State of (In)Dependence

The Hypocrisy of Liberals (When It Comes to the "Chosen One")

2011-03-25T11:00:00.000-07:00

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 25 March 2011 @ 1100 PST - I got this forwarded to me today via e-mail and thought it made some good points a la the hypocrisy of liberals:

If George W. Bush had:

doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

sided with the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

pronounced Marine Corps like Marine Corpse would you think him an idiot?

put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident, would you have agreed?

used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed would you support him?

been the first president to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless.

flown all the way to Denmark to make a five-minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self- important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major on-going political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.

ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

Liberals would not have approved of any of those things had George W. Bush done them. But when Obama does them, the libs think he's great. Therein lies the hypocrisy of the left.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Democrat Senators Arguing With Apple Over What Apps It Can Sell

2011-03-23T08:00:00.000-07:00

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 23 March 2011 @ 0800 PST - U.S. Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Tom Udall (D-NM) all wrote a letter to Apple telling them that it should pull iPhone and iPad apps that alert users to the locations of DUI checkpoints.

What business is it of the federal government what applications Apple sells to its consumers? None! Why would federal senators get involved in non-federal issues? They shouldn't!

It's not even as if the information these apps are publishing is confidential, top secret, or otherwise classified information. Many states have laws that say the location of DUI checkpoints must be publicized a certain amount of time before the checkpoint opens. And let's face it. If you're intoxicated to the point that you would be "harmful to public safety," you're likely too drunk to remember to sign into the app, find the checkpoint, and avoid it.

On top of that, there are legitimate reasons for non-drinkers to avoid checkpoints. For one thing, despite the ruling of the Supreme Court that these types of stops are legal, there is still doubt that they really pass 4th Amendment muster. Why lend credibility to them by subjecting yourself to them if you can avoid them? Additionally, I know Democrats don't believe people "with nothing to hide" should avoid police interaction, but many people do. I'm one of them. You should be, too. In fact, regardless of how "innocent" one is, no one should ever talk to the police.. Anytime I can avoid a security checkpoint, a DUI checkpoint, an interaction with the police, I will do so.

Why should non-drinkers be inconvenienced by a "random" stop in a DUI checkpoint? They shouldn't be.

Why should non-drinkers be inconvenienced by waiting in line to be passed through a DUI checkpoint? They shouldn't be.

Why should non-drinkers be subject to "random" harassment by the cops? They shouldn't be.

And that is why apps like these should be readily available to anyone who wants to buy them. That's what capitalism is. Apple should stand firm and not let these four Democrat senators bully it into pulling these apps.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

If I Had ANY Faith in Obama, His Actions Would Be Shocking

2011-03-16T07:56:00.000-07:00

by Dave C. Jones

Updated 16 March 2011 @ 1114 PST - Obama's lip service on U.S. citizens helping Japan is nothing other than a lame attempt to look like he is addressing foreign policy and foreign aid issues. After filling out his NCAA brackets, Obama told ESPN that Americans should fill out their brackets then go to a government website to get a list of charities helping Japan. Obama told Americans to consider donating to the cause because "[i]t could be really helpful." Thanks for your terrific leadership, Obama.

Folsom, CA - 15 March 2011 @ 0756 PST - I've been getting e-mails from people about Obama for a couple of years now. You know the kind of e-mail I'm talking about: the kind where Obama is compared to Jimmy Carter, the Joker, or Nero. No one knows who wrote the e-mail, where it originated, or how true the "facts" it alleges are, yet these e-mails make their way around the world.

I normally dismiss most of the claims in those e-mails unless I can find proof of the claims myself. Until this morning, I didn't see much to the claim that Obama was like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Now I can see the similarity--and it's frightening.

The White House Dossier wrote an article on Obama's latest trivial pursuits and they are every bit as bad as Nero fiddling why Rome crumbles outside his palace. For instance, Obama is actually taping his NCAA tournament picks for later airing on ESPN. He just completed his 61st golf game since moving into the Oval Office. He attended the annual Gridiron Dinner over the weekend. He also entertained/honored the Stanley Cup victors, the Chicago Blackhawks (of course, they're from the corrupt town that brought us Blago, Emmanuel, Daley, and Obama himself, so it's no surprise he as a fondness for them).

Obama managed to fit all this into a week that had such real problems as the Middle East toppling, Libyan dictator Gaddafi killing civilian dissidents, an on-going serious budget/deficit/debt problem in the U.S., a massive earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and nuclear meltdown in Japan that surpasses Three Mile Island. But, you know, Obama has his priorities and apparently the NCAA tournament beats out these other trivial world and domestic problems.

Just in case you think Obama has any plans of tightening his belt and starting to work on the tough issues, this week isn't over yet. He still has plans to celebrate St. Patty's Day and to head off to Latin America for a three-country tour.

I don't think there is any room to dispute Obama is the worst president in history. But, if you do distpute that, I would certainly hope you recognize that he is definitely the president who has done the least work in history. Let's hope his playing around doesn't lead us down the same path as Nero's fiddle.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

So Much for Transparency

2011-03-15T08:00:00.000-07:00

by Dave C. Jones

Updated 16 March 2011 @ 1108 PST - Yep, Obama's transparency is mind-numbing! Today, Obama has four meetings--all behind closed doors (i.e., not open to the press). But, the Egoist in Chief is holding an event open to the press to accept an award for transparency! Are you kidding me? The White House spin machine is obviously in hyperdrive right now. And the worst part? Most of America will believe Obama has a transparent administration because of the press coverage of the event.

Folsom, CA - 15 March 2011 @ 0800 PST - One of Obama's campaign promises was to have the most transparent administration in history. Two years into his administration, however, there isn't much transparency. In fact, the Obama administration refused over one-third of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests it received last year.

Campaign promises are not to be taken as lightly as Obama does. The public relies on the promises of candidates to determine what the candidate will do if elected. In many cases, reliance on campaign promises is what gets candidates elected. In Obama's case specifically, campaign promises were essential to his getting elected. Obama campaigned with a slogan of "hope and change." All of the changes he promised during his campaign were the bedrock of his campaign slogan. By failing to live up to his promises, he is spitting in the face of those who voted for him.

Transparency is not, by any stretch, the only campaign promise Obama reneged on. Politifact.com tracks many candidates' campaign promises, including those of Obama. It is interesting to see how the candidates live up to their promises (or not).

If Obama cannot live up to his campaign promise to have a transparent administration, he should at least strive for translucency. The current "opaqueness" of his administration shows he isn't even trying to have transparency . . .

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

United States Has No Duty to Provide Foreign Aid--Cuts Must Be Made

2011-03-14T07:38:00.000-07:00

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 14 March 2011 @ 0738 PST - I am so tired of people claiming that the United States (or any other country) has a duty or an obligation to aid foreign countries. Yes, tsunamis are bad. Yes, famine is bad. Yes, drought is bad. Yes, civil war is bad. But none of those things require the United States to spend the hard-earned money of American taxpayers. The United States does not have its own domestic situation handled. With an out of control deficit and national debt, the U.S. has no business sending money or supplies anywhere right now.

The Huffington Post, of course, claims the proposed cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) will put not just the U.S. at risk of tsunamis without warning, but the entire world. First of all, why is it our responsibility to warn the world of disasters (at our cost)? Second, I'll ask the question I find myself asking all too often recently and of too many federal programs, services, and agencies: Where does the constitution authorize the federal government to form the NOAA? Where does the constitution authorize the federal government to form the National Weather Service?

I know liberals and "moderate" conservatives (aka, "RINOs") don't let something as trifling as constitutional authorization get in the way of spending money on federal programs, but these agencies are not constitutionally authorized. That alone means their budget can be (and should be) stripped to zero immediately. As I've pointed out before, there is no reason to have these unconstitutional federal agencies. Any state whose own constitution authorizes it can create their own weather agency, their own oceanographic agency. Let's face it: states like Oklahoma and North Dakota do not want to spend money on the equivalent of the NOAA, so why should they be forced to--unconstitutionally--by the feds? But states that actually border on the sea could spend their taxpayers' money on such an agency if their citizens want them to.

