Security v/s Privacy

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Those words, reportedly written by Benjamin Franklin in a 1755 letter on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War, have taken many interpretations through the ages. They are even inscribed on our Statue of Liberty to instill a sense of our never-ending desire for liberty.

Well, old Ben was a revered founder oft noted for his sage advice. Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac gave the nation timely and wise words to live by for many generations.

But what did he really mean by this particular phrase? Did he look far into the future and mean that our smartphones should contain private information that the government should not be able to obtain in the name of national security?

No. Ben’s letter was written in an entirely different context. He was concerned over the Pennsylvania legislature’s effort to tax the Penn family to pay for the French and Indian war. Privacy was not even remotely an issue in his letter.

Today’s FBI v/s Apple issue is a matter of security over privacy and has nothing to do with liberty. The freedom to have privacy is assumed implicit in our Constitution, but nowhere does that noble document state precisely that issue. The closest the Constitution comes to guaranteeing privacy is in the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We are guaranteed to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects until the government issues a warrant to examine them. In the case of private information contained on the iPhone owned by a particular terrorist, a warrant was issued. End of argument!

Well, no, it is not the end of this argument. The information is encrypted and locked within the device. The government wants to order Apple to develop software to decrypt that information or provide a means to obtain the password for the device.

The FBI argues that they are only concerned with that one particular iPhone. Apple fears that by allowing the government to require the development of software to peek into this one device, they will open the door to hackers and no iPhone information will be truly secure.

Hillary Clinton was so concerned that her “private” email information would be available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act that she used a private email server during her term as Secretary of State. The government subpoenaed her email server but she had wiped it clean of any data after printing out selected emails she deemed relevant to her government dealings. Unfortunately, there were emails that contained some highly classified information. By using a private email server, she opened the State Department to intrusion of that server and theft of classified information by hackers.

How is this a different situation than the FBI-Apple case? As I see it, there is no difference. There may, or may not, be vital information that our government needs to guarantee national security, and it is on a privately owned device. A warrant has been issued for that information, and no matter who owns the device, that information must be divulged.

In this case, Apple has patents on the iPhone that can’t be violated. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Apple to lawfully provide the means to obtain the information contained within that iPhone.

This has nothing to do with liberty versus security any more than it has to do with the Pennsylvania legislature’s right to tax the Penn family for the French and Indian war. The issue is whether our government can issue a legal warrant to obtain information it deems necessary to provide the security to all of us that we expect from our government. I am sure old Ben would not object.

Just Say NO!

Our late, great First Lady, Nancy Reagan, made the saying famous. It was advice to first-time drug users to simply say no to drugs. I have conscripted the saying for an entirely different purpose, voting for Donald Trump.

I am fully aware that I may have to eat those words if Trump becomes the Republican Nominee. There is absolutely no way I would ever vote for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. So, if by some perverse happenstance, Mr. Trump becomes the Republican Presidential nominee, I suppose I will just have to hold my nose and cast my vote for him. I won’t like it, but I will do it.

I don’t like Trump. That’s a given. He has the personality of a spoiled seventh grade bully on an unsupervised schoolyard, complete with all the warmth and charm of a scorpion.

No, I don’t like his personality, but that is not the reason I say you should not vote for him. Actually, there are a great number of reasons beyond his failing personality.

For beginners, I doubt he can win against the presumptive Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton. For decades, the Democrats have – what’s the word? Rigged? Yeah, that’s it – elections. It’s no secret. John Kennedy beat out Richard Nixon with the help of thousands of voters residing in Chicago cemeteries. In a close election – which this is certain to be – the democrats can always pull out some trick to give them the advantage. If not hanging chads or non-citizen voters, they will find a way.

Next, close your eyes and imagine, if you can, President Trump across the table from Vladimir Putin negotiating anything. “Well, Mr. Putin if you don’t take my offer, we will point a few more ballistic missiles at your house, and by the way, my chest has more hair than yours, you short pipsqueak.” Right, that should go well.

The understatement of the year would be to say that Trump has no tact. The word simply doesn’t exist for him.

