ScaifeNet because we can't let Soros have all the fun...

Last April, the Obama administration let slip that it had targeted an American citizen living abroad for summary execution. When the target's father sought legal help, he learned it is now a crime even to file suit on behalf of a federally designated "global terrorist." Earlier this month, though, the administration relented, letting the challenge proceed.

Given what we know about the target, Anwar al-Awlaki, it's hard to get teary picturing him smeared across some Yemeni rocks by a Predator drone. The "bin Laden of the Internet" is linked to three 9/11 hijackers, has e-mailed the Fort Hood shooter, advised the "underwear bomber," and inspired the botched Times Square attack.

If there is a good argument against birthright citizenship, the New Mexico-born al-Awlaki is Exhibit A.

Al-Awlaki's repulsiveness aside, there is an important matter of principle at stake. Can the Obama administration really serve as judge, jury and executioner over any American it deems a security threat?

Yes we can, insists Ken Gude of the Obama-friendly Center for American Progress. Gude says the hit is justified under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11 to authorize the war in Afghanistan.

As the American Civil Liberties Union argues, though, even if the AUMF authorizes the arrest of U.S. terror suspects abroad, it's "a far more radical thing" to propose that it legalizes "the extrajudicial execution of those people." (Besides, is it remotely plausible that a Center for American Progress analyst circa 2007 would have endorsed a Bush-Cheney plan to rub out citizens it deemed dangerous?)

Much of the commentary so far has examined whether killing al-Awlaki violates the U.S. government's assassination ban. Our Cold War flirtation with such tactics was a sordid tragicomedy of errors, including attempts to kill Fidel Castro with "a contaminated diving suit," "exploding seashells" and Mafia thugs.

But as law professor Kevin Jon Heller points out, "assassination" isn't the issue here: "The foreign-murder statute has to be the starting point" for analysis. That law makes anyone — including a CIA agent — who kills a U.S. national abroad "presumptively a murderer."

Just as President George W. Bush insisted his Magic Scepter of Inherent Authority let him ignore federal laws against torture, the new administration seems to believe "that Obama has authority as commander in chief to ignore the foreign-murder statute."

Conservatives generally backed the Bush team's extravagant claims of uncheckable presidential power, and some have adopted a foolish consistency here as well. "Eliminating al-Awlaki: Great, but Only Part of the Solution," offers one pundit on National Review Online.

It's the much-maligned Glenn Beck who called this one correctly. On a recent show, the excitable Tea Party guru had "no problem" with killing American terrorist suspects on the battlefield: "But away from the battlefield? ... Call me a little nostalgic for the Constitution."

Further to Beck's right (really), there has been some paranoid talk about Obama planning "stateside assassinations" of anti-government dissenters. That's what Chuck Norris claims, sans evidence, in a recent column for Worldnetdaily.com. "No due process. No trial. Just a bullet," Chuck intones ominously. (I never would have guessed that the action hero of my youth, who dispatched the terrorists in "Invasion U.S.A." with a steely "time to die!" would go all civ-libber on us.)

But as Kevin Williamson writes at NRO, it's not so much "what this administration might do with such power, but what an administration 50 years down the road might do with it." In a seemingly endless war, the powers we cede now could be available to future presidents in perpetuity.

You don't need to wax conspiratorial to find that prospect disturbing.

featuring Mark A. Calabria

The transfer of sensitive nuclear materials and technology have been going on for the past 60 years or so, but there has been no systematic research on the subject. The fundamental question is: Why do states provide sensitive nuclear assistance to nonnuclear-weapon states, essentially contributing to the international spread of nuclear weapons? In a new Nuclear Proliferation Update, Matthew Kroenig tackles this question, and examines the implications for the Iranian nuclear issue.

• August 2010 Issue of Nuclear Proliferation Update
• Subscribe to Nuclear Proliferation Update

Former French President Jacques Chirac is almost certain to be accused in a major court proceeding in Paris of being part of a scheme to overcharge the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for French military equipment during his presidential term. The allegation will be that he was doing this for the benefit of himself and his political party. A complaint has been filed in the French courts over commissions due from arms sales, which is likely to lead to a trial that will be highly embarrassing for the French and Saudi governments. Mr. Chirac is already under indictment and is preparing to stand trial on embezzlement and corruption charges for actions while he was mayor of Paris before being elected president. The new charges are the first concrete allegations of continued corrupt practices by Mr. Chirac and his cronies during his presidency (1995-2007).

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are directly or indirectly employed in the production of military arms, aircraft, ships and defense systems. A significant portion of this production is sold to foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia. If the Saudis and their French collaborators did, indeed, exclude the opportunity for American (and other) firms to bid on the military aircraft, training and systems in question, as the complaint charges, the Americans, who have very competitive products (primarily helicopters and tanker aircraft), have a legitimate grievance. The contacts in question amount to more than 13 billion euros, or approximately $17 billion — which is not chicken feed — and which possibly could have provided jobs for many thousands of American workers.

The French have a government-controlled organization — Sofresa — that is responsible for the sales of major weapons systems and operates under the supervision of the French president. Saudi Arabia, through its defense ministry, contracted with a private intermediary — the Bugshan Group, led by Khalid Bugshan — to arrange the sale of more than 100 helicopters and other military aircraft to Sofresa, which was acting on behalf of the French government. According to the plaintiff's counsel, Washington international lawyer Bart S. Fisher, "We will show that the procurement process corrupted the French government, from Jacques Chirac to officials in Sofresa and the Ministry of Defense." It will be alleged that Bugshan's activities allowed the French government to obtain significant price premiums — as much as 65 percent over and above the French suppliers' prices and Sofresa's standard markup for services. This allegedly was done though invoices for fictitious services and other practices, which purportedly enriched Jacques Chirac as well as his and other political parties. For example, if an airplane for Saudi Arabia should have cost X, it would be purchased for as much as three times X by the Saudis, and then Bugshan would see to it that much of the differential was distributed liberally to French politicians.

The losers in this scheme were, of course, the Saudi Arabian people, who were stuck with a bill to pay three times as much for aircraft as they should have, and the non-French and particularly U.S. aviation firms and their workers, who did not get a fair chance to build the aircraft for the Saudis. The U.S. has a law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, that prohibits U.S. companies from paying bribes to foreign government officials. For more than a decade, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has had a Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business. Most major countries have signed the convention, including both the United States and France. Unfortunately, many countries do not enforce the anti-bribery requirements despite having signed on to the convention — which puts U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage.

The trial is likely to provide at least a partial open window to some of the corrupt practices in international arms dealings. Khalid Bugshan and his group had their agreement with the French, and their contacts included French government officials and some in the inner circle of the Saudi ruling family. One of the interesting questions is: "How much did the Saudi ruling family know about the overpricing — or was Bugshan primarily running a rogue operation?" If the Saudi royal family knew, were they doing it to purchase political influence and/or tilt French foreign policy?

For many years, the French have argued for taking action against countries that engage in what the French consider "unfair tax competition" — i.e., having lower tax rates than the French. Lower tax rates, particularly on labor and capital, often are very beneficial for almost everyone, particularly those who receive the direct benefit of the tax-rate reduction. Bribery usually only benefits the corrupt and hurts everyone else.

U.S. law allows the government to take actions against countries that engage in unreasonable, unjustifiable and discriminatory actions against U.S. companies. If the allegations are proved, both the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in the White House and the Justice Department have at their disposal a number of measures — some constructive, some destructive — they can take against the French and the Saudis. President Obama said he wants the United States to increase exports and create more jobs, which French dealings appear to have impeded. It is time for the Obama administration and Congress to show more guts and stand up for American workers and investors against French hypocrisy.

Religion stirs our deepest passions. That helps explain the furor over the planned construction of a mosque in lower Manhattan near Ground Zero. Why else would Americans, who normally glory in their right to practice their chosen faiths, be debating whether people can build a house of worship in the nation's most populous city?

It is a disturbing discussion. The tone is ugly; the charges are vicious. And no Christian, Jew, or other religious person can feel safe if angry mobs — even if only virtual — are able to stop the activities of an unpopular faith.

There is no legal barrier to building the mosque and Muslim community center, called Cordoba House, in New York City. If the First Amendment means anything, the government cannot single out a particular religion for constructing a worship facility. The Free Exercise Clause would mean little if politicians could willy-nilly close down mosques — or churches, synagogues, temples, and other religious sites.

Any attempt to block Cordoba House also would run into the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Passed by voice vote in the Republican Congress of 2000, the law targets state and local governments attempting to inhibit religious exercise through land use regulation. Senate sponsor Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) explained: "At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together."

Nevertheless, should the mosque not be built, at least at the planned site? The moral outrage generated over the proposed construction is real. But it appears to reflect the dubious claim of collective Muslim responsibility for 9/11.

Of course, those who committed those atrocities were Muslims. And they used their faith as justification. However, the vast majority of Muslims, overseas as well as at home, obviously are not terrorists. Targeting a proposed mosque in lower Manhattan in response to 9/11 punishes American Muslims for the crimes committed by a score of (mostly irreligious) Saudi Arabians.

