Cyber-war, cyber-this, cyber-that: What is it about the word that makes the eyes roll? Adults of a certain age, myself included, have a hard time getting worked up over something that seems more akin to pushing buttons frantically in "Grand Theft Auto" than waging a real war, in which very loud weapons shred bodies and devastate cities, possibly with a nuclear accent. How authentic can a war be when things don't blow up? Carried out in dark rooms by computer geeks armed with joysticks and keyboards, this click-click contest seems merely virtual, not really fatal.
Maybe that's why experts such as Richard A. Clarke, the former White House terrorism adviser who famously failed to excite George W. Bush's aides about al-Qaeda in the summer of 2001, have had such a hard time convincing top policymakers that cyber-war is "the next threat to national security," as the subtitle of Clarke's new book puts it. By his account, Clarke was about as successful at getting the Bush administration to take cyber-war seriously as he was at warning them of al-Qaeda. But a cyber-9/11 could be the next big thing, he cautions, conjuring visions of frozen Pentagon computers, blinded telecom satellites, dead power plants, subways grinding to a halt, exploding petrochemical installations -- all the stuff that adds up to another mind-numbing cyber-phrase: critical infrastructure.
Still, few seem too worked up about it. On a recent "Real Time With Bill Maher" episode, for instance, Clarke's cyber-scare stories fell flat. And even a 1,000-point swoon in the Dow failed to trigger much worry over what cyber-war could wreak, outside of the people who are paid to worry about it. So now Clarke is taking his campaign to the bookstores and the airwaves, wrapping his urgent policy prescriptions in easy-to-digest, occasionally riveting, tales from the cyber-front.
Most people have probably heard something about Chinese hackers rooting through U.S. military, commercial and congressional computers, if only because they do it so often. We'll never know for sure, but it's possible that the break-ins account for the breathtaking speed with which China has modernized its weapons. In any event, according to Clarke and his co-author, Robert K. Knake, an international affairs fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Beijing drew important lessons from our quick, high-tech takedown of Saddam Hussein: It downsized its infantry and poured the savings into its cyber-forces, the better to prevail in an asymmetrical military clash with the U.S. Navy.
Even backward North Korea is exercising its cyber-muscles. Last year, on July 4, the hermit kingdom reportedly sent a virus to attack commercial and government Web sites in the United States, including those of the New York Stock Exchange and the White House, as well as sites in South Korea. Little damage seems to have been done, but Clarke suspects it was an electronic reconnaissance, "preparing the battlefield" for the real thing -- a ground invasion of the South.
Our adversaries are busy.
There was Russia's suspected mass botnet invasion of Estonia in 2007, which "staggered" the nation's largest bank, Hansabank, disrupted commerce and communications across the country and launched "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks. Like a swarm of mosquitoes, such attacks, which overwhelm computers with more requests for data than they can handle, eventually moved on to Georgia. In 2008, as Russia mobilized to invade the former Soviet republic, it allegedly deployed an electronic version of the Dirty Dozen, shutting down Georgian government Web sites and cutting off news from outside. How much did these cyber-tactics contribute to Georgia's humiliating defeat? The authors don't say.
But the utility of cyber-tools in service of old-fashioned firepower had already been made clear, when Israel reportedly took over Syria's air defenses as its jets attacked a suspected nuclear facility in 2007. "Israel had 'owned' Damascus's pricey air defense network the night before," Clarke writes, recounting news reports. "What appeared on the radar screens was what the Israeli Air Force had put there, an image of nothing."
We, too, have cyber-forces to attack foreign targets, but we are not even close to defending ourselves, Clarke warns. Our technological prowess scares nobody. It makes our critical infrastructure even more tempting to China and Russia, not to mention North Korea.
Yet for years, U.S. presidents have treated cyber-defense like spinach, picking it up and then putting it down. The Bush administration went through so many officials that each was dubbed "cyber czar of the week." It took Obama more than a year to "get around" to picking his own, Clarke notes with nonpartisan disdain. It will probably take "an electronic Pearl Harbor" to wake us up, Clarke says. Until then, we're just too bored to care.
Jeff Stein writes the "SpyTalk" blog for The Post.
Even the FDR administration knew make-work jobs don't count
By William F. Shughart II
In March 1933, when the Great Depression had driven the U.S. economy to rock bottom, the unemployment rate stood at 25 percent. One out of every four Americans who had had a job in 1929 was queuing in a bread line rather than working on an assembly line.
