Four People Who Should Not Run For President

The ink is not even dry on the results of the last election and we are already being inundated with speculation about 2016. As early as it is, the field of candidates is pretty well developed. Unfortunately, our next election is shaping up to be another dynasty election. The establishments of both parties are working overtime to anoint an establishment-friendly candidate, who knows how the game works, and who is not shy about rewarding political contributors. It's shaping up to be yet another election we could all just do without.

The point of this article is not to say that establishment candidates are necessarily bad. To the contrary, without the political establishments, most candidates would have no chance of winning. The political establishment provides the money to get the message out, the volunteers to get out the vote, and the media support necessary to stay on message. But there is a big difference between a genuine Washington outsider, who leans on the establishment in the general election, and the Washington insider who spends his or her time doling out goodies to political supporters. The latter deserves the lion's share of the blame for many of the problems facing our nation.

On the other side of the equation, there are a number of candidates that are not necessarily part of the problem, but are simply unelectable. They have demonstrated, either by actions or words, that they would not withstand the scrutiny of the election, or would otherwise self-destruct during the process.  Like the Washington insiders, it would be best for the process if they just sat this one out. So, here are the four candidates that, in my opinion, we would be better off without.

Jeb Bush

At the top of the list is Jeb Bush. By all accounts he is a good man, did a good job in Florida as governor, and would be a formidable fund raiser. He probably would be a competent president. But, his last name is Bush, and there is strong evidence that the country still has Bush fatigue. George W. Bush left office with a low approval rating, and many Americans still believe that his policies caused lasting damage to the economy. There are also many Republicans that believe that W did lasting damage to the Republican brand with the bank bailouts, Medicare Part D, Common Core, deficit spending and, of course, the invasion of Iraq. The last two years of his presidency were a remarkable rush to the left after having governed as a conservative for more than six years. Like his father before him, W left conservatives suspicious that the Bushes are really just repackaged New England RINOs. George H. W. Bush, for example, also did lasting damage to the Republican brand (and the Reagan legacy) when he signed into law the largest tax increase in American history. Four years later, after having lost his bid for reelection, Bill Clinton was able to use that precedent to argue that "even Republicans believe in tax hikes," as George Bush Sr. was the poster boy for a tax and spend policy that cost the party its monopoly on the issue. Bush supporters, of course, argue that the Bushes are "reasonable" and willing to "compromise" when in the best interests of the country. While that may be true, the "compromises" for which the Bushes are most famous led to disastrous election results for the Republican party.

Finally, I think it is bad for our country to have these political dynasties. Dynastic poltics is particularly un-American. If Jeb Bush were to be elected, he would be the second Bush in one generation and the third in two to hold the most powerful office in the world. Even if he is the greatest, most moral man on Earth, that sends the wrong message to the rest of the world. America is not a monarchy and, while we can vote against another Bush (which we probably would), Jeb Bush's presence on the stage crowds out other candidates who might otherwise bring fresh ideas to the table. It's time to turn the page.

Hillary Clinton

For many of the same reasons discussed above, Hillary Clinton needs to get off the stage. She had an unremarkable career as a Senator, largely playing it safe on most issues, and an equally unremarkable stint as Secretary of State. Her principal qualification for the presidency is that her husband was president. She has been in politics nearly her entire life, she has little real world experience, and she has certainly demonstrated, at least early on, that she has trouble connecting to most Americans in a meaningful way. She's no Bill, and it is doubtful that she would govern as effectively as her husband did.

A Bush vs. Clinton election would be the epitome of elitism. Imagine how history would be written: Since 1988, the presidency has been occupied by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton. That's just not good for America.

Chris Christie

Governor Christie has already demonstrated a tendency to blow up while on the campaign trial. In America we like our leaders to be measured. Measured leaders are reasonable. They make measured decisions. They are contemplative and fair. Christie is a large man with a booming voice who has no compunction about using both his size and his voice to shut others down. While that is sometimes necessary, Christie seems to need to do it more than others. It is very likely that whoever he runs against will find a way to exploit his temper and his bombastic nature. Add to that "Bridgegate," and you have someone who is too risky to nominate.

Joe Biden

I've always liked Joe Biden. I rarely agree with the man, but I respect a man who speaks his mind using regular language. The snobby media of course can't stand this kind of man and look for opportunities to mock him for dropping the F-Bomb or telling it like it is about the efficacy of his boss's policies. I don't doubt his genuine love for the country, even if he does have some bad ideas or speaks a little too bluntly from time to time. All of that being said, his time has come and gone. Like the Republican party, the Democratic party also needs new blood. The old guard has old ideas that have proven equally unpersuasive over the last decade. Most Americans crave a robust debate on real issues, but we have also learned to tune out the same old tired arguments that have been constantly recycled. Joe Biden represents the recycling. Again, it's time to turn the page.

Obama's Cuba Legacy Will Sting For Generations

Several days ago, President Obama took a number of unprecedented steps to "normalize" relations with Cuba. Unfortunately, as we have become accustomed to by now, the President apologized for decades of American sanctions, made every concession he could, and still walked away with a bad deal. His efforts were largely wasted because, at the end of the day, the Senate is the body that would have to actually "normalize" relations with Cuba by ending decades of embargoes and treaties designed to isolate the country that once allowed Soviet missiles to target our shores. That's probably not going to happen, so the President's actions were only symbolic.

Cuba was actually the "America" that Columbus discovered in 1492. Shortly thereafter it became a Spanish colony. In 1902, with significant help from the United States, Cuba declared independence from Spain. For five decades thereafter Cuba was the destination for wealthy world travelers and entertainers. The government was hopelessly corrupt, however, and in 1952 Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, used a junta to attempt to overthrow the government. They were radical communists, violent and acting with few restraints. They were defeated and Castro was imprisoned until 1955. He was released and fled to Mexico where he became a close friend of Che Guevara. Che was also a violent, unrestrained revolutionary. When he returned to Cuba in 1959, he had broad support for his revolution. The government fled the country, along with a substantial number of loyalists, and Castro took over. He quickly purged all opposition from the island and consolidated his rule.

Initially, the United States did not oppose his regime. After all, he was a lawyer, educated in the United States, he loved baseball and American cars. How bad could be be? It didn't take long, however, for the U.S. government to figure out that Castro was insane. He acted irrationally and with slight regard for anything that wasn't directly related to his radical plans for the Cuban people. It became clear that Castro would have to be removed. An attempt was made in 1961 by the Kennedy administration in what became known as the Bay of Pigs. The invasion, made up of Cuban exiles, was intercepted on the beach and decimated. 

Of course, just one year later, we faced the Cuban Missile Crisis. While the threat of Soviet missiles was eventually eliminated, the world faced the possibility of a war of unfathomable proportions because, in part, Castro wanted to guarantee his rule in Cuba by enlisting Soviet support.

Since consolidating power, Castro has (1) instituted forced labor camps for political opposition; (2) actively worked to identify so called "bourgeoisie" and place them in reeducation camps - or kill them; (3) criminalized unemployment by arresting anyone not seen working at a job; (4) "reeducated" homosexuals in forced medical rehabilitation camps; and otherwise arrested, tortured and executed some 30,000 other "dissidents" during his reign. In short, Fidel Castro and his brother are very bad men. There should be no mistake about that.

Of course, many Cubans over the years have fled to America, where they have worked extremely hard to build good lives for themselves and their families. They hate the Castros. Fidel and Raul are, to them, the devil incarnate; the torturers of the innocent, and executioners of their families. President Obama did not grow up in Cuba. These men and women did, and they know something about it.

American opposition to Castro has been justified. It has been justified since the beginning, and will continue to be justified for so long as Cubans live under this oppressive, violent regime. The Castros will all be dead soon. There is not one younger than 70. To believe now, as the regime is about to fall, that it was the appropriate time to forgive all past transgressions is beyond naive. It is radical. It is not just a little radical either. It is 60's Che Guevara radical. It is a young man in college with his "Che" T-Shirt on, angrily itching to show the world how backwards they all are for opposing such a great man. It can no longer be classified as naive. It is a belief system.

The funny thing is, I could see a president, after having opened up trade with dozens of other countries, after negotiating substantial treaties with other nations, or preserving American power overseas, I could see that president normalizing relations with Cuba. There would no doubt be a debate. How that president addressed the Castros in the process would also be an important indicator of whether we were conceding defeat or they were. But, to make it your single affirmative foreign policy legacy is just unfortunate. Coupling that with an apology for decades of sanctions, supported by hundreds of American leaders and every president over six decades, is simply misinformed. Then to do it now, as the Castro regime is about to die out, shows that in the President's mind, it just couldn't wait. It looks suspiciously like he wanted to apologize to Castro while he was still alive so he could appreciate it and savor his victory. 

