Lost and Found

When my teeth bite down I can see the blood
Of a thousand men who have come and gone
Now we grieve 'cause now it's gone
Things were good when we were young
--Von Bondies

In some ways the holes in my heart still feel as large as those twin holes in the ground.

In other ways, those holes have been filled with knowledge and love.

As terrible as that day was, I am grateful for the positive changes it has brought. 

Like today's gospel (Luke 15:1-32) that tells us of the lost son who has been found.

Hard Left

A time to build up
A time to break down
--The Byrds

Two things seem increasingly clear about the actions of today's left. One is that they are trying to get away with whatever they can. Regardless of the law, they seek to jam thru their agendas and hope that, somehow, people will let them.

The other is that leftists seem focused on collapsing the system. Economic and social chaos appears to be their goal. It also seems apparent that they believe that they will emerge from the chaos as victors.

Twenty Years

When my teeth bite down I can see the blood
Of a thousand men who have come and gone
Now we grieve 'cause now it's gone
Things were good when we were young
--Von Bondies

Twenty years to the day. Yet, when I see a still or video of that day, I'm right back there. Like so many others, my world changed that day. 

Digesting events on that day, I was given marching orders from my Higher Power: Get smart on the founding of the America. Understand just how radical, and disruptive, a nation conceived in liberty was--and continues to be. Familiarize yourself with arguments pitting freedom vs security and how the framers addressed this tension. Prepare yourself for an assault on liberty.

Thus began a journey that continues to this day. I started with our key founding documents. Declaration. Constitution, Bill of Rights. The founding context. Federalist papers. Anti-federalist papers. Austrian economics. Mises. Rothbard. Hayek. Previous assaults on liberty. Civil War and Lincoln. Marx and Engels. Wilson and WWI. FDR and the New Deal. WWII. Studies of the Great Depression. Garrett. Nock. Paterson. Chodorov. Hazlitt. It goes on...

At first, I thought my orders were meant to lend understanding to declines in freedom seen since 9/11. Travel restrictions. The Patriot Act. Huge increases in deficit spending, debt, and monetary inflation.

However, recent events find me suspecting that the last twenty years were just prep--a warm up for what's coming.

The real assault on liberty may lurk dead ahead.

Afghan Unwind

There's a room where the light won't find you
Holding hands while the wall come tumbling down
When they do, I'll be right behind you
--Tears for Fears

The chaos that has erupted in Afghanistan following the abrupt removal of remaining American forces by Joe Biden has fostered no shortage of finger pointing. Republicans, especially, smell political blood in the water. Their howls range from "America has been completely embarrassed" to "Biden should resign."

These rants may be justified on some levels, particularly in light of what has transpired over the past year and a half. But, as Ron Paul notes in a more or less "I told you so" rant of his own, many of these same politicians created the Afghan mess to start with.

Meanwhile, most Democrats are predictably circling the wagons around Biden. He did the right thing, Dems claim, by taking us out of an unpopular war. And, indeed, prior to the chaos polls had suggested that nearly 70% of American opposed US presence in Afghanistan and wanted us out. 

As a matter of fact, I was one of them.

At the end of the day, I suspect the problem that most Americans, and perhaps many across the globe, have with what is going on is not the intent but the execution. As Ron Paul observes, the 20 year campaign of terrorist fighting and nation-building in Afghanistan had been counterproductive for years. Most people saw the writing on the wall.

The Trump administration seemed to understand this. Trump had begun the process of unwinding in-country military commitments but stopped short of complete withdrawal based on advice that it wasn't quite time to do so yet. 

Reports are circulating that the Biden Administration ignored similar advice. Rather than continuing a measured withdrawal, Biden decided to pull out cold turkey. Unfortunately, the political vacuum created by his hasty action has cost many lives, with more surely to come. It has also cost Biden a pile of political capital.

Which brings me to my main point. There was a time where I might have done things like Biden did here. I used to think that if I were in charge, then I would end every government-sponsored program--immediately. 

But now I know better.

