PING!!

Ran across this on earlier today, and if this doesn't outrage you....nothing will. This just helps reinforce my position that I never have and never will have a cell phone!!

Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with customer location data more than 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009, according to a company manager who disclosed the statistic at a non-public interception and wiretapping conference in October.

The manager also revealed the existence of a previously undisclosed web portal that Sprint provides law enforcement to conduct automated “pings” to track users. Through the website, authorized agents can type in a mobile phone number and obtain global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of the phone.

The revelations, uncovered by blogger and privacy activist Christopher Soghoian, have spawned questions about the number of Sprint customers who have been under surveillance, as well as the legal process agents followed to obtain such data.

But a Sprint Nextel spokesman said that Soghoian, who recorded the Sprint manager’s statements at the closed conference, misunderstood what the figure represents. The number of customers whose GPS data was provided to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies was much less than 8 million, as was the total number of individual requests for data.

The spokesman wouldn’t disclose how many of Sprint’s 48 million customers had their GPS data shared, or indicate the number of unique surveillance requests from law enforcement. But he said that a single surveillance order against a lone target could generate thousands of GPS “pings” to the cell phone, as the police track the subject’s movements over the course of days or weeks. That, Sprint claims, is the source of the 8 million figure: it’s the cumulative number of times Sprint cell phones covertly reported their location to law enforcement over the year.

The spokesman also said that law enforcement agents have to obtain a court order for the data, except in special emergency circumstances.

The information about the data requests and portal comes from Paul Taylor, manager of Sprint’s Electronic Surveillance Team. He made the revelations at the Intelligent Support Systems (ISS) conference, a surveillance industry gathering for law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the companies that provide them with the technologies and capabilities to conduct surveillance.

The conference is closed to press, but Soghoian, who is a graduate student at Indiana University, obtained entry and recorded a couple of panel sessions, which he posted on his blog (see below). In one of the recordings, Taylor is heard saying that the automated web system was rolled out a year ago and that in 13 months it had processed more than 8 million requests for GPS data from law enforcement.

“We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests,” Taylor is heard saying. “So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy.”

Soghoian concluded on his blog that the quote provided proof that “location requests easily outnumber wiretaps, and … likely outnumber all other forms of surveillance request too.”

He cites a telecom attorney named Al Gidari who claimed at a talk last year that each of the major wireless carriers received about 100 requests a week for customer-location data. At 100 requests a week for each of the top four wireless carriers, the total should be around 20,000 requests a year.

“I now have proof that he significantly underestimated the number of requests by several orders of magnitude,” Soghoian writes.

But Sprint spokesman John Taylor (who is not related to Paul Taylor) says Soghoian had “grossly misrepresented” the 8 million figure, which doesn’t refer to unique requests or to individual customers, but to the total number of “pings” made on every number for the duration of a law enforcement request.

“The figure represents the number of individual pings for specific location information, made to the Sprint network as part of a series of law enforcement investigations and public safety assistance requests during the past year,” said spokesman Taylor. “It’s critical to note that a single case or investigation may generate thousands of individual pings to the network as the law enforcement or public safety agency attempts to track or locate an individual.”

There are four circumstances under which law enforcement agents can use the Sprint website and obtain GPS data: 1) under the authority of a court order; 2) to track the location of a customer who has made a 911 call; 3) in an emergency situation, such as tracking someone lost in the wilderness or trying to locate an abducted child or hostage; 4) with a customer’s consent.

In the case of court orders, Taylor said agents are required to provide Sprint with the order, after which the company provisions the law enforcement account to allow an agency to track the targeted phone number. Court orders cover a 60-day period, and agents can do automated pings to obtain real-time GPS data every three minutes throughout that 60-day period. Taylor says this accounts for the 8 million figure.

“If you can access the info every three minutes over 60 days, that adds up pretty quickly,” he told Threat Level.

He added that the GPS data includes only latitude and longitude and the date and time of the ping.

