Our Constitution is on Life Support

By Mark Alexander

“Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.” –Benjamin Franklin

That wise old sage, Ben Franklin, was prescient back in 1748, when he issued his simple Rx for success. Unfortunately, the wealth and wisdom of generations of Americans have been progressively supplanted by our central government’s exercise of unconstitutional authority.

In regard to wealth, I refer most directly to our government’s colossal spending and debt accumulation, and unlawful taxation.

As to wisdom, well, there’s not much of that emerging from government-run school systems.

Having already depleted the wealth and wisdom of our great nation, the Obama juggernaut is determined to do likewise to health, that third prong of Franklin’s trident. If successful, then we may rightly fear it as a deathblow to the greatest experiment in human history.

Where is Doctor Franklin when we really need him?

Simpletons across the United States and, indeed, the world, are beguiled by the Democrat health scare cacophony. While so much has been said, so too has so little. And, as we approach the seemingly inevitable passage of some such diabolical legislation, almost to a citizen everyone is screaming, “Stop the world, I want to get off!” Indeed, only elitist Democrats are charging full-steam ahead, constituents be damned.

Intentionally lost in all this noise is the Leftist tactic of drowning its opposition in waves of excessive and ever-changing health care minutia. With the devil being so well hidden in the details, this ensures that we remain distracted while Rule of Law is further usurped by the rule of man.

As Patriots, we are summoned to slice through this diversionary blather. And, to obtain proper analysis of this overarching objective, we must seek guidance from our founding documents, the Constitution of the United States of America and its superordinate document, the Declaration of Independence.

Declaration of Independence (Click on White arrow to close Thumbnail Images. —ed)

In a search of the Constitution, we find that the words “health,” “medicine” or “medical” are mentioned — drum roll please — not even once: not within the original text, nor within 220 years of amendments. (A search of the Articles of Confederation yields similar results.)

To some, this exclusion indicates that the Founding Fathers were unconcerned about the health of their countrymen. But, supporters of this argument expose their condescension, and it is here mentioned to disabuse them of their disdain. For our Founding Fathers sacrificed so greatly for the birth of our nation — in both blood and treasure — that to posit such indifference does a great and grotesque disservice to their honor and their memory.

To others, this exclusion indicates that health care was mercifully omitted since medical care of the 1700s was so “primitive” that the cure often caused more harm than the ailment. They further argue that, given the foresight of modern medicine, our Founders would have surely incorporated universal health care within the Constitution. But, supporters of this argument expose their arrogance, and it is here mentioned to disabuse them of their haughtiness. For the medicine of our Founding Fathers was actually advanced in its day, just as the U.S. medicine of today is advanced, and just as tomorrow it will be thought primitive. This, of course, assumes that we successfully restore Rule of Law.

Alas, we discern seemingly little counsel from the Constitution.

And, as we turn to the Declaration, a search for the words “health,” “medicine” or “medical” once more yields exactly zero results. Furthermore, the itemized grievances therein make nary a hint concerning health, even considering the “primitive” conditions discussed above.

Alack, we also discern seemingly little counsel from the Declaration.

However, neither do the Constitution nor the Declaration counsel us with direct verbiage concerning agriculture, textiles, construction and the whole raft of goods and services upon which those everyday necessities of food, clothing and shelter are stationed.

But, the Declaration does aver that all men are created equal, not of outcome but of opportunity; that they are endowed with the right to Life, not a guaranteed good life, not a guaranteed healthy life, but life with all of its miraculous potential; that they are endowed with a right to Liberty, the fusion of freedom and personal responsibility; and that they are endowed with a right to the pursuit of Happiness, the eclectic amalgamation of hopes and dreams and desires and necessities as defined by each individual — not by faceless, nameless bureaucrats.

Furthermore, the Constitution’s Preamble declares that its purpose is to establish Justice, the even-handed application of law to all citizens; to insure domestic Tranquility, the exclusion of class warfare; to promote (not provide) the general Welfare; and to secure the blessings of Liberty, there again, the fusion of freedom with personal responsibility.

Scales of Justice   (Click on White arrow to close Thumbnail Images. —ed)

So, our founding documents do guide us to proper health care legislation: for it is that which encompasses equality and liberty for consumers and providers alike; that which promotes life above death panels; that which encourages the medical hopes and dreams as defined by each individual; that which constrains, not magnifies, class warfare; and that which secures “the blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Anything more than this is an affront to constitutional order and Rule of Law. As Thomas Jefferson so keenly observed: “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” And, it takes little thought, or even imagination, to extend his estimation to the current health care debate.

The bottom line is that Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution, which addresses powers of the legislature, never endowed Congress with authority to regulate or collect taxes for banking, mortgage or automaker bailouts. Neither does it present authority for them to subsidize production or service sectors such as health care. Indeed, James Madison wrote, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…”

Sadly, not one Democrat bill addresses “health care” so much as it seeks omnipotent centralized government power and control, the currency of the Left. However, the proposals certainly betray the Left’s condescension and contempt for Rule of Law, along with their frontal assault upon our Essential Liberty.