The President's Cuba legacy will be remarkable in history. There can be no doubt about that. When Cuba does finally open up - after Raul Castro dies - and Cubans flock to the United States, you can bet that very few will ever vote for the party that apologized for Castro. You can also bet that Cuba really won't be open before that time, even after the President's recent efforts. 

I ordinarily would not be so hard on the President for taking this position. After all, I like Cuban cigars and rum as much as anyone else. I'd love to vacation in Cuba. I hear it's a pretty place. But, President Obama accidentally revealed something about his true motivations by a mistake he made in his speech. I find those motivations disturbing. In his apology, President Obama referenced the "legacy of colonialism." America, however, has never been a colonial power. That was old world Europe. America was, in fact, a European colony, as you may recall. But in President Obama's mind, America is a colonial power, which has, among other things, oppressed the people of Cuba.  He is completely wrong on his history, however. First, as I mentioned, America did not colonize Cuba. Spain did. More importantly, however, America fought for Cuba's independence from Spain. Part of that became what was known as the "Spanish American War." The ship the Maine, of "remember the Maine" fame was sunk off the coast of Cuba in 1898. American then intervened on behalf of Cuban independence in 1902 - just four years later. It is doubtful that Cuba would have won its independence without American help. Independence. Not colonialism. Independence.

There is a deep misunderstanding of history at work here and, like most deep misunderstandings of the facts, it has led to yet another poor policy decision. The time to normalize relations with Cuba would have come anyway. Old men tend to die, even if they are dictators. They also tend to be replaced by younger leaders with different values. In the case of Cuba, there is a legacy of oppression that would soon be lifted without American intervention. Intervention in this case bolstered the dictatorial regime. Consequently, President Obama is now the one acting like the leader of a colonial power, interfering with the individual rights of the colonists.

What the Sony Hacking Attack Really Shows Us

There is no story in the news that illustrates our obsession with pop culture more than the Sony hack attack. North Koreans, upset about a movie that mocks their Dear Leader, launched the attack and threatened to attack movie theaters that showed the film. For the entire first week of the scandal, the media was entirely focused on what was "leaked" about movie stars and Sony executives. Only now are we starting to see the real story emerge. 

This was a serious attack.

This was a cyberattack on U.S. soil by a foreign government. This isn't some hacktavist group looking for nude pictures of Kate Upton. This was a military operation, carried out by a central government with the intent of disrupting commerce in the United States. We would be well advised to take this seriously even though the reasons for the attack are quite silly. A young, culturally naive dictator doesn't like being mocked by Hollywood. Of course, in his mind, he is a big star. Dennis Rodman went to visit him after all. So this mocking really struck a nerve. He then acted like a child and launched a cyberattack on a movie company. You couldn't make this stuff up, and the immaturity is stunning. But what this also tells us is that we are incredibly vulnerable. Apparently, this attack was extremely sophisticated. He could've targeted our power grid or worse. The next dictator may choose to exploit those vulnerabilities, which leads me to my second point.

This childish dictator has nuclear weapons.

If ever there were an argument for taking extreme risks to stop nuclear proliferation, this is it. An impudent young man, raised in the fantasy world of North Korea's dictatorship, succeeded his father and now controls one of the largest militaries in the world. If Kim Jong-Un acts like this in response to a silly movie, what do you think he would do if the world really mocked him? The level of instability in this man's head should give us all a moment of pause. Presumably, he has his finger on the proverbial button. While he can't necessarily reach the United States with his nuclear weapons, he certainly can hit South Korea, maybe Japan, and either way cause substantial global chaos. And he may do so on a whim.

"Nuclear deterrence" is only a deterrent so long as the opponent is a rational leader. There is a serious problem, however, when the other side is unpredictable, unstable or insane. This is precisely why even reluctant hawks believe that stoping nuclear proliferation, by any means, is an acceptable risk. Yes, war is terrible, but nuclear war is worse. We can never really know who will inherit some unstable country's nuclear deterrent. Perhaps nuclear weapons are safe in the hands of the Pakistani military leaders, but what about the extremists that helped hide Osama Bin Laden right down the street from the military academy? Should we not fear those people getting their hands on nuclear weapons? The same holds true for Iran. Maybe the current Ayatollah will not use nuclear weapons to exterminate Israel, but what about the next guy? Should we not take these leaders at their word when they threaten to use weapons of mass destruction? 

Liberals arguing for gun control in this country would never agree to allow mentally unstable citizens to possess firearms. As we've seen all too often, you give a crazy man a gun and he will shoot up a school, killing as many innocents as possible. Many of those liberals argue that we should ban all guns and confiscate weapons already in the possession of citizens; that disarming everyone to save even one child from gun violence is worth the trade. Yet, many of those same liberals, the President included, would allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon and instead employ a strategy of "containment" and "deterrence." It is a near certainty that a nation that elects leaders who threaten to "wipe" other countries "off the map" will not always have rational leadership. We should anticipate that and act accordingly.

We live in a society with no privacy.

If you haven't already figured it out by now, let me make it clear. Everything you do, say, write, record, email, save, surf or snap is capable of being discovered. In fact, the vast majority of all of that information is already in the public view. You have no privacy. Cameras in public record your steps. Cameras on the street record the places you drive. The NSA has your phone and text records, showing the people you contact and, probably, the content of the messages. Mega-companies, foreign governments and the U.S. government have a record of every single thing you do on the internet. Every search, every website you visit and every password you change is recorded somewhere or monitored. The FBI and NSA have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the past decade developing and deploying data-mining tools to catch everyone thinking about violating any law or launching any attack.

It is impossible to gather all of this information and have it never be used in a malicious way. Sony is case in point. Embarrassing emails, employee information, health information, you name it, all gathered, stored and hacked. The next time you're asked to give out some personal information to some insurance company or healthcare conglomerate, you have to ask yourself where that information will wind up. It may be North Korea.

It is absolutely time for us as a nation to demand that our privacy be restored. Mega-companies don't need to know what brand of socks I like and target internet ads to my interests. They don't need that information. They want it, sure. It makes them more money. But they don't need  it and they are not in any way entitled to it. The same holds true for government. Our government doesn't need to know everywhere I've been or everyone I've talked to. They just don't. Even if they are catching criminals and terrorists with that information, there are better ways to do it and, even if there are not, this is one of those times that we should refuse to sacrifice liberty for security. A society in which everything we do is monitored is not free. To the contrary, it is very dangerous.

We continue to underestimate our adversaries.

Once again we have underestimated the ability and will of an adversary to do us harm. This is not a uniquely American trait, but we seem to be best at it. We mock Putin with photoshopped pictures of him and his "pet polar bear." Meanwhile, he invades and conquers a country. We mock ISIS as a "JV team," as they round up whole villages of women and children and exterminate them. We mock Kim Jong-Un with funny pictures and a movie, while he develops nuclear weapon delivery systems, cripples a company with a sophisticated hack, forces humiliating concessions from them and embarrasses the country.

At some point, we have to start taking these people seriously as the threats emerge, not after. If we don't, the next surprise could be something much worse than a hack attack over some movie.

Our Obsession With Limited War Leads To Bizarre Policy Choices

Last week the Senate released a report on so called "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the CIA between 2001 and 2008 to extract information from terrorists captured on the battlefield. The "torture report" chronicles the sometimes bizarre treatment given to about a dozen captives. This investigation can now be filed away with all the other investigations our country has been forced to conduct since Vietnam into "abuse," "war crimes," and other such "atrocities."

Whether "enhanced interrogation" is torture or not is not the point of this article. There are strong arguments on both sides, and I don't think this report or any other investigation has yet revealed the full scope of the program or its effectiveness. Nor is this article about whether releasing this report was wise. Undoubtedly, it will embolden our enemies, but it also gives Americans an opportunity to see what our professionals thought was necessary in the wake of 9/11 to stop imminent attacks on the United States. We will continue to debate that and decide as a nation whether our actions were appropriate. The polls are divided on these issues and, like with most things, history will be the true judge, not the Senators issuing this report.

Several months ago, President Obama's former Defense Secretaries, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, went public with allegations that the President and his political advisors were micromanaging the military, making exceptionally poor strategic decisions, and ultimately making the nation less safe. This is nearly unprecedented in history. Two former Defense Secretaries, from different ends of the political spectrum, criticizing the Commander in Chief for, in their opinion, making the country less safe. 

In some ways, their criticisms are unfair. Micromanaging the military is nothing new. Harry Truman, for example, was accused of micromanaging the Korean War. He refused, for example, to allow his generals to broaden the war to include China. He was also accused of not pressing for total victory, and he ultimately fired General MacArthur who, at the time, was the most popular general in the country. History has been kind to Truman, but his approval rating at the time was very low.