The automated system was set up so that law enforcement agents wouldn’t have to contact Sprint’s electronic surveillance team each time they wanted to ping a phone number throughout the 60 days of a court order. Agents still have to obtain a subpoena to get historic call detail records, such as phone numbers called, the date, time and duration of calls and the cell site and sector from which the calls were made.

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/gps-data/#ixzz0jKU6X8bB

Got cell phone??

Bob
III

Amendment

Been a while. Sorry. Real life & all. The House just voted to allow "deem and pass." Here's one reaction:

“Mr. President, I send an unprinted Amendment to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration,” are the exact words that any U.S. Senator can say when offering this amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

This amendment, below, should be walked down to the floor of the U.S. Senate and voted on prior to any vote on the floor of the U.S. House, in order to prepare the legal battlefield for the court challenge against the Alice-in-Wonderland-like-Red-Queen, Speaker Pelosi, and her dictatorial and unconstitutional scheme to pass the Senate Health Care bill without voting on it. While we are uncertain that we will be fighting on this ground, it is essential to prepare the battlefield, if we do.

This amendment, I am reliably advised, was written by a former judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals who was on President Bush’s short list for the Supreme Court (Roberts beat him out) and is recently retired and is teaching Constitutional law at one of the most prestigious national law schools at University on the west coast.

So, in other words, don’t mess with the language of this amendment. Just launch it, now on whatever bill is now pending on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

START OF TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT:

Unprinted Amendment No.___ .

Intended to Proposed by Mr. _________.

Viz:

Add at the end of the bill the following new Section:

“Sec.___ . a) Inasmuch as Sections Five and Seven of Article I of the United States Constitution mandate a certain process for the enactment of a federal law and do not allow a measure to become a law by “deeming” it passed by either House of Congress, it is the Sense of the Senate and its judgment that the House of Representatives is required by the Supreme Law of the United States, to vote directly and up or down on H.R. 3590 in order to send that measure lawfully to the President, if, and only if, it shall have been approved by a majority vote of each such House taken on an identical measure; and, more particularly, it is the Sense of the Senate that, in conformity with Article I of the Constitution, the House of Representatives, unless the measure is returned to the Senate with an Amendment by the House, must vote directly on the language sent to it by the Senate precisely as it was duly enrolled at the direction of the Senate by its Enrolling Clerk, certified as an Act of the Senate by the Secretary of the Senate, and thereupon transmitted by the Senate’s Messenger to the House Chamber while the House of Representatives was in actual Session.

b) It is the further Sense of the Senate that the exact words that the Senate caused to be enrolled on parchment and taken by messenger to the House of Representatives, constitute the sole document and the only document upon which Members of the House can lawfully cast their vote, whether Yeah or Nay, under the process expressly mandated by the United States Constitution; and it is also the Sense of the Senate and its judgment that to do otherwise by “deeming” rather than voting would void any purported enactment, deprive it of the force of law, justify disobedience to it, and cause irreparable violence and harm to our system of government and its fundamental law through fraud, deception, abuse of power, and usurpation of the civil rights of the People.

c) This Section maybe cited as the “Congressional Voting Rights Resolution.”.

END OF AMENDMENT TEXT.

I further ask all patriots and Americans who care deeply about the U.S. Consititution to re-post the text of this Amendment every where possible on the internet. Specifically, wallpaper the web with the text of the this Amendment, today.

Check. From http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2010/03/18/mr-president-i-send-an-unprinted-amendment-to-the-desk/

Food: Business Meetings

Americans for Tax Reform Center for Fiscal Accountability is one of those portal web sites that can eat through as much time as you have to serve it.


ABOUT:



We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant's books, so that every member of Congress, and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently, to control them.

Thomas Jefferson, 1802
                                                                                                                                                                       

The Center for Fiscal Accountability, founded in 2008, is a project of Americans for Tax Reform, a national taxpayer advocacy organization. Accountability - the “process that requires us to disclose fully and truthfully our performance to those who are entitled to know,” according to the Honorable Maurice McTigue – is one of the cornerstones of the Republican form of government. Acknowledging that the American people and its economy can best thrive and prosper when the role of government is limited and subject to the scrutiny of taxpayers, the Center for Fiscal Accountability seeks to shed a light on government expenditures, and to promote transparency, accountability, and restraint in government finance.