The unemployment rate remained at historically high levels throughout the following decade. Despite massive increases in federal spending under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, 14 percent of the labor force still was unemployed in 1941.
Unemployment didn't fall into single digits until after Pearl Harbor, when millions of men were drafted into the armed forces to fight the first axis of evil. Mobilizing America for global war, outfitting youngsters of the so-called Greatest Generation with military uniforms, equipping them with M-1 rifles and sending many to die in France's hedgerows or the South Pacific's jungles not only dramatically lowered the overall unemployment rate, but also drew millions of women into the work force to help manufacture armaments.
Why did unemployment persist after FDR took the oath of office in March 1933, pledging to end Herbert Hoover's perceived indifference to the economic hardships facing millions of American citizens, epitomized by Gen. Douglas MacArthur's brutal routing of the "Bonus Army" gathered on the mud flats of Anacostia? Didn't the alphabet soup of work-relief programs the president subsequently launched - the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Youth Administration, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and especially the Works Progress Administration, to name just a few - create jobs for hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans, providing them with sorely needed incomes without forcing them to suffer the stigmas of the dole?
The answer: The United States in the 1930s recognized that government-funded make-work jobs were not the same as real jobs.
To be sure, jobs financed at taxpayer expense were plentiful. But back then, the Bureau of Labor Statistics didn't count people on work relief as employed. In fact, persons listed on Depression-era work-relief rolls were not included in the labor force at all.
Nowadays, the unemployment rate equals the number of unemployed persons divided by the total civilian labor force. If you are working as a temporary census enumerator or planting road signs along the highway courtesy of a government "stimulus" grant, you are considered employed.
The employment and unemployment statistics of the 1930s excluded people who would not be employed in the absence of public largesse.
People at that time recognized that someone who holds a job only because Congress has appropriated money for the position is not creating wealth but is merely the recipient of an income transfer. Those who at the time derided the WPA as "We Piddle Around" recognized the wasteful consequences of public profligacy.
Today, people holding make-work positions "created" by stimulus spending, jobs tax credits and government-directed "investments" in alternatives to fossil fuels and other "green" initiatives are counted as employed. If they weren't, as they shouldn't be, the unemployment rate would be much higher than 10 percent.
William F. Shughart II is a senior fellow with the Independent Institute and the Frederick A.P. Barnard distinguished professor of economics at the University of Mississippi.
In the weeks before the fight over a new Supreme Court justice takes place, it is worthy to note that we are not remaining true to the purpose of our Constitution. In the years after the Revolutionary War, our Founders had specific goals when they wrote our Constitution. Chief among those was certainly "a more perfect union." It also was, however, to ensure that Americans would never again be ruled by their government.
When asked about the Revolutionary War, John Adams would say:
"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations. ... This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution."
In that light, we can understand that that revolution of the mind meant that the war was not about the exchange of one set of rulers for another set of masters - it was about exchanging rulers for liberty. After all, Patrick Henry did not ask for a set of American rulers or his demise. His demand was, "Give me liberty or give me death!" On the battlefield, General Washington put Henry's demand into action when addressing the Continental Army by offering this stark choice: "The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves."
In the years after the Constitution was adopted, its purpose perhaps was summarized best by Sen. Daniel Webster, who wrote:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
The Founders well understood the temptations of a wider, more active government. They were acutely aware that a larger, more powerful government - in pursuit of social perfection - had the downside of diminishing freedom - a price they thought too high to pay for an enterprise that was more than unlikely to succeed. Jefferson expressed part of that sentiment when he wrote, "Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people."
So, caught up with this idea of limiting government, both Madison and Jefferson argued that the federal government could not build roads. Jefferson stated that "the federal government could not go forward with these public projects without an amendment to the Constitution... because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the Constitution." Truly, consider how very elemental the building of roads must have been to promoting the "general welfare" of a rural country. Yet that was not the legal role of government, according to those who wrote our Constitution.
Jefferson went on to warn posterity, "The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield."And so, by 1946, without so much as a constitutional amendment, those of good intentions enacted the Employment Act, which made it the duty of the federal government and its agencies, including the newly created Council of Economic Advisers, to use all practicable means "to promote maximum employment, production and purchasing power." In other words, we became a government of good intentions.
Today, politicians literally speak of the "rights" of people as they attempt to guarantee a certain standard of living for their constituent-subjects. Of course, most recently, the federal government took on the role of guaranteeing that Americans had a minimum standard of health care because, to the government, it was a right - however unenumerated.