Lyndon Johnson is famous for his micromanagement of the Vietnam War. Robert Gates, who actually served under Johnson, recently reminded Americans that Johnson went so far as picking individual bombing targets and village "relocation" sites. The enemy found safe haven in nearby Cambodia, which Johnson decreed off limits. He wanted to limit the war to Vietnam. President Nixon was only marginally better, expanding the war to include additional targets, but still limiting the military's ability to fight the enemy where they were.

Modern presidents were not immune. Who could forget how, when Mulla Omar was in the sights of a Predator drone, some lawyer refused to clear the target? We then learned for the first time that our military was consulting with lawyers about which targets were fair game and which were off limits. It is these same lawyers, of course, that drafted the "guidelines" used for enhanced interrogations, suggested labelling terrorists as "enemy combatants" and shipping them off to "Guantanamo Bay" rather than keeping them prisoner on the battlefield.

The problem is this, micromanagement is not a strategy. It is not a tactic. Micromanagement is the principal side effect of a poor strategy, poor execution and a lack of moral resolve. And, in the post World War II era, it is the result of our obsession with "limited warfare."

"Limited war" is the fiction that presidents, prime ministers and generals have used to justify projecting military force where it is not absolutely critical to our survival. War fighting is "limited" to the leadership or the "regime" and its supporters. Limited war is fought with drones and "precision air power," lawyers and "approved target" lists. Civilian casualties are to be avoided at almost any cost because, theoretically, it is not their fault that some evil, oppressive regime chose to fight us. They are therefore absolved of all guilt and responsibility. To that end, limited war is fought for "regime change," and there is never any plan to "occupy" the enemy once it is vanquished. 

Limited war requires the mental gymnastics with which we have now become so familiar. "Soldiers" are now designated as "enemy combatants," and while we won't "torture" anyone, we will use "enhanced interrogation techniques" to extract intelligence. Enemy combatants are then "tried" in military "courts" for their "crimes." Some politicians have gone so far as to demand that they be brought to the United States to be tried in federal courts. 

It is this deconstruction of all things war that has led us to strategic failure and has arguably caused us to violate our own principles. Worse still, since "limited wars" are never actually won, it has also led to a state of perpetual war for our nation. Limiting war has no deterrent effect on most potential enemies, especially fanatics. Our enemies have made it clear that they do not value life. Promising a population that we will limit our violence to only those people running the country absolves them of any responsibility to change their own regimes or take responsibility for the conduct of their own governments.

By contrast, the threat of total war is a substantial deterrent to almost every potential enemy. It is fought with one goal - to win. Total war is fought with whatever weapons are required to achieve that one goal. While civilians are not directly targeted, there is little concern given to collateral damage. Cities and infrastructure are totally destroyed in order to stop the enemy's ability to continue to wage war or to ever wage war again. Total war is waged until the enemy unconditionally surrenders. The entire country is dismantled, occupied, and then rebuilt in accordance with western standards and based on western values. Troops remain in the country for as long as is necessary to ensure that whatever cause the populace followed to war is completely extinguished - even if that takes generations.

Of course, in the West anyway, we have long agreed upon certain limitations. Western warfare does not, in theory, allow the forced or violent interrogation of POWs. Chemical Weapons are banned from the battlefield, and were not in fact widely used after the ban was put in effect. We have the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners who are captured in uniform. We have the International Red Cross. While the enforcement of these western norms is largely dependent on the guarantee that the enemy will also follow the rules, they are at least reasonably clear and understandable.

We get confused, however, when we face an enemy that doesn't follow the same rules, or when the threat they pose is not existential. For example, were we facing an invasion force, waging a "limited war" would be suicidal. Since the threat would be existential, the total destruction of our enemy would be justified. If that same invasion force refused to abide by the traditional rules of war, we would be justified in using whatever force against whomever to defeat the threat. A fight for survival usually doesn't carry with it a long list of rules.

The problem we have is largely one of timing. We have become so accustomed to fighting these perpetual low intensity conflicts that we prefer that to the massive, but rare engagements of the past. During the Cold War, we had to be very careful about how and when we entered a conflict. Since total war with a nuclear superpower was unacceptable, every provocation had to be analyzed. Wars were not fought to win, but rather to maintain the status quo with the Soviet Union. That was always the strategic objective. 

The Cold War is over now. We no longer have to wage war to a stalemate in an effort to avoid thermonuclear war, yet we are acting as if we do. For example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, we sent a massive military force to eject Hussein from the country. We did not, however, continue on into Iraq to defeat the country. The result has been a state of war existing between our countries for almost 25 years. It would have been easier and cheaper to invade, conquer, occupy, rebuild and stay. Perhaps the region would be more stable now. In any event, it is hard to imagine that we would be worse off.

Doing nothing can also be justified. Not every regional conflict is our problem, nor can every problem be solved with U.S. military force. Even the biggest proponents of perpetual, limited warfare admit that sometimes civilians are killed. Sometimes a predator drone accidentally blows up a wedding and kills some children. From a moral perspective then, each decision to use force must start with the question: "Is this worth killing an enemy's child over"? That may seem simplistic, but the scale of the engagement is not really the issue. Both limited war and total war result in civilian casualties. Total war may result in more civilian casualties, but the war is shorter, serves as a strong deterrent to others who may be inclined to wage war in the future, and ultimately results in the total defeat of the errant ideology that led to war in the first place. Limited war, by contrast, means that the violence lasts for generations, usually devolves into guerrilla warfare, is used as a rallying cry for extremists, and has historically led to a U.S. "withdrawal." Twenty-five years after Hiroshima, Japan began to emerge as the serious economic power it is today. Twenty-five years after the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq is still at war. Our strategy has failed and it is time for a new one.

War is violent. It is never going to not be violent. War is sometimes necessary. It will always sometimes be necessary. War is fought with soldiers, not lawyers. War is won by killing the enemy and crushing their will to fight. It is not won by emphasizing the avoidance of civilian casualties or trying to approve targets in real time. War is won by using a huge invasion force to overwhelm the enemy and disabuse them of idea that they will retreat into the civilian population to wage a successful guerrilla war later. Wars are won by stationing a huge occupying force in country after "major combat operations" are terminated. It is not won by turning the country back over to a symbolic government that is hostile to us, and that doesn't have the support of its people. War is won by having a clear strategic purpose and the moral resolve to annihilate the enemy and then suppress their remnant for as long as is necessary to achieve lasting peace.

Let us no longer be confused as a nation about what war is or how it is waged, won or lost. Torture is torture and cannot be "enhanced" in anyway that improves it. Defeat is defeat and cannot be spun with terms like "withdrawal." Retreat is retreat and cannot be recast as a "draw down." When we commit our men and women to these fights, victory is either worth achieving or it is not. If the objective is important, if it is worth the lives of our men and women in uniform, then it is worth achieving in the quickest possible way, which is also usually the most violent. If the extreme violence and inevitable collateral damage required to actually win a war is not palatable to us under the circumstances, then it is not a matter for our armed forces. It is a police action, and we should just commit ourselves to arresting "enemy combatants" and trying them in federal court for "crimes against" whomever. Something tells me, however, that most of us war weary Americans are ready to be done with all of this. And the enemy better be careful, because we hate to lose...

Garner and Brown Show There's No Room For Error

Eric Garner, an obese, asthmatic, 43 year old black man, was choked to death by police officers earlier this year. Last night, the grand jury looking into charges against the arresting officer failed to indict. Although there is absolutely no connection between this grand jury and the grand jury in Ferguson, one can't help but to notice the eerie parallels. 

The Garner killing was recorded on video by a camera phone. In it, there is no mistake that Garner is telling the four officers holding him down that he "can't breathe." In fact, he said it eleven times before dying of asphyxiation. Michael Brown's confrontation with police, of course, was not on video but, even if it had been, the story would've been very different. Michael Brown stole some cigarillos from a convenience store, confronted an officer in his car, got shot and continued to refuse to surrender. Garner, on the other hand, did in fact have his "hands up," as four or five officers tackled him to the concrete. One put his knee on Garner's head, pressing his face into the road. Another sat on his back, barring his shoulders, and yet another sat on his legs, cuffing him. Garner died.

When you look at the video, it is brutal, but it is also a fact that Garner did not surrender, resisted a little, and the officers appear to be using force that was basically reasonable to restrain a very large man. It's not like they hit him with batons or shot him, and most people understand that arresting someone can be violent. Taking a man to the ground because he refuses to surrender is ugly, and sometimes things go wrong.

