the files of at least 11 different government agencies and departments. As of June 2016 the list is estimated to contain about 2.5 million records consisting of about 1.9 million individuals.

 

According to the ACLU, extreme secrecy surrounds the No Fly List. People only find out they are on it when they are denied boarding privileges (often very publicly). Moreover the ACLU argues that the process the government has established  to challenge this blacklisting “… is grossly insufficient and violates the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee”.

 

All this falls under the Department of Homeland Security, a cabinet department of the federal government, with over 240,000 employees and a budget of $41.2 billion (net of receipts) in FY 2016.

 

So progressives want to deny a basic constitutional right (to bear arms) to citizens who are placed on a secret list by an anonymous bureaucrat where the existing appeals process is described by the ACLU as grossly insufficient and unconstitutional. And not to put too fine a point on it, the underlying assumption advocates presumably make is that the people on the list ought to be there.

The obvious question is: How would they know? What are the criteria for inclusion on the list, especially if it’s secret? If the people themselves don’t know they are on the list how are they to challenge it? And how well are the TSA and various agencies managed anyway?

 

The Department of Homeland Security has been a management nightmare from the beginning. As early as 2008 Congress found that the department oversaw at least $15 billion in failed contracts for projects ranging from airport baggage screening to Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. That amounted to about 1/3 of the department’s spending at the time. See for instance, this article in the Washington Post back in 2008.  

 

Then there are DHS “fusion centers”, which are supposed to be terrorism prevention and response centers, many created jointly by DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ). These centers gather information from government sources and partners in the private sector. The fusion centers arbitrarily hoover up vast quantities of information and virtually anyone can wind up on a list of suspicious people because someone decided to fill in a tip sheet.

 

To get how asinine all this is, it is only necessary to reflect on how a DHS fusion center put an ACLU communication on its terrorism map. Yes, you read that correctly. It turns out that the Tennessee ACLU sent out a letter warning public schools not to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. In his report “We are All Terrorists Now”,  David Rittgers of the CATO Institute recounts how as result, the ACLU earned a place on the Tennessee fusion center’s map of “terrorism events and other suspicious activity”. And this is not an isolated example of bureaucratic idiocy. (Please note that this discussion only scratches the surface. There is a wide range of legal issues that comes to the fore over this type of information collection and policing, some of which are discussed in a forum sponsored by the CATO Institute which can be seen at this link.)

 

Which brings us to where we are today. A group of progressive legislators took over the floor grinding business to a halt for the express purpose of seeking a vote on legislation they knew would fail, and which had already failed in the Senate on four separate votes. The halt continued for a couple of days until the Speaker adjourned the House. The proposed legislation would secretly strip citizens of fundamental rights with little hope of successful appeal. Moreover the legislation would empower the DHS bureaucracy—widely understood to be a case study in incompetence—to eviscerate those rights through the back door by simply putting a name on a list. In secrecy no less.

 

So perhaps progressives who are so enamored of the privacy rights found in the penumbras and emanations discovered in Griswold v. Connecticut will re-consider their attempt to eviscerate express fundamental rights and act like a caucus instead of a mob. But don’t count on it.

 

JFB

Please follow and like us:
Posted in Policy, Politics | Comments Off on The Progressive Attack on the Bill of Rights Continues

Quick Hits 2

House Democrats, led by James Clyburn, seized the floor in a sit-down in violation of the rules to demand votes on proposed gun control legislation that is clearly unconstitutional. Similar legislation has already gone down to defeat in the Senate demonstrating that the latest temper tantrum is merely a stunt for the base. Representative Clyburn used to be known for his courage in fighting for civil rights before he started sitting down to crush them.

 

Donald Trump gave a speech from one of his buildings in Soho, New York yesterday in which, reading from a teleprompter, he called Hillary Clinton a “world class liar”. The fact that he used a teleprompter to deliver the speech is taken by some to mean that he is “Presidential”, and by others as evidence that he can read after all.

 

Meanwhile Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano, who was responsible for setting up and maintaining Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server, took the 5th amendment 125 times yesterday during a court-ordered deposition conducted by Judicial Watch.

 

The drums are beating more loudly calling on Republican delegates to revolt at the Cleveland Convention, less than a month away.

 

Mike Murphy describes the political malpractice that is the Trump campaign and suggests it is symptomatic of Trump’s managerial incompetence in general. He then goes on to point out that Republican convention delegates have the power under the rules to jettison Trump and select another nominee.

 

George Will, asking donors to snap their wallets shut, quotes Martha Bayles in the Claremont Review of Books. “There’s an old adage about a vat of wine standing next to a vat of sewage. Add a cup of wine to the sewage, and it is still sewage. But add a cup of sewage to the wine, and it is no longer wine but sewage. Is this what Donald Trump has done to our politics?”

 

Michael Gerson, former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, writes that a delegate revolt has become the Republicans’ only option.

 

JFB

Please follow and like us:
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Quick Hits 2