Tag Archives: government

A Conservative’s View of American Domestic Policy: Some Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

It’s out.

This is the first of a pair of publications on American policy; the other is concerned with National Policy, which consists of foreign and defense policy.

Domestic Policy both is necessary in its own right and must come before National Policy since a sound policy domestically is absolutely required both for the health of the nation within our borders and to facilitate—indeed, to enable—any form of outward-facing policy at the national level.

Domestic Policy is a combination of social and economic policies. Social Policy consists of these things: the concept of the American nation; American citizenship; the role of faith in our society; the role of immigration and its importance to our society; the importance of consensus; and the role of education.

Economic Policy consists of these things: the nature of a free market and its condition as the most moral system and the one most conducive to generating prosperity for all (even though there always will be some more or less prosperous than others), the role of the Federal government in protecting and enhancing our economy, and the role of Federal regulation in facilitating our economy.

Of course, these two major divisions of Domestic Policy are not truly separate from each other any more than biology, chemistry, and physics are separate from each other within science. Just as we divide scientific disciplines from each other to facilitate inquiry and discussion, I’m separating domestic policy into these divisions to facilitate a similar inquiry and discussion—while remaining fully aware and making occasional use of their very large areas of overlap.

The book is available in eBook form from amazon.com () and

National Security and Terrorists

Posted on by
Reply

More than a dozen Islamic State fighters from Iraq and Syria—some with direct ties to the group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—are now in Libya, according to US and European sources.

And the US has no authority to take them out.

And

The nation’s most senior intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Libya is not only a safe haven for ISIS but at least six other terror groups, including Ansar al-Sharia, which paraded police vehicles through Benghazi last month.

State’s Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Harf repeated State’s (and so President Barack Obama’s) position on the matter, insisting that this is not the fault of our foreign policy.

Are we happy with the situation in Libya from a governance and security perspective? No. Absolutely not. At the end of the day, though, this is not just a line, it’s true. This is ultimately up to the Libyan people, leaders in Libya to take the security of their country into their own hands and try to move it in a better direction with our help, the UN and others’ help as well.

This is a misreading of the situation. These Daesh members (and with direct ties to…Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, they’re Daesh leaders themselves) also are threats to our own national security, as are those other terrorist groups present—and not only to us, but to our friends and allies, also. From that, two consequences result directly.

The first is that, most assuredly, the situation in Libya is Libya’s to answer first, and we should do all we can to help Libya in that regard if they ask.

The second consequence, and from our national safety perspective the more important one, is that if Libya is unable or unwilling to handle the situation to our satisfaction—that is to the satisfaction of our own national security interest—then we have an obligation to ourselves, to American security, to enter and to handle the situation ourselves.

A foreign policy that is in the way of that, whether actively so or passively, very definitely is at fault, and it’s at odds with our national security.

Senate Democrats and a DHS Shutdown

Posted on by
Reply

The House has passed a bill fully finding the Department of Homeland Security while canceling President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional “Executive Actions” regarding immigration. The Senate Democrats have successfully filibustered the Senate version of that bill.

The Senate Democrats thus have shown themselves entirely willing to shut down the DHS, severely damaging our nation’s ability to defend itself against terrorist attack—or any man-caused disaster. These Democrats are holding American citizens hostage against their ability to impose their minority position on all of us.

Let Senator Mark Kirk (R, IL) say this about that.

If we have a successful terrorist attack—all the dead Americans from that should be laid at the feet of the Democratic caucus.…

In the end, they have to defend the country. They have sworn the allegiance to do that. They need to live up to their oaths of office. In the Democratic mind, politics is everything. I would say to them, politics is not everything. If you don’t have a country to defend, what is the purpose of politics?

What he said.

NYSE Auctions

Posted on by
Reply

In the bad old days of stock auction markets [sic], owners of shares of companies—companies nominally public by their status as a shareholder company—would meet in a crowd, face to face, and offer their shares for sale at a price or offer to buy another’s shares at a price. Bid prices and asking prices would converge, and sales would be executed.

Only the rich could play this game, though; Middle America (and Middle Netherlands where such auctions got an early start some hundreds of years ago, and Middle You-Pick-the-Nation) couldn’t afford to play. To be sure, Middle America (and the others) in those early days had little interest in playing, and the matter was a no harm, no foul situation. Then the broker industry developed, and brokers would act as middle men in these auctions, doing the mixing and matching of buys and sells—for a small remuneration, of course—and the shareholders didn’t need to meet in person. But those remunerations—commissions—kept Middle America priced out of the game.

