DUCK DYNASTY & THE "RIGHTS" OF THE RIGHT...IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED

The big kerfuffle of late is whether A & E violated Phil Robertson’s (of Duck Dynasty fame) rights when they suspended him for making homophobic comments in an interview with GQ.  I would argue, Hell, I would shout at the top of my lungs, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!  It is not really possible for A & E to violate his Right to Free Speech.  That is because A & E is not limited by the Constitution regarding the exercise of Free Speech.  Those screaming about the violation of Mr. Robertson’s are pissed because it is their ox being gored.

The Right-Wing neo-Conservative, Teapublicans are bent out of shape because someone big, a corporation like A & E, with lots of media attention, had the audacity to suspend Mr. Robertson for holding an opinion with which the Right Wingers happen to agree.  Throw in the fact that Robertson’s remarks have been cloaked in the veil of religion and the Religious Right is screaming about the protection of Mr. Robertson’s “Rights;” Rights they tend to completely ignore when it happens to be the Left, those Progressive bastards, and it is that much worse to them.

Not too long ago, Right Wing Conservatives got bent out of shape about remarks made by a member of the Dixie Chicks country band when they made statements that called into question then-President George Bush going to war in Iraq.  Need I point out that we went in with the absolute guarantee that it was looking for weapons of mass destruction; none were ever found!  In retaliation for their remarks, the Dixie Chicks had sponsors pull out on them and the public made sure their then-number-ten hit on the country charts dropped off the charts completely in a couple of weeks.  Where was the Right about their Right to Free Speech?  Personally, although I am not a country music fan, I went out and bought their “Wide Opens Spaces” album as a show of support for their position.

In 2012, Ozzie Guillén, then manager of the Miami Marlins, was suspended for five games after making comments supportive of Fidel Castro.  Where was the Right then?  There were no voices from the Teapublicans screaming about Ozzie’s “Rights.”  Hell, they were calling for his head on a platter, and the five-game suspension was not near enough for them.  It is 0kay for a company, like the Miami Marlins, to suspend the manager for making statements with which they agree, but not Mr. Robertson, because they agree with what he says.

Jill Filipovic of The Guardian wrote a rather excellent article, in of all things in a British paper, regarding The First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States.  I invite you to read this article at the link below.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-not-violate-freedom-of-speech?CMP=twt_gu#start-of-comments

I wish to comment further on Ms. Filipovic’s commentary and explain, yet again, to the neo-Conservative, Right-Wing Tepublicans a basic lesson in civics or social studies.  I have already written about the First Amendment, way back in 2011.  You can see my previous comments at:

http://wam18jr.blogspot.com/2011/06/conservative-vs-liberalforce-vs.html

As I always start with, I will, and have, defended with the offer of my life anyone’s Constitutional Rights; that being said, I do not have to agree with the position or opinion of the person offering up the protected speech.  That is my Right as a citizen of a free country.  I can respond to a protected speech by doing anything from boisterously complaining about their position to taking action.  Acceptable actions are things like: not patronizing their business, not patronizing someone that sponsors their business (in this case a reality TV show), not buying their book, not going to their church, refusing to contribute to their political party, and a myriad of other “actions.” 

The key here is the term “protected speech.”  The Constitution of the United States does not protect the people of the United States, referred to in the Constitution as “We the People” from, well, “We the People.”  The Constitution protects us from the Government, not each other.  If you read the First Amendment it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”  [Emphasis added].   The Constitution does not say that any person or citizen cannot do anything within the limits of the law to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of speech.  The last I checked A & E was not Congress, so there is no Constitutional prohibition for them doing what they feel they must to indicate their displeasure with Mr. Robertson’s remarks.

Let us assume some scenarios that might result if we were prohibited from interfering with each other’s free speech rights.  Your boss, the guy that pays you a paycheck, is a miserable, sniveling coward; let us assume it is an absolute fact, not an opinion (it really doesn’t matter whether it is an opinion or not).  You walk into his office and tell him exactly what he is and why.  I would bet my own paycheck that, all things being equal, you will not have a job in short order. 

See, you do not have a “Right” to tell the boss what is true if the boss does not want to hear it, even if it is true.  You have a right to say it and there can be no consequences from the government, but The Constitution does not protect you from your boss.  Yes, if your boss is a public official and you are a member of his political constituency, an argument can be made that you can tell him he is a schmuck and get away with it, as long as you are acting solely as a citizen, but let us not split hairs too fine.  In a world where you had the absolute, unabridged right to say anything to anyone and it was guaranteed by The Constitution, your boss could not fire you, but we do not live in that world.  If you dare to test the theory, you might become a supporter of extended long-term unemployment benefits and become, God forbid, a Liberal.

If you publish an article that John Q. Public engages in sex acts with sheep, and you cannot prove it, expect to get sued for liable, and probably lose.  Believe it or not, if you are talking about a Senator, you are a lot less likely to have to pay because public officials give up some of their protections by holding elected office.  I am not sure it would work with Senator Sheepskin doing the above.  In the fictitious world where you have a Right to say anything, John Q. could not win in Court.

When the Right finds someone with their viewpoint on the receiving end of “actions” related to their speech, especially religious speech, they are the first to cloak themselves in Old Glory, the First Amendment to the Constitution, all sorts of Civil Rights Laws and scream at the top of their lungs about their “Rights” being violated.  It is a misapplication of the Constitution, the Law and is particularly heinous and atrocious because these same people will happily trample the Rights of others with impunity if the exercise of the same Rights involves a position with which they disagree. 

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.  The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Snowden: Hero or Traitor...Federal Judge Weighs In

Well, it’s official, at least one Federal Court Judge, after hearing evidence and allowing both sides to present their case, came to the conclusion that the NSA has been violating the Constitutional Rights of millions, yes, millions, of Americans. After this hearing, he thinks what the NSA is doing in gathering massive amounts of information on Americans is Unconstitutional. I take this judicial determination as a pretty good indication that the point of the legality or illegality of the NSA’s actions is, at minimum, a topic on which reasonable people can disagree, and what the NSA has been doing is a subject to be debated. This debate, much to the chagrin of the NSA, will now occur in the brightest light of day, the sunshine, that light which clandestine operations seek to avoid at all costs. The NSA would much prefer to do what they have been doing for years, apparently; treating us like mushrooms, keeping us in the dark and feeding us B.S.