Patriot Readers, the U.S. Constitution is on life support. To prevent it from flat-lining, we must exude high dudgeon, we must slice through the Left’s onslaught of minutia, and we must surgically endeavor with our every thought and deed to restore a healthy Rule of Law.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US, with J. Adams Clymer

Should we trade our health for "Freedom"?

I was just thinking. What if every pot smoker in the US just stopped smoking pot today. All the big entities like the DEA and the private prison industry who depend on a huge supply of prisoners to justify their existence would have to replace pot with something. What would it be? Cigarettes? Alcohol? Butter or french fries? Sugar? Caffeine? All of the above? It’s so hard to decide. All of those pose more danger to our bodies than pot, but it must be done slowly so people will get use to the idea this is good for them. Sure, I know our founders died seeking liberty and individual freedom, but were they as healthy as we are today? I don’t think so. If you really want to get everyone living right and having a healthy lifestyle, You’re gonna have to pass laws and imprison those who rebel. It’s that simple. This will become more critical once the government is paying for health care. It will be downright unpatriotic to live a unhealthy life and ask your fellow Americans to pay your medical bills. Don’t you think? Finally, It all makes sense!

Private wires and the electric power industry you want

Michael Giberson

The New Republic has an excellent article by Bradford Plumer about the current state of the electric power industry and the prospects of the industry achieving what diverse interests expect of it. (Yes, in TNR, who’d a thunk it?) The article highlights the political economy of regulated electric utilities and their immense lobbying savvy and political sway, and how the existing regulatory framework acts to perpetuate the status quo.

The article leads off with an anecdote about Tom Casten wishing to develop a combined heat and power (CHP) plant for a chemical plant in Louisiana in the early 2000s – you know, one of those win-win-win projects that recycle waste heat to make electric power, reduce air emissions, reduce costs to the industrial company host, and still makes a profit for the CHP company. The proposed project never got off the ground due to the lack of support from the local utility, and that lack of support was attributed to a regulatory structure which rewards utilities for owning power plants rather than minimizing the cost of power to consumers.

The article goes on to tell more stories, and delves into issues like renewable portfolio standards, distributed power, smart grid visions, and how a mostly-regulated industry is going to do tackle all of these changes while not upsetting existing political deals and getting paid a fair rate of return. Overall, the inherent conservatism of the regulatory approach suggests that change is going to come slowly to the industry. It is kind of depressing.

[In] Louisiana, as in most of the United States, state law forbids anyone from stringing up private wires across a public street. Casten couldn’t market his power directly–he could only sell it to the local electric utility. And, because the utility, due to state rules, chiefly earned a profit from the power plants it built and ran itself, it refused to offer anything more than rock-bottom prices for Casten’s recycled power–prices too stingy for the project to work. After many months of bitter wrangling, Cabot gave up entirely. As a final insult, the utility later won approval from regulators to build a brand new fossil-fuel plant, a pricier way to generate electricity that would also add more carbon to the air.

I’ve long been a fan of the idea of allowing “private wires,” that is to say, allowing a non-utility power plant to string a wire in order to reach a customer. So long as utilities can rely on the coercive power of the state to maintain monopoly service territories, electric power entrepreneurs will have to innovate mostly on terms and conditions acceptable to the utilities and their regulators. That is why, as Kurt Yeager of the Galvin Electric Initiative put it, “When it comes to electricity, we’re still living in the era of black rotary phones.”

Allowing private wires will undo the utility industry’s veto on innovation and help foster the kind of creative destruction that consumers need if consumers are going to get what they want.

There Are No Coincidences: Three Progressive Presidents Won The Nobel Peace Prize--Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Barack Obama!

“Behind every progressive policy lies a single moral value: empathy, together with the responsibility and strength to act on that empathy.”
~George Lakoff,

Who Deserved the Nobel Peace Prize? Should we even care?

President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican, won the 1906 Peace Prize for using his office as a mediator between Russia and Japan resulting in a peace treaty between the two nations in September 1905.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1906/roosevelt-bio.html

Theodore ~ A Tribute to Teddy Roosevelt

President Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat, won the 1919 Noble Peace Prize for his Fourteen Points peace program and his efforts in achieving the League of Nations in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles:

“In accepting the honor of your award I am moved not only by a profound gratitude for the recognition of my [sincere and] earnest efforts in the cause of peace, but also by a very poignant humility before the vastness of the work still called for by this cause.

May I not take this occasion to express my respect for the far-sighted wisdom of the founder in arranging for a continuing system of awards? If there were but one such prize, or if this were to be the last, I could not of course accept it. For mankind has not yet been rid of the unspeakable horror of war. I am convinced that our generation has, despite its wounds, made notable progress. But it is the better part of wisdom to consider our work as one1 begun. It will be a continuing labor. In the indefinite course of [the] years before us there will be abundant opportunity for others to distinguish themselves in the crusade against hate and fear and war.

