ID = Intimidation?

Last week as part of my trip to Disney World, I had to go through Airport Security three times. Each time, TSA officers attempted to intimidate me from flying. From my observations it appeared that this attempted intimidation was not limited only to me, but appeared to be directed at everyone planning to fly. Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems uninterested in this widespread conspiracy to restrict our constitutional right to travel. What form did this intimidation take? Before I was allowed to fly, I HAD TO SHOW A PICTURE ID!!! Someone call the ACLU. Call Hillary Clinton. Call Al Sharpton. No Justice! No Peace!

Am I being silly? Of course. But no sillier than the critics of yesterdays Supreme Court ruling in the combined cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that Indiana may require a photo ID to vote. Hillary Clinton said the following about the decision:

Most of the fraud that we have seen in the last several years had nothing to do with voters showing up and not having the right identification. It had a lot to do with a concerted effort to deny people the right to vote, to not count votes, to intimidate people from showing up to vote.

How is requiring ID intimidating? It reminds me of the outrage in NYC when the Giuliani administration began requiring welfare recipients to be fingerprinted. The critics claim this was an attempt to “stigmatize” welfare recipients since criminals are fingerprinted. Of course aspiring lawyers taking the bar exam are fingerprinted. As are all licensed teachers. Requiring photo ID or fingerprints have nothing to do with intimidation or stigma. They are simply ways to be sure people are who they say are. Just for the record, when the fingerprinting requirement went into effect in NYC, half of the people receiving welfare never showed up and dropped off the rolls. Intimi8dation or fraud?

Batman Trailers. Deja Vu?

Someone took the trailer for Tim Burton's Batman movie and edited it so it matches up with the trailer for Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight. They did an amazing job. Here they are side by side.

See more funny videos at CollegeHumor

A Just Verdict

There has been a tremendous amount of criticism of Judge Arthur Cooperman’s verdict in the trial of acquitting the police officers charged with homicide and reckless endangerment in the shooting of Sean Bell. While I did not follow the trial religiously, I do think it was fair and just verdict. Don’t get me wrong, the death of Sean Bell was neither fair nor just. It was a mistake and a tragedy and the police were most likely negligent, but negligence does not equal murder.

Legally, it didn’t matter whether Sean Bell had a gun or not, the question was whether it was reasonable for the police to believe he had one. The prosecution’s burden was to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers did not have a good faith belief they were in danger. Police officers accused of crimes are entitled to the same constitutional and procedural rights as other defendants.

The acquittal may not be the end of it however. As Newsday reports:

Also yesterday, a group of black leaders gathered at the Harlem headquarters of the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network and said they are hoping to meet with the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. They are urging the federal agency to investigate and prosecute the officers involved in the shooting. After the acquittal was announced Friday, the Justice Department said it would review the case to see whether any federal civil rights statutes were violated.

Prosecuting the officers under Federal Civil Rights laws would be wrong, a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitutions prohibition against Double Jeopardy. It is one thing to allow a second federal prosecution in cases where the first prosecution was a sham, such as a occurred in the South in the 1960’s when whites who assaulted or murdered African-Americans were acquitted by all white juries or only half-heartedly prosecuted by white district attorneys. But there was nothing “unfair” about how this trial was conducted. The problem is that the verdict is unpopular.

Travel Lessons Learned

I spent last week in Orlando on vacation with my family. I got to spend time with my niece and goddaughter Katie. She is 17-months old and while she tends to be cranky and has a habit of hitting people in the face, she is absolutely adorable.

I had a wonderful time while I was there visiting Disney World and the Universal Parks, but getting there wasn’t nearly as much fun. I booked my flights through Orbitz and chose the cheapest fair. That was my mistake and it ended up costing me more in the long run.

My flight to Orlando had a layover in Washington (which I didn’t mind so much). My mistake was that each leg was on a different carrier. I flew to DC on Delta. My flight to Orlando was on United. Unfortunately, because Dick Cheney flew into JFK, to meet the Pope and the Pope then left for Rome, the airport was shut down. My flight was delayed for 2 hours and I missed my connection, the last flight of the night to Orlando. Since my connection was on another airline that was my problem not theirs. I did get a coupon for a hotel discount. Woo Hoo. They told me it would take 3 hours to get my checked bag, so I had no clean clothes for the next day. I was able to take a shower and get a toothbrush from the hotel, but then I had to put the same dirty clothes on the next morning.