Most of us understand that sometimes the police need to use force. Most Americans realize that police are out there to protect us and our property, and most of us feel comfortable knowing the police are patrolling our neighborhoods. When really bad things are happening, we want a professional, trained, effective police force to intervene on our behalves and, typically, if the crime is serious enough, we will forgive the police for making a few mistakes. For example, if Eric Garner had been killed while raping an 11 year old girl, no one would bat an eye. If Eric Garner was choked to death after beating an old lady with a club, few of us would say a word. 

But that's not what happened. Eric Garner was choked to death because he was selling loose cigarettes to people on the street. That's right, he died because he was selling some cigarettes. I made the point in my last Ferguson article that we now have so many silly little laws that the police basically have plenary power to stop you, frisk you and probably arrest you for some highly subjective "suspicious activity" that you may or may not be engaged in. This will eventually lead to disaster in a free society. More laws means more officer-citizen interactions. More officer-citizen interactions means, statistically, more confrontations that lead to injury or death. Accidentally using excessive force to stop a man from raping a woman on the street is more or less acceptable to most Americans. Accidentally killing a man for violating the "loose cigarettes" law is not.

Deaths like this one highlight the absurdity of our current system of laws. Whether it's stop and frisk in black neighborhoods or DUI checkpoints in white suburbia, the government's reach is now absurdly broad. The government, and consequently the police, are viewed with suspicion in many neighborhoods, both black and white, because of the enormous scope of the powers they wield. Sadly, I would wager that most Americans feel better if they can get to and from work without seeing a police cruiser on the road or some kind of checkpoint or speed trap. Whereas there once was a time when officers were members of the community and had personal relationships with the citizens, now the citizenry would rather just avoid contact with the police altogether. That is not the fault of the citizenry. It is the result of modern police tactics, too many laws, and a change in the law enforcement mission.

The fact of the matter is, the police have become militarized to the point that they are more of an "intimidation force" than a police force in many urban areas. Most police commissioners admit this. They admit using SWAT teams to serve arrest warrants in the middle of the night because they want to "surprise the suspect," use "overwhelming force," and "intimidate" any bystanders that may want to intervene. That's fine when you're arresting a violent criminal, but when that force is overused, it is viewed as excessive. Putting that aside, most communities aren't interested in having their communities policed by SWAT teams dressed like Navy Seals carrying M-16's and grenade launchers. It just isn't very friendly.

More importantly, however, if you've been vested with the extremely broad power to basically confront anyone you want, and you've been given a gun to do it with, then there is no longer any room for error. This is not uncommon for professionals. Lawyers, for example, have no room for error. You miss a deadline, have a mistake on your calendar, have an employee mistakenly disclose something, you're done. Doctors have no room for error. You nick that artery, you kill the patient, and you may lose everything. Pilots have no room for error. Soldiers have no room for error. And now, because of the broad power modern police have to use force to confront individual citizens over minor infractions, they too have no room for error.

To that end, police need to be better vetted, better trained and much better paid. We already expect a high level of professionalism from our police officers, but they are trained and paid at much lower levels more akin to civil servants. This has to change and there's no reason why it can't. As citizens, we should want only the smartest, highest trained, most highly incentivized police officers on our streets. Whatever the cost, it is worth it.

Then, as citizens, we need to insist that our elected officials stop passing laws to address every perceived ill in society. Selling loose cigarettes is perhaps the silliest law I've ever seen used in the modern era to justify the violent arrest of a person. Perhaps the police acted appropriately under the circumstances. After all, a law had been broken. The police don't make the laws, they just enforce them. Perhaps the level of force used was justified. Garner was a big man and he was not exactly surrendering. The entire episode, however, is still an abomination. The law is absolutely unjustified, and now we see how one of these silly little laws can lead directly to tragedy. Garner is dead because some city councilman thought he would justify his existence with a new ordinance stamping out cigarette peddling. 

There is perhaps no greater justification for civil disobedience than to protest unreasonable, capricious laws like this one. The next step is to hold the leaders who pass these laws directly accountable for bringing us one step closer to a police state that we will all fear.

In Ferguson, We See Many Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

In Tom Wolfe's 1987 novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities, a rich, white stock trader is in an automobile accident. His car is seen running over a black teen late at night and then leaving the scene. The novel  is written as a satyrical morality play. It is a morality play because Wolfe focuses on the decay of society across the entire social and economic spectrum. It is a satire because there are no good guys. The crisis begins with the "slaughtered" young black man being portrayed as an innocent child, heading to college, who was "never in trouble," and who was viciously run down by an uncaring white man who had taken a wrong turn in his big, black Mercedes. Almost immediately, the activists come out to "support the family." The politicians make inflammatory statements about bringing the white man to justice. The prosecutor commits himself to an all out effort to get a conviction, regardless of the evidence, and the protesters take to the streets to ensure that "justice is done." 

As the story unfolds, however, we find that the young black man was in fact not so innocent. He had some criminal history, and in fact had likely set up a road block on the street with his friend to trap and rob motorists at the time of the accident. Of course, by the time the truth comes out, everyone is married to their positions and no one can retreat without being humiliated. Everyone digs in.

In my only other article on this topic http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-sad-and-unavoidable-story-of.html, I cautioned everyone to wait and see all of the evidence before committing to treating Michael Brown as either a martyr or a criminal. We did not yet know whether Officer Wilson was a racist who shot a surrendering black teenager or whether the shooting was reasonably justified under the circumstances. Unfortunately, relative ignorance did not stop the speculation. The Governor of Missouri, for example, called on the grand jury to indict, even though he himself had not seen all the evidence. President Obama, addressing the United Nations, used Ferguson as an example of the "racial divide" in the United States, unnecessarily elevating the issue, and Michael Brown, to an issue of international importance. Then of course there were all the Al Sharpton's and Jessee Jacksons on the ground, digging in on the issue and encouraging others to jump into the foxhole with them. All of this set the stage for enormous confusion and disappointment when the grand jury found that there was insufficient evidence to indict officer Wilson on any of the seven charges.

And so the bonfires were set. "Burn this bitch down," Michael Brown's stepfather said, standing next to another man wearing a "No Justice No Peace" t-shirt. As the small business district in Ferguson was looted and burned, I couldn't help but to think how much of all of this was the result of a series of self-fulfilling prophecies.

First, and most obviously, everyone from the President down to the local police chief basically accepted that rioting would happen; that ordinary people could not contain their disappointment and express it in a non-violent or constructive way. In effect rioting was inevitable because, after viewing the evidence, the outcome of the grand jury was a near certainty. Our leadership decided that rioting would be an "expected" response to the result, regardless of how just that result might be. Then, just as with the riots over the summer, the vast majority of the police resources were withheld so not to be seen as "interfering" with "legitimate protests." As a result, business burned, and those businesses will not be coming back.

Also inevitable was the grand jury's decision. There was obviously very little evidence to support the "racist white cop shoots an unarmed child with his hands up" story. The early facts had already shown, in the clearest possible way, that Michael Brown had bull rushed a convenience store clerk just minutes before the confrontation with officer Wilson. As a result, the early allegation that he had also bull rushed the officer was not altogether unlikely. Again, investigations needed to be completed and the facts needed to be reviewed before any conclusions were drawn.

It now appears that there was no reason to even charge Darren Wilson, much less subject the public to a months long emotional build up during the grand jury process. Everyone privy to the evidence had to have known that the grand jury process would only lead to disappointment to Brown supporters looking for "justice." The delay in closing this case allowed, maybe even forced, supporters of Brown to become married to the false narrative. Then, after months of advocating the "racist cop shoots boy" narrative, there was no going back. The disappointment then was inevitable and yet another prophecy was fulfilled when the "racist cop" was set free.

Then there are the future prophecies which will inevitably become fulfilled. Darren Wilson's life is over. He is either a dead man walking, or he will be moving to some remote part of Idaho or Montana and working in relative obscurity. His life will never return to normal. Do not make the mistake of thinking that every police officer in this country isn't watching this, regardless of race. It would not be surprising if we started seeing fewer and fewer police officers willing to work in low income black neighborhoods for fear that, if placed in a similar situation, they too will have their lives ruined. Fewer police officers will result in more crime, and more crime will result in fewer businesses and fewer jobs, which will result in even more poverty and despair in these neighborhoods. The "crumbling inner city" prophecy then becomes fulfilled.