On the right panel you will see a map. Click to be taken to your state's "transparency" site. There you will probably wile away several hours learning, for example, that your state's Department of Education has spent $432,000 (rounded to nearest thousandth) this fiscal year on "FOOD: business meetings," including-- and I especially like this-- $3210 at Circus Circus, MS. Biggest single "food: business meeting" expenditure was over $18,000 at a place called Whispering Wood Hotel and Conference Center conveniently located very near the casinos in Tunica, MS (a location which is about as far from being a "central" location as you can get-- I didn't even want to look at reimbursed travel expenses).


O.k. let's review. Mississippi has a budget deficit estimated to be greater than $544, 000, 000 for 2010, and teachers are going to conferences where the food at coffee breaks and probably at some big dinner is costing the tax payers $18, 000-- which is by the way just short of the median income in my Mississippi County. 


Keep an eye on government so that every member of Congress, and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently, to control them.

I "MUST" Post Another Article

I offer my apologies to the readers of this blog for my absence this past week. Since I am not one to preach but not adhere to my advice or opinion, I have been busy this week preparing a Constitutional Studies seminar for interested individuals in my area and have been actively involved in the upcoming district caucuses being held on March 6th. Since I can never seem to keep my mouth closed or my mind shut, it was time to post my thoughts again on The Patriot before too much time had lapsed. . I had been relying on the words of the Founding Fathers to inspire articles, but the wisdom of other patriots carry as much weight with me as theirs do. In the spirit of passing knowledge and opinion I offer another article for your perusal and the words of Daniel Webster.

“A strong conviction that something MUST be done is the parent of many bad measures.”

Daniel Webster US diplomat, lawyer, orator, & politician (1782 - 1852)

It is within these words of Daniel Webster that we find ourselves and the state of our country in today. Health care MUST be reformed, the economy MUST have a bloated stimulus package in order to prevent catastrophe, and we MUST institute laws to lower carbon emissions to save our planet. The word ‘must’ has, within its meaning, a feeling of totality, one of rigidity, one of obsession. ‘Must’ is used to frighten, to coerce, and to enforce.

We need to, as a society, lessen the use of ‘must’ and replace it with ‘would like’. By making this change we can solve many of the problems that have brought us to this brink of self-destruction. By removing ‘must’ we would then have: “I ‘would like’ to have a big screen TV”. “I ‘would like’ to live in a McMansion”. “We ‘would like’ to reform healthcare”. “We ‘would like’ to fix the economy”. “Must” should be reserved for the direst of situations. “We MUST defend the Constitution”. “We MUST protect the country from foreign hostilities”. “We MUST do unto others as we would have them do unto us”.

By rephrasing what we “must do” we give ourselves the time to find the BEST way to bring about our goal. By lessening our greed, we find the room for charity. By removing our blinders, we are allowed to see “the big picture” and how our decision will affect the whole. Only when we find a way to examine all sides of a situation, weigh the impact of our decisions, and are prepared to NOT give in to selfishness, will we be able to fairly bring about real CHANGE. This is what we MUST do.

The Right of Recall

This isn’t American democracy — this is a shop-worn, elitist, authoritarianism closer to abuses we see in countries like Venezuela.

So, what would happen if the people could change this rotten situation?

Actually, there may just well be a mechanism within our political system to do so — the Right of Recall.  Nine states already have laws on the books providing for Recall of members of Congress: Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.  These 9 states suffer 12 incumbent Senators who are members of the runaway Congressional majority, who arenot already standing for reelection in 2010, but potentially could be.

For example, the New Jersey state constitution provides, “The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress.”

Interesting. Read the whole thing here.

Freedom Before Ideology: Battling the Radicals

"I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag."