When government intervenes anywhere--overseas in military ops such as Afghanistan, or in domestic affairs such as welfare and healthcare redistribution, it distorts human behavior and interaction. These distortions create dependencies and other commitments that cannot quickly be reversed should those interventionary policies no longer garner political support.

As Biden's actions have demonstrated, trying to reverse these dependencies quickly is likely to create considerable pain. Retrospectively, a more measured phase out may have been more sensible--and more humane. 

Biden might have told his administration, the media, and people in the US and Afghanistan, that the US would be out of Afghanistan in, say, two years. He could have demanded phased withdrawal plans from the military and other advisors in the early days of his administration, and then shared the plans with all stakeholders. Those plans could have included key dates, goals, measures of progress along the way.

And to be fair, Trump could have done the same thing.

Similar measured exits could be designed for every bloated government-sponsored program on the books. Social Security, Medicare, welfare, etc. For example, Social Security payments might be phased out over the course of four, eight, or ten years.

Do measured withdrawals from government programs cost more? Perhaps, but perhaps not given the potential cost associated with chaotic withdrawal. Is it possible that a measured withdrawal never happens--given the proclivity of institutionalized bureaucracies to stifle change? For sure. Will they be politically unpopular with large voting blocs that benefit from the largesse? Without question.

However, I can't help but think that the transparency of a well communicated gradual exit strategy executed by determined leadership would be an effective, and fair, way to back out of trillion$ in government largesse.

Let's also note this. If we don't proactively back out of commitments, particularly those with massively upside down economics, then market forces will do it for us at some point. And when they act, market forces are likely to do so quickly. 

Biden's handling of the Afghan situation therefore serves as a harbinger of the chaos likely to ensue in other domains if we do not learn from mistakes made here and initiate programs of measured reversal.

Political Prisoners

Trim life shadows flicker and fall
But you still can't turn away
Get up and run before you stall
Before the edges fray
--Ric Ocasek

Ron Paul discusses the US version of Soviet show trials in which people who entered the "People's House" in January are being imprisoned on political charges. They are accused of being terrorists despite commission of no violent acts or nor evidence that they contemplated terrorist acts.

This is not the first time the federal government has unjustly held political prisoners. John Adams and the original Sedition Acts, Lincoln during the Civil War, FDRs WWII internment camps, the ongoing Guantanamo Bay group.

As Paul warns, people who are ok with this sort of thing--particularly because the present wave of convictions aligns with their political views--are likely to see the tables turned at some point.

When prisoners are permitted to be taken for political purpose, sooner or later, they're coming for you.

Due Process Don't

When situations never change
Tomorrow looks unsure
Don't leave your destiny to chance
What are you waiting for
--Swing Out Sister

The Judge recounts the story of a Yemeni cleric who has been incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay since 2004 without criminal charges. This is an obvious violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Courts have repeatedly denied his appeals. 

Last week the DOJ refused to stand up for this man's constitutional rights. They are extra motivated not to do so, of course. 

If the DOJ argues that this Yemeni cleric has the right to due process, then so do the dozens of American citizens being unjustly held in connection with the DC uprising in January. And so do the tens of millions of Americans that government seeks to forcibly confine during public health lockdowns.

Acknowledging the right to due process for one person opens the doors for all who have had their liberty compromised by government force.

Two Holes

There seemed no way to make up

'Cause it seemed you mind was set

And the way you looked at me

It's a look I know I'll never forget
--Phil Collins

I was born nearly 19 years after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In my younger years especially, the Day of Infamy and the war that followed seemed so distant. My visions of it are in black and white--shaped by the old war movies. Today, Pearl Harbor's most tangible artifact is the memorial above the remains of the USS Arizona.

Today marks 19 years since the 9/11 event. Most of those born today will undoubtedly look back on the day that changed my world similar to how I viewed the day that changed the world of my parents and grandparents. Static. Remote.

After all, the tangible remains available to them consist of two holes in the ground.

