Saturday, June 22, 2013

The NSA, IRS, and AP Scandals

I always say that I'm going to keep up with my blog, but I never do. I rarely have time to sit down and collect my thoughts coherently enough to merit a blog post. But! There is enough going on on the news right now that my thoughts are already collected. This post is two things. An update on my life. And a collection of thoughts on the scandals facing the Obama administration. 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, effects, and papers against unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated. And no warrant shall issue unless upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or items to be seized." The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

That's my entire argument. It encompasses the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal and the DoJ scandal involving AP; the only difference is that the scandal involving the AP also encompasses the freedom of the press found in the first amendment.  

Yes. I've heard the argument that the only data being stored is non-identifiable metadata. And I would point out, that whenever any of you log into Facebook, there is a tab that suggests friends of friends. If metadata is not able to individually identify people, how does Facebook use it to reconstruct social networks? (I try not to cater to the lowest common denominator in any given situation. But because I know that there are people who will search for my name on the Internet, I have to explain simple terms that have wider meanings than the ones that are related to the Internet these days. That being said, the term "social network" did not come to life with the invention of MySpace, and subsequently Facebook. A social network, in its most basic anthropological form, means the people that you connect with on a daily basis. Be it family, friends, coworkers, etc.)

SCOTUS decides on Fisher v UT this week. So I will definitely be analyzing that opinion and posting my thoughts. 

On a personal note. My life is amazing. I have the best friends in the world. Ones that I would give anything for. And I have a family that loves me unconditionally. Both groups in my "social network" are incredibly supportive of my life decisions. And they are totally willing to talk through law school or grad school with me. A certain someone is driving here to see me in two weekends, and I am unbelievably excited. And at the end of the summer, I get to spend time with my favorite people in Maryland. :) 

While you're searching the Internet, definitely look up "Congressional Abdication" written by Jim Webb. And look up the details of Rand Paul's filibuster. 

Meanwhile, I've been invited to sit on the exploratory committee for a possible congressional candidate. And I am counting the days until the first official meeting. :)

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Does Marriage = Equality?

Simply put, no. There is no constitutional right to marriage. But look for a specific update tomorrow. This has been a landmark week for SCOTUS.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Update: Discrimination Case at Rollins College

While I still have not heard from anyone at Rollins College, I received an email yesterday from the area director of InterVarsity stating the following.

"We are deeply disappointed with the decision of the Rollins Board of Trustees and hope that they will reconsider their decision. We feel that this decision actually works against their value for promoting diversity and tolerance on campus. However, though we are disappointed, we also still deeply love the students, faculty and staff at Rollins and want to serve them in any way that we can, even as an off-campus group. We do not see the college as an enemy or opponent, but a place that Jesus deeply cares about, thus our call is to continue caring as well."

Yikes. Hateful, racist, intolerant stuff right there. (In case it wasn't painfully obvious, I am being sarcastic.)

Still waiting (and hoping) for a response from Rollins, but I am grateful to have heard from InterVarsity in such a speedy manner.

Update: Drone Strikes and the Filibuster

Yesterday, Eric Holder released a memo in response to a letter from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) that stated that he could not rule out the use of targeted drone attacks on American citizens, on American soil. And that he could imagine a scenario when the president would have to make that decision and it would be legal and constitutional. In the vast expanse of the internet, the context of the four letters that resulted in the filibuster have been boiled down to two simple statements. Rand Paul: So you can murder anyone you want, anywhere, at any time? Obama Administration/Eric Holder: Yeah, but I probably won't.

I'd just like to say personally, that I've been researching the drone program and its use against Americans living over seas since the first strike happened in September of 2011. I've been talking about it and ranting about it and trying to raise awareness among my peers, but was shut down every time because there was a complete lack of concern. So as someone who has been outraged, screaming from the rooftops about this issue and getting almost no traction, I have to say that to have the Senator from Kentucky stand up on the senate floor for 13 hours saying "I heard you, I'm speaking for you, and we're going to get an answer," was awe inspiring.

Well. This started all manner of outrage. Rand Paul, at 11:47AM started a filibuster of the senate vote to confirm John Brennan as the director of the CIA. The filibuster lasted nearly 13 hours, and was the truest show of leadership I have ever seen. Social media was ablaze with support for the senator. The hashtag "#StandWithRand" was the number one trending twitter topic in the world.

Senator Paul talked, nearly non-stop for over four hours, reading from articles compiled by his staff about the use of drone strikes, and reiterating again and again that the use of these attacks would be in direct violation of the due process clause of the fifth amendment.. Until Ted Cruz (R-TX) stepped in to ask a question to allow Senator Paul to rest. He was joined by Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT). For those of you who are not clear on the rules and procedures of a senate filibuster, here's the condensed version: The senator who has the floor has the floor for as long as he can speak. He cannot sit, he cannot eat, he cannot go to the bathroom. He can yield for a question without yielding the floor. The longest filibuster in Senate history was carried out by Strom Thurman in 1957, it lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes.

