It's time for open rebellion

I didn't write this, my colleagugues at DownsizeDC.org did. To repeat: we are NOT calling for violence, but we're saying let's stop playing pretend.

Do you want to replace the TSA with competitive alternatives?

Posted at DownsizeDC.org.

Four Reasons to Act Against Act

From DownsizeDC.org: Do you want to lose your freedom to an international copyright police?

The Assault on Online Privacy

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-assault-on-online-privacy

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "The bill is mislabeled. This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes." - Rep. John Conyers

A dangerous bill has been approved by the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee that would ELMINIATE your online privacy. That's why I sent a letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org's Hands Off the Internet Campaign.

I urge you to send a letter. You may borrow from or copy this...

I insist that you oppose HR 1981, the so-called "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act."

The very name of the bill is dishonest and offensive. It misleads the public into thinking the bill gives law enforcement expanded tools to protect children from pedophiles.

But actually, it gives law enforcement broad powers to examine ANYONE's Internet activities, for ANY reason. According to CNET (http://cnet.co/oU5t35):

* It would require commercial Internet providers "to store... customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses."
* Rep. Zoe Lofgren says this would create "a data bank of every digital act by every American" that would "let us find out where every single American visited Web sites."
* If the law passed, criminals would simply go to libraries or coffeehouses and use the Web anonymously, while law-abiding Americans would have their activities recorded.

In addition...

* ISP's will have to reconfigure their systems to accommodate the data retention requirements -- an expense they will surely pass on to their customers (to you)
* Combing through mostly irrelevant records of innocent Americans is a highly INEFFICIENT form of catching criminals

As Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation puts it, HR 1981, "would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American... Such a scheme would be as objectionable to our Founders as the requiring of licenses for printing presses or the banning of anonymous pamphlets." (http://bit.ly/rffep9)

The First and Fourth Amendments guarantee my right to anonymity and to privacy. Both disappear if the government tracks my online activities.

Uphold your oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Oppose HR 1981!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

DownsizeDC.org is one of 30 organizations that had sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee concerning HR 1981. You can read that letter here.

And we urge you to share with your friends who are concerned about liberty and privacy. Go to our blog to "like" and "tweet" this message: http://bit.ly/qkBXM3

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org

Hosting Julian Assange

Via Tom Knapp via No State:

"I, James Leroy Wilson, hereby pledge that if Julian Assange should call upon me in need of a place to stay, I will provide it to him with no questions asked, indefinitely, and with the highest degree of security and confidentiality I can provide. I’m easy to get a hold of."

Now it’s your turn. Simply replace my name with yours and publish. Link here if you wish, but publish.

Waste and Abuse: What the Stimulus is Doing to Your Kids

From DownsizeDC.org:

It is clear that the Stimulus failed to curb unemployment. Even worse is how the money is being spent. The letter below illustrates just one place where your dollars are being misused.

That's why we're asking you to tell Congress to rescind all remaining Stimulus funds.

Our hard-wired letter says simply "Please cut federal spending."

In addition to this you may borrow from or copy these additional comments . . .

Specifically, please rescind all remaining stimulus funds. It adds to the national debt but has not reduced unemployment.

Even worse is how the money is being spent.

For instance, the stimulus paid for RFID chips implanted in jerseys that Head Start preschoolers are required to wear in Richmond, CA. This Orwellian precedent scares me!

* RFID is an unproven technology vulnerable to hacking - actually making children less safe from kidnappers
* It's unknown how much private data is being collected, and for how long it will be kept, meaning . .
* It's an assault on the privacy and dignity of these children and their low-income parents. http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/rfid/RFIDletter_full.pdf

I know this program was not specifically mentioned in the Stimulus bill. That's the problem: even if you had read the bill, you wouldn't have known about this.

That's why you should rescind all remaining stimulus funds. Don't steal taxpayer money if you don't even know how it is being spent.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

And here's a handy link to share this message with your friends: http://bit.ly/dacNkK

Thank you for being DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

John Stagliano For President!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=142495089095766

This group urges the nomination of John Stagliano for President by acclamation at the 2012 Libertarian Party National Convention.

