Charlie Brown Christmas Special

How I Would Defend the White House State Banquet Crashers...

...and why that defense shouldn't work.

Late last week a married couple Michaele and Tareq Salahi penetrated multiple levels of security to attend President Obama's first State Banquet. They managed to get their pictured taken with the Vice President and, the White House now confirms, chatted with the President himself.

It was all a publicity stunt. Like the balloon boy parents, these two were trying to get on a reality television show - rules be damned. One could write a book on how the distinction between fame and infamy is meaningless to people like this. I wonder if these two - the party crashers - thought about the potential criminal consequences. The thing is, the probably did think about it and decide the potential upside was worth the risk.

Now they are going to need a lawyer.

What these two will actually be charged with is unknown. Did they lie about their identity to the secret service to get in? Or, if they used their own names, did they misrepresent themselves in order to get on a guest list?

Not knowing those basic facts or what exactly they will be charged with, I have no idea how the trial itself will go. But I can make a guess what a defense attorney's closing argument would sound like (yes, I know that these two will have different lawyers, but humor me for a second):

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, during the course of this trial you've gotten a chance to see and hear from my clients. You know that neither were armed and that neither are trained in any form of martial arts. This means that they didn't have the means to hurt the President, the Vice-President, or any of the other guests. You also have learned that both admire the President and were thrilled to meet him. This means that they didn't have a motive to hurt the President or disrupt this State Banquet. You learned that after meeting the President they left the Banquet without incident and went home. Bottom line: these were just two people who wanted to meet the President and Vice President and get their picture taken with them. That's all.

Let me suggest to you that these two people were like all the other guests that night. Everyone there wanted a few minutes with the President. Everyone wanted their picture taken with him. Just like all the other guests, they didn't hurt anyone and they never intended to hurt anyone. But unfortunately for the Salahi's, they embarrassed someone. They embarrassed powerful people who are responsible for protecting our President. My clients' visit demonstrated that their protection needs improvement. When normal people like you and I are embarrassed we learn from it, and move on. But not the powerful. Rather than learn from this situation they seek to destroy the messenger.

...and so forth. I do believe that the Salahi's will be charged with a crime and that their defense will make the arguments I just gave. I also think these arguments should fail.

Imagine that instead of being a couple of publicity hounds, the Salahi's had been subcontractors responsible for testing Presidential security. After sneaking in and getting their picture with the VP and getting close to the President, they leave and file a report for the Secret Service. That report would have been embarrassing for the Secret Service, but only within the ranks - because it would have been classified.

Why would it be classified? Because we don't want to advertise to people who would want to hurt the President that his security is anything but airtight. For the sake of a moment in the spotlight these two people have told the world that our President's security can be compromised by a couple of amateurs. For that they should be prosecuted.

I was at Thursday's House Call on Congress...

...and the questions I keep being asked are 1)Why did you go? 2)What did you see?

Why I went

Last night, in an Saturday-night-session, the US House of Representatives passed their health care reform bill. So, it could be argued that the rally failed.

But the reason I went was voiced best by Ronald Reagan, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

If that sad day comes, I don't want to have to tell my children and grandchildren that I did nothing when our country became socialist.

Some may feel that this is an over-reaction. Surely the United States is not going socialist just because of a health care reform bill... right?

This bill will give us a "public option." The public option gives us socialized medicine. Socialized medicine - which is 1/6th of the total economy - will give us socialism generally. Once the Senate passes it and the President signs it, the clock will be ticking. I'd give it 10 years. Optimistically.

How will it happen? The President keeps referring to the entrance of the government into the private insurance market as increased competition. Wrong. The government doesn't compete when it enters a market. It doesn't have to worry about little things like profit or debt or cost. The public option will undercut the private insurance companies. They will abandon the field to the government. The public option will become the only option.