Liberals and even many conservatives keep poopooing the budget cuts proposed by the House. They whine that the amounts are too trifling so we shouldn't cut anything. They claim we really need to get the root cause of the deficit, not cut the programs that are on the chopping block. These are just ploys to keep any cuts from happening. People need to wake up and smell what they are shoveling! The root cause of the budget deficit is too much spending. The root cause of the national debt is having a deficit for too many years. All that needs to happen to fix those two problems is to cut all unconstitutional programs, agencies, and services. That is so simple a 5th grader with a red pen, a copy of the constitution, and a copy of the budget could do it.

Unfortunately, it takes courage to make those cuts and to stand up to the hate slung from the "tolerant" left. It's too bad not enough of our representatives in Washington have that courage. I hope they find it before it's too late.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

No Such Thing as a "Sensible" Gun Control Law

2011-03-11T07:56:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Updated 17 March 2011 @ 2045 PST - I am very excited to hear that the NRA says it will not meet with Obama to discuss "common-sense" gun control laws that "respect" the second amendment. The NRA often times seems to capitulate to the left, giving up ground on a compromise rather than drawing a line in the sand and refusing to give up its position.

Up until the last couple of years or so (at which time the NRA helped win pro-gun victories in the Supreme Court), the NRA helped keep the loss of our gun rights to a mere erosion rather than a catastrophic stripping of rights. But that isn't good enough. We cannot let the federal government slowly--or otherwise--strip our rights. It is about time we stood our ground on this issue. I am proud of the NRA.

(The Newsmax article does get at least one thing wrong, though. It claims "[t]he Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution established the right to bear arms." That is definitely not true. There is no such thing as "constitutional rights." All rights pre-date the constitution and were given to mankind by our Creator. The constitution gives up some of those rights and powers to create the federal government. The federal government can never grant rights to the people.)

Los Angeles, CA - 11 March 2011 @ 0756 PST - I have no respect for any politician (or any other person) who can say that America needs "sensible" gun control laws. There is simply no such thing as a sensible gun control law.
Nowhere in the constitution does the federal government get the power to regulate handguns, shotguns, sniper rifles, full automatic machine guns, swords, martial arts weapons, plastic knives, grenades, bayonets, missiles, or any other weapon. That authority just does not exist in the constitution. Since the federal government has no business exercising powers not granted to it by the people through the constitution, all gun control laws are unconstitutional. That fact alone means gun control laws cannot be "sensible."

Additionally, guns protect lives. Restricting access to guns and other weapons (any weapon a person wants) means more innocent people will die at the hands of rogue governments, rapists, murderers, burglars, carjackers, jihadists, and other criminals. How can contributing to the deaths of law abiding citizens by outlawing or restricting gun ownership be "sensible?"

Don't start with statistics claiming guns in the house kill more people than they save. People who claim guns kill people are being disingenuous. That is like saying it is the car's fault when a drunk driver gets in an accident. It's not the car that is evil here--it's the drunk driver and the person pulling the trigger of the gun. Like the saying goes, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

The majority of times that guns kill people are the school and workplace shootings that the media seizes upon and sensationalizes. It isn't that the shooter had a gun that makes these events so tragic. It isn't that the shooter had a gun that results in so many injuries and deaths. No. Instead, it is because the victims were unarmed that these events are so catastrophic! If the victims (or intended victims) were armed in these situations, the dead and injured lists would be much shorter. Innocent lives would be saved by law abiding citizens having the means to end criminal shooting sprees.

But, rather than allow everyone the means to protect themselves, the left wants to do the "sensible" thing and pass gun control laws. Where's the sense in that?

What are your thoughts on gun control? Do we need more gun laws? Do we need less? Are the 20,000+ gun laws enough? Do gun control laws actually reduce crime? Do you feel safer in "gun-free" zones? Let me know your thoughts on gun control.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Wisconsin Senate Finally Passes Public Unions Reform Bill

2011-03-10T08:00:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Updated 10 March 2011 @ 1725 PST - Good, brief article on the other states that limit the powers of unions.

Los Angeles, CA - 10 March 2011 @ 0800 PST - It is about time! The Wisconsin Senate finally passed parts of the "budget repair bill" it has been trying to pass for three weeks.

In a shocking move three weeks ago, the Democrat Senators fled the state to prevent the Republican majority from having the 20 person quorum needed to vote on budget measures. The sneaky, slimy tactic worked for several weeks, even despite fines being imposed on the missing Senators, paychecks being withheld unless picked up in person, layoffs being ordered if the budget was not cut, and a ruling that the Senators were in contempt of the Senate and could be detained and brought to the capitol if found inside the state. Finally, the Republicans decided to get around the Democrats' whiny stall tactics by stripping the budget items from the bill and voting on the remaining items--something they could do without just the 19 Republican senators.

The remaining items included restrictions on collective bargaining powers for most public employee unions--including teachers--and makes those employees contribute more of their own money to their healthcare and pension plans. These items angered Democrats who worry that a decrease in the power of unions could mean a decrease in the power of Democrats.

Well, the Democrats had plenty of opportunities to come back and address these issues rationally and like professionals. Instead, they decided to hide from their duties and try to grind the work of the elected representatives of Wisconsin to a halt. And they succeeded for three long weeks. Thankfully, the Republicans found a way to get around the schoolyard tactics of the Democrats. Wisconsinites should be happy that their elected representatives are getting on with the work they were elected to do. Let the budget repair commence!

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Where Does the Constitution Authorize the Federal Government to Control Education? Defund the Department of Education!

2011-03-09T23:55:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Updated 09 March 2011 @ 2355 PST - The Associated Press reported today that as many as 82% of the schools in this country are failing under the No Child Left Behind Act. Clearly the federal government is not adding to the success of our schools. Let's get the federal government out of education and get the money they take from the people back in the hands of the states to spend on education as they see fit!

Los Angeles, CA - 9 March 2011 @ 0747 PST - The number one way to cut spending at the federal level and to reduce the size and scope of the federal government is to simply eliminate all unconstitutional programs, agencies, and spending. One of these unconstitutional agencies is the "Department of Education."

There has been a lot of talk lately about teachers, school unions, quality of schools in each state (and even within states), school choice/vouchers, teacher pay, teacher benefits, and so on. Nearly all of that talk centers around what the federal government is going to do to improve the state of education in this country. Simply put, the best thing the feds can do to improve education in the United States is to stop taxing the people for education and stop regulating education!

Don't have a coronary. The feds do not belong in education. Period. The people did not give the federal government the power to regulate education. As I've mentioned in several other posts, the general welfare clause does not permit the federal government to provide for the "general" well-being of individuals (which the DOE is tasked with doing). Rather, the general welfare clause only allows the federal government to provide for the general welfare of the United States, not the welfare or education of individuals. In other words, the general welfare clause allows the federal government to ensure the union is strong, that the states are safe from external (or domestic) threats, etc. Simply claiming that having a less-educated populace will weaken the financial, technological, and political powers of the United States is not enough to grant dominion over education to the feds.

The fact that the feds are not granted the power to regulate education in the constutition is enough to shut down the unconstitutional Department of Education. Why, then, do we still fund the DOE? Why do people continually call for more spending for schools at the federal level?

The House of Representatives investigated the Department of Education in 1996. Fifteen years ago, they found 760 unconstitutional federal education programs spread across 39 agencies, departments, commissions, and boards. All told, the congressmen found $120 billion being spent without constitutional authorization. To make matters worse, that money was being squandered on non-fundamental education (i.e., it was not being spent on reading, writing, math, or science). I'm positive that those numbers would be much higher today.

Even the Department of Education acknowledges "the U.S. Constitution leaves the responsibility for public K-12 education with the states." Unfortunately, the DOE goes on to disingenuously claim that it "supplements" the states' roles in education--it does "supplant" their roles. Yeah, right. Their "supplementation" requires hundreds of forms from each district just to get the funding for these federal programs. Unconstitutional authority plus red tape--you've got to love it.

The Department of Education website goes on to say:

The responsibility for K-12 education rests with the states under the Constitution. There is also a compelling national interest in the quality of the nation's public schools. Therefore, the federal government, through the legislative process, provides assistance to the states and schools in an effort to supplement, not supplant, state support. The primary source of federal K-12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

So, although the DOE started in the late 1800s (under the name Office of Education, it really began stepping on the toes of states in the mid-1960s. Oh, but I forgot--the DOE does not exist to dictate to the states, just to supplement the states.