Edward Snowden released information on NSA spying and that has turned into a firestorm of protest against the NSA, but when we start discussing in terms of what Snowden has done, we must remember some basics about this country we call the United States of America. We were once, as we all should know, a colony of Great Britain. “We The People” decided we didn’t like what the King of England was doing to us and we said, “No more!” We did that in a document called the Declaration of Independence.

If you read the Declaration of Independence, you get past the very poetic, and I believe divinely inspired, language to find that the Declaration becomes a list, a fairly long list, of complaints against the King George III. It was by that Declaration that anyone in the colonies that supported independence became a traitor. They were subject to be tried in the King’s Court, assuming there was a trial, and presumably hanged. We live in a country, like many, that had its beginnings in an act of treason. Interestingly, since we won the Revolutionary War caused by the Declaration of Independence, most of the Founding Fathers avoided being hanged, but they were, at least to the British, traitors.

We now have a situation where many believe Edward Snowden is a traitor and should be charged with treason. Many would actually prefer to skip the trial part after he is charged and just take him out back of the jail and shoot him, but most would at least like a show trial or so-called Kangaroo Court, so we can keep up appearances and feel better about ourselves. Is this sounding like the British and the Revolution?

There is a problem with all this; Snowden may have done nothing more than reported a crime and we do not, or should not, prosecute people that report crimes.  If Edward Snowden is charged and tried, it will not be so much because he violated laws, but because he violated laws made by the people that are engaged in the violation of our Civil Rights.  It may well be an act of civil disobedience against the unjust actions of the government.  More Declaration of Independence stuff, but without the war and formation of a new country....so far.

The government passes laws that say they, the government, have the right to operate in secret to protect "We The People." Using that secrecy, they engage in acts that violate the Rights of "We The People," and now they want to claim that the guy who told us about what they were doing is a traitor because he told us about what they were doing and how they were breaking the law.  This sounds a lot like the list of complaints in the Declaration of Independence.  We told King George we are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights and he is violating them, so we said we will start our own country and government. In the later 18th Century one did not tell the King of England he was doing anything illegal.  By definition the King was the law and therefore could not do anything illegal.  One man's heroic civil disobedience is another man's treason.

Let’s analyze our current situation and, just for the sake of argument, let us assume that the Federal Court was right in what it determined.  The United States Government, through the National Security Agency, engaged in acts that violated the Civil Rights of millions of Americans. The violation of any Right guaranteed by the Constitution and that pesky Bill of Rights, is to commit a crime. If you don’t believe me, check out the following which I lifted from none other than the FBI website through the use of copy and paste:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.

( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes)

So, the NSA was committing a crime and the NSA is an arm of the Federal Government, and it is a pretty powerful arm. Within the “Intelligence Community” the NSA is described as “the agency that reads the CIA’s mail before the CIA gets their mail.”  Here is this one little schmuck, Edward Snowden, who says, “Holy crap, this can’t be legal! I’ll call the police!”  But our friend Edward thinks about it and realizes that he is about to report an illegal activity being committed by the Federal Government. He realizes that he will be silenced and repressed, not necessarily killed in an unfortunate accident, but silenced nonetheless, so he goes to “We The People.” He blows the whistle, to use modern terminology.  Who do you think are the first to brand him a traitor?  Yep, the government.  The “person” committing the crime brands him a traitor and calls it treason to reveal what at least one Judge now says was a violation of our Civil Rights.

Now that a Federal Judge, a man learned in the laws of our country, or so we fervently hope, has said he agrees that what Edward Snowden told us about what the NSA was doing was, and is, illegal, a violation of our Fourth Amendment Right, he has opened a path to what should be a frank and open discussion of what the NSA has been doing to “We The People” and I welcome that discussion.  However, I am not naïve enough to think the Government will let that discussion occur. This will be, like so many different things in our history, obfuscated by the Government. Pressure will be brought to bear, officials influenced and people in that same government that has been screwing with our Rights, will do everything in their power to make sure the discussion never fully sees the light of day. They see us, “We The People,” as the unwashed masses; lowly citizens that could not possibly know what is in our own best interests. In the words of James Taylor, “The man says stand to one side, son, we got to keep this big ball rolling. It's just a question of controlling for whom the bell is tolling.” If ever James Taylor’s song, “Let It All Fall Down” had meaning, it is today, now, and this situation. I recommend you read the lyrics, even if you hate the music.

Personally, I think that Edward Snowden has done a great service to this country and “We The People.” He has revealed that the government has engaged in the violation of the Rights of “We The People.” He has, as our Founding Fathers did, engaged in what one side will call a treasonous act, and the other side will call a great act of heroic sacrifice, but, like our war for independence, I think we will have wait to see who wins.  In the meantime, at least one guy, a Federal Judge, thinks the point has enough merit to make it worthy of discussion and careful consideration.

The Silver Lining to the NSA's Dark Cloud of Surveillance?

I am not a lawyer, but have been accused of being pretty good for never having taken a Bar Exam. As a Private Investigator, I did a lot of criminal defense investigative work. Rarely, I even assisted in the representation of an innocent defendant. Most were guilty, but most were also severely overcharged by the prosecutor, so the trick was to get leverage to get the prosecution to reduce the charges consistent with what the defendant actually did. One of the ways you could prove a client didn't do it, in those rare cases, was providing him with an alibi.

Those of you living under rocks should know that an alibi is based on the concept that a person cannot be in two places at once. If you can prove you were somewhere else you are pretty much not guilty, at least in theory. I had a case that a guy could prove he was 600 miles away and a jury still convicted him, just sayin'.