Finally, by focusing on stories like Ferguson, our nation overlooks the real institutional racism that continues to plague black communities. I have no doubt that there are some racist cops out there who harass blacks because of their skin color. Darren Wilson, however, is not one of them. Similarly, I have no doubt that innocent young black men are subjected to additional police scrutiny without cause. Michael Brown, however, was not one of those young men. But, by making men like Wilson the bad guy and men like Michael Brown the martyr, all evidence being to the contrary, the race issues that really need to addressed are dismissed as "overblown," and the messengers not credible. President Obama, for example, addressed the nation on the first night of riots, condemning violence and calling for calm. He also, however, acknowledged the legitimacy of the protests. The problem is, a cause that is entirely based on a false narrative is not a legitimate cause. Protesting the fact that a uniformed police officer was not criminally charged for using deadly force against his attacker is not a "legitimate protest." The President and the Attorney General continue to feed this inflammatory, false narrative by insisting that the protests associated with Darren Wilson's release are legitimate. They are implying that the "legitimate" result; i.e. the one that would not have been deserving of protest, was to have Darren Wilson indicted. That is not how our system works and the President and the Attorney General should be the most vociferous defenders of the result in this case.

The President and other civil rights leaders should instead be focused on systemic issues that, while affecting all races, disproportionately affect blacks. For example, a system that throws a black single mother of 4 in prison for 20 years because she was in the same house as her boyfriend when he was busted with drugs and guns is unjust. A system that puts a black 18 year old away for life for holding a dime bag because he was on his "third strike" is unjust. A criminal justice system that removes sentencing discretion from judges and instead imposes mandatory sentencing on every citizen is unjust. Racism is having so many little laws that police basically have plenary power to stop you and search you at random. Racism is requiring young black children to stay in failing schools, surrounded by drugs and violence, rather than offering black families real choices for their children's education. And, yes, racism is aggressive profiling and "stop and frisk" policies that allow police to treat all of us, particularly blacks, as criminals just for walking down the street.

But none of that has anything to do with Ferguson, Michael Brown or Darren Wilson. The saddest part of the Ferguson story is that it will all happen again. Our leaders have demonstrated that they have no desire to fix the real institutional problems that cause us to distrust those institutions that govern us, both black and white. It is that distrust that causes us to jump to conclusions when we see police use force, or when hear government officials talk about "justice" in the abstract. It is the broad distrust of all of our institutions that must be fixed if we want to see real change in our communities. 

In the future, Ferguson will be remembered as the place where all the vanities gathered to be burned as a sacrifice, so that we could continue to avoid addressing the real institutional problems we face.

The Good And The Bad Of President Obama's Immigration Plan

Although it was not covered by any major network, President Obama last night announced that he would issue an executive order on immigration. This was a widely expected move that has Republicans outraged and Democrats running scared. The long of the short of it is this: It is unremarkable and will do more harm than good to the Democratic party.

I know most of my Republican friends will disagree, but on the substance, he really isn't doing anything remarkable. Tens of millions of immigrants already live in this country illegally. He is right, they are not going anywhere. There is absolutely zero public support for any kind of campaign of mass deportation. As a result, and all sympathies aside, these people are, in fact, here to stay. We're just going to have to get over that. More importantly, we don't know where they are, they already use our social support network, and they do not pay taxes. While most of them have jobs, which is the primary reason they come here, we never see a dime of tax money to offset the resources they use. Finally, nearly 60% of Americans already favor "a path to citizenship." President Obama is offering something far less. The President's plan does nothing more than stop deportations and leaves it to subsequent presidents to undo what he has done if they so choose. In essence, no one is becoming legalized but they are being allowed to stay, which they are de facto doing anyway, and most Americans do not oppose.

Once again, however, President Obama has executed his plan in the clumsiest of ways. He has a new Congress and he has picked a fight that ultimately "poisons the well," as well as alienates members of his own party. He probably thinks he is being clever. He thinks he is going to bait the Republicans into shutting down the government, or impeachment, or some other such unpopular move. He is trying to divide his opponents with this issue after getting clobbered in the last election. Unfortunately for President Obama, the Republicans can and will badly outflank him with this issue. 

First, it' s actually a wedge issue for his party, not the GOP. He has miscalculated. Mary Landrieu, for example, fighting for her Democratic Senate seat in a runoff election in Louisiana, is now doomed. Not only did her party refuse to pass authorization for the Keystone Pipeline, but even if they had, President Obama vowed to veto it. Then, two days later, the President announces a move on immigration that has virtually no support in her state. She's done, and the Democrats now lose another incumbent Senator. Moreover, whatever conservative Democrats are left will see the proverbial writing on the wall and either switch parties (like in 1994), or lose their next elections. A number of moderate Democrats came out against the President's plan before he even gave his speech. That will not change. 

The President's action is self-defeating in another important way, however. If it was his political calculation that the long term health of the party requires an influx of new immigrant voters, he has failed in every possible way. For one, his own plan does not provide them with citizenship, which is required to vote. He just won the hearts and minds of a group of non-voters at the expense of a huge number of swing voters. That's just not smart politics. More importantly however, by acting unilaterally, President Obama took all of the pressure off conservative Republicans to vote on a compromise bill. Instead, the Republicans (if they're smart) will just let the President's executive order stand and pass a series of tough border bills that essentially end cross-border migration for generations. Since upwards of 85% of Americans favor "closing the border," the President and his party risk utter annihilation if he chooses to use the veto. Because President Obama acted unilaterally and without Congressional approval, it is assumed that he got exactly what he wanted when he did so. Now the Republicans can take him to task on the border without regard to the other more controversial issues surrounding immigration reform.

In the final analysis, there was very little benefit to the President or his party by acting unilaterally on immigration reform. To the contrary, he has marginalized moderate members of his own party and, like with his other "achievements," he has handed the opposition yet another tool to clobber him with. He could have waited. He could have forced Republicans into a debate about dividing families and children. He could've used the issue in the new Congress to make Republicans look unsympathetic to to the plight of immigrants in a nation of immigrants. Instead, he did exactly what he wanted to do on the issue, and it wasn't that much. 

Among the "Stupid Americans," Jonathan Gruber is the Stupidest.

As the proponents of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) run for cover, one of the chief architects of the law, Jonathan Gruber, continues his campaign of friendly fire against the Democrats. In case you missed it, Mr. Gruber was recorded giving lectures on more than a dozen occasions in which he revealed that the ACA was drafted in a deliberately vague way so as to fool the "stupid American voters." In these videos, which you can easily find on youtube, Mr. Gruber lectures Ivy League students about how the law was drafted and passed. In the course of these lectures, he cannot contain his contempt for the American public and what, in his eyes, is their relative lack of sophistication. He waxes poetic about how he and his counterparts in the Administration used subterfuge and deceit to obfuscate the real purpose and cost of the bill. He then repeats, over and over, as if it were some kind of mantra, that this was "only possible," because of the "stupidity" of the American voter. "If they had known what was in it," he says, "it would never have passed."

Well, if we were to take as true Mr. Gruber's pronouncement that American voters are stupid, then Mr. Gruber is the stupidest, and his statements conclusively demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about how our republic works.

You see, Mr. Gruber, the "stupid American voter" never voted on Obamacare. In fact, the people Mr. Gruber duped were the "professional" Congressmen and Senators who foolishly took his representations as true, who never read the bill, and who traded political favors for votes. Moreover, the first chance the American voters had to vote on Obamacare, it resulted in a "wave election" against the Democratic Party. The "stupid American voter" Mr. Gruber is so fond of mocking actually threw his party out of office because of Obamacare and the way it was passed. The law has never enjoyed anything even approaching a majority of support from the "stupid American voters," and it has continued to be an albatross around the necks of Democrats in every subsequent election.

This is exactly why the average American hates politics and politicians. Ivory tower, Ivy League elites, feathering their nests with taxpayer money, run around Washington deceiving our ridiculously gullible elected officials into passing bad laws. To add insult to injury, they call us "stupid" and "too stupid," and "rubes" and whatever else. They insult our intelligence while they build their new homes with taxpayer money gained by admitted acts of fraud.

And then they can't even get the insult right. What Mr. Gruber meant to say is that the "stupid American Congressman" was easily deceived into voting for his scam. The "stupid American politician" is not going to ask any questions, and he knows this. They will simply "pass the bill so that we can see what's in it," to quote Nanci Pelosi, former Speaker of the House, and gullible victim of this fraud. At no point did the American people vote on Obamacare and, if they had, the "stupid American voters" would have defeated it.

Whatever Mr. Gruber paid for his Ivy League education, he should demand a refund. He can then take that money and repay the $3.2 million he pilfered from taxpayers in "consulting fees" while selling snake oil to our elected representatives. If there's any left, he should audit a few junior high school civics classes so he can learn how a republic actually works and possibly upgrade his mocking skills by watching the other children in the room.

Obama Continues to Struggle with Foreign Policy; Our Rivals March On.

President Obama returns this week from his "foreign policy pivot," hoping his high profile visit to China and the G20 Summit will mute some of the domestic criticism. Presidents tend to turn to foreign policy when they are struggling at home as a way of reminding everyone of the extraordinary power and reach of the presidency. Unfortunately for the President, not only did his trip exacerbate already high tensions domestically, but it also reaffirmed for the American voters the reasons they voted against him in the last election.

