There are a number of studies indicating cell phone usage for young children can cause developmental problems and now the state of Colorado wants to pass a cell phone ban restricting the sale of such devices to anyone under thirteen.

Anyone who reads my blog well knows I’m a Libertarian and you can probably guess on which side of the issue I come down upon. However, it’s not quite as cut and dried as you might imagine. Naturally I think it’s a silly law, I hope that goes without saying. Parents have access to information indicating what is a good age for cell phone use and how much such devices should be used by children. Said parents should make the final decision about their child’s use of cell phones. It is ridiculous for the state to attempt to usurp the rights of the parents so.

That being said, the Constitution of the United States is silent on the subject of cell phone sales with the intent to distribute to a child. Where the Constitution is thus silent, it is the purview of states to do as they will. In this case, the constitution does not grant me, or anyone else, the right to own a cell phone. Therefore, the state of Colorado is free to ban the sale of such devices.

I think the passing of such ridiculous laws often results in exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they tried to limit the power of government. It is when legislators try to impose such ridiculous bans on the people of our country that action is often finally taken. If the people in Colorado think this ban is insane, if manufacturers of cell phones move their business elsewhere, if a parent is denied the right to buy their child a cell phone and has to go through the inevitable black-market to get one; there is recourse. They can vote for representatives who repeal such a law.

That’s the way it’s supposed to work. I think our elected officials are obligated to pass the laws they think are best for communities. They shouldn’t worry about the number of votes they get in subsequent elections. They shouldn’t worry about what the people of Colorado think about this law, if the politicians think it’s a good law, pass it.

Then the matter goes to the voters.

This is the driving force behind our form of government. It only works when politicians care about passing laws and stop worrying about public sentiment. I think this law is ridiculous, but the elected representatives of the people of Colorado may think otherwise. Good for them.

Tom Liberman

I see a familiar pattern in the beating of the war drums. Our enemies are readying to attack us. They are engaged in acts of war upon the United States. We must defend ourselves. It is quite similar to the mantra that came out of President George W. Bush’s Whitehouse prior to our invasion of Iraq. It seems to be resonating with the same group of people.

War is not a glorious endeavor. War means death, maiming, horrific psychological damage. Even if we are successful in various combat scenarios it entails long operations where soldiers are subject to guerilla style attack. It means families are split for years, that fathers and mothers are separated from children. And this is only for our troops, the ostensible enemy is mainly non-combatants and they will suffer the most, they always do in war.

War is sometimes necessary, this I do not deny. However, I see nothing to be gained from war in Syria or war in North Korea. I’m quite certain our military can inflict huge amounts of damage. We can kill hundreds of thousands of people. The losses of our enemies will likely be far greater than any we sustain, but to what end?

North Korea is a nation of twenty million people. It is physically adjacent to China and far from our shores. Supporting such an effort would cost trillions of dollars in addition to the money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, two conflicts from which are yet fully extricated.
Syria is in the middle of an incredibly volatile region. There are so many different factions involved it’s impossible to count them all. Any ally of ours today will almost certainly be an enemy tomorrow. Our troops in Afghanistan are being attacked by supposed allies on a weekly basis and the situation in Syria will be far worse.

Russia has a strong military, certainly not as powerful as our own, but one that can inflict serious damage to our soldiers. They can sink our ships and shoot our planes out of the sky. China can do the same.

Supporting our troops in these far-flung regions is not an easy endeavor and our allies are more and more closing their doors to our support lines. Our major airfield in the region is at Incirlik but the Turks are not in agreement with our policy regarding the Kurds. We have armed the Kurds and aided their attacks. It is likely Turkey will refuse to allow us to use this base in active war. We maintain bases in Iraq, despite any nonsense you’ve heard that we fully pulled out of the country, but they are not as functional as Incirlik.

I suppose people somehow get the illusion in their head that war will be easy. That we won’t take too many casualties, that not that many soldiers will be maimed. I’m not sure how, after recent events, people can think like this, but as I read the comments it is undeniably so.
And the drums beat on, those who support them are vocal. The more people support such saber rattling, such belligerent talk, such tough posturing; the deeper we become enslaved to these policies. We can’t back down once we’ve crossed certain lines. At least that’s largely the sentiment I perceive.

Sometimes I think it is people just carrying over their feelings from the recent election, half-troll, half-serious. I see this apparent eagerness to attack our enemies, to put our troops in harm’s way, to expose so many people to so much potential harm and people treating it like a game of words to one-up their friends on Facebook.