We now know that the United States Government, The NSA, has data that can track cell phones and determine where they were at any given point in time. Using triangulation of cell towers the cell phone "checks in" or "registers" with, the location can be determined. They can also apparently track the cell phones through the Wi-Fi hotspots the phone registers on. Some of these tracks can give you a location within a hundred feet or so. If you are really interested, check out the following article at the Washington Post.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/how-the-nsa-is-tracking-people-right-now/634/

You see where I am going with this, right? All you defense attorneys, read further or not if you have already figured this out.

John N'erduwell is charged with a murder that occurred in a specific location on a specific date at a specific time. He tells his criminal defense attorney, Lawyer J. Noble Daggett, Esq., that he wasn't there, he didn't do it and he is not guilty by virtue of his alibi. Lawyer Daggett asks all the necessary questions: Where were you? What were you doing? Who were you with? If there are witnesses to the event and they can testify he was at Joe's Bar and Grill when the victim was killed elsewhere, N’erduwell stands a chance. However, rarely are the witnesses Priests, Nuns, Eagle Scouts or otherwise reputable people.

Unfortunately, N’erduwell hangs out with the kind of people your mother warned you about. They are convicted felons and drug dealers. There is also his mother (who does not believe her son would ever do anything like this and would lie to save him -the prosecutor's closing argument) and his baby-momma (ditto mom). These are generally not credible witnesses, but now, there is an even better way and it will serve multiple purposes.

Lawyer Daggett subpoenas the NSA for the tracking data on N’erduwell's cell phone. He argues, as he will probably have to, that N’erduwell is entitled to this material because it is exculpatory (proves he is not guilty) and, under the law, N’erduwell is entitled and has a legal Right to this material. I think Lawyer Daggett can argue that if this material is not provided, the prosecution must dismiss the charges against N’erduwell. Can't convict a man if the government has information likely to prove the defendant not guilty and refuse to disclose it, right? In fact, there are Court Decisions that require it, Brady vs. Maryland being the primary case. When I was a cop they taught me the following, directly out of the police academy training manual:

Duty to Disclose: The landmark decision of Brady v Maryland (1963) places an affirmative constitutional duty on a prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence to a defendant. This duty has been extended to police agencies through case law, requiring law enforcement agencies to notify the prosecutor of any potential exculpatory information.

Exculpatory Evidence/Brady Material: Evidence in the government’s possession that is favorable to the accused and that is material to either guilt or punishment, including evidence that may impact the credibility of a witness.



So Lawyer Daggett has a right to get the NSA's material under Brady. It is kinda hard to argue it is not in the possession of the government if the NSA has it, and you don't know if it will prove the defendant's innocence if no one has looked at it, right? Okay, there are several problems I can think of off the top of my head, but they are not insurmountable.

The information could be "Classified" as "Top Secret" or something, but if it is secret, do we possible send an innocent man to prison or execute him without looking at this information? It is apparently known to the Washington Post and I know they have it, so is it really a secret? We even know how they get the information, so intelligence "sources and methods" arguments are tough to make. Do we take the word of the government, who said they didn't have it to begin with, or the government who said there are WMD's in Iraq? It will, no doubt, be exceedingly difficult to get the data, but if Layer Daggett doesn't get it, it makes for grounds for a very interesting appeal, right? Come on, all you lawyers...right?

Another downside risk that must be impressed on N’erduwell is that if the government actually coughs up the data and it places him at the scene of the crime, it will be another prosecution nail in his coffin, pardon the pun. If the prosecutor actually manages to lay hands on the data and it places N’erduwell at the crime scene, trust me you will see it in Court, I promise, because you will have really, really pissed off the prosecutor, and the Justice Department, the NSA, the CIA and a bunch of alphabet soup operations we don't even know about. Hell, you might even get nebulized back to the 6th grade by MIB.

The prosecutor is going to argue that the track is not that of N'erduwell, it is merely the track of the cell phone and there is no guarantee that it is N’erduwell’s. The argument here is:

1.      The phone is in N’erduwell’s name,

2.     Prove N’erduwell paid the bill each month, debit or credit card or (LOL) with a check,

3.     Bring in witnesses that know N’erduwell ALWAYS has his cell phone on him,

4.     Bring in witnesses that spoke to N’erduwell on the day of the offense.

5.     Get his cell phone records and find out who he spoke to, or use the cell phone call log and contact list to determine who he spoke to. You can also find out by reverse tracking the phone numbers, if necessary, or you can ask the NSA…LOL

All of this information can establish that N'erduwell spoke to people from that number  before the murder and spoke to people from that number after the murder, maybe even during the murder. By inference, it is probably his cell phone.

Now, Lawyer Daggett wannabes, if they say you can't have the data, the existence of which has been published in the Washington Post, you might just have that case that gets you before the Supremes. You will also have a name for yourself, although possibly as a nutball and likely a HUGE pain in the A**! You also might have the practice you always wanted with ginormous retainers. Remember that investigator that found out Mark Furman used the "N-word on tape after he testified he had never uttered the word? All he did was answer a phone, get a subpoena and serve it. His office is now a box seat at a baseball park because he makes so much money. His attorney team didn't do so bad either. O.J., not so much.

Well, I am just thinking here, but I would welcome input from all you licensed, Bar-card carrying lawyer types as to why I am wrong. Any of you lawyers who use the material, do me a favor and just give me a footnote mention, or send a few bucks my way....LOL

See you in Court!

© 2013 William A. Miller

Marco Rubio: Call 'em Like You See 'em...If You Don't See 'em, Make 'em Up!

Marco Rubio, the Junior Senator from Florida, speculative leader of the Teapublicans in the Senate and, God help me, my representative in the U.S. Senate, has once again, basically lied to us. 

The particular lie being told by Senator Rubio is, “On this very day in Florida, it was announced that 300,000 people are going to lose their individual coverage because of Obamacare.” He made this statement to that bastion of political truth (please note the dripping sarcasm) Fox News and to, of all people, Bill O’Reilly, a man with the objectivity of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Marc Levin and Michelle Malkin (she works for Fox too,but that’s for another time….)

This statement, and a number of others,  has been confirmed by Politifact Florida as being "Mostly False" (see: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/oct/25/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-said-florida-300000-people-are-going-l/ .  Allow me to summarize.