Sounding so magnanimous, the President keeps saying that if you want to keep your private insurance, you will be allowed to. Thank you Mr. President. If I raise my hand will I be allowed to go to the restroom too? That sounds pretty bitter, but as written this health care bill would not allow you to change any aspect of your coverage - you can't or you lose it. The theory I guess is that if you're unhappy with the coverage that you bought 5 years ago, then you need the government.

Once we're all on the public option they have us. There will be no liberal or conservative battles anymore. Its over. The liberals will have won. The center of political gravity will have moved to issues like - how many heart transplants are we going to pay for this year?

Health is one of the two big paths to socialism. What you buy at the grocery store, the house you live in, the job you do: all touch on your health. Once your health is the government's business, they can control you.

The other path to socialism, by the way, is the environment. Every aspect of your life including the CO2 you exhale touches on the environment. I believe that its no coincidence that this government is working on "health care reform" and "cap and trade" simultaneously. They are two vehicles taking us to the same place.

The other thing that I and many in the crowd protested was the use of public dollars funding elective abortions. The Democrats promised it wouldn't be in there, but (like the promise to publicly post the bill for 72 hours before the vote) it was a lie. Its in there.

What I saw



If you click on the image above you can see a larger version of the Google map of capitol hill. I got off the metro (the DC subway) at the Capitol South Station located at the bottom right of the picture. It's marked with a number "1." As I exited the station I saw anti-abortion protesters going up the 1st Street Southeast. I walked west on Independence Avenue and then walked around the East side of the Capitol taking a quick detour to see the U.S. Supreme Court. Then I walked around to the west side of the Capitol.

It is a beautiful place. The yard is part of a national botanical garden. Behind us was the Grant Memorial and the Washington Monument.

People were just beginning to gather at 10:00 am when I showed up. These people have been called astro-turf - a fake grass-roots uprising sponsored by health insurance companies and other vested interests. And, in a remarkable contradiction of that first point, they've been referred to as ugly and disorganized. One wonders what level of organization would not be either astro-turf or angry mob in they eyes of those critics.

The truth is that these were ordinary people:



Some young.



Some not so young.



Some had funny outfits and hand written signs like this guy.



Or had banners like this conservative answer to ACORN.



There were more than a few Gadsden Flags.



But most of us were standing there empty-handed yelling "NO" to an out-of-control government.



Conservatively there were 8,000 to 10,000 people there. I thought I read a Fox News estimate of 20,000 people, but I can't find it now. I don't doubt the 20,000 number. The entire area I sprayed orange on the Google map picture was full with people standing shoulder-to-shoulder.

This was Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann's idea. She started the event welcoming us all. We prayed, said the pledge of allegiance emphasizing "under God" because "it drives liberals crazy." And then Bachmann introduced actor Jon Voight.



Mr. Voight asked of Obama "Could it be he has had 20 years of subconscious programming by Reverend Wright to damn America?"

A copy of the huge bill was lampooned throughout the afternoon. "What the hell is this?" asked Mark Levine as he stepped to the podium. Levine is author of the awesome book "Liberty and Tyranny" that's serving as a guidebook for many tea party folks.



One height-challenged speaker threw the bill to the stage and stood on top of it to see the back of the crowd, "There you are!" he said, "Hey, this bill is good for something after all."

Let me address one stupid comment made about the event by The Washington Post:

a man standing just beyond the TV cameras apparently suffered a heart attack 20 minutes after event began. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician's office -- an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care -- rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip.

This turned into an unwanted visual for the speakers, as a D.C. ambulance and firetruck, lights flashing, pulled in just behind the lawmakers.

First, I did not detect even a hesitation in the program when this happened. I would guess that anytime you get a group of thousands of emotionally charged citizens together, you are going to have a heart episode or two. The speakers took it in stride. Second, how exactly does one guy falling out and somebody calling him an ambulance undercut the argument against socialized medicine?

