Liberty before Security!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

LIBERTY BEFORE SECURITY!

by Steve Fair

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an independent agency established by Congress to advise the President on concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties.  The board was established after the 9/11 Commission recommended it to insure that government wasn’t ‘overreaching’ in citizens lives.  It consists of five members appointed by the President.  The Board is authorized to have access to all relevant information necessary to fulfill its role, including classified information consistent with applicable law. The Board is required to report to Congress not less than twice annually.

On Friday afternoon, President Obama met with the board as his administration sought to dispel fear that the US Government had overreached with its surveillance programs of private citizens in favor of national security.  After the meeting, Obama said the board had some “fierce civil libertarians” on the board.  Right!  The board is composed of four former bureaucrats and a Chicago lawyer; all appointed by the President, so it’s not likely they will do anything but what the President wants them to do. 

All of this started when former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA.  Snowden said the NSA had obtained millions of American’s phone records and web communications.  The revelation (while not new) created a media firestorm and the Obama administration has been scrambling to respond. 

Here are my observations:

First, this is not the first time the NSA has been accused of spying on private citizens.  Several former NSA top officials as far back as 2005 have been saying basically the same thing Snowden revealed- the NSA has been gathering lots of information on private citizens for nearly a decade.  The reason the government has been able to expand their reach into our lives is because average taxpaying citizens haven’t paid attention to what is happening in their government.  They can blame the politicians and bureaucrats, but they need only look in the mirror to see who to really blame. 

Second, Snowden broke federal law.  Whistle-blowing on any national security agency is prohibited unless you spill to a committee of Congress “upon lawful demand.” Not that they are likely to demand it.  Snowden has been alternately called a traitor and a patriot for his actions.  Like a pancake, every story has two sides.  Perhaps Snowden tried to do it right and tell Congress and was stonewalled.  Perhaps he works for China, as some allege.  There are a lot of questions with Edward Snowden that must be answered, but it is an established fact the NSA was gathering the data and his revelation may have awakened the American public on the privacy issue.

Third, the government can not guarantee our personal security.  Any security program is only as good as the human being that designed it and we are all flawed.  After 9/11 there has been a fury of laws passed under the guises of ‘protecting the public.’   We should take reasonable precautions to protect the general public, but understand when government feels it must protect ourselves from ourselves, the line has been crossed.

Fourth, the fourth amendment of the US Constitution guarantees citizens the right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment was has three components. First, it establishes that we have a right to privacy when it states we are able to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Second, it protects our privacy by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.   Third, it states that no warrant may be issued to a law enforcement officer unless that warrant describes in detail "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  

Some misguided elected officials believe the NSA did nothing wrong, but fellow citizens when we allow the government to monitor our private phone calls, email communication and who knows what else, we have allowed them to violate the fundamental attribute of America- LIBERTY!  Ben Franklin had it right when he said any society who gives up liberty to gain security will have neither!  I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty before security!

Tort Reform Ruling was Wrong!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

TORT REFORM RULING WAS WRONG!

by Steve Fair

The Oklahoma State Constitution requires that legislative bills deal with only a single subject (other than the general appropriations bill to fund state government).  That is to prevent state lawmakers from throwing a completely unrelated issue on a bill and getting it passed by coercing their fellow lawmakers to support it in exchange for their vote on a bill important to the other legislator.

Last week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the sweeping tort reform laws passed in the 2009 legislative session and authored by Senator Anthony Sykes, R- Moore, were unconstitutional because they violated the ‘single subject’ rule in the Constitution.  The high court did not say the policy was bad, but that the legislature needed to make sure they only dealt with a single subject. 
In the dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice James Winchester said, “The majority opinion gives little guidance to the Legislature regarding why the law found in HB 1603 is unconstitutional.”  Winchester cited a 1922 state Supreme Court ruling which declared the term “subject” to be given a broad and extended meaning so legislators could include in one act all matters having a logical or natural connection.  The apparent contradiction doesn't provide a tidy template or clear direction for lawmakers to use when drafting legislation.

Four observations about the court’s ruling:

First, the spirit of the state constitution’s single subject provision wasn’t violated in the tort reform legislation.  There was no ‘logrolling’ or slipping of unrelated issues into the tort reform bill.  The bill dealt with multiple aspects of ‘tort reform.’  It appears now the legislation will have to pass twenty five (25) different bills to satisfy the Supreme Court.  That was not the intent of the writers of the constitution’s single subject rule.