Yes, 300,000 customers of Florida Blue, the corporate successor to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, have been notified that that their existing policies are being cancelled…Well, not exactly.  Their policies are being replaced.  This is because the policies they currently hold do not meet the requirements of the law.  In other words, they are going to get better, more inclusive and cheaper policies, so the policies meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, A/K/A: Obamacare, but before that happens they are being notified that the existing policies are not going to be continued.

One of the things that bothers me most is that those who are ideologues and of similar ilk to Senator Rubio will adopt these statements as Gospel and sound the war cry, regardless of the accuracy of the statements this liar makes.  It is consistent with their version of reality, so it must be true.  I am not much for Biblical quotations, but when confronting the Teapublicans such a quotation is too good to pass up, ‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” (Jeremiah 5:21).

Senator Rubio is just doing what a lot of politicians do, telling people what they want to hear.  He tells them lies they want to believe.  The problem is that once you tell them “the rest of the story” as Paul Harvey would say, they still believe it to be the truth, thus the applicability of the Biblical quote.  To continue along the same lines  a quote from Ron Popeil, “But wait, there’s more…”

Let us list other lies that have been told to us by Senator Rubio…

"I never was in favor of shutting down the government. … (I) voted to fund the government fully."  In fact Rubio voted on nine, yes nine, separate occasions to vote against bills that would have kept the government open.  He just refused to vote yes on any bill that did not defund Obama Care.  The result is the same, he voted in a way that was directly responsible for shutting down the government, regardless of how he chooses to try to massage the facts.

"The American people support defunding Obamacare and oppose shutting down the government."  Well, actually, no they don’t.  Polls have consistently found, since 2011, that the American People do not want to defund Obamacare, especially if it might result in some sort of drastic action such as…wait for it….shutting down the government!  Most Americans have adopted a wait and let’s see if this works attitude, now that it has passed.

Enough examples…let me just say that if Marco Rubio opens his mouth to say “Good morning” I tend to look out the window and expect to see rain.  I am not interested in someone that appeals to the psychotic base of his party without regard for anything resembling truth and integrity.

The U.S. Government Lies to the Supreme Court - If You Let Them...They Will

“In February, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to FISA Amendments Act (FAA) surveillance programs brought by Amnesty International on standing grounds.  The Supreme Court, agreeing with the government that since Amnesty International could not prove that it was the victim surveillance at the time, it had no right to sue. That 5-4 decision at least partially relied on an argument made by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. that while Amnesty International did not have grounds to sue, others might because ‘the government must provide advance notice of its intent to use information obtained or derived’ from the laws. In fact, the Supreme Court mirrors that language fairly explicitly in its ruling, saying that ‘if the government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from’ surveillance authorized by FAA ’in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition.’"  - Washington Post 

Let us accept that this report is accurate.  It is supported by things like transcripts and other Court records, so I feel pretty safe in assuming it is true, especially the parts that were written in the Supreme Court Opinion.  The analysis of what happened is, in my opinion, truly horrifying! 

There are only two ways to explain what happened, neither of which are good.  The Solicitor General of the United States stood up in front of the Justices of the Supreme Court and lied to them.  He knew the truth and deliberately and knowingly lied to the Court.  The second option is that the Justice Department of the United States knowingly and deliberately lied to the Solicitor General and he, in turn, represented it the Supreme Court believing it to be true.  What we have is merely a choice of who in the government lied to whom. 

It is a platitude that control of information is perfect control.  If I control the information about anything, I completely control the outcome, for example, if I leak information that a mega-billionaire is going to make an offer to buy up the stock of a company, I will drive that company’s stock price higher.  Look what happened when the Fed implied it was going to stop Quantitative Easing (QE).  The stock market started to drop precipitously.  When they said they were not going to stop the program, the stock market stabilized and recovered.  It was all based on information. 

The Supremes are no different; if you lie to them and make misrepresentations to them, you can control the outcome of whatever case is before them.  This is obvious.  The most serious problem is that the government of the US appears to be willing to lie to the Supremes.  I am sure this is nothing new, they just never got caught red-handed before, I guess.  Another problem is the fact that there do not appear to be any consequences.  I have a friend that has adopted what I shall call a life truth; “If you let them, they will.”  He had a sign carved in wood with these words and it hangs in his office.  I have someone making me a copy of it for my own study, because the words are so incredibly right in so many situations, the Supreme Court included. 

You have to understand the phrase in its two-part form.  It is not just that people will do bad things, you have to let them.  Try putting up “No Trespassing” signs on a piece of property without a fence around it.  People will ignore the signs; they will trespass because you have done nothing to prevent them from doing so.  If they have to climb over a fence, most will think twice, a few will do it anyway, but at least you made an effort to prevent them.

 

 

 

If you allow people, in this case the government, to lie to the Supreme Court and suffer no consequences, is there any incentive not to lie to them?  I would respond, “No, you let them!”  I am probably naive, but if I were the Supreme Court, I would be having U.S. Marshalls serving Rules to Show Cause Why the Solicitor General and/or the Justice Department Should Not Be Held in Contempt.   If the Solicitor General points his finger back at the Justice Department, then send those Rules to Show Cause to the Justice Department.  Let the finger-pointing begin.   At the risk of sounding like Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling, I believe the integrity of the Justice System is at stake. 

I know I am naïve because the Supreme Court has tried and held someone (actually a group of people) only once.  That was in 1909 in U.S. vs. Shipp, and it took a Sheriff defying the Court to the extent that a black man for whom the Supreme Court had issued a stay of execution was lynched with the cooperation of the Sheriff. 

I have spoken to others, some of whom are lawyers, and they believe the Supremes will be taking a very harsh, confrontational attitude toward the Solicitor General during future oral arguments before them.  Basically, they may stop him at the beginning of his argument and ask him, “Tell us why we should believe a word you say to us, given your previous argument(s) based on falsehoods.”  While this will clearly embarrass the Solicitor General, I am not sure that is enough in this case.  Either the Solicitor General got caught with his pants down around his ankles or the Justice Department did. Saying, Look their pants are down” is not enough.  I think they should be called to account legally, just like any citizen would be required to do if they perjured themselves in Court. 