As President Obama met with China's leaders, the Chinese were finishing up yet another muti-billion dollar gas deal with Russian President, Vladimir Putin. Putin has successfully negotiated three such agreements, ensuring that whatever sanctions the West place on his oil and gas industry will be offset by new money flowing in from Asia. You can get some background on his strategy here:

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/putins-game.html

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/defending-putins-gambit.html

These energy deals also give Putin significant immediate leverage over Western Europe, just as winter comes. Most of Ukraine's heat comes from Russian gas. About 40% of Western Europe's gas heat comes from Russian gas. Western leaders have been assuming that, if worse comes to worse, they could levy "crippling sanctions" on Russia's oil and gas sectors, but really the contrary is true. Putin can cripple Ukraine without firing a shot, and hold Europe in check by the shock to their economies. They have underestimated him.

Meanwhile, President Obama also negotiated a deal with the Chinese. Not to bring down the trade deficit, or expand open markets, or protect intellectual property rights being pilfered by Chinese hackers. Nope. President Obama negotiated an environmental treaty that would cut American greenhouse emissions by 28% by 2028, while the Chinese will agree to "reach peak emissions" by 2030. In other words, we will cut our energy production, place further regulations on our energy sector and pass those costs along to Americans while the Chinese increase emissions for another 16 years. Now, even assuming the propriety of focussing on climate change rather than the long list of other problems between our two nations, President Obama got snowed. Then, as he inked his surrender on the issue, China rubbed some dirt in his eye by demonstrating their new stealth fighter, reverse engineered from stolen U.S. blueprints for the F-35. The optics for the President could not have been worse.

Unfortunately, this is what American voters have come to expect from President Obama and the left wing of his party. This is why they lost the last election so badly. The President travels overseas, focusses on a narrow, comparatively minor issue, and then can't even do that effectively. Meanwhile he stands by and watches the country get humiliated by someone else's military development, comes home and remains completely oblivious to the real threat of Russian strategic expansion.

And ISIS beheaded another American over the weekend.

It is this inescapable feeling that the world is on the brink and that the President is whistling past the graveyard that has led a large majority of Americans to question his leadership and the wisdom of allowing Democrats to stay in power in any capacity. It is a question of basic competence for most Americans. We cannot allow Vladimir Putin to outflank us at every turn. He has not withdrawn from Ukraine, he continues to supply new weapons to the rebels, and he continues to use direct military assets to obstruct Ukrainian efforts to end hostilities. Let us also not forget that he shot down a passenger airliner, killing 298 men, women and children. When winter is finally at its peak, the world will see the true scope of his global reach.

The world's problems are very complex and there is no one right answer to solve any of them. It is beyond arrogant for anyone or any party, including Republicans, to assume that they have a monopoly on bringing about "world peace," or to ushering in a new era of cooperation. It will also take a lot more time and a sustained effort to bring our rivals to heel and get our nation back on track. It starts, however, with setting priorities, and that is where the President can make a huge impact. By setting the right priorities, he can signal to the American people that he understands the problems we face and begin winning back our confidence for his legacy and his party.

If I Were The Father Of An NCAA Football Player...

On Saturday, my beloved Bulldogs stormed past Auburn in a 34-7 rout. The victory was possible, in no small measure, by the return of suspended junior running back, Todd Gurley. You can see my post about his unwarranted suspension here. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-battle-royal.html. On Saturday night, with only a few minutes left in the game, he was carted off to the hospital. Early reports are that he has torn a ligament in his knee, which would end his season.

As it turns out, Todd Gurley took $3,000.00 (not $400.00 as originally reported), which led to a four game suspension instead of a two game suspension. The NCAA believes that it demonstrated "mercy" by not enhancing the penalty since Mr. Gurley had taken money from more than one source. Gurley was required to sit the four games, "make restitution" and perform "community service." 

Now, I am a lawyer. "Making restitution," and "performing community service" are terms of art. They are reserved for criminals and thieves. They are pronouncements made from a person wearing a black robe, sitting high on a bench, empowered with the rule of law to impose penalties for crimes against society. The problem is, Todd Gurley is no criminal. He did not steal $3,000.00 from anyone. Nor is the NCAA a judging body, empowered by our society to mete out justice to "wayward black kids" who sign autographs in exchange for money. Nevertheless, they treated him like a criminal.

If this injury is what the early reports say it is, Gurley will have potentially lost millions of dollars of money in the NFL Draft. Gurley was a consensus first round pick, which would earn him a cool $10 million or so playing on Sundays. He may now be relegated to the second or third round, which would still make him a millionaire, but he would have to demonstrate a full recovery from the injury before anyone will risk that kind of money on a college player.

Sadly, Gurley may be joining a long list of NCAA football players who make the choice to return only to be injured, see millions evaporate, and end their football careers on a bitter note. Gurley didn't have to come back. He was obviously a little rusty. As anyone who has ever seriously played competitive sports can tell you, things don't work quite the same after sitting for four weeks. Ligaments are a little tighter, cuts are little more awkward. The game is a little faster. Gurley, however, didn't have to accept reinstatement, or carry the ball 29 times in his first game back. He could've just declined reinstatement, gone to football camp, and waited for the draft. His body of work in three years was more than enough to guarantee him a top draft spot. 

But by all accounts, Todd is a good young man. He wanted to come back to "play for his team," and his coaches. He didn't want to be seen ending his career as a "criminal" or a rules violator. He wanted to show the world that he was a team player. And he is. If his career at Georgia ends this way, it will be extremely disappointing for Todd and his fans. But whether his injury is season ending or not, if I were Todd's father, he has played his last NCAA game. Here's why.

It is a father's duty to protect his son's health, be it from drugs or from serious injuries. A father also has a duty to protect his son from exercising poor judgment, like accepting money from predatory jock sniffers who take advantage of him for some autographs. It is also a father's duty, however, to protect his son from exploitation. After watching my son being treated like a gangbanger in an orange jumpsuit for trading on his name and likeness, I'd be done with the NCAA. They no longer get the millions they were making off my boy. The school no longer gets his skills as a ball carrier to vault them past rivals and rake in even more millions in ticket and memorabilia sales. And the sports writers no longer get to make millions off of the "redemption" storyline as my boy's face is plastered across ESPN. Respect is a two way street. My son made a mistake. He did not rape anyone, he did not get drunk and fight. He didn't crash his car into a busload of children. He did not cheat on an exam. He signed autographs, and for that, he was kept out of play and humiliated on national television by an old, white, cabal that has long since outlived its usefulness. I would've told my son to quietly bow out, and go to the pros.

Instead, Todd Gurley Sr. now has to worry about his son's future. He worries, like all fathers do, that his son won't be able to achieve all that he can achieve as a football player and has a man. He worries that his son's life long dreams may be compromised, if not totally gone. Of course, if the sacrifice is worth it, if the cause is worthy, then going out in a blaze of glory can be a great achievement. But being carted off for an MRI after the way he was treated is not a worthy sacrifice, and the NCAA is not a worthy cause - even if his teammates might be.

The story of Todd Gurley will inevitably be a lesson to all NCAA parents. The NCAA is not your friend. They will not help you teach your child about right and wrong. They will exploit your kid and, if ever given the opportunity, will eagerly discipline him for taking their money. If he's injured, so be it. He is only there for their profit and our entertainment. We've known for decades that his "education" is really not their concern.

Election Post Mortem - "It's the Economy, Stupid."

If you could pick one phrase from the Clinton presidency that has remained a staple in our political culture, it would be the wry phrase: "It's the economy, Stupid." Of course, Clinton did not invent the idea of focusing on the economy to win elections. Almost every successful president in our history did the same thing. This is because when the economy is good, most of the time a president gets reelected and his party does well. When the economy is bad, most of the time he loses and his party loses. There have been a few exceptions and caveats. For one, the electorate doesn't expect miracles. In fact, if they believe the other party is primarily responsible for the economic woes of the country, they give great leeway to the other side to fix things.

There is no doubt however, as I said in my last post, that this election was a referendum on President Obama and his party and their body of work since 2008. In 2008, we were in a recession. While we are not technically in a recession now, economic growth has been anemic at best. Since 2008, our economy has grown, on average, at 1.5% with significant real (as opposed to monetary) inflation of common every day goods like milk and oil. Now, compare that to the Clinton years where we experienced 3.8% growth with 2.5% inflation across the board; and the Reagan years, 3.8% growth and roughly 4% inflation. Even if you blame Bush and excuse the first two years of the Obama Administration, you still only get GDP growth of 2.2%. Under Reagan, taking out the first two years of the "stagflation" he inherited from Carter, you get approximately 5.8% growth.