There is indeed a peculiar fitness in the grouping of these Nobel rewards. The cause of peace and the cause of truth are of one family. Even as those who love science and devote their lives to physics or chemistry, even as those who would create new and higher ideals for mankind in literature, even so with those who love peace, there is no limit set. Whatever has been accomplished in the past is petty compared to the glory and promise of the future.

Woodrow Wilson”

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1919/wilson-acceptance.html

  

I have been reading George Lakoff’s book, Whose Freedom, The Battle Over American’s Most Important Idea, both an edifying, confusing, and in the end a misleading book.

Authors@Google: George Lakoff

Lakoff is very proud to be what Americans call progressive and Europeans social democrats.

If Lakoff were Norweign and on the Noble Peace Prize Committee he would have fit right in and have voted for President Obama receiving the award.

The Obama Nobel Peace Prize would show European empathy for the challenges and demands faced by newly elected and inexperienced President calling for the nurturing family of nations to provide him a motiviational incentive to succeed to unite us all under world progressive socialism. Beside, it would really stick it to former President George W. Bush, or so they believe:

Saturday Night Live Mocks Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize Win

Progressive tend to come from a nurturant family where “..the job of a parent is to nurture his or her children, and to raise the chldren to be nuturers of others! Nurturance involves empathy and responsibility (for both oneself and others), as well as everything that responsibility requires strength, competence, endurance, and so on.”

According to Lakoff all progressive values come from empathy and responsibility including security, attachment, protection, fairness, happiness,  fulfillment, freedom and opportunity.

While empathy is certainly a valuable ability to have, it is certainly not an ability of either progressives or conservatives per se.

What Lakoff fails to mention or leaves out is that many early progressives, both  Democrats and Republicans believed in eugenics and/or racial superiotity including President Roosevelt and Wilson.

War on the Weak: Eugenics in America

 

Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report

Politically, I am what Europeans would call liberal and Americans, libertarian and consider myself to be a movement conservative.
Lakoff would describe me as a biconceptual conservative.

In describing economic freedom Lakoff captured my point of view:

“…Conservatives who speak of economic freedom are usually concerned with making and keeping money–that is, with the freedom to acquire and maintain further freedoms (the ones that money can buy). The government is, in Grover Norquist’s term, “the beast”–to be shrunk to be small enough to drown in a bathtub. Their gripe against government is that government takes away their money (through taxes), gives it to other people (through social programs), gets in the way of making it (through) regulations and laws), and wastes it (through inefficiency). In doing so, they see government as taking away not only their freedom but also their freedom to acquire and maintain other freedoms. They also believe that private wealth creates more wealth through investment and that govenment taxation and regulation inhibits the creation of more wealth and thus more freedom. The only legitimate role for government is to protect their freedom–their lives and property (the military, the police, and the criminal justice system)–and to provide order in their everyday lives (through law enforcement and institutions that promote social order, like churches).  …”

What is a continuing and direct threat to the American family, whether it isa conservative  strict father family or the progressive  nurturant family is government, at all levels–city, state, and Federal.

The beast has an insatiable and growing appetite that must be feed with tax dollars.

It would seem that the progressive radical socialist elites of both political parties have lost their capacity of empathy.

 

They could care less that the taking from families of  their income and wealth to support and expand the commonwealth, is the root cause of many of society’s problems.

The unconstrained vision of the progressive radical socialists not empathy is the real problem. 

Good intentions, caring and empathy are simply not enough.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Results  matter.

Ideas have consequences both intended and unintended.

Let us immigration as an example to illustrated some points.

Illegal aliens are criminal aliens and are employed by businesses that are criminal enterprises.

Both immigrants and businesses are breaking the law massively each and every day and the political class or elites want to use words to do away with the problem.

Comprehensive immigration reform is amnesty for criminal aliens and rewards criminal aliens, criminal enterprises and corrupt politicians who refuse to enforce immigration laws.

Both the Republican and Democratic Party led by progressive radical socialists in both parties favor comprehensive immigration reform and open borders–no fences or border patrols.

The American people support immigration law enforcement not amnesty for criminals whether they be immigrants, businesses or politicians that aid and abet the criminals in exchange for campaign contributions and votes.

The American people also support limited controlled legal immigration of about 200,000 people per year from around the world, the full assimiliation of these immigrants into our nation and English as the official language of the United States.

Lakoff is absolutely correct that whoever frames the debate on the issue, wins the debate, if not the election:

Deep frames are where the action is.
The deep frames are the ones that structure how you view the world. They characterize moral and political principles that are so deep they are part of your own identity. Deep framing is the conceptual infrastructure of the mind: the foundation, walls, and beams of that edifice. Without deep frames, there is nothing for the surface message frames to hang on.

You also will usually win the election if the candidate nominated truly believes and acts on  their conservative moral and political principles and can effectively communicate them.

Now the above is an example of what Lakoff calls framing, both deep and surface framing:

“Deep frames structure your moral system or your worldview. Surface frames have a much smaller scope. They are associated with particular words or phrases, and with modes of communication with .”