And how big is the Department of Education? How much "supplementation" can they provide? Well, to hear them tell it, they are just a tiny little agency. But, more telling, is that they acknowledge (in a note at the bottom of the page) that the DOE has the 3rd largest discretionary spending budget of any Cabinet agency! It is behind only the Department of Defense and the Department of Health & Human Services! What in the world is an unconstitutional agency doing with so much money?

If there was ever an example of an unconstitutional federal government agency, the Department of Education is it. Let's get rid of it and let the states handle education themselves. The states don't need the supplementation the feds provide. What the states (and the people) could use is the return of the money the feds are taking from them to pay for their education supplementation. When will people start holding the federal government to its limited roles?

Do you disagree with me? Is the Department of Education authorized by the Constitution? If you know where it is authorized (or just don't care and want the feds to have all sorts of unconstitutional powers), please let me know.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Human Sex Trafficking - Important But Over-Blown (in the U.S.)

2011-03-08T07:50:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Los Angeles, CA - 8 March 2011 @ 0750 PST - Human trafficking (aka, slavery) is as horrific today as it ever was. Just as slaves were imported into America during the formative years of this country, slaves are being imported into America today. But instead of using slaves for physically demanding labor, most of the today's slaves are sold into sexual bondage, many of these slaves being children.

Reports differ as to how many slaves are imported into the United States each year, but, according to the Obama "czar" on human trafficking Luis CdeBaca, the number is somewhere around 17,500. Of those, 10,000 or so are sex slaves. Because those numbers are yearly numbers, the total number of sex slaves in the U.S. at any one time is estimated to be much higher--perhaps as many as 50,000.

Of course, that number could be vastly over-inflated. Back in 2007, President Bush sent out 42 Justice Department task forces to find the tens of thousands of sex slaves in the United States. After a diligent effort, those task forces found only 1,300 sex slaves imported since 2000.

Don't get me wrong: even one child, woman, or man sold into slavery is too many, but 1,300 in a seven year period is hardly a crisis. There are undoubtedly more sex slaves out there that the task forces failed to find; however, if there were tens of thousands of sex slaves out there, those 42 task forces would have found many more than 1,300.

But publishing a more accurate estimate of the number of sex slaves in the U.S. would not help the "big government" groups; the groups pushing for more government regulation of everything--including prostitution. These groups know that if the more accurate, lower numbers of sex slaves being imported into America are published, they cannot rely on scare tactics to push their agendas. For instance, some on the left claim that all prostitutes are sex slaves. I know. Although it is difficult to believe someone could make that claim with a straight face, at least one person did. Two years ago, Kirsten Powers made this claim ¹ in the New York Post: "Society calls them prostitutes, but it would be more accurate to call them slaves." Statements like that are simply ludicrous. Even if there are tens of thousands of sex slaves in America at any given moment, not every prostitute is a slave! Even page eight of the State Department's own 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report states that there are willing prostitutes and that willing prostitutes are not slaves.

Despite the relatively small number of sex slaves in America, slavery (and sexual bondage especially) can be found fairly frequently and widely. For instance, a Somali gang operating out of Minneapolis-St. Paul was busted recently for taking girls as young as 12-years-old, passing them around the gang for sex, and selling sex with them to outsiders in exchange for money and drugs. Another recent arrest centered around two child sex slaves in Toledo, Ohio. Examples of this atrocity are seen around the country--not just in the big coastal cities as you may expect.

The bottom line is that slavery of any type and in any volume is horrible. Fortunately, the situation in the United States is not nearly as dire as the left makes it out to be. So, for now, let's focus on the more immediate problems facing this country (national debt, the near extinction of the constitution, high unemployment, high taxes, loss of liberties, etc.) before we spend time and resources on the more tangential problems. Let's rebuild America's foundation so we have a solid footing to use in our fight against other problems we face like human trafficking.

¹I recently heard Kirsten Powers speaking about prostitution and human trafficking. She mentioned an article she wrote back in March of 2009 that dealt with the subject. I looked it up a week ago and found it on the New York Post website. Unfortunately, when I went to write about it today, it was gone (perhaps the NY Post pulls stories from its site after two years . . .) Luckily, I found a cached version on Google, though. If that link does not work, you can find the text of the cached version here.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Where in the Constitution is the "War on Drugs" Authorized?

2011-03-07T08:15:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Los Angeles, CA - 7 March 2011 @ 0815 PST - The number one way to cut spending at the federal level and to reduce the size and scope of the federal government is to simply eliminate all unconstitutional programs, agencies, and spending. One of these unconstitutional programs is the so-called "War on Drugs."

Before President Richard Nixon used the words "War on Drugs" in 1971, President Eisenhower had a cabinet-level panel (U.S. Interdepartmental Committee on Narcotics) to stamp out narcotics use in 1954. Even earlier than that, though, legislation known as the Harrison Tax Act of 1914 was passed restricting the sale of heroin and, shortly thereafter, cocaine. And this unconstitutional "war" has wasted trillions of dollars of taxpayer money ever since.

In the past 40 years alone, the U.S. federal government has spent $2.5 trillion dollars on the "War on Drugs." Although the constitution provides Congress with the power to declare war, that power is limited to war against a human enemy--not some inanimate object such as drugs. So, if the feds could not get constitutional authority for the "War on Drugs" from the war powers of the constitution, how was that money constitutionally authorized?

That is a terrific question. As far as I can tell, there is no constitutional authority for the "War on Drugs."

Before you say, "What about the general welfare clause?" let me answer that objection for you. The "general welfare" clause cannot authorize the federal government to outlaw drugs, either. The general welfare clause only allows the federal government to provide for the general welfare of the United States, not the welfare or health of individuals. In other words, the general welfare clause allows the federal government to ensure the union is strong, that the states are safe from external (or domestic) threats, etc.

No matter what your thoughts are on drugs, it is vital that you understand that if we let the federal government get away with one unconstitutional power (let alone hundreds like we've been doing), it will only grab more unconstitutional power. Adages like "Give them an inch, they'll take a mile" apply perfectly here. Everyone has to hold the federal government to its limited role. If we don't, we will see the federal government continue to expand its power until our country is indiscernible from Germany in the late 1930s or even the USSR through the 1980s. We must hold the federal government to the strict limit of its constitutional powers.

But there is no need to fret. Those of you who are misguided enough to let the feds have their unconstitutional "War on Drugs" powers because you hate drugs so much can still outlaw drugs--but in your own state! Keep the federal government out of it. Let the federal system work. Every state has the powers the people did not reserve for themselves or give to the federal government. We do not need a federal government power grab to keep the services and programs the public wants! Let the states exercise their powers. Keep power closer to home instead of in far-off Washington, D.C.

I ask you: Am I wrong about the constitutional authority for the "War on Drugs?" Does it exist? If so, where? Please let me know what you think about the War on Drugs . . .

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Stop Promoting U.S. Involvement in Libya!

2011-03-04T07:45:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 4 March 2011 @ 0745 PST - I simply cannot fathom why Americans are calling for the United States to get involved in Libya. I find it very disingenuous of the left to want us to institute a no-fly zone in Libya. Liberals are OK with us entering a war with Libya for the purpose of instituting a democracy but were not--and still are not--OK with us doing the same thing in Iraq or Afghanistan. What hypocrisy!

And what is the justification the bleeding hearts give for going to war with Libya? Gaddafi is killing innocent people who are protesting his government.

I've said it before and, apparently, it needs repeating: it is not our battle! We do not have an obligation (moral or otherwise) to protect every person across the globe from his government. The U.S. should not get involved with instituting democracies elsewhere. Not only do we not have the money and resources to get into another war, but it is not our business to help overthrow other countries.

Last night on On the Record with Greta van Susteren, Senator John McCain (RINO - Arizona) claimed that the U.S. has "always stood for the universality of human rights and we should be proud and help them [Libya] move into a free and democratic society." That's great, but what about the money? What about the potential loss of our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons that we send over there to fight for someone else's freedom? Maybe--maybe--if McCain could guarantee that we would have a quick (i.e., two years or less) victory in Libya with no loss of American life and with a 100% certainty of a fair and democratic government taking hold in Libya for the long term, it would be worth it. But that is just not possible.