Finally, consider how our constitutionally mandated, three-branch government works. The President has no authority to create legislation. That job is the exclusive domain of the elected representatives from each of the 50 states. Both the Senate and House of Representatives have a distinct line dividing Republicans from Democrats. Their political philosophy is usually as fractured as the two Parties. Today the Republicans hold the majority vote in both houses.

If Hillary Clinton becomes elected, you can bet we will have the same situation we have had since the Republicans became the majority. Not much of Obama’s agenda gets by Congress. Clinton would fare no better.

On the other hand, neither party likes Donald Trump. I am all but certain neither negotiation or coercion would work for Trump to pass much if any of his promised agenda. And that is a shame because there are many good points to Trump’s stated objectives. He just is not going to be able to bully his way with Congress, and I haven’t seen where he knows any other way to get things done.

Well, yes, he would have the option to use executive orders. Those work for most presidents, but we have seen with Obama that there is a distinct point you can’t cross when you use those executive actions. And that is where the third branch of government comes in play, the Supreme Court, where at least two of Obama’s executive orders languish today.

If you are hoping that someone outside of the Washington insider politics can finally “Make America Great Again”, don’t look to Trump. There are many things that need to be done to divert out country’s downward spiral. Donald Trump has clearly articulated the many things that indeed need be done. Unfortunately, he is not the man to get them done.

We still have a choice even though Californians only get to vote in the primaries long after most of the delegates have been chosen. Trump has to get to a magic number to ensure his nomination in the Republican Party. There is a good chance that by June, he may not have that number of delegates, and we Californians could change what now looks like a certain victory for Trump and certain disaster for our country.

In June, just say no – no to Donald Trump, and no to schoolyard bully tactics.

Of Geese and Gold Eggs

I received a facebook post the other day from a friend (aren’t they all “friends?). It had a picture of that other Democratic Party darling Elizabeth Warren with text, presumably a quote from her, parroting Barrack Obama’s now-infamous “you didn’t make that” line about businesses. I didn’t hit the like button.

To begin with, it is asinine to attempt to tell the founder of a business that he or she did not create that business. The also not so subtle implication is that they didn’t create the jobs that follow any business.

Try telling that to Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Did Henry Ford not create Ford Motors? I seriously doubt he would accept that denunciation if he were alive today. And what about the over 7 million patents issued by the US Patent office. Did those listed as inventors not conceive the idea that became the patent?

Well, who did create those businesses then? I believe Obama, Warren, and the socialist left would like us to believe that the government did this all by itself. What hubris! What arrogance! What stupidity!

Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak saw the vanguard of microprocessor development and decided to risk their meager fortunes on creating a computer for use by everyone. That idea became Apple Computers, which is arguably worth over 1.4 trillion dollars today and employs some 110,000 people in well-paying jobs. This, incidentally, was a new twist on the same idea Henry Ford had when he created the automobile everyone could afford.

So how much money did the government put into developing these companies? That would be none! How much assistance did the government lend to get these companies off the drawing board? Again, none! All right, did the government give tax incentives to get the companies started? Nope! Did the government loan the businesses money to build their plants? You have to be kidding!

Warren and Obama can only offer the lame argument that the government provided roads to transport goods and a safe secure country for the business to thrive in. Well, sure, the goods these businesses use may come in through government run ports and over government built roads; the same roads and ports their products need for distribution. And yes, this is a great country in which to have a business. But these things are not exclusive for businesses. We all use them. It is part of what a country does.

What the government doesn’t do, and frankly can’t do, is provide the spark of creativity that spawns a new business. Government doesn’t fuel the drive that makes a business grow. Government doesn’t create companies and doesn’t create private sector jobs. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not a measure of government productivity. It is purely a factor of private business output!

Many countries have found that the way to kill productivity and subsequently productive jobs is by nationalizing what used to be private businesses. When a government gets involved in business in any form, it results in reduced productivity, fewer meaningful and productive jobs, and ultimately a lower GDP.

Although there are millions of people working directly for the government, we need to keep in mind that the government produces nothing. You can’t buy government made cars, government made food, or anything made exclusively made by the government. The government has no products and therefore, is not even a factor in our GDP. And as communist China, Vietnam and even Cuba are finding out, private businesses and free trade are the lifeblood of any country.

Kill businesses through government takeover, excessive regulation, high taxes, and dictated wages, and you will kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.