Second, the high court’s ruling will give the powerful trial lobby a do-over in Oklahoma.  It has taken years for Oklahoma to pass meaningful tort reform.  The trial lobby, which primarily backs Democrat candidates, spent big money fighting it originally and you can bet they will now spend a bunch fighting it in the upcoming session.  With new legislators coming into the body, the trial lobby will work to convince them to not support the original bill.

Third, throwing out tort reform sends a negative message of Oklahoma to prospective business.  After the legislation passes good legislation and the Supreme Court strikes it down, it sends the message to business we are a state is not to be trusted.  It has taken years for Oklahoma to overcome the negative image we earned after reneging on General Motors back in 1979 on an agreement to exempt their plant from ad valorem taxes, but then declared it unconstitutional and made them pony up millions.    

Fourth, Oklahoma’s Supreme Court is legislating from the bench.  Of the nine members of the Supreme Court, eight were appointed by Democrat Governors.  They did not support meaningful tort reform and they misapplied the intent of the writers of the constitution to prevent its implementation.  Currently Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed and then face voters on a retention ballot ever four years.  Since Oklahoma went to a retention ballot, we have never removed a judge from office. Never!  It’s time for term limits on judges.

We Naturally Crave Liberty!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

WE NATURALLY CRAVE LIBERTY!

by Steve Fair

On May 25^th, my wife and I marked our 40^th wedding anniversary.  To celebrate we took a Mediterranean cruise.  One of the ports of call was Kusadsi, Turkey, a resort community in the south of Turkey.  Kusadasi is near the biblical town of Ephesus and a huge tourist destination.  Because of the recent demonstrations in cities across Turkey, in particular by young people in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, tension was high as we left the ship.  We encountered no protests or witnessed any unrest, but the western influence in Kusadsi was evident.  The food, dress, and mannerisms of the Turks were very western and much different than other Arab countries.

Mark Lowen of the BBC reports that Turkey is becoming even more polarized.  Lowen says, “The divisions here are deepening, which could lead Turkey into paralysis and dangerous waters. The prime minister has lost control of Turkey.”  

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been in power since 2003, has decried the demonstrations.  “These protests that are bordering on illegality must come to an end as of now,” Erdogan said to a large crowd of supporters outside a terminal at Istanbul’s airport Friday.  Erdogan also blamed the escalation of the widespread public protests on "terror groups" which he lumped in with leftist parties and members of his political opposition.

But political observers believe Erdoganjust doesn’t get the reason for the protests.
 
Bahar Leventoglu, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Economics at Duke and a native of Turkey says, “A lot of people now see Erdoğan’s policies as a ‘cultural war’ against their lifestyles, and see the government’s so-called ‘Taksim project’ as an extension of this cultural war.  Erdogan also has no tolerance for criticism. He believes that he knows what is good and what is bad for citizens of Turkey, and so we have to obey him as if we are teenagers being disciplined by dad. I’m sure he was taken by surprise by the protests against the government, as Turkey does not have a long history of this. But times are changing, and Erdogan is behind the times in this one.”

In a strange twist of events, on Monday Turkey's president defended the right of citizens to protest, in strong contrast to the dismissive stance of the prime minister.  Meanwhile police used tear gas for a fourth day in an attempt to disperse demonstrations that grew out of a sit-in to prevent the uprooting of trees at Istanbul's main square.  He likely sees an opportunity to be the next Prime Minister if the protestors are successful in their achieving their demands. 

On Monday, Erdogan again dismissed the street protests as being organized by extremists, described them as a temporary blip and angrily rejected comparisons with the Arab Spring uprisings.
Turkey is different from other Islamic countries.  Even though most of the population is Islam, their constitution provides for freedom of religion, but less than 2% of the population of Turkey is Christian.  

Turkey borders Iraq and Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that his government was worried about the security implications of the situation in Turkey, saying the country was "an essential part of the stability of the region."  "We believe that resorting to violence will widen the circle (of violence) ... in the region, and we call for restraint," he said.