Mr. Stagliano is an adult film producer who is currently being prosecuted in a federal kangaroo court on "obscenity" charges. The "law" which he supposedly violated is unconstitutional, and the trial is conducted in a lawless manner. What's worse, his "crime" involved only consenting adults acting on their own free will, doing things which are not illegal, and for which no objective standard has been established in law. For details, check out coverage of his case at Reason Magazine: http://reason.com/topics/john-stagliano-trial

Regardless of how you feel about pornography, we must draw a line in the sand. Federal prosecutions of consensual "crimes" must stop!

We don't know what motivated the persecution of Mr. Stagliano. But it is interesting that he has been a financial supporter of liberty-oriented organizations such as the Reason Foundation and the Libertarian Party. It reminds one of the prosecution of the late author and medical marijuana advocate Peter McWilliams, who supported the Libertarian Party and even wrote a book, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, that argued for libertarian values.

McWilliams died ten years ago while on bail - he was charged for being a "drug kingpin" for his medical marijuana activities.

Was Peter McWilliams targeted for his actions, or because he spoke out in favor of freedom?

Is John Stagliano singled out among all porn producers for his actions, or because he supports those who speak out in favor of freedom?

We don't know. What we DO know is, if convicted, Mr. Stagliano could face up to 32 years in prison!

Nominating Mr. Stagliano for President would send a message to America. It would say that libertarians reject, completely, the federal war on consensual behavior, and that, whatever we think of pornography, we'd rather have a porn producer who respects individual rights, as Mr. Stagliano does, as President than anyone who believes porn producers should be in jail.

John Stagliano is not just a victim of the federal government, he's also a symbol of the federal government's march toward absolute tyranny and lawlessness. The Libertarian Party could not make a bolder statement for freedom, and for the United States of America, than by nominating John Stagliano to be President of the United States.

Liberty and Equality

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. It's about Rand Paul and Civil Rights.

The strange things Congress did to extend the Patriot Act

Last week, Congress voted to extend three provisions of the so-called U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act (aka Patriot Act) for another year.

You can see how your Representative voted here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll067.xml

But if you do that you'll think we've sent you to the wrong link. You'll see that the title on the bill is "Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act."

You see, H.R. 3961 originally started with that title and subject, and it passed the House in November. Then, this past Wednesday, Majority Leader Harry Reid ripped the guts out of the bill and replaced it with the Patriot extensions. The Senate then passed that version of the bill and sent it back to the House, where it was approved Thursday night.

Now, you may be asking, where's the link to the Senate roll call vote?

Well, there isn't one. The bill passed by Unanimous Consent, which means a voice vote.

Everything about this process and bill is offensive to DownsizeDC.org . . .

* changing the subject of the bill by amendment violates our One Subject At A Time Act
* there was no 7-day waiting period before votes in either chamber, violating our requirements in the Read the Bills Act
* Congress neither let the provisions expire (our preference), nor reformed the Patriot Act for greater accountability and civil liberties protections

We can, however, mention some good news . . .

* Democrats thwarted Republican attempts to extend the provisions to four years instead of just one
* Rep. Conyers says he's still committed to reforming the Patriot Act this year

Nevertheless, we believe civil libertarians in Congress wasted a great opportunity to roll back or repeal key provisions of the Patriot Act.

Please express your anger and disappointment using our Thank-or-Spank campaign.

You may borrow from or copy the points in this letter . . .

I am sending this letter to my Representative as well as my two Senators, because I am angry at both chambers of Congress.

If Congress had its priorities in order last fall, the Patriot Act could have been reformed, with parts of it repealed. I am angry that you chose to bicker over less-urgent healthcare reform and let this issue slide until it was too late.

I am particularly disgusted that the Senate rushed to extend the three expiring Patriot Act provisions by voice vote. Could not one Senator have objected and forced a debate and roll call vote?

Furthermore, while I'm happy these provisions have not yet been made permanent, I wonder why Congress hasn't ever taken the time to . . .