And much more than faith animates terrorists. Terrorism is an ancient tool of politics. Awful, yes, but common. Terrorism did not originate with Muslims.

Moreover, most Muslims who commit terrorist acts make political rather than theological arguments. They perceive the U.S. government as being at war with Muslims. That doesn't justify the atrocities that terrorists commit. But as Robert Pape, in particular, has documented, it is foreign occupation that motivates most terrorists. And today Muslim lands are most likely to be seen as dominated by the U.S. and its allies.

In fact, those Americans angered by Cordoba House should recognize the problem of blowback. The mere thought of a mosque near Ground Zero infuriates them, but they expect Muslims in other lands to smile benignly as Washington bombs, invades, and occupies their lands, and captures or kills their peoples. Again, nothing justifies terrorism. But that doesn't prevent U.S. government policies from inadvertently encouraging terrorism. The issue is not how we see our government's intentions, but how others perceive our government's actions.

Still, strong sensitivities exist in this case, whether logical or not. For many people, especially those who lost family members and friends in the World Trade Center attack, Ground Zero has a unique emotional hold. There's good reason to respect these sensibilities.

In 1984 Carmelite nuns turned an abandoned building, actually a one-time storehouse for Zyklon B gas, at the edge of Auschwitz into a convent to pray for the souls of those murdered in the camp by the Nazis. Years of controversy ensued, as many Jews were offended by the nuns' presence. In April 1993 Pope John Paul II instructed the nuns to move.

That they meant well did not matter. Their presence at Auschwitz had become counterproductive and their work could be better done elsewhere. So, too, one could argue that Cordoba House risks doing more harm than good. Organizer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has a history of interfaith cooperation, says he intends to promote moderate Islam. Nevertheless, he might do more to encourage religious comity if he voluntarily took the project elsewhere.

But where? Unfortunately, it's not clear what would satisfy critics. The Carmelite convent was connected to the "sacred ground" of Auschwitz, so the nuns simply moved away from the site. However, Cordoba House is not slated for Ground Zero, but a nearby commercial zone that includes bars, pizza joints, bank branches, shoe stores, beauty salons, and even a "gentleman's club." So Newt Gingrich is wrong to charge: "it is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology." The Muslim facility won't be there.

The complaint based on proximity is more dubious. If two (rather long) blocks is too close, then how about ten blocks? Or twenty blocks? Is Harlem okay? Or Queens? What about Staten Island, across the river? Sensitivity to what happened at Ground Zero cannot justify closing an entire city to Muslims.

Is there another justification to target the project? There is much chatter about nefarious ties to extremists and plans for violence. Bill Clinton's old pollster, Dick Morris, along with Eileen McGann charged: "The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be — as many mosques throughout the nation are — a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center." Indeed, they added, Cordoba House would "serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west."

If Morris and McGann have inside information about an illegal plot, they should contact the police and FBI. Of course, they have no such intelligence, since if they did they would not be on television making their outrageous claims. Anyway, this charge has nothing to do with constructing a mosque in lower Manhattan. If dangerous conspiracies are afoot, they could be conducted in Hoboken, Newark, or Scarsdale.

Further, it should be obvious that most American Muslims do not spend their time plotting against their neighbors. One can legitimately ask if extremism is being taught in specific mosques and Muslim schools. But the answer tells us nothing about the proposed Cordoba House.

Perhaps the worst argument is that since Muslims persecute Christians and Jews elsewhere, Americans should ban mosques here. Said Newt Gingrich: "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." (He also doesn't like the name, because, he says, Cordoba, the town in Spain where Muslim conquerors turned a church into a mosque, is "a symbol of Islamic conquest.")

It is a bad argument at many levels. First, the U.S., not Saudi Arabia, should set the standard for tolerance in America and around the world. Riyadh is one of the world's worst religious persecutors. Saudi conduct is best seen as an example of what we should not do.

Second, the question for us today is the freedom of Muslim Americans, not the freedom of Saudi Arabian Christians, Jews, Baha'is, and others. Respecting the former is within our power. Protecting the latter, alas, is not. Punishing American Muslims for the sins of the Saudi royal family makes no sense.

Third, carrying out what looks to be a, to coin a word, jihad against American Muslims will make it harder for activists in the West to promote religious liberty in the Muslim world. The task is tough enough in any case. But if Americans reek of hypocrisy they are likely to have even less success. This nation is a refuge for people around the globe because of its willingness to stand for liberty as a matter of principle. To allow popular passions to block a faith center because it is Muslim would be to follow Esau in selling our nation's moral birthright for a mess of pottage.

However, responsibility runs both ways. The Muslim faith has been misused atrociously by people of ill will. In the past Christians lost sight of the transcendent meaning of their faith while pursuing worldly ends. In time Christians confronted and excised those theological malignancies.

Moderate Muslims the world over face a similar task. Extremists too often have justified terrorism and murder in the name of Allah. Moreover, even many mainstream Muslims have supported or at least acquiesced in the persecution of minority faiths. Indeed, no Islamic state allows true religious liberty. The more tolerant countries in the Persian Gulf and North Africa generally permit worship but still ban proselytizing. In many other Muslim nations Christians, Jews, Baha'is, Hindus, and others face harassment, discrimination, imprisonment, and even death.

Islamic societies, and not just governments, around the globe need to renounce violence and repression. The strongest advocates of true religious freedom in Muslim societies will always be other Muslims who recognize the importance of respecting the life and dignity of all peoples.

Religious faith is too important to become a political punching bag. One does not have to like or even respect Islam to believe its practitioners have the right to build a worship center wherever they wish. Christians, especially, should avoid joining the Cordoba House mob. Those who most worry about living in a post-Christian world should most resolutely defend religious liberty for all.

The Indonesian rupiah has garnered plenty of news coverage recently. Most of it has focused on the rupiah's newfound stability. That stability, in part, has given Bank Indonesia (BI) enough courage to float a new idea. In early August, the BI signaled that it was considering a redenomination of the rupiah.

The BI proposes to chop three zeroes off current rupiah denominations. The last time the rupiah cast three zeroes to the wind was nearly 45 years ago — in December of 1965.

At this point, a redenomination makes sense. It would give "one" rupiah some operational meaning, make most calculations simpler and make many transactions more convenient, reducing transaction costs. The only thing that doesn't make sense is the BI's suggestion that the redenomination process will take a long time — up to ten years.

If a decision to redenominate occurs, which I think it should, the implementation should be rapid, not slow. A slow implementation process implies that a confusing dual denomination system would exist. This could be a formula for failure.

Talk of a rupiah redenomination brings to mind the rupiah's sad history (see accompanying table). When the Dutch recognized an independent Indonesia in 1949, one rupiah was equal to a Dutch guilder, whose value was 3.8 per US dollar.

In December 1965, the rupiah was redenominated at a rate of 1,000 old rupiah to one new rupiah (today's unit). In terms of the original rupiah, there has been a depreciation in the exchange rate since independence from 3.8 per dollar to approximately nine million per dollar today. That amounts to a depreciation against the dollar of almost 2.4 million times.

With those kind of numbers, it's not surprisingly that, over the past 50 years, the rupiah has been one of the worst performing currencies in Asia. Redenomination talk also brings back remembrances of one of the sorriest episodes in the rupiah's history, namely the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis. As the accompanying table indicates, the rupiah shed as much as 83% of its value against the greenback during the crisis.

Just how did this catastrophe unfold? On August 14, 1997, shortly after the Thai baht collapsed on July 2nd, Indonesia floated the rupiah. This prompted Stanley Fischer, Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, to proclaim that "the management of the IMF welcomes the timely decision of the Indonesian authorities. The floating of the rupiah, in combination with Indonesia's strong fundamentals, supported by prudent fiscal and monetary policies, will allow its economy to continue its impressive economic performance of the last several years."

Contrary to the IMF's expectations, the rupiah did not float on a sea of tranquility. It plunged from 2,700 rupiah per U.S. dollar at the time of the float to lows of nearly 16,000 rupiah per U.S. dollar in 1998. Indonesia was caught up in the maelstrom of the Asian crisis.

By late January 1998, President Suharto realized that the IMF medicine was not working and sought a second opinion. In February, I was invited to offer that opinion and began to operate pro bono as Suharto's Special Counselor. Although I did not have any opinions on the Suharto government, I did have definite ones on the matter at hand.

After the usual open discussions at the President's private residence, I proposed as an antidote an orthodox currency board in which the rupiah would be fully convertible into the U.S. dollar at a fixed exchange rate. On the day that news hit the street, the rupiah soared on both the spot and one-year forward markets by 28 percent against the U.S. dollar. These developments infuriated the U.S. government and the IMF.

Ruthless attacks on the currency board idea and the Special Counselor ensued. Suharto was told in no uncertain terms — by both the President of the United States Bill Clinton and the Managing Director of the IMF Michel Camdessus — that he would have to drop the currency board idea or forego $43 billion in foreign assistance. He was also aware that his days as President would be numbered if the rupiah was not stabilized.