Riot Maker

"I'm a ticking time bomb and I'm read to explode. Let's solve my problem."
--Henry Wayne (Exit Wounds)

After a black man was allegedly killed by a white cop while under arrest on the streets of Minneapolis last week, protests broke out across the US. Many of these protests subsequently morphed into riots, with likely hundreds of million$ of property damage and theft--particularly in large urban cities across the country.

Many are comparing the violence to the riots of 1968 following the deaths of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

It is straightforward to connect the extremity of this reaction to the COVID lockdowns. Ryan McMaken suggests three ways that the lockdowns paved the way for the riots.

COVID lockdowns (1) threw millions out of work, (2) increased police harassment of peaceful people, (3) cut people off from key institutions that reduce social conflict. This made a volatile situation far worse. | @ryanmcmakenhttps://t.co/7OJhQq8uwz

— Mises Institute (@mises) June 3, 2020

Lockdowns created large scale unemployment almost overnight. Economic hardship fosters desperation, frustration, and often criminal behavior. If you have less, then you are prone to be envious of others who have more. As rioting looters have demonstrated over the past week, you will also be more likely to take what isn't yours.

By confining people to their homes, lockdowns also destroyed social institutions such as churches, coffee shops, and beauty parlors that researchers have long found serve as 'safety valves' for people to blow off steam. Absent these mechanisms for defusing social tension and problems, many people likely found protests and riots as viable outlets for cutting loose.

Finally, enforcement of lockdown rules in most jurisdictions fell primarily on state and local police. When working, leaving home, or engaging in trade is deemed a criminal act by authorities, enforcement of those rules by police takes on the look of harassment. Police become bad guys and subject to close scrutiny by people seeking to preserve their liberty.

Would we have seen protests following the Minneapolis incident regardless of our locked down state? For sure. But the scale and associated degree of violence?

Likely not.

Threat and Liberty Lost

Vasily Borodin: The crew know about the saboteur. They are afraid.
Captain Marko Ramius: Well, that could be useful when the time comes.
--The Hunt for Red October

Over the past few days, running near empty streets during what is usually early morning rush hour has been a strange feeling. No school buses. No traffic piled behind neighborhood intersections. No long lines of cars pushing up Observatory Ave. A deserted Hyde Park Square.

A reminder, I think, of how readily people are willing to surrender freedom for some semblance of security when they feel threatened.

Early in my study of the Great Depression, the notion that people gladly consented to heavy-handed New Deal programs seemed incredible to me. Didn't these people realize that they were giving up liberties that would be difficult to claw back?

The phenomenon is much easier to understand after having experienced situations that elevate collective fear. 9/11. The Credit Crisis. Now the COVID-19 Pandemic.

"Give me liberty or give me death" is certainly not the common mindset in these situations. Instead, it is more like, "I will give up my liberty if you can guarantee my safety."

Unfortunately, those who do so are likely to wind up with neither in the long run.

War Power Patriotism

Friends all tried to warn me
But I held my head up high
All the time they warned me
But I only passed them by
--Mike Curb Congregation

With President Trump authorizing a drone strike last week that killed a high level Iran military official, calls have once again surfaced about restraining presidential authority to act with military force. Typically, these calls come from the opposing party.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Democrats are amassing against Donald Trump, just as it was no shock to see Republicans protesting against Barack Obama's liberal use of drone strikes. Hypocrisy here has been evident for a long time.

Really worth watching the full six minutes of @Senmikelee's comments. He gives a great quick class on the Constitution and War Powers and how failure to follow the Constitution is why we've had a disconnect between the people and the wars we find ourselves in. https://t.co/xN8ZVj3DGm

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 8, 2020

On the other hand, it is refreshing to watch a small group of congressmen exhibit what is a rare trait in Washington: consistency. At the forefront of this group has been Rand Paul, accompanied by Mike Lee and Thomas Massie. This trio has been unwavering in their opposition to the clearly unconstitutional practice of ceding war powers to the president. They opposed it under Obama just as they oppose it currently under Trump.