* consider their Constitutionality
* determine their effectiveness
* investigate abuses http://tinyurl.com/yz2l46p

These abuses are important. They undermine distrust in the federal government. You'll be interested to know that 56% of Americans view the government as a threat to their rights. http://tinyurl.com/y9t85ts

To regain the trust of the American people, Congress MUST start respecting the limits on federal power expressed in the Bill of Rights. This means reforming and, better yet, repealing the Patriot Act. I insist you get to work right away to restore the rights and liberties of the American people.

END LETTER

You can send your letter through DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

Please also forward this to concerned friends.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Give them leverage

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/give-them-leverage

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee set aside Russ Feingold's JUSTICE Act, which would have amended the PATRIOT Act to protect civil liberties. It then replaced Senator Pat Leahy's already weak bill with an even weaker one.

• Several safeguards found in the JUSTICE Act are not in the new bill
• The Committee defeated amendments requiring evidence that targets of business records requests and National Security Letters must have some connection to terrorism or espionage.

But hope is not lost . . .

• The Senate Judiciary's bill (S. 1692) hasn't yet passed the full Senate
• In 2006, almost two-thirds of House Democrats, including now-Speaker Pelosi, voted AGAINST the PATRIOT renewal
• The voters did not punish these Democrats for their votes; in fact, later that year Democrats won control of Congress

The Obama Administration generally wants the continuation of the Bush status quo on civil liberties. We must encourage Congress to listen to the people instead of the President. If House Democrats show some backbone, they could exercise leverage by . . .

• Introducing and passing the JUSTICE Act,
• Adding greater civil liberties protections to any PATRIOT renewal bill, or . . .
• Threatening to do NOTHING and allow three provisions of the PATRIOT Act to expire on December 31

Send your elected representatives a letter demanding that they roll back the Patriot Act.

This is what I said in my personal comments:

I was disappointed with the results of the Senate Judiciary hearings last week. We must have strong civil liberties protections in any PATRIOT Act renewal bill. I hope a better bill is produced on the Senate floor, and encourage the House to pass the JUSTICE Act. If Congress can't provide better safeguards for my civil liberties, please oppose any PATRIOT Act renewal bill and work to repeal the PATRIOT Act outright.

You can send your letter here.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Don't read this if you don't care about the Constitution

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/don-t-read-this-if-you-care-about-the-constitution

Quote of the Day: "I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution." -- DownsizeDC.org co-founder Harry Browne (1933-2006)

Subject: Drugs and the Constitution

Our last Drug War Dispatch generated some concerned emails.

You can read our response here.

What we didn't mention in the previous Dispatch was the Constitutional problem of the War on Drugs. That's because . . .

Many people seem not to care what the Constitution requires. Today's message is for those who do care.

Drug control is NOT a Constitutional power of the federal government. At the very most the federal government could, perhaps, ban the importation of drugs, and prohibit their sale across state lines under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.

But nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to prohibit the sale or possession of any item within state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment dictates that whatever Congress is not empowered to do must be left to the States, or to the people. This means Congress cannot . . .

* forbid the personal possession or use of drugs
* prohibit drug sales within the same state
* intervene in other countries with money or troops to fight undeclared drug wars

This means that drug prohibition laws can only exist at the state level. Imagine what could happen if some states had no prohibition laws, while other states had prohibition laws of differing severity. Competing claims about drug prohibition could be tested, in the real world. As it is . . .

Federal prohibition laws not only prohibit the sale and use of drugs, they also prohibit us from learning what would work best.

The 10th Amendment's Constitutional restrictions on federal power used to be well-known and understood. For instance, those who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the 1910's knew that the Constitution didn't give Congress the power to do this. So they had to pass the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

If prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment?

It's an important question. To ignore the Constitutional process is to ignore the rule of law. No matter how one feels about drug use, the rule of law, especially as applied to government power, is essential to protecting our lives, freedoms, and property. With this in mind . . .

We want to ask you to do something different today. We've changed the message to Congress for our "Help End the Mexican Civil War" campaign. For today's action item it reads . . .

