Yesterday a federal judge from the Southern District of New York blocked the federal government from using the indefinite detention provisions in last years National Defense Authorization Act. The lawsuit was brought by Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Birgitta Jonsdottir (including several others to make a total of 7 plaintiffs).  Their argument is that the NDAA violates ”both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Via Salon:

The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3) the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.

You don’t have to be arrested and imprisoned for a law to effect you. The plaintiffs argued that, as journalists, they have contact with a wide range of people and groups, even groups like the Taliban. The NDAA is so loosely written that journalists that have contact with groups like that or even “associated forces” could land them in military detention. In fact, one journalist has “prior journalistic activities relating to certain organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban” that creates a “realistic fear that those activities will subject him to detention under § 1021.″

One point that I find interesting is that under the NDAA people detained by the military can be denied a lawyer and their day in court. How does the DOJ expect some one to get “standing” if they can be detained and never see the inside of a courtroom?

The most important point here is the court’s rejection that “the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.” If the NDAA doesn’t create any new powers then there is nothing to overturn. The NDAA may appear similar to the 2001 AUMF, but the terms and powers are less defined and therefore wider reaching. When asked by the court the government refused to define terms like “covered person” or “associated forces” and what kind of actions qualify as “substantial” or “direct” “support” to group like al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

The icing on the cake is the courts flat-out rejection of President Obama’s signing statement:

The court also decisively rejected the argument that President Obama’s signing statement – expressing limits on how he intends to exercise the NDAA’s detention powers — solves any of these problems. That’s because, said the court, the signing statement “does not state that § 1021 of the NDAA will not be applied to otherwise-protected First Amendment speech nor does it give concrete definitions to the vague terms used in the statute.”

Not to mention that a signing statement holds no power of law what-so-ever. It’s the executive branch’s attempt to legislate, which is completely unconstitutional.

Over all this is a very good turn of events. If the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare and the enjoining of the detention provisions in the NDAA stand up to appeals, then perhaps we can hold on to the liberty we still have left.

[Image via Flickr/walknboston]

Senator Jim DeMint and Congressman Doug Lamborn wrote letters to appropriation committee chairmen detailing the need to defund the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which is asking for a $445 million advance for 2015. Congress has steadily increased the CPB’s funding from $340 million in 2001 to $441.1 million in 2012.

“CPB’s requested appropriation represents no reduction from its prior year appropriation level. While so many Americans are making sacrifices around the country to make ends meet, CPB appears unwilling to do the same,” DeMint and Lamborn said.

The Corporation of Public Broadcasting is responsible for government investment in public broadcasting and funds National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The two congressmen say federal funding is no longer necessary since consumers have a plethora of media choices. In addition, they say the organization no longer needs the money as evidenced by their President’s generous salary.

“According to its most recently available tax filings, Director and President Paula Kerger received $603,403 in reportable compensation in 2010. Certainly, thriving media entities that can afford to pay their executives such generous salaries should not be asking taxpayers to subsidize them.”

DeMint and Lamborn argue that cutting public broadcasting funds should be agreeable by everyone.

“As you know, the country is more than $15 trillion in debt, and at the end of this year the government is expected to reach its legal borrowing limit once again. We simply cannot afford to continue funding all of the programs that we have in the past. We face many hard choices ahead, but defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should be one of the easier decisions to make.”

Moreover, both programs are notoriously slanted with a liberal bias. There’s no excuse for funding an organization that furthers an agenda. Why can’t PBS and NPR start airing commercials like everyone else? If the programming is that essential, they should be able to survive without public funding on their own merits.

[Image via flickr/scazon]

The big take-away here is that Rand Paul and many Republicans are bringing ideas to the table and the Democrats are not.

Last year President Obama made the point numerous times that corporate jet owners and makers need to pay their fair share of taxes. Translation: pay more taxes. Less than a year later we are about to get exactly the opposite. The Export-Import Bank of the United States, chaired by Fred Hochberg, has promised to subsidize US corporate jet manufacturers more than it already does.