Craig Anthony Washington – US Congressman-Texas (1989-1995)

It seems as of late, politicians, progressive pundits, and liberal radicals have decided to promote the latter form of political expression rather than the former. This includes our President, his staff, and the Democratic leadership in congress. It is these groups who believe the Constitution is simply a guide to TRY and follow and NOT the supreme law of the land which MUST be adhered to. They are supported by people who either wish to destroy our country, or those who are so deluded with a cause, that they are blinded to what is allowed by our system of government. In many cases activists are so radicalized that they not only ignore the constraints of the Constitution, they ignore the laws of the state and natural law. They will destroy valuable farm land to protect a 2 inch fish, murder a doctor because he performed an abortion, they lobby politicians to sway a vote that would promote their cause, but harms the public as a whole or is blatantly unconstitutional. What they fail to remember is that the Constitution is what allows them to have their views and protects their ability to speak those views without fear of arrest or prosecution.

This is yet another example of how extreme radicals look only to the end to justify their means. This seems to be more prevalent among progressive activists. In fact ‘winning at all costs’ is a precept in the book of progressive idealistic thought (see Alinsky 1 & 2). Those who spend their money, their time and their effort to circumvent the Constitution fail to realize that in doing so, they risk losing the protection it provides for them to do what they do. They forget that is was a group of radicals that formed the Constitution to ensure that, when necessary, the views and voices of the opposition could not be squashed by government. If they wish to ‘fundamentally transform America’ they risk transforming their ability, to provide the discourse that makes America great, completely out of the system.

It is up to everyone who values the Constitution to stand up as loudly as the extremists. It is our duty to not shrink in the face of their attacks. Our words are as protected as their words. For every one who holds their thoughts, there are dozens more who believe as we do. When the minority is allowed to dictate the governance of the country, we move closer to oligarchy as opposed to the democratic-republic which has served the masses for over 200 years.

State of the Union - State of the Nonsense Part 2

“To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are entrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burdens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.”

George Washington – First State of the Union Address: January 8, 1790 Federal Hall, New York City

In preparing for the second installment of my State of the Union commentary I decided to read George Washington’s first address. It was interesting to see that basically the form of the address has not changed much in 200 plus years. The only real change has been the substance of the content. The substance of Washington’s address is one of accepting the trust bestowed upon him, and a warning to congress to remember that they have been entrusted with the same. This single paragraph, directed to the Congress, sums up all that those in the federal government should strive for, not just in Washington’s time, but for as long as there is a nation based on the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case as evidenced by directives and policies promoted by the President in the 2010 State of the Union address. Therefore, using Washington’s words as the benchmark, let us review some more excerpts from the first State of the Union address of President Obama.


“We need to invest in the skills and education of our people”. - Obama

“Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. “ - Washington

Aside from the lyric eloquence of Washington’s statement, both presidents call for support of education. The difference between the two is the method which to go about it. Washington call for support of the institution of education, Obama calls for the government to pay for free education. Washington calls for the congress to promote an environment favorable to education, Obama calls for government control and pay for education reform. Now being the strict constitutionalist that I am, I cannot help but point out that supplying funds for education or determining programs for schools to follow are not among the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Those powers are reserved to the states.

“Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history” - Obama

“The advancement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures by all proper means will not, I trust, need recommendation” - Washington

Washington’s comment, “by all proper means”, states that the support should come from the government within the constraints imposed on it. Again this does not mean assuming more power, entitling and subsidizing business or agriculture, and certainly NOT bailing out failing banks or businesses or assuming operation of them. The business of government is not business, but government. This also does not mean the over-regulation of business, the over-taxing of business or the suppression of business in favor of one type of business over another. It seems our modern era government needs more of an education in the advancement of business rather than a recommendation.

“Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security……Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world.” - Obama

“Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace…..A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies…..In the arrangements which may be made respecting it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.” – Washington

While both men have promoted the need for a strong military and federal support for troops, it is readily apparent that the execution of that support has not been efficient or expedient in the first year of President Obama’s administration. Nine months passed before a response was made for a request for more troops for Afghanistan, returning wounded veterans continue to face obstacles in their care. Recently it has been reported that combat bonus pay has not been paid to veterans who completed their duty and are now forgotten. President Obama stated, “That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.” It is more apparent that military families and the general public (through charity) are taking better care of our troops than the government who is entrusted to do so. The public has sent troops comfort packages, sent letters of support, donated to charities that help keep soldiers in touch with their families. The people have raised donations to send more effective body armor to protect their loved ones that the government, at times, had refused to provide. Finally, constant threats of reductions in defense spending or abuses of defense spending bills packed with non-defense earmarks have made the promise to our troops seem shallow.

“The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.” – Obama

“The welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed, and I shall derive great satisfaction from cooperation with you in the pleasing though arduous task of insuring to our fellow citizens the blessings which they have a right to expect from a free, efficient, and equal government.” – Washington

One man calls for a new start, a “fundamental change” and the other calls for an adherence to the founding principles. One asks to seize the opportunity of a political majority to force policies unfavorable with the people, the other looks forward to “the pleasing and arduous task” of governance with the welfare of the nation and the people placed before the benefit of an agenda. One man believes “'[T]he Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy." The other believed that “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon”. This kind of makes you wish for a return of the man who gave the first State of the Union Address, doesn’t it.

D_Loki

Caucus Night: Archaic Tradition or Democracy in Action

I am compelled to take a break before posting the next State of the Union commentary due to Caucus Night here in Minnesota. It has been claimed that the caucus system in Minnesota is too old-fashioned. One columnist referred to it as “a typewriter in a Twitter world”. Myself, I look at it as the real opportunity for the people to voice their opinions, put the best candidate forward and be intimately involved in the election process. Now for those of you, who do not have a caucus system in your state; let me explain how it works.

The congressional districts in the state are divided into precincts, much like they are for states with the primary election system. Residents of a precinct report to a designated location to decide upon the candidates for the respective parties. In Minnesota, the precinct caucuses gather to elect delegates from the precinct to attend the district caucuses a month later. It is a time for you to meet your neighbors who hold like political views. It is time to help set the party’s agenda and platform. It is your chance to be involved. It is the time to begin selecting what candidates will be on the ballots come November. This is the most crucial part.

Time and time again, I hear people complain, “There just aren’t any candidates worth voting for”. Well guess what people, if you don’t participate in the primaries or the caucuses, the RIGHT candidate will lose out to the party’s hand-picked candidate. This usually means the totter of the party line, the career politician, and the one with the most money. The problem is, most people cannot, or will not be bothered with the electoral process UNTIL November. They are too busy. They don’t want to miss the season premier of “Lost”. Maybe they don’t understand the process and are fearful of going. No matter the reason, the reason is lame.

I have said before, that if you want to complain about the system, you had better have been a part of it. To sit idly by and allow the hard-core party supporter or the activist or the crazy nut-bag down the road to determine who will be on your ballot come November is irresponsible. It is through this we end up with corrupt candidates. I feel passing on the caucuses (or primaries) is worse than passing on the general election. This is where grassroots begin baby!! This is where your voice is louder. In the caucus system, this is were you actually debate the issues face to face with other voters rather than just coloring in a dot, or punching a piece of cardboard. Some call it archaic, I call it democracy in action, and the lowest tier in the governing our Republic. This system truly is “We the People”.

The caucus system is the grandmother down the block. The caucus system is the 18 year old high school student eager to vote. It is the veteran, the cop, the grocer and the gas station attendant deciding the direction of our country right next to the banker, the lawyer, the CEO and the trust fund baby. It is true equality in the system. As I have said, it is also the only way you can really debate the worthiness of a candidate. In the primary system, candidates simply pay a fee to file their intention to run, gather campaign funds, and bank on a vote in the ballot box. In the caucus system, those candidates or their representatives, have to convince the delegates they are the better candidate. What more could you ask for? Confrontation, debate and arguments; it is the democratic process in action. Think I am a proponent? I am. My only complaint is the lack of attendees.