It is certainly not possible to guarantee no loss of American lives. It is certainly not possible to say we would have victory in two years. And it is most certainly not possible to say that a fair democracy will 100% positively take hold for the long term. There is just too much doubt to make action in Libya worth the blood and money.

To illustrate the risk, even after all the time, money, and resources we've spent in Afghanistan, Donald Rumsfeld thinks there is only a 50/50 chance that a democratic government will take hold there and that we will defeat the Taliban. What a complete waste of American lives and American money! Why would we make the same mistake in Libya? If the Afghanis want freedom that badly, let them fight for it. If the Libyans want democracy so much, let them fight for it. Spare American money and American lives.

McCain may not "understand why we would have any reluctance to try to prevent Gaddafi from being able to continue to massacre the people of Libya who are standing up for independence and freedom" (emphasis his), but I do. I want American money to stay in America. I don't want American lives to be lost in a feeble, probably futile, attempt to institute a democracy in the middle east. I want us to focus on our problems here in America. I want us to repair our country. I want us to rebuild our republic first.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Sheriff Deputy Tries to Commit Suicide FOUR Times & Is Deemed Fit to Be a Deputy

2011-03-03T07:50:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 3 March 2011 @ 0750 PST - Picture this scenario: a Sacramento County Sheriff's Department officer tries to commit suicide four times over the past couple of years. After every single attempt, she was deemed fit to serve as a Sacrament Sheriff's Deputy. Does that make you feel safe in Sacramento? Does that make you believe Sheriff Scott Jones is doing his part to keep the streets safe? Are we safe--not because of--but from his deputies?

This information came to me from an acquaintance who was married to the deputy and has children with her. This last suicide attempt was by far the most "successful" of the four. In fact, each attempt has been more serious than the last (I guess practice helps make perfect). In this attempt, the deputy hung herself in her daughter's closet. When her daughter came home, she found her mother hanging there. Her first call was to her dad because her mother looked so swollen and bad that she thought her mom was really dead!

After spending a fairly long time in the intensive care unit and a psych ward, the deputy was released. The Sacramento County Sheriff's Department investigated her fitness to continue as a sworn officer and deemed her fit to carry a gun and badge! After four suicide attempts! Give me a break!

This all happened months ago. I was going to let it go and move on. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to realize how this type of ruling by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department shows how hypocritical it is--how Sheriff Scott Jones doesn't really care about the safety of Sacramento County residents.

To start with, I would hope that if a person who had attempted suicide four times applied to be a sheriff's deputy, the person would not pass the background check or the psych evaluation and the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department would not put the person through its academy. If that is the case, why would the department keep such an officer? And if the Department would hire someone with that history, that is scary in itself.

It is also hypocritical of an agency like the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department--and of Sheriff Scott Jones himself--to let dangerous officers like this woman out on the street but not allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves (i.e., the near total ban on CCW permits in Sacramento County). Not only do we have to protect ourselves from criminals, but now we may apparently have to protect ourselves from unstable deputies.

Plus, I find it strange that people in California are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms in several situations, two of which may apply here. But, miraculously, a sheriff's deputy apparently gets a pass on the law. The two categories of people who are prohibited from owning guns and that may apply to someone who attempted suicide are:

Any person who is found by a court to be a danger to himself, herself, or others because of a mental illness; or
Any person who is taken into custody as a danger to self or others under WIC Section 5150, assessed under WIC Section 5151, and admitted to a mental health facility under WIC Sections 5151, 5152, or certified under WIC Sections 5250, 5260, and 5270.15

As is standard operating procedure, she was undoubtedly placed under a 5150 hold for being a danger to herself (if not others) simply for attempting suicide. That alone makes her fall under the purview of the second bullet point. It is true that she may not have been adjudged by a court to be a danger to herself, so the first bullet may not apply. Nonetheless, one of the two is enough to prohibit a person from owning or possessing a gun--both of which sworn Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs do.

Maybe I'm just blowing all this out of proportion. But I think we need to be able to trust our deputy sheriffs and feel that they protect us from harm--especially when we are denied the ability to protect ourselves. I just don't feel that way anymore. If Sheriff Jones allowed this one (highly likely to be) unfit officer to continue working, how many more are on the force?

Let me know your thoughts. Does anyone else think the decision by Sheriff Scott Jones to allow a four-time suicide "attempter" to carry a gun and badge is a bad one? Does anyone else believe the Sheriff is putting the public at risk?

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Get the US Out of the UN!

2011-03-02T08:00:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 2 March 2011 @ 0800 PST - I have never understood "international law." Why would any sovereign entity want to give up its own authority to let someone else dictate what it must do? Specifically, why in the world did we ever join the UN? And, more importantly, why in the world are still part of it?

The United Nations is one of the most dangerous groups to the sovereignty of the United States of America (and any other country, for that matter). Every agreement we enter into with that corrupt group is one more power the US gives up. Among its other sinister plans, the UN wants to:

allow (and perhaps force) abortions worldwide in the name of population control (to protect our fragile earthly resources);
disarm all civilians (perhaps under the guise of a "massive crisis"--sounds like Katrina;
run international criminal courts;
institute global taxes;
aid terrorism by spouting anti-American rhetoric (and praise terrorist countries like Libya--see below);
create an "Earth Charter" that would treat the earth almost as a deity; and
create a global military force (to ensure compliance with UN mandates on all of the above).

And, even though they are enough reason, it isn't just because of the UN's absurd policies and beliefs that I advocate getting out of the UN. Another reason I cannot stand the United Nations is it is a huge, bloated, money-grubbing, political, bureaucratic entity that couldn't find its rear end with one hand in the dark. Well, in that regard, it isn't any different than any other government agency--and that is exactly why we should not want it dictating policy to us.

Take, for instance, this example of the ridiculous and corrupt nature of the United Nations: the UN is planning to praise Libya's "human rights record." At the same time, though, the schizophrenic UN wants to suspend Libya's membership because of its recent attacks on civilians.

Hmmmm. Praise for great humanity on the one hand while the other hand wants to suspend Libya's membership for atrocities against its own people. Brilliant.

The farther government gets from home, the more clueless it becomes and the more its regulations run counter to common sense. It happened to the colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries when Britain regulated them from afar. The result of that distant rule was the formation of the United States and a limited federal government. If Britain was bad, one world government would be worse.

Why are we swinging so far back to the left? Why are we forgetting that giving power to a distant government is a recipe for disaster? Our own federal government is out of control--let's focus on fixing it before we fix the world. Get us OUT of the UN!

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Facebook Changes Privacy Policy--Again

2011-03-01T16:21:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 1 March 2011 @ 1621 PST - Facebook has once again changed is privacy policy to allow third parties access to users' personal data (including phone numbers and addresses). A full review of the policy change and the outrage it has stirred is available at the Daily Mail.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Smooth Talking Obama Spins the Facts--Again

2011-03-01T07:45:00.001-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Updated 18 March 2011 @ 2126 - Today, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report saying Obama understated his budget deficit by $2.3 trillion. Not only does Obama "spin" the facts, he completely lies about them (or ignores reality--same thing in my book). Tell the truth, Obama! The people are smarter than you think!

Folsom, CA - 1 March 2011 @ 0745 PST - In his National Governors Association (NGA) speech yesterday, Obama proved once again that we cannot trust what he says. During his speech he spun so many facts that my head was spinning. It's not so much that Obama lies; rather he fails to tell the whole truth.

For instance, early in his speech, Obama says, "the budget cuts I’ve proposed will bring annual domestic spending to its lowest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower." That's all well and good, but he fails to mention that he is still running at a deficit through 2021.

He continues to tout his budget proposal and how wonderful his budget freezes are for saving $400 billion. What he does not mention is that a freeze really doesn't reduce anything--it just doesn't add to it. It is the typical Washington mentality that says every budget item must automatically increase each year and, therefore, stopping that increase is actually a savings. It's like your wife coming home and telling you she saved you hundreds of dollars because all the clothes she bought were on sale. Never mind that it is still a net loss to your budget!

Obama also mentioned Orion Energy Systems, a manufacturer of energy-efficient light fixtures in Wisconsin. Obama claims Orion benefited from federal subsidies for scientific research and is doing a great thing by employing people in a manufacturing plant that used to be closed.. Unfortunately, Obama fails to point out that this "green" company has operated at a loss for most of its 18 years of existence. Of course, Obama cannot point that out without blowing a hole in his push for green energy and cap-and-trade, though. He also fails to address how a company with a negative cash flow will be able to maintain its payroll for very long, but, for a company like Orion that is in bed with GE who, in turn, is in bed with Obama, I'm sure Obama can work something out.

Naturally, Obama goes on to talk about his baby, Obamacare. In his speech he claims that Obamacare "has done more to rein in rising costs, make sure everyone can buy insurance, and attack the federal deficit than we’ve seen in years." He goes on to claim that the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) own statistics back up his claim. Obama must be doing some fuzzy math like he did when he claimed his budget proposal eliminated deficit spending only later to back pedal when reporters called him on his outright lie. (He spun that lie by saying his budget eliminated deficit spending if we eliminated interest payments from the equation.) Several sites, including Reason magazine, have studied the CBO data and found that Obamacare will do nothing significant to reduce healthcare costs. In fact, the real cost-containment benefits of Obamacare don't even kick in until 2036! And, even then, the "benefit" is containing costs, not significantly reducing them.

Obama has to realize that what the American people want--and deserve--is a leader who will give them the truth. We don't want to be treated like sheep who cannot fend for ourselves. We don't want the truth sugar-coated. We are tired of being dizzy. We just want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Who Is in Control in Wisconsin?

2011-02-28T07:50:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 28 February 2011 @ 0750 PST - What is going on in Wisconsin? Pro-union protesters have been occupying the state capitol for the past couple weeks. When the capitol police asked the protesters to leave so the building could be cleaned, nobody moved. And what did the Capitol police do? Nothing. Apparently the capitol police are too wimpy to forcibly eject these protesters so they just let them stay--24/7.

When asked why they weren't doing anything to evict the protestors, the police said the sit-in demonstrators have acted lawfully so they won't arrest them. Yeah, OK. Those demonstrators are "acting lawfully." Kinda like "illegal aliens" (or should I say "undocumented workers") are not breaking any laws so they should not be deported. What about the protestors' failure to obey the lawful orders of peace officers? What about trespassing on government property after business hours?

At least the capitol police are not letting anyone who leaves come back in. I guess that means this protest should be over in a day or so when everyone gets hungry and goes to McDonald's for lunch. Oh, wait! I forgot to mention that the capitol police are letting the union bosses come in and deliver food to the protestors! Who's running the show in Madison? From here, it sure looks like the unions are in charge.

Adding to the chaos at the Wisconsin capitol, on Friday the Wisconsin State assembly convened to debate and vote on the Wisconsin budget repair bill that has caused so much controversy over the past several weeks. The debate was cut short and a vote was taken sooner than anticipated. The Democrats, as expected, lost the vote.

Did the liberals in the Assembly act like adults? Of course not! That was a trick question! It's physically impossible for liberals who don't get their way to act like adults! Instead of sitting calmly and respectably in their seats following the vote, the liberals stood up and started chanting "Cowards" and "Shame" at the Republicans. What a class act those liberals are! Oh, did I forget to tell you those classy liberals showed up to the vote wearing hideous orange pro-union shirts, too? Yep. Apparently suits are just too highfalutin for them.

Where's the capitol police? Oh, that's right, they're too busy "handling" the mob of hippies protesting in the rotunda. Where's the sergeant at arms?

So, I'll ask again: what is going on in Wisconsin? Who is running the ship at the capitol? From what I've seen, it sure seems to be the unions . . .

Do you believe the capitol police are doing the correct thing? Do you believe the liberals in the Wisconsin Assembly acted like professionals? Like true statesmen (and women)? Do you think I'm out of line in my harsh critique of their performance on Friday? If so, let me know--and be sure to explain why.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Jury Nullification and Why It Is as Necessary Today as Ever Before

2011-02-25T11:00:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Updated 25 February 2011 @ 1117 PST - There's just too much good stuff out there about jury nullification and the attempts of the government to stop informing juries of their rights. (I just found this clip of Judge Napolitano on Fox News just losing it over a court order in Florida to prevent FIJA from handing out pamphlets outside the courthouse there.) I could have researched more instances of jury nullification, given more examples, explained it more, but I'll leave that to you to Google it. There's plenty out there. If this subject doesn't raise your ire, I don't think you will ever see the risk our government is to our freedoms.

Folsom, CA - 25 February 2011 @ 1100 PST - Jury nullification is the concept that juries are empowered to ignore the law and come to a verdict based on their own conscience if they do not believe the law is just. Prosecutors, legislators, and the government as a whole do not like jury nullification because it limits their powers. In fact, these entities often do everything they can not only to sweep jury nullification under the rug but to actively stop juries from nullifying laws.

Jury nullification predates the Magna Carta, meaning it has existed since at least the 12th-century. In America, jury nullification prevented William Penn from being convicted for exercising his religious rights. Jury nullification help ensure the success of the underground railroad by preventing the conviction of several people who helped runaway slaves escape. Jury nullification has also played a part in some of my trials, preventing my client from getting convicted in cases where the police may have acted out of line even though technically my client was guilty.

If juries were unable to ignore the law as the judge gives it to them and were instead forced to follow the law the judge tells them to follow, juries would be nothing but a sham. Juries would be a mere façade making it appear that the government was giving its subjects a fair trial. Despite the fact that judges tell juries they must follow the law as the judge instructs them, juries have always been able to vote their conscience. In fact, the Supreme Court has even ruled that a jury's verdict cannot be overturned simply because the jury nullified a law--courts cannot second-guess the reason a jury acquitted defendant. That fact gives juries a huge amount of power that allows them to act as the final check and balance against an oppressive government.

Because the prosecution, the government, and judges are all against jury nullification, educating jurors about their rights and powers falls to the people. To that end, there are some groups whose purpose it is to inform juries of these powers. One of the best groups who does this is the Fully Informed Jury Association, or FIJA. FIJA creates pamphlets and flyers to hand out to passersby around courthouses and other civic areas. Despite laws against jury tampering, this type of leafleting should be covered by the First Amendment. Unless a particular person is specifically targeting jurors, and even more particularly, is targeting jurors from a particular case, disseminating information on jury nullification should not break any laws.

Unfortunately for one gentleman in New York, the illustrious federal prosecutors disagree. Julian P. Heicklen was arrested and charged with the federal crime of jury tampering for leafleting his has done since 2009. He has never targeted jurors from any particular case and hands the information out to anyone who takes it--not just to people identifying themselves as part of a jury. The fact that Mr. Heicklen has been leafleting for two years prior to getting arrested indicates that this is a political arrest. In other words, if what he had been doing was strictly illegal he would've been arrested two years ago. But, as Mr. Heicklen says, the fact that he is only being arrested now means his leafleting has had an impact by informing juries of their jury nullification powers. That impact has caused federal prosecutors to lose cases they think they should have won. Instead of realizing they lost the cases because the people do not agree with the draconian laws, the prosecutors look for the cause of the problem--Mr. Heicklen educating the public about the role of juries.

Sadly, the federal prosecutors who brought charges against Mr. Heicklen undoubtedly believe they're doing the right thing. They undoubtedly believe that juries must follow the law. It is this ridiculous belief in, and this blind faith allegiance to, the law as they were taught in law school that makes jury nullification as necessary today as ever before. With this type of overreaching happening more and more often at all levels of government, jury nullification may be even more important today. Juries must be educated so they know they have the power to nullify laws and so they exercise that power.

Somebody in New York needs to take up where Mr. Heicklen left off. Someone needs to stand outside of the federal court where Mr. Heicklen is being tried and inform jurors and other passersby of the jury nullification powers juries have. If jurors forget this power, there will be nothing standing in the way of the government putting anyone it wants in jail for any law, no matter how oppressive. If Mr. Heicklen is convicted, speech will be chilled and jurors, at least in NY, may never again receive the education they need to fight tyrannical government power.

Jury nullification really is a last-ditch effort for the people to protect themselves from overreaching government. How sweet would it be for Mr. Heicklen to be acquitted, especially if the acquittal was due to jury nullification?

Do you disagree? Do you believe jurors must follow the law as the judge gives it to them, no matter how oppressive or asinine the law may be? Feel free to comment below.

For more information please check out the Fully Informed Jury Association website.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Whew! The Last (Discovery) Space Shuttle Mission. Praise the Lord!

2011-02-24T13:58:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Updated 9 March 2011 @ 0905 PST - Discovery has landed safely in Florida. I'm happy all the astronauts are safe. Now let's get the last two shuttle missions (Endeavor and Atlantis) done so we can move on to either no NASA or one that actually gets us somewhere in space.

Folsom, CA - 24 February 2011 @ 1358 PST - As the space shuttle Discovery gets ready to launch into space for the last time, I can't help but feel relieved. Relieved because maybe the space program will stop being such a drain on our economy.

Besides the fact that funding NASA is unconstitutional, what have all the billions upon billions of dollars we have thrown into the space program gotten us? Nothing worth the price tag, that's for certain.

Let's think about it. Since late '60s when we finally made it to the moon, nothing has really changed in our space travel capabilities. We still can't get beyond the moon with any degree of speed. Because of the (lack of) speed issue, we certainly can't send a manned mission significantly past the moon. All we can do is send unmanned telescopes, satellites, and photography equipment out into the depths of space. Wow. That's awesome. Not really.

In 40+ years since we first made the moon we haven't been able to get past the moon on a manned flight. What a complete waste of money. Rather than building space ships that are not technologically any better than the previous space ship, we should be spending that money on research for better propulsion methods. We need to create warp engines or at least engines that get a space ship to approach the speed of light. Until we do that, our space program is just a drain on our economy. And an unconstitutional drain, at that.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Social Security--The Federal Government's Role

2011-02-24T08:15:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 24 February 2011 @ 0815 PST - Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law in August 1935, during his first term in office. The Social Security Act was part of FDR's "New Deal." As it existed when it was first signed, Social Security had a relatively small tax burden and only a very limited population would receive benefits. As with everything the government touches, however, Social Security rapidly grew in size and tax burden. It soon stopped being just a retirement account and instead grew to provide disability benefits and death benefits.

Constitutional questions existed even when the Social Security Act was signed into law. Courts struck down several provisions of FDR's New Deal and FDR worried that Social Security may be next. So in 1937, FDR introduced the Judiciary Reorganization bill. This bill would have allowed FDR to appoint judges to federal benches that had judges over the age of 70 who did not retire. The result of this bill would have been FDR's appointment of six justices to the Supreme Court and 44 judges to the lower federal courts. With all those FDR appointees, liberal policies would undoubtedly have been upheld more often than not.

Perhaps out of fear that FDR would get his reorganization bill passed, federal courts began sustaining New Deal programs. Unfortunately, one of the New Deal programs that "passed" constitutional muster was Social Security. In one landmark case, the court used the financial crisis of the Great Depression to claim that the federal government had to do something to help with the economic situation. The court based its decision on the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

Contrary to what that Supreme Court held, the general welfare clause does not allow the federal government to provide for the general welfare of an individual. The general welfare clause pertains to the general welfare of the "United States." In other words, the general welfare clause allows the federal government to pass laws that keep the state of the union healthy and intact. It does not give the federal government the ability to pass laws to provide for the comfort, safety, financial well-being, and so on of any individual. But the Social Security Act did just that--provided for the financial security of individuals.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--the Supreme Court in the past century or two has been way too political. Its decisions have been based on the political will of its members and the public. With decisions based largely on ideology and not on the original intent of the Constitution (or even a strict reading of the Constitution) all past decisions become highly suspect. When past decisions have not been based on sound constitutional principle, the role of stare decisis has limited or no applicability.

What all this means, in a nutshell, is that Social Security is unconstitutional. The federal government should have no role in retirement benefits or Social Security. That does not mean that individuals cannot rely on the government for their retirement; it simply means they cannot rely on the federal government. State governments are free to enact their own Social Security if their own Constitution and their own people so desire. In fact, the original Social Security Act allowed individuals to opt out if their own state had a similar retirement program into which the person paid.

With that said, there is no reason any level of government should be involved in an indvidual's retirement. Back in the 1930s, it may have made some sense. In the '30s, investing in the stock market would have been much more difficult for the average person. Today, it is quite easy to invest money through any bank, through automatic paycheck contributions to an IRA or 401(k), a myriad of on-line trading sites, buying mutual funds, hiring a broker, etc. There is no reason to believe any government group could invest your money better than you can. And, unlike the government, your broker will not be pilfering your money to pay his bills (Bernie Madoff aside).

Speaking of Madoff, if you think about it, Social Security is a giant pyramid scheme. In a pyramid scheme, the people who get in early make the money off the people who come in later and give their money to those higher up the pyramid. Eventually, the mass of people at the bottom of the pyramid have no one else to give them money, so they lose their "investment." This is exactly what's happening with Social Security--Congress takes money out of Social Security to pay its bills relying on the next generation of wage-earners to pay the current retiree pool.

So how do we fix this system? Simply repealing Social Security will not be enough. Every law has consequences and causes a ripple effect that has unintended effects on other areas of society. Repealing Social Security would be a first step in the right direction, though. Taxes for Social Security would have to be repealed as well. Other federal programs would have to be cut, too. Once all the unconstitutional agencies, programs, and services were cut (and the taxes gathered to pay for them were returned to wage-earners), the people would find that they had more than enough money to invest in their own retirement. They may also find their life less stressful and more free with the federal government playing the limited role it was designed to play...
____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Federal Budget Cuts Do Not Necessarily Mean Loss of Services

2011-02-23T08:00:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 23 February 2011 @ 0800 PST - Every time I, or anybody else, suggests cutting the budget of--or completely abolishing--a federal program, people get indignant and complain that the program is necessary. The surprising thing is it is not just Democrats who complain about the loss of services; Republicans and other fiscal conservatives also complain.

What these people forget is that the United States is a federation of sovereign states. Programs that the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to offer (or chooses not to offer), can be provided by the states--if allowed by their own constitutions.

The fact that states can offer programs that the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to offer is very important. It is key to our federal system of government. The federal government was never meant to be a strong central government. Rather it was intended to be just strong enough to keep the states united and to provide for the common defense, mint currency, and so on. All other programs, services, and functions were left to the sovereign states.

By putting specific limitations on the power of the federal government but leaving all other powers to the states or the people, the founders put an implicit check and balance system on the states--each state would limit the power of the states around it. In other words, the founders knew that if any state taxed too heavily or became oppressive to liberty, the residents of that state would move to a state that still cherished freedom and taxed appropriately.

Likewise, if one state did not offer a program but a neighboring state did, people would be free to move to the state with the programs that they wanted. Conversely, if people were in a state that offered a program they didn't like, they would be free to move to a state that did not offer the program. If the founders had authorized the federal government to implement all these programs and services, people would not have the freedom to move to a location where they could be free from that program or service. That freedom to choose the state you live in and the laws you are subject to is the beauty of the federal system of government.

Unfortunately the federal system of government has largely been scratched in favor of a "national" government. This "national" government does not follow the Constitution, and the Supreme Court--which was supposed to be a check on the other two branches of government--has failed to hold the government to the Constitution. All a cut to a federal program, agency, or service means, is that the federal government is not footing the bill. Any state who's residents so desire can enact legislation to provide that program, service, or agency within the state.

By holding the federal government to the Constitution and abolishing unconstitutional federal programs and agencies, this country could once again get back to its federal roots. We could get back to a time when states actually had power. A time when state residents controlled how their money was spent. A time when the federal government stayed out of people's paychecks and wallets.

So instead of decrying the loss of federal programs, people should cherish it. By cutting funding to the federal government and eliminating unconstitutional spending, the people would once again have the power. Control over tax revenue and how to spend it would once again be kept local. Why would anyone complain about that?

What are your thoughts? Feel free to leave a comment so we can continue the debate.
____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

So Much for Not Negotiating with Terrorists

2011-02-22T10:25:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Sacramento, CA - 22 February 2011 @ 1025 PST - As you have probably heard, Somali pirates took four Americans hostage on Friday. The Americans were on an around-the-world boating trip aboard their yacht Quest when the pirates boarded them off the coast of Oman. Three U.S. Navy vessels followed the boat over the weekend and--get this--attempted to negotiate with the pirates for the release of the captive Americans!

What happened to the long standing policy of the United States not to negotiate with terrorists? The Somali pirates are definitely terrorists. Rather than terrorizing people on shore, they terrorize the seas. Why would the United States negotiate with these pirates?

Obama has proven himself inept at handling every crisis that comes his way. He has bungled the budget. He screwed up U.S. health care. He was late getting into the game with the Somalis pirates when they took an American shipping vessel hostage. He hesitated when it came time to deploy special forces against the Somalis then (at least the hostages lived). Obama was late this time, too, in deploying special forces against the pirates. Why in the world take such a lacadaisical approach to these terrorists? Why not send in the troops at the first sign of trouble from these thugs?

In this case, Obama's late authorization of the use of force against the pirates resulted in the death of all four Americans at the hands of the pirates. I hope America wakes up before 2012 and realizes that Obama cannot run this country. Americans need to figure out that Obama is all fluff and no substance. He is all rhetoric with nothing to back up his lofty speeches. I warned that the pirates would take Obama to task. They have and Obama has failed--again. Wake up, America!

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Why Unions and Democrats Go Hand-in-Hand

2011-02-22T08:00:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Sacramento, CA - 22 February 2011 @ 0800 PST - Back in the late 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution, unions served a purpose. As I explained on Friday, unions are now irrelevant.

Given the lack of purpose unions now serve, why are unions and Democrats fighting so hard to keep unions around? That's a great question--one that requires looking into the history of unions in the United States.

From the start of the Industrial Revolution through the early 1950s, unions only represented workers in private industry. In fact, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 expressly excluded federal, state, and local employees from union representation.

Even ultra-liberal Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that unions and collective bargaining have no place in the government workforce because government is not oppressive toward workers like private industry could be. To top it off, up until the 1950s, the American people still had a sense of patriotism. The American people still believed that public service was a noble cause. The people were willing to work for smaller wages and reasonable benefits because of the job security and sense of pride they got for working for the government.

Unfortunately, in the mid-1950s, money and political corruption beat out American patriotism. In 1957, New York City Mayor Robert Wagner was facing a tough reelection. The unions came to Mayor Wagner and told him that they would donate money to his campaign and help him get reelected. In exchange for their help, once Wagner got reelected he had to promise to allow New York City employees to unionize. Mr. Wagner took the unions up on their offer. He was reelected and stood by his word, allowing government employees to unionize for the first time in United States history.

Emboldened by their success with Mayor Wagner, the unions approached President John F. Kennedy with a similar offer. In return for the unions' help, Kennedy allowed federal employees the right to collective bargain.

Membership in public unions has skyrocketed ever since. In 1973, 80% of union members were private industry employees. Conversely just under 20% was comprised of public employees. In 2009, for the first time ever, the number of public employees in unions (51%) surpassed the number of private employees in unions (49%).

With each new group of government employees unionized, the unions gained significant sums of money from union dues. With that money, the union leadership padded its pockets and used the remaining money to influence other elections. In other words, the unions were able to help elect politicians sympathetic to the Union cause (i.e., Democrats).

According to Tom Sullivan, the chief financial officer for the AFL-CIO told him that unions get power from their checkbook and their ability to elect candidates. History and current events seem to corroborate that claim. Most politicians do not turn down money, so when unions approach Democrats with an offer to help them get elected, the Democrats take the unions up on the offer. Once elected, those Democrats owe the unions for the help they provided during the election. To "pay back" the unions, the Democrats push through pro-union legislation. With each election cycle, the linkage and interaction between unions and Democrats becomes tighter.

Today, in 2011, unions and Democrats fear that the fiscal irresponsibility that unions and Democrats have foisted upon the people are going to cause unions to lose members. If unions lose members, whether due to disbanding of unions or layoffs or laws passed by conservatives to limit collective bargaining, unions lose money. If unions lose money, they will not be able to financially support as many Democrats as they did before--they lose political clout and power. Without that financial backing, Democrats worry that they may lose key elections. If Democrats lose the elections, they will lose political power.

It is that loss of power alone--nothing so lofty as worker rights--that drives Democrats to support unions. And it is that ability to elect leaders beholden to the unions and the union dues lining union leadership pockets that drive union support of Democrats. The two groups are fighting for the other's survival because they fear that if one goes, the other won't be far behind.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Unions are Largely Irrelevant Now-Let's Get Rid of Them

2011-02-18T12:35:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Sacramento, CA - 18 February 2011 @ 1235 PST - Unions have ruined this country economically. In an ideal America, unions would no longer exist.

Unions have artificially driven up the cost of labor in the United States to the detriment of the economy. The high wages and costly "perks" the unions have obtained for their workers cause employers to hire less American workers, to close down businesses when labor is too costly, or to outsource work to foreign countries--often shutting down facilities in the US causing layoffs. The high labor cost also results in higher prices for goods produced in the US, making our products less competitive in the domestic and international markets. All of these effects result in a negative hit to state and federal economies.

Very much like communism, unions reward seniority rather than quality work. A worker could be entirely inept yet make more money than a new hire with more training and better job performance. More skilled workers would even be laid off before the inept employee if they had less seniority.

Unfortunately, failing to reward workers for good job performance not only breeds mediocre work ethics and work products, it also fosters a sense of entitlement. By telling a person who does poor work that he should make more than someone who does better work simply because he has more seniority bleeds over into other areas of life. After all, if the person with seniority but bad work ethic gets great pay, why shouldn't other people (maybe retired people with more "seniority" than the rest of the country) get free health care? In short, unions breed the entitlement mentality that has further gotten this country into economic hardship.

So why do we have unions? Unions sprung up during the industrial revolution as a way to combat the long hours, horrible work conditions, child labor, and dismal pay employers demanded of workers. Given the surplus of workers back then, if a worker complained about the work conditions, pay, or hours, the employer would simply fire the worker and hire someone else. Unions made sense back then.

What changed to make unions irrelevant today? The federal and state governments stepped in (perhaps unconstitutionally, but they did nonetheless) and passed laws to combat the issues seen in the industrial revolution. Today, there is a federal minimum wage and many states have more generous minimum wage laws. There are state and federal laws about work hours and child labor. There are state and federal laws about safety and work conditions (OSHA). In short, the issues unions used to address have now been handled by our nanny governments.

If unions are irrelevant today, why do they continue fighting to exist? Unions take a chunk of workers' checks to pay for their union employees (thugs). Top union officials make exorbitant sums of money off the backs of union members. In most cases, a worker must join a union if the workers at an employer are unionized. The individual worker has no option, thereby ensuring more money in the unions' pockets. In exchange for the money taken from worker paychecks, union thugs force the hands of management using strong-arm tactics--walk-outs, sick-outs, strikes, and so on. A business can only exist without laborers for so long and then the management caves to the extortion. The workers get more money or more benefits and they think the union is doing something great for them. Neither they nor the union cares that they are harming America. Both the union and workers get fatter paychecks; that's all either one cares about. Unions are big business.

To make matters worse, unions don't just exist in private industry where the costs of higher compensation packages is passed only to those individuals who choose to do business with that company. No, today, unions exist in government jobs, too. Government employees have their salary and benefits paid for by taxpayers. When their salary or compensation package increases, so does the burden on each taxpayer. If there was ever an employer less likely take advantage of employees in the way companies did in the industrial revolution, I can't think of one, making government union workers even more useless than most other unions.

Unions need to go. They are 100% useless in most businesses, getting higher wages and better compensation packages for their members than the rest of the market place can support. In most cases, beyond being useless, the unions actually hurt the local, state, and federal economies by artificially driving the cost of labor too high. And, unfortunately,the public pays for those artificially high wages--in private unions through higher product and service fees; in public unions, through higher taxes. By making people think they are entitled to things they don't earn, unions also wither the social fabric of America and help foster the nanny state.