Economists jumped on the bandwagon, too. Every half-truth and nontruth imaginable was trotted out against the currency board idea. In my opinion, those oft-repeated canards were outweighed by the full support for an Indonesian currency board (which received very little press) by four Nobel Laureates in Economics: Gary Becker, Milton Friedman, Merton Miller, and Robert Mundell.

Why all the fuss over a currency board for Indonesia? Merton Miller understood the great game immediately. As he wrote when Mrs. Hanke and I were in residence at the Shangri-La Hotel in Jakarta, the Clinton administration's objection to the currency board was "not that it wouldn't work but that it would, and if it worked, they would be stuck with Suharto." Much the same argument was articulated by Australia's former Prime Minister Paul Keating: "The United States Treasury quite deliberately used the economic collapse as a means of bringing about the ouster of President Suharto."

Former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger weighed in with a similar diagnosis: "We were fairly clever in that we supported the IMF as it overthrew [Suharto]. Whether that was a wise way to proceed is another question. I'm not saying Mr. Suharto should have stayed, but I kind of wish he had left on terms other than because the IMF pushed him out."

Even Michel Camdessus could not find fault with these assessments. On the occasion of his retirement, he proudly proclaimed: "We created the conditions that obliged President Suharto to leave his job." Now that that chapter in currency warfare is closed and has been duly entered into the annals of war, let's turn to the contemporary rupiah story, which is one of stability.

A surprisingly resilient Indonesian economy has underpinned the stability story. Indeed, since the end of 2007, for the world's 50 emerging market economies, only China, Lebanon, India and Nigeria have topped Indonesia in terms of cumulative real GDP growth. And growth remains hot — perhaps a bit too hot — with year-over-year GDP growth running at a 6.2% clip and consumer prices also 6.2% higher in July from a year earlier. In short, Indonesia weathered the Panic of 2008 no worse for the wear.

Anticipating the reelection of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) in July 2009, investors piled into the Jakarta stock market and never looked back (see accompanying chart). As for the rupiah, it became my favorite carry trade, and remains so. The stock market is another story. Most observers put the economy's GDP growth potential in the 6-7% range. SBY likes 6.6% and the BI seems to be biased towards the upper end of the range. I am more comfortable with the bottom end of the range.

Among other things, Indonesia's infrastructure constraints are significant. Indeed, I avoid automobile travel in Jakarta at all cost. A helicopter is the only way to beat some of the world's nastiest congestion. The accompanying table on logistics presents a clear picture of the constraints thrown up by Indonesia's inferior infrastructure (both hard and soft).

The BI's bias towards the high end of the potential growth range has resulted in a monetary policy that has been a bit too easy for too long. The BI will be forced to tighten and play catch up. This will take the froth off the Jakarta equity market. As for the rupiah carry trade, it should remain a winner for the foreseeable future.

To date, SBY has avoided big mistakes. This is a big plus. But if he wants to lift Indonesia's growth potential, he will have to take aggressive initiatives to remove Indonesia's infrastructure bottlenecks and to improve the functioning of Indonesia's labor market (see accompanying table).

In Indonesia, laws governing businesses' hiring and firing practices have created a dysfunctional labor market. As indicated in the table (above), Indonesia's labor market is ranked a lowly 149 out of 183 in the World Bank's Doing Business 2010 report.

There's a revolution happening, and you probably don't even know it. While you've been worrying about wars, spills, and bailouts, Washington has been taking over schools nationwide. So far, Virginia has resisted, but already more than 30 states have capitulated to national mathematics and language arts standards. And amazingly, almost no one's heard about this. But that's exactly what standardizers, who know national standards' fatal flaws, want.

The immediate impetus for this has been the Race to the Top (RTTT), a competition for $4.35 billion in federal funds. Adopting standards created by something called the Common Core State Standards Initiative is crucial for states to compete.

In an impressive defense of state sovereignty, Virginia stayed out of the most recent round of RTTT, taking itself out of the federal bribery scheme. But many national-standards aficionados have been rhetorically abusing the commonwealth ever since, trying to get it blindly to follow the crowd.

Despite this, national standards have probably been flying almost as far under the radar in the commonwealth as elsewhere. Which raises the question: Why the secrecy?

The answer is that keeping this all hush-hush has been the key to national-standards proponents getting their way.

The last national standards push — which included history, English, science, and other subjects — was in the 1990s, and it disintegrated almost the moment the first proposed standards were released. Everyone, it seemed, was paying attention, and every diverse American found something in the very detailed standards to hate.

Avoiding a similar public outcry explains why today the CCSSI has furnished only mathematics and language arts standards, and why the latter identify almost no specific works students must read. Math is relatively uncontroversial, as is English — if you don't prescribe any actual readings.

The problems, of course, are that focusing on just two subjects threatens to narrow the curriculum, while dodging essential reading would hollow it out. Do more, though, and Americans might have something of substance to grab onto.

Another reason for keeping things muted has been, it seems, to deceive the public about what — and who — is driving the standards. Contrary to proponents' incessant refrain, standardization has been neither "state led" nor "voluntary," and it's been the heavy hand of Washington that's been shoving everything along.

While creation of the Common Core was spearheaded by associations of governors and state education chiefs, those groups do not represent individual states. Meanwhile, the National Conference of State Legislatures opposes national standards.

Of course, many state school boards have adopted the standards, but they might just be happily passing the standards buck. Much more important, thanks to RTTT and Obama administration plans to connect national standards to even bigger piles of money — the latter will be the next honey-pot offered to Virginia — adoption is no more "voluntary" than adhering to the No Child Left Behind Act or the minimum drinking age. If states want federal dollars — which were taken from their citizens to begin with — they must do as they're told.

Finally, national standardizers have almost certainly tried to keep their efforts muffled because there is simply no meaningful evidence that national standards work. Despite proponents' superficial claims about needing national standards to compete in the world economy, or all countries that outperform us having such standards, the research reveals that, all else equal, countries with national standards do no better than those without. Research also reveals that the freer the education system — the more autonomous schools and consumers are — the better.

It's not hard to understand why. Government schooling is almost always controlled by the people it employs because they are the most motivated to be involved in education politics. And like most people, they would prefer as little outside accountability as possible. Conversely, more freedom means more competition, and that means real accountability — answering to customers — as well as constant innovation.

So why are national curriculum standards the biggest federal takeover you've never heard of? Because they need silence to win. And here's another big secret: Should Virginia ever succumb to national standards, national tests are likely coming next.

featuring Ted Galen Carpenter

When President Obama told the nation last week that Social Security could be put on a sound basis with minor changes, he forgot to tell Americans about the real costs of that system.

Initially, the costs were low: The combined payroll tax rate was only 2% on a wage base of up to $3,000, for a maximum tax of $60 per year. Although the tax was legally split between workers and employers, the incidence of the tax (the effective burden) has always been on workers in terms of lower net wage rates.

Today, workers pay an effective payroll tax of 12.4% for Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance on earnings up to $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,243.20 a year. That tax rate and the cap will continue to increase as the number of retirees grows relative to the working population.

Phony Assets

The real costs of Social Security far exceed the taxes collected: The compulsory pay-as-you-go retirement system has denied people the choice of using those funds for private investment, diminished the culture of responsibility and strengthened the redistributive state. People have become more dependent on government, and the retirement decision has become politicized. Social Security now accounts for 20% of the U.S. budget, with expenditures of $686 billion last year.

Reforms in 1977 and 1983 increased payroll taxes and the retirement age, but made no fundamental changes to the system in terms of empowering workers by allowing them to put part of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts.

The U.S. system has accumulated surpluses, but they have been used to expand the size and scope of government. The so-called trust fund has no real assets, only IOUs that taxpayers must eventually pay.

In contrast, Chile's Social Security Reform Act of 1980 allowed workers to opt out of the defined benefit plan and set up personal accounts. Today Chilean workers are no longer burdened with payroll taxes and no longer dependent on government for their retirement income.

The lack of private property rights in Social Security means that individuals have no secure claim to future benefits and cannot pass them on as part of their estates.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the power to change promised benefits or other terms of the "social contract" — that is, Congress has the power to break the contract and to renege on past promises.

Needed: $16 Trillion

Indeed, Social Security statements now state: "Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76% of scheduled benefits."

What kind of a contract is that? Would anyone voluntarily sign such an uncertain agreement? Of course not! That's why Social Security is compulsory.

The deal is bound to get worse. This year OASDI will run a deficit of $41 billion, with a smaller deficit in 2011, and surpluses in 2012-14. Beginning in 2015, revenues will be insufficient to pay full benefits, according to the just-released Social Security Trustees' Annual Report to Congress, and the cash-flow deficit will rapidly increase.

From that vantage point, "the crisis is upon our doorstep," said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.

On a 75-year basis, Social Security is bankrupt: Promised benefits far exceed estimated revenues, and if all future benefits beyond this time frame are included, the unfunded liabilities are nearly $16 trillion.

If Medicare is included, the unfunded liabilities soar to more than $100 trillion. That's the amount in today's dollars that is needed to pay off all future benefits over and above taxes collected .

