Disinformation Governance Board

Funny how I blind myself
I never knew
If I was sometimes played upon 
Afraid to lose
--Talk Talk

In what could hardly be a more overt validation of George Orwell's 1984 message, the federal government has created a 'Disinformation Governance Board" under the Department of Homeland Security. The objective is to 'police' what is deemed (by the overseers, of course) to be 'misinformation' or 'disinformation.'

The censorship drumbeat among progressives has reached a fevered pitch, pushed over the top by Elon Musk's buyout of Twitter (TWTR) announced last week.

How the establishment of such an agency is not a direct violation of the First Amendment is beyond me.

 At the same time, we should also note that this is not the first time the feds have sought to thwart free speech through formal structure. John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's muzzling of unfriendly press during the Civil War, Wilson's Committee on Public Information and Sedition Act of 1918, information shapers in FDR's 'brain trust,' et al.

To borrow Locke and Jefferson's term, this 'train of abuses' has been running in fits and starts since the ink was newly dry on the Bill of Rights. And in the most noteworthy authoritarian regimes in history...

I hope this is challenged in the courts. Meanwhile it will be interesting to see how much legitimacy this agency acquires from the people. 

Stated differently, widespread rejection of the Disinformation Governance Board by the citizenry could bury the censors and vault awareness of liberty to levels not seen in some time.

Causes of Crisis

"Gentlemen, we have a crisis situation."
--Jester (Top Gun)

Interesting discussion of how we've evolved into a Constitutional Crisis situation. Especially liked the review of the negative influence of the Progressive movement.

I thought that the author missed the mark on a couple of points, however. He correctly notes that the Three Fifths clause which legitimized slavery was not a principle of the Constitution, but a compromise. But the author implies that it was a necessary compromise to close the deal that ultimately led to the union of states. Furthermore he argues, using some cites from Frederick Douglass, that the Constitution was ultimately and anti-slavery document. Because it was grounded in the 'all men created equal' principle set forth in the Declaration, tension was created by the compromise that ultimately led to slavery being thrown off.

Very neat, but what if enough anti-slavery framers had the cojones to stand their ground at the convention? Might the union have included fewer states in the beginning? Yes. But the principle would have stood from the outset. And millions of lives would have subsequently been saved. Indeed, it can be argued that willingness to 'compromise' ranks highly in the factors that have led to the Constitutional Crisis that we face.

Before lambasting Progressives for wanting to consolidate power in the executive branch, the author claims that there are times when the president rightfully should wield such power. In the event of war and crises, he suggests, the president must be able to circumvent constitutional balances of power to, essentially, 'preserve the union.' He is undoubtedly covering for Lincoln, whom he is sympathetic to and quotes liberally in the article despite Lincoln's abuse of power during his administration.

Lincoln and other presidents have used 'emergency powers' to do precisely what the author seems to argue against--i.e., the durable confiscation of liberty by an authoritarian state. Although he quotes work by both Jefferson and Locke that appear sympathetic to concentrating authority with the executive branch in times of crisis, there is no provision for doing such in the Constitution itself.

Indeed, the inconsistencies demonstrate by the author suggest that there is plenty of blame to go around for our present crises. The actions of many so-called 'conservatives' have done as much to denigrate the Constitution as those of Progressives.

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.

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.

Lincoln Cents

So when you hear it thunder
Don't run under a tree
They'll be pennies from heaven
For you and me
--Bing Crosby

What's the longest running coin design in US history? That would be the Lincoln cent. The obverse design has changed little since Lincoln pennies were first struck in 1909. Designed by sculptor Victor David Brenner, it features a side profile of Abe cribbed from an early Matthew Brady photo. The design was controversial because it was the first US coin to feature an actual person rather than symbolic figures such as Lady Liberty. 

We seem to have gotten over it, as today's coinage has completely shunned Ms Liberty in favor of 'rock stars' of US history.