Turkey has been trying to join the European Union since 2005, but because of widespread accusations of human right violations have not been admitted.  While western in many ways in their culture and government, their leaders still cling to an authoritarian, totalitarian style of government.   It is highly unlikely the Turkish government will be able to stop the liberty movement in their country.  It’s a part of human nature to crave liberty and to be self governed.  

TRIFECTA OF SCANDALS!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

Dark days are looming for the Obama administration.  US Attorney General Eric Holder is at odds with his sworn testimony on the Fox News reporter scandal.  The Justice Department has been conducting a criminal investigation of James Rosen, a Fox reporter, since 2010, but Holder said he knew nothing about it.  But the AG evidently signed search warrant requests in the case, which puts him in conflict with his testimony before Congress.  Opps, forgot about that warrant.

Add Holder’s harassment of the press issue to the Benghazi attack and the IRS scandal and you have a trifecta. Interesting enough Obama’s approval ratings improved the last two weeks according to Gallup.  50% of Americans approve of the job he is doing and 43% disapprove.  But rest assured those numbers will change as Congress conducts more extensive hearings on the three aforementioned scandals.

Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-Wisconsin) Chairman of the House Budget Committee, said on Fox last week that it will take ‘months’ to find out the truth of what happened in the IRS scandal.  Ryan said it is already known the IRS targeted not only Tea Party groups, but religious groups that were conservative in nature.  They also targeted GOP donors as well.  When asked about whether Congress would give Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of Tax Exempt Division, immunity to testify, Ryan said that decision had not yet been made.  Lerner pled the Fifth Amendment before Congress during her testimony, which could mean she knows more.  If the tentacles of this scandal reach the White House, you could certainly be talking impeachment. 

In the shadow of the IRS and Holder scandals are the Benghazi attacks.  It shouldn’t be.  American ambassador Chris Stevens was killed along with three other Americans.  The embassy had repeatedly requested additional security.  The question is; did the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ignore those repeated requests for additional security from diplomats on the ground?  The email evidence appears to prove she did.  Did the President know about the requests?  It is certain the Obama administration attempted to downplay the attack as a mere random act of violence instead of the work of terrorists.  Rest assured, when the white light is thrown on Hillary, she will not fall on the sword for Obama. This scandal has career diplomats incensed and they appear to be willing to break from their long standing tradition of staying out of politics to protect their people on the ground.

So what does the President do during these tough times?  He becomes what some have called the Consoler-in Chief.  He traveled to Moore to participate in a memorial service for the victims of the tornado.  He traveled to New Jersey to walk along the boardwalk with Governor Christie to view the progress being made on rebuilding after the hurricane. 

Critics say Obama was exploiting these tragedies in order to distract from the scandals in his administration and that may well be the case.  But it was proper for the President to come to Oklahoma.  It was the right thing to do.  I commend him for his conduct during his time here.  After all, he is the President of this great country.  Bear in mind, it takes some political will to travel to the reddest of the red states if you are Democrat president.  Oklahoma has not voted for a Democrat presidential candidate since 1960 and in the last three presidential elections, all 77 counties voted for the Republican nominee.  We are the only state to have done so.  Yet the President came to Oklahoma.  I don’t know his motivation, but he deserves the respect of Oklahomans for making the effort. 

But whatever his motivation, the trifecta of scandals is not going away.  As Rep. Ryan said, it will be months before the hearings will be complete.  It will be interesting to see if any or all of the scandals reach the White 

House.  It will only take one and the odds are not in the President’s favor.

Legislature gets a 'B'

Weekly Opinion Editorial

Legislature gets a “B”

by Steve Fair

The Oklahoma legislature adjourned sine die(Latin for ‘without day’) on Friday, one week earlier than required.  According to the Constitution, the legislature must adjourn by the last Friday in May.  The Senate finished around noon Friday and, the House at 7:30pm.  It is estimated the legislature saved Oklahoma taxpayers about $140,000 by adjourning early. 

In the final week of session, the legislature passed SB 249 which directed $45 million from the state’s Rainy Day Fund to the Office of Emergency Management for immediate tornado relief in the Sooner state.  These funds will match a portion of the federal funds that have been allocated to local governments. 

Here are some of the major achievements of the Oklahoma 2013 legislature?

