Liberty Journal

2005-09-09T20:02:00.000-05:00

In the headlines today was the report that the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig (apparently angling for an appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court) approved of President Bush’s violation of the Constitution by holding a U.S. citizen in custody without charge.

Jose Padilla has been held in solitary confinement for over 3 years because he is suspected of having ties to al Qaeda. He has not been charged with a crime and has apparently done nothing wrong. His offense is that he was a gang member that converted to Islam who might have been thinking about blowing up apartment buildings. Apparently in the Orwellian world that the United States is becoming, he is guilty of crimethink. No actual crime needs to be committed, merely thinking thoughts other than what is approved by Big Brother is grounds for criminal prosecution (think about such lunacies as “hate crime” or antidiscrimination laws.) In Padilla’s case he has not even been prosecuted, merely signed over to punishment without any process.

As far as I am able to determine, Padilla has been labeled by the President as an “enemy combatant” to obscure the fact that he is an American citizen. While there is some debate as to whether or not combatants picked up in foreign land and held in U.S. territories should be subject to U.S. law or not, there should be no debate as to whether or not Constitutional protections should apply to Padilla.

Constitutionally, only the Congress has the ability to suspend Habeas corpus as spelled out in Article I, section 9. In The Antifederalist #8, “Brutus” wrote concerning this section of the Constitution, “This clause limits the power of the legislature to deprive a citizen of the right of habeas corpus, to particular cases viz. those of rebellion and invasion; the reason is plain, because in no other cases can this power be exercised for the general good.” (emphasis added). For the President to suspend Habeas corpus is a gross violation of the principal of separation of powers that our form of government was established upon. The President has taken a vow to protect and uphold the Constitution, but I would be surprised if he has even read the document. Through the suspension of law, the President has become “the supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive.” In other words, he has become the dictator of the United States. The law of the land no longer applies to him, at least as long as the military is involved in some kind of conflict. And, to make matters worse, the courts, which are charged with interpreting the Constitution, have entirely disregarded the document and are making decisions based on expediency and political advantage.

If the President has the authority to hold U.S. citizens in custody without trial merely by decree, there is no protection that ANY individual has in this country. After all, the executive branch need only accuse a person of thinking about committing a crime, and that person is guilty. Jose Padilla is a case study that all Americans should pay close attention to.

2005-09-08T19:47:00.000-05:00

Thank you for your generous contribution to the victims of Hurricane Katrina! Yes, you have been volunteered to give a minimum of $210 to help with out with the recovery effort from Katrina. In fact, every man, woman, and child in the country has been volunteered to give the same amount!

How is this so? Why, your Representative and Senators in Washington just KNEW that you wanted to help out with the relief effort, and so they took it upon themselves to determine what level of sacrifice you should make. And the best part - this is probably just the first installment of your gift to those in the Gulf Coast.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly encourage individuals to assist in any way possible to ease the suffering of those who have suffered so much over the past several days. Charity is vital to assist those who have fallen on hard times, but charity is a personal action. Charity is something that is voluntarily given, out of love, to assist another person or group.

Government, by its character, is incapable of charity. It has only one tool in the toolbox, and that is the hammer. George Washington said, "Government is...force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." There is nothing charitable in forcibly taking money from one person in order to give it to someone else. Government "charity" is an oxymoron - it is no different than a man holding me up at gunpoint, stealing my wallet and giving the contents to a beggar. Then the mugger pats himself on the back because he is such a charitable person.

I encourage you to assist in any way you can. But I would also caution you not to believe the lie that government is somehow benevolent and charitable. It is neither.

2005-09-02T19:51:00.000-05:00

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and pondering on the events surrounding this tragedy, I began to wonder how long before I heard some pointy headed economist say something to the effect that, "Well, we know Katrina has brought havoc on New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast, but there is a bright side to this. Just think of all the new jobs that will be created, all the new economic activity that will explode as the Gulf Coast rebuilds."