1910 1c PCGS PR66RB CAC ex Young-Dakota

The reverse of the Lincoln cent has endured two primary designs. The art deco 'wheat cent' reverse was struck from 1909 through 1958. To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Lincoln cent in 1959, the reverse was redesigned in favor of a Lincoln Memorial motif. The 'modern' reverse was altered once again at the Lincoln cent's century mark in 2009, first with an image of the Lincoln log cabin birthplace and then a replica of the union shield.

Alloy content has evolved from almost completely copper to almost completely zinc. In keeping with the sadly familiar pattern of monetary debasement, rising copper prices have made it too expensive to include the metal in one cent coin denominations.

Many collectors got their starts by plugging Lincoln cents into Whitman albums. Harder to find the old 'wheaties' to fill those early slots, but they're still in the mix if you look hard enough.

If you notice one, then you might want to put it away. At the rate that the value of money is being destroyed, pennies may not be in circulation much longer.

Lincoln and Tariffs

It was a shakedown cruise
And now we're sending out the news
There ain't no victory at sea
Unless it's mutiny
--Jay Ferguson

These pages have occasionally considered the myths surrounding Abraham Lincoln, often with the help of Professor Tom DiLorenzo. In this article, DiLorenzo discusses how Lincoln's position on tariffs helped vault him to the presidency.

By the 1850s, the world was largely moving away from mercantilist policy. Protective tariffs were being eliminated across Europe in favor of free trade. By 1857, the 15% average American tariff was the country's lowest import tax rate of the nineteenth century. The subsequent Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether.

Leaders in Northern states, however, were reluctant to surrender wealth gained from decades of cronyism afforded by the American System. They wanted to continue tariff protections as well as government funded 'internal improvement' projects. They also lusted for a central bank controlled by politicians similar to the Bank of England.

Lincoln was the ideal presidential candidate for the going institutionalization of the American System. He was a devout protectionist who, through his railroad industry connections, could wire himself into influential industrialists and media moguls in the North to get out the protectionist vote.

Two days before Lincoln's inauguration, his predecessor James Buchanan signed the Morrill Tariff bill into law which legally raised tariffs on some imports by 100%+ and hastened Southern secession proceedings.  The South, you see, had already borne the brunt of protective tariffs for many years. Being primarily agricultural producers, Southern states had to purchase manufactured goods either from the North (where protectionist tariffs permitted higher prices on domestic goods) or from producers abroad (whose goods were being taxed at exorbitant tariff rates). Consequently, Southern standard of living was being compromised whenever American tariffs were imposed on imported goods.

Lincoln would subsequently sign ten more tariff-increasing bills over the course of his presidency.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated that it was his 'duty' to collect the newly implemented tariffs. He promised that, in one of the more thinly veiled threats uttered in presidential history, there would be no 'invasions' or 'bloodshed' as long as states dutifully collected the requisite tariff fees on imported goods. He subsequently imposed naval blockades on several Southern ports, including Charleston, to ensure tariff collection.

We know how that worked out.

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.

Beware the People Weeping

Ed Harrison: And, yeah, we'll put the old boy on himself. You know, the forgotten man angle. Tear their hearts out.
Bob Wallace: Sorry, Ed, but that's out. We're not capitalizing on the old man's hard luck. No chance.
--White Christmas

Judge Nap adds to our recent discussion of emotional capture and institutional failure in the context of gun control. Of course, he does it in a much more eloquent manner than these pages ever could. In my view, this is one of the Judge's more insightful pieces (and that's saying something). Reading and re-reading is recommended.

I would like to discuss several of his thoughts here.

Putting traumatized kids before television cameras soon after a tragedy virtually guarantees emotional capture, or what the Judge calls 'madness' among the children and onlookers. Madness in this sense is "the passionate and stubborn refusal to accept reason." Madness is common after a tragedy. The Judge cites poet Herman Melville, who after witnessing the railroading of individuals accused of being involved with President Lincoln's assassination, wrote, "Beware the People weeping. When they bare the iron hand."

The lesson: it is nearly impossible to argue rationally with tears and pain. Take a step back from a tragedy before addressing it with 'legalized' force.