The government holds citizens that are interviewed by Federal Officers to a standard of truth.  If a citizen lies to the FBI, for example, there is a crime with which they can be charged for lying to an FBI Agent.  The Federal Government has taken this to the extreme of prosecuting a person with lying to Federal Agents when they were asked if they committed a crime and they said “No.”  Yet, we will not hold the Justice Department or Solicitor General to the same exacting standard.  In this respect, I am pretty sure the Judicial System is pretty much broke.

There May Be Gay Boy Scouts...But I Still Recommend the Boy Scouts

Allow me to offer a disclaimer.  This blog post is kind of sanctimonious because I cannot describe the incredible advantages of the Boy Scouts without going into what it did for me.  I was a part of the organization and achieved what was the highest award possible in the organization.

 

I was a Boy Scout from the time I was 11 years old until I went into the Army at age 17.  When I joined the Army and they assembled my  unit and gave three instructions:  1)  All those who have a college degree take one step forward.  I had an associate degree from a local junior college (night school while I was in high school), so I took a step forward.  2) All those who have been in the Boy Scouts, take one step forward.  I had been a Boy Scout, so I took another step forward.  Finally, 3) All those who have been Eagle Scouts, take a step forward.  I took a final step forward, and when I looked around, there were three of us standing out in front of the group.

 

The next words from the Platoon Leader were, “Congratulations, pending additional testing, you will be offered a position in Officer’s Candidate School.”  As a result, I went through the Army as an Officer, a much better existence than to that of an enlisted man to which I had resigned myself.

 

The Boy Scouts have recently changed their policy regarding the admission of gay males.  Being a liberal, I have no objection, but being a former Boy Scout and Eagle Scout, I can tell you that young gay men have been in the Boy Scouts for many years; some of them in the closet, some not so much.  I was in a Boy Scout Troop that had a less-than-closeted gay young man it.  Everyone knew it and no one really cared, much less objected.  There were some “new” guys who joined the troop from time to time that were a little surprised, but they generally did not have a problem with it, after all, the existing guys had no problem with it, right?

 

We had no problem with a gay scout because he never made it any of our business.  He did not hit on any of us because he knew we were not gay.  He was never a “recruiter” for the “gay community.”  The fact that he was “queer” was sometimes more of a joke than anything else, and he joined right in.  There was always the decision as to who would share a tent with Kirk [not his real name].  When someone volunteered, there were the ooohs and aaahs of suspicion and good-humored accusation, but it was all good-natured fun.  Kirk often joined in the cajoling.  I still correspond with “Kirk” from time to time.  He is in a long-term relationship with another man with whom he is very happy.  He is also a man that has contributed to his community, both gay and straight.  While his father died when he was young and a member of my troop at the time, I know his father would be proud of him regardless of his sexual orientation.

 

We learned an incredible amount in the Boy Scouts that have served us well in adult life, particularly regarding values, self-sufficiency and a lot of skills, but the value I learned that is one of the most important was tolerance.  I was in an organization with blacks, Hispanics, gays, straights, rich and poor, and it made no difference, we were all Boy Scouts.  I had 21 merit badges, in subjects from fingerprinting and rifle and shotgun shooting to home repairs and community service.  We all learned camping and hiking, how to appreciate nature and how to survive.  As I watch various shows of how people will survive in a post-apocalyptic world, I can’t help but say, “I learned how to do that in the Boy Scouts when I was 11.”  You have no idea how important that stuff was in the military.

 

One of the things I learned that has become increasingly important is self-discipline.  I think many of the problems we have with our youth today is the fact that they have no self-discipline.  While the Liberal in me understands and accepts the need for people to have freedom, I believe that freedom must be tempered by self-discipline.  You have to have self-discipline to do so many things that we find lacking today; the ability to say no to drugs, the ability to stand up against peer pressure, the ability to have respect for others and, at the same time, the ability to stand up for what is right, sometimes, even in the face of authority.  Just because someone has power, does not always make them right, but only the self-disciplined will have the confidence and strength to stand up and say so.

 

I was watching a program on television about Chiefs of Staff to Presidents of the United States.  After watching for a while, I said, those guys talk like Boy Scouts.  I checked the list and found that a majority of them had been both Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts.  They may have been overachievers, but I will bet, if you talk to them, they will give a lot of credit for having the self-respect, determination and self-confidence to be able to tell the President of the United States what he does not want to hear from their experiences in the Boy Scouts.  It is said that the second most powerful man in the world is the Chief of Staff for the President of the United States.

 

One of the reasons that I have the self-confidence, self-respect and self-discipline I do is, in part, because I am a member of an incredibly small, and yes, elite, group of men.  Go to this link and check out some of the men who have been Eagle Scouts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eagle_Scouts .   It is a group of men I am both very proud and at the same time humbled, to be a part.  As I go down the list, I found it interesting that so many Eagle Scouts became Astronauts.  It makes me wonder if camping in the wilderness was just not enough; now camping in space, that’s a real challenge…LOL

 

In all fairness, there are Boy Scouts and even Eagle Scouts that have gone bad.  Charles Whitman, the “Texas Tower Shooter” was one notorious example.  I had the experience to be able to speak to Whitman’s father in Lake Worth Florida where I was a police officer.  Mr. Whitman lived with the guilt and had no idea his son would do something like he did.  He blamed it on a brain tumor they found in his son when they performed an autopsy.  Another “bad” Boy Scout was H.R. Haldeman.  He was Richard Nixon’s Chief of Staff, who was responsible for overseeing much of the nefarious “Watergate Affair.”  Even the best can turn into some of the worst over time.

 

Regardless of the fact that the Boy Scouts now allows gay men to join, they still teach the values necessary in our society, and even gay men, and women, need values, self-discipline and self-confidence, especially when so many are trying to destroy these traits in gays.

Love Your Country, But Don't Trust Your Government - Yet Another Reason For Me

There comes a point when enough is enough and the Government, in my humble opinion, has clearly abused its authority for no known rational reason.  As a pilot, I have the potential to personally become a victim of this abuse of authority.  I am actually more concerned that this is the government acting without any legal authority, it is the “because we can” authority, and that may be even worse.  Allow me to explain the situation.