I didn't have to wait very long. Wednesday morning I was driving into town listening (as is my practice) to NPR. Sure enough, they interviewed some "expert" who said virtually those very words. Then, I came across this on Yahoo! from Reuters:

"There will be a lot of rebuilding that is going to need to occur. These things do spur GDP growth," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics in Pepper Pike, Ohio.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial in Chicago, said wages lost by workers and revenues missed at shops and other businesses would be generally short-lived and replaced by stepped-up demand for construction and other workers and higher sales at home-supplies outlets."

In other words, while it may be appear bad, destruction and carnage is actually good for an economy, according to the esteemed "experts" above. This is referred to in economics as the Broken Window Fallacy and has been debunked time and again by many, especially those who adhere to the Austrian School of economic thought. Frederic Bastiat refuted this fallacy over 150 years ago in his pamphlet from 1850 entitled That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen. Henry Hazlitt in his outstanding book Economics in One Lesson rehearsed Bastiat's logical exercise.

Hazlitt's one lesson states that, "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate, but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

Mr. Mayland and Ms. Swonk violate both parts of Hazlitt's principle. They are looking only at the short-term effect of the devastation, and are looking only at a small group of people. What they are not factoring in to their equation is the opportunity cost associated with redirecting limited resources from where they would have been used prior to this destruction, and looking only at how those resources will be used to rebuild and replace what people already possessed. Further, they are focusing only on those in the area impacted, and only those lines of business and industry that are directly related to the reconstruction effort. They ignore the rest of the population that will have to forego certain acquisitions and activities, since many limited resources will be redirected to the Gulf Coast.

On the bright side, if Mr. Mayland and Ms. Swonk's theory is correct, that devastation produces economic growth, they have solved the problem of the business cycle. The next time the U.S. economy slows down, or a recession appears on the horizon, all that needs to be done is for the President to order the carpet bombing of the major U.S. city of his choice. Just think of all the new economic activity that would be initiated if Los Angeles were reduced to rubble! Not only would GDP expand as the reconstruction efforts were kicked into high gear, but just think of all the jobs that would be created for military contractors as they develop and build a supply of bombs for the next recession!

I feel a Nobel Prize nomination for this pair of geniuses!

2005-08-12T00:34:00.000-05:00

This is going to be my first attempt at keeping my own blog. Topics that I hope to cover will likely range widely from financial issues to literature, from economics to theology, from family activities to politics. One thing that I have learned over the years is that I am generally able to form an opinion on most subjects. Another thing that I have learned is that generally, my opinions tend to be contrarian.

By way of background:

Religion/Theology - this is the most important thing to understand about my comments. I am a protestant Christian of the Reformed, Calvinistic and Coventantal tradition and am Presbyterian. As a Reformed Christian, I believe that every thought must be taken captive to the obedience of of Jesus Christ. I believe that this means that there are no areas of thought that can be considered "outside the bounds" of religion. All of life is religious, regardless of one's creed. Perhaps at some point I will expound on that thought.
Politics - I am definitely not a modern Democrat, and I am most certainly not a Republican. There are numerous reasons for both. I am independent, and am quite comfortable with calling a spade a spade, regardless of which side of the aisle the public figure is on. The political party with which I am most closely alligned is the Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.com/. I have areas of concern with the CP, though they tend to be relatively minor. Even here, I can say in all honesty that I don't mind taking them to task when I believe they are in error.
Economics - Austrian School - though I would have to say that it is a modified version, since God is the owner of all things, and we as his creation are merely his stewards.

I plan to expand on these topics in the future, if the Lord wills. My writing is primarily intended for my own benefit, as I try to be more consistent and systematic in my worldview. However, I would love to have discussions and hear from others who might disagree with me, or who might have benefitted from something that I have written.

I don't pretend to have all the answers (though opinions in profusion), so I will also be posing questions from time to time as well. My hope, is that be keeping this journal and recording thoughts and questions I will be able to look back in time and see how the Lord has worked in my life to reform me in the image of his Son.

ad majorem Dei gloriam