President Obama's debt and deficit commission cannot afford to ignore these massive contingent liabilities and the need for real reform. Doing so will only compound the debt crisis.

The government could temporarily "fix" Social Security by reducing benefits, increasing the retirement age, increasing the payroll tax and raising the tax ceiling.

Those tactics were applied in 1977 and 1983 but have fallen far short of stabilizing the system. That is because the nature of Social Security has remained unchanged — unlike a defined contribution plan (e.g., a 401(k)), a pay-as-you-go plan depends on demographics and on politics.

With an aging population (there will be only 3.3 workers per retiree in 2020 compared with 7.1 workers in 1950), taxes must necessarily increase if promised benefits are to be realized.

But politicians don't win votes by increasing taxes. They would rather increase benefits, and that's exactly what they did in spades from 1967 to '77, when Social Security benefits increased by more than 70%.

Broken Promise

The Framers could never have imagined a welfare state and forced intergenerational redistribution. There have been benefits from the socialized system, but there have also been significant costs — especially the loss of freedom. Individuals are compelled to pay into a system in which nothing is saved or invested, and in which the promise of future benefits can be broken at any time.

Political risk has replaced market risk, and collective responsibility has crowded out individual rectitude.

Chile expanded the market and reduced the scope of government power by removing restrictions on personal accounts and allowing people the choice to stay in the old system or join the new system. That choice is not available in the U.S.; it should be.

The city of Dubai has become a major Middle Eastern commercial center. It also has been called the Middle East's "shopping capital."

Moreover, the emirate is one of the world's great transit points. Its airport is a grand melting pot, with passengers heading to South Asia, Europe, East Asia, Africa, and America. I recently passed through on my way to and from Afghanistan.

Dubai also offers a comfortable exile for foreigners fearful of the future of their own nations. Many influential Afghans are thought to have moved their families to Dubai. Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, now called Xe, recently relocated there. The city seems to have everything that a wealthy expatriate could want.

Indeed, the emirate's $80 billion economy is now symbolized by the world's tallest building, the Burj Khalifa, which dominates the city skyline. Of course, Dubai suffered an embarrassing property and debt crisis late last year, which forced an even more embarrassing bail-out by the United Arab Emirates, the seven-emirate federation that includes Dubai. The city also faces pressure from the US to clamp down on trade with Iran. As a result, Iranian businessmen have been moving their business elsewhere.

Still, most analysts expect commercial Dubai to bounce back. The city's debt restructuring has gone smoothly and the emirate remains a seemingly tolerant and stable base for commercial operations.

However, there is a worrisome underside to Dubai's prosperity. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit against US intelligence agencies over possible collusion in the UAE's arrest and torture of an American citizen on terrorism charges. The UAE received even more publicity for its recent attack on BlackBerry data services. The formal justification was national security, but the UAE acted shortly after arresting several citizens who used their BlackBerries to organize a peaceful demonstration. The UAE may be tolerant, but it is not free.

Actually, the UAE isn't even tolerant. The UAE has long been famous for cracking down on Westerners who ignore conservative mores in public. Like other countries in the region, women also face discrimination and abuse. Human trafficking has been reported.

Most vulnerable are the foreign citizens who, as in most Gulf states, make up much of the UAE's workforce. Many of these 250,000 people — who lack even minimal citizenship protections — labor in difficult circumstances. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has complained that many of them work in "less than human" conditions. The State Department noted that "the government severely restrict[s] the rights of foreign workers." Amnesty International has also pointed to cases of exploitation and abuse.

Women domestic workers are subject to special abuse. According to HRW, "Women domestic workers are at risk of unpaid wages, food deprivation, forced confinement, and physical or sexual abuse." Migrant workers are often not paid for their labors and are subject to "unsafe working environments leading to deaths or illness, squalid living conditions in labor camps, and withholding of passports and travel documents."

But Dubai's human rights problems go beyond its exploitation of foreign workers. The emirate has no democratically-elected legislative institutions or political parties. Although elections are no panacea, the lack of popular political involvement almost guarantees a lack of accountability.

Last year HRW reported: "While the economy of the UAE continues to grow, human rights progress remains scant. Authorities censor and harass human rights activists, impeding independent reporting that could help curb abuses. Other forms of governmental accountability are minimal." The group added that "The government has on numerous occasions used the country's laws to penalize, fine, and close media establishments." Amnesty International has charged the government with blocking access to websites, punishing journalists, transferring teachers for their political views, and breaking up demonstrations. Moreover, the government has approved only one human rights organization.

The UAE does not murder or "disappear" its people, but it often does mistreat them. According to a State Department report,

There were unverified reports of torture during the year, and security forces sometimes employed flogging as judicially sanctioned punishment. Arbitrary and incommunicado detention remained a problem. The judiciary lacked full independence. The government interfered with privacy and restricted civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press (including the internet), assembly, association, and religion.

When it comes to religion, the UAE falls short in several important ways, though it does better than some of its neighbors. Last year a State Department report stated that

The [UAE] government controls virtually all Sunni mosques and places general restrictions on freedom of assembly and association, including for religious purposes. Nonetheless, religious groups with dedicated religious buildings can worship and conduct business. The government follows a policy of tolerance toward non-Muslim religious groups and in practice interfered very little in their religious activities. Proselytizing and publicly distributing non-Islamic religious literature is prohibited.

The general restrictions on individual liberty are bothersome, but the greatest problem may be individual cases, which often appear to involve torture, incommunicado detention, and other forms of mistreatment. Government officials who employ such practices are generally protected.

Last year, a video surfaced showing Sheikh Issa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the brother of the UAE president, beating an Afghan grain dealer with whom he had a business dispute. The Sheikh has allegedly committed several assaults, but he was acquitted in this case for supposedly being under the influence of drugs. In contrast, some of the Sheikh's confederates were convicted.

The UAE may go easy on a member of the ruling family, but it not so gentle in treating the disfavored, whether human rights activists, laborers, or businessmen. Harassment of human rights activists has been common. For instance, HRW pointed to pressure on the Jurist Association, including denying members the right to travel overseas for meetings. HRW also highlighted the case of Hassan al-Diqqi, founder of the Emirates People's Rights Organization (which was not recognized by the government), who faced a dubious and suspiciously timed rape charge.

A professor of religious education, Salem Adbullah al-Dousari, appears to have been punished for his opinions, ending up detained in a psychiatric facility and charged with revealing state secrets. In another suspicious case, human rights activist Muhammad al-Roken was charged with having sex outside of marriage.

Amnesty International has highlighted the case of 17 Indian migrant workers sentenced to death by the government of Sharjah, one of the UAE's seven emirates, for murdering a Pakistani.

Amnesty's Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui charged: "This is a mockery of justice. These 17 men have been tortured, forced to confess, and sentenced to death based on a fake video."

Similar abuses apparently have been visited upon businessmen as well, and in often suspicious prosecutions. HRW pointed out in its 2009 report that "Authorities jailed a number of UAE citizens and foreigners for debt and corruption, with some languishing in jail for months without charge or after completing their sentences." This problem has worsened as the economic crunch has hit the UAE. One businessman worried: "It's all a bit scary. They are looking for people to carry the can." Many foreigners fear speaking publicly about the abuse.

Washington Post reporter Andrew Higgins wrote last year: "scores of expatriate business people in this gleaming city-state ... have been accused of crimes — and, in some cases, jailed for long periods without being charged." Higgins added that "for many expatriates ... the crackdown smacks of a hunt for foreign culprits to blame for the sheikdom's sliding economic fortunes."

Last year, Briton Charles Ridley was arrested in a case in which he and his three foreign partners contended that the Dubai government was protecting local officials. A similar controversy arose in 2009 when Frenchman Herve Joubert fled Dubai in a rubber dinghy to avoid an embezzlement conviction which he argued resulted from "a palace struggle over money." He told the Washington Post: "If I hadn't escaped, I'd be in the same hell as everyone else." Dubai naturally denies the claims.

A Sudanese businessmen, Alsadiq Saddiq Adam Abdullah, was arrested in 2007 for unknown reasons and denied contact with anyone; the government claimed that he was later released, but Amnesty International reported that "nobody has been able to establish his whereabouts." Earlier this year, three Pakistanis, including a dentist intent on finishing a university project, were arrested and detained incommunicado. Amnesty warned: "the arrest and detention of the three men in conditions amounting to an enforced disappearance puts them at a great risk of torture or other ill-treatment."

Americans have not been immune from apparent abuse. HRW reported: "In March 2008 authorities detained American businessman Zack Shahin, the former chief executive officer of Dubai-based property development Deyaar Development PJSC, and he was eventually charged with corruption-related offenses after being held for 13 months without formal charges." He still awaits trial, but, noted HRW: "He says that initially his jailers denied him food for three days, held him in solitary confinement, subjected him to harsh interrogation methods, and threatened him with torture." The State Department indicated that it was "concerned" about his detention without charge and complained that he was initially denied access to U.S. diplomats. The UAE responded that it had followed appropriate procedures in undertaking a necessarily lengthy embezzlement investigation. Shahin's family set up a website to aid his defense — which the government promptly blocked.