Now, it would be one thing if a government could actually guarantee such standards of living, but it cannot. After all, before the Great Society was enacted to take on the War on Poverty, the government-measured poverty rate was 14 percent.The pre-Great Society federal budget was less than $130 billion.Since then, we have spent tens of trillions of dollars in good intentions and have a nearly $4 trillion budget, yet the poverty rate remains virtually the same 14 percent.
In the process, of course, we have diminished freedoms immeasurably - whether by forcing people to pay for those trillions or by being forced to be subject to government rules. Many now understand Jefferson's warning that "Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people."They are also just beginning to understand economist Milton Friedman's wisdom that, "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither."Our Founders understood that, as well.That is why they attempted to guard against good intentions in favor ofguaranteeing freedom.We would do well to honor their experiment with freedom by doing the same.
Thomas G. Del Beccaro is vice chairman of the California Republican Party.
Is Freedom For Individuals or The Government?
Frank Donatelli
The retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens gives President Obama an opportunity to fill a second Supreme Court vacancy. The choice could be pivotal because the court soon will be asked to rule on the constitutionality of intrusive health legislation enacted under Congress' power to regulate commerce, i.e., the Commerce Clause. With this president seeking a larger and larger federal establishment, health care will not be the only such case the court will decide in the coming years.
This upcoming debate fits well with the public's concern about huge deficits, high taxes and an ever-larger federal establishment that tries to do everything but does nothing very well. A seminal reason for the existence of such an ineffective federal government is that we have ignored traditional constitutional prohibitions against the federal government usurping functions that should be left to the individual states. Debate over the Stevens vacancy is another opportunity to rediscover the constitutional virtues of federalism and limited government. Republican members should question the president's nominee closely to ascertain what restraints, if any, he thinks the Constitution places on federal power.
The traditional view of the American Constitution is that the document sets limits on the power and scope of the federal government. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is defined, as is the power of the executive. Congress is delegated specific "enumerated powers," at least one of which must form the constitutional basis for any congressional legislation.
As James Madison noted in the Federalist Papers, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite." This view was codified in the 10th Amendment, which specifically reserves to the states all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government.
By far, the most elastic of these enumerated congressional powers is the ability of Congress to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." Congress has used this power to justify the creation of the entire federal welfare state even as some of the underlying laws conflicted with other parts of the Constitution, such as the 10th Amendment. The expansion of congressional jurisdiction to legislate under the Commerce Clause has done more to expand federal power at the expense of states than any other development in our history.
The court will soon be asked to decide if Congress can cite the Commerce Clause as justification to force everyone in America to purchase health insurance even if state law specifically prohibits it. This is the basis of the suit filed by a large number of states seeking to invalidate the individual-mandate provision of Obamacare. If Congress can force every American to purchase any product or service, we can safely say that the Constitution, as a check on federal power, is a dead letter.
President Obama has never accepted this view. Recall his doctrine of "negative liberty":
"Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
In other words, liberty is not something granted to individuals but rather represents the "freedom" of government to act on our behalf. Thus, any restraint on the government's ability to act in pursuit of the common good is negative liberty. Conservatives think absolute power corrupts absolutely. Liberals think undiminished federal power enhances the body politic.
It is no wonder Americans tremble every time this president nominates a federal judge.
Frank Donatelli is chairman of GOPAC.
Right To Die Might Kill Health Care Reform
Douglas G. Smith
With the recent announcement that Justice John Paul Stevens is retiring from the Supreme Court and the lawsuits filed by state attorneys general challenging the new health care bill, the constitutionality of the legislation is sure to receive renewed scrutiny. Several aspects of the legislation are troubling from a constitutional perspective. However, not all of these aspects are raised in the state lawsuits. Ultimately, the Supreme Court may confront the constitutionality of the legislation in the context of a lawsuit brought by an individual citizen, not the state governments.
For example, the mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance raises potential problems, not merely because the congressional authority to pass it is questionable, but also because it interferes with individual rights regarding health care choices. While many commentators question whether Congress has the constitutional authority to enact such a provision under the Commerce Clause, the potential violation of individual rights may be even more significant. There is a long line of Supreme Court authority holding that individuals have a fundamental right to make personal health care choices without government interference, including the choice to refuse care altogether. For example, in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, a case involving the right to cease life-sustaining medical treatment, the Supreme Court held that individuals have a "constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment." Likewise, in Washington v. Harper,the court held that prison inmates have a "significant liberty interest" in refusing anti-psychotic medication. Finally, in Parham v. J.R., the court held that children have a significant liberty interest in refusing medical treatment that they do not want, even though their parents request it. Thus, the right to make individual choices regarding medical care is firmly rooted in the Constitution.