"You've sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, so could you please answer three questions. 1. Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to wage a War on Drugs? 2. If alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment? 3. Shouldn't we be allowed to learn what works best by having states with different drug laws, or NO drug laws, in keeping with the 10th Amendment? I would appreciate an honest, thoughtful response."

If members of Congress receive enough of these messages, some will feel compelled to reply. We want to see what form these responses take, and we'd like to compare the names of those who respond with the list of those who have co-sponsored the "Enumerated Powers Act."

Remember, the "Enumerated Powers Act" would require Congress to cite its Constitutional authority for every law it passes. This would be impossible for them to do in the case of most drug prohibition laws, except those provisions that might squeeze through under the Commerce Clause.

If you receive a response could you please forward it to us, so we can publish it on our blog? Please let us know if you want us to omit your name to protect your privacy. Or, you can post the response in the Comments section of this blog post.

You can send your Constitutional questions to Congress here.

Please share this Dispatch with any friends who care about Constitutional requirements.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent?"

at DownsizeDC.org: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/whatever-happened-to-quot-presumed-innocent-quot

Liquor Licenses and Roads

Vito Congine was victimized twice. First by being denied a liquor license for his supper club. Second, because police confiscated his flag on the 4th of July just for flying it upside-down. I'm addressing the first issue here; the flag part will be addressed in tomorrow's Partial Observer column.

Liquor licensing is a gross violation of property rights, personal freedom, and freedom of association. It is a barbarous tool of the State which, by allowing some places to serve alcohol but not others, destroys economic competition at the expense of customers.

That said, I could see why people think liquor licenses make sense:

• Disorderly conduct - to prevent fights, riots, etc. But each person is responsible for their own actions, and the owner is responsible for security of the clientele as a whole. If the owner believes he can maintain order, and even has an insurance policy against disorder OR customers are warned that they enter at their own risk, it's not the business of anyone else.
• Noise pollution - some drinking establishments near residential neighborhoods are open in the late evenings. The music and shouting may disrupt the majority of nearby residents trying to sleep. It's a fair concern, but again the issue is keeping the noise down, not the drinking.
• Drunk driving - this is probably the obvious concern. Not every place is like Wrigleyville, Chicago, where one can quickly catch a cab no matter how late the bar is open. In small towns, the more places that serve liquor, the more people might drive drunk and get into an accident. But what does this really mean? The liberty of property owners must be sacrificed because the government is otherwise unable to keep the government's roads safe.

As Walter Block has written,

If the highways were now commercial ventures, as once in our history they were, and upward of 40,000 people were killed on them annually, you can bet your bottom dollar that Ted Kennedy and his ilk would be holding Senate hearings on the matter. Blamed would be "capitalism," "markets," "greed," i.e., the usual suspects. But it is the public authorities who are responsible for this slaughter of the innocents.

Block suggests that if roads were privately owned,

This does not mean that, were thoroughfares placed in private hands, the death toll would be zero. It would not. But, at least, every time the life of someone was tragically snuffed out, someone in a position to ameliorate these dangerous conditions would lose money, and this tends, wonderfully, to focus the minds of the owners. This is why we do not have similar problems with bananas, baskets, and bicycles, or the myriad other goods and services supplied to us by a (relatively) free-enterprise system.

Governments at all levels have no competition in the road business that I'm aware of, except in gated communities. At the same, such communities, and large privately-owned "public" places like Disney World seem less burdened by crime and accident than government-maintained public places such as city streets. If privately-maintained turnpikes paralleled every interstate highway across the nation, its owners would have greater incentive to keep them safe from dangerous vehicles and dangerous drivers - without infringing on the rights of individuals elsewhere.

But where the road owner is government - i.e., where there is no owner - government has the power to infringe on personal freedom and property rights of those not on the road. "We can't keep our roads safe, so let's prevent property owners from serving alcohol."

Just because we are stuck with this system and this logic for now doesn't make it right.

Your right to own a knife. A knife! A freakin' knife!

Read about it at DownsizeDC.org.

The "C" Word

Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. And I actually write the word out uncensored in my latest piece at the Partial Observer.