President Obama and the Democrats have underperformed and, no matter how convincingly they may lay the blame at the feet of Bush, the voters no longer believe them. It is their economy, their policies, their agenda and their governance that has led to an unsatisfying economic recovery. Exit polls show that 78% of Americans are "worried" or "very worried" about the future of the economy. Compare that to 2008, during the height of the financial crisis. When President Obama took office, 81% of Americans were worried or very worried about the future of the economy. That is only about 3% higher than it is now - six years later. Ironically, in both elections about 65% of the voters believed that the economy was the top issue. That is notwithstanding the fact that President Obama and the Democrats declared victory over the recession four years ago. Obviously, Americans disagree.

The primary problem is not that President Obama inherited "the worst recession since the Great Depression." The primary problem is that he and his party were decidedly not focused on the economy, opting instead to pass the Affordable Care Act, a slew of new regulations, and precious little else. Then there was the campaigning. President Obama has relentlessly pursued the opposition throughout his six years in office, making every effort to show the world how stupid they are and how inferior they are to him. Predictably, they never wanted to work with him.

The most recent example of this was the White House luncheon during which the President met with Republican leaders. They retired to a private room to discuss ways they might work together. According to one Democratic aide in attendance, while the Speaker of the House was discussing a topic that is supposedly at the top of President Obama's agenda, immigration, the President said "I'm running out of patience." Really? "Running out of patience" is something I typically reserve for my children, not the Speaker of the House, and it is exactly that kind of clumsy interpersonal exchange that ensures everyone (except his closest allies) will just stand around and wait for him to further implode. He will achieve nothing.

In the final analysis, real policies and real governance can effect positive change. Clinton governed effectively. Reagan governed effectively. Policies were devised, implemented, tweaked and sometimes discarded. Reagan had to work with a Democratic Congress to pass his legislation. Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress to pass his legislation. In fact, the real irony is that Clinton worked effectively with many of the same Republicans that Obama now cannot bring himself to even eat lunch with. It is unlikely that these Republicans have changed that much. It is much more likely that Clinton knew how to be effective and Obama does not.

The last six years have been a grand experiment in modern government. President Obama and his advisors theorized that, really, Presidents can't do very much. They can make speeches and they can propose legislation, but the real work has to be done by the Congress. In accordance with that belief, they theorized that the best possible strategy to effect "change" is to campaign for broad ideas 24/7. It feeds into the 24/7 news cycle and it doesn't obligate him to govern anything more than his staff. "Keep it simple, Stupid." What we've learned from this experiment is that we do not like our leaders to be perpetual campaigners. We want them to govern. We may not always agree with the approach, we may stand in opposition to certain policies, but in the end, we want our government and our President to effectively address and attempt to resolve the nation's problems. In 1948, Harry Truman famously campaigned against the first "do nothing Congress." The Republicans just effectively beat the first "do nothing President." Let it be a lesson to both parties in all branches of government. You must govern, and you must govern effectively.

5 Steps Republicans Should Immediately Take to Improve the Economy

Almost uniformly, voters reported on Tuesday that the economy was a significant concern. Since 2008, we've seen precious little improvement outside of Wall Street. Yes, the markets are doing well, but ordinary Americans, and even the middle upper class and professional classes are not. This is an elite economy that has certainly expanded wealth for the upper .001 percent, but it has left the industrious middle behind. There is almost no comparison between the economy now and in 2007. Everything now is far more expensive that it was before the recession. That is bad news for ordinary folks who need milk for their toddlers, gas for their commute and meat on the dinner table. There are a myriad of reasons that our economy is still failing. The fundamentals are not strong and have not been strong for more than a decade. We have ceded our manufacturing base to Mexico and China along with the high paying jobs that used to be the backbone of our society. We have over regulated the existing employers and, of course, we have an incredibly confusing and oppressive tax system. I am expecting the GOP to put forward a positive agenda over the next two years that will provide real relief from the malaise we feel now. Here are, in my humble opinion, the five places to start.

1.  The Regulatory Reform Act

I would start with regulatory reform. Regulatory agencies have broad powers to implement legislation passed through Congress. So, for example, Congress passes a law that says, generally, "protect the environment." They then write into that law the names of the agencies tasked with "protecting the environment," and then provide "enabling powers" to those agencies to act on their behalf and  give effect to the new, broadly stated law. Those agencies, such as the EPA, then engage in "rule making." "Rule making" is a deliberative process designed to create and implement "regulations" that then have the force of law. When rule making is challenged, the federal courts review the process to determine whether the federal agency overstepped its bounds. However, federal courts give great deference to agency determinations, which include fact findings, statutory interpretation, and divining Congress' intent where there is ambiguity.

Over the last 6 years, President Obama has become a master of using regulatory agencies to change the law in a way that Congress never intended nor approved. It really is inappropriate, but to be fair, Obama is not the first President to do it. Nevertheless, it has revealed to most Americans a dark and shady process that usurps power from the electorate and places it in the hands of bureaucrats. I think most Americans oppose this and would like to see federal regulatory power reigned in.

To that end, the Republicans should propose legislation that limits the rule making power of federal agencies. "Deference" should be replaced in the law with a more stringent standard of review, such as "reasonably necessary to effect the stated purpose of the act," or "without which the legislation would be unable to be implemented." The current standards give too much power to the agencies to make law.

In addition to that, Congress should revise the interpretive powers of federal agencies to preclude them from exercising any power that is not specifically provided for in the legislation. The norm for federal agencies now is to do whatever they want and wait for a court to hold that they exceeded their mandate. Congress has the power, however, to limit federal agencies to only those actions which are specifically enumerated in the legislation. Congress should also have immediate standing to challenge all interpretations of its laws so long as a substantial minority believe the agency is acting contrary to Congress' intent. In other words, greater Congressional oversight of the regulatory process is needed.

Finally, Congress should amend the mission of each agency. As President Obama himself pointed out as a candidate, we have 23 agencies regulating salmon. It is time for Congress to step in and retask each agency in such a manner as to  drive it towards a more limited principal purpose.

2.  Tax Reform

It is without question that our tax code is nearly impossible to understand. Anecdotally, we hear of the Secretary of the Treasury being unable to accurately file a return. IRS agents are filing inaccurate returns and owe back taxes. Small businesses devote thousands of precious dollars a year to accountants and lawyers to decipher and limit tax exposure. It has been time to amend the tax code for decades.

We should start with the premise that production and productivity are good. A tax code that burdens production and productivity is counterproductive. Likewise, most of us believe that savings are important. Savings allow us to weather storms without needing assistance. Savings allow us to send our kids to college. Savings allow us to fix the transmission in our car when it suddenly dies. A consumption tax encourages savings. The most reasonable tax reform I've seen that encourages productivity and savings is the value added tax. Basically, it is a national sales tax. You buy something, you pay a sales tax on it that goes to the federal government. The government uses that to fund our nation. There are many sources online that do a good job of explaining how such a tax would work and what the drawbacks may be. I encourage you to research the issue for yourselves.

Even if you can't get on board with a consumption tax supplanting the income tax, it is universally recognized that the tax code must be simplified. That at least means that, to the extent we tax income, we need to limit deductions and tax rates. There is so little benefit to trying to use the tax code to micromanage citizen's behavior that it basically has become worthless. It is also patronizing and arrogant to have a government spending its time using the tax code to tell us how we should or should not behave. It really isn't up to them. It is up to us, and we should take away their power to use our own blood, sweat and tears to micromanage us.

3.  Labor Reform

As most of you know, I am a labor and employment lawyer. I have had the unique opportunity to see the function of our labor laws up close. While I generally oppose unions, I have also seen the unintended consequences of the massive loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. Manufacturing jobs are really, really good jobs. They tend to be stable, high-paying, require little formal education, and provide employees with a sense of ownership and belonging in the greater economy. For thirty years, Republicans and Democrats fought over the scope and protections that should be afforded to workers. Conservatives and businesses became tired of having government and employees tell them how to run their businesses. At the same time, many liberals became "citizens of the world" rather than advocates for American jobs. The result was catastrophic. Liberals and conservatives joined together to gut our manufacturing economy. Liberals were glad to see jobs go to "developing nations" and conservatives finally got their wish - to destroy the labor unions. Never has a country slit its own throat so quickly nor so willingly.

A country that doesn't produce anything is not a powerful country. We are now a service based economy. We serve dinner at the local Applebee's, we service accounts, we service sales, we service foreign manufacturing companies that do their manufacturing overseas. China makes stuff, and we buy it. That is a formula for decline and it must be reversed.