I'm glad that I didn't buy a sandwich at the Capitol snack bar. By the Washington Post's logic I'd be sending the message that we need Soviet-style state farms and food distribution lines.

As I was leaving Capitol Hill I saw a couple of people arrested in the middle of the intersection of 1st Street Southeast and Independence Avenue. One observer standing next to me made an angry call to his congressman saying "they were arrested for praying." Well, no. They were arrested for blocking the street... while praying. I suspect that being arrested was part of their plan.

So there was some mild civil disobedience, but that was the exception. Most of these people were law-and-order types. One liberal blogger made fun of this group for not jay-walking. Yeah, so? We also didn't leave Capitol Hill littered like after a typical lefty protest.

This is one reason why lawmakers and liberal commentators are going to miss the significance of the tea parties. These aren't jobless (yet) never-do-wells that protest because they don't have any responsibilities. These are good people that took time off, got a sitter for the kids, and came, usually, at their own expense. They spend their lives following the rules, being productive, and raising kids.

For every one of us that came, there are 1000 that couldn't come who feel the same and support our protest. These tea parties are the tip of an iceberg that this Congress is ignoring at its political peril.

How Atlas Really Shrugs: Striking is Unnecessary

Fifty-two years ago Ayn Rand published her literary masterpiece Atlas Shrugged. In spite of its age and the difficulty most people have finishing it, the cultural impact of this book would be hard to overstate. In January The Economist reported that the book ranked #33 on the Amazon.com bestseller list.

Here's the plot: the innovators and producers of society are taxed and regulated by an authoritarian government to the point that they just simply give up and go on strike. They go to a place called Galt's Gulch where they are organized by the hero of the novel, John Galt. The title of the novel is a reference to the mythical Atlas who holds the world on his shoulders. If Atlas – which Rand equated with society's producers – were ever to shrug, the world would fall.

At the recent Tea Party I attended in Bossier City, Louisiana I saw two Rand-inspired signs. One said, “I AM John Galt.” Another said, “Atlas will shrug.”

Leftists scoff at the premise of the novel. People typically do not quit working when their taxes go up. They continue to soldier on. To some extent I agree. Most people – particularly ambitious, productive people - continue to try to better their circumstances even with terrible obstacles. Raise their taxes and they'll probably just work harder to maintain their standard of living. At some point – probably north of a 70% tax rate – they do finally begin to give up. But the economic system falters long before the heroic producers.

To understand why, look at both ends of the economic spectrum. Welfare recipients have two barriers between themselves and a better lifestyle. They have the first natural barrier that all people face - they have to find the energy and ambition to work harder, or get an education to work for better money. Recipients also have an artificial barrier – they would lose the largess they are currently depending on. A marginal improvement in their productivity could actually result in a net loss of income. So it would take a significant improvement of their productivity before they'd see any benefit to their lifestyle at all. That's a bigger obstacle to productivity than some people can overcome. So they, quite rationally, work less than they would have otherwise.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are the John Galt's – those producers that Rand suggested would strike. As more voters become more dependent on government, taxes go up. But, as liberals predicted the producers don't strike. They keep working. The economy falls apart anyway. What happened?

Imagine that John Galt owns and operates a store - "Galt's Gulch Gifts." With higher taxes Galt doesn't quit. He pays himself more to offset the higher taxes. But now he finds that he can't afford the same payroll. He lays off his cashier and does that job himself. The cashier files for federal assistance. Trimming payroll helps in the short run, but Galt begins losing business because with reduced staff he's not servicing his customers as well. He finds that there's less money at the end of the month to restock his inventory. He decides to put off reordering snow globes for a couple of months.

This story is repeated countless times nationwide. More and more cashiers are on assistance. The snow globe industry crashes. Cashiers and snow globe factory workers that would have bought holiday gifts at Galt's Gifts struggle instead to just survive. Realizing that he can't afford to keep the lights on, John Galt reluctantly closes his store.

There was never a strike, but Atlas shrugged.