Two men from New York City were flying in single-engine private plane on May 1, 2013.  The pair was on a business trip flying from New Jersey to California.  They landed in Oklahoma and were briefly detained by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Homeland Security Officers who looked through the plane.  The inquiries were relatively unobtrusive and the pilot and passenger thought little of it. It was not until May 5, 2013, when the pair landed in Iowa City, Iowa that something went awry.    They are in the real estate business and make these flights routinely.  They landed in Iowa City for a scheduled refueling stop when they were descended upon by CBP’s Air and Marine Operations Unit, Homeland Security and local police.  The flight was on an Instrument Flight Plan and had been tracked by Air Traffic Controllers throughout the trip.  That is how CBP knew where and when to stop and search the aircraft.

Police held the pilot, passenger and their plane for over two hours while they searched every compartment and crevice on the plane and every piece of luggage and container on it.  These officials then left all of the aircraft compartments, luggage, contents and other items open and on the tarmac for the pilot and passenger to clean up.  Officials refused to answer any questions put to them by the pilot.  They would not explain what they were looking for, why they had chosen this aircraft or the grounds on which the search was based.  They just stated, with no further explanation, that the pilot had no choice.  To describe the search as “intrusive” is an understatement.  When the pilot raised objections to CBP’s actions, the pilot was given only three options:  wait inside the airport office, wait quietly outside or be detained in handcuffs.

The pilot has never been convicted of a crime, is an observant Jew and has never used drugs and there is no reason to believe they were involved in any criminal activity at the time of this search.  The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, of which I and over 400,000 others are members, have received reports of similar occurrences in approximately a dozen cases.  Aircraft have been stopped from taking off and were searched by CBT, having never left nor re-entered the country.

Now, the last time I checked, Customs and Border Protection was responsible for, well, customs and border protection.  Why would CBT have any jurisdiction to stop and search this, or any other aircraft, similarly situated?  This was a domestic flight that never left the country at any time.  They were not entering the country.  Last I heard; smuggling illegal aliens from New Jersey to California was not big business; they have enough undocumented workers there already.   I think they have some explaining to do, and should be made to do so, in front of a Federal Judge, if necessary.

Let me put this situation in terms closer to home.  You and your business partner are on a business trip in your car.  You stop at a gas station and are suddenly surrounded by armed men wearing uniforms of Customs and Border Protection.  They order you to open all the doors, the trunk and the engine compartment.   You are not asked, you are ordered.  They tell you, if you object; they will just handcuff you and do it anyway.  These CBP Officers then proceed to open the glove box, the center console and empty the contents onto the ground.  They remove the seats from the car and throw them on the ground.  They remove your luggage from the trunk, open it and also empty this onto the ground as they go through each item.  They search the engine compartment.  They will not tell you why they are searching your vehicle, what they are searching for or what gives them the right or authority to do this.  They inform you that your repeated objections are obstructing them and they will either arrest you or just handcuff you to shut you up.  When they are finished, they just get in their cars and leave, leaving all your stuff on the ground at the gas station for you to clean up.

Think about how you would feel if you were the victim of this action.  After it is all over, you want answers, so you make Freedom of Information Requests regarding the actions and any legal justification.  Months, or even years, later, you get one of two responses; a terse statement that they don’t have to provide you any information on the grounds of “National Security;” or, you get a written reply that is more black than white because they have blacked out 80% of all the information on the page with a black magic marker, and the 80% is anything that would give you any inkling of what is going on.  Oh, and they don’t even tell you why they have the right to invoke a “National Security” exemption.  Now you are left to sue them in Federal Court.  They laugh at you because they will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money, not their money, to keep you in Court until you are flat broke.

I fly a private airplane.  I love to fly, and I love to travel, but flying and traveling has become less enjoyable because, in spite of the fact that I do nothing wrong, I am targeted because I am a pilot, own a plane and someone in the government apparently takes exception to this.

20/20 Hindsight Can Be Amazing - Even In Economics

I was recently sent this 1934 Chicago Tribune Cartoon by one of my Teapublican friends.  Contrary to what some might think, I actually do have people I consider good friends that are Teapublicans. We have agreed to disagree and try not to discuss politics, certain theories of eugenics.  I politely nod at them when they break this tacit agreement and try to shift the conversation to something on which we can agree.

The interesting thing about this carton is that the advice in the lower left corner actually worked; not in the short term, but ultimately it worked, and not in the abstract . WWII resulted in the greatest deficit spending in the history of the US. This was a result of massive demand created by WWII.  It became the greated public works program the world has ever seen.  We made everything from guns and airplanes, bombs and ammunition to clothing and parachutes.  We sent all this stuff, not to mention a lot of men and women, off to war.  It got blown up or otherwise destroyed and had to be replaced.  There was demand on a massive scale and that demand for war materials not only jump-started the economy, but pushed it into high gear.

WWII is proof positive that the US economy is demand driven. Not only did WWII provide for a way out of the Depression, but also started the longest period of economic growth and prosperity the US has ever seen. It was not "trickle-down" anything, it was DEMAND! The war created demand, the government, by absolute necessity, had to become the biggest consumer.  Because the US was literally fighting for the survival of a way of life, we didn't care how often, nor how much, we over drafted the government checking account.

The conservative ideologues, Teapublicans, that believe we should give tax breaks to the rich and Corporate America are fooling themselves, or just lying.  Give a rich man or a corporation a tax break, absent someone to buy his goods or services, he puts the money in the bank and waits. Sure, they can invest the money, but without demand, it is just a cash reserve; it sits somewhere waiting for demand to create the need for more production and expansion. 

If we give someone that is living from paycheck to paycheck a tax break, he spends the money and creates demand, which causes the corporation to make more products or provide more services.  It is not exactly rocket science.  The fancy term is Keynesian Economics, named for John Maynard Keynes, who in 1999 was named one of Time Magazine’s 100-most influential people of the 20^th Century. 