Federal hordes pillage Mongol property

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/federal-hordes-pillage-mongol-property

Quotes of the Day:

"If the court grants our request ... then if any law enforcement officer sees a Mongol wearing his patch, he will be authorized to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back." - U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien

"The government can't ban confederate flags, swastikas, or klan robes, and it sure as hell can't ban the display of the Mongols' logo." - Marc J. Randazza

"What if the government had decided that, because of the Watergate scandal, nobody could use the word Republican again? - Zeichner Ellman

Subject: Federal hordes pillage Mongol property

The Justice Department indicted 79 members of the Mongol Nation Motorcycle club for racketeering on October 21. The indictment included federal seizure of the "Mongols" trademarked name.

The case hasn't even gone to trial yet , but U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has authorized the seizure of the defendants' . . .

* Clothing, motorcycles, and other property bearing the Mongols trademark.
* Any similar property bearing the trademark that belongs to the defendants' "agents, servants, employees, family members, and those persons in active concert or participation with them."

In other words, many people who weren't even indicted will have their property seized.

This ruling has serious problems . . .

* In April, Mongol Nation transferred its trademark to Shotgun Productions, LLC, in April, a company that isn't even named in the indictment.
* Prohibiting possession of trademarked items sets a dangerous precedent. If the government for some reason seizes the Nike swoosh, could FBI agents strip Tiger Woods of his cap, shirt, and shoes?

Civil asset forfeiture was already wrong. The government has no right to seize property without a trial and conviction. But now Judge Cooper and the Justice Department have taken it to a whole new level . . .

* An organization could lose its trademark because of the alleged crimes of some of its members.
* Normal asset forfeiture only seizes property alleged to have been used for illegal purposes, but now the government can take property simply because it sports the wrong logo!
* People completely unrelated to any indictment are now having their property seized too!

Civil asset forfeiture already violates the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. Now it endangers the First Amendment too. Government officials could trump-up charges against any organization they don't like, seize its name, and put it out of business! It could happen to DownsizeDC.org!

This will chill freedom of expression.

Civil asset forfeiture must die. Use our Educate the Powerful System to tell Congress to repeal civil asset forfeiture.

Use your personal comments to tell Congress . . .

* About the Mongol case
* That's its wrong for the government to seize property without due process and a conviction
* And even more wrong to seize property simply because it sports a legally-obtained, trademarked logo.

Demand that Congress abolish civil asset .forfeiture.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC army.

And a hat tip to The Legal Satyricon blog for providing links to government documents.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

End Asset Forfeiture!

Today's Downsizer-Dispatch . . .

Quote of the Day:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." - Fifth Amendment to the Constitution

Subject: End Asset Forfeiture!

Civil asset forfeiture is government seizure of property or cash owned by individuals not charged with any crime. Law enforcement agents can seize a piece of property if they merely suspect it was used in a crime, whereas its owner must prove innocence to get it back. This is an inversion of justice and a gross violation of the Bill of Rights. But if you think the federal courts will protect innocent property owners, think again . . .

* A police dog's sniff of bundles of cash totaling $124,700 was used as sufficient evidence for the government to confiscate the money, even though a large percentage of currency in circulation contains traces of narcotics, and the government couldn't establish how or when the money was used in criminal activity.

* An Ohio man who kept a small amount of medical marijuana and who also kept his life savings in his own home saw the money taken by the FBI – even though he was never charged with marijuana possession.

* Individuals who consent to police searches can lose money kept in their vehicles – even where there is no trace of illegal drugs or suspicion of illegal activity.

* A woman charged with illegally selling medical equipment saw her assets frozen by the government, on the grounds that her wealth was from ill-gotten gains - preventing her from hiring adequate council to defend herself, as is her right under the 6th Amendment.

Civil asset forfeiture laws breed conflict-of-interest . . .

* Federal law enforcement seized $1.6 billion last year – triple the amount four years ago.