I agree with @RandPaul and @SenMikeLee that the Constitution calls for Congress to debate and decide whether to further escalate the military conflict with Iran. The three of us have been consistent on this point regardless of which party has been in the White House. https://t.co/cILen9foXF

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 9, 2020

The War Machine reflexively calls this group unpatriotic and claims that they are helping the enemy by the opposing the president. As Kat Timpf notes, however, there is nothing unpatriotic about standing up for the Constitution. Our founding ancestors wrote the Constitution in rejection to the English model--a model which granted a single individual discretionary power to put a country at war.

"Both parties are at fault here," concluded Paul. "It isn't just Republicans. President Obama usurped the war powers. Bush did it. Truman, LBJ, you name it. It's hard to find a president who hasn't done it, but Congress has abdicated that role." https://t.co/R61xijl40X

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 10, 2020

The Constitution clearly places authority for declaring war with Congress. Congress has clearly abdicated its role in a bipartisan manner.

Sanctions Escalate Tension

Hands across the water
Heads across the sky
--Paul and Linda McCartney

People often view economic sanctions as a peaceful deterrent. However, sanctions deny people their natural right to produce and trade with others to better their situation. When voluntary exchange is prohibited, then standard of living falls. When people are starving due to another country's prohibitive policies, they are, as noted below, likely to 'do desperate things.'

Desperate people do desperate things. Like this, and lack of proper crowd control at Soleimani's funeral so 50+ are stampeded to death.

Ukrainian airplane shot down by mistake by Iranian anti-aircraft missile, Pentagon officials believehttps://t.co/kn7JSTuLzT https://t.co/MWAfoc4Img

— Jim Bianco (@biancoresearch) January 9, 2020

From their standpoint, sanctions are acts of aggression. As with any aggression, people have a natural right to defend themselves sanctioned aggression.

Sanctions do not relieve geopolitical tensions. They escalate them. Sometimes to the point of war.

War to Peace

The war machine
It springs to life
Opens up one eager eye
--Nena

Last nite Iran fired missiles at two US military bases in Iraq. US stock futures plunged nearly 2% and gold creased $1600/oz for the first time in about seven years.

Overnight ES futures down 1.7% and recovered to positive BEFORE the NYSE open.

The last example of a 1.6% OVERNIGHT decline and recovering BEFORE the NYSE was the election night 2016.

ES futures were limit down 5% on election night. They recovered to up over 1% BEFORE the NYSE. pic.twitter.com/aT4KlnNczA

— Jim Bianco (@biancoresearch) January 8, 2020

After news circulated that a) damage to the US bases was light and there were no casualties, b) President Trump was not immediately going to respond to the attack, and c) Iran leaders signaled that they were unwilling to escalate the situation further, the fear trade came off and US stock futures were in the green pre-market.

One tiny example of what can happen when a situation moves from war to peace.

Staying Alive

You know it's alright, it's ok
I'll live to see another day
--Bee Gees

When the Virgina Tech shootings occurred in 2007, I remember thinking that one of the last thoughts that ran thru the minds of students who were in a room with the shooter was, "I wish I had a gun."

SCENARIO: you’re in a room with an armed crazy person...

Choose one:

— Cliff Maloney (@LibertyCliff) December 30, 2019

When facing an aggressor with a gun and no chance of being rescued by someone else, you'll likely throw any anti-gun political views out the window. When it is a matter of life or death, you'll yearn for a firearm that will help you stay alive.

Out of Syria

Oh, war is an enemy to all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
--Edwin Starr

Last weekend President Trump announced that remaining US troops in northern Syria would be withdrawn ahead of a pending military conflict between Syria and Turkey. The president rightly notes that the "USA should never have been in the Middle East."

Fighting between various groups that has been going on for hundreds of years. USA should never have been in Middle East. Moved our 50 soldiers out. Turkey MUST take over captured ISIS fighters that Europe refused to have returned. The stupid endless wars, for us, are ending! https://t.co/Fbcem9i55Z

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2019

He adds that "the stupid endless wars, for us, are ending!" Well said.