  • Let's start with the funnier moments. At the beginning of the filibuster, Marco Rubio (who has been criticized by the left over and over again for taking a sip of water during his delivery of the GOP response to the State of the Union address.) stood for a question and offered Rand Paul a piece of advice "Drink some water."
  • During the reading of one of the articles compiled by his staff, Senator Paul commented that Americans shouldn't be worried that while they are in a coffee shop using their iPad and having a conversation that their "cafe experience" would be interrupted by a drone strike.
  • Late in the evening, around 11PM, Senator Paul yielded to a question from Senator Cruz, who spoke for nearly half an hour, reading from Shakespeare and the script of Patton, he reiterated stories from his days as attorney general in Texas. His question was followed by one from Senator Rubio, who quoted Jay-Z, Wiz Khalifa, and The Godfather.


Now, on to some of the more serious points. The question was simple; could the administration promise that it would not order extrajudicial killings of American citizens on American soil? And Eric Holder refused to answer the question. (Update: the White House released a statement after the confirmation of John Brennan today that said "Does the President hypothetically have the power to order the killing of an American citizen?  No." Too bad it took four letters, a month and a half, and a 13 hour long filibuster to get an ethical answer out of the White House.) Here are the serious highlights:


  • Rand Paul in the sixth or seventh hour of the filibuster offered to end the debate if there would be unanimous consent given by all members of the Senate that were present at the time to the following resolution: "Resolved that it is the sense of the Senate that the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the Constitutional due-process rights of the citizens." In order for the debate to end, obviously, there would need to be unanimous consent given, and before he finished reading the resolution Senator Paul identified that he knew that there were democrats present who were planning to object to that resolution. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) exercised his right to object and in his objection offered to invite Senator Paul to a oversight committee hearing on human rights to be held at a later date. (Yes, you read that right, Dick Durbin of Illinois objected to the very simple and clear fact that to execute or target an American with out proof of an imminent threat was unconstitutional. If I lived in Illinois, I'd be packing boxes right about now. 
  • Toward the end of the filibuster (in hour 12) Senator Paul yielded to a question from Senator Durbin that had already (many times over) been answered. The question had to do with direct and immediate threat (as we saw on 9/11.) Sen. Durbin asked Sen. Paul if it would be constitutional for the President to order a commercial plane that had been hijacked and was headed toward a building shot down. Senator Paul rightly responded that response to an imminent and immediate threat stopped being the issue when it was identified that the Justice Department redefined imminent to include the words "even when no specific evidence of the nature or timing of the attack is obtained." to justify a drone strike on an American citizen. 
  • In the sixth hour, Senator Mike Lee from Utah posed a "question" in which he very clearly outlined the constitutional issues with the drone policy. 
Here's the thing about the filibuster. It was never about not confirming John Brennan. It was never about not allowing the executive branch to respond when there is an attack taking place. It was about the fact that the white paper that the DoJ released did not require any specific evidence of imminent or immediate threat to justify the killing of an American with suspected involvement in subversive activity. The filibuster ended at 1:38AM, when Senator Paul, understandably exhausted, yielded the floor and Senator Durbin moved to end the debate and move directly to the vote to confirm John Brennan as soon as the Senate reconvened at 10AM on March 7th.

During the day on March 7th, Senators Graham and McCain admonished Senator Paul for his actions on the senate floor, saying that he was "ridiculous" and John McCain even eluded to the fact that Paul's tactics were intended to incite fear into "libertarian kids." 

I, unfortunately, have never been good at minute by minute recording. Especially when I am too engrossed in the process to care about typing out my thoughts, but this serves as at least a small explanation of what happened on the Senate floor this week. John Brennan was confirmed by a 63-34 vote. 

For at least a little while, I will sleep well knowing that there are real conservative leaders doing their jobs in Washington. (I finished writing this after midnight on March 8th, but most of it was compiled  during the day on March 7th, so if there are news updates that I missed, I apologize and I will try to get back to them.) 



Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Eric Holder & The Use of Drone Strikes....In the United States

http://confessionsofaconservativeninny.blogspot.com/

My reaction will follow tomorrow. But for now, I wanted to say, does Posse Comitatus not ring  a bell!?