* The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ordered Leathermen toolkits for their agents, engraved with the motto “Always Think Forfeiture.” Fortunately, the program was halted thanks to the objection of Rep. Bill Sali, but it expresses the attitude that federal law enforcement agents should put plunder ahead of the interests of justice.

* States seized $1.52 billion in 2007; the State of Texas by itself collected $125 million, and many police department budgets are reliant on forfeiture, or “addicted to drug money.” This encourages them to seize the money after drug sales have been made, rather than keeping the drugs away from children – defeating the nominal purpose of the War on Drugs.

Unfortunately, federal courts have used twisted logic to uphold civil asset forfeitures. They have contended that since the property itself is condemned, and not its owner, norms like “innocent until proven guilty” do not apply. But if the government can seize your life savings, or your house, or the car you need to get to work, the effective punishment can be as bad or worse than the penalties imposed upon conviction of a crime – yet the owner of the seized property possesses no due process rights.

Because the courts will not act to end civil asset forfeitures, Congress must. A “compromise” asset forfeiture bill will only lead to more abuses and outrages. Civil asset forfeiture must be abolished. Tell Congress to . . .

* Require full Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment protection for all federal proceedings against owners of personal property.
* Permit seizures of criminal profits only upon criminal conviction of its owner.
* Permit seizures of legally-owned property only if its owner is convicted of a crime, to pay for fines, court costs, or restitution.
* Withhold federal funds to all state and local law enforcement agencies that engage in civil asset forfeiture.
* Enforce the 14th Amendment's requirement that “no person shall be deprived of ... property, without due process of law” by allowing victims of state and local seizures to contest forfeitures in federal court.

Please send Congress a message telling them you are outraged by civil asset forfeiture and that it must be abolished. You can do so here.

Thank you for being part of the growing Downsize DC army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

The Worst of All Worlds

Quotes of the Day

"It will be necessary for us to be a nation of men, and not laws." - Dick Cheney

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." - Bill Clinton

Subject: The Worst of All Worlds

Why did nearly half the Democrats in the House vote for the "FISA Amendments Act" that's now pending in the Senate, when most of them had opposed warrantless spying and telecom immunity before? The answer is that they were bribed, using your tax dollars.

The Washington Post claims a deal was cut: the Democratic Leadership would support the FISA bill if the President would agree to add $95 billion in DOMESTIC spending to the latest Iraq appropriation.

In other words, House Democrats voted to continue the war and sold the Fourth Amendment for $95 billion.

Republicans say they want less spending. Democrats say they want less war. What's their compromise? More spending and more war.

Indeed, House Democrats supported the Iraq bill at a higher rate than Republicans did.

So much for the "anti-war message" sent by the American people in the 2006 elections!

This sort of "compromise" brings us the worst of all worlds. It's the kind of world expressed in the views of Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton above. Politicians of both parties get annoyed when gadflies start talking about the Constitution and America's proud traditions of individual rights, liberty, and the rule of law. To them, "laws" and "rights" are just bargaining chips to use in passing their spending bills.

The current course they're plotting will lead to economic collapse, fiscal bankruptcy, an Orwellian Big Brother police state, and a faltering, over-extended military empire. Who knows what kind of chaos or despotism will follow.

But the people don't have to wait for things to fall apart. Instead, we can put massive, persistent, resistance-numbing pressure on Congress. Apply the pressure, and members of Congress will bend, and then they will flip-flop. They will have to, if they want to keep their jobs.

So let's tell Congress that the American people do not tolerate their cavalier attitude toward Constitutional rights and the rule of law.

Tell them to pass the "One Subject at a Time Act," which would have forced them to separate the Iraq bill from domestic bills. Tell them you're aware the Democrats in the House sold out in return for increased domestic spending. Tell them you don't like having your tax dollars used as bribes.

Tell them to pass the "Read the Bills Act," which would have forced them to actually read the 116 pages of H.R. 6304, the "FISA Amendments Act."

And keep telling the Senate to oppose the "FISA Amendments Act."

In your comments on all of these messages tell them you're proud we're a nation of laws, not men. Tell them OSTA and RTBA will help restore liberty by making it more difficult to sweep aside Constitutional rights in legislative horse trading.