A progressive would reframe the illegal issues as comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship: 

Barack Obama slams John Mccain’s immigration flip flop

 

Obama Double Talk, Caught In A Lie, Illegals and Healthcare Health Care, Immigration Reform Fox

Note the substitution of undocumented workers instead of illegal immigrants or criminal aliens. Also note the statement that we have a broken immigration system.

The Federal Government both under Bush and Obama have not been vigorously enforcing the immgiration laws contrary to both their oath of office and the rule of law. Instead both political parties have broken the system and want to “fix it” by giving a “pathway to citizenship” or amnesty for criminal aliens and criminal enterprises that employ they.

Lakoff would call this reframing, others spinning, many lying to the American people and shows the deep corruption of the political class, especially the progressives of both parties.

The American people know that President Obama is a notorous liar and no longer believe or trust what he says.

Many have stopped listening altogether.

Once you lose a person’s trust, you almost never get it back, no matter what word or frames, deep or superficial you use.

Ideas matter, but character, credibility and trust matter more.

In America today, the polticians of the left liked to be called progressive or what in Europe would be called social democrats, I view them all as collectivists and most are socialist or fascist and just will not admit it in public.

The progressive in America have captured both big media and academia.

The conservatives of all types are alive and well on talk radio and on the internet in blogs, podcasts, videos and web sites.

The American people are waking up to what the progressives are up to and they do not like it.

Frame it or spin however you like, but lying is lying.

When the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party led by Barack Obama pass plans and programs affecting families or taking money out of their wallets, the American people will not knowingly vote for a liar from any political party in the next election.

Trust, integrity and character not good intentions and empathy are paramount. 

“The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments. “

~George Washington Background Articles and Videos

 

Bill O’Reilly on Barack Obama 2009 Nobel Peace Prize — “Obama is a Predator Drone Kind of Guy”

FOX’s Chris Wallace Reacts To President Obama Winning Nobel Peace Prize – 10/9/2009

 

World War I Documentary Vol3- 6/8 Wilson & Peace pt1

 

World War I Documentary Vol3- 6/8 Wilson & Peace pt2

 

World War I Documentary Vol3- 6/8 Wilson & Peace pt3

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades Immigration  American Citizens Want Jobs and Criminal Alien Removal, Not Criminal Alien Census and Health Care! Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand! Discover The Left’s Organized Crime Network–Crime Pays–Organized Crimes Pays More–Apply for Census Taker Jobs!  US Immigration Videos Borderline Chaos: Immigration Out of Control–Videos The Hyphenated American and The Hyphen The Signed “Stimulus Package” Did Not Include Funding for E-Verify and Border Fence Construction–Less Jobs And Security for American Citizens President Obama Delays E-Verify–Shame On You Mr. President! The Issue of The United States 2008 Presidential Election–Criminal Alien Removal (CAR) and A Border Security Fence (BSF) The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid! Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next? Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits John McCain’s Position on Illegal Immigration and Criminal Alien Removal? Alan Keyes on Immigration

Network Neurtrality--FCC Julius Genachowski--Tim Wu--Free and Open Internet Or Slow and Stupid Internet?

 ”Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire.”

~Ludwig von Mises

 

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion”

~Friedrich A. Hayek

 

President Obama pledges support for the open Internet

 

 

Net neutrality: Necessary or necessary evil?

 

Tim Wu on the Innovation Cycle

 

SavetheInternet.com on the Hill: Tim Wu’s Statement

 

 

Tim Wu on Network Neutrality

 

Tim Wu, Politics Online Conference March 2008

 

What is “Net Neutrality?”

 

 

The Communicators: Reactions to FCC’s Net Neutrality Proposal

  FCC To Push ‘Net Neutrality’ – Bloomberg

 

Genachowski Says AT&T Move Doesnt End Need for Web Rule: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhqzQkJTc5M

 

Rep. Waxman Pledges Support for Net Neutrality

 

 

President Obama pledges support for the open Internet

 

The Communicators: Net Neutrality

 

Barack Obama: On Net Neutrality

 

Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed

 

Obama Wants Internet Control 52909–LibertyUnderFire.org

 

 

Obama Wants Control of the Internet

 

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 1

 

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 2

 

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 3

 

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 4

 

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 5

 

InternetforEveryone.org Launch

 

 

I am all for increased competition in any market place for goods and services.

Competition usually results in less expensive and better quality goods and services and innovation in the goods and services offered.

Government regulation or intevention in the marketplace usually has the unintended consequence of decreasing competition and innovation resulting in higher prices and lower quality.

Therefore, I am opposed to network neutrality.

Let the consumers decide what they want and how much, if anything, they are willing to pay for products and services including internet or broadband access and speed.

Consumer sovereignity should trump more government regulations.

Network neutrality is really a codeword for more government regulation and intervention into the marketplace for internet and communication services.

Let competitors, the profit motive and the marketplace alone.

Seriously consider abolishing the Federal Communications Commission.

 

 

“A government that sets out to abolish market prices is inevitably driven toward the abolition of private property; it has to recognize that there is no middle way between the system of private property in the means of production combined with free contract, and the system of common ownership of the means of production, or socialism. It is gradually forced toward compulsory production, universal obligation to labor, rationing of consumption, and, finally, official regulation of the whole of production and consumption.”

~Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, page 281.

 

 “To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”

~Friedrich A. Hayek     Background Articles and Videos http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=983111 Network Neutrality

“…Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.[1][2][3]

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

Though the term did not enter popular use until several years later, since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, protocols); particularly those of competitors. In the US particularly, but elsewhere as well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[4] Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, and many others have spoken out strongly in favor of network neutrality.

Opponents of net neutrality include large hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries. Critics characterised net neutrality regulation as “a solution in search of a problem”, arguing that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance.[5] In spite of this claim, certain Internet service providers (such as Comcast) have intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications. Others have done exactly the opposite of what Telecom spokespersons claim and have begun to use deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom “value added” services, and anti-competitive tying (”bundling”).[6] Critics also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but highly desirable. Bob Kahn, Internet Protocol’s co-inventor, has called “net neutrality” a slogan, and states that he opposes establishing it, warning that “nothing interesting can happen inside the net” if it passes: “If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead in building that new capability, is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and it is probably not going to be on anybody else’s net.” However, he also said “by virtue of doing that, you tend to fragment the net. And anything that will tend to fragment the net I’m opposed to, provided it’s not an incremental evolution of a new technology that’s happening.” [7] 

 

…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

 

Net Neutrality Means an Unfree, Slow, and ‘Stupid’ Internet Posted by Raymond C. Niles

“…The advocates of net neutrality claim they are seeking to preserve a “free” and “open” Internet and to prohibit the “unfair” policies of Internet service providers that favor some content over others. According to them, to preserve this openness and freedom, the FCC must be granted vastly greater powers to coercively determine the business practices of Internet service providers.

That claim, however, is a sham.

An “open” and “free” Internet cannot be achieved by means of further FCC regulations. Extending FCC controls to the wireless spectrum would not “open” anything or free anyone; rather it would further violate the rights of Americans to produce and trade according to their own judgment and thus thwart this vital new realm of life-serving technology. It would unleash a torrent of government control over every aspect of the Internet, granting the  government power to dictate how content is to be delivered and at what price, making it less profitable for Internet service providers to invest in costly infrastructure, and thereby quashing their incentive to innovate. …”

http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/labels/Business%20and%20Economics.asp#Net%20Neutrality%20Means%20an%20Unfree,%20Slow,%20and%20′Stupid’%20Internet

 

Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

“…Much could be said about the stupidity of net neutrality. But, setting aside the fact that it will thwart competition and retard the Internet, we must recognize first and foremost that net neutrality violates the rights of private property owners—specifically Internet service providers. The fact that Internet access is a profound value does not justify government force against the ISPs that make it possible, any more than the fact that books are a profound value justifies government involvement in Barnes and Noble’s pricing, displaying, and stocking of books. The property of Internet service providers is theirs; as such, they have the moral right to use and dispose of it as they please, regardless of what their customers, FCC bureaucrats, and net neutrality advocates have to say about it.

Unfortunately, net neutrality is a small part of a wider effort to erode property rights in America. As with eminent domain, zoning laws, and the like, net neutrality holds that it is moral to violate the rights of property owners for the “greater good.” Net neutrality holds that the benefit of a “neutral” Internet to all of its users justifies the use of force against those who own and maintain its backbone. It does not.

America morally must recognize the rights of Internet service providers to manage their property as they see fit. We must undo the relatively few controls already placed on the Internet, repudiate net neutrality, and keep the government’s stupid hands off this brilliant private property.

 http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/net-neutrality.asp

 

New FCC Chairman Targets internet

By James G. Lakely

  ”…Genachowski is attempting to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, which he plainly admitted by stating his goal is to “preserve” the freedom and openness of today’s Internet.

 

Rare instances of unfair discrimination — such as ISPs favoring certain content because of joint business ventures — are sufficiently addressed by market forces. Customers who are dissatisfied with their service can freely choose a competitor. The financial incentive to please the maximum number of people is how markets enforce best practices, and that principle applies to ISPs as well.

 

The new chairman said, “this is not about government regulation of the Internet,” and he did it with a straight face. But this is all about government regulation of the Internet, coming from an agency with a proven record of regulatory failure and abuse of power.

 

Americans should have little faith in Genachowski’s pledge the FCC “will do as much as we need to do, and no more” when regulating the Internet. When you don’t “know what tomorrow holds on the Internet,” how can you be sure the regulatory lines will be drawn so perfectly?

 

Answer: You can’t. But it’s clear what awaits us if the FCC moves forward with the chairman’s plans: less freedom, less investment, less innovation.”   http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/new_fcc_chairman_targets_inter.html  

Julius Genachowski

“…Julius Genachowski (born August 19, 1962) is an American lawyer and businessman. He became Federal Communications Commission Chairman on June 29, 2009.[1]

“…Genachowski grew up in Great Neck, New York and received his B.A. in history in 1985 magna cum laude, from Columbia College, Columbia University, where he was an editor of the Columbia Daily Spectator. He received his J.D. in 1991 from Harvard Law School, where he was a notes editor at the Harvard Law Review[2] when it was headed by Barack Obama, who graduated in the same year. After graduating from Harvard, also magna cum laude, Genachowski clerked for the Honorable Abner J. Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and then at the U.S. Supreme Court for two years, for Justices William J. Brennan and David Souter.[3]

“…He worked on the select committee investigating the Iran-Contra Affair and for U.S. Representative (now Senator) Chuck Schumer.[4] He was Chief Counsel to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt, a position he left in 1996 to go into business.

