Phil Orenstein has been backing Lt. Col. Allen West for some time, and Jim Crum just sent me this video. Tell me this guy isn't awesome. Let's hope he wins office in the sunshine state. Here's a real presidential possibility for the tea party movement.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Michael Yon Detained in Airport and Released
One of my readers has suggested that I take a look at Andrew Breitbart's blog about Michael Yon, described as a "military blogger" who talked back to a customs officer in the Seattle Airport, was detained, questioned and then released. Breitbart's blog states:
>Yon was escorted to a room elsewhere in the airport where he said he remained silent during much of the questioning. According to Yon, “they handcuffed me for failing to cooperate. They said I was impeding their ability to do their job.”
>Yon described the TSA officials as noticeably frustrated by his refusal to answer their questions: “I always assume everything is being recorded. I was trying to be professional.”
>Yon continued, “They said I wasn’t under arrest, but I’m handcuffed. In any other country, that qualifies as an arrest.”
>Ultimately Port Authority police released Yon; according to Yon, the police were “completely professional” (emphasis added).
When I lived on the northern border of New York State in 1991-1994 I was body searched by the US customs officials and questioned several times in depth by the Canadians. At the time, I drove a bright blue Ford Probe, a somewhat sporty but inexpensive car (I liked it but Ford discontinued the model). Apparently, my scruffy appearance coupled with the car made me a target for search.
The imposition on my freedom was distasteful. I believe that the primary motive for the ongoing questioning was concern with drug trafficking, although terrorism may have been a secondary motive in the early 1990s. I believe in drug legalization, but that is irrelevant to the question of border searches.
I learned not to smart talk the customs officials and to answer their questions politely. One afternoon the US officers searched my car in considerable detail and I was physically searched. No one likes to be compelled like this, and there was a risk that a zealous customs officer might have planted evidence.
That said, the matter of terrorism is important. It is unfortunate that the techniques of investigating terrorism are not sophisticated enough to eliminate searches of someone like Yon who has done nothing wrong. Moreover, if it is possible to minimize terrorist threats while reducing searches of the Yon variety, I am for it.
I do not think that open borders would be wise at this time because of the terrorist threat. Instead, I do believe that more sophisticated profiling would be most beneficial. Likely, with more accurate profiling Yon would not have been questioned in detail.
Unfortunately, the left and many civil liberties advocates have opposed profiling. The thousands of people left dead by terrorists suffered the ultimate incursion on their civil liberties, but strangely, civil libertarians have rarely questioned how terrorist murder, a far more extreme incursion on civil liberties than anything that has been done by a customs officer, might be eliminated. Instead, objections have been raised at attempts to minimize more anti-libertarian murder by substituting less anti-libertarian tactics like profiling. Both are anti-libertarian, but murder more so than being questioned. Defense is a necessary evil.
Hence, I consider most civil libertarians of the Breitbart variety to be profoundly anti-libertarian. Nor do I think Yon is anything more than an activist trying for cheap publicity.
>Yon was escorted to a room elsewhere in the airport where he said he remained silent during much of the questioning. According to Yon, “they handcuffed me for failing to cooperate. They said I was impeding their ability to do their job.”
>Yon described the TSA officials as noticeably frustrated by his refusal to answer their questions: “I always assume everything is being recorded. I was trying to be professional.”
>Yon continued, “They said I wasn’t under arrest, but I’m handcuffed. In any other country, that qualifies as an arrest.”
>Ultimately Port Authority police released Yon; according to Yon, the police were “completely professional” (emphasis added).
When I lived on the northern border of New York State in 1991-1994 I was body searched by the US customs officials and questioned several times in depth by the Canadians. At the time, I drove a bright blue Ford Probe, a somewhat sporty but inexpensive car (I liked it but Ford discontinued the model). Apparently, my scruffy appearance coupled with the car made me a target for search.
The imposition on my freedom was distasteful. I believe that the primary motive for the ongoing questioning was concern with drug trafficking, although terrorism may have been a secondary motive in the early 1990s. I believe in drug legalization, but that is irrelevant to the question of border searches.
I learned not to smart talk the customs officials and to answer their questions politely. One afternoon the US officers searched my car in considerable detail and I was physically searched. No one likes to be compelled like this, and there was a risk that a zealous customs officer might have planted evidence.
That said, the matter of terrorism is important. It is unfortunate that the techniques of investigating terrorism are not sophisticated enough to eliminate searches of someone like Yon who has done nothing wrong. Moreover, if it is possible to minimize terrorist threats while reducing searches of the Yon variety, I am for it.
I do not think that open borders would be wise at this time because of the terrorist threat. Instead, I do believe that more sophisticated profiling would be most beneficial. Likely, with more accurate profiling Yon would not have been questioned in detail.