First and foremost the legislature passed meaningful worker compensation reform.  SB #1062 changes Oklahoma’s current court-based system to an administrative structure, a move that supporters say will reduce workers’ comp costs for businesses and improve the amount of money an injured workers gets in a settlement. 

Second, lawmakers didn’t borrow money.  The legislature was under unbelievable pressure to issue bonds to fix the State Capitol.  Anyone who has visited the Capitol know the building needs to be repaired, but we shouldn’t borrow money to do it.  We should pay as we go and the legislature did that by taking some of the income tax money coming in the next two years to fix the Capitol.

Third, they cut our state income tax rate from 5.25% to 5% effective January 1, 2015,   While that is not the biggest tax cut in the world, it is a step in the right direction.  The proposal to eliminate the state income tax all together needs to include substantial cuts to Oklahoma government and thus far the legislature hasn’t shown the will to do that.

Fourth, lawmakers passed legislation to reduce the unfunded liability of Oklahoma's pension system for firefighters. The bill requires new firefighters to be at least 50 years old and have worked for 22 years, instead of the current 20 years, to be eligible for benefits. New firefighters also would not become vested until they had worked for 11 years, instead of the current 10 years. The bill also increases the amount that firefighters, municipalities and the state pay into the system each year.

Now some of the ‘jury’s still out’ achievements of the 2013 session:

Lawmakers passed a measure that converts the nonprofit CompSource Oklahoma into an independent mutual company that will be known as CompSource Mutual Insurance Company. The agency writes about one-third of Oklahoma's workers' compensation policies and is a safety net for a lot of Oklahoma based businesses for workers comp coverage.  Critics contend privatizing CompSource was a political move by the legislature and will not help Oklahoma business and in the long run will drive rates up.  We shall see.

The legislature adopted a $7.1 billion dollar budget to fund state government that was $268 million more than the year before.  That is certainly not streamlining Oklahoma government or making it more efficient.  Oklahoma Republicans better remember the lesson from the national GOP who lost the majority in Congress after spending more money than the Democrats. 

The biggest failure of the 2013 session was the legislature not overturning Governor Fallin’s veto of Senate Bill 907 which would have created a Joint Legislature Committee on Accountability.  The Committee would have been given the authority to ask the State Auditor to do performance audits on state agencies.  If Republicans are serious about finding waste in government, we must have a mechanism in place to find the waste.

All in all, I give the Oklahoma legislative session a B, based on the importance of the workers comp reform bill.  But they could have done better.

Tea Party & the IRS

Weekly Opinion Editorial

TEA PARTY AND THE IRS!

by Steve Fair

In May 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) admitted that it had targeted certain conservative political groups for closer scrutiny when they applied for tax exempt status.  The IRS code allows certain non-profit organizations to be exempted from having to pay federal tax.  The IRA admitted that beginning in March 2010, they begin to more closely scrutinize certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status with certain words in their names.  For example if a group or organization’s name had the words, Tea Party,  Patriot, or 9/12 Project in it, your application was flagged and the IRS would go over it with a fine tooth comb.
*****
President Obama claims he knew nothing about the targeting and said "This is pretty straightforward. If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that is outrageous, and there is no place for it, and they have to be held fully accountable, because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity and people have to have confidence that they are applying the laws in a non-partisan way. You should feel that way regardless of party. But I have got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it, and we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this."
*****
Four observations:
*****
First, it’s highly unlikely President Obama was completely unaware of the targeting.  That doesn’t mean the president ordered it, but he likely knew about it.  On Friday the Treasury department’s inspector general testified before Congress that he told his boss at Treasury in June 2012 that the IRS was engaging in blatantly unfair treatment of conservatives. One of those he told at Treasury was Tim Geithner’s top deputy, Neal Wolin.  It’s highly unlikely that Wolin didn’t tell Tim Geithner, the former Secretary of Treasury and its unlikely Geithner didn’t tell the President.  And if he wasn’t told, doesn’t that reflect on the president’s leadership ability?
*****

Second, the IRS slow play on tax exempt applications for conservative groups benefited President Obama and libels.  Non-Profit organizations which can provide a receipt for tax deductable donations get far more contributions than those who can’t provide one.  The groups the IRS targeted were politically conservative ‘grassroots’ organizations whose change in status would have financially benefited conservative candidates and their cause.