Not surprisingly, pushback is growing from the bi-partisan 'war caucus' in Washington. These people, as Rand Paul observes, "have never met a war they didn't like."

Let's hope and pray that the president is able to stand his ground against the pro-war establishment.

Remembering

On another day, c'mon, c'mon
With these ropes tied tied we can do no wrong
Now we grieve 'cause now it's gone
Things were good when we were young
--Von Bondies

Remembering the day...the moment. In many ways my life is divided into before and after.

Always sad. But also grateful. Grateful for the awareness that this day brought.

Awareness of God's gifts of freedom and liberty. And of our obligation to forge ahead in pursuit of truth.

Treaty of Versailles

"You offer terms. I ask none."
--Balian of Ibelin (Kingdom of Heaven)

Yesterday marked the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Versailles. Although conventional wisdom is that the treaty marked the end of war and the institution of peace, the reality is that it motivated a period of unprecedented statism and war.

The Treaty of Versailles was actually a collection of treaties signed by individual countries in a series of settlements. In January, 1919, delegates from Britain, France, Italy, and the US convened in Paris for a preliminary conference to decide amongst themselves the terms to offer Germany. Germany was not summoned to Paris until May, and it was not permitted to negotiate terms. Because this violated precedent for resolving post-war differences, the fact that treaty terms were dictated was bound to breed contempt in Germany.

Germany signed the treaty forced on them on June 28, 1919.

The several clauses of the treaty, heavily influenced btw by British economist John Maynard Keynes, intensified the bad taste in German mouths. The military clause disarmed Germany. However, German disarmament was supposed to be part of a general European disarmament sponsored by the League of Nations. But the Allies did not fulfill their promise to disarm, and this broken promise infuriated German public opinion.

The reparations clause, upon Keynes's recommendation, did not fix the amount of reparations that Germany was to pay for wartime damages. Instead, Germany was forced to sign a blank check, which permitted the country to complain that its citizens had been condemned to indefinite slave labor. Moreover, the reparation sums demanded by Britain and France subsequently indebted Germany to the point of the Weimar hyperinflation and country's economic collapse in the early 1920s.

The reparations clause also included Article 231. Article 231 required that Germany accept sole responsibility for starting the war. This was folly, of course, because all major European powers shared responsibility for starting the war. Sadly the charade of Article 231 has been perpetuated in most history books.

The territories clause caused Germany to lose 13% of its land and 10% of its population. Alsace-Loraine went to France, territory in the east (along with Russian and Austro-Hungarian land) went to recreate Poland, the Polish Corridor to the sea cut off East Prussia from the Germany, the Austro Hungarian empire was shattered to create the new nation of Czechoslovakia, and the unification of Germany and Austria was prohibited. Not only did these moves deny the people in these territories the right to self determination--a self-determination that was promised by the Allies prior to the treaty conference--but it festered ill feelings inside Germany about surrounding locales that had been created by force rather than by freedom.

The German people thought the treaty unfair, and they wanted someone to oppose it. The platform for Hitler's rise to power was built on the Treaty of Versailles.

The scope of the treaty also facilitated land deals in Italy, Asia, and the Middle East--all motivated by imperialistic impulses of the Allies. These deals were forced, and violated principles of self-determination for the peoples involved. Negative outcomes subsequently followed, including Italy's fascism and proclivity to side with the Axis in WWII, extremism in the Middle East, communism in Russian, China, Korea, and Vietnam, and militarism in Japan.

It is difficult for the reasoned mind not to conclude that many if not most of the major social and economic problems faced by the world today were set in motion one hundred years ago from yesterday.

Indomitable Spirit

Went the distance
Now I'm not gonna stop
Just a man
And his will to survive
--Survivor

After being gunned down on a practice field two years ago and enduring months of hospital time and physical therapy, Steve Scalise is back to work--and on the diamond once again.

