another reason not to fly

As the country is readying for Thanksgiving plans, the government is getting ready to deal with the swarms of holiday travelers passing through airports. And as usual, it looks like it’s going to be a sub-par job.

Back in July, a local news station discovered that for almost 5 hours, the security checkpoints at Sky Harbor airport in Phoenix, Arizona were unmanned, except for one minimum wage earner who was often caught sleeping. At the end of September, fellow libertarian Citizen X waited at the Indianapolis airport for five hours because the TSA neglected to clean up after itself following a training session and closed down the airport when “bomb-like materials” were found (which, of course, turned out to belong to the TSA). There are accusations flying around that the TSA has tipped off airport security screeners about covert testing, to warn them so that they pass the tests. It doesn’t seem to help, though, because the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says that 19 airports have failed to notice testers with bomb-making materials slipping through checkpoints.

I’m not a big fan of airplanes to begin with. Going to school in Chicago with my parents’ living in Cleveland has meant quarterly plane rides to visit. It is an hour, hour and fifteen minute flight at the most between the two cities, but it has not been uncommon to spend four to five hours on a single trip, which is almost the amount of time it takes for me to drive the distance. Further, any people who cross onto the property of Midway airport via car are subject to having their vehicle searched, just by being at the airport. It’s as though airports are a 4^th amendment-free zone. This is, of course, nothing surprising. There has been a steady decline into complacency. Travelers accept that they will be subjected to government intrusion, and feel that it is worth it, that they will be protected in case 9/11 happens to repeat itself. (I wonder how many fellow travelers share Mr. Tancredo’s sentiments.) Donald Kerr tells us that we need to forget about our old concepts of privacy, that “privacy can no longer mean anonymity.”

Back in 2001, my political science teacher told the class that we wouldn’t know whether or not the terrorists of 9/11 had succeeded for several years. It wouldn’t be until we lived in constant fear of it happening again, that we’d see their plan of terror had worked. I guess it’s worked.

[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. – Edward Gibbon

commercial Christianity

Every Christmas, Americans are inundated with propaganda from stores and outlets and people peddling services. Radio stations begin playing Christmas music all day starting November 1. Today, during a welcome lunch break from law school, my friends and I discussed the sudden onslaught of Christmas-themed commercials. Apparently, the real meaning, according to Hallmark and its ilk, is giving. Giving, I suppose and by default, its reciprocal, getting. Gone are the days of wishing a happy birthday to Jesus, whose name we derive the popular holiday and season. As a libertarian, I do not mind the secular take on the holiday. As a Christian, it's frustrating to see how every passing year, a sacred festival is hi-jacked further down the road to populism.

In high school, I first heard of the fight to remove nativity scenes from the lawns of government buildings. The Ten Commandments are no longer welcome in courthouses. I think Ohio's motto, based on Philippians 4:13, was ruled unconstitutional, but to my knowledge it has not been replaced.

I am not sure where I stand as regards the leaking of Christian principles into American government. Conservatives loudly claim that our country was founded on Christian men who recognized the power of the Almighty. Liberals counter that the establishment and free exercise clauses, as well as the intent of the Framers, translate to the oft-used phrase "separation of church and state." I think conservatives hold so strongly to keeping Christ in the government because they do not believe any other religion or lifestyle can beget a moral life. But atheists are quick to say that they can still act ethically.

It seems as though Christianity is only a means to an end for those who advocate its necessity. For liberals, Christ was a man who fed large crowds with only a few fish and loaves of bread, but where was He when women are free to kill their unborn children. For conservatives, Christ was a man who said that marriage was only to be between one man and one woman, but were was He when political prisoners are being tortured for the greater good?

A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion. – Hugo Black

the good kind of bomb

This Monday, November 5th, the website ThisNovember5th is sponsoring a money bomb for Ron Paul's campaign. The idea is to gain 100,000 subscribers and have those people each donate $100 on the one day, thereby giving $10 million to Ron Paul. Some have questioned the sensibility of choosing November 5th as the date for the money bomb. November 5th is a special day in England, celebrated for two reasons surrounding one event. For those who have seen V for Vendetta or are familiar with the comic book series, you understand the rhyme, "Remember, remember the 5th of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot."

But for those who don't, a little trip through late 16th century England.

Guy Fawkes was an explosives expert during the reign of King James I of England (and VI of Scotland). Fawkes was introduced to a group of men in late 1604, early 1605 who were plotting to overthrow James and put his nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, on throne. Following the initial plan of blowing up Parliament, the men would then incite a rebellion to install a Catholic monarchy. They slowly burrowed under the ground toward the House of Lords, stockpiling gunpowder in various locations. By March of 1605, 36 barrels holding about 1800 pounds of gunpowder lay concealed under the House of Lords. Unfortunately, some of the gentlemen had consciences that would not let acquaintances be harmed in the explosion. They sent letters to warn several fellow Catholics, and word of the plot got out. On the night of November 4th, a search of the space under the House of Lords revealed Guy Fawkes. He was arrested and taken to the Tower of London to be tortured. The plotters, who didn't deny their actions, were found guilty at trial and sentenced to die by hanging, drawing and quartering on January 31, 1606. At the execution, Fawkes jumped off the gallows, breaking his neck.