*****    

Third, what hasn’t gotten a lot of press, but should have is the use of the IRS to enforce the defunct “Fairness Doctrine” on broadcasters.  According to National Religious Broadcasters CEO, Dr. Frank Wright the IRS had Dr. James Dobson submit samples of his radio broadcasts to the IRS before they would consider granting him tax exempt status.  According to Dobson, an IRS agent indicated that his criticism of President Obama would prevent his ministry from getting a certain form of non-profit status. In other words, Dobson’s views were singled out by the IRS because they were conservative, Christian, and critical of President Obama. 
*****
Fourth, this is not the first time the IRS has been misused.  President Nixon famously had an ‘enemies’ list and one of the tools in his tool chest was the IRS.  You crossed Nixon- the IRS would audit you.  During a Rose Garden news conference last week, President Obama was asked about comparisons between himself and Richard Nixon.

“I’ll let you guys engage in those comparisons,” Obama said in reference to the president who resigned in disgrace in 1974. “You can go ahead and read the history, I think, and draw your own conclusions.”
“This is an agency with an enemies list,” commentator Lou Dobbs said on Fox News This is Nixonian. This is a president whose inner Nixon is being revealed.”
*****

If President Obama is innocent as he claims, he should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this scandal.  After all, Nixon said he was ‘innocent’ and he appointed one to investigate Watergate. 

History repeats itself!

Weekly Opinion Editorial

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!

by Steve Fair

The American diplomatic embassy at Benghazi Libya was attacked on September 11, 2012 by a heavily armed group of Islamic terrorists. The attack began during the night at a compound that is meant to protect the consulate building. A second assault in the early morning the next day targeted a nearby CIA annex in a different diplomatic compound. Four people were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Ten others were injured. The terrorists who attacked the mission have not been captured.  Initially, the Obama administration said the attack was nothing but a violent protest and not the work of terrorists.

According to CNN, an e-mail discussion about ‘talking points’ the Obama administration used to describe the deadly attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, show the White House and State Department were more involved than they first said in the decision to remove an initial CIA assessment that a group with ties to al Qaeda was involved.

On Monday, President Obama said the Benghazi debate a “sideshow,” saying he called the attack a terrorist attack from the very beginning.  Obama said that proves there was no cover-up or any effort to downplay terrorism.  But Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called Obama’s account "revisionist history." John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., called it "flatly untrue."   "This definitely is a creative rewriting of history," Bolton told Fox News.  It is true Obama referred to ‘acts of terror’ the day after the attack, but one week later he was saying it wasn’t clear the attack was the work of terrorists.  

Rep. James Lankford, R- OKC is a member of the U.S. House Oversight Committee, which held a hearing last week on the Benghazi attack.   The witnesses at the hearing were State Department whistleblowers with direct knowledge of the circumstances of the attack.  These four career diplomats have served America in both Democrat and Republican administrations and are probably as close to apolitical as you can get.  All the witnesses were critical of the Obama administration and their unwillingness to provide proper security in not only Benghazi, but also at the official US Libyan embassy in Tripoli.

According to Lankford, the Department of State was actively trying to “normalize” the mission in Libya by drawing down uniformed security forces. State denied several requests by security personnel for increased security. Diplomats on the ground reported active terrorism in the area even as the State Department in Washington withdrew security forces. The hearings also revealed the facility was inadequate for even the most modest attack and there was a lack of preparation or warning systems at the facility. 

It is said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

Back in 1998, Islamic terrorist attacked American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya with truck bombs.  The two attacks killed 223 people and injured thousands.  The mastermind behind the attacks was Osama bin Laden.  In both the Tanzania and Kenya attacks, The State Department had ignored diplomats on the ground requests for increased security. 

Interestingly even the liberal news media is now asking questions about the Benghazi attacks, particularly the roll of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Back in January at a Senate hearing, Clinton yelled at Senator Ron Johnson after he asked if the attack was a terrorist attack or just a protest; “What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton yelled at Johnson.  It makes a lot of difference.  If the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, there is significant documentation between the diplomatic team on the ground and top leaders in The State Department asking for more security and warming of a possible terrorist attack.  Those requests and warnings were ignored and Americans lost their lives.