“I’m going to put the entire U.S. budget on blockchain,” presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. says, “so that any American — every American can look at every budget item in the entire budget anytime they want 24 hours a day.”

That’s a great idea, regardless of whether or not Kennedy is a good candidate or has any chance of getting elected and implementing it. A publicly accessible blockchain — that is, a distributed ledger protected from alteration by cryptography and viewable by everyone — would let Americans see exactly how tax money is spent and make it impossible to hide fiscal waste, fraud, and abuse.

So, why hasn’t that already been done?

One obvious reason is that politicians don’t WANT you to see what they’re up to and purposely make it hard for you to do so.

Another reason, perhaps less obvious but just as true, is that political establishments are “conservative.” They tend to hold on to old ways of doing things, refusing to make more than minor tweaks to the system, until and unless they’re forced to make real changes.

Historically, those changes have been first proposed by “third party” political candidates, after which growing public support has eventually forced “major party” adoption.

For example, since the early 1970s, Libertarian Party candidates for public office have supported the freedom of consenting adults to marry in any number and any combination of sexes, and an end to the war on drugs. Only in the last decade or so have “major party” politicians started tentatively moving in those directions with legalization of same-sex couple marriage and widespread legalization of recreational cannabis. We’ll get there eventually, and when we do you should take a moment to thank Libertarians for getting the ball rolling.

It’s not just the Libertarians.

In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran for president on a platform of balancing the federal budget and cutting the size of the federal government by 25%. But his actual and opposite program in office — the “New Deal” — was largely shaped by the popularity of the Socialist Party’s ideas as promoted by its presidential candidate, Norman Thomas, in 1928 and 1932.

FDR once told a group of citizens lobbying for a reform, “OK, you’ve convinced me — now go out and bring pressure on me.” The electoral pressure from the Socialists was already there when he took office. He simply ran to the head of the parade they started, stealing their thunder for his own political benefit.

I wouldn’t bet money on an RFK Jr. victory, even if you offered me really nice  odds. But if he does at all well in November, I WOULD bet money on some of his ideas entering and affecting the public discussion, and eventually gaining adoption.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Absent a directed, sustained, and articulated policy of no daylight between the United States and Israel,” Matthew Continetti wrote in the Washington Free Beacon on March 29, “the rift between America and her ally will widen and the world will grow more dangerous.”

Proof that Continetti had things completely bass-ackward arrived on April 1, when Israeli aircraft attacked an Iranian consulate building in Syria, killing 16 and boosting the already not insignificant prospect of a wider regional war. The US regime disclaimed prior knowledge of the Israeli strike, but couldn’t be bothered to actually condemn it.

While occasionally, softly, and grudgingly calling for “restraint” from all parties, Washington has continued its policy of supporting the Israeli regime no matter what it does, and blaming Israel’s adversaries for every Bad Thing that happens in the Middle East.

The US and Israeli regimes remain in a bear hug through which not so much as a single ray of daylight passes. And THAT makes the world more dangerous.

If the US left Israel to its own devices, or at the very least conditioned its billions of dollars in annual aid — not to mention its support in every argument — on good behavior, we might see some progress toward peace.

How many fights would Israel pick with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon if it didn’t have the US threatening to pound anyone who doesn’t comply with its every demand?

Without the US backing its every play, might not Israel eventually consider withdrawing to within its own borders and leaving the state of Palestine to chart its own future course, instead of continuing  decades of military occupation both rooted in, and giving rise to, numerous large and small wars?

The US-Israeli relationship is, essentially, a big bully standing behind a smaller bully, routinely supporting the smaller bully’s bullying.

When, as (very) occasionally happens, Big Bully whispers “hey, you might want to take it down a notch,” Little Bully ignores the whisper.

But instead of walking away and letting Little Bully experience the full consequences of his actions, Big Bully always gives in and protects Little Bully from those consequences.

That raise the interesting question of who’s really the more powerful bully in the relationship. And, more importantly, it tells Little Bully “there are no consequences for bad behavior — do whatever you feel like doing with impunity.”

Such a policy both creates and increases the dangers of war. For everyone.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On April 17, the US Senate declined to try Alejandro Mayorkas, US Secretary of Homeland Security, on two articles of impeachment sent by the US House of Representatives. The maneuver involved a majority of the Senate “taking well” two points of order raised by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to the effect that neither of the counts charged Mayorkas with “conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor,” the standard for impeaching in the first place.

I disagree. Alejandro Mayorkas is clearly and unambiguously guilty on the first count, which charges that he “willfully and systematically refused to comply with Federal immigration laws.”

Let’s review the whole of federal immigration law:

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” — US Constitution, Article I, Section 9

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” US Constitution, 10th Amendment

That’s the entirety of federal immigration law. There is no federal power to regulate immigration, no such power can be created without a constitutional amendment, and, as John Marshall, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote in the court’s ruling in Marbury v. Madison, “an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”

Mayorkas was impeached for displaying insufficient enthusiasm in enforcing “laws” that aren’t actual laws.

He should have been impeached for, and convicted of, violating the ACTUAL “Supreme Law of the Land” by enforcing those fake “laws” at all.

Unfortunately, both branches of Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches, are co-conspirators in Mayorkas’s crimes.

If the US government followed the US Constitution, the US would have “open borders,” while the states would have free rein to adopt idiotic and tyrannical immigration policies like those of Texas … which the feds are suing to nullify!

Lysander Spooner, a 19th century American anarchist, explained this kind perpetual farce better than anyone before or since:

“[W]hether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

We’re not going to “Constitution” ourselves out of our problems. Politicians always have ignored, and will always ignore, any parts of the Constitution they find inconvenient — not just on this issue, but on all issues.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY