A Conservative View of US Political History

[from Bill Lifka] I’m re-reading the book: A Patriot’s History of the United States by Schweikart and Allen. The authors are professors of history at the University of Dayton and the University of Washington. Unusually for their field, the professors are Conservative in their political view.

According to Schweikart, the reason for their book was that Liberals have written the overwhelming majority of text books on American history. Not only do these tales tell the American story with a strong leftward slant but major events and characters are absent from the pages. Schweikart’s and Allen’s version received praise for accuracy and fairness from objective experts.

The truth is that America’s history of its famous and infamous characters is a mix of altruism and selfishness, honesty and corruption, courage and cowardice, wisdom and stupidity, prudence and rashness, unity and divisiveness. Natural cynicism makes me think the specific gravity leans to selfishness, corruption, cowardice, stupidity, rashness and divisiveness.

WHY HAS AMERICA SURVIVED SO FAR? HOW MUCH LONGER?

It raises questions why America has survived so far and how much longer a nation so confounded can survive. Survival to this point and beyond has nothing to do with American people standing head and shoulders above their counterparts in other countries. Americans are not exceptional as a group of individuals.

In my opinion, the reasons for success are a design of government structure that has withstood efforts of generations of Americans to destroy it and that the nation was placed under protection of an Almighty God from the very beginning, first by early European settlers and again by the Founders as they laid out the design of a governmental plan. Who knows how much further we can stretch the wisdom of the Founders and the patience of God?

HISTORY OF THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (AND MARTIN VAN BUREN)

1821 - A good place to begin my argument is in the year 1821 which was when the modern Democratic Party was formed. (It wasn’t the party of Jefferson, as widely proclaimed. Jefferson and Madison had very different principles and goals but they, especially Madison, did start the party system.)

I summarize the story from the history book as follows. Martin Van Buren was the son of a tavern owner in Kinderhook, New York. He resented the autocratic landowning families in this area and found enough like-minded politicians to control the New York State Constitutional Convention in 1821 enacting universal manhood suffrage.

He learned to employ newspapers as no other political figure had, linking journalists’ success to the Party’s fortunes. He perceived the necessity of discipline and organization to control the masses he sought to organize. He sought to create a political party dedicated to no other principle than holding power.

The problem with the political climate developing in the young nation was the disagreement over slavery which was dividing the states between the North and the South. Van Buren (and many others) viewed the logical result of this would be civil war, which he hoped to avoid. The best way to do that, he reasoned, was to remove slavery (and any other issues) as a party consideration.

He joined southern planters with northern non-elites to form a national organization dedicated to attaining and retaining political power. An important factor in attaining success was in taking advantage of the growing size of government which provided an ever-larger pool of government jobs with which to reward supporters: to the victors belong the spoils. Van Buren tied his star to a practice that, at its roots, viewed men as base and without principle. If they could be silenced on the issue of slavery with the promise of a job, what of their integrity? Yet, that was the strategy for the noble purpose of saving the nation from civil war.

1824 - Andrew Jackson was chosen as the standard bearer for Van Buren’s party in 1824. The Electoral College vote was: Jackson 99, (John Quincy) Adams 84 and Clay 41. There being no majority, the decision fell to the US House of Representatives. Clay was Speaker of the House and he detested Jackson so Adams received his votes. The one-term Adams’ administration was plagued with “pay back” acrimony for the “stolen election”.

1828 - In 1828, Jackson and his VP, John Calhoun, coasted into office. When he left office, Jackson had more totally consolidated power in the executive branch than any previous president, ensuring what Van Buren had dreaded: a powerful presidency subject to sectional pressures. His adept use of the spoils system created a large-scale government bureaucracy that further diminished states’ rights. This planted the seeds for the “New Deal” and the “Great Society” and (I would add) Obama’s eight year reign.

1836 - Van Buren followed Jackson into the presidency in 1836 to reap the blame for all that turned out badly from Jackson’s initiatives. After one term he was defeated by Whig candidates, William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) and John Tyler.

Harrison died after one month in office and Tyler succeeded him. The interesting thing about the succession is that the US Constitution’s language on presidential succession is not precisely clear that the Vice President automatically becomes the fully empowered president when his predecessor dies in office. Some doubts were raised. Tyler just assumed direct succession was the intention and took control. In this little-noted act he cemented the foundation of the Republic in future times of chaos and instability. This small snippet of history typifies the generally untidy political proceedings that have been part of our nation’s Presidential campaigns and the use of presidential power, once elected.

The formation of the modern Democratic Party isn’t a particularly heart-warming story especially the part about founding principles. However, there have been moments in later history where that party has provided great leadership for the country.

PARTY POLITICS NOW (AND DONALD TRUMP)

At this moment, the Democratic Party is at a low point in its history, despite having one of its members in the White House. At least, that’s my opinion. In many ways, it espouses the principles and methodologies Van Buren invented but has added cultural dogma and governing philosophy that moves the nation far from the direction the Founders intended and defined.

The Democratic Party is not alone in American political history in experiencing recurring shifts in goals, initiatives and methodologies. All have been the same in that regard. But now is a very bad time for one of the two major political parties to be focused on matters of lesser importance.

Of course, Donald Trump is doing his best to coax Republicans into the same mindset. The Democratic Debates have been particularly useless in addressing key national issues. The Republican debates have been notably better except for time spent in personal attacks. The debate this Thursday should provide good reminders of issues which should be the basis of your vote in November. Trump’s likely absence should raise the quality of debate immensely.

Bill Lifka

Gun Rights and Wrongs (Main Menu)

 Some ideas on how new technology,

particularly "UltraSmart" guns that will fire only for authorized individuals, 

plus some common-sense reforms in liability for gun owners, 

might help reduce unnecessary gun violence, 

while being compatible with our Constitutionally guaranteed 

Second Amendment "Right to Bear Arms".

Part 1 - The Problem.  Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

CLICK TO Download my PowerPoint file

Advanced "UltraSmart" Gun Concepts 

1) Front-Facing Camera and Laser Spot to ID Target and Aid Shooter Aim, Safety and Reliability.

2) Rear-Facing Camera and Iris Scan to ID Shooter and Assure He or She is Not Drunk nor on Drugs.

3) Sensors in Hand Grip to further Positively ID Shooter. NOTE: Not all sensors need to be on all guns, just enough (perhaps six) to assure Authorized Person will be Reliably Recognized and Unauthorized persons will be Rejected

Ira Glickstein

Gun Rights and Wrongs (Part 1)

1988 Democratic Presidential Candidate Governor Mike Dukakis (Massachusetts),

"commands" the 50 caliber machine gun on an M1 Abrams Tank

GUN RIGHTS AND WRONGS

Some ideas on how new technology, 

particularly "UltraSmart" guns that will fire only for authorized individuals, 

plus some common-sense reforms in liability for gun owners, 

might help reduce unnecessary gun violence, 

while being compatible with our Constitutionally guaranteed 

Second Amendment  "Right to Bear Arms".

Part 1 - The Problem. Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

Part 1 - The Problem
Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too  many gun HOMICIDES?

Is there any way to resolve the diversity of opinion regarding gun control in the US? Will the "pro-gun" NRA ever agree to any new laws intended to reduce gun violence? Will the "anti-gun" forces ever give up their goal to banish private ownership of guns entirely?

Probably not!

However, for what it is worth, here are some ideas that may appeal to those of us in the middle. [This material is based on a talk I gave to an overflow audience of about 120 people at the Philosophy Club of The Villages, FL, on 8 January 2016. As you might imagine, the question, answer, and discussion period following my talk was quite animated!   CLICK TO Download My PowerPoint file

US CONSTITUTION, SECOND AMENDMENT (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

 the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment, passed in 1791, consists of the above compound sentence, in plain English. However, the first phrase seems to be in conflict with the last two,

Is the "right to bear arms" only in the context of a "well-regulated militia"? Is this "militia" to be "regulated" by the government, and, if so, how can government regulation be crafted such that the "right of the people" is not "infringed"?

Well, as recently as 2008, the US Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs Heller, ruled (5 to 4) that the right to bear arms belongs to individual people. However, like most "rights" it is not unlimited, and firearms may be regulated. For example, convicted felons, mentally defective persons, and others may be prohibited from purchasing and possessing guns. 

Furthermore, some types of firearms are off-limits even to upstanding mentally competent citizens. In other words, no one, not even 1988 Presidential Candidate Governor Mike Dukakis may privately own and operate the 50 caliber machine gun on an M1 Abrams Tank!

LEGAL PRECEDENT IN BRITISH COMMON LAW

Sir William Blackstone, the authority on British Common Law, wrote [1765] 

THE auxiliary right of the subject ... is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. ... and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Thus, the tension between the individual right of armed self-defense, and reasonable limits of law, has a very long history.

CURRENT SWISS LAW AND PRACTICE

Male citizens of Switzerland keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. There is a very high personal gun ownership rate. Overall, the crime rate is low, but the gun suicide rate is the highest in Europe. The rate of homicide is considerably lower than the European average.


1996 AUSTRALIAN GUN BUYBACK 

After a 1996 massacre, the Australian government implemented a confiscatory gun buyback program that removed some 20% to 30% of personally owned guns from private possession. The 1996 Australian buyback is often hailed as a great success by US gun control advocates. What are the facts? 

The vertical blue line and bar indicates 1996, the year Australia instituted a major gun buyback program.
TOP (Gray background): Australian gun suicide and gun homicide statistics prior to and after the 1996 buyback program.
Middle (Gray background): Australian non-gun suicide and gun suicide statistics for the same period.
BOTTOM (White background): US gun suicide and gun homicide statistics for the same period.  

Australians and Americans speak English and share a British colonial background. Both countries have about the same area (3 vs 3.9 million square miles). However, gun ownership is vastly different (4 million vs nearly 300 million), Australia does not have constitutional protection of the "right to bear arms" nor does it have a strong gun lobby.

With those differences in mind, let us take a closer look at the data. 

[TOP section] Gun control advocates point out that, after the 1996 buyback, gun suicides declined from around 2 to 0.7 per hundred thousand, and that gun homicides declined from about 0.5 to 0.15 per hundred thousand, which is quite impressive. However, please note that, for several years prior to the 1996 buyback, gun suicides had been declining at a pretty rapid rate. So, how much did the buyback program accelerate the decline?

[MIDDLE section] Note that, in the two years after the gun buyback program, non-gun suicides increased from about 11 to 13 per hundred thousand, more than making up for the decline in gun suicides during that period! The message here is that when ready access to guns is denied, people intent upon suicide will use poison or asphyxiation or other non-gun means to accomplish their intent.  

[BOTTOM section] Despite the fact the US did not have a gun buyback program, our gun suicides and gun homicides declined significantly during the same period! 

When you see the Australian gun buyback statistics used by gun control advocates, you will most often notice that gun suicide and gun homicide data are combined, which has the effect of exaggerating the decline. Furthermore, they usually fail to note that gun suicide rates in Australia were on the decline even before the 1996 gun buyback, nor do they point out that US gun suicide and homicide rates declined during the same period, despite the fact we did not have gun buyback!

My conclusion is that, while the Australian experience is interesting, it has little or nothing to do with the gun control situation in the US.

US GUN DEATH STATISTICS 

About 2.5 million people die in the US each year, About 92% from natural causes, and only 8% are not natural, being due to accidents, malpractice, homicide, suicide, or legal intervention.

Gun-related deaths constitute only 1.3 percent of all US deaths. If Gun Suicides are excluded, the total of Gun Homicides, Accidents, Legal, and Other constitutes less than 0.5 % of all US deaths, as indicated in the graphic below. Most gun homicides are gang and/or drug related, i.e., criminals shooting each other. I've read that 80% of all gun homicides are gang and/or drug related but I could not find any clear statistical documentation for this claim. I'd appreciate comments from readers that confirm or dis-confirm this claim. 

US Non-Natural deaths in 2013 (from CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf, Table 10.)

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GUN CONTROL 

The following list of pithy bullets represents my attempt to summarize the general positions espoused by some participants in the gun control debate. Please recognize that this is a "shorthand" description of what are often highly nuanced and complex positions. I do not pretend that all Libertarians subscribe exactly to the first set of bullets nor that all Liberals or Conservatives subscribe exactly to the latter two sets. 

Currently, the two leading candidates in the Democratic Presidential Primaries, Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders have diverse opinions on gun laws. Sanders, who hails from a "pro-gun" state, takes positions that are, in many cases, closer to Republican views. Furthermore, among the many candidates in the Republican Presidential Primaries, some may say they lean more to the Libertarian view rather than what I have characterized as the Republican view. Also, not all members of the NRA fully subscribe to the official NRA position.

• NRA (and Libertarians) generally favor almost no control.

– The fewer new gun laws the better. 

Police should enforce current laws. Courts should impose severe sentences on gun-toting criminals.

• Democrats (and Liberals) generally favor strict control.

– The fewer guns the better. 

Easy access to too many guns is to blame when disturbed people or politically or religiously motivated terrorists cause mass shootings. Police brutalize and too often shoot unarmed Blacks.

• Republicans (and Conservatives) generally favor moderate regulation.

– The fewer unjust gun homicides the better. 

Aggressive police tactics in high crime areas are often necessary, even if they have uneven racial impacts. “Stop, Question (Optionally Frisk)” policies actually save proportionately more Black than White lives.

Discussion of the above bullet points:

NRA (and Libertarians) - I am not now and never have been a member of the NRA. However, while living in a rural upstate area of New York State for over three decades I did own and use a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle (both bolt-action). While I have never considered myself a Libertarian, I do like a lot of what John Stossel, the resident Libertarian at Fox News says.

In general, I would like to see current gun laws enforced, particularly as they relate to stiff jail time for anyone who uses a gun in commission of a crime. On the other hand, while I am skeptical about the ability of "the government" to do anything particularly well, I think there are some common sense changes to US gun laws that could help reduce unnecessary gun violence, as I will outline later in this series of postings.

So, while sympathetic, I cannot subscribe to the idea that the fewer gun laws the better.

Democrats (and Liberals) - A photo of Democratic icon and four-times elected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt hung on the wall of the Brighton Beach bungalow in Brooklyn, NY, where my brother and I lived with our parents and grandparents. My whole family voted Democrat up until my father scandalized us in the neighborhood by voting for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President.

It was as an engineering student at the uber-leftist City College of New York where I discovered that the honorable appellation "Liberal" had been hijacked by Socialists and Democrats and turned upside-down and inside-out. I still consider myself a "Liberal" in the classical sense, as "the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade." But, I digress.

At first glance, the idea that, since all gun violence involves a gun, it would be better if there were fewer guns, makes sense.

However, that does not follow logically. For example, all medical malpractice involves doctors and medical personnel, so (following parallel reasoning) it would be better if there were fewer doctors and medical personnel. Of course, that is ridiculous! Only a small percentage of doctors and medical personnel are bad, so what we need to reduce medical malpractice is fewer bad ones and more good ones!

The same is true of guns. Only a tiny percentage of guns are involved in unnecessary gun violence. Most of those (perhaps as many as 80%) are possessed by criminals, particularly gang members and drug dealers. So, rather than fewer guns overall, what we need to do is reduce bad gun possession by criminals, gang members and drug dealers. A very small percentage of guns are used by mentally-disturbed people and politically or religiously motivated terrorists, so we need to reduce their access to guns. Finally some guns deaths are accidental, including poorly secured guns inadvertently found by children, and guns used by people who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Therefore, it would be good if we could use new technology to allow guns to be fired only by competent adults.

As we all know, technological advances have made high resolution surveillance cameras very inexpensive. I think it is, on balance, good that these cameras are ubiquitous both outside and inside most businesses and many public areas, that police cars have dashboard cameras, that individual policemen have body cameras, and that virtually everyone now carries a cell phone camera.

As a result, damning images have been captured of policemen unnecessarily and brutally shooting unarmed people, including a disproportionate number of Black men. These videos have been broadcast for all to see and prove, even to "pro-police" people like me, that some policemen are trigger happy, and some are also racist.

Despite these videos, I do not think many Democrats/Liberals would seriously consider disarming law enforcement. I join all right-thinking Americans in condemning the policemen involved. I think it would be good if we could use new technology to reduce official misconduct by providing police with what I call "UltraSmart" guns that are designed to be safer and that automatically capture images of each shot, along with time and location data.

So, I cannot subscribe to the idea that the fewer guns the better.

Republicans (and Conservatives) - OK, I must confess here that I am an old Goldwater/Reagan Republican, and a Proud Conservative in the modern sense (i.e., Classical Liberal).

{Trump tangent, skip over if you wish} 

As postings to this Blog (one, two, and three) and my Facebook page demonstrate, I think Donald Trump has tapped into the deep frustration we feel after seven years of President Obama's brand of "change" and the GOP leadership's failure to effectively reign him in. Trump is shouting what we want to hear (yes, even what I want to hear), but his bluster does not stand close examination. His rhetoric is mostly generalities, and in the few instances when he gets specific, he gets his facts wrong. 

Donald Trump is a Crony Capitalist Democrat pretending to be a Republican. As recently as 2004, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitizer "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat" and in 2007, also with Blitzer, he praised Hillary Clinton's ability to negotiate with Iran. Trump gave more of his ample money to Democrats than Republicans between 1989 and 2009 according to NPR. At the first GOP debate this year, he bragged: “I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, ‘Be at my wedding,’ and she came to my [third] wedding. ... You know why? She had no choice, because I gave.” Until recently, Trump's views on military action in the mid-east, abortion, drug legalization, and health care have been more in line with leftist Democrats than with independents and Republicans. 

To repeat, Trump is a Crony Capitalist DEMOCRAT who is wrecking the Republican Party I know and love, with the inadvertent assistance of the ratings-hungry media, including Fox News, and the feckless response of the dozen other candidates competing in the Republican Presidential Primary, several of whom are excellent in my opinion. 

{end of Trump tangent} 

To gain traction in the primary process, Republican candidates must take anti-gun control positions close to that of the NRA because a substantial portion of Republican Primary voters demand it. I know many of these people personally as hard-working, upstanding, good family men and women who (like me) do not trust the government to do anything except take the money we earn and use it to buy the votes they need by promising and delivering unearned assistance to people who, in many cases, cannot or will not work consistently or hard. Unfortunately, many of these fellow Republicans will reject, out of hand, my ideas for common sense changes in gun regulations and the introduction of "UltraSmart" gun technology. Please note that the NRA does not, out of hand, reject the introduction of "Smart" guns, so long as they are reliable and safe and voluntarily adopted in a free marketplace.*

So, here is where I think most Republicans and Conservatives agree with me. That the problem is not too many guns, but, rather too many unjust gun homicides. The fewer unjust gun homicides the better. Aggressive police tactics in high crime areas are often necessary, even if they have uneven racial impacts. As I will show in Part 4 of this "Gun Rights and Wrongs" topic, "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" policies actually save proportionately more Black than White lives. 

So, I DO subscribe to the idea that The fewer unjust gun homicides the better

I hope my fellow Republicans and Conservatives will read and give fair consideration to my "UltraSmart" gun technology* concepts in the Part 2 of this "Gun Rights and Wrongs" topic.

* According to the NRA, they have "never opposed smart guns, believing the marketplace should decide their future. Rather, NRA opposes government mandates of expensive, unproven technology, and smart guns are a prime example of that."

Ira Glickstein

Back to MAIN MENU                     CONTINUE TO - Part 2 - New Technology. 

Part 1 - The Problem. Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

Dilbert Bridges the Liberal/Conservative Divide.

I've often said that Dilbert is "the story of my life."

Well, this recent strip is, IMHO, the funniest (and most true) ever.

This strip has triggered quite an active cross-discussion on the Dilbert website. Unfortunately, some of the comments are "flaming" (hostile and insulting interaction), so be forewarned.

However, one comment that caught my eye included a pithy P. J. O'Rourke quote:

"The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors — psychology, sociology, women's studies — to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view."

-- P.J. O'Rourke

This strip also plays into the Liberal/Conservative (L/C) theme of quite a few postings on this blog, with links to some below.

Just click on the blue titles to read them. Some include serious, extended, courteous cross-discussion
between me and my friends and colleagues, including the Chairman of my PhD committee, Howard Pattee. Some of those may even qualify to be published alongside the dialogs and writings about Socrates by Plato and Aristotle. Enjoy!

L-MINDS AND C-MINDS

A series of Topics and Comments on the Liberal Mind (L-Mind) or Conservative Mind (C-Mind) we observe in many of our fellow human beings.
Click for: 1 - Fallibility, 2 - More on..., 3 - Origin of..., 4 - Plato and Aristotle..., 5 - Even More on ...,6 - L/C Persistence, 7 - Still More on, 8 - L/C Presentation, 9 - Back to L/C Basics, 10 - L/C Mental Health, 11 - Voting and Notions of Fairness, 12 - L/C Good Vibes vs Good Deeds, 13 - Lessons from Tuskegee Experiment, 14 - Haidt's Paper: What the Democrats Don't Get, 15 - Carbon Tax a Loser (Too Bad), 16 - L/C Minds and Temper, 17 - Vi and Ira: L/C Minds on AP Video, 18 - Haidt's TED Talk: L/C Five Channels of Morality.

Ira Glickstein

IRS and NSA Controversies

In recent months, the Obama administration has been plagued by several serious controversies, chief among them:

• Charges of political profiling by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in delaying the approval of tax exemption under § 501 (c)(4) to some "patriotic" organizations, and


• Large-scale domestic snooping by the National Security Agency (NSA) according to Top Secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

You may download my PowerPoint presentation (Philosophy Club, The Villages, FL, 5 July 2013) here: https://sites.google.com/site/bigira/philosophy-related-pps/Philo%20IRS%20NSA%20July%202013.pptx?attredirects=0&d=1

IRS POLITICAL PROFILING CONTROVERSY

According to the May 2013 report by the US Treasury Department Inspector General (IG) for Tax Administration (.pdf available here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/05/201310053fr-revised-redacted-1.pdf ), starting in 2010 and continuing through 2012 and two election cycles, "inappropriate criteria were used to identify tax-exempt applications for review".

The IG Report identified some specific inappropriate criteria including "Patriots", "Tea Party", "Issues include government spending, government debt or taxes", "Education of the public by advocacy/lobbying 'to make America a better place to live'", and "Statement in the case file criticize how the country is being run". [exact quotes, including grammatical errors]

The result was that some applications submitted by Liberal groups were approved for § 501 (c)(4) while otherwise identical applications by Conservative groups were forwarded to a team of "specialists" and thus delayed for years.

According to the IG Report:

Organizations that applied for tax-exempt status and had their applications forwarded to the team
of specialists experienced substantial delays. As of December 17, 2012, many organizations had
not received an approval or denial letter for more than two years after they submitted their
applications. Some cases have been open during two election cycles (2010 and 2012). [my bold]

On 13 May 2013, a day before the IG Report was issued, President Obama stated that the practice was "Outrageous, if true."

The next day, when it was clear that the charges were indeed true, Obama followed up stating:

"The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, and its employees must act with utmost integrity.

“This report shows that some [IRS] employees failed that test. I’ve directed Secretary Lew to hold those responsible for these failures accountable, … so that such conduct never happens again.

“But regardless of how this conduct was allowed to take place, the bottom line is, it was wrong."

The IG Report included a detailed list of some of the "unnecessary" questions asked of targeted organizations by the "specialists" to delay approval.

1 Requests the names of donors. 2 Requests a list of all issues that are important to the organization and asks that the organization indicate its position regarding such issues. 3 Requests 1) the roles and activities of the audience and participants other than members in the activity and 2) the type of conversations and discussions members and participants had during the activity. 4 Asks whether the officer, director, etc., has run or will run for public office. 5 Requests the political affiliation of the officer, director, speakers, candidates supported, etc., or otherwise refers to the relationship with identified political party–related organizations. 6 Requests information regarding employment, other than for the organization, including hours worked. 7 Requests information regarding activities of another organization – not just the relationship of the other organization to the applicant.

Were "Progressive" Organizations also Targeted?

The Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee published what they said was evidence that "progressive" groups were also targeted (.pdf available here: http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/November%202010%20BOLO%20IRS0000001349-IRS0000001364.pdf).

Indeed, the term "Progressive" does appear on a spreadsheet utilized by the IRS reviewers, however, that line of the spreadsheet applies only to § 501 (c)(3) applications, which are very different from the 501 (c)(4) applications that are the main object of the IRS political profiling controversy.

As the IG Report makes clear, § 501 (c)(3) organizations may NOT "engage in political campaign intervention" while § 501 (c)(4) groups may do so up to 40% of their activities. Another difference is that contributions to § 501 (c)(3) groups ARE tax deductible by the donors while § 501 (c)(4) are NOT tax deductible by the donors.

The House Ways and Means Democrats include one example of a "Tea Party" group that appears on an IRS spreadsheet, but careful observation shows that that line applies to BOTH § 501 (c)(3) and § 501 (c)(4) groups. It should be obvious that tax exemption should not be allowed for donors for any "political campaign intervention", whether Liberal or Conservative.

Thus, there is no evidence that "Progressive" groups were subjected to any profiling related to § 501 (c)(4), while it is clear, even from the IRS spreadsheet example published by the Democrats, that such profiling was inappropriately applied to Conservative groups.

Should ANY "Political" Organizations Enjoy BOTH Tax-Exemption AND Anonymity for their Donors?

In reviewing this controversy, I wondered why the IRS allows MAJOR DONORS to make ANONYMOUS contributions to ANY tax-exempt organization that engages in any form of "political campaign intervention" (be it Liberal or Conservative) .

Well, it turns out that this strange rule dates from the 1958 Supreme Court decision regarding the NAACP vs Alabama (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Alabama) where the Supremes ruled that disclosure of names could render private donors vulnerable to retaliation.

OK, if that is the Law of the Land, so be it, but it should be applied EQUALLY to both Liberal and Conservative groups. Don't you think?

In this case, IRS political profiling, targeting Conservative groups, over two election cycles (2010 and 2012), has almost certainly resulted in a net benefit for Liberal organizations in terms of fund-raising, because some donors will justifiably hesitate to contribute to any organization that has not been approved by the IRS for tax-exempt status.

Has this affected election results at the National level (House, Senate, Presidency), and/or local levels (Governors, State Legislators, etc.)? No one will ever know for sure, but I would think at least some close elections could have gone the other way absent IRS targeting of Conservative "political campaign intervention" groups.

NSA SNOOPING CONTROVERSY

Which brings us to the second part of this (admittedly long) topic posting.

The reason I have linked the IRS and NSA controversies should be painfully obvious:

If any Administration, whether Democrat or Republican, misuses an agency of the government for political profiling purposes, as the Democrats have clearly misused the IRS for two election cycles, how can we trust them not to similarly misuse the awesome snooping powers we now know have been entrusted to the NSA ?

We all know that Edward Snowden, an employee of an NSA contractor, went to Hong Kong (controlled by China) and released several TOP SECRET documents revealing that the NSA has engaged in large-scale domestic snooping. There is no doubt that all TOP SECRET materials contained on the laptop computers and other computer media he had with him have been downloaded by the Chinese and are now in their possession. Snowden subsequently went to Russia, and has been there long enough for the Russians to have downloaded all material he had with him. Also, there is no doubt that both the Chinese and Russians have interrogated Snowden thoroughly and extracted the critical TOP SECRET NSA information that he possessed.  

After the NSA leak was made public by Snowden, President Obama assured the American public:

“… nobody is listening to your telephone calls… 

“… you can't have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society… 

"I don't welcome leaks … There's a reason these programs are classified." [my bold and italic]

Please note that I have bolded the President's word "Nobody". Does that mean no person is listening to our telephone calls (and that no person is reading our emails and other computer communications)?

For example, what if some automatic computer program was listening to our telephone calls (and emails) and searching for some combinations of words that might indicate criminal or terroristic intent? And, only if and when the computer program discovered some suspicious messages and identified the people involved, then the NSA went to the FISA court to get a warrant to have some person listen to phone calls (and emails) to and from the identified persons?

I have also bolded and italicized the word "is". As President Bill Clinton famously observed, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Is Obama assuring us that nobody is listening to our phone calls (and emails) right now? What if our phone calls (and emails) are being automatically recorded and stored away by the NSA for future use if and when subsequent analysis reveals that they may relate to suspicious activities and then the NSA gets a FISA warrant to have some person listen to them?

That said, I agree with Obama that we cannot expect "100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience" and maintain reasonable security against criminal and terrorist attacks. Like him, given this difficult choice, I come down on the side of security.

What do we know about NSA snooping?

Started as early as 2006 (under G.W. Bush), continued through present (2008-2013 under Obama).

Key members of Senate and Congress are aware of classified details of NSA programs and exercise oversight. Judicial oversight is exercised by FISA court.

MetaData is being collected on virtually ALL domestic home phone and cellphone calls (at least the Calling number, Called number, Date, Time, Duration, …) Internet data (VoIP, Emails, Chat, Photos, Videos, Files, Stored Data [“cloud”], Logins, SPECIAL REQUESTS, …)

What do I suspect about NSA snooping?

I’ve worked on classified military projects, but never NSA projects or any projects related to surveillance or data mining, so I am free to “speculate” without revealing classified information.

Based on my knowledge of electronics and computers and the Internet and “artificial intelligence” I never type anything into my computer that I would not mind seeing on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper or TV news!

For many years I have suspected that NSA (not to mention Google :^) has metadata on all Internet activity and phone calls and that they utilize advanced data mining algorithms to associate Phone numbers, Email addresses, Blogs, Social networks, and so on.

It is also likely they use “artificial intelligence” and “key word analysis” computer techniques to “gist” voice phone calls, looking for languages and word combinations that may indicate criminal or terrorist activities as well as semantic analysis to identify individual writing styles. It is also likely they similarly “gist” Emails, Blogs, Photos and other Internet data and use facial recognition, voice prints, and other biometrics to associate multi-modal communications with particular groups of people and individuals.

Bottom Line

I (along with Obama) am appalled that Edward Snowden violated his pledge to protect classified government documents. Internal government processes (and specialized lawyers) exist for reporting abuses. Snowden should have used these before going to China and before revealing these Top Secret activities to the press. (Hong Kong is an “autonomous” region under the control of China.) We should assume China and Russia have all Snowden’s NSA data.

I generally SUPPORT all the known and most of my suspected NSA snooping activities, assuming proper oversight. As I’ve stated in presentations to The Villages Philosophy Club and my Novel and Blogs, advocates of “privacy” are fighting a phony and lost battle. If you have a home and a job and a credit card and a cellphone and a car – in other words if you are a “respectable” citizen – YOU HAVE NO “PRIVACY”. (The only person with real privacy is the guy using your stolen credit card to buy stuff!)

However, the IRS scandal has increased my distrust of the government. I worry that POLITICALLY-motivated NSA employees may abuse Phone and Internet data for partisan purposes (as some IRS employees have done).

Get the PowerPoint Presentation!

If you'd like more technical background on the "six degrees of separation" between (virtually) any two people on Earth and on the issue of privacy in the Internet age, please download the PowerPoint presentation I gave to the Philosophy Club of The Villages, FL.

Please download that PowerPoint here: https://sites.google.com/site/bigira/philosophy-related-pps/Philo%20IRS%20NSA%20July%202013.pptx?attredirects=0&d=1,

Feel free to express your opinions on this issue by posting a Comment to this Blog.


advTHANKSance

Ira Glickstein 

 

Once I was young and a Democrat

[from billlifka] It was a fine time and a good thing to be. I had many friends and relatives who were Democrats. In fact, most were. Now, most of them are dead but I have new friends and relatives who are Democrats, although not so many.

I was a Democrat longer than I was Independent and that longer than I was Republican. However, I wasn’t registered as a Democrat which may be like Bill Clinton’s having smoked pot but not inhaling. Barack Obama has inhaled with pleasure, which may explain a lot. The point is that my credentials as a past Democrat may be questioned but, I assure you, Democrats of my age would recognize me as a kindred spirit. I was born as a Democrat as I was born as an American and a Catholic, all being quite compatible at the time. I chose to be a paper boy and a Cub Scout at the age of nine. These were the first observable signs I had started to think on my own although there’d been covert outbreaks of latent Libertarianism from the age of three.

I never thought much about why I was a Democrat other than as a blessing of birth. When FDR ran for his second term as president, my mother explained that all should vote for Roosevelt because, “He was for the poor people, like us.” Being six years old, I always accepted what my mother told me so long as it didn’t interfere with my plans for that day. Even then, I thought it was a strange argument since I didn’t feel particularly poor. Starting with my being a paper boy, it seemed even stranger since all I needed to do to have money in my pocket was to do a little work and just doing the work made me feel good about myself, also. Then too, I found it hard to understand why FDR was great if he was for losers. At the time, I was for the Chicago Cubs but in those days the Cubs won two pennants so I didn’t think of them as losers until I got a little older. If my mother had said FDR was going to turn losers into winners I would have understood it was like hiring a new manager for the White Sox.

Despite my confusion at an early age, I did come to understand why people would vote for FDR even if they weren’t born as a Democrat. In fact, I think I would vote for him, if I were over twenty one at the time because he did talk a good story and engaged the federal government in a lot of activity, especially for a guy who needed to operate out of a wheelchair. Now I know that activity shouldn’t be mistaken for progress, but in those days it caused most people to feel better even though the depression just went on and on until the war. When it came to the war, FDR was one of the better presidents because of his ability to convince Americans all would turn out well in the end. It also helped that he picked an outstanding leader for the military forces and was convinced, mostly by his wife, to let businessmen lead industrial mobilization. Like his cousin, an earlier president, FDR was not comfortable with the private sector and distrusted all who were in it; they just wouldn’t kowtow to his economic ideas and lack of experience in their field.

By the time Harry Truman came along, I was learning things that caused doubts about FDR but, still a born Democrat, I would have voted for Harry if I were twenty one because Tom Dewey’s moustache made him look sneaky to my eyes. On the other hand, it seemed clear that Harry was straightforward and outspoken and I liked the sign on his desk, “The buck stops here!” He was a guy who took responsibility for his actions and had made tough decisions without flinching over what people might say about him. Even then, I knew those were important traits for a leader. He made some mistakes but if I were transported back in time with my present knowledge, I’m sure I would vote for him and not because I was born a Democrat.