The Unreality Show

You can’t make this stuff up, folks. Our political process – if process could actually describe this fiasco – is so unreal that it resembles something presented by some insane Hollywood reality show producer.

When the year started, we had four Democrat candidates and some seventeen Republicans running for their party’s nomination. We are now at a point where the field has been narrowed down to two Democrats and six Republicans. The rest have been voted off the island!

While mud slinging seems to have been the national sport of most elections for quite a few years, this bunch has taken it to new lows. Donald Trump wants to sue Ted Cruz. Jeb Bush and Trump are tossing insults that would put any schoolyard fracas to shame. Jeb and Marco Rubio, two Floridians, are denouncing each other’s accomplishments – or rather perhaps lack of accomplishments.

Poor Doctor Carson is desperately trying to get someone, anyone, to notice that he is still in the race. And then there is John Kasich, Governor of Ohio, who essentially could be labeled on the ballot as ‘none of the above.’

Well, if you don’t like that channel, you could always change to the other unreality show, the Democrat ticket. Here we have A Socialist and a long-standing Washington insider beating each other up with their left wings. The main attraction seems to be free stuff all around! Bernie wants to give everyone free college, totally free healthcare, free daycare, free minimum income, free cell phones. No, wait a minute. Obama beat him to that one. But Bernie is also guaranteeing free huge tax increases to pay for all the other free stuff he intends to dole out.

Then there is Hillary. Yes, the woman who has lied about, top secret emails… sorry, the publisher won’t take a column long enough to list all of her lies. But then, don’t all politicians lie? Our current President sure does. Hillary’s husband was impeached for it when he was President. Hillary likes to point to her accomplishments as Secretary of State. Uh, were there any? Sorry, I’m drawing a blank on that one. Benghazi? No. Russian reset button? No. Maybe you can name one.

Well, Hillary is big on women’s issues… as long as that woman isn’t a fetus all the way up to the time of birth. She has no problem supporting the notion of killing our children at any stage of pregnancy. A strange stance coming from a woman who professes to be a proud grandmother. I have to wonder what her stand would be if her daughter had decided to have an abortion of convenience.

Oh, that’s right there were some other Democrats who were voted off the island. Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb went in the first round. Poor Webb couldn’t seem to get the support of the Democratic Party, probably because he went through the first debate talking sense. Chafee, well, he wasn’t sure what party he belonged to. Martin O’Malley finally saw the light at the Iowa caucus and bid adieu to the fray.

A check of the Internet shows that there are actually some fifteen other Democrats running for President, but at this point, who even knows their name. Besides, remember when Hillary told the congressional committee investigating the Benghazi incident, “What, at this point, does it matter?” Yes indeed, at this point, what does it matter how many delegates Sanders can win? Hillary started this rigged election with enough “super delegates” to ensure her nomination. After only two primary elections, (Iowa and New Hampshire) she has 481 while Sanders has a mere 55 even though he won by a landslide in New Hampshire and nearly tied Clinton in Iowa.

And just to add a plot twist to this ‘unreality’ show, let’s kill off a major player that no one has even realized is in the show, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Actually, no one killed Scalia. He died of a heart attack. But the plot twist effect is the same.

Just how important is this? Well, it just puts your decision right in your face. We live in times where nearly everything seems to be deeply polarized. Democrats and Republicans are, for the large part, completely divided on issues. The Supreme Court is no exception. Many if not most of their decisions are decided by a 5 to 4 vote. One could even say it is a liberal/conservative divide and not be far off the mark. Justice Scalia could always be relied upon to take the side of the actual constitutional wording, rather than try legislating from the bench.

There is a strong likelihood that the next President will be the one to appoint Scalia’s replacement. This could very well have huge consequences both in judicial decisions and in our very lives.

As much as this election process might resemble a bizarre reality sow, folks, it is not. It is time for we the people and those running for office to get serious about this election. The candidates need to show respect for each other and for the office to which they all aspire. Even more, the candidates need to show respect for the electorate, we the people, and show that they are serious about running the country with the largest economy, strongest military, and free world leader. This unreality show needs to end before the electorate turns it completely off.

The Sanders Socialism

In a post the other day, I called Bernie Sanders a communist. “Sanders is a Democratic Socialist. There is a difference,” was the reply. Humph. Just how much of a difference is there, I wondered.