Via Bloomberg:

Ex-Im supported $90 million of corporate jet deliveries last year to customers of Textron Inc. (TXT)’s Cessna Aircraft Co, General Dynamics Corp. (GD)’s Gulfstream unit and Hawker Beechcraft Corp. Hochberg said he plans to boost the aid to $1 billion by 2014. The increased focus comes after order backlogs on corporate jets fell by more than half to $40 billion in three years.

Hawker Beechcraft, which is owned by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Onex Corp. (OCX), filed for bankruptcy on May 3 as crippling debts incurred from the company’s takeover combined with stalling sales for light corporate jets.

Hochberg’s comments come as the U.S. Senate votes today on a bill to boost Ex-Im support 40 percent to $140 billion by 2014.

You would think the President wouldn’t want this to happen after all of his complaining about low taxes on corporate jet owners.

Subsidizing an industry is wrong; we all can agree with that. Just like most people would agree the bank bailouts were a bad idea. Here is an organization, the Import-Export Bank, that was created for the singular purpose of subsidizing businesses and industries. According to Wikipedia:

It was established in 1934 by an executive order, and made an independent agency in the Executive branch by Congress in 1945, for the purposes of financing and insuring foreign purchases of United States goods for customers unable or unwilling to accept credit risk… Its Charter spells out the Bank’s authorities and limitations. Among them is the principle that Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private sector lenders, but rather provides financing for transactions that would otherwise not take place because commercial lenders are either unable or unwilling to accept the political or commercial risks inherent in the deal.

By it’s very definition this “bank” is anti-free market. It “provides financing for transactions that would otherwise not take place because commercial lenders are either unable or unwilling.” This is in direct contradiction to how a market is supposed to work. Banks and lenders in the market determine the risks and benefits of entering into business or loaning money and pick the ones that are worth the price. That creates efficiency because money and resources are used carefully or else they are lost. The government doesn’t play those rules. If the government is giving out money to businesses that can’t get it elsewhere, then that’s a good indicator that its a risky transaction. It’s our money that is put at risk and none of us have given consent to loaning out our money.

The President’s hypocrisy on the issue is obvious, but the Import-Export Bank’s very existence is the real story.

[Image via Flickr/Global Jet]

The RNC released a new web ad Monday displaying President Obama’s hypocrisy when it comes to the deficit. It’s stunning to hear so much debt rhetoric coming from the President after witnessing a completely different man in action.

In one sound bite the President says, “I pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term.”

“The American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,” he says in another.

Instead of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term, he managed to triple it.

“I promise you that there is simply too much debt on America’s credit card.”

No argument here. The problem is, he’s been saying one thing and doing another. And we truly are sick of politicians who do a lot of talkin’, but not a lot of walkin’.

We are on the verge of an economic crisis in the government debt securities market that has the potential to derail our financial system. Economic planners in Washington and at the Federal Reserve have set interest rates artificially low which has encouraged reckless spending by our elected officials. Although we are currently servicing our debt at manageable levels; that’s fictitious and will soon come to an abrupt end. And when it does, it will be devastating to the holders of long term fixed income securities and those dependent on government entitlements.

How We Got Here

Throughout the past century, the United States has continuously run budget deficits. War and expansionary programs have contributed to the country’s overall debt. In the fall of 2008 the Bush Administration and Congress took our deficits to a whole new level. Within one year, the federal government tripled the budget deficit to a record high of $1.4 trillion. They decided that the role of the federal government now expanded to saving financial firms who made calculated mistakes on the mortgage business.

As Americans watched the uncertainty in the marketplace, it became obvious that elected officials had absolutely no fiscal discipline or understanding of economics. Instead of reversing course from the record deficit set in Fiscal Year 2009, Washington kept it going. Politicians relied heavily on the advice of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. So as the economy started along a path of recovery, the planners in Washington continued to rack up historic budget deficits. In other words, both our Presidents and our congressional leaders since 2008 have continuously spent more money each year than they collected in revenue. As you can see from the following charts, the figures are astounding.

These budget deficits needed to be funded, of course, and the way the government borrows money is by selling securities known as Treasuries. Every week the Department of Treasury holds an auction to raise the funds that are needed in order to meet its current obligations. These auctions are comprised of several types of structured securities at multiple maturities.