(The subject of the ACLU lawsuit, Naji Hamdan, has received substantial international attention. He also claimed to have been subjected to torture and incommunicado detention. The main difference is that Hamdan, who was arrested at his UAE residence, was charged with terrorist rather than economic offenses.)

Some of these businessmen may have committed crimes, of course. But UAE's record raises serious questions. Reported Higgins: "Among those who have been locked up are a JPMorgan investment banker; American, British and other foreign property developers; a German yacht maker; and two Australians who worked as senior executives of what was to be the world's largest waterfront development." In contrast, "well-connected Emirati rarely spend long in jail for economic crimes."

Washington can't force the UAE to live up to its carefree image. But the emirates risk driving away the foreigners who have contributed so much to their prosperity. The threat of economic loss can be a powerful disciplining mechanism. In short, the emirates risk killing the golden goose.

People will still fly through Dubai airport and tourists will still visit to shop. Workers from impoverished lands will still come in search of employment. However, foreign businessmen may increasingly decide that no potential profit warrants risking arbitrary arrest, torture, and imprisonment. It is in the UAE's own interest to reform its investigative and judicial processes. Its own people would benefit, along with those from abroad.

Development economists such as P. T. Bauer and Julian Simon taught us that the ultimate resource is not capital, land, minerals or oil, but human beings.

You are better off if you are close to others and their ideas, their supply and demand. The more people that are connected by trade, the more you can make use of knowledge and work that you have not learned or performed yourself. Coasts are wealthy whereas mountainous areas are often poor.

Economists have calculated that a city that is twice as big as another city is almost 10 per cent more productive, because it can engage in a more advanced division of labour. Everybody can focus on what they do best and perfect their skills and invest in supporting technology, and buy the rest from others. It is easier to find the right talent, workers and customers, and you get a multitude of lifestyles and tastes, which creates a more dynamic, pluralist and exciting society.

Few countries know this so well as Australia, a continent built from nothing but people and ideas from all across the world. New arrivals have constantly renewed the country and made one of the least densely populated countries livable and prosperous. In recent years large-scale immigration saved the booming economy from wage inflation. As an outsider it's easy to be impressed by the wisdom of the policy and the relative smoothness of the process.

It's therefore strange and disappointing that the only big idea in this election campaign was the opposition to "big Australia", first formulated by Prime Minister Julia Gillard (born in Wales) and then in many ways echoed by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott (born in London). It's not like you're running out of space. When we Europeans travel across the country, the first impression is that there is no one there. You have the population of Romania in a country the size of the US. Even in and between the big cities you sometimes get a sense that everybody is away on holiday.

Obviously there is a problem with infrastructure services. But partly this is because Australians are so few and far between. Had the big cities been more crowded, it would have been much cheaper to build good transport systems. But, of course, more construction in the city centres is made difficult by the not-in-my-backyard crowd and the planning and development bureaucracy.

The politicians who blame a crumbling infrastructure on the surprisingly large inflow of people must be surprised to find out that Woolworths is perfectly able to service a growing population, and that there is no lack of gas at the service station for a growing number of cars. The difference is that businesses react to price signals and adapt, because that is how they profit. And they never blame their consumers for too strong demand.

Infrastructure services can be changed to resemble private enterprise. The way to make the shoe fit is to price it, which encourages supply and restrains demand. As the Henry review pointed out, Australia needs traffic congestion charges to moderate the pressure on the roads at peak hour. Tolls could also provide the resources to build better roads and ring-roads.

Water is no different. When I stayed in a hotel in Sydney the other week, there was a sign in the bathroom asking me to reduce the time in the shower to conserve water. So the hotel asks visitors to sacrifice an improvement in personal convenience and hygiene for a completely negligible reduction in Sydney's water consumption. I don't think it worked well. But the hotel was probably much more successful in restraining the consumption of water from the mini-bar, because it used a time-tested method: charging $5 a bottle.

If politicians want Australians to temper their thirst and water waste, they must learn from the difference between the shower and the mini-bar: abolish water subsidies and create proper state and national water markets. If people paid the real price of water, it would be more economical to desalinate, recycle and transport water on a larger scale.

Australian politicians at state and federal levels have obviously failed to create the right conditions for infrastructure services. But instead of admitting the mistake and doing something about it, they blame the people for just being there. It's not me, it's you.

It would make for good satire if it wasn't so serious. If the country is to get more wealth and choices and better services, it has to become bigger, not smaller. The economy needs population growth and a constant inflow of innovators and workers. For a scarcely populated country far from the rest of the world, it's still "populate or perish". The discussion should focus on the changes that it takes to keep a bigger Australia functioning.

That political leaders shrink from this challenge reflects a worrying lack of ambition and vision. Defensive ideas about halting growth and shrinking society are traditionally symptoms of a civilisation in decline.

And if it wasn't enough that stopping growth is economically destructive, it's also boring. Sure, crowds can be irritating. I'd much rather visit a multitude of bars, restaurants, cinemas, theatres and shops without being pushed around and waiting in line. But that is a bit like wanting to swim without getting wet. The choices are there only because the crowds are there.

When I listen to these expressions of enochlophobia I can't help but think of a passage in Bill Bryson's hilarious travel book Down Under. Bryson is a card-carrying believer in small Australia. When he visits Canberra, he writes admiringly about how the city has managed to avoid the awful urban sprawl, shopping malls and eight-lane roads that he is used to in the US.

And yet, when Bryson walks from his hotel to find a bar or just someone to talk to, he doesn't find anything. The only thing worse than a crowded place is a place that is not crowded.

In the end, Bryson returns to his hotel and gets drunk all alone in the hotel bar.

The National Security Agency is intercepting 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other communications per day, according to the ACLU.

Yet President Obama, like President Bush, firmly supports the NSA.

And nearly all of the Democrats now in control of Congress follow the White House in lockstep on privacy issues.

A pending legal case focuses on the FBI's use of "dragnet-style warrantless cell tracking" in the investigation of a Connecticut bank robbery. The FBI engaged in "warrantless monitoring of the locations of about 180 different cell phones," the ACLU says.

In, United States of America vs. Luis Soto, now before the U.S. District Court in Connecticut, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation assert the constitutional claim: "The Fourth Amendment requires the government to comply with the warrant requirement before accessing people's location and movement information, which reveal intimate details of their lives protected by reasonable expectations of privacy."

In this dragnet FBI operation, how many of the 180 cell phone owners — with no connection to the bank robberies — had their constitutional rights "rigorously"respected as the FBI's "Domestics Investigations and Operations Guide" commits the agency to do?

The Obama administration tells you not to worry. In the June 22 Cnet.com news story on the FBI dragnet, Department of Justice lawyers are quoted as assuring us that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records."

Its "own" records — of us?

Even if the Republicans take control of Congress in the midterm elections, I doubt any action will be taken regarding Fourth Amendment concerns.

We should recall that a deep concern for individual privacy was a precipitating cause of the American Revolution and the subsequent drafting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. While we were still under the rule of King George III, British customs officials had the power — without going before a court — to storm into homes and offices with "writs of assistance." These were general warrants the officials wrote out themselves. They would then seize documents and anything else they wished.

Those pre-Revolutionary Americans insisted on their privacy rights as British citizens.

Those rights had been defended by William Pitt in Parliament in 1763, in these words: "The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown, the storm may enter; the rain may enter ... but the King of England may not enter."

In 1761 James Otis' passionate opposition to a writ of assistance in a Massachusetts court impressed a young lawyer, John Adams, who took notes. Years later Adams declared: "Otis was a flame of Fire!...Then and there the Child Independence was born."

But now, the FBI enters our personal cottage of electronic communications without hindrance from any court, Congress or the current president.

As a non-practicing Jew growing up in the secular city of Tel-Aviv in Israel I recall the many times that my friends and I were complaining that it was too bad that Israel was so much "not like America" when it came to the relationship between religion and state. We certainly envied Woody Allen and our other co-religionists in New York City who were not subservient to the strictures set by the Orthodox Rabbinate and its definition of "who is a Jew?" and who actually had access to civil marriages or non-religious divorces. And most importantly, Americans were not engulfed in the never-ending Israeli-Arab conflict that was gradually being transformed into a violent clash between Jews and Muslims, including over the control of the religious sites in Jerusalem.

Well, it is beginning to feel as though it is America that is becoming more "like Israel" as far as the role of religion in public life is concerned as the question of whether to allow the building of mosque is turning out to be a national political issue that could affect the outcome of Congressional elections and that also is being intertwined with debates over U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Even more astounding is the fact that a large number of Americans seem to believe that President Barack (Hussein) Obama is a Muslim while the White House insists that President Barack Obama is a practicing Christian. We even have a leading religious figure raising the issue of "Who is a Muslim" (and by extension, "Who is a Christian?") "I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name," Rev. Franklin Graham told CNN's John King in a televised interview that aired Thursday night.

Which almost forces me to thank God or someone for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who stated that the debate over the scheduled building of an Islamic center near ground zero in New York was "[as] important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes" and who has made a strong plea in support of the project based on cherished American principles. As he put it, "The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right." Moreover, if it were tried, "the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution."