The concept of natural rights can be viewed religiously or aesthetically. Those who believe in an all loving God see natural rights as the claims and privileges attached to humanity by Him. For those who do not accept the existence of a Supreme Being, the argument for natural rights still holds. Because it is obvious that humans are the superior rational beings on earth, our exercise of reason leads us to the exercise of freedoms that are integral to our humanity and independent of government. The first among these is our right to life--the right to be and to remain alive.

The right to life implies the right to defend one's life. Our founding ancestors recognized this right when they ratified the Second Amendment. They wrote it to ensure that all governments (in place then and in the future) would respect the right to keep and bear arms as a natural extension of the right to self-defense.

The Supreme Court has characterized this right as 'pre-political'--meaning that the right pre-existed government. If it pre-existed government, then it must be a natural right, i.e., it must come from our human nature. When Judge Nap asked the late Justice Antonin Scalia why he used the term 'pre-political' instead of 'natural' when authoring the majority opinion in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case, Scalia replied, "You and I know they mean the same thing, but 'natural' sounds too Catholic, and I am interpreting the Constitution, not Aquinas."

The Heller opinion also recognized that the Second Amendment was written soon after a war had been fought against a king and an army that was regarded as the most powerful army on earth. That war would surely have been lost had not the colonists borne arms equal to or better than those of the British troops.

The Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to defend against acts of aggression, whether those acts are perpetrated by bad guys, crazy people, or tyrannical government. Heller articulated that the right to self defense means that individuals have the right to use guns that are of the same level of sophistication as their adversaries.

Gun grabbers are unwilling to accept this. A colleague recently asked the Judge on air: Suppose we confiscated all guns? Wouldn't that keep us safe? The Judge replied that we'd need to start with the government's guns. No, his colleague said. What if we confiscated guns from the civilian population only?

An extension of this question would be: What if we confiscated 'assault style' weapons from civilians but left them in the hands of government?

To the reasoning mind that grasps the concept of institutional failure, the answer is obvious.

Always On

"The Army is a broadsword, not a scalpel. Trust me, senator, you do not want the Army in an American city."
--General William Devereaux (The Siege)

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln dealt with those in Union states voicing opposition to the war by arresting dissenters under auspices of martial law. Thousands were jailed without writs of habeas corpus and tried before military commissions rather than civil courts.

One such dissenter, an Indiana lawyer name Lambdin Milligan, petitioned the federal circuit court in Indianapolis. His case, which became known as Ex parte Milligan, was passed to the Supreme Court. The primary question was whether Lincoln's military tribunals against dissenters were legal.

The Court unanimously rebuffed Lincoln's efforts to cut constitutional corners. The Court wrote:

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and in all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious circumstances, was ever invented by the wit of a man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism."

Via its ruling in Milligan, the Court tells us that the Constitution is always on. No exceptions.

Big Business and Government

Say that you'll never, never, never need it
One headline, why believe it?
Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears

Ron Paul and Chris Rossini discuss several myths surrounding big business and government. These myths include:

Big business loves free markets and is shackled by regulation.

Republicans love free markets.

The fact is that big business loves hampered markets where regulatory barriers protect its franchise by keeping entrepreneurial competition out. Moreover, going back to Lincoln, the Republican Party was founded on hampered markets. In particular, the Party of Lincoln favored corporate welfare in the form of tariffs, central bank control of money and credit, and government sponsored 'internal improvement' projects.

If you believe official narrative that regulation of big business is good for the people, then you are being played.

Institutional Masquerade

Col Robert Gould Shaw: What are you doing?
Col James M. Montgomery: Liberating this town in the name of the republic.
--Glory

These pages have included a thread discussing the work of Tom DiLorenzo and his studies of Lincoln and the Civil War. In the context of current Monumental Hysteria, DiLorenzo once again presents compelling evidence of Lincoln's racist tendencies and his motivation for war centered around achieving the American System doctrine by keeping Southern States in the union--particularly as sources of tax revenue and as customer of Northern goods with few realistic options.

That this body of evidence, which has been built by many researchers, is so strongly ignored by the mainstream provides a sense of just how persistent the institutional masquerade has become concerning Lincoln, the Civil War, and, in current context, the South.