 

Interestingly enough, George W. Bush, a patron saint of neo-conservatism, used Keynesian economic theory as the underpinnings of his response to the economic crisis of 2007-2008 [Insert Teapublican gasp here].  Yes Teapublicans, even George figured out that the Laffer Curve had long-since been debunked, a worthless, if warm and fuzzy feeling, theory.

So, while we wait for the Teapublicans to crash the economy if they don’t get their way, they send around a cartoon that proves the point they think is evil, rude, immoral, unethical and, probably, fattening.  Amazing!

Teapublicans Can't Have It Both Ways

One of the things of which you may have been aware, unless you are living on a desert island in the South Pacific or under the proverbial rock, is that the Teapublicans have closed down the government. Yes, the Teapublicans, or Tea Party faction of the Republican Party, are the primary, mostly responsible party in the government shut down. I have already sent handwritten letters to my Senators and Representatives, stating simply, "I hold them responsible, I vote and I will remember this!" Of course I got back what can only be described as B*LLSH*T, thanking me for my input, but basically dismissing me.

The thing that looms large in the very, very near future is the Debt Ceiling. The Teapublicans again, want to hold this hostage like an eight-year-old on a playground.  If we don't get our way, we will take our ball and go home. Actually, a more accurate description is the Teapublicans have doused themselves and the country in gasoline and they are holding a lighter in their hand threatening to burn the country to the ground if they do not get their way. Sure, they will perish, but they will take everyone and everything with them. Well, actually, that's not quite accurate, if you believe them, which I don't....

The Teapublicans tell us on one hand that they will reduce the country and the economy to ruins if ObamaCare isn't unfunded, if the rich don't get more tax breaks and if the United States is not taken back to the 19th Century, politically. However, they also want to try to make sure that they don't look like the complete flaming (pardon the pun) morons they are. So, they also argue that if they do cause the United States to default, it won't be such a bad thing. Denial is a wonderful thing and clearly there is no one so blind as one who will not see.

The Teapublicans expect to bring rational, reasonable people to their knees by threatening an economic holocaust, but then, in the same breath, claim it will have little or no impact on the country. This is one of the worst, and most obvious, examples of complete hypocrisy I have seen in a quite some time. It is the classic politics of threatening to do bad things if they don't get their way, but then, if the bad thing happens, well, it won't be very bad.

So, which is it Tea Party? You won't raise the Debt Ceiling and crash the economy if you don't get your way, or it won't crash the economy? You are engaged in a pointless act that will accomplish nothing, by your own logic. Well, it may have one advantage; people in this country may figure out that the Teapublicans are bunch of raving lunatics who, like Lemmings, will follow each other off a cliff and possibly not see a majority in either house of the Legislature for several decades. Hey, past Republican shutdowns have gotten us Democratic Majorities in both Houses of Congress and Bill Clinton re-elected. Do these idiots never learn?

TeaPublicans: Give Us What We Want, or We'll Pick Up Our Ball and Go Home !

We live in an admittedly politically polarized society.  However, I would submit that the Left (note capital ‘L’) has remained where it always has been, at least since the Roosevelt administration, while the Right (capital ‘R’) has moved toward an ever-increasing conservative position on the political continuum.   This has resulted in an unfortunate set of situations that I believe have become quite obvious.  However, there are other, significantly less obvious, unfortunate situations that have resulted.

The unfortunate situation is the requirement for split loyalties within the Republican Party.  It goes like this.  The Republican Party has been taken over, in part, by the ultra-Conservative, neo-fascist, Right Wing of the Party.  I refer to them as TeaPublicans.  However, this takeover is not country-wide.  The TeaPublicans are very important to Republicans when it comes to primary elections.  A Republican cannot get re-elected without the support of TeaPublicans, so he or she is beholden to them to keep his job.  If he does not toe the line, he ends up with competition in the primary where the TeaPublicans can defeat the less conservative and, I think, more reasonable and rational of the two.  So TeaPublicans can control the vote of any individual Senator or Representative at the local level.

However, the interests of the Republican Party, as a whole, may be more country-wide.  Yet if an individual elected official votes with these National Interests of the Party, they vote against the demands of the TeaPublicans.  To do what is good for the Republican Party in general, but they have to vote in a way that the local interests perceive as wrong and, in some cases, as literally traitorous.  The TeaPublicans hold the individual members hostage.  You get to choose whether to do what’s good for the whole Party or what’s good for you to get re-elected.

Let us examine the debt ceiling issue.  TeaPublicans demand that the debt ceiling be held hostage to an effort to defund ObamaCare.  Most legitimate polls indicate the Republican Party will suffer incredible losses in poll numbers, as high as 79%, if the Party forces a government shutdown.  However, individual Senators and Representatives will suffer horribly at the polls in their individual districts, if they do what is in the best interest of the Republican Party as a whole and vote not to shut down the government.  This would require the unfunding of ObamaCare provision to be dropped from the Continuing Funding Resolution as it is currently proposed.

Current estimates are that almost 80% of the electorate will hold the Republican Party directly responsible for a government shutdown.  This will translate into a near inability to win the Presidential election in 2016.  It is possible the TeaPublicans may maintain control of the House of Representatives based on this semi-suicidal tactic, but it brands the Republican Party as weak and helpless against this neo-fascist, ultra-conservative Right Wing of the Party. 

A shutdown of the Federal Government is certainly not an unheard of event, but the shutdowns of 1995-96 and 2011, as a result of extreme partisan bickering caused the credit rating of the United States to be taken now a notch; leaving us in about the same place as Belgium, but below Great Britain and Australia, known as the “AAA Club.”  The political bickering and enduring partisanship caused Standard and Poor’s to doubt the stability of the U.S. Economy and took away a valuable asset, that AAA-rating.  This has had an enduring effect on both the Economy and financial markets, and is likely to have a deleterious effect on the fragile economic recovery currently underway.

Unfortunately, the TeaPublicans, like bullies playing ball on a schoolyard, will pick up their ball and go home if they don’t get exactly what they want, the consequences be damned. Then they will try to blame the Democratic Party (yes, that’s Democratic, not Democrat…use the language correctly morons), but very few people are going to buy into it and it just may guarantee a Democratic President in 2016.  Naaahhhhh, it still ain’t worth it.