This is war. This is lives. This is not a game. Choose your position wisely.

Tom Liberman

Executive Privilege is a subject of much debate thanks to Attorney General Jeff Session’s sort of thinking about, maybe, kind of, invoking it in regards to testimony about the firing of FBI Director James Comey. I’d like to examine the principle of Executive Privilege as a whole and what it means to a Libertarian like myself.

The first thing we must clearly understand is Executive Privilege is not in the Constitution of the United States. Nope. Not a word. The President and his communications are not immune to oversight from Congress and the Legislative Branch. Both branches can and do have the right to subpoena such information if it is material to their oversight responsibilities.

The next thing we must immediately dispense with is the idea that one political party has a monopoly on using Executive Privilege. The previous three presidents have resorted to this doctrine to cover-up wrongdoing on a scale not seen in the first two-hundred plus years of this nation’s existence. President Bill Clinton used it to attempt to avoid testimony from the Secret Service during the Monica Lewinsky affair. President George W. Bush used it to avoid releasing information about the highly suspicious death of Pat Tillman and the disgusting cover-up that followed. President Barak Obama used it to prevent release of information in regards to the Fast and Furious firearms operation.

Our first president, George Washington, once refused to turn over information regarding negotiations on a treaty with England to the House of Representative believing the Senate alone had oversight responsibilities on ratification of such items. He did turn it over to the Senate.

Thomas Jefferson refused to turn over information relating to Vice President Aaron Burr because it contained sensitive information related to the security of the nation. In my opinion, and that of Chief Justice Warren Burger, Executive Privilege should be used only in the rare cases national security interests are involved. When the investigation or prosecution of a crime is underway, the agency or branch charged with oversight should almost always be able to see those documents, certainly privately and not for public release.

The first time we see Executive Privilege used to hide normal conversations between the president and anyone is when President Andrew Jackson used it in regards to his discussions about the Second Bank of the United States.

President Dwight Eisenhower invoked it in regards to Senator Eugene McCarthy and request of military information regarding communists.

President Nixon used in an attempt to prevent information about the Watergate scandal from getting to into the hands of prosecutors. Then the floodgates opened with Clinton, Bush, Obama, and as we’re seeing President Donald Trump. They are using the idea that any conversation, even if criminal, is privileged.

Point in hand is the current situation. We all know what happened. There is no mystery. Trump wanted to fire Comey. He asked Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to find a reason to do it. His real purpose was discomfort at Comey’s investigation into ties between his administration and Russia. If Sessions knew this was the real purpose, and isn’t saying, he has broken the law. He was recused from the investigation. Therefore, Sessions must go on with the charade that he had no idea that’s why Trump wanted to fire Comey. If he refuses to testify at all, citing Executive Privilege, then he will not be guilty of perjury should hard evidence of the real situation become available. This would end up with Sessions in prison.

Now, finally, as to my point of a view on all of this. As a Libertarian, I’m disturbed by the entire idea of Executive Privilege. If information is pertinent to a criminal investigation I see few reasons it shouldn’t be turned over. I understand national security and secret information must be treated with great care. Such details should be released only to the highest-level officials with oversight authority into the particular case.

What the President of the United States says to his advisors is absolutely my business. I pay all of their salaries. This is my country as much as it is theirs. If they want to talk about something then, as public officials, they must be prepared for that information to be available in a criminal investigation. If a crime has been committed you can’t simply say I won’t talk about it, Executive Privilege. If people can’t see how obviously dangerous that precedent truly is, well, I don’t imagine you should bother reading further.

Executive Privilege is a vile perversion of the very job our elected officials are supposed to be doing. If they commit a crime they must be held accountable for it. If they don’t have to give over information that implicates their criminal activities then what is to stop them from engaging in lawless behavior all the time, other than their conscience? Clearly, nothing.

If our elected officials can commit crimes without oversight, without the ability of law enforcement to conduct investigations, I fear for our nation. Holding elected representatives, all the way to the highest office, accountable for criminal behavior is vital to our national security. Far more important than the privacy of any particular conversation.

I’m virtually certain those who consider themselves supporters of President Trump will think I’m completely wrong about this now but would have totally agreed during the Obama presidency. And, of course, vice versa. That’s another big part of the problem but I’ll leave that alone for today.

Executive Privilege is a crime against the people of the United States. It should largely not exist.

Tom Liberman

I suspect most people reading this blog will remember Manuel Noriega, who recently died, as a bad guy. A brutal dictator who trafficked in drugs and whom the United States eventually removed from power in Panama. All these things are true but they were all products of our meddling in the affairs of other countries. We created Noriega and the blame for his horrible deeds rests upon our shoulders.