I know, historically, mid-term election turn out is low. It is even lower for special elections, unless there is some sort of controversy surrounding the election. This is sad, this is wrong and it is filled with my disappointment in my fellow citizens. In my precinct, one of approximately 30,000 people, only 509 participated between the Republican, Democratic, and Independent Caucuses. That is 1.7%. 1.7%?!?! This is where our political problems arise. Our fellow citizens wish to complain. They say, “Make yourself heard at the ballot box”. How can you be heard if you didn’t pick the people on the ballot? I did have a measure of hope, when this year there was a group of 5 high school seniors who were participating in their first caucus. Somebody’s parents or civics teacher (if they even teach civics anymore) has done something right.

Plainly put, if you still have the opportunity to participate in your state’s primary or caucus, GO! Be a part of the system, be a part of the solution. Make your voice heard before the lazy folks who cannot be bothered, but wish to complain later. At the very least, you’ll gain some insight in the electoral process, and you’ll get to brag later that you truly DO have a right to complain if things don’t turn out for the best. As for the comment that the system is old-fashioned, Twitter this; “I went to the caucus, did you?”

PS. Before anyone says I need to get out of the city; I’m trying, I’m trying! For those waiting on part two of the SotU commentary, come back tomorrow. :)

D_Loki

State of the Union - State of the Nonsense

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

The Constitution of the United States: Article II, Section 3

I feel myself a minor constitutional scholar. While I do not dedicate myself to the study of it exclusively, I believe it is the responsibility of every American to know what the constraints of their government are. We should know what is required, what is permitted, and what is forbidden by the Constitution. I make sure I am aware of the politics of Washington, the hypocrisy of the parties and the nonsense we are spoon-fed by the media. It is in this respect that I decided to examine what I heard in the President’s State of the Union Address and comment through a series of articles this week on the constitutionality of what was said, the continuing contradictions in the administrations words and actions, and the load of BS that seems to drip off the lips of our President like honey meant to flavor the proverbial Kool-Aid.

The argument can be made that I am nit-picking as bad as pundits in the media, but as I teach my children, I expect the truth to come from a person’s mouth. When it does not, expect me to jump on the lies (just ask my 5 year old). I believe that those serving in our government owe the public the truth and not simply what would be best to boost their poll numbers. They should speak their beliefs and stick to them. So let us go on into the Address.

“As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth. Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy.”

I would like to know the definition of punishment in the President’s mind. If I repay a loan that I was forced to take, and then decide to spend money that I earned outside the loan, how is it not punishment to tax me because I was forced to take the loan? How is it not punishment for me to be taxed to make up for the loans that have yet to repaid? How is taking property from individuals without due process constitutionally legal, or not punishment? How is it protecting the economy to levy taxes on banks that will only pass on the taxes to the public in the form of fees and reduced interest offerings? With less money to spend, less money to invest, and less money earned in accounts, the economy cannot be protected, nor can it be stimulated.

“Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America.”

More fabricated numbers. Quite simply this is completely unattainable with this economy and with the current state of taxation. Now it is time for an accounting lesson. The price of goods is determined by setting a profit margin to operate and grow business. Now if we are to expand exports, production must rise. To raise production, capital investment must be made to accommodate the expanded production. This costs money, so the price of a product will rise. The other factor in calculating the price of goods is the cost of production. This calculation includes the cost of raw materials, energy costs, labor costs, facility maintenance, and taxes. So if we equate each of these costs at $1, the total cost to produce the goods is $5. If we need to double our production within five years we need to add that cost into the equation. We will need to add a 20% increase in the price to accommodate our expansion and provide a profit margin to operate. This will add an additional $1 per year. This might be doable IF our costs do not change.