Genachowski was Chief of Business Operations and a member of Barry Diller’s Office of the Chairman at IAC/InterActiveCorp. He had previously served on the Boards of Directors of Expedia, Hotels.com and Ticketmaster.[2]

He is a co-founder of LaunchBox Digital and Rock Creek Ventures.[3] He is also a special advisor at General Atlantic and a member of the Boards of Directors at The Motley Fool, Web.com, Mark Ecko Enterprises, and Beliefnet.[3] He was appointed to the board of JackBe in April 2006. [5]

Genachowski serves as a board member of Common Sense Media, a leading organization seeking to improve the media lives of children and families; and as an advisory board member of Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2). He also recently helped found the New Resource Bank, the country’s first commercial “green bank.”[2] …”

“…For the Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign, Genachowski was Chairman of the Technology, Media and Telecommunications policy working group that created the Obama Technology and Innovation Plan.[6] He also advised and guided the Obama campaign’s innovative use of technology and the Internet for grassroots engagement and participation.

He co-led the Technology, Innovation, and Government Reform Group for president-elect Barack Obama’s presidential transition team.[7] On January 12, 2009, several news outlets reported that Genachowski would be President-Elect Obama’s choice to head the Federal Communications Commission as Chairman. This was confirmed by a press release on March 3, 2009. [8] …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKib8xMu9TY&feature=PlayList&p=488946669A5E518E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=13

 

Julius Genachowski

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/

 

 Federal Communications Commission

http://www.fcc.gov/

 

Free Press

“…Free Press is a non-partisan media advocacy organization, and by membership the largest such organization in the United States.[citation needed] It was founded by media critic Robert W. McChesney, journalist John Nichols and current executive director Josh Silver. The current chair of Free Press is Columbia Professor Tim Wu. In the 2000s, Free Press has grown into among the most prominent organizations criticizing media consolidation and defending network neutrality. It has a membership of over 500,000, making it in membership terms the largest media advocacy group in the United States.[1] …”

Free Press’ aim is to increase the public’s stake in the debate of appropriate media policy with the goal of creating a more competitive media landscape and promoting a media system more friendly to the public interest. In the period from 2002-2008, Free Press was one of the leading organizations in the Save the Internet campaign and the Stop Big Media coalition. Free Press is also the organizer of the large annual National Conference for Media Reform.

Free Press employs a full time lobbying staff in Washington, D.C. Free Press’ senior lobbyist, Ben Scott, has been described as a “driving force for ‘net neutrality.’” [1]

Free Press

http://www.freepress.net/

 

Tim Wu

“…Tim Wu (traditional Chinese: 吳修銘) is a professor at Columbia Law School, the chair of media reform group Free Press, and a writer for Slate Magazine.[1] He is best known for popularizing the concept of network neutrality in his paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. The paper considered network neutrality in terms of neutrality between applications, as well as neutrality between data and Quality of Service-sensitive traffic, and proposed some legislation to potentially deal with these issues.[2][3]

Wu’s academic specialties are copyright and telecommunications policy. For his work in this area, Professor Wu was named one of Scientific American’s 50 people of the year in 2006. In 2007 Wu was named one of Harvard University’s 100 most influential graduates by 02138 magazine.[4]

“…

In 2003, Wu contributed to the Howard Dean and John Edwards presidential campaigns.[10] During 2008, Wu served as an adviser to the Barack Obama presidential campaign.[11] …”

“…Wu is credited with popularizing the concept of network neutrality in his 2003 paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. The paper considered network neutrality in terms of neutrality between applications, as well as neutrality between data and Quality of Service-sensitive traffic, and proposed some legislation to potentially deal with these issues.[2][12]

In 2006, Wu wrote “The World Trade Law of Internet Filtering”, which analyzed the possibility of the World Trade Organization treating censorship as a barrier to trade.[13] In June 2007, when Google Inc. lobbied the United States Trade Representative to pursue a complaint against China’s censorship at the WTO, Wu’s paper was cited as a “likely source” for this idea.[14] In 2006 Wu was also invited by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to help draft the first network neutrality rules attached to the AT&T and BellSouth merger.[15]

In 2007, Wu published a paper proposing a “Wireless Carterfone” rule for mobile phone networks[16]; the rule was adopted by the Federal Communications Commission for the 700 MHz spectrum auctions on July 31, 2007, with FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stating: “I find it extremely heartening to see that an academic paper—in this case by Professor Timothy Wu of Columbia Law School—can have such an immediate and forceful influence on policy.”[17] In November 2007 BusinessWeek credited Wu with providing “the intellectual framework that inspired Google’s mobile phone strategy.”[18]

With his Columbia Law School colleagues Professors Scott Hemphill and Clarisa Long, Wu co-directs the Columbia Law School Program on Law and Technology, founded in 2007.[19][20] In August 2007, in collaboration with the University of Colorado School of Law’s Silicon Flatirons Program, the Columbia Law School Program on Law and Technology launched a Beta version of AltLaw, which he produced.[21] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu

 

 

 

Obama Announces White House Internet Team

“…The White House press shop already made a wave, at least by Washington standards, when President Obama called on The Huffington Post at his first press conference. On a recent White House conference call for progressive bloggers, one new media aide said that calling on bloggers at presidential press conferences could be a “new tradition.”