What particularly captured my attention this time around was the discussion near the bottom of DeLorenzo's piece about the war crimes committed by Lincoln and his generals. Particularly because this group opened Pandora's box for genocide and crimes against humanity in the next 150 years' worth of war, perhaps their statues and associated insignias, battle flags, war songs, et al. should be designated for destruction by those who believe they occupy the moral high ground as well.

Monumental Hysteria I

Colonel Robert Gould Shaw: It stinks, I suppose.
Tripp: Yeah, it stinks bad. And we all covered up in it, too. Ain't nobody clean. Be nice to get clean, though.
Colonel Robert Gould Shaw: And how do we do that?
Tripp: We ante up and kick in, sir. But I still don't want to carry your flag.
--Glory

Following the Charlottesville riots, progressives across the country are engaging in their latest bout of hysteria: seeking to remove or destroy all monuments that this group perceived as linked to the Confederacy and/or slavery. This can be seen as an extension of the left's Confederate flag fetish a couple of years back.

Of course, tearing down statues is the socialist way. Whether those socialists originate from communist or fascist sides of the spectrum, the idea is to erase symbols from the public mind that are inconsistent with the collective message. Also, being an intolerant lot, socialists seem to possess a strong urge to blot out words or symbols that cause them negative psychic income.

As many, including President Trump and Judge Nap, have argued, removing these monuments amounts to trying to erase history. And how far do you take it? The pyramids were built by slaves. The White House was built by slaves. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al were slave owners. Lincoln's racism. Slaves even worked in Lincoln's White House during the Civil War. Lots of infrastructure would have to come down to be logically consistent with this movement.

As Judge Nap questions, do we really want to pretend that none of this happened? He suggests that we're in a bad place when we erase and deny history. He argues that we should remember the awful so that the pain of those memories helps prevent those bad events from recurring. Quoting Orwell's 1984:

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified. Every book rewritten. Every picture has been repainted. Every statue and street building has been renamed. Every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day-by-day and minute-by-minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists, except an endless present in which The Party is always right."

The Judge fears we are getting there today. Me too.

Although I am sympathetic to this view, there is a good argument for removing these monuments from public places. We'll discuss it next time.

Brandenburg Doctrine

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of the law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast. Man's laws, not God's. And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil the benefit of the law, for my own sake.
--A Man for All Seasons

Judge Nap adds legal perspective to our discussion (here, here) about the Charlottesville riots and the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects speech from government infringement. Government does not grant free speech. Free speech is a natural right derived from our humanity. Rather, the proper role of government is to protect speech from invasion by others.

The ink was barely dry on the Bill of Rights before the federal government moved to abridge freedom of speech--particularly speech perceived as threatening to government itself. Alien and Sedition Acts. Lincoln's War. Wilson and FDR during the World Wars. When those infringements were brought before the Supreme Court, sometimes they were rejected and sometimes they were upheld.

At a Ohio rally in the 1960s, a KKK leader named Clarence Brandenburg verbally attacked Jews and Blacks in the federal government and urged followers to travel to Washington and produce violence against them. Brandenburg was subsequently arrested and convicted under Ohio law that prohibited public expression of hatred as a means to overthrow the government.

Brandenburg's conviction was subsequently overturned in a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in 1969. The court ruled that the entire purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech that we hate and fear--lest, of course, it would not require protection. The right to decide what speech to consume is left to each individual--not to a group or the government. The court ruled that all innocuous speech is protected absolutely. Speech is considered innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it. Brandenburg's speech was innocuous because, while he suggested violence against government officials in Washington, there was reasonable time for speech to suggest otherwise.

The Court's 1969 ruling became known as the Brandenburg doctrine and has been consistently upheld since then.

Applied to the Charlottesville case, the Brandenburg doctrine says that the government cannot take sides in a public dispute. If it does so, then the government becomes a censor, thus infringing upon the free speech rights of those against whom it has taken a position. On the contrary, as noted in a previous post, government is obligated to protect the speaker's right to speak and the audience's right to hear and respond to the speaker.