Unfortunately, the left and many civil liberties advocates have opposed profiling. The thousands of people left dead by terrorists suffered the ultimate incursion on their civil liberties, but strangely, civil libertarians have rarely questioned how terrorist murder, a far more extreme incursion on civil liberties than anything that has been done by a customs officer, might be eliminated. Instead, objections have been raised at attempts to minimize more anti-libertarian murder by substituting less anti-libertarian tactics like profiling. Both are anti-libertarian, but murder more so than being questioned. Defense is a necessary evil.
Hence, I consider most civil libertarians of the Breitbart variety to be profoundly anti-libertarian. Nor do I think Yon is anything more than an activist trying for cheap publicity.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Rubio Ousts Greer in Florida
Progressive Republican Jim Greer has stepped down as chair of the Florida Republican Party, according to Talking Points Memo.com. David Brooks in the New York Times mentioned Greer's replacement, Marc Rubio, as a potential leader of the Tea Party movement (along with former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson). I hesitate about the Brooks mention for obvious reasons. Anything associated with the Times is potentially cooptive. If I were Fidel Castro, I wouldn't be asking the Republican Liberty Caucus for advice, and we should be extremely wary of the Times's opinions.
TalkingPointsMemo.com writes:
"It's hard to overstate the importance of this resignation to the national GOP landscape.
"Florida is shaping up to be the epicenter of the intraparty GOP war in 2010, and the resignation of Greer suggests the battle is tilting toward the ultra-conservatives on the tea party side of the line. Ever since Crist entered the Senate race, Rubio backers have accused Greer of turning the state party into an arm of the Crist campaign. Crist and Greer are longtime political friends, and Greer made it clear from the get-go that he supported Crist over Rubio (he promised to run the party objectively, however.) Rubio backers began to attack him and call for his resignation. Now -- over Crist's objections -- they appear to have gotten their wish."
TalkingPointsMemo.com writes:
"It's hard to overstate the importance of this resignation to the national GOP landscape.
"Florida is shaping up to be the epicenter of the intraparty GOP war in 2010, and the resignation of Greer suggests the battle is tilting toward the ultra-conservatives on the tea party side of the line. Ever since Crist entered the Senate race, Rubio backers have accused Greer of turning the state party into an arm of the Crist campaign. Crist and Greer are longtime political friends, and Greer made it clear from the get-go that he supported Crist over Rubio (he promised to run the party objectively, however.) Rubio backers began to attack him and call for his resignation. Now -- over Crist's objections -- they appear to have gotten their wish."
Tea Party Movement
Jennifer Rubin of Commentary blogs about David Brooks's New York Times article. Even a Times Democrat like Brookes admits:
"the new administration has not galvanized a popular majority. In almost every sphere of public opinion, Americans are moving away from the administration, not toward it. The Ipsos/McClatchy organizations have been asking voters which party can do the best job of handling a range of 13 different issues. During the first year of the Obama administration, the Republicans gained ground on all 13."
Rubin makes several good points in response:
”The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to implement programs to solve the country’s problems.” Actually, I think it’s fair to say (in fact Brooks has been candid enough to say it on occasion) that the Obama team has become infatuated with a certain type of problem-solving — centralized, blind to unintended consequences, arrogant in the assumption of expertise, and lacking humility about government bureaucrats’ ability to micromanage the lives of hundreds of millions of us."
Like most of the Times's writers, the author has insufficient knowledge of American history or the philosophy underlying the nation's founding to understand the Lockean motivation behind the Tea Parties' outrage. The Times, like America's ill-educated "elite" in general, lacks the intellectual foundation to grasp why their ideas repeatedly fail; why many find them administration distasteful; and why better-educated tea party enthusiasts aim to throw the New York Times-supported bums out the door.
"the new administration has not galvanized a popular majority. In almost every sphere of public opinion, Americans are moving away from the administration, not toward it. The Ipsos/McClatchy organizations have been asking voters which party can do the best job of handling a range of 13 different issues. During the first year of the Obama administration, the Republicans gained ground on all 13."
Rubin makes several good points in response:
”The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to implement programs to solve the country’s problems.” Actually, I think it’s fair to say (in fact Brooks has been candid enough to say it on occasion) that the Obama team has become infatuated with a certain type of problem-solving — centralized, blind to unintended consequences, arrogant in the assumption of expertise, and lacking humility about government bureaucrats’ ability to micromanage the lives of hundreds of millions of us."
Like most of the Times's writers, the author has insufficient knowledge of American history or the philosophy underlying the nation's founding to understand the Lockean motivation behind the Tea Parties' outrage. The Times, like America's ill-educated "elite" in general, lacks the intellectual foundation to grasp why their ideas repeatedly fail; why many find them administration distasteful; and why better-educated tea party enthusiasts aim to throw the New York Times-supported bums out the door.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