The One Way Mirror of Discrimination


“Discrimination” is a buzz word that has consumed many hours of our studies, and hundreds of thousands of words in the political arena in the past five decades. There is no one among us that did not spend every February (at least) in primary school learning about the civil rights movement, and had it beaten into our heads that the disqualification or subjugation of a group of individuals based on an inherent trait was morally wrong and should be avoided at all costs – It is and it should, but what happens when the very things that civil rights leaders were attempting to avoid; inequality, injustice, discrimination and subjugation, start rearing their ugly heads once again, but this time in a different direction?

We heard about it over and over again in the election, the word “racism” was used by the left to lob missiles at the right for supporting voter ID laws, but the right seemed to lack the moral courage to lob those missiles right back when it came to affirmative action. But when asked why voter ID laws are racist, many on the left would say “because they are,” words lacking not only substance, but anything close to what might be considered an answer. To further illustrate my point here, before I get angry emails accusing me (once again) of being a racist, let me explain. To purchase cold medicine, cigarettes, or alcohol, one must present a photo ID. To cash a check, sign for an insured package, or get a library card, one must present a photo ID. To drive, to fly, to ride a train, one must present a photo ID. If all of these things are true, why then should our most valued right as Americans, the right to cast our votes, and let our voices be heard on a national level, not be protected the same way? Voter ID laws have never been intended to keep anyone from voting, only to ensure that each citizen is voting for him/herself, instead of having someone else do it for them.

Earlier this year; the Supreme Court heard a case that would drastically reduce the purview of Affirmative Action. The case (Fisher v. University of Texas) was started when Abigail Fisher of Sugar Land, Texas was denied admission into UT’s undergraduate program. Ms. Fisher had earned a 3.59 GPA on a 4.0 scale at her high school; she played sports and volunteered, and finished high school as number 82 in her graduating class of 674 students. In Texas, similar to Florida’s Bright Futures program, students who graduate in the top 10% of their class are automatically admitted to the University of Texas system. After that top 10% of students are admitted, admissions decisions are made on a case by case basis that considers many factors, including race. Ms. Fisher fought this decision, and while the school said “It would have rejected her application, even if it hadn’t considered race.” Ms. Fisher believes that the school needs to update its policies to accurately reflect and in this case, accept students of every race who are academically qualified. She has since graduated from LSU and holds a job as a financial analyst in Austin, Texas. (http://www.businessinsider.com) She does, however, still believe that the school’s policy of considering an application based on race is unconstitutional, and the case has made it to the highest court in the United States. The fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution states:

 “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside; no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person in its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.”

This amendment was ratified in 1868 following the landmark Supreme Court case of Dredd Scott v. Sandford. Note that the text of the amendment says “All persons” not “White men,” or “women” or “citizens of African American or other descent,” but “all persons” it goes on to state “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Now, I realize that the Constitution isn’t the most popular of documents these days, but it is and will remain to be the law of our nation. How then, in 2013, can we continue to make decisions about the quality of a person based AT ALL on their race or gender? We can’t. It’s moving us backwards instead of forward.

If you’ve stuck with me this long, kudos, and just sit tight because we’ve only a small distance to go in this article. (But decades to go in this country.) I’d like to get to what inspired me to write this article, aside from the five minutes of Chris Matthews that I watched, and the many articles I’ve read on Fisher v UT.  Last week at Rollins College it was announced that the school was no longer going to fund or support the Christian student group on campus, InterVarsity, because in the group’s constitution it is explicitly stated that leaders of the organization must be Christian and the school has defined this as discrimination, and shut down funding to the group as a result. The same issue was brought up at Vanderbilt University (a university, by the way, which also houses a seminary), but the Catholic group in question ended up meeting off campus to avoid the regulations of the school.

At Rollins, we have many religious organizations. There’s the Muslim Student Union, The Jewish Student Union, and the Newman Club (A division of Catholic Campus Ministries that is intended for private, non-secular schools). While each one of these is not led by students of another faith, because it is not specifically stated as a requirement, it has gone without notice. So is the administration at Rollins saying that discrimination is okay, as long as you don’t write it down? Or are they committing a much more grievous sin, by marginalizing and discriminating against Christian students by not allowing them the same funds and privileges that are extended to other student organizations? I am still awaiting a response from the administration at Rollins College, but I have reached out to the Office of Student Leadership and Involvement 6 times since the story broke on Friday, and have tried multiple times to reach the public relations office at Rollins (their office doesn’t even bother to send their callers to voicemail.) and have left a voicemail for someone in the schools marketing department. I have also reached out to the area director of InterVarsity and am hoping to hear back soon.  

I will continue to research and update on this developing matter. But I think it is our responsibility as citizens to reflect on both sides of the looking glass. If discrimination exists at all, we have done nothing to move forward as a nation.

Discrimination does not know race or religion; it only knows the hatred of both.