So yes, the American government has no right to attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion. Again Bloomberg: "That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here."

From that perspective, whether Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the American cleric who had been the driving force behind the center is indeed a "moderate" Muslim or not and who has spent his life promote interfaith understanding should be of almost no concern for those of us who support the principle of the separation of church and state. After all, there are thousands of churches, synagogues, temples and other places of worship around this country where religious faiths that you and I may find weird and outrageous and perhaps even disgusting, representing views that run contrary to the values — the sensitivities — of the majority of Americans.

Yet the First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom of speech of free exercise of religion even of devil worshippers. We do not ask a priest or a rabbi to state their views on U.S. politics and foreign policy, like, say, "Is Hamas a terrorist organization?" before issuing them a license to build a house of worship.

The government needs to action against a religious group only if its leaders or members have been engaged in unlawful behavior, including terrorism, which clearly does not apply to Imam Rauf who among other things, has been involved in projects sponsored by the State Department and the FBI. And groups and individuals certainly have the right to criticize the Imam or his decision to build the center two blocks from where Muslim terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001.

What bothers me about this affair is the way some of the opponents and supporters of what is now being referred to as the "ground zero mosque" have framed the debate by suggesting that our position on the issue should be based on whether we indeed regard Imam Rauf as a "radical" or "moderate" Muslim. That assumes that questions of public policy should be based on some agreed standards of religious conduct. It is as though we are asked to decide whether to approve the opening of a bookstore or a restaurant because the first will be selling "educational" books or the second will be providing "healthy" food and so on.

Indeed, I was somewhat troubled by some of the comments made by Abdul Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, head of the American society for Muslim advancement, during an interview with the conservative pundit Laura Ingraham on Fox News. In addition to stressing that the Islamic center would help promote a tolerant message of Islam, Khan seemed to suggest that she was sympathetic to Fox's crusade against those leading the "War against Christmas."

"I was most intrigued because I don't think there is a war between people who are believers," she explained. "I think the real issue is bringing people who disbelieve and who have absolutely no notion what God is and believe in the existence of God," adding that "we should work together on a common platform to remove that kind of ignorance against God." (Yep. Like the way Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders unitedin opposition to a gay parade in Jerusalem in 2006.)

Even if you disregard the patronizing attitude that Khan shares with many Christian religious figures that disbelievers (like yours truly) need to exposed to the truth as represented by the Abrahamic religions and be cured of our "ignorance against God" (Ma'am, I do not have anything against or in favor of God!), none of us is — and should not be — in a position to decide whether the Islamic tradition her husband espouses is more "tolerant" than others. The fact that Imam Rauf has been critical of Osama bin-Ladin and other radical Islamic groups does not turn him automatically into a "moderate" in my eyes. The Koran, not unlike the Torah and the New Testament includes numerous denigrating references to women, gays and members of other religious groups, not to mention expressions of belief in the supernatural and statements that contradict current scientific theory. I would not be surprised if like many Christian fundamentalists, Rauf and his followers reject the tenets of Evolution theory. And that attitude is not very "moderate" in my secular book.

Again, that is certainly not a reason to deny Rauf, who is a law-abiding American citizen the right to build his Islamic center. And while I do not buy into the nonsense promulgated on conservative blogs that we should not have a mosque in Manhattan as long as there is not a church in Riyadh, it would be great if Imam Rauf, who is traveling to the Middle East on a State Department-financed trip call on Muslims in the Middle East to embrace a more tolerant attitude toward women, gays and religious minorities.

In general, I do not subscribe to the idea that the U.S. government and American politicians and pundits should be in the business of promoting this or that Imam (or priest or rabbi) based on the notion that he (and there is no "she") represent the "real" Islam. In the same way that Christians and Jews have engaged in long and agonizing struggles over the core beliefs of their respective religions, it is the responsibility of Muslims in America and elsewhere to adjust (or not) the principles and conduct of their faith to the realities of our modern world, and that includes making the decision not to practice their religion (God forbid...)

In that context, the only responsibility of the U.S. government is to ensure that Muslims — like members of other faiths — have the right to exercise — or not to exercise — their faith and in a way that does not violate American laws (like polygamy in the case of Mormons). That in turn, has helped provide incentives for Catholic and Jewish immigrants to reform their religious institutions and practices and to assimilate into American life.

And btw, the principle of religious freedom applies to Americans as individuals and not as members of religious communities — as was done in the Ottoman Empire — which explains why the or anyone else has no business designating President Obama as a Muslim or as a Christian, and why when acts of terrorism (or other crimes) are carried by individuals, we find those individuals — and not their religion — guilty.

In a way, one of the most dramatic examples of the American success in separating religion from state and embracing a secular tradition is the fact that the current Supreme Court consists of six Catholics and three Jewish Justices and not even one member of Protestant denominations — which account for more than 50 percent of the population. Again, these six individuals were selected from their jobs based on their qualifications and not because they belong to this or that religious group — which will be the same criteria that will be applied when Americans will select a Muslim to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court in a few years.

Because imposing tighter international financial regulations may slow global recovery from the current crisis, the new international economic order will take some time to emerge.

The overt change following a severe financial sector collapse and the recession-induced decline in trade volumes has been the emergence of the G-20 group of nations as the steward of the global economy.

However, the emergent order may remain quite similar to the pre-crisis economic order if the United States is successful in containing potential inflationary pressures from continued loose monetary policy and the dollar's exchange value holds firm. That will eventually require a timely withdrawal of extraordinary monetary infusions being undertaken to aid economic recovery in the United States and the rest of the world.

In addition, reforms to eliminate massive fiscal imbalances in developed countries will be necessary to prevent taxes from escalating and maintain the younger generations' incentives to continue investing in human and physical capital.

Maintaining tax rates as low as possible is clearly a prerequisite for maintaining future productivity growth and meeting emergent challenges on many fronts: population, aging, energy conservation, climate change, rising healthcare costs and so on. However, skepticism is growing about whether all of the daunting economic policy challenges can be met in a timely manner.

At the microeconomic level as well, the post-crisis economic order is unlikely to stop the erosion of economic security for workers in developed nations — indeed, quite the opposite. If the new regulatory framework being debated successfully preserves the process of global economic integration, workers in the developed world will continue to experience heightened job insecurity and competition from foreign workers.

They would be forced to adapt by acquiring new skills and being more mobile. Thus, policymakers in developed nations will face increasing political pressures to reduce these uncertainties via expanded social protections.

The economic crisis of 2007-09 has provoked different responses from different countries. Most have introduced economic stimulus packages to extend unemployment assistance, expanded public projects, supported investment and provided assistance to financial institutions to enable resumption of lending activities.

Although these supports should be removed as economies recover, they may not be fully reversed as the abovementioned economic pressures from globalization become more intense and unemployment rates remain high.

The new economic order appears likely to focus on subjecting private financial institutions to more stringent regulations so as to reduce their risk exposures. But that would constrain global capital flows, whereas the need is to expand them — and not just in the short-term to hasten recovery from the current recession.

The key for expanding capital flows, especially toward "South" countries, is reforming emerging countries' financial systems with better corporate governance, less corruption, and growth-oriented macro-economic policies. These reforms are in the interests of both developed and developing economies, as the gains would flow to both.

Overall, forces that would interrupt globalization and those that would promote it are both present. The recent financial crisis has weakened the developed world economies, promoted "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies that benefited some nations at the expense of others and eroded support for continued globalization.

But regional interests may promote globalization in a fragmented form as countries seek to maximize the advantages of international trade and integration without any global power to enforce international laws, norms and institutions. However, such a world economic order involves considerable uncertainty and could ultimately turn out to be unstable.

Distaste for the consequences of a breakdown of the international economic order — what transpired after 1914 in terms of economic and physical destruction from two world wars — may provide sufficient momentum to allow the U.S.-led order to continue for a few more decades.

However, no nation appears capable of stepping into the U.S. role as the United States did when Great Britain was economically spent after World War II. The only candidates are Europe, China and India — but they are each either not interested or economically and militarily not capable of successfully assuming the role of global hegemon.

General Motors has announced it will take its stock public as a move toward repaying its bailout package. About time, writes Daniel Ikenson: "A GM initial public offering is the right move, and cannot happen soon enough. Let's get the government out of the car business now. But successfully reprivatizing GM should not be seen as a sign that the intervention itself was successful. …[T]here is the real prospect that that the IPO won't raise anywhere near the amount of cash to make taxpayers whole, which could generate a lot of bad press before the election."

• "GM IPO ASAP, SVP" Cato@Liberty, Daniel Ikenson
• "What Was the Point of Bailing Out GM?" Los Angeles Times, Daniel Ikenson
• "Automakers That Can't Compete Deserve to Despair," Los Angeles Times, Daniel Ikenson

featuring Mark A. Calabria

It's that time of year again; the time when the Pentagon rolls out its annual threat assessment on China. The Pentagon has been issuing these reports since 2000, pursuant to US law. This year the 74-page "2010 Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China" will undoubtedly be a disappointment to those conservatives who are looking to depict China as a menacing strategic competitor to the United States.