Then discount brokers developed (think Charles Schwab), and Middle America (and Middle xyz) could play. The broader breadth of participation both increased stock prices themselves, and they gave companies all across the economy access to tons of additional money, from us little people, with which to do R&D, sales, production, etc. After all, little peoples’ nickels and dimes add up—it’s how the earlier Five and Dime stores prospered and how today’s deep discount stores prosper. It also gave us little people additional ways to save and to build our nest eggs.

Today, there are even brokerages that operate entirely online, for a song: typical remunerations for effecting a buy or sell today range from $5 to $10 per some number of thousands of shares traded (when Schwab was starting out, they charged $35 per hundred shares traded).

Now the New York Stock Exchange wants to

introduce a midday auction

ostensibly to

draw trading away from private venues such as dark pools….

Never mind that those dark pools are capitalist, free market responses to excessive interference in today’s financial industry (of which stock markets are only a part) by the Security & Exchange Commission and the myriad mechanisms spawned by Dodd-Frank.

The new NYSE auction would take place in the middle of the day, when trading is at its slowest. One draw of such auctions is they allow big investors to put in large orders without immediately moving the price of a stock[.]

Auctions work differently than continuous trading on markets, which match orders as they come in at an ultrafast pace. In an auction, buyers put in a maximum price and quantity they are seeking to fill and sellers put in a minimum price and size they are willing to sell over a period of time. At the end of the period, orders are filled at a price set by supply and demand for shares.

Just like those original bad, old days.

I’m not sure this isn’t a return to those bad old days when only the rich could play. I’m not sure it is, either; it’s something that needs to be watched very carefully—even by the SEC.

The DoJ Strikes Again

Posted on by
Reply

This case involves a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ex-agent who sued the BATF over its slander of him and its lack of adequate protection of him and his family after he’d done undercover work for the BATF in the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang.

United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Francis M. Allegra opened his latest ruling in blunt terms:

On October 29, 2014, the court…issued an order voiding the prior judgment based upon indications that defendant [the United States; the BATF agent was the plaintiff], through its counsel, had committed fraud on the court.

Fraud on the court is an extremely serious bit of…miscreancy. As Allegra explained it,

Fraud on the court “is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.”

It’s a direct attack on the ability of our judicial system to function at all; it’s not one litigant lying to the other in order to gain an advantage in a particular case.

The underlying case is an indication of the integrity of Attorney General Eric Holder’s DoJ, but I want to focus on the fraud on the court allegation. Allegra focused on two examples he found indicative of a pattern of fraud on the court perpetrated by Holder’s representatives in the case. The first is this:

Testimony at trial indicated that Valerie Bacon, an attorney in ATF’s Office of General Counsel, attempted to convince SAC Atteberry not to reopen the arson investigation [regarding the destruction of the BATF agent’s home, the blame for which was central to the agent’s slander beef]. In this regard, SAC Atteberry testified:

Q. . . . Did you get any kind of discouragement in any respect from anyone at ATF with respect to reopening this arson investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. Please explain.
…
A. I had a phone conversation, and I also believe I talked to her [Bacon] in person one time when she was in Phoenix, and I believe during the telephone conversation she made a comment to me that if you, meaning myself, reopen the investigation that would damage our civil case.

The existence of this illegal conversation was never passed to the court until Atteberry’s testimony. Indeed,

Defendant’s filings regarding this situation demonstrated not only that its counsel—including supervisors in the Civil Division, who received email communications on this topic from plaintiff’s counsel in March of 2013—were aware of Ms Bacon’s actions prior to the trial in this case, but did nothing to apprise the court of her actions or of the potential that the integrity of these proceedings were at risk.

And this instance:

…a taped conversation (a copy of which is part of the appellate record in this case), revealed that defendant’s [the United States, recall] attorneys may have committed other violations of the duty of candor, including a potential failure to advise the court that an ATF agent who testified in this case may have been threatened by another witness during the trial. The taped communication states that defendant’s counsel ordered the agent in question not to communicate the threat to the court and stated that there would be repercussions if the agent did not follow counsel’s instructions. This matter has since been referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) at the Justice Department.

Notice that. However,

legal filings show that the agency soon suspended its investigation, saying it would wait to hear what Judge Allegra finds.

This is Eric Holder’s OPR, recall. It suspended the investigation which the judge had explicitly requested be carried out, not a file folder created and then…HIAed.

Unfortunately, the judge has no recourse other than the one he took: to address the matter to…Eric Holder. He did, though, bar the seven defense attorneys from appearing further in his court in connection with this case.

Fox News also asked Attorney General Eric Holder if the lawyers involved had been disciplined. The Department of Justice declined to comment.

Of course not.

The judge’s ruling can be seen here.