Staff Information from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

 

Macon Phillips, Director of New Media 

Since the election, Phillips has served as Director of New Media for the Presidential Transition Team, developing Change.gov and overseeing the transition’s overall online communications. Prior to that, he served as the Deputy Director of New Media for Obama for America, managing the day to day operations of the campaign’s online program. Before the campaign, Macon led Blue State Digital’s strategy practice, working with clients like the Democratic National Committee and Senator Ted Kennedy.

Cammie Croft, Deputy New Media Director

Croft comes to the White House from the Obama-Biden Transition Project, where she served as the Deputy New Media Director, specializing in online communications. Prior to that, as the New Media Rapid Response Manager for the Obama for America campaign, she oversaw efforts to integrate new media and communications, including managing websites such as FighttheSmears.com and UndertheRadar.com. Before joining the campaign, Croft built the tracking and media monitoring program at Progressive Accountability, a rapid-response communications advocacy campaign that provided video of Republican Presidential candidates for the mass public. Croft also worked as the Rapid Response Mobilization Director for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, where she led their new media efforts, working with MoveOn.org’s online tools to mobilize Americans opposed to the war. …”

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/410988/obama_announces_white_house_internet_team

 

Obama Announces Members of his Media and Online Team

“…Macon Phillips, Director of New Media

Since the election, Phillips has served as Director of New Media for the Presidential Transition Team, developing Change.gov and overseeing the transition’s overall online communications.  Prior to that, he served as the Deputy Director of New Media for Obama for America, managing the day to day operations of the campaign’s online program.  Before the campaign, Macon led Blue State Digital’s strategy practice, working with clients like the Democratic National Committee and Senator Ted Kennedy.  A native of Huntsville, Alabama, Phillips is a graduate of Duke University and lives with his fiancée in Washington, DC.

Cammie Croft, Deputy New Media Director

Croft comes to the White House from the Obama-Biden Transition Project, where she served as the Deputy New Media Director, specializing in online communications.  Prior to that, as the New Media Rapid Response Manager for the Obama for America campaign, she oversaw efforts to integrate new media and communications, including managing websites such as FighttheSmears.com and UndertheRadar.com.  Before joining the campaign, Croft built the tracking and media monitoring program at Progressive Accountability, a rapid-response communications advocacy campaign that provided video of Republican Presidential candidates for the mass public. Croft also worked as the Rapid Response Mobilization Director for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, where she led their new media efforts, working with MoveOn.org’s online tools to mobilize Americans opposed to the war.  Croft holds a B.A. in Political Science and Communication from the University of Washington in Seattle, where she graduated with distinction. She is also an alumnus of the New Organizing Institute (NOI), a unique online organizing forum for technologically-savvy, progressive campaigners.  …”

http://obamatech.org/2009/02/25/obama-announces-members-of-his-media-and-online-team/

 

Capitalism

“…Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

Capitalism is based on the premises of laissez faire, where private individuals are free to exchange goods or services without intervention from the State, hence the term “free market.”[1] The extent to which different markets are free, as well as rules determining what may and may not be private property, is a matter of politics and policy and many states have what are termed “mixed economies.”[2] Mixed economies refer to capitalism being mixed with central planning or statism, with statism being the ideological opposite of capitalism. [3] Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define capitalism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, paid employment, and prices and wages set according to market supply and demand, are elements of capitalism.[4]

Capitalism as a system developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe, although capitalist organization existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.[5][6][7] Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[7] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[8]

There is no consensus on capitalism nor how it should be used as an analytical category.[9] There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[8] Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism.

Economists usually put emphasis on the market mechanism, degree of government control over markets (laissez faire), and property rights[10][11], while most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor, and class.[2] While there is a general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth,[12] political advocacy both for and against capitalism is based on many different arguments. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

FCC Nominee Julius Genachowski Opposes Fairness Doctrine

 

FCC Nominee Julius Genachowski Opposes Fairness Doctrine

   

 

 

 

 

 

Army’s 101st Airborne Division "invades" Tennessee county

The US Army practices invading an American community. The people turn out to watch all the fun.  Ah, the joys of militarism until one day the “invasion” turns out to be real?

from NWTN Today  By: Chris Menees Messenger

Soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, Ky., were scheduled to arrive starting Sept 29th in an impressive convoy of military vehicles — complete with helicopters flying overhead — that will travel along Kentucky’s Purchase Parkway and cross the state line into Obion County, TN.