Well, Sanders likes to point to Denmark as a wonderful example of Democratic Socialism. I checked. Yes, lots of free stuff in Denmark, free welfare, free schooling through college, free healthcare, free childcare, social security, the list goes on. There is still a divide between rich and poor, though and it is growing.

According to CNN Money, “The Top 10% of Danes saw their incomes grow by 29% over the decade ending in 2013, while middle-income folks experienced only a 12.3% bump, according to the Economic Council of the Labour Movement, a left-leaning think tank, citing national statistics. The poorest Danes suffered a nearly 1% loss in income, a rare occurrence in a country where everyone's income usually rises.” They also stated that the top 10% of Danes controlled 80% of the wealth. By comparison, the top 10% of Americans control a mere 78% of the US wealth.

So, who pays for this “free” stuff? From 2006 through 2009, the personal income tax rate in Denmark held firm at 62.3%. In 2010, it dropped and went to at 55.6% in 2014. Imagine that. More than half of what you earn is taken from you to pay for “free” stuff. But that’s not all. The corporate tax rate is 23.5% and you still need to kick in 8% of your income for social security. And it doesn’t stop there. Everything you buy has a 25% sales tax stuck on top of it.

It is not hard to understand why the young people are attracted to Bernie’s message. Our Universities and colleges are saddling the young with an onerous debt right out of the starting gate. Bernie’s message of free college has a certain appeal to these young voters. But why doesn’t it resonate with the older crowd? Could it be because the parents of these potential college students understand who will get the bill for this “free” education?

There was a time when parents saved for their kids’ education. Incidentally, in those days, college costs were far more manageable. One figure I found says that college tuition costs have risen an average of 945% since 1980!

Okay, here is the big question: Would you rather try to save for your kids’ college – put a percentage of your income in interest-bearing savings – or give over half of your income to the government so they can provide free college to everyone’s kids? Remember, these are the same government bureaucrats that have done such a stellar job administrating Social Security and Obama Care.

Here is another question to ponder: Why does every kid need to go to a University? And how many actually complete their education and earn a degree? Whether they finish or not, they still have to pay the tuition. The fact is, not every kid is qualified or inclined toward an academic education. Some, maybe many, are more suited to a technical education. In fact, many college dropouts go on to attend and pay for a private technical or trade school training. Now they are saddled twice for an education.

Sanders says he will pay for all his free stuff by taxing the top 1.5% of wealth. Crunch the numbers. If 78% of the US wealth is in the pockets of 10% of the people and you take all of the money from 1.5% of the people, will this even come close to paying for free college, free health care, free…? Experts say it won’t. Who else will get the burden? Does a Denmark tax rate appeal to you?

So, again, what is the difference between a socialist and a communist? The Socialist utopia outlined by Karl Marx has never been realized. Every time it has been tried, it failed because the numbers simply won’t work. Socialism and communism are merely semantics for central government controlling all or in the best case, some of the productivity and wealth of the society.

Ask yourself why people in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were contained within that territory on penalty of death? Why did so many risk their lives and the lives of their families to flee socialism? Why, even in Bernie Sander’s exemplar of Denmark, is socialism on the wane while the rich are becoming richer, poor becoming poorer, and the middle class shrinking? Then ask yourself if this is the vision you want for your children?

And So It Begins

The voters have spoken – at least, those in Iowa have. But just how much of a bellwether is Iowa? Out of the last eleven presidential elections – since 1972 – Iowans selected only seven of the eventual Democrat nominees, and six of the Republican nominees. Sounds more like my luck at picking horse races.

Okay, who fared well this time in Iowa? Ted Cruz won the Republican caucus; Trump came in a distant second and almost tied with Rubio, who came in third. Of course, there are no second place winners, even in Iowa caucuses. So, “The Donald”, in true narcissistic form declared Ted Cruz “stole” the election and demanded a do-over. Ben Carson wasn’t too happy about his placement either and stooped to throwing accusations too.

One thing this Iowa caucus has portended is the sour grapes anyone not coming out on top will have.