When the police declined to maintain order in Charlottesville, government abdicated its responsibility to protect the right to free speech. They permitted the 'heckler's veto' where the audience silences speech that it dislikes. When the heckler's veto comes about as a result of government failure to protect the right to speak, then it is unconstitutional. It is equivalent to the government taking sides and censoring speech it hates or fears a la the early Alien and Sedition Acts.

Yet, I am aware of few mainstream media outlets headlining, or even investigating, this story: Government fails to uphold the First Amendment in Charlottesville.

Hamilton and the Left

Peter Howard: We are citizens of an American nation! And our rights are being threatened by a tyrant three thousand miles away!
Benjamin Martin: Would you tell me please, Mr Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can.
--The Patriot

Many people scratch their heads over the Left's affinity for Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was, after all, one of the vocal framers of the Constitution. He also wrote skeptically, in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere, about a euphemism of leftist rule: democracy.

However, once the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton's actions revealed his true nature--much of which leftists would find naturally appealing. He favored a strong central government and thought the Constitution should be bypassed as necessary by the ruling class. In Hamilton's view, that ruling class should be aristocratic nature. He thought the the president should be granted lifetime tenure and that the powers of the executive branch should be disproportionately large.

As first the first treasury secretary, Hamilton initiated the nation's sovereign debt program and liked the idea of acquiring federal resources on the back of taxpayers. He was fond of central banking and got the First Bank of the United States, a predecessor to today's Federal Reserve, off the ground.

In many ways Hamilton's profile resembles Lincoln's--another authoritarian who leftists love to love.

Slanting Lincoln's War

Take another look
Tell me, baby
Who's zooming who?
--Aretha Franklin

Driven by Trump remarks suggesting that better leadership might have prevented the Civil War, the mainstream media unleashed a flurry of pieces once again defending Lincoln's War as just. As 'proof,' journalists cited a bevy of leftist 'historians' who have concluded the inevitability of the Civil War expressly to abolish slavery.

Of course, the practice of quoting from like-minded pools of 'experts' is what motivated Groseclose to develop his slant quotient measure of media bias.

There is simply too much contradictory evidence for the "Lincoln had no choice but to fight the Civil War...and it was just...and it was all about slavery" thesis to fly.

Fly among well reasoned individuals, that is.

RINO Stampede

I spend so much time
Believing all the lies
To keep the dream alive
--Billy Idol

Many voters who elected the current bloc of Republicans to Washington are disgusted by the group's recent antics. Despite campaign promises to shrink the size and influence of central government, many in this group have refused to repeal Obamacare, supported only 'revenue neutral' tax cut plans, and funded another round of profligate federal spending.

"RINOs!," exclaim the voters. "These Republicans In Name Only talk about smaller government but act like they want bigger government."

But when has it been any different? After all, the Party of Lincoln was built on the American System platform that favored central government largess. With few exceptions (e.g., Coolidge), Republican administrations and GOP majority congresses have always acted in manners that leave the federal government larger at the end of their tenure than at the beginning.

Our two party system is a semantic illusion. Regardless of the party 'in charge,' the dominant coalition in Washington is the Big Government Party.

Keeping Enemies Close

One day it's fine and next it's black
So if you want me off your back
Well, come on and let me know
Should I stay or should I go?
--The Clash

Soon after Abraham Lincoln stepped into the Oval Office he immediately fired over half of the employees working under the executive branch. After a highly contested election, Lincoln wanted to reduce the chance that those partisan to someone or something else were in a position to hurt his administration.

Many wonder why Donald Trump has not done similar. Yes, he recently fired several federal attorneys appointed by his predecessor, but thousands of Obama appointees and others who are ideologically opposed to Trump remain as his employees. For an individual who achieved celebrity status by uttering the words "You're fired!" on weeknight television, one would think Trump would have been dealing out pink slips in size by now.

It is possible, of course, that Trump just hasn't gotten around to it yet. Perhaps, based on his previous experience as a manager, he thinks it prudent to better familiarize himself with the current situation before making decisions about who should stay and who should go.