Republicans should propose common sense labor reforms that make it easier and more profitable for companies to manufacture in America without interference from unions and government. Ultimately, the owner of the company gets to run the company, not the employees. That said, there are ways to protect employees while protecting the rights of the owners to run their businesses as they see fit. I know this is a board statement, and it would take too long to detail the ways to accomplish this, but it must be done in order to revitalize our economy. And besides, I'd rather have to deal with a unionized job in America than a job in China.

4.  Double Down on Privacy and Free Speech

Most American's believe that government is out of control because it is, in fact, out of control. Government at all levels has been using its police power to discourage ordinary Americans from exercising fundamental rights. Over the past five years, for example, the federal government has used the IRS, ATF, FBI, OSHA and EPA to harass political groups that apply for tax exempt status to push their ideological agendas. If you want to speak up, you get audited. If you want to raise money for a particular political cause, your business gets a surprise visit from OSHA. If you disagree with the current power structure and want to form an organization to challenge that, you get a visit from the ATF to make sure you have all the necessary paperwork for your firearms. At the very least, an issue advocate must comply with an encyclopedia full of rules and regulations or else risk arrest and jail time.

Meanwhile, the NSA gathers all electronic communications and voice calls in the world. This is being done under the auspices of national security. I doubt that, but okay. Even if that is the case, it is not the "good guys"we currently have in charge at the NSA I am worried about (assuming they are all good guys). I am worried about the bad guys getting hold of this information and using it for nefarious purposes, such as industrial espionage, blackmail, gaining political leverage, and deterring undesired speech. 

Issue advocacy is core free speech. The general thuggery and ludicrous introduction of ambiguous regulations is specifically intended to chill political speech. Someone doesn't want you to voice your opinion, so they use the vast power of the government to scare you into submission. This trend is one of the most un-American developments in the history of our country. It is absolutely incumbent on our political leaders to put an end to this. There are several reforms I would suggest. First, political speech should be exempt from all regulation. That means no more campaign finance laws, no more Federal Election Commission regulating Youtube videos, and no more IRS agents determining tax exempt status for some political group. Second, there need to be serious and painful sanctions for officials who attempt to interfere with someone's constitutional right to free speech. Government officials, bureaucrats and agency heads should be stripped of immunity from private lawsuits brought as a result of their abuse of power. Many government officials believe that they can do whatever they want because, ultimately, they are immune from any consequences for any lapse in judgment. It is time to hold these people to account, and an individual or group who feels they have been retaliated against because of their political views should be allowed to sue everyone involved.

5.  Energy Reform

It has always been the case historically that where there are high gas prices and high taxes, the economy struggles. The opposite is also true. Where energy is cheap and taxes are low, the economy has boomed. Energy is the force multiplier for the average American. Without energy, we cannot get to work, cook our food, or do those projects around the house. Cheap energy is not a bad thing, although the elites would like us to think that it is. Cheap energy is so fundamental to our society, in fact, that finding and developing it represents a full 10th of our economy. For years we've had the EPA and various other government agencies interfering with progress. While there are serious concerns about the environmental impact energy production has, those concerns should not paralyze us. The Keystone Pipeline, for example, should be approved. Congress should act to take that decision out of the hands of the EPA and the Department of State and then approve it themselves.

Moreover, however, Congress should act to remove regulations that are hampering growth in this sector. As we get better at fracking, we will be able to flood the market with new oil, which will ultimately drive down the price. Cheap oil is good. It takes power away from despots and terrorists in the Middle East and Russia. It allows the average family to spend more money on clothes or school books, instead of putting that additional $100 in the gas tank every week. Cheap gas, cheap heat, cheap power all work to make the lives of all Americans better.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

At the close of the Constitutional Convention  in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman standing outside the hall: "Well, Doctor, do we have a monarchy or a republic"? Franklin replied: "A republic, if you can keep it." Franklin's words were sharp and foreshadowed the centuries of struggles that our nation would face to keep real self-governance viable. 

Every election cycle since that first one has tested our nation's resolve to be free and our commitment to the peaceful change of power. Every election is about something. Yesterday's election, most people agree, was a referendum on President Obama's policies, agenda and ideology. Voters did not vote so much for any positive view espoused by Republicans as they did vote against Obama and the Democrats. There is no doubt that, given the relative lack of vision offered by Republicans, Obama and the Democrats were completely repudiated by the voters.

Now what? Voters overwhelmingly supported Republicans over Democrats and it wasn't even close. The GOP now has a choice. It can either articulate and pursue a real, common sense set of reforms designed to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, or it can consolidate power with lobbyists, favors and money. And then, while feathering their nests, the Republicans can pass meaningless, symbolic bills for their constituents' consumption. The history of grand reform from the GOP has been mixed, to say the least. In an election in which there was no national platform or set of reforms articulated, I have my doubts about what the GOP will actually do. If the Republicans do not pursue real reform, then what little confidence the electorate still has in the GOP will further erode, and they will be out of power again in no time. The country has handed the GOP our republic, we will see if they can keep it.

Tomorrow: Five steps Republicans should take immediately to improve the economy.

Ebola Continues to Reveal Institutional Failure and Mistrust

Yesterday, a Maine nurse returning from West Africa where she was treating Ebola patients refused to quarantine herself. She insists she is not sick and the government has no power to hold her in quarantine against her will. She has a point, except the point she's making will ultimately defeat her ultimate goal, which is to ensure safe travel to and from Africa for doctors and nurses to help treat the Ebola outbreak. All her uncooperative attitude will do is ensure bipartisan support for a full travel ban, to include doctors and nurses. You may go treat Ebloa, but you may not come back until you've demonstrated you are disease free.

It is unbelievably arrogant for the Director of the CDC, this nurse or any other medical expert to assume that the science of Ebola is settled and that they "know all there is to know about Ebola." The Greek term for this kind of thinking is "Hubris," and it usually precedes a tragedy. Ebola is "extremely difficult to contract," yet a measurable percentage of health care workers both here and abroad, using established CDC protocols, have nevertheless contracted the virus. They are in direct contact with Ebola patients, yes, but they are also supposedly the best equipped and trained to handle the virus. The fact that these experts continue to infect themselves is disconcerting to the rest of us. Enter this nurse. We don't know who she is, or whether she was well trained to handle the virus. We don't know if she followed the proper protocols, or even whether the protocols are truly effective. We don't know whether the virus has changed in some way that makes it easier to spread. All we do know is that we have someone who is potentially infected, who was in direct contact with dying Ebola patients, came home with a fever and now insists that, in her medical opinion, she is not sick, and should be allowed to have cocktail parties, ride bikes and shake hands. Ok, fine, but lets look at this in another context.

What if, just like the last doctor returning from Africa to New York, she's wrong. Ebola is not the flu. I am just getting over the flu. My daughter gave it to me. She got it in school because some parent thought it was ok to send her feverish, coughing child to school. That child coughed on mine, who contracted the virus. That parent was willing to risk my child's health and mine and, in fact, every family's in that school so that she could send her child to school that day. I am not happy with that parent, to say the least, as I take yet another steroid pill and puff from an inhaler. The flu causes death in 1 in 200,000 cases.

Ebola causes death in more than 70 percent of cases. So, out of 200,000 infected, 140,000 people would die, not just 1 poor soul. If you're wrong about sending your kid to school with the sniffles, you spread a flu that, more likely than not, will just make your neighbors and their children unhappy for a week or so. If you're wrong about whether you contracted Ebola while ministering to sick patients in Africa, you kill 7 out of the 10 people you infect upon your return. You infect your child and he or she infects her friends in school and those friends go home and infect their siblings and parents. You are then responsible for an outbreak that will kill those children and their families. It is not simply "relying on the science." It is playing a dangerous game with the lives of your friends, family and neighbors.

So, are we overreacting? The problem we have is that Doctors Without Borders and the CDC have not demonstrated competence in containing this Ebola outbreak. In Africa, the disease continues to spread at a geometric rate. Whatever they are doing has failed and governments are about to collapse. Moreover, the healthcare providers treating these patients are themselves getting infected, even here in the United States where the protocols are supposed to be the best. On top of that, the government continues to lie to us about its plans to contain Ebola. It was reported yesterday, for example, that the Obama administration is putting in place a plan to import non-citizen Ebola patients into the United States for treatment - at a cost of $500,000.00 per patient. The White House flatly denied the report, but a memorandum from the NIH states plain as day that they are putting plans in place to do just that.

Lies, incompetence and Hubris. All the ingredients are in place for a total fail. It is not unreasonable for people to continue to fear that this catastrophe soup our experts and leaders are stirring will soon begin to spill over. Until a full travel ban can be put in place, states should continue to insist on a full 21 day quarantine for all travelers entering the country from those regions of West Africa - especially the healthcare workers who we know for a fact have been in direct contact with the disease.