Requiring individuals to purchase health care insurance interferes with this fundamental right. While proponents of the legislation often point to state requirements for automobile insurance as a model for the individual mandate, they are inapposite. The courts have held that driving on the public roads is a privilege - not a right. Making determinations regarding one's health care choices implicates fundamental rights. Just as the government cannot require us to purchase subscriptions to certain magazines or newspapers with which we disagree without violating our First Amendment rights, so, too, requiring us to purchase health insurance may violate our constitutional right to make our own health care decisions.
While proponents point to the congressional power to levy taxes as a potential source of authority for the individual mandate, Congress cannot exercise such authority in a manner that violates individual rights. Moreover, the individual mandate is far different from a congressionally imposed tax. It is an unprecedented provision requiring individuals to pay private companies for certain government-mandated services. Unlike tax revenues, the funds do not go to the government, but rather to private parties. It is questionable whether Congress has the constitutional authority to enact such a provision. If it did have such authority, the implications would be quite troubling. For example, now that it has taken over certain automobile companies, could the federal government require us to purchase only GM cars, as opposed to Ford or Toyota vehicles? Such legislation is contrary to traditional notions of the legislative power and would open the door to significant government abuses.
These and other emerging questions regarding the constitutionality of the health care bill are likely to receive renewed scrutiny in any hearings on a replacement for Justice Stevens as well as in the wave of litigation that is likely to follow the state lawsuits. The hearings and the state lawsuits are only the beginning of the debate over the constitutionality of this sweeping legislation, in which the federal government seeks to exercise unprecedented powers.
Douglas G. Smith is a scholar in residence at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
America Doesn't Have A Prayer
If there is one thing this country needs right now, it is prayer. Thus, it was a singular case of bad timing last week when Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the U.S. District Court in Madison, Wis., ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. The observance was established in 1952 as a day when presidents issue proclamations asking Americans to pray, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation brought suit in 2008 on the grounds that the law violates the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion. Judge Crabb agrees. We dissent. National days of prayer have been declared since the earliest days of the republic. Our Thanksgiving holiday is rooted in the 1789 decree by President George Washington that the nation "unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations ... [and] to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws." Likewise, Abraham Lincoln in 1861 called for "a day of humiliation, prayer and fasting for all the people of the nation." He recommended that Americans "observe and keep that day according to their several creeds and modes of worship, in all humility and with all religious solemnity."
The 1983 Supreme Court case Marsh v. Chambers, which upheld the right of the Nebraska Legislature to have an invocation, is one of the most cited regarding Establishment Clause issues. In it, the high court affirmed that such long-standing, nondenominational customs and practices are constitutionally sound. "It can hardly be thought that in the same week members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment for submission to the states," the court argued, "they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable."
Even the fact that some opposed the practice at that time does not weaken "the force of the historical argument," the Supreme Court maintained. To those Founders who argued that a group divided by many denominations could not join in the same act of worship, Samuel Adams responded, according to his cousin John Adams, that "he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country." Judge Crabb's decision reinforces the passions that divide the nation rather than promoting that which should unite us.
Judge Crabb counters that "recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic." But if rune magic had played as important a role in our national history as prayer did, no doubt Rune Day would be a cherished annual observance. If the first Congress convened in a sweat lodge, then hallucinations and visions would guide our public policy - that is, to a greater extent than they do in the current government.
This passage reveals the most critical flaw in Judge Crabb's reasoning. She seeks to equate things that are not equal, to elevate the obscure to the level of the commonplace. The United States is defined by its people, their culture and history, and the Constitution is part of that fabric. It is not a theoretical construct in which radical judges are free to seek utopian interpretations separate from the society that created the document and sustains the principles on which it was founded.
In the 1952 case Zorach v. Clauson, the Supreme Court observed that Americans are "a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." The National Day of Prayer does not establish religion but recognizes what already exists.
National Teen Age Republicans (TARS)
10620-B Crestwood Professional Center | P.O. Box 2128, | Manassas, VA 20108 Telephone: 703-368-4220 | E-mail: NationalTARS@aol.com