I’d recommend reading the entire Wikipedia article about Noriega to get a full view of his life and our responsibility in all of it. It’s a disturbing story to be sure, but what I want to talk about is the deep-rooted nature of why we interfered and how we continue to pursue the same policies today. How we set ourselves up for long-term failure, and cheerfully do so. Not only cheerfully but vigorously and with absolute confidence we are doing the right thing.

At its center is the idea other nations in this world do not have our best interests at heart. There are theocratic regimes, communist nations, autocratic dictators, and others whose desires are not aligned with our nation. We deal with these sorts of nations in various ways. We spy on them, we support opposition parties with money and military hardware, we sanction them economically, we bomb them, we invade them. Generally speaking, these strategies are applauded by the people of our country. These foreign nations want to hurt us, so we must actively attempt to do the same to them.

Our pursuit of these policies causes tremendous harm. To the people of the nations in question, to our own citizens, and to our ethical reputation. In the case of Noriega, he was considered a powerful United States asset. We paid him huge sums of money and helped him come to power in Panama. In return he funneled money to other insurgents in Central America who were fighting against regimes we did not like. That’s the tangled web we weave when we get involved with people like Noriega.

This involvement with Noriega led us to, at the least, ignore his drug trafficking. There is credible evidence we not only ignored it, but actually took part in the manufacturing and distribution of cocaine because part of the proceeds went to support opposition to regimes we were trying to overthrow.

This is not a one-time outcome. Again and again, the United States has meddled in the affairs of other nations and had it come back to hurt us. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953. We installed the Shah of Iran, a brutal dictator and much of the terrorism we see in the world is a result of this policy. In our zeal to overthrow the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan we gave the Taliban military hardware. We advised them on tactics. When we wanted to rid ourselves of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad we supported paramilitary organizations that eventually became ISIS.

It can be argued that the entire Mexican drug trafficking organization that brings death and misery to so many is solely tied to a fellow named Miguel Angel Felix Gallerdo. He was heavily backed by the CIA because he helped us against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

What’s amazing about all of these facts is they are well known. The people making policy decisions today understand the failure of all this past meddling. They understand how it caused so much harm. And yet we continue and extend these exact same policies. We support regimes likes those in Saudi Arabia because they ostensibly help us against perceived enemies like Iran. We destroyed the government and nation of Iraq only to see the situation grow worse.

We arm organizations like the Kurds because they are helping us in Syria not recognizing the eventual outcome of all the destabilizing of the region.

We support despotic dictators the world over. We not only allow but partake in the illegal drug trade where it is perceived to be to our benefit. To put it succinctly, we meddle. We meddle, and we keep on meddling despite the fact that it has caused nothing but trouble.

Manuel Noriega is a tangible representation of all that I have written. He is the poster-child for why the United States needs to stay out of the affairs of other nations.

I know those arguing for so-called hardline solutions mean well. I know you hope for the best. I know you consider yourself patriots and want what is good for this nation.

I beseech you, read about Noriega and the horrible results of all our meddling.

Tom Liberman

I think there is an astounding gap between the perception and reality of the people in the United States as to our ostensible ally, Saudi Arabia, and our declared enemy Iran. This misperception between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been fostered by the politicians of the United States for so long and so consistently that it is all but unassailable.

I’m willing to assail. Iran is a far freer country built along the ideals of the Founding Fathers than Saudi Arabia has ever been. Iran is certainly not a free nation, it is ruled by a theocratic council but the reality is individuals in Iran enjoy a far higher degree of freedom than people in Saudi Arabia. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is deeply tied both politically and financially to the United States, therefore the official position is that Saudi Arabia is our ally.

The myth that Iran is our natural enemy is almost completely the fault of the United States and political machinations dating back to 1953 when the CIA engineered the overthrow of the freely elected government in Iran, largely at the behest of oil companies. Our puppet government was eventually overthrown by a popular revolution twenty-six years later in which United States citizens were captured at the embassy and held for well over a year.

After this incident, the supposedly enlightened Democratic President, Jimmy Carter instigated a series of sanctions against Iran that largely still exist. Iran then began to engage in many activities that were designed to harm the United States, including financially supporting and training terrorists. That’s bad, true. Reality is the despotic theocracy of Saudi Arabia spends far more money to educate, train, and deploy terrorists than Iran has ever done.