By “necessarily increasing energy costs” we add to our price calculation. Raising energy prices for “global warming” initiatives will increase our costs. Adding labor costs by taxing health care plans or forcing businesses to provide health care plans will also increase costs. Forcing “card check” legislation will increase labor costs due to union intervention. The above cost increases will also translate to the providers of our raw materials, who will also need to raise prices to cover these costs. Now being conservative, let us say that these three policies will increase cost of goods by another 20%. That will be an additional $1 for each policy. Our costs of goods will now be $8 for year one. If we need a modest 10% profit margin to operate and expand, our price of the goods will be set at $8.80. Here is where the improbability of doubling comes in.

China, as an exporting competitor, buys the raw materials at the same price we do. However, they do not have the taxes, increased labor costs, will not abide by global warming initiatives, and has a larger labor force to ensure lower wages. This equates to $1 for raw materials and estimates 50% less in labor costs or $.50. Without strict regulatory rules facility costs are halved. With the government providing energy without profit, energy costs are reduced by half. This means that while we need to produce goods at a price of $8.00, China can produce the same for $3.50. Including a profit margin for growth, China can triple our growth plan and not go over our price or set their cost at $4.55. Add a profit margin to operate again at 10% and China’s total price point is $5.00. There is absolutely no way we can double our exports if our competition is offering goods at almost ½ the price of ours. This is the Wal-Mart scenario.

Small independent businesses cannot thrive in a small market with Wal-Mart due to the fact that the prices at Wal-Mart can be as much as ½ of the independent. Simply put; we are regulating, taxing, and entitling ourselves out of the global market on exported goods.

“To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -- for the first time in history -- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.”

Here is another of the lies and broken promises by Mr. Obama. Let us take a look at just a few of the lobbyists in this administration:

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

These are not low level postings. They are posts to advise either those who have a hand in policy making, or are the policy maker themselves. The pledge to ban lobbyists does not end there.

“The Apollo Alliance” had its hands far into the development of the stimulus bill. Labor unions scream loudly and are allowed to partake in the shaping of the health care reform initiative. The president has spoken that before he looks into a new policy, he consults lobbyist such as ACORN, and SEIU. Andy Stern (President of SEIU), while not necessarily a registered lobbyist, is the most frequent visitor, outside of the government, to the White House. The only supposition I can make is the administration must believe that since we accepted the campaign promise to not have lobbyist in posts, or to not allow lobbyist to shape policy, we will also accept the lie spoken during the State of the Union Address as well.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

From FEC

“The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.”

The Supreme Court decision struck down small portions of the McCain-Feingold bill. It did NOT negate long standing prohibitions on foreign contributions for federal campaign financing. It did open the door to more money entering campaigns, but did not remove restrictions for foreign nationals, or foreign corporations from legally contributing to campaign funds. The main basis for the decision was what the court IS SUPPOSED TO DO, defend first amendment rights of American citizens. While I am not fond of more money being allowed to influence elections, the defense of the first amendment is something I will support. Now, I am not naïve. There will always be those who skate around the letter of the law. There are those who do nothing more with their lives than search for loopholes to slip through to break the rules. It is not the Court to rewrite the law. As the President stated it is up to “Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.” Personal belief tells me that the likelihood of political parties cutting off funding for their campaigns is a long shot. Maybe I am too cynical.

This diatribe has only taken me half-way through the address, and I still have not touched upon the instances of unconstitutional actions proposed within the address. Stay tuned this week for another segment.

A Republic, If You Want It

Subtitled : "The Left's Over-reach Invites the Founders' Return" by Matthew Spaulding


It begins
Our federal government, once limited to certain core functions, now dominates virtually every area of American life. Its authority is all but unquestioned, seemingly restricted only by expediency and the occasional budget constraint.

Congress passes massive pieces of legislation with little serious deliberation, bills that are written in secret and generally unread before the vote. The national legislature is increasingly a supervisory body overseeing a vast array of administrative policymakers and rulemaking agencies. Although the Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress, the majority of “laws” are promulgated in the guise of “regulations” by bureaucrats who are mostly unaccountable and invisible to the public.