His managerial experience might also be telling him that diversity in terms of political ideology will help his administration make better decisions. Trump might achieve better long term results with a varied crew.

There is also the political argument that he wants to project an image of bi-partisanship when it comes to personnel. By keeping people on his staff that others know he doesn't like, he demonstrates restraint and tolerance that might win him cooperation from various factions over time.

A further possibility is that Trump is heeding age old advice of keeping friends close but enemies closer. Keeping enemies in his administration enables Trump to accumulate knowledge about his opposition. He might better understand strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies of his foes when they are working for him.

By keeping his enemies close, Trump could use them as bait. If, for example, Trump suspects that progressives will stop at nothing to get him out of office, then perhaps he keeps partisan operatives around in hopes that progressive leadership recruits them as agents for illicit activities. Agents, say, in intelligence agencies could illegally leak classified information designed to hurt the Trump administration. If Trump is prepared, then he might catch the agents in the act, and use them to trace back to the principals of the crime.

Perhaps the unfolding story about Spygate exemplifies this approach.

Tire Tariffs and Jobs

You could have a big dipper
Going up and down around the bends
You could have a bumper car, bumping
This amusement never ends
--Peter Gabriel

President Trump's loud protectionist rhetoric may be crowding out memory about interventionary trade policies of his predecessors. The fact is that no president in the past 100+ years has operated in the White House as a totally free trader (Coolidge was probably closest to the ideal). All had protectionist policies, sometimes huge ones, en force.

Going back further to the Party of Lincoln and beyond, protectionism has been a central political plank nearly since the country's founding.

Prof Williams takes us back to the early days of the Obama Administration's initiative to protect jobs in the domestic tire industry. Beginning in 2009, the administration oversaw the imposition and enforcement of various tariffs and taxes on tire imports, particularly those from China. When it couldn't realize adequate relief via the WTO, China retaliated with trade sanctions of its own.

In his 2012 State of the Union speech, Obama boasted that his administration's policies were responsible for saving over 1,000 tire industry jobs. However, this situation is a classic case of that which is seen and that which is not seen.

A subsequent study sought to evaluate the total cost of the tire industry protection program. The researchers concluded that tire trade restrictions forced Americans to pay about $1.1 billion more for tires. Moreover, each of those tire industry jobs, with average salary of about $40k/yr, would up costing about $900,000 per job saved. That's an ROI that only a bureaucrat would love.

Protectionism is always and everywhere a failed strategy. What people often see in support of protectionism are highlights of the few jobs saved. What they don't see are higher resulting product costs and the many jobs in other industries eliminated as a result.

Cal Exit

There she stood in the doorway

I heard the mission bell

I remember thinking to myself

This could be heaven or this could be hell

--Eagles

This election cycle continues to spawn ironic, and often welcome, behavior. Some of it is taking place in California. 

Over the years, leftist ideology has found a home in California with academic institutions such as Cal Berkeley serving as incubators. Yet, since Trump's election, the bastion state of socialistic thought has been considering actions that liberty lovers should applaud.

One is the possibility of secession. Polls suggest that one in three Californians now supports withdrawal from the union, and signature gathering by activists groups is underway. The group Yes California states includes this in its secession rationale:

"This independence referendum...is about the right to self-determination and the concept of voluntary association, both of which are supported by constitutional and international law." [emphasis mine]

Well said. Of course, similar rationale offered by Southern states for breaking away from the union after Lincoln's election has been traditionally viewed by leftists as racist. There is no teacher quite like experience, it appears.

Another possibility being entertained by California is not paying federal taxes. After President Trump threatened last week to cut federal funds from so-called 'sanctuary cities' engaged in harboring illegal aliens, California state officials are reportedly studying ways to withhold payment of federal taxes. California is one of a handful of 'donor states' that collects more in federal taxes than is received in federal funding.

At this time, it does not appear that refusal to forward tax money to the feds would result in the suspension of tax collection. Instead, federal tax payments would remain in the state to offset federal funding cuts to sanctuary cities. 