We Don't Need Gun Control in this Country, We Need People Control

I have written many times about guns and gun control, and I will not bore you with more of the same here.  Review the index of this blog and you can find them easy enough.  However, once again, we have had a shooting that appalls the greater world and, as usual, there have been a multitude of comments.

I believe this incident, yet again, proves the point that "gun control" is an unfortunate battle cry of my brethren Liberals that, in the end, will not accomplish much.  This horrific shooting incident is an example of something that would have happened in spite of the most stringent gun controls that have been proposed in this country.

Each and every time we have a shooting anything like the one at the Navy Yard, or Newtown or Aurora or any number of other so-called “mass” shootings, people, most of them Liberals like me, come out of the woodwork to tell us, “See, I told you so…  We should ban guns!”  The Conservatives, and especially members of the NRA, and the NRA itself, also come out of the woodwork to tell us, “See, I told you so… If someone had been carrying a lawful concealed firearm, they could have stopped this.”  I do not believe either of these positions is correct.  Allow me to go through a few facts, as we know them right this minute (note:  The matter is still under investigation.  The facts have already changed…a couple of times.  They will change again, I am sure.)

Initial reports regarding the shooting would have had us believe Aaron Alexis, the shooter, was armed with the dreaded AR-15 assault rifle.  He was not; he was armed with a Remington, Model 870, 12- gauge, pump-action shotgun.  I suspect that the anti-gun-side of the issue desperately wanted it to be the AR-15 so they could scream “assault weapons ban” at the top of their lungs.  I am intimately familiar with both of these weapons and happen to own both.  You are about to learn more than you ever wanted to know about a particular shotgun. 

The Remington 870 is, as I said, a pump-action shotgun.  The shooter must pull the trigger to fire the shot, and then pull the forearm back to eject the fired shell and then push it forward to load another live round, then, as they say, lather, rinse, repeat.  The gun is not an automatic weapon, nor is it a semi-automatic weapon (sorry, you will have to use Google for the differences).  The Remington 870 shotgun was designed in 1951 and there have been over 10 million produced.  There is a saying, said in jest by members of the gun-owning community, every male over the age of 25, if they own a gun or guns, will own a Remington 870.  In the firearms-owning community, they are virtually ubiquitous.

The 870 comes in various types and styles; The Wingmaster, Express, Marine, SPS, SPS-T, XCS, TAC, Super Mag and MCS.  Suffice it to say that there are variants of the weapon from bird-shooting models to tactical combat versions.  In the military, in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, a seldom understood place), I carried an 870 shotgun in addition to the ubiquitous M16-A1 assault rifle, for close encounters with the enemy.  As a police officer, I used the 870 “Riot Gun” version of this shotgun (supplied by the police department) and own both the "Wingmaster" for bird hunting and “Deerslayer” model for hunting small to medium-sized game animals.  The point of all this is, with just a few changes, the same shotgun can be adapted for hunting, police or military combat uses.  Just FYI, the model 870 can hold anywhere from six to eight rounds (“shots”).  This is not a high-capacity magazine by anyone’s definition.

Mr. Alexis was able to use this commonly available firearm to go on a shooting rampage and kill 12 people.  He did not need the now-reviled assault weapon or high-capacity magazine to be a very effective killing machine.  Before you start using this as a justification for banning all firearms, check out my previous blog post on why that will not work  (GUN CONTROL IN THE U.S. – KINDA LIKE BEING JUST A LITTLE PREGNANT?, March 16, 2012).

Now that we know what kind of gun he used, let us look at the tactics.  He took up a position four floors above what amounts to a food court/dining area and started blasting away.  At some point, police and armed security in hot pursuit, he shot an armed security officer and took his gun.  He used his Navy combat training to know to scavenge another weapon from the “downed” enemy. I would argue that he could have just as easily approached an unsuspecting security officer or police officer with a concealed knife, stabbed him or her, and taken their firearm.  The element of surprise was the most effective weapon he had to arm himself, not necessarily the firearm (See my blog post: TRAYVON MARTIN’S DEATH….THERE ARE THINGS WE MUST LEARN, April 10, 2012, especially No. 3, for more relevant information about armed encounters).

Let us review:  Anti-gunners, Alexis used one of the single most commonly available shotguns on the planet to kill a significant number of people. This was a hunting shotgun that no one has proposed banning. He did not use an assault weapon, nor high-capacity magazines to inflict these casualties.  Under the most stringent gun control regulations  proposed in this country, this weapon would have been available from any gun shop. This shooting occurred in Washington, D.C., where, arguably, the most stringent gun control laws in the country exist.  It is not possible to ban all guns in this country and you don’t need an assault weapon to kill a lot of people.  Using a shotgun, Alexis did not even need to be a good shot.  They call it a scatter-gun for a reason. Personal note: As a cop, I always said I would rather face a man with a pistol because I had a chance that he might miss.  If gun control eliminates pistols, bad guys will use shotguns and then they don’t even have to be good shots to kill me, but that is just me.

Pro-gunners; Alexis used deadly force to kill and disarm an individual, a security officer, carrying a legal firearm.  He then turned this stolen firearm on others.  It can be argued that an individual with a concealed firearm might have been able to use the element of surprise against Alexis and shoot him before Alexis knew the individual was armed, but that engages in a series of “what if’s” that are pretty far-fetched.  Anyone with a gun, concealed or otherwise, would have it drawn and at the ready, even if they were carrying it concealed to begin with, and this man was killing indiscriminately. Police and security brought weapons to the fight; once they got shot and/or killed their guns could be used against them or others.

As I started this blog post, this incident would have happened in spite of even the most stringent gun control legislation ever proposed.  The only thing that will stop gun violence is people control.  This guy was nuts.  Everbody knew he was nuts, inclduing the police, but he was able to buy a shotgun, in spite of a so-called "background check."  While the background check makes us feel better, it is a false sense of security as currently implemented, and is is worse than useless.