Americans are wrapped in an intricate web of government policies and procedures. States, localities, and private institutions are submerged by national programs. The states, which increasingly administer policies emanating from Washington, act like supplicants seeking relief from the federal government. Growing streams of money flow from Washington to every congressional district and municipality, as well as to businesses, organizations, and individuals that are subject to escalating federal regulations.

This bureaucracy has become so overwhelming that it’s not clear how modern presidents can fulfill their constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” President Obama, like his recent predecessors, has appointed a swarm of policy “czars” — über-bureaucrats operating outside the cabinet structure and perhaps the Constitution — to promote political objectives in an administration supposedly under executive control.

Is this the outcome of the greatest experiment in self-government mankind ever has attempted?

We can trace the concept of the modern state back to the theories of Thomas Hobbes, who wanted to replace the old order with an all-powerful “Leviathan” that would impose a new order, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who, to achieve absolute equality, favored an absolute state that would rule over the people through a vaguely defined concept called the “general will.” It was Alexis de Tocqueville who first pointed out the potential for a new form of despotism in such a centralized, egalitarian state: It might not tyrannize, but it would enervate and extinguish liberty by reducing self-governing people “to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”

The Americanized version of the modern state was born in the early 20th century. American “progressives,” under the spell of German thinkers, decided that advances in science and history had opened the possibility of a new, more efficient form of democratic government, which they called the “administrative state.” Thus began the most revolutionary change of the last hundred years: the massive shift of power from institutions of constitutional government to a labyrinthine network of unelected, unaccountable experts who would rule in the name of the people.

The great challenge of democracy, as the Founders understood it, was to restrict and structure the government to secure the rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence — preventing tyranny while preserving liberty. The solution was to create a strong, energetic government of limited authority. Its powers were enumerated in a written constitution, separated into functions and responsibilities and further divided between national and state governments in a system of federalism. The result was a framework of limited government and a vast sphere of freedom, leaving ample room for republican self-government.

Progressives viewed the Constitution as a dusty 18th-century plan unsuited for the modern day. Its basic mechanisms were obsolete and inefficient; it was a reactionary document, designed to stifle change. They believed that just as science and reason had brought technological changes and new methods of study to the physical world, they would also bring great improvements to politics and society. For this to be possible, however, government could not be restricted to securing a few natural rights or exercising certain limited powers. Instead, government must become dynamic, constantly changing and growing to pursue the ceaseless objective of progress. 


Spauding then chronicles the history of the progressive movement through today (it's sad): 


As a result, politics came to be seen as the ebb and flow between periods of “progress” and “change,” on one hand, and brief interregnums to defend and consolidate the status quo, on the other. Other than the aberration of Ronald Reagan and a few unruly conservatives, there seemed to be no real challenge to the liberal project itself, so all the Democrats thought they had to do was wait for the bursting forth of the next great era of reformism. Was it to be launched by Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? At long last came the watershed election of Barack Obama. 

But then he says something that gives me hope:


But a funny thing happened on the way to the next revolution. ... Large numbers of citizens, many never before engaged in politics, are protesting in the streets and challenging their elected officials in town-hall meetings and on talk-radio shows.
...


There is something about a nation founded on principles, something unique in its politics that often gets shoved to the background but never disappears. Most of the time, American politics is about local issues and the small handful of policy questions that top the national agenda. But once in a while, it is instead about voters’ stepping back and taking a longer view as they evaluate the present in the light of our founding principles. That is why all the great turning-point elections in U.S. history ultimately came down to a debate about the meaning and trajectory of America.

In our era of big government and the administrative state, the conventional wisdom has been that serious political realignment — bringing politics and government back into harmony with the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — is no longer possible. Yet we are seeing early indications that we may be entering a period of just such realignment. Perhaps the progressive transformation is incomplete, and the form of the modern state not yet settled — at least not by the American people. 

This creates a historic opening for conservatives. 


The American people are poised to make the right decision. The strength and clarity of the Founders’ argument, if given contemporary expression and brought to a decision, might well establish a governing conservative consensus and undermine the very foundation of the unlimited administrative state. It would be a monumental step on the long path back to republican self-government. 


The whole article is here.