Treasury Bills – 3 weeks, 13 weeks, 26 weeks, 52 weeks

T-Notes – 2 yr, 3 yr, 5 yr, 7 yr, 10 yr

T-Bonds – 30 yr

Unlike the reality that American households face when they obtain an enormous amount of credit card debt, the U.S. government has no plan to pay the money back. So it basically borrows money to pay the interest on the debt outstanding. If you and I had debt, we would need to under-consume (forgo movie nights, new cars, vacations, etc). We would need to make serious cuts in order to get our financial house in order. But Washington isn’t doing this at all.

Stay tuned! There’s more analysis to come at the end of the week when I cover where we’re headed and what we can do to avoid our predictable financial crisis.

As it turns out, government employees are as poor of stewards of taxpayer money as politicians are. Big surprise. Much of the problem is the fact that government has expanded so much that it is difficult to police all the money that flows through it. On average a wasteful/fraudulent government employee costs the taxpayer $100,000.

Via The Washington Free Beacon:

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the world’s largest anti-fraud organization, found that public-sector administration employees are responsible for more than 10 percent of fraud cases, ranking behind only financial professionals. In 141 cases examined, the group found that a crooked employee costs taxpayers a median loss of $100,000.

…

ACFE spokesman Scott Patterson said access to large amounts of money and an entitlement mentality could lead to fraud in any organization.

“Government is handling a lot of money, but there have still been cutbacks, so you can have an employee who says ‘I haven’t gotten a raise in two year, so I deserve this,’” he said.

Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, commented saying, “The objective in Washington generally is to spend the money, not necessarily to examine results or worry about how effectively it’s being spent.” A comment by a congressional staffer agreed with Schatz’s point.

A congressional staffer who has worked to combat fraud at the federal level agreed that the amount of money being spent has stretched the government thin and left limited accountability. A culture has developed that excuses lavish spending programs, he said, pointing to the GSA’s $800,000 Las Vegas retreat, which has resulted in several firings and resignations.

“The federal government is sending all of this money out and there’s no follow up, no accountability,” the staffer said. “It’s part of the culture.”

This study just confirms what we all know. Government is inefficient and wasteful.  Energy Department loans, the GSA Las Vegas retreat, vacations for the First Lady, Medicare fraud, congressional slush funds, stimulus spending, and now individual government employees are taking us to the cleaners. And the Democrats want to tax us more. Great idea.

The Republicans must be doing a poor job of conducting the War on Women because Mitt Romney is now leading President Obama in that demographic. Romney didn’t even release an ad promising to cater to women’s every need.

Via The Washington Examiner:

President Obama’s claim that the GOP is mounting a war on women has proven to be a failure. A month into his assault on the Republicans and Mitt Romney, the new CBS-New York Times poll shows that the GOP presidential candidate now leads among women–and men.

Since April, women have gone from strongly backing Obama to endorsing Romney. In April, Obama held a 49 percent to 43 percent lead among women. That has now flipped to 46 percent backing Romney with 44 percent for Obama, an 8-point switch.

Ironically, Romney’s support among men has dropped, but he still edges Obama 45 percent to 42 percent.

No worries for the Obama administration though; no one will be told about this development:

And here’s a surprise: Despite the media hyping the so-called war on women, no major outlet today noticed Romney’s new lead with women voters.

“This is unbelievable,” said conservative consultant Greg Mueller. “The CBS story manages to not mention the change in women numbers,” he said, adding sarcastically. “No media bias here — Obama is getting fluffy stories about his commencement speech to women at Barnard  – so we better bury the reality.”

I don’t usually jump to Mitt Romney’s defense but when someone actively lies about a Republican in a national campaign ad it’s a little different.  Where are Obama’s people who target those who lie or run misleading ads? Should they not be hounding the President himself?

This is the truth.  Obama can’t run on his own record so he is trying to destroy Mitt Romney’s.  If anything, Mitt Romney leading Bain Capital could have been what was keeping GST Steel afloat and Mr. Lavine could have bungled the job.  We don’t know the details yet, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

Nice try Mr. President.

[Image via Flickr/ell-r-brown]

The best way for the government to create jobs is to stop spending money on jobs that do not last.  The President continually states we need to make sure there are jobs for Americans.  Of course we need jobs for Americans but at what cost?  And why?  The continual spending of our government is just making the debt situation worse.  The threat of increased taxes to pay down the debt is hampering job creation, among other things.