The Madrasa, or religious schools that spawned generations of Fundamental Islamic Terrorists, not only largely started in Saudi Arabia but still exist, right now. At this very moment, these schools are teaching young Saudis, and others around the world, how to hate the United States. They are pumping millions of dollars into terrorist organizations.

Meanwhile Iran is holding free elections, something that doesn’t happen in Saudi Arabia. In President Trump’s visit to that country the Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, was apparently pleased to note there wasn’t a single protestor to be found. Yep, Secretary Ross, they are in jail being tortured or hiding from a violently oppressive totalitarian state. That’s not a good thing. It’s a terrible thing. In Iran, our enemy, people are allowed to march and protest.

The nature of our political alliances with Iran and Saudi Arabia are fundamentally backward. When we refused to recognize the Iranian Revolution; we began a long descent into the situation we find ourselves in today. There is but a single reason we consider Saudi Arabia an ally and that is money. They hold an enormous amount of our National Debt. Yet more money flows directly to political leaders and business leaders.

Our military complex sells huge amounts of arms to Saudi Arabia but, to balance the books, the United States navy spends far more to keep the Gulf of Arabia clear for supertankers. Navy money comes from taxpayers so the trade seems perfectly fair to government officials and business leaders feasting away at the trough. They pay nothing and reap rewards so steep it is all but impossible to quantify.

To sum it up: We’ve sold the integrity of our nation, we’ve betrayed the ideas of the Founding Fathers, and we’ve created a hostile and unstable world simply because someone gave our leaders enough money.

The good news is that it is not too late. I’m no naïve fool, I understand we can’t immediately disentangle ourselves from the financial net we’ve woven with Saudi Arabia. I don’t think we can simply expect Iran to start acting as a better nation. I do think we can begin the process. We can start to hold both of these nations to better standards. When Iran acts freely and democratically we can support them even if we don’t agree on all issues. We can start to sanction Saudi Arabia for their theocratic state in the same way we currently punish Iran.

We have a long road ahead of us, but we’ll never get to where we want without taking that first step.

Tom Liberman

There is an interesting story in the news indicating that about seven years ago a number of spies, or assets as the CIA refers to them, were discovered by the Chinese government and imprisoned or executed. What I find interesting about the story is that the comments seem to be focused exclusively on trying to blame someone. I find this troubling.

I think there are a number of questions this series of events brings to mind and yet everyone only cares about using it to their political advantage. I shouldn’t say everyone, I’m sure the people in the CIA who investigated the case and others care deeply about the security of the nation and what went wrong. It can’t be good when most of the people they are trying to protect don’t seem to care at all.

What I think about is why we so want to gain political advantage rather than actually figure out what happened? Why are most of the commenters finding a way to blame Hillary Clinton and President Obama for what went wrong or, on the other side, assuming that the problem predated them and blaming President Bush. It’s all about how it’s the opposition’s fault and not about the actual problem. I have not read a single comment about the poor people who lost their lives. The families devastated by the breech. The loss of intelligence gathering capabilities and the threat this does or does not present.

Where is our humanity? If we are focused so sharply on destroying each other, what will happen to our nation? Will we grow more and more divided? Will the United States break up? I think these are real possibilities.

I also question the very nature of the operations that got those people killed. Is it really necessary to do all that spying? Certainly, China isn’t acting in the best interest of the United States. They have spies in this country and their software developers have stolen trade secrets and important information from the United States and companies that operate herein. Still, the reason all those people are dead is because we asked them to spy on China for us. Yes, they decided on their own to do it, but it sometimes seems so unnecessary to me.

What if we just left other countries alone? I know most people will say that we leave ourselves open to attacks if we don’t know what is going on in China, but I’m not as convinced that is the case in this connected world. It would be catastrophic for China to financially harm the United States. They are as dependent on us as we are on them, this is one of the most beneficial things that comes from globalism. When everyone is in economic partnership with one another, there is increasingly less reason to attempt violence.

If we didn’t have those spies, they’d still be alive. We’d also have a lot less government and a lot more money.

The reality is no one actually knows how the Chinese discovered the agents. The most likely answer is a spy working for the Chinese and embedded in the CIA. There is one suspect who it is strongly assumed revealed the identity of the various assets but there was never enough proof to imprison the person. Eventually the suspect was no longer given sensitive information and subsequently the ability of the Chinese to identify spies dropped off.

We will most likely never know how the security of those spies was compromised but the disturbing thing for me is that no one seems to care to learn that information. They just want to blame someone.