On Guy Fawkes Night, celebrated November 5th, people in England and formerly British colonies light bonfires and watch fireworks. Some celebrate the plot's discovery and the continuance of the monarchy. Some celebrate the valiant attempt to destroy it. This is why some American commentators have debated the soundness of having the money bomb on November 5th. It wouldn't be a good idea for Ron Paul to be associated with anarchist plots to overthrow the government.

But maybe we can look on Guy Fawkes and his compatriots a little more gently. Maybe, instead of seeing that their plot was borne out of perceived religious persecution, we can think that they dared to dream of a time when life could be different, when the monarchy wasn't overbearing, when they could have the right to do as they pleased.

No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation. – General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964), Supreme Allied Commander, General of the U.S. Army

a little taste

and... why is it controversial?

Free Market News stated that Ron Paul was going to run his two commercial spots in New Hampshire, despite the criticism the ads garnered last weekend. I liked them. I thought the first one was cheesy, yes, but it tells the viewer where our candidate stands on the issue. The second one, is better, I think.

the last defense

Since I was a sophomore in high school, taking Procedural Criminal Law, I have dreamed of becoming an attorney. One Saturday morning during first semester, I was laying in bed, and grabbed a book for some light reading: Constitutional Interpretation: Rights of the Individual, by Craig Ducat. A pre-lawyer was born.

Between then and now I've toyed with several ideas about where I'd find my niche. I thought about being a prosecutor, the Solicitor General for the US, a corporate lawyer, an author, a missionary (not having anything to do with law, but I did go through a weird kick for a few weeks one May), a trafficking victim advocate, a politician and finally, nothing. A few weeks ago, I hit a point in my studies when I realized that nothing appealed to me as a career. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my future.

A few days ago, I found my path again. I was having a conversation with a friend whose father is a lawyer. He told me that considered lawyers to be the people's last defense against the government. I had a eureka moment. I heard in my head the Will Smith song "Men in Black," the line where Will says that the MIBs are the first, last and only line of defense against the worst scum of the universe. I thought, yep, that sounds about right.

Our people need protection from the government. Further, the Constitution needs protection from the government as well. Places like the ACLU and the Institute for Justice work to continue that protection. Since I was raised a Republican, I was brought up disdaining the ACLU. I don't agree with all the cases they represent, but an organization that purports to preserve the civil liberties of Americans can't be all bad.

And maybe one day, our country will wake up and realize what has been given up, and realize that the only remedy is to act to bring us back to the way our country was when founded.

Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage. – Dwight D. Eisenhower

militia maintenance

I did not grow up with guns in my home. My parents never owned a gun, and I’m almost positive that neither my mother nor my father has ever even fired a weapon before. I did grow up with the mentality that guns are bad, and that I never wanted to use one, especially once I was older and went through my pacifist phase.

My views have changed recently, however. I wouldn’t say that I’m now an enthusiastic member of the NRA, and I’m not going to be donning reflective orange gear to forage around in forests anytime soon, but I do recognize the rights of others to do so.

I was in eighth grade when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold stormed Columbine High School and orchestrated the second deadliest school shooting in our history. Though there’d been other school shootings and violence, the scale of this incident immediately polarized the nation and brought out the zealots defending or denouncing the right of citizens to bear arms.

The Second Amendment guarantees this right of the citizens, but civilians and government officials alike seem determined to tell us that that’s not really what the Founders meant when they wrote:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are theories about what the Founders could have meant: “the people” really means the State; “to bear arms” really means in a military sense; “militia” really means the Army. In “Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” a report to the Senate, Senator Orrin Hatch wrote,

“They argue that the Second Amendment's words ‘right of the people’ mean ‘a right of the state’ — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The ‘right of the people’ to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to ‘bear arms’ relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of ‘right of the people’ but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to ‘keep’ arms.

“When our ancestors forged a land ‘conceived in liberty’, they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.”

I recently began exploring the idea of purchasing a firearm of my very own (once I save up a lot of money for a really nice piece). Since I reside in Illinois, I am required to apply for and hold a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card. The card falls under the control of the Illinois State Police; before issuing the card, the applicant is run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which in turn is run by the FBI. The NCIS determines whether the applicant can possess a firearm based on criteria enumerated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I cannot legally own a gun if I’m under 18, or under indictment for a crime, or am mentally defective, or am addicted to a controlled substance, or have been convicted of a federal crime (imprisonment of more than 1 year) or a state crime (imprisonment of more than 2 years). Reading the restrictions of lawfully infringing the Second Amendment, I now understand why it is so easy to buy guns on the black market, and why citizens choose to do so.

I can also understand why many citizens believe that these restrictions should be imposed. They don’t want another Columbine (even though it happened again with more fatalities at Virginia Tech almost exactly eight years later). They want to get guns out of the hands of criminals. It makes sense, in a paternalistic way. But it’s undermining the freedom bestowed by the Framers, by the men who fought for freedom and liberty from the Crown, who died so that we might do what we want and be left alone to do it.

I own a t-shirt from Random Shirts.com, showing a man holding a squirrel. The caption is “Guns don’t kill squirrels. Cars do.” It’s an obvious analogy to the argument “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Still true.

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. – Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese Shogun, August 29, 1558