When the government gets out of the private sector to boost jobs is when ingenuity prevails.  Private industry comes in and creates a market on its own.  Ah, the wonders of capitalism!  If only our President would take a step back and realize the best way to stabilize the private sector is to stabilize the government sector.  Reduce taxes and spending.  Pay down the debt.  Let private companies see the US is where business can flourish.  Without that sentiment companies will continue to fail and the government will (if no one stops it) continue to spend like crazy trying to create temporary jobs and bailout companies that should not receive them.

Let the free market run its course. The government is not and never will be the solution.  The American public and their great ideas will always prevail.

[Image via Flickr/fsnorthernregion]

We’ve been warning about the government’s increased use of domestic drone flights to spy on American citizens. A new Air Force directive has dramatically intensified this problem by allowing private information collected by its drones within the United States to be stored and analyzed, as long as it was ‘incidental’ reports Wired.

“Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent,” reads the instruction (.pdf), unearthed by the secrecy scholar Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. That kind of “incidental” spying won’t be immediately purged, however. The Air Force has “a period not to exceed 90 days” to get rid of it — while it determines “whether that information may be collected under the provisions” of a Pentagon directive that authorizes limited domestic spying.
In other words, if an Air Force drone accidentally spies on an American citizen, the Air Force will have three months to figure out if it was legally allowed to put that person under surveillance in the first place.

The actual Air Force directive says:

Information inadvertently received about US persons may be kept temporarily, for a period not to exceed 90 days, solely for the purpose of determining whether that information may be collected under the provisions of Procedure 2, DoD 5240.1-R and permanently retained under the provisions of Procedure 3, DoD 5240.1-R. If there is any doubt as to whether the US person information may be collected and permanently retained, the receiving unit should seek advice through the chain of command, Judge Advocate General (JAG), or IO monitor.

Incidentally acquired information reasonably believed to indicate a violation of federal law shall be provided to appropriate federal law enforcement officials through AFOSI channels.
Information incidentally acquired during the course of Air Force counterintelligence activities reasonably believed to indicate a violation of state, local, or foreign law will be provided to appropriate officials IAW procedures established by the Commander, AFOSI. Information incidentally acquired during the course of Air Force foreign intelligence activities reasonably believed to indicate a violation of state, local, or foreign law will, unless otherwise decided by AF/A2 for national security reasons, be provided to AFOSI IAW procedures established by the AF/A2, or his/her designee, for investigation or referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Information covered by this paragraph includes US person information (See paragraph 12.).

Who honestly believes this directive won’t be abused? If the government wants to spy on a certain citizen, they merely have to send a drone on a mission in the same direction. ‘Oops, we accidentally acquired private information about you! I guess we’ll have to keep it!’

The Fourth Amendment is not a privilege. It’s a constitutional right guaranteed to every American citizen.

This directive must be repealed.

[Image via flickr/Bytemarks]

It’s been an interesting primary, but it’s now drawing to a conclusion. The final candidate standing against Mitt Romney is ending his campaign. Today Ron Paul said his campaign will not be competing in any of the state primaries that have not already happened, but his work isn’t done.

Via The Washington Times:

Mr. Paul said he will continue to work to win delegates in states that have already voted and where the process of delegate-selection is playing out. He said that’s a way to make his voice heard at the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August.

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

This was Ron Paul’s third presidential run. He ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988 and in the GOP primary in 2008. He may have been a long shot, but he ideas (and his followers) will outlast him by a long run. You can’t say that about any of the other candidates, even Romney. Him can be credited for bringing the Federal Reserve, a humble foreign policy, smaller government, and personal liberty to the national debate. Even Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have adopted one or two of Paul’s talking points.

UPDATE: Technically, the campaign isn’t “over.” It’s just focusing on the states it can win delegates from. Even though the delegate strategy is going really well it remains to be seen exactly how far it can take them. The quote above shows that even though they aren’t going into anymore state competitions they will still be active in pursuing delegates, but I chose the wording in the title poorly and just wanted to make it clear that Ron Paul hasn’t left the race. Here’s what Jack Hunter has to say about the Paul campaign announcement.