[COLUMN] Let the games begin, in China

When the U.S. Congress returns from its summer recess next month, it will debate a matter of utmost urgency and importance: a resolution to boycott the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

I realize that a snowball in the deepest bowels of hell has a better chance of fulfilling its destiny to smash some unsuspecting soul in the face than this bill has of ever becoming American policy. However, in American politics never say, "Never." Stranger things have happened.

Still, it is extremely unlikely the United States will boycott the 2008 Olympics.

Nor should they.

However, it is instructive to look at the arguments the supporters of an Olympic boycott are making.

[COLUMN] Congress sanctions Bush’s law-breaking

The American people were once again - how can I put this delicately? - screwed by the very men and women sworn to protect us. I am referring, of course, to the gimcracks in Washington and all their gimcrackery.

The gimcrackery in this case is the "deal" struck between the president and the Congress that will permit the federal government to continue to ignore the Constitution by spying on Americans without judicial review or a warrant.

Fortunately, the deal is only good for six months.

If one were to make a case to impeach President Bush, his domestic spying program is where I would place my bet.

The Congress passed the legislation, known as The Protect America Act of 2007, in a shady fashion last weekend.

The bill passed the Senate on Aug. 3 by a vote of 60 to 28, with 12 senators not voting. Sen. Sherrod Brown voted against this constitutional abuse, while Sen. George Voinovich showed his disdain for the Constitution and voted for allowing the feds to spy on Americans.

The next day, the bill passed the House 227 to 182 with 23 representatives not voting. All three local representatives, Jim Jordan, Paul Gillmor and John Boehner, voted for this unconstitutional intrusion into our private lives. So much for Jordan's pro-family platform.

Then on Aug. 5, the president signed the bill into law as the members of the Congress adjourned and quickly evacuated Washington.

This new law is clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear in this matter: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

[COLUMN] Bad laws should be violated

Public domain art found on multiple Web sites 

A recent debate on The Lima News Internet forum has me a bit disturbed and, I am sure, has a few of our Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.

 The debate centered on a dubious search warrant that permitted police to raid a party and arrest some adults who were drinking alcohol. The adults all happened to be under 21, but they were still adults, old enough to die in the illegal war in Iraq. They also can vote and enter into contracts; yet, because of an unconstitutional infringement by the federal government on the rights of states to make their own laws, they cannot drink a beer in the privacy of their own homes.

It is unjust and antithetical to freedom to have laws that prevent some adults from enjoying an activity in which other, older adults are free to engage. In fact, it is unjust and antithetical to freedom to have laws that dictate what any adult can eat, drink, swallow or inject into his or her own body.

When I suggested that free people have a moral obligation to ignore unjust laws, I was greeted with amazement. They told me it was irresponsible to suggest that people should be permitted to break laws and that the only legitimate way to change a law was to work within the system.

How frightening!

No matter how bad the law is, these people argue, you must follow it.

When did Americans become such sheep?