Dear Mrs. Obama, Why I Gave Up My U.S. Citizenship

By Robert W. Wood | Forbes | February 18, 2016

I recently received a copy of a letter to First Lady Michelle Obama from a formerly dual U.S. and Canadian citizen, who chose to give up his U.S. citizenship. It speaks to some of the reasons that record numbers are renouncing their U.S. citizenship. The letter is reminiscent of Dear Mr. President, Why I’m Leaving America. The author noted that the letter to Mrs. Obama was a response to a political missive in which Mrs. Obama sought support for the Democratic Party in the upcoming Presidential election.

But the issue is far deeper. The broader context is America’s global tax system, worldwide reporting, FATCA, FBARs, and all of the ways in which the United States has made life difficult for U.S. persons abroad. That includes those who are just over our northern border into Canada. Canadians may be famously civil and reasonable, but a few are now saying I Am Canada, Hear Me Roar.

"Dear Mrs. Obama:

I gave up my U.S. citizenship this year, so I cannot vote. And if I could, I wouldn’t vote Democrat. It’s not that I hate liberals. I am one. And the Republicans honestly make me sick. The bottom line is America has lost its way in this world, and neither party, in my humble opinion, is going to make any headway in making it better.

I have lived abroad most of my life. This is my 46th year in Canada. I married Canadian, my kids are Canadian, not American, I have worked my entire life in Canada. I invest here, and will retire here. I am Canadian, but as you are likely aware, giving up that USA brand is not easy. I have many relatives living in the 50. I used to love to visit them. At the moment, I couldn’t care less if I ever cross that border again.

The United States at the Point of No Return

By Steve McCann | American Thinker | February 16, 2016

There is an unquestioned disconnect between the vast majority of the American people and the so-called elites or ruling class. Whenever I am in the company of those that are members of this exclusive fraternity, and when the conversation inevitably turns to the subject of the irascible mood of the electorate, I offer what I consider to be a valid theory as to one of the primary reasons why. That is: a plurality of the populace, myself included, firmly believe the United States is approaching the point of no return to its founding as a nation of individual freedom and opportunity, and that the 2016 election is the most significant in 150 years insofar as determining the long term fate of the country.

More often than not these acquaintances react as if Chicken Little had just escaped the asylum and was running amok claiming the sky is falling. However, in an effort to be kind to the loon in their midst, I have been told, as a figurative pat on the head, because of my personal background as displaced war orphan from World War II that I am hypersensitive and what is going on in America really isn’t as bad as I claim.

Not as bad as I claim?

Not since the presidential election of 1932 has the American electorate been so mired in discontent. Despite the best efforts of the media to portray this discontentment as limited to the Republican base, a variety of polls have confirmed a vast majority of the populace shares this same sense of disgruntlement. Innumerable polls taken over the past seven years are consistent in showing nearly 7 in 10 Americans believing the nation is headed in the wrong direction.

Further, nearly 60% think that the next generation will be worse off than they are. And few have any faith that the economic outlook for the country will improve in the near or distant future.

The U.S. vs. Apple: Does the FBI Have a Case?

By Jeff John Roberts | Fortune | February 18, 2016

A lot is at stake between Apple and the FBI. Here are the legal issues
It’s the biggest tech case of the year, and maybe the decade. Taking place in a California federal court, the case pits Apple against the U.S. government over control of the iPhone, with terrorism and privacy as the backdrop. The outcome will ripple across the entire technology sector and influence governments around the world.

So who is right? Does the FBI, which wants to force Apple AAPL 0.17% to override the iPhone’s encryption features, have a legal right to do so? Here’s a plain English guide to the legal issues, including constitutional questions, and what will happen next.

Why is the federal government suing Apple over the iPhone?

The government is frustrated with new iPhone security features that make it near impossible for the FBI or Apple or anyone else (except the phone owner) to crack the password. Now, the feds are asking a federal judge in California to force Apple to write special software that will override those encryption features in order to peer into the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists.

The technical facts of the case are important because the FBI wants to go beyond what it has done before. It’s different than forcing a phone company to place a wiretap or making an Internet company hand over emails. If you want to understand the encryption issue — including what Apple can and can’t do to unlock a phone — read this very well-written blog post.

Also note the Justice Department isn’t fighting over just this iPhone. Law enforcement agencies across the country are being thwarted by Apple’s encrypted devices, and the FBI likely chose this case—which involves an infamous terrorist—as its best chance to force Apple to change course.

The Regrettable Decline of Higher Learning

By Victor Davis Hanson | victorhanson.com | February 5, 2016

What do campus microaggressions, safe spaces, trigger warnings, speech codes and censorship have to do with higher learning?

American universities want it both ways. They expect unquestioned subsidized support from the public, but also to operate in a way impossible for anyone else.

Colleges still wear the ancient clothes of higher learning. Latin mottos, caps and gowns, ivy-covered spires and high talk of liberal education reflect a hallowed intellectual tradition.

In fact, today’s campuses mimic ideological boot camps. Tenured professors seek to indoctrinate young people in certain preconceived progressive political agendas. Environmental studies classes are not very open to debating the “settled science” of man-caused, carbon-induced global warming — or the need for immediate and massive government intervention to address it. Grade-conscious and indebted students make the necessary ideological adjustments.

Few sociological courses celebrate the uniquely American assimilationist melting pot. Race, class and gender agenda courses — along with thousands of “studies” courses — have been invented. A generation of politicized professors has made the strange argument that they alone have discovered all sorts of critical new disciplines of knowledge — apparently unknown for 2,500 years — to ensure that graduates would be better educated than ever before.

Universities have lost their commitment to the inductive method. Preconceived anti-Enlightenment theories are established as settled fact and part of career promotion. Evidence is made to fit these unquestioned assumptions.

Two unfortunate results have predictably followed.