As for the Democrats, well it was a coin-toss – literally – between the only two remaining candidates, Bernie Sander and Hillary Clinton. Yes, it was reported that several caucuses had to literally toss a coin to make a decision. You can’t make that stuff up! That’s how close it was. In the end, Hillary was declared the winner by a couple of votes. Well, gee, does that surprise anybody? After all, Mrs. Clinton is the anointed favorite of the Democratic Party.

Of course, and in true socialist form, Bernie said they would look at those coin toss caucuses. I am surprised he didn’t point out that this is not the way it is done in other socialist countries. Well, no, Bernie, they only get one candidate in those countries.

On to New Hampshire. As this is a weekly column, the voting there will be settled by the time you read this. The favorites in that state, according to polls, would be Sanders and Rubio. If it does come out this way, what will the winners of Iowa say or do?

And Trump? Well, I am sure he will throw one of his tantrums – Trumpterums is what Cruz calls them. And it will be YHUGE!

As for Clinton, well, it will be a treat to see her beat down a notch or two.

But who were the losers in Iowa? On the Republican side, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Rand Paul all announced they would end their campaign. For Paul, this was no real surprise. He had failed to generate much enthusiasm among Republicans in any polls. The Santorum finish was interesting since in 2012 he beat out Mitt Romney in Iowa. I guess even Iowans can be fickle.

Why Huckabee didn’t make a better showing is a mystery to me. Maybe Iowans just don’t trust candidates from Arkansas. After all, they went for Bill Clinton in ’96 and look how that turned out.

Martin O’Malley never really had a chance for the Democratic nomination. He knew it and dropped out the day of the Iowa caucus.

Stay tuned, folks. This is only the beginning. In this horse race, anything can happen. And you can bet whatever does happen will be accompanied by a whole lot of fireworks and mud.

Welcome Planet Bizarro

I read a report in the news the other day about scientists finding a ninth planet in our solar system. Well, they didn’t actually “find” it. They still don’t know exactly where it is, but the propeller-heads ran the numbers and said it must be out there somewhere.

That’s strange because I met a person who claimed to be from that planet. His name is George and he is from planet Bizarro.

George said they try to hide the planet for fear that people on Earth would copy their ways. He also said it must not be working because we are getting very much like his homeland. For example, in Gooberland, the most advanced country on Bizarro, they had automobiles and were content traveling the land in them until the accident rate killed so many that their government outlawed motorized vehicles.

They also had a problem with obesity and did a study. They found out that ice cream was making people fat. Since everyone ate ice cream with spoons, the government outlawed spoons. They also drank sodas from buckets, and that contributed to the obesity problem, so, guess what. Yep, no more buckets in Gooberland.

I began seeing parallels in the way our planets function. I asked George to tell me more so he started talking about the schools.

“We have a system called ‘Common Score’. Every kid gets the same score on tests. That doesn’t make them any smarter but it does increase their self-esteem. Every student is guaranteed to pass every grade regardless of what they may have learned. It doesn’t matter if they can’t read or write coherently, many can’t even do simple math, but they are always guaranteed employment in our government.”

Whoa, this was hitting close to home. “What about those that can’t or won’t work?” I asked.

“Well, we do seem to have more than a fair share of them, but our government gives them everything they need – no questions asked.”

“Do you have a drug problem in Gooberland?” I asked.

“No, it’s no problem. When people fry their brains, we give them free needles and drugs so they don’t have to resort to criminal activity to support their habit. In our grade schools, we hand out free merrywanna to let them experience the mind-expanding capabilities of drugs so they can make a choice to go on to stronger drugs or join society in a productive manner.”

“How’s that working for you?” I asked.

“Well, at first, we sold the drugs and taxed it, but those using drugs weren’t very productive and couldn’t buy the stuff. So the government had to supply those drugs and welfare to keep the addicts off the streets.”

“And your taxes went up?” I said.

“Of course! We now have a ninety-percent tax rate. But there aren’t many businesses or jobs anyway. Our government taxed most of them out of existence.”

“So George,” I asked, “Are you sure you are from this hidden planet? It sounds like you may just be from San Francisco. Maybe you have been smoking a little too much of that ‘medicine’.”

“No,” George said. “ I am from Planet Bizarro. Your planet is merely beginning to look like ours. I’m thinking about returning home, though. Things are getting far too restrictive on Earth.”