…..About 300 soldiers total will be in and around Troy all day Wednesday for a special training mission that will help prepare them for real combat scenarios. The action is set to begin this afternoon when the caravan of about 50 military vehicles rolls into the Dugger family farm near Troy to set up camp.

Several helicopters will be flying in Wednesday morning from Fort Campbell to provide support and will be landing at designated locations as they drop off troops for the training mission. The full-blown assault exercise is scheduled to involve 10 Blackhawks, a medivac Blackhawk, four Kiowa Warriors and two Apache gunships.

Ricky Dugger of Troy — who will be the “high value target” for the operation and whose family enjoys a special relationship with the soldiers — said this morning he is getting “more and more excited” as he anticipates the arrival of the troops and the start of the military exercise.

…..Simultaneous landings are scheduled for 11 a.m. Wednesday at the spec building in Troy’s industrial park, at the activities building at Troy First Baptist Church and at the town’s ball fields at Trojan Park. Dugger is scheduled to be taken captive during a landing at 11:40 a.m. at Hoyt Sampson’s farm off Old Troy Road in Troy.

Another landing is scheduled for 1:15 p.m. Wednesday at Hillcrest Elementary School’s football field, where simulated casualties will be brought in by vehicles and loaded onto helicopters, according to Dugger.
Designated viewing areas will be set up at all of the landing sites during the exercise, which will allow the public to view the operation from safe distances. Dugger said the community is encouraged to come out to see the operation in action.

Does Privileges and Immunities Provide the Best Path to Incorporation?

I have to say that this isn’t an issue that I thought about much before doing my research for Holdings vs. Dicta.  After meeting Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University’s School of Law, I realized that this isn’t just some obscure theory from a few conservative professors–this is a robust textual theory that, if adopted, could more effectively constrain governmental power when states infringe on the rights of their citizens.  The critical question is, “Why was the Fourteenth Amendment passed?”

Now I’m no history buff, but I learned in school that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were passed to protect the rights of the freed slaves after the Civil War.  Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a case in it was decided that African slaves had no constitutional rights and could never be citizens of the United States.

Unfortunately for this argument, the 1873 Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases so narrowed the protection of privileges and immunities that they have been worthless for nearly 150 years.  Years later, the Supreme Court, reluctant to overrule the Slaughterhouse cases, chose to selectively incorporate some of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights through the word “liberty” in the due process clause, a process now referred to as “Substantive due process.”  While due process of law has otherwise always been interpreted to be a procedural right (that is, one is entitled to the necessary hearings in court before his or her rights can be lawfully violated),  the substantive due process  doctrine essentially holds that some rights violations are unacceptable even if proper procedures are followed. This year’s McDonald v. City of Chicago case, which was granted certiorari yesterday,  has become the modern day vehicle for overruling the Slaughterhouse Cases and restoring substantive rights through privileges and immunities.

While the practical consequences of using privileges and immunities instead of substantive due process claims are minimal, there are several potential advantages so such a doctrine.  One, in particular, is that one of the chief purposes for the Fourteenth Amendment, protecting individuals from their state and national government, can be totally achieved through privileges and immunities without regard to other factors.  Key to this is that there is a textual basis for privileges and immunities, whereas due process as a substantive right lacks any legitimate textual reinforcement, other than an overbroad reading of the word “liberty.”  While I have been previously reluctant to accept privileges and immunities arguments for incorporation of the Bill of Rights, I am inclined to support them now, because it appears that there are no trade0ffs to be made, other than the overruling of a 136 year-old legal case which was incorrectly decided in a way that narrowed constitutional protections for clearly articulated and enumerated constitutional rights.

I will continue to follow this case, but I welcome the Supreme Court’s choice to reinterpret such an important clause of our Constitution in the context of past case law.  This case provides a vehicle not only to defend Second Amendment protection, but also to reinforce the most critical rights guaranteed in our Constitution.

For further reading on this issue, I suggest that everyone hit up Volokh, where you’ll find this list of links, all of which are relevant to the discussion at hand:

The website for all the Chicago case filings is here. For 19th century history, Stephen Halbrook is by far the most important scholar. His articles include: The Freedmen’s Bureau Act and the Conundrum Over Whether the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporates the Second Amendment, Northern Kentucky Law Review (2002); Personal Security, Personal Liberty, and The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms: Visions of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, Seton Hall Constitutional Journal (1995); The Right of Workers to Assemble and to Bear Arms: Presser v. Illinois, One of the Last Holdouts Against Application of the Bill of Rights to the States, University of Detroit Mercy Law Review (1999); and (co-authored with Cynthia Leonardatos and me), Miller versus Texas: Plice Violence, Race Relations, Capital Punishment, and Gun-Toting in Texas in the Nineteenth Century–and Today, Journal of Law and Policy (2001).

The lead attorney in the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago is Alan Gura. He did an excellent job in District of Columbia v. Heller, so the new case is in very good hands.

Thank you so much, Mr. Gura.