Also, please consider joining the "Read the Bills Act Coalition." When you add "Read the Bills Act Coalition" button, banner, or tower ad on your website, we'll link to it from our blog and announce it in a Downsizer-Dispatch like this one, reaching almost 23,500 subscribers. To learn more, click here.

This week we welcome two new members to the Coalition:

Reinke Faces Life
The Virginian Rebel

Finally, in the last two weeks of June the House passed 44 bills totaling 969 pages, while the Senate passed 34 bills and 269 pages of legislation. A list of bills is available below my signature at the Downsize DC blog version of this Dispatch.

Thank you for being part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

The Civil Liberties Myth

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Democrats get a lot of mileage for their extreme pro-abortion views, faint pro-gay rights views, hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities, and being perceived as on the "Left" along with the ACLU. And yes, perhaps if you think the most important issue in the world is whether "under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance, you correctly perceive the Democrats agree with you more than Republicans. But if you think you can therefore trust Democrats in Congress and the White House to protect your rights on any issue that actually matters, you are hopelessly naive.

Why Democrats Are Hated

Over the years, the reputation has been that Democrats are in favor of civil liberties, a regulated economy, and Big Government, whereas the Republicans are in favor strong policing and morality over individual freedom, but favor a deregulated economy, and small government.

The perceptions don't meet the reality very often. Democrats often vote for "tough on crime" and "tough on national security" legislation to make people think Democrats can keep them "safe," while Republicans will expand regulations and the welfare state to make people think they stand for fairness and compassion. The result is that most "bi-partisan" bills create more laws and more spending.

And the funny thing is, such compromises never work. Even if some or most Republicans join Democrats in a major spending bill, the fact is that all the budget hawks and smaller-government advocates are on the Republican side, which "taints" the party as a whole for lacking compassion and fairness. Likewise, even if some or most Democrats join Republicans in some "War on Terror" program, the fact that almost all the pro-peace and pro-civil liberty advocates are on the Democratic side , which "taints" that party for being soft. That's why the parties are portrayed as if it's still 1964.

An example of this is the House Democratic Leadership folding on warrantless spying and telecom immunity. The issue is back in the Senate where there have been heroic efforts on the part of Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd. The Republican attack machine will claim that the Feingold-Dodd position is what Democrats really believe.

Now, I support Feingold and Dodd in their efforts to protect Americans from warrantless spying by their own government. But they are vulnerable to the charge that they are the worst possible hypocrites on this issue. For instance, Feingold is most famous for the McCain-Feingold bill, which sought to silence the speech of non-partisan groups during elections campaigns. What will Republicans say? That Feingold values the rights of terrorists over the free speech rights of Americans. Meanwhile, Dodd is working on a bill that would "would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government" and "a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers."

Mortgage brokers!

The Republicans would say that Dodd favors the rights of terrorists over people who want to make an honest buck.

Now, let me emphasize that Feingold and Dodd are right about warrantless spying and telecom immunity. The government is being given permission to spy not just on suspected terrorists, but on average Americans and, especially, high-profile critics of the government who then become vulnerable to frame-ups and blackmail.

But Feingold and Dodd have dug a whole for themselves. It is precisely because they are right on this issue that their hypocrisy stinks all the more. It is true that Feingold and Dodd are rightly fighting for the rights of suspected terrorists, because by preserving their rights we preserve our own. But it is also true that Feingold has no regard for free speech, and Dodd has contempt for the rights of anyone who wants to make a purchase or a decent living. In that sense, they do favor the rights of terrorists over law-abiding Americans.

This feeds the perception that Democrats, essentially, favor the rights of criminals over the law-abiding. That they are soft on criminals, hard on businessmen. That they protect the lives of murderers, but not the unborn. That they care more about the rights of undocumented immigrants than native-born Americans. That when it comes to national security, Democrats favor rights over security, but when it comes to economics, freedom be damned.

If Dodd wins the telecom fight but then, next week, wins on spying on America's mortgage brokers and financial transactions, that would be a pyrrhic victory indeed.