I have often wondered about what it would take to inspire a large group of US citizens to refuse to pay their income taxes. Such action would likely grind the entire tax collection scheme to a halt--perhaps for good. I hadn't conjured a scenario where historical supporters of the income tax scheme become the holdouts, but it seems an interesting step in the correct direction nonetheless.

If a libertarian-minded president was in office, then he/she would likely view California's actions as gifts that would hasten the process of shrinking the federal government and restoring freedom. Of course, how Trump might respond is anyone's guess. 

Meanwhile, I am enjoying the ironies associated with Cal Exit prospects.

Provoking Pearl

"I think world war two just started!"
--Danny Walker (Pearl Harbor)

Seventy five years ago today, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The standard story, the one that is taught in US schools, is that Japan's attack was unprovoked and took the country completely by surprise. While it certainly surprised the unfortunate US forces stationed at Pearl Harbor (and in the Philippine Islands), this mythology is far from true.

After being duped by President Woodrow Wilson into being involved in the bloody conflict of WWI, the American people had little taste for further conflict after 'The War to End War.' Never again, it was resolved, will the United States become entangled in foreign conflict. Artifacts that reflected this mindset included the Peace Dollar. Struck from 1921 thru 1935, it is the only circulation coin minted in the US to contain the inscription 'PEACE.'

1922-s $1 Peace PCGS MS65+ CAC

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president in 1932 in part because his platform included a promise to keep America  away from war. He extended his promise as a condition of his re-election in 1936--despite war drums beating in both Europe and Asia.

Unfortunately, FDR's New Deal policies aimed at reviving the US economy were not generating their intended effects (the New Deal's effectiveness is a mythology to be addressed on another day). By 1937, the economy was hitting stall speed and tumbling back into Depression once again with unemployment recapturing the 20%+ level.

Desperate to jump-start the economy once again, FDR and his braintrust turned their attention to the prospects of military spending and, gradually, military involvement as a means for breaking the back of the Depression. It began by supplying 'allies' with arms but by 1940 activity had escalated toward active, but 'unofficial' involvement in areas such as the North Sea vs Germany and on mainland China vs Japan.

FDR and his braintrust wanted war. Unfortunately for them, and unlike today, the president was unable to act unilaterally and send large numbers of troops into battle (as would happen later in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). Instead, a declaration of war by Congress was constitutionally required. FDR knew he couldn't get this declaration from Congress as the American people were still collectively opposed to involvement in foreign conflict. Thus, as observed by Jacob Hornberger, FDR campaigned once again for an unprecedented third term on a promise that "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

'Foreign,' of course, being the key word because FDR's administration had already been active for years trying to get Germany or Japan to fire the first shot (much as Lincoln did with the South at Fort Sumter). FDR preferred Germany to be the perceived aggressor so he approved of 'lend-lease' armament agreements with the United Kingdom and of US warships escorting British vessels in u-boat infested waters to provoke Hitler. Unfortunately, he would not bite.

As documented by FDR's secretary of war Henry Stimson, focus turned to Japan. Robert Higgs writes that, beginning in 1939, the US terminated commercial treaties with Japan and slapped embargoes on resources critical to Japanese standard of living such as fuel oil and steel. In 1941, all Japanese assets in the US were frozen, effectively bringing foreign relationships between the two countries to a halt.

On the back of terms put forth by the US to end the intervention, the Japanese faced two choices. One would be to end its occupation of China. The other would be to move into areas of the South Pacific to secure vital economic resources such as oil.

Japan chose the latter. Correspondence between the Japanese foreign diplomats included the following:

"Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we can not endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw material of the South Seas.

The Japanese knew, however, that American forces in the Pacific would be sent to challenge any movement that would weaken US government-sponsored economic sanctions.

FDR and his braintrust knew that Japan knew. Cryptographers and broken Japanese diplomatic and military codes and understood that Japanese 'measures' might well include an attack of Pearl Harbor to keep US forces at bay.

Yet, despite this understanding, the federal government did little to place military forces at Pearl and in the Phillipines on high state of alert. Instead, they were dangled as bait.

Unfortunately for them and for the world, Japan took the bait.