While the executive summary includes the usual warnings about China's pursuit of new military capabilities, it also pointedly notes that "[E]arlier this decade, China began a new phase of military development by articulating roles and missions for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) that go beyond China's immediate territorial interests.

"Some of these missions and associated capabilities have allowed the PLA to contribute to international peacekeeping efforts, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and counter-piracy operations. The United States recognizes and welcomes these contributions," the report notes.

Even after listing the usual warnings about improved capabilities in anti-access, area-denial strategies, and extended-range power projection, the report says, "China's ability to sustain military power at a distance, today, remains limited."

The document had been due to be read at congress on March 1 but was held up by the Barack Obama administration due to an internal dispute over whether the report's listing of China's military establishment, which is carried out annually, would anger Beijing.

This year the report addresses for the first time the on-again, off-again military exchanges between China and the Pentagon. China's military twice since October 2008 has cut off exchanges to protest US arms sales to Taiwan. The new section lists scores of past military exchanges between the Pentagon and China's military and a long list of exchanges planned for 2010 that were put on hold by the Chinese suspension of the exchange program.

As one might expect, the report confirmed what is obvious to all analysts; China is developing into an economic superpower, and that growth is allowing the Chinese government to invest more in its military. Thus China is continuing a massive effort to modernize its military and transform its structure, doctrine and strategy. In fact, much the same thing was said in June when the US Army's Strategic Studies Institute published a study "The PLA at Home and Abroad: Assessing the Operational Capabilities of China's Military." That report was issued on July 6, a day after China's economy was recognized as the world's second biggest, eclipsing Japan's in size during the second quarter of this year.

The report noted that China is changing the way it thinks about its military. In the past, its forces concentrated on guarding China's sovereignty, which implied that China's fighting men would not stray far from the country's borders. Now that thinking has evolved to a strategy designed to protect China's interests, including economic ones, that span the globe.

One might say the report was rather conciliatory in tone. That would explain why US House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton released a statement which concluded:

"I continue to believe that China is not necessarily destined to be a threat to the United States and that China doesn't need to view the United States as a threat to its interests. Yet, conflict between our nations remains a possibility, and we must remain prepared for whatever the future holds in the US-China security relationship. At the same time, we must each be mindful that our actions can produce unintended consequences, and although cooperation is a difficult path, it is ultimately the path that is in both nations' best interest."

Skelton is usually seen as being in agreement with the Pentagon on most issues.

China's overall military spending for 2009 was estimated at $150 billion, an increase of 7.5% to 532.11 billion yuan ($78.4 billion). This was only about one-fifth of what the Pentagon spent last year on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As one would expect a primary potential flashpoint is Taiwan. China froze military-to-military relations with the Defense Department earlier this year after an announcement that the United States was selling more than $6 billion in weapons to Taiwan.

Among the specific military developments the report focused on was the fact that China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world. It is also developing an anti-ship ballistic missile with a range of more than 1,500 kilometers that is capable of attacking aircraft carriers in the western Pacific. There was also a first mention of a new multiple-warhead, long-range road-mobile missile, and details on China's plan to field aircraft carriers.

The report noted that analysts believe China will not have a domestically produced aircraft carrier and associated ships for another five years, although foreign assistance could speed up that process. It also predicts: "It is unlikely ... that China will be able to project and sustain large forces in high-intensity combat operations far from China until well into the following decade."

The goal of these forces is to have forces that can attack US ships should conflict erupt over Taiwan.

Other anti-access weapons are China's medium-range missiles "designed to target forces at sea, combined with overhead and over-the-horizon targeting systems to locate and track moving ships." Other weapons include Luyang 1- and 2-class guided-missile ships and Russian-made Sovremenny-class missile ships. The ships are equipped with advanced long-range anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles.

China also has six nuclear-powered attack submarines and 54 diesel-electric powered submarines, many of them outfitted with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.

For anti-access air strikes, the Chinese have indigenous FB-7 and FB-7A jets, and Russian SU-30s. All the jets are armed with anti-ship cruise missiles.

The report noted increased participation in peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. Since 2002, China's contributions to United Nations (UN)-sponsored peace operations have increased. More than 2,100 on-duty Chinese personnel are at present serving in UN missions, with a total contribution of more than 12,000 personnel deployed to 22 missions. China is now the leading contributor of peacekeeping personnel among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

For once the American people appear to be undertaxed. Fiscal crisis is all around us. Yet Tax Freedom Day came on April 9 this year, about two weeks earlier than in 2007. Congress is spending us blind, bailing out virtually every person, business, government, and other entity known to man, yet our tax burden is down. Such a deal!

Of course, there's a small catch. Uncle Sam is borrowing $1.5 trillion this year.

Which means the formal tax level understates the true burden of government. By a huge amount. Alas, Big Government is Big Government, whether financed by taxes or bonds.

And the situation is going to get worse, much worse, before it gets better.

Given present plans, Uncle Sam will run up another $10 trillion in red ink over the coming decade. But that's just the start. If President Barack Obama's health care takeover is not reversed, taxpayers will be liable for trillions more in new spending. The claim that the program is all paid for — indeed, that it will reduce the federal deficit — is the sort of fantasy that only a Democratic congressman could believe.

And additional bailouts are flooding our way. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continue to lose money. The FDIC is shutting down banks at a record rate. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's fund is under water.

Then there are Social Security and Medicare. The former is spending more than it is taking in right now. Over the long term these two programs alone are underfunded by $100 trillion, a fiscal tsunami which no amount of administration double-counting can disguise.

Nor is the problem only spending. Regulation also is up. Health care already was one of the most regulated industries. Obamaesque "reform" is going to make Americans pine for the "good ol' days" when not every medical decision was subject to the dictates of some bureaucrat somewhere. Financial "reform" will have a similar effect. The only sure beneficiaries of the new legislation are the regulators who are empowered to do most anything to most anyone with a vague connection to financial services.

But, why worry? Our taxes are down.

Actually, the American people are worrying. Which is why Democrats also are worrying, but for a different reason. The public wants to know who is going to pay the bill the Democrats have been running up. The Democrats want to know how they can fool the public into voting for them again.

The people won't be fooled if they read the latest Cost of Government Day report.

If you want to know the real burden of government, add up government spending and regulation. That makes August 19 Cost of Government Day — meaning Americans spent 231 days working to pay for Uncle Sam and 51 mini-me's in the states and the city of Washington, D.C. That's almost two-thirds of the year.

The latest report was written by Benjamin Pacini of the Center for Fiscal Accountability, a project of Americans for Tax Reform. It makes for somber reading.

At August 19, COGD is eight days ahead of last year. Alas, COGD in 2009 was up nearly a month from the year before, when Americans quit paying for government on July 16.

The problem is bipartisan. During most of the last decade the Republicans pushed up COGD slowly if irregularly. And the Bush administration shares the blame for 2009, during which government's burden jumped the most ever. Unfortunately, this just created a new base from which Democratic policymakers could impose an even higher burden on the rest of us.

Indeed, it is hard not to grow nostalgic for the Clinton years. The recent COGD peak was July 20 in 1982, after which Ronald Reagan brought COGD down to July 2 in 1988. President George H.W. Bush — he of "Read my lips" fame — then gaily pushed the burden up again, to July 18 in 1992. COGD started coming down under President Bill Clinton; the GOP's 1994 takeover of Congress accelerated the drop. By 2000 Americans worked "only" until June 29 to pay for America's still wastrel public sector.

Now, thanks to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and Congresses under Republican and Democratic control, COGD has skyrocketed to August 19. We are working an incredible 51 days longer for government today than just a decade ago.

There is no silver lining in this financial cloud. We are paying more for more government, not for better government. The Orwellian "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" will waste trillions of dollars and impose trillions of dollars more in wasteful regulations while reducing patient control over health care made more expensive.

Uncle Sam is not the only culprit. Writes Pacini: This year's "late date is driven by continued government spending on all levels and a further increase in the regulatory burden which, taken in combination with a struggling economy, have made the cost of government equal to 63.41 percent of national income." There is more than enough blame to go around.

Still, the federal government, as always, accounts for the bulk of the cost of government. Explains Pacini, "The average American worker will have to labor 104 days just to pay for federal spending, which consumes 28.6 percent of national income." The good news, such as it is, is that last year federal spending required 108 days of toil. But we have regained only four days of the 18 day jump from 2008 to 2009. A year after the tsunami of bailouts, stimuli packages, and more, federal spending remains dramatically higher than the historic average. Uncle Sam's outlays may continue to recede in the future, but probably only slowly, leaving federal outlays at a permanently higher level. At least, unless there is a serious political revolution in Washington.

Thank goodness state and local governments cannot deficit spend. Obviously, balanced budget requirements do not prevent determinedly irresponsible politicians from wrecking their states' finances — just look at California, America's version of Greece. Nevertheless, there is a limit to the amount of budgetary legerdemain possible even for the most foolish state officials.

