When we do the best that we can,
we never know what miracle is wrought in our life,
or in the life of another.
Helen Keller
Image of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of Libertarian Republicans |
Let's rephrase the question. Suppose the government secretly installed a tiny camera in your shower without your knowledge or consent. Some people would probably shrug it off saying, "I've got nothing to hide; I'm proud of my body. The government says that it needs the data for the War on Terror; who am I to question? Any prudes must be have something to hide..." For one thing, government exists at consent of the people; we have the right to speak and to speak anonymously. If government has a legitimate security concern, it can go to a judge with evidence to support extraordinary scrutiny. It does not have the right to apply extraordinary scrutiny on a universal basis and certainly without knowledge and consent of the people. For example, when I install software on my computer, if other software is bundled, even the base program generally allows me to explicitly decline installing a toolbar or resetting my browser home page.
We have the Obama Administration now asking SCOTUS to enable warrantless searches of cellphones. (Thus for instance police could arrest you on a minor infraction and use it to go fishing on the cellphone repository for evidence of unrelated, more serious offenses.) But this is not the only evidence of the lawless Obama Administration pushing the envelope of government empire-building: here is the author of the Patriot Act, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner:
Recent revelations by the Washington Post emphasize the need for greater transparency. The National Security Agency failed to report privacy violations that are serious infringements of constitutional rights. Beyond these blatant violations, the foundation of the programs is itself illegal.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the collection of certain business records — in this case, phone records — when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records are relevant to an authorized investigation into international terrorism.
Under this relevance standard, the administration has collected the details of every call made by every American, even though the overwhelming majority of these calls have nothing to do with terrorism. Since first learning of the program this spring, I have been a vocal critic of such dragnet collection as a gross invasion of privacy and a violation of Section 215.
The phone records of innocent Americans do not relate to terrorism, and they are not reasonably likely to lead to information that relates to terrorism. Put simply, the phone calls we make to our friends, families and business associates are private and have nothing to do with terrorism or the government's efforts to stop it. The government may need the haystack to find the needle, but gathering the haystack without knowledge that it contains the needle is precisely what the relevance standard and Section 215 are supposed to prevent.
The administration actually goes further and reasons that Congress essentially sanctioned the abuse of the Patriot Act by failing to stop the administration from abusing it. This last point deserves to be quoted in full:
"Moreover, information concerning the use of Section 215 to collect telephony metadata in bulk was made available to all members of Congress, and Congress reauthorized Section 215 without change after this information was provided. It is significant to the legal analysis of the statute that Congress was on notice of this activity and of the source of its legal authority when the statute was reauthorized."
As I have said numerous times, I did not know the administration was using the Patriot Act for bulk collection, and neither did a majority of my colleagues. Regardless, the suggestion that the administration can violate the law because Congress failed to object is outrageous. But let them be on notice: I am objecting right now.
Note to GOP Leadership: Stop the Thin-Skinned Nonsense
Hell froze over: I actually agreed with something Robert Gibbs had to say on Meet the Press: the GOP has to provide a positive message about political leadership. I have been saying the same thing over the life of the blog several times.
One of the major problems the GOP has had over the past 2 elections is it nominated two candidates running on their resume, not their ideals, their vision of America. One of the paradoxes Rand Paul needs to address as he aims at a 2016 candidacy is how to make limited government an attractive philosophy: running against 8 failed years of Obama's "leadership" isn't enough. You aren't going to win over independents and moderates by acting like the super-sized version of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi: "No immigration for you; no benefits for him or her." The Dems think the Republicans are boxed in: it's politically easier to spend more money than to cut it. They think it's paradoxical that someone whom believes in limited government actually wants to run it and considers the chase to be Chief Executive noble.
I think it's doable; for example, Rand Paul can run a reformist campaign, a re-birth of American ideals and liberty. He should articulate popular discontent with government run amok and argue we need to make the government sustainable and more manageable by limiting the federal scope to distinctive constitutional competencies. He can run against the Democrats' profligate ways and against the GOP's sins as a lite version of failed progressive domestic and interventionist policies.
I am NOT favorably inclined to the hubris candidacy of an unaccomplished Hillary Clinton whom presided over the collapse of HillaryCare in Clinton's first term and a convoluted seat of the pants foreign policy under Obama. But why is the RNC making a stink over fawning Clinton film projects. (I could use Obama's favorite phrase here about putting lipstick on a pig, but it would probably get slammed by ideological feminists...) The point is, we know how these movies turn out, and it's not a pretty picture. Does anyone really believe that Hillary didn't know about Bill's infidelities until the Lewinsky scandal? If being the wife of an unfaithful husband qualifies someone for being President, there are millions of women ahead of her in line...
I mean, has Priebus seen the ratings of NBC and CNN lately? How many viewers are going to tune in for a page-turning Clinton biography if Priebus didn't make a stink over it? I mean, what promos are they going to run? "See Hillary slap Bill's face..." "See how Hillary lost the 2008 nomination to a first-term Senator..." Treating a boring film project about an unaccomplished carpetbagging former First Lady like an unpaid campaign ad is a joke. Refusing to let them cover certain GOP debates (yes, those big ratings blockbusters) is like denying eyeballs to GOP candidates. (Granted, you could probably fit the audience in a Volkswagen Beetle...)
Venezuela's Central Planners Not Only Fail to Supply Enough Toilet Paper, but Rice and More
Venezeula used to be self-sufficient in many things, but under the late Chavez' program of nationalization, land redistribution, and currency and price controls, shortages have appeared for a number of staples, such as toothpaste, butter, coffee, beef, toilet paper, steel, aluminum, sugar, and rice.
What has it meant to the people of Venezuela?:
Overall, Venezuelan imports have quadrupled since Mr. Chávez took office, to $59.3 billion in 2012 from about $14.5 billion in 2000, according to Venezuela government figures .... A recent World Bank report says that 30% of people who were originally considered "not poor" in Venezuela fell into poverty between 1992 and 2006. In most other Latin American countries, the middle class grew in that time.In June, Venezuela imported more US toilet paper than in the last 20 years combined. The above-cited WSJ article gives a case example of a Venezuelan farmer whom has been unable to buy new tractors, parts for those in maintenance, an inability to procure sufficient herbicide, and as a result he is only able to harvest about two-thirds as much as he could in the past.
But, you know, I guess people don't vote for a more productive, diversified economy: it's far too easy to blame capitalism... They voted for Maduro, a Chavez wannabe.
I know: who are we to talk? This country reelected Obama...
Crony Big Couch vs. Newspaper Advice Columnist
Political Humor
 |
| Courtesy of Facebook |
 |
| Courtesy of Lisa Benson and Townhall |
The Beatles, "Here Comes the Sun"