Given the burden to taxpayers, it's no surprise that unions have become the target of budget balancers across the country. Two of the most vocal and public union battles are being waged by the governors of Wisconsin and New Jersey. The unions involved in these budget battles are fighting like crazy to prevent their teachers from losing pay and having to contribute to their health care costs (never mind the amount requested is still less than the federal average). The governors don't seem to be trying to dismantle the unions, just change the compensation package to ease the burden on taxpayers and balance the budget. If unions can't see the problem they are causing this country and see fit to compromise, they need to do what's best for America--simply disappear.

What do you think? Am I being too hard on unions?

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

The Immigration Debate--Get Our House in Order First!

2011-02-17T11:45:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Sacramento, CA - 17 February 2011 @ 1145 PST - Immigration is a hot topic these days. Should we allow illegal immigrants amnesty to become citizens? Should we deport them? Should we mandate English as the official language? Should we curtail or stop immigration for a while? These questions are merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to immigration.

For a couple of decades, my view has been that we should stop all immigration (and revoke work visas). I can just hear your dismay: "Whoa! Stop immigration? Are you out of your mind, Dave, you immigrant hater!" No, I'm not out of my mind and I do not hate immigrants who come here and merge into American life.

But, to make assimilation work, English must be the official language of the United States and the federal government must immediately cease printing/publishing anything in any language other than English.

Stopping immigration and only using English would do several things, all of them desperately needed in this country, especially in the middle of this recession with its correspondingly high unemployment and underemployment rates.

First, the immigrants currently here would actually have to learn English and assimilate to the American way of life. For decades, I've been saying America was never intended to be a multi-cultural, heterogeneous sandbox, but rather a homogeneous melting pot of immigrants who had assimilated to the American way of life. Other commentators have recently come out against the multi-culturalism of the past half century decrying the weakening effect it has had in countries all over the world--most notably and surprisingly in the liberal bastions of Europe. (See the Financial Times defending Germany, France, and UK heads of state who have denounced multiculturalism, the Wall Street Journal explaining how multiculturalism led to the Ft. Hood massacre, and Michelle Malkin's explanation of why multiculturalism doesn't work.)

Back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the founding fathers espoused the same views and warnings about multiculturalism that America and Europe and are finally getting back to recognizing. An article by John Fonte, a senior fellow and director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute, describes the attitudes of the founders toward immigration. George Washington wrote to John Adams saying that immigrants must assimilate into American life so that "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people." (Emphasis mine.)

Thomas Jefferson said:

Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours...is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural rights and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of government they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and tender it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. (Notes on Virginia.)

Jefferson correctly states that everyone who comes to America brings with them political views shaped by their life experiences, often under the rule of a monarchy or despotic regime. Those political views will end up shaping American government and will be dangerous to liberty. We have seen this in America in the past hundred and fifty years, but most notably since the mid-1900s. What used to be taken for granted--assimilating to the American way of life--is now frowned upon. Little Italies, Little Tokyos, Chinatowns, Little Havannas, etc. have cropped up in cities across this country. Rather than assimilate, immigrants have created miniature enclaves for them to continue living as if they never left their original country. The lack of assimilation is what led to "African-Americans," "Chinese-Americans," "Mexican-Americans," and so on. There can be no hyphen with the word "American." There should be no marches, protests, parades, or other demonstrations or displays of foreign flags in America, either.

As late as 1931, this country still claimed "one people" as its goal:

In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people. (Federal Textbook on Citizenship Training, 1931.)

Second, by not allowing people to come here on work visas, our youth would learn skills to fill the gaps in our workforce. Computers used to be a major area of employment for Americans. In fact, Americans created personal computers and many of the other technological innovations that we use today. Unfortunately, the influx of technical workers from foreign countries has prevented many of our youth from getting involved in the technology field. Outsourcing (or hiring immigrant workers) has caused the American skill-set in technology to decrease. Other fields suffer from a similar shift from American to foreign workers. By not issuing visas for workers, America would again build up a diverse and skilled workforce in all work areas.

Third, by revoking visas and sending foreign workers home, many job openings would open up in America. Rather than giving handouts through entitlement programs like welfare and unemployment, every American who is unemployed could have a job. It may not be their dream job, but it would get them working again and get them off the public teat. Once the number of Americans on these entitlement programs is significantly reduced, it becomes politically possible to terminate those programs because almost no one is directly affected. Plus, if those programs are not there, it becomes a much greater incentive to work hard and not lose your job.

Fourth, hiring Americans with no allegiance to foreign soil would also help keep US dollars within America rather than having our money sent out to relatives in foreign countries. Keeping dollars here would force other countries to get their economies in order. Other countries would know they could not count on their people coming to America, getting a job, and sending a large portion of their check "home" to prop up the foreign economy. It would force other countries to make the necessary reforms to help their own people.

Before you label me an isolationist, right-wing hater, consider that he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. It's time we learned from the founders and their courageous successors who actually pushed for immigrant assimilation. Only after we have one people should we reopen America to immigration. Only after we have very little unemployment and no public hand outs should we reopen immigration. Only after we have our house in order should we invite others to come over. Only then should we reopen our borders to immigration.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Inept Leadership

2011-02-16T08:30:00.000-08:00

by Dave C. Jones

Sacramento, CA - 16 February 2011 @ 0830 PST - This country is suffering from inept leadership at the federal and state levels. The ineptness at the federal level results in politicians stealing too much federal power. The ineptness at the state level results in state governments ceding too much power to the feds. The end result is a top-heavy power structure rather than a bottom-heavy one.

This "pyramid standing on its tip" power inversion did not spring up in the last two years. It did not arise in the last decade. Instead, it has taken decades (maybe even a couple hundred years) to get the balance of powers so out of whack that our country looks nothing like it did when the Constitution was conceived and ratified.

Over the course this transformative period, the mindset of the people has changed--or been changed--by those in power. When the Constitution was ratified, people knew that they held the power. They gave up a little power to the states to provide services close to home. They gave up little power to the feds to hold the states together in a loose federal binding for the "general welfare of the United States." The people knew that the federal government's power was extremely limited and narrowly defined. The people knew that they held all power they did not explicitly give to the states or the feds. The states, or even local governments, were the ones that helped their people when they themselves could not.

Through a slow, gradual process (tell the lie enough it becomes the truth), the people began to believe the federal government had more power than the Constitution gave it. Every time the Supreme Court ruled that the feds had a particular power, the younger generation grew up believing that to be true. That power was rarely questioned by the youth because they had grown up believing it to be true. Those youth became the teachers of the next generation, growing and perpetuating the expansion of federal power.

Soon, the people stopped trying to solve their own problems at home by working with their church, civic groups, local government, or even the state government. Instead, as soon as any problem arose, people began demanding the federal government pass a law or send money to their state. Once the feds capitulated, the snowball kept rolling, getting bigger and bigger as it went. The people came to expect the feds would help them out. The states started believing it was the federal government's responsibility and obligation to help them out. What may have been a state problem now received a federal solution, impacting states and people who may not have wanted that "help."

Although difficult to exactly identify the tipping point, it was likely the Great Depression. People were starving, out of work, could not provide for themselves, and they looked to the feds to help them out. The resulting social programs were responsible for putting us on a collision course with the welfare state as it exists today. Programs such as social security and medicare sprang up in the decades after the Great Depression and have been sucking the life blood out of this country ever since.

The answer to this inverted power structure is simple in theory and requires two steps: 1) states need to refuse to follow any unconstitutional usurpation of state power by the federal government and 2) the people then have to elect federal representatives who will repeal all unconstitutional federal laws (i.e., most of the current federal laws). (A better way would be for the Supreme Court to rule the offending laws unconstitutional, but the political court will never do that and has, in fact, been contributing to this problem by ruling unconstitutional laws constitutional for well over a century.)

By exercising their sovereign, autonomous powers, states could easily force the feds to cede most, if not all, of the unconstitutional power it has taken. States would have more power than the feds, as is was originally intended. The loss of entitlement programs would certainly hurt the people who have been relying on federal handouts (welfare, medicare, social security, federal jobs). But, that is where the states would exercise their newly restored power and assist as much as possible--as much as the people of that state want it to and as much as the state constitution authorizes.

To complete the righting of the power pyramid, the people would need to step up and take care of each other, as they did in the beginning, before nanny states and federal governments became the norm. If the people would take back their power and start caring for themselves and each other, this country would once again be the strong, bottom-up power it once was.

____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.