Two years ago, my colleagues and I were attacked while practicing for a charity baseball game, simply because we’re Republicans. Thanks to countless heroes, miracles, and prayers, I’m still here today getting to do the job I love in Congress—and play a little baseball. pic.twitter.com/4DWeeFrc76

— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) June 14, 2019

This is what indomitable spirit looks like.

Exploiting Fear

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
 --V (V for Vendetta)

Good point by Ron Paul. The recently proposed Green New Deal linked to the progressive rallying cry of 'climate change' is analogous to various neocon proposals that stir the rallying cry of 'terrorism.' Both are ready-made excuses for expanding government and curtailing liberty.

Politicians learned long ago that the key to assimilating power is to instill fear in the citizenry. When people are fearful, they become more willing to surrender their freedom in exchange for safety. Consequently, they contract with strong armed government agents to protect them from their fears.

By exploiting fear, the government's protection racket flourishes. State power increases and social power decreases.

National Emergencies

"Tonight I will speak directly to these people and make the situation perfectly clear to them. The security of this nation depends on complete and total compliance."
--High Chancellor Adam Sutler (V for Vendetta)

President Trump's declaration of a national emergency to fund a $5+ billion wall across the southern border has partisans once again choosing sides. Those for it argue that it is necessary for national security. Those against it argue that it is beyond the president's legitimate authority to unilaterally fund government activities.

The latter argument is correct. Declaring a national emergency to fund a project for the executive branch is not just an end around Congress, but an end around the Constitution. Article 1 gives Congress sole power of the purse.

As Ron Paul observes, Trump's situation is hardly unprecedented, however. Many presidents, at least as far back as Lincoln, have used so-called national emergencies to expand their power. In fact, Congress itself has passed several statutes that provide for the president to bypass congressional authority by declaring emergency situations.

For example, the 1976 National Emergencies Act gives the president broad powers to declare emergencies for almost any reason. After informing Congress that an emergency has been declared, the president merely needs to renew the declaration once/yr. Since the act passed, 59 emergencies have been declared by nearly all presidents since the law's enactment (except for Reagan, I believe), with 31 of those still in effect.

Other laws that grant the president emergency powers include the Defense Production Act, the Communication Act, and the 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF).

Judge Nap argues that any presidential declaration of emergency cannot be contrary to the Constitution, and cannot authorize the president to spend money that Congress has declined to spend. Doing so now would be a dangerous precedent.

To be sure, but the counter to his argument is that the horse is already out of the barn. And many of those who oppose (support) Trump's move would surely support (oppose) a similar move from 'their' (the ‘other side’s) president.

Unless opponents of Trump's declaration are ready to rescind all past statutes that grant presidential powers associated with emergency declarations, then their objections can hardly be seen as sincere.

Leaving Syria

"We walk, and Afghanistan reverts back to the Taliban. Only now the Taliban has metastasized into something infinitely more vicious and potent because they're now 2-0 versus superpowers. They butcher the people who helped us, who voted and were stupid enough to put their faith in our word. So call it not only the end of hope for tens to millions of Afghans, but the end of American credibility, the end of America as a force of righteousness in the world. And when we're forced to go back in a couple of years, and please quote me on this, we'll be squared of against a shattered Iraq, a hopeless Afghanistan, and a nuclear Iran. How many troops are we going to need then? I guarantee you'll be adding some zeros."
--Senator Jasper Irving (Lions for Lambs)

Earlier this week, President Trump announced that he is ordering the withdrawal of US troops from Syria. The uproar from the military/industrial complex predictably followed.

Defense Secretary James Mattis, a card-carrying member of the complex, subsequently resigned, citing irreconcilable differences with the president on foreign and military policy.

Joining the chorus, other war proponents claim that a delicate balance in the Middle East will be upset, implying that the only way the world can operate smoothly is if U.S. troops are deployed around the globe and put at risk while pounding the beat as world policemen.

I join Rand Paul in applauding this move. Trump is doing something that his predecessor could have done but never did.

Hopefully the president can withstand the criticism. And make this the first in a string of withdrawals.