Tom Liberman

I was just reading President Trump issued an Executive Order asking the Commerce Department to review our trade agreements. Really? Must we have an Executive Order instead of a simple phone call asking for a review?

Off to Wikipedia where I found there are a series of other executive actions to be taken in situations that don’t meet the requirements of an Executive Order.

In this case, a Presidential Memorandum seems in order. The idea of this type of action is simply to manage the actions, practices, and policies of various departments. The big difference between the two is an Executive Order requires constitutional justification.

In the case of this particular action, it seems clear to me that a memorandum is far more appropriate. The President is simply asking staffers in a particular department to review trade agreements. There is no actual action being taken. So why the Executive Order?

The answer is quite obvious. President Trump loves sitting at a table, surrounded by sycophants, having his picture taken, and blustering away. I know his supporters are going to lambaste me for this position but I find the entire dog and pony show to be a bit tiring.
The entire justification for this Executive Order seems to be a photo opportunity.

I’m not saying a review of our trade agreements is a bad idea. I’m not commenting on the contents of the order itself. It just the necessity of the designation that bothers my sensibilities. It’s like using a sledge hammer to pound a nail. It brings my mind to question the ability of the Trump administration to properly diagnose issues, and that is troubling. If they consistently use a sledge hammer when a claw hammer is a more appropriate tool, it seems to me they are asking for trouble.

I know this is a small thing but for some reason it really strikes me. It’s a simple lack of understanding of processes and procedures. As a model, let’s look at Executive Orders comparing actions by President Trump and President Obama.

President Obama issued 276 Executive Orders and 644 Memorandums. That means President Obama used the memorandum 70% of the time and the order 30% of the time.

President Trump has issued thirty-three Executive Orders and twelve Memorandums. That means President Trump used the memorandum 27% of the time and the order 73% of the time. That’s basically completely reversed from President Obama’s use of the two.

It is clear to me that far more memorandums should be issued than orders. Executive Orders should be reserved for situations in which they are appropriate.

I’m probably tilting against windmills here. There are certainly much larger issues to complain about with the Trump administration. That being said, knowing the right tool for the job is an important factor in properly accomplishing that which you set out to do. If you use the wrong tool, you’ll not often have successful results.

Tom Liberman

The United States Congress managed to cobble together a budget which allows the government to continue to operate for another four months, but President Trump has suggested just letting it stop, a government shutdown, would be beneficial. He’s right. There are some benefits to allowing the government to shut down but, naturally, there are drawbacks. I’d like to spend some time examining the positives and negatives.

The biggest benefit to allowing the government to shut down is to see how many services we assume are vital, are not so. Everyone has their own version of what is critically important. For one side of the fence, all military expenditures are necessary. For another, food aid cannot be done without. The reality is somewhere in between. There are plenty of places the budget is insanely bloated. I won’t go into details, but shutting down the government and seeing the results gives us a window into what is necessary and what is not.

Many of the services provided by government actually cause harm to the people they are trying to help. By putting certain programs in the hands of the government we become dependent on that entity. This means when the people in control of the purse strings change their priorities, we are at the mercy of government. If we took care of many of these issues ourselves through things like Crowdsourcing, we unbind the shackles that keep us chained.

The drawbacks are fairly self-evident. Everyone who lists a program that will no longer be funded, be it NASA, food stamps, or military bases; is correct. The people who go to work at these places, who use the salary earned to purchase basic necessities, who help other people; they will all be losers in a government shutdown.

A government shutdown will hurt literally millions of people. That’s why the last time it happened there was an enormous backlash against the party generally deemed responsible. That’s why those in power worked so feverishly to prevent it from happening again. They are well aware of the political consequences of letting it happen again. People on all sides of the spectrum are hurt by a government shutdown.

I must also speak briefly about why President Trump thinks a shutdown is necessary. He is upset he has to negotiate in order to implement spending policies. He hopes that the rules might be changed so he can autocratically implement budgetary items. This is, of course, a horrible outcome. The reason it is difficult to pass spending bills is because politicians must compromise with one another. The Founding Fathers did this intentionally. One of their main goals was to avoid a concentration of power in one person.

What would be nice is if the politicians voluntarily got together to cut wasteful spending. The deficit hole is far too large to solved with the sorts of cuts the current crop of politicians is proposing. There is no easy solution to the problem. It will take decades of fiscal restraint, careful management, and readjustment of priorities to get the United States back on sound monetary ground. I’m pretty skeptical it can happen.

That’s about it. The situation is not simple. There are benefits and drawbacks to a government shutdown.

Tom Liberman