My family never got anything from the Democratic Party, even though FDR was for poor people. Mostly, the Party functioned in the large cities, like Chicago, and they got people work. This was a good thing that people had to work for their money, like being a garbage man. It was true that higher ups might be building inspectors and depended on bribes for extra money but they had to support their families and come election time they had to work hard for no pay in “getting out the vote” which meant getting people out to vote. This is harder than it might seem, especially when some people lived in cemeteries. On a national level, FDR did find work for many in the CCC where they built forest preserve shelters and other public works. My relatives found work for each other like when my father introduced his brother and two brothers-in-law to his boss. That didn’t stop them from being good Democrats even if they made a living on their own

Even though I was a born Democrat, Ike seemed to be an obvious choice over Adlai Stevenson. Adlai was a very bright guy and witty speaker but had the real world depth of a driveway puddle. With Eisenhower, I drifted away from my Democrat birthright but only to that place in between called Independent. I don’t blame Independents for giving up on both Political Parties. Both have earned that treatment. On the other hand it’s sort of like the idea of Purgatory, a place neither heaven nor hell. I can understand why one might choose hell for all the fun that comes before or heaven for all the fun that comes later. Choosing the in-between is hard to fathom. Nevertheless, I felt comfortable there and then John Kennedy came along.

In retrospect, I should have suspected all wasn’t right about Kennedy. But he looked so good, had such an endearing family and talked so convincingly, it was easy to succumb to his charm. By that time, I had forgotten I was born a Democrat, but not that I was born a Catholic and was offended that the presidency had eluded Catholics and the previous one who had tried had been rejected primarily because of his religion. JFK was assassinated and, therefore, deserves to be an “American Saint.” If he had served a full two terms, he might well be remembered differently.

Ronald Reagan came upon the scene. Admittedly, he was running against a guy who had failed in his first term miserably. Nevertheless, he was dismissed as an actor, forgetting his success as Governor of California and as President of the Actor’s Guild, a working job. As an Independent, I had no problem voting for him and became converted to the Republican Party during his time in office while retaining the right of occasional dissent over peripheral items of dogma. I think I have learned how to judge an effective leader of my country based on his past performance in responsible jobs and his character traits as displayed in those positions. I listen to what he says he will do and strongly discount what others say he will do, especially those who have reason to lie about him. I give no thought whatever to whether we share a political party, religion, ethnicity or the many peripheral social preferences that exist in abundance.

Most importantly, I imagine how this blessed country of ours will fare under his leadership. I’ve been around for the great depression, being totally unprepared for WWII, engaged in five other major military adventures and countless minor ones and many social and economic crises. All has not yet been manifested, but we are in the midst of what I believe will be the greatest testing of America in its history. The foundations of our government, economic system and social structure are under siege without restraining influence of experienced leaders with the prudence and wisdom to chart and navigate safe passage through dangerous reefs for the ship of state.

My purpose in this writing is to convince those who choose the Democratic Party as theirs to vote for the opposition candidates, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and that, in their doing so, they will act to save their Democratic Party as well as their country. I write as one who once shared membership in their party, although in simpler times, and one who has voted for rational reasons and for not-so-rational reasons, for candidates of my party and for candidates of another party.

Like many Republicans, I disagree with some opinions of my fellow Republicans. I believe most Republicans respect members of the Democratic Party and accept that contention between the two major Parties is important to the well-being of America. I believe most Republicans accept that elected officials from the two parties must find a way to conduct the business of the country in a manner that addresses major needs of the country without violating reasonable and critical beliefs of either Party. It goes without explanation that many of the less important desires of both Parties may not be agreed upon but can be subjected to continuing debate. Such debate should be open and with courteous regard for opposing beliefs. I believe that Democrats in my youth displayed many traits that are consistent with my beliefs and exist today in many members of the Democratic Party. These include patriotism, importance of the U.S. Constitution, belief in open debate and legislative process, personal responsibility, the value of work, the opportunity for all to improve their status in life and that it’s wrong to set one group of people against another group of people in open warfare. If you share these beliefs, you should vote for Romney and Ryan and for legislators who have demonstrated the same beliefs, regardless of their party affiliation.

It’s dangerously foolish to assume Barack Obama, in a second term, will change his stubborn march to turn America into a second class nation subject to domination by world organizations. He will continue to violate the Constitution as necessary to further his totalitarian ambitions. His acolytes in Congress will continue to block open debate to provide the excuse for government by executive order and bureaucratic mandate. He will continue to pit one group of Americans against another and seek majority backing through mindless wealth transfers that drive the country ever faster into bankruptcy. It’s dangerously foolish to assume that a very large minority of the public will accept this without resisting in ways that will result in widespread violence. At least worst, the Democratic Party would lose it’s acceptability as a governing body. At the very worst, the country would be torn by violence that would rival that in the American Civil War.

On the other hand, there is Romney and Ryan. Romney has proven he can govern effectively in an overwhelmingly Democratic State and obtain support from egotistical foreign Olympic czars. Ryan has proven he can work across the aisle and prefers reasonable compromise to mindless contention. Both know the solution to America’s critical problems lies in economic actions of the type in which both are highly experienced. They are good people, just like most Democrats.

billlifka