So lessons learned: 1. Never book connecting flights on different airlines. 2. Pack a change of underwear and socks in your carry on. 3. Never fly out of the same airport as the Pope.

What We Learned From The Debate

Yesterday afternoon, Peter Wehner, posted an analysis of the most recent Democratic debate to National Review Online. In Fisking Barack Obama, Wehner first notes the anger directed at ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson by Obama supporters. I can say that this anger is wide spread on the Huffington Post, with many posters calling for a boycott of ABC and its parent company Disney. (Naturally of course I am going to go to Disney World next week.) Wehner argues that the debate questions were fair, relevant and informative.

On Iraq, Obama reaffirmed a rock-hard pledge that he will withdraw our combat troops and leave no permanent bases. He is wholly uninterested in what General Petraeus or anyone else has to say on the matter of our mission; our troops are coming home, come what may. And if as a result of a precipitous withdrawal we see mass death and genocide, a revitalized al-Qaeda, a strengthened Iran, and massive instability in the region, the withdrawal would presumably continue. There is, it seems, no scenario that would cause Obama to change his mind. David Brooks of the New York Times put it well: “To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.”

Charley Gibson noted that past decreases in the capital gains tax have led to increases in capital gains tax revenue, while tax increases have led to decreases in revenue. This is an example of the Laffer Curve at work. You can read my discussion of it here. But basically the idea is that people take tax rates into account when making decisions to work save or invest with lower tax rates leading to more (taxable) economic activity. This is especially true with capital gains taxes, because capital gains taxes are only paid when an asset is sold. The decision to sell or hold an asset is significantly affected by how high the capital gains tax is.

Sen. Obama’s response was, “I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” Obama assures us that he wants “businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success.” But he also wants to “make sure … that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.” But back to the empirical evidence: when capital-gains taxes are cut, the private economy expands. So if lowering the capital gains tax led to a stronger economy and higher revenues, Obama presumably would still oppose it on grounds of “fairness” (a concept that doesn’t help you determine what the precise tax rate ought to be). This demonstrates the depth of Obama’s animus toward the corporate world, which is the engine of prosperity for America.

The problem with Obama’s idea of fairness is that values reducing income inequality over economic prosperity. We have all heard it said that the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. That is only half right. The rich are getting richer but so are the poor, just not as fast as the rich. The gap between the richest and the poorest is widening, but the poor today generally enjoy a much higher standard of living than they did 20 or 40 years ago. The question is this: Is it more important to raise up the poor or to reduce the gap between rich and poor? Because here is the problem, the policies that will do the most to create economic opportunities for the poor and the middle class will also allow the rich to get richer. Is it fair to reduce opportunities for the poor and middle class just to keep the rich from getting farther out in front?

Obama wasn’t much better in his treatment of other issues. Last night he said that a central focus of his campaign was to deliver on “middle-class tax relief.” When asked if he had just taken a pledge on not raising taxes on people making less than $200,000, Obama agreed. But later in the debate Obama admitted he would raise the cap on the payroll tax, meaning that those making more than $97,000 a year would pay higher payroll taxes. When Charles Gibson pointed out this fact to Obama and said there are “a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and $250,000” and that if you raise the payroll taxes, that will raise taxes on them, Obama said, “I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.” But of course if he exempts all of those in between, then he’s not going to raise the payroll tax to help save Social Security. And if he doesn’t exempt all of those in between, then he’s raising taxes on those making less than $200,000.

I remember when Bill Clinton ran for president, he promised to raise taxes on millionaires. When he took office, the tax increases were on people making $125,000 a year. How did that make you a millionaire? Well if you were married to a person also making $125,000 a year in four years you would have a million dollars. It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is, or what millionaire is. Something like that. But anyway, congratulations, the Democratic presidential candidate will make almost everyone rich.

If you read Wehner’s article you can read about Obama’s position on guns and affirmative action.