Even so, states and localities account for the next big block of the cost of government. Notes Pacini: "Despite a declining economy, state and local spending has increased since last year: in 2010 the average American has to work 52 days just to pay for state and local government expenditures." That's an increase of four days over last year — wiping out the small drop in federal spending. Indeed, over the last decade state and local outlays have jumped 22 percent compared to national income.

Regulation accounts for another big increase, landing at 74 days, up seven from 2009. Explains Pacini: "This year, regulation is estimated to consume 20.5 percent of national income which, compared to 16.1 percent in 1999, is a drastic increase." Again, the Feds come out at number one. Washington's rules consume 48 days of our labor, almost as much as total state and local spending. State and local regulations come in at 26 days.

Of course, these rules theoretically are promulgated for our good and are supposed to generate greater benefits than costs. But that is rarely the case in practice. Much economic regulation is a form of looting, simply a bit better disguised than direct government subsidies. Lobbying is rarely more intense than when companies push legal requirements to disadvantage or even disable their competitors and mulct the public in the name of the public interest.

Many other controls, such as the incoming flood of health care rules, are meant to short circuit consumer choice and allow our betters to engage in social engineering. Thus, there are beneficiaries of health care "reform," but few among the general public.

Elsewhere obnoxious paternalism lives. People unable to govern themselves feel an irresistible impulse to seize control of the state to govern others. Every day the nanny state grows more intrusive and obnoxious. Even when regulations really do promote some laudable health or safety end, they often are unnecessarily rigid, inefficient, and costly.

August 19 is merely the national average. The news is worse in some states.

At the bottom is Connecticut, always Connecticut. Residents there won't stop paying for government until September 17. That's up ten days over 2009. New Jersey is next. People there have to work until September 14. COGD was "only" September 6 last year. Next comes New York, where residents have to work until September 10. That's a ten-day increase. Maryland's population also suffers from the "September distinction," being stuck paying for their public overlords until September 4. Last year the state's COGD was August 21. At least the remaining wastrel states stop charging their citizens for government in August.

Of course, when averages are involved, some parties do better than average. In this case, Alaskans finished paying for government on July 28. Still, that's up 17 days from last year. Louisiana residents share July 28 as COGD, having jumped ten days from 2009. Mississippians come in at July 31, almost two weeks later than last year. Next come South Dakota, West Virginia, New Mexico, and Tennessee, which finish out the first week of August.

It is ridiculous when working seven months for government appears to be a good deal. But such are the times in which we live. If the folks in Washington had their way, we would labor all year for government, with an occasional pittance doled back by our virtuous rulers to people for use on their own selfish, greedy pursuits.

Washington is a city in which every problem is termed a crisis in order to stampede people into accepting greater government control. The rapidly increasing Cost of Government Day is a genuine crisis. And it will grow ever worse unless federal spending, in particular, is curbed. Last year the Congressional Budget Office declared:

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path — meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits and accumulating debt. Keeping deficits and debt from reaching levels that would cause substantial harm to the economy would require increasing revenues significantly as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), decreasing projected spending sharply, or some combination of the two.

Naturally, politicians want to hike taxes so they can continue spending. But most of the deficit and rising debt results from dramatically higher spending. President Bush and the Republican Congress turned down the road of fiscal irresponsibility. President Obama and the Democratic Congress are rushing further along at hyperspeed.

Notes Pacini, "President Obama pushed ahead with an ambitious legislative agenda, including a breathtaking increase in both spending and regulation." Unfortunately, this "breathtaking increase" will never stop if Obama and his congressional allies have their way. Adds Pacini: "the current baseline projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the federal government will be spending an overwhelming $5.2 trillion in 2020. Nevertheless, CBO estimates that under President Obama's proposals we will spend an additional $3.7 trillion."

Health care "reform" will further inflate this burden — almost certainly by hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Adding this expense to today's cost of government would, Pacini figures, push COGD up a full week, to August 26.

Almost as bad will be the legislation's increased regulatory burden. Not only the bureaucracies and rules explicitly enumerated by the legislation, but also those that will inevitably become necessary to counter the unintended consequences of increased federal meddling at every level of medicine. So too with financial "reform" legislation. The agencies will have substantial discretion, and undoubtedly will have to keep expanding their controls to fix problems created by their previous controls.

On top of direct compliance costs, which COGD measures, will fall what economists call "deadweight" losses, the economic output sacrificed as bureaucrats attempt to remake our world. Last year economists at Washington University in St. Louis figured these costs may run an extraordinary $1.5 trillion a year. As unnecessary and inefficient regulations increase, so will these economic losses.

In fact, the total number of government employees rose nearly a half million over last year alone. Counting the military, there are now 4.4 million federal workers. The revolutionaries complained in the Declaration of Independence that King George III "has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." Yet King George was a piker compared to President Obama.

Today is not so different from 1776. The train of abuses and usurpations is long. The hour is late.

All that is necessary for Big Government to triumph is for the people to do nothing. If Americans still believe the U.S. to be a land of liberty, they must act now, before they find themselves spending all year paying for government.

featuring Christopher A. Preble

The American Civil Liberties Union has been persistently diligent — and accurate — in alerting us to the ever-increasing government invasion of our privacy. As the ACLU reported on Aug. 11: "The government's appetite for our electronic information is out of control. The National Security Agency is intercepting 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other communications per day."

Both Presidents Bush and Obama firmly support the NSA. Nearly all the Democrats in Congress, now under their control, follow their leader in lockstep on privacy issues. Few Republicans voice Fourth Amendment concerns. And, as I've reported, with the FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, that agency can conduct "threat" investigations of any American without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or intent — and without having to go before a judge.

Worth noting in the FBI Dec. 16, 2008, "Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide" is a list of "The FBI's Core Values" that includes "Rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States (and) Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions and their consequences." (These remain in the FBI's "Core Values," among its documents.)

Would you define as "rigorous obedience to the Constitution" the following action by the FBI: "ACLU: FBI used 'dragnet'-style warrantless cell tracking" (Cnet.com, June 22)? Tracking two men accused of robbing banks in Connecticut, the FBI engaged in "warrantless monitoring of the locations of about 180 different cell phones."

In the subsequent case now before the U.S. District Court in Connecticut, United States of America v. Luis Soto, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (the leading defender of our disappearing digital privacy) make this constitutional claim that should deeply concern the many millions of Americans often seemingly glued to their cell phones:

The Fourth Amendment requires the government to comply with the warrant requirement before accessing people's location and movement information, which reveal intimate details of their lives protected by reasonable expectations of privacy.

In this dragnet FBI operation, how many of the 180 cell-phone owners — with no connection to the bank robberies — have had their constitutional rights rigorously protected?

If you're looking apprehensively at your own cell phone, the Obama administration tells you not to worry. In the June 22 Cnet.com news story on the FBI dragnet, Department of Justice lawyers are quoted as assuring us that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records." Its own records of US?

You want to change your phone company? It will be exceedingly difficult to find a telephone company that, in obedience to the Constitution, refuses — without a government showing of reasonable suspicion — to give its customers' cell-phone histories to the FBI or any other government agency.

To the credit of some of the companies, however, there is a coalition — including, among others, AT&T, Qwest, Google, Microsoft, AOL — demanding "that warrants to track the whereabouts of Americans — or at least their cell phones — are necessary."

Even if the Republicans take control of Congress in the midterm elections, I doubt any action will be taken on the constitutional claims of this coalition, along with those of the ACLU and the Electronic Freedom Foundation.

But, if there are still any civics classes in our public schools, students will be able to discover a precipitating cause of the American Revolution and the subsequent Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. While we were still under the rule of King George III, British customs officials had the power — without going before a court — to storm into our homes and offices with "writs of assistance" — general warrants they wrote by themselves. They would then seize documents and anything else they wished, sometimes turning everything upside down, including the occupants.

When I used to tell stories about the Bill of Rights in civics classes in various parts of the country, students became quite excited on hearing about the colonists' angry resistance to such home invasions. Those pre-Revolutionary Americans insisted they had certain privacy rights as British citizens. Had not William Pitt declared in Parliament in 1763: "The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown, the storm may enter; the rain may enter ... but the King of England may not enter."

What especially moved the students I spoke to was the story of a passionate argument before the high court of Massachusetts in 1761 by James Otis opposing a new writ of assistance. In the audience that day was a young lawyer, John Adams, who took notes, and years later declared:

"Otis was a flame of Fire! ... Then and there was the first scene of the first Act of opposition to the arbitrary Claims of Great Britain. Then and there the Child Independence was born."

And, as Leonard W. Levy states in his invaluable Origins of the Bill of Rights (Yale University Press): "On the night before the Declaration of Independence, Adams asserted that he considered 'the Argument concerning Writs of Assistance'" led to our independence.

But now, the FBI may enter our personal cottage of electronic communications without hindrance from any court or current president. It's a pity how many Americans, just like those in our government, know so little of how we came to be who are — or rather, used to be before the National Security Agency and the FBI became free to discard our privacy, among other Bill of Rights protections increasingly invaded by our rulers.

I ask again: Are the tea partiers, in all their calls for limited government, going to bring back the fire of freedom to the Fourth Amendment? Is there a Paul Revere among them?