Mitt Romney *TOP TEN REASONS I DROPPED OUT*

Dick Cheney Speaking Last Night At The Radio-TV Correspondents Dinner

Part I



Part II

Only Watch This If You Are A Democrat

It's a JOKE people!!!

With Friends Like These....

I know that Barack Obama is not a Muslim or an Al Qaeda Manchurian Candidate as some reprehensible Internet rumors claim. But this endorsement is not going to help. During an interview on WABC radio last Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.

“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.

I don’t mean to knock Obama personally; candidates have no control over who endorses them. I am sure if asked Obama will both reject and denounce Hamas. But again from a policy argument, what does it say that a terrorist organization prefers Obama’s foreign policy to McCain’s?

A Heart-Warming Story Not Fit To Print

Here is a heart-warming story that didn’t seem to make the mainstream media, Coming Full Circle, Iraqi Born Marine Receives American Citizenship in Country of His Birth.

Lance Cpl. Evan Eskharia, a basic water systems technician with Marine Wing Support Squadron 374, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward), received his United States citizenship during a naturalization ceremony at al-Faw Palace, Baghdad, April 12.

Receiving his U.S. citizenship in the war-torn country of his birth represents the culmination of his family’s determination and will to flee an oppressive regime and seek the freedoms and opportunities only offered in America.“

This is in my top three proudest days of my life,” said Eskharia, who lived in El Cajon, Calif., prior to joining the Marine Corps. “It’s up there with the birth of my son and receiving my eagle, globe and anchor.”

The naturalization ceremony was the largest outside the United States, with 259 service members from 71 different countries receiving their citizenship.“

It’s that feeling in your heart, that now you’re a U.S. citizen; it feels really good,” Eskharia added.

When Eskharia was 9 years old, he and his family fled Iraq to Turkey due to Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime. At the time, when an Iraqi boy turned 16, he would be drafted into the Iraqi military. Having five male children, Eskharia’s mother and father decided they would rather leave the country than see their children become a part of Saddam’s tyranny.

After spending 3 years in a Turkish refugee camp, Eskharia’s family was allowed to immigrate to the United States.

To repay the country who took he and his family in, Eskharia made a decision few American citizens and even fewer immigrants make – to join the United States Marine Corps.

“He’s (Eskharia) put in a lot of hard work to get into the Marine Corps and to get his naturalization,” said Eskharia’s brother-in-law, Sgt. Wendall F. Anderson, special intelligence systems administrator, MWSS-373, 3rd MAW (Fwd). “He feels that since America took him and his family in, he owes America a debt of gratitude and that’s why he joined the Marine Corps.”

What’s next for Eskharia?

Conquering one of his life goals, Eskharia stays focused on his future. Speaking Aramaic, and with his knowledge of Arabic, Eskharia would like to go to military linguist school in Monterey, Calif., to hone his Arabic language skills and become a linguist for the Marine Corps.

“I feel he makes a great Marine; he’s a good person, a good father, a good husband and a good brother,” said Anderson, a Buffalo, Mo., native. “I think this is well deserved.”“In my heart, this is what I’ve always wanted to do,” explained Eskharia. “I’ve wanted to be a U.S. citizen ever since we came to the states from Baghdad. It’s very important to me because it’s an accomplishment and an achievement in my life.”

The New York Times has no trouble publishing a story portraying our returning veterans as potential violent time bombs waiting to explode even though statistically, veterans are much less likely to commit crimes than others in their age groups. But Evan Eskharia’s story is unfit to print.

Should We Replace The Progressive Income Tax?

I know I am a few days late for tax day, but here is an explanation of two proposed alternatives to our current income tax. This video is presented by the Cato Institute’s Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation and his hosted by Dan Mitchell. Last month I posted a 3-part series by the same folks discussing the Laffer Curve. You can see those here.

Wildly Popular 'Iron Man' Trailer To Be Adapted Into Full-Length Film

I know it’s a joke, but did you ever notice how often the trailer is so much better than the movie? But I will take my chances and see Iron Man on opening weekend. After all, I went to high school with the director. More importantly, it looks awesome.