The United States of America is a rarity among nations in that we do not have rulers who serve at their pleasure. Political office is not inherited, and is not (supposedly) a lifetime sinecure. Instead, our founding fathers gave us a republic in which we are to periodically designate certain people to represent us in the halls of government, people who serve at our pleasure. As Abraham Lincoln so succinctly put it, our government is “Of the People, By the People, For the People”.
Although things often appear otherwise whenever Congress is in session, no authority in our government structure, from our local City Councilmen right on up to the President of the United States, have the legal power to indiscriminately order us do anything we do not wish to do. They can coax, they can cajole, they can suggest, they can lead, but they cannot order us to do anything without our permission! The thirteen colonies denied the divine right of kings, and the derived authority of government figures, in 1776. They proclaimed the authority of “The People”, a hitherto unknown concept that was adopted by the French revolution a few years later. We, in case anyone has forgotten, are the people, and all government authority in this nation devolves from us, the governed. Our authority is intended to be expressed by our elected representatives, whom we select and send to congress to speak in our behalf. The operative phrase here is “to speak in our behalf”, and not on behalf of a particular ideology, or for special interests.
We have a set of laws, our Constitution, that quite clearly specify the powers and the duties of the three branches of our federal government. That constitution (in the Tenth Amendment) also clearly states that all other powers are reserved to the individual states, or to the people. An addendum to the constitution specifically states that we have certain rights that the government may not interfere with. That particular section we call the Bill of Rights… However, it would appear of late that our government, without our permission, has decided that much of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, have no real meaning, and can safely be ignored at will.
A slew of recent books about the current administration's wars at home and abroad might leave you wondering if President Bush and Vice President Cheney are the new Axis of Evil. In excruciating detail, these books tell tales of torture, warrantless wiretaps, of arrest and imprisonment without trial. They show a relentless grab for presidential power and distain for what were thought to be solid constitutional limitations. The picture that emerges is so bleak that even serious journalists and scholars sometimes lean toward conspiracy theories. The administration's defenders, meanwhile, grow strident, claiming that the Bush administration is up against "a domestic insurgency" led by "journalistic devotees of the Vietnam syndrome," isolationists, "liberal internationalists" and (heaven forbid) "realists." The Bush and Cheney who emerge from these pages cherish secrecy, they deplore constraint and they sneer at dissent, so nothing and nobody can dissuade them from their chosen course. Reality checks are not allowed.
The views on presidential power held by the present administration will create many a problem for future presidents. Cheney and Bush will leave presidential powers enhanced at the expense of Congress and the courts, to the detriment of the checks and balances essential to our constitutional system. There's already some concern among Republicans fearful that Hillary Clinton will reap the benefits. After all, no president will want to see his or her imperial authority eroded. The expansive powers presently claimed and exercised by President Bush are now an immutable part of American history, not controversies, but facts. The worldwide war with terrorists that is so important to expanded presidential power will go on as well. What might have seemed farfetched political and military fantasies several years ago are inescapable realities today.
Nobody will argue that many of the domestic actions taken by the federal government since 9/11 are in direct violation of our constitutional rights. For all intents and purposes the so called “Patriot Act” effectively suspends the Constitution of the United States, establishes a police state, and allows the US President to pretty well do whatever he pleases irreguardless of the law. However, unlike many on the left (and more than a few on the right as well), I have a lot of trouble believing that all our problems are the result of a vast “Bush-Cheney Conspiracy”. Rather I submit that what we see happening today is the result of the current administration doing nothing more than taking advantage of several decades of congressional malfeasance! Congress has through the years handed over to the executive much of their constitutional authority, apparently as it interfered with their constant struggle to be reelected. Add to that, the judicial branch has been so busy with social and environmental activism that they have ignored their constitutional duty to see that the federal “balance of power” remained on an even keel.
Jack Goldsmith, who briefly served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, a conservative academic and generally a supporter of a strong executive, argues in his book "The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration" that much of what was done in the early days after 9/11 is perfectly understandable. Threats seemed to be everywhere. A second wave of attacks appeared imminent and all but inevitable. "The President had to do what he had to do to protect the country," writes Goldsmith. "And the lawyers had to find some way to make what he did legal." However, unlike previous war presidents (Lincoln and FDR) who severely bent the Constitution in order to save it, and took responsibility for doing so, the Bush administration has hidden behind a wall of secrecy, as if public ignorance were the best way to give the president the powers he needed
In fact, the present situation is far from the civil war some writers would have us believe will soon be here, and certainly not the “shooting war” so popular in fiction. After all, with the steady errosion of our second ammendment rights, just what are we supposed to shoot with? Hunting rifles against tanks? Shotguns against attack helicopters? I don’t think so! But this is a good moment to take stock of the more subtle parts of these books: stories of score-settling at home, a new kind of enemy abroad, war profiteering and corruption, righteous intentions, grand visions, and bad information. If there is a recurrent theme, it's that the present administration set out to create its own reality, whether approaching the Bill of Rights like a little understood document, or readying itself for war in Iraq (and Iran?) with a steady diet of dubious intelligence.
Remember that every totalitarian state in recorded history has required three things to exist. They require extensive government secrecy, they require a foreign enemy to threaten the population, and they require a domestic enemy (usually imaginary) to justify a widespread internal security apparatus.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Ron Paul
I’m not in the habit of plugging any particular political candidate, unless of course I happen to be down at the local watering hole discussing politics with a few friends. I will however, often be heard chipping my teeth about some political idiot or other who has aroused my ire, at which time I have to be careful of loosing my temper and excessively raising my blood pressure. So, to keep my Doctor from getting overly concerned about my well being, I won’t have much to say about the political stance of the current Democratic presidential hopefuls, nor most of the Republican candidates either. It happens that I’m one of that vast multitude of independent voters in this country who generally don’t follow any particular party line. As so many other people claim, I like to think that I’m a political moderate, with fairly strong conservative leanings. Unlike many people in this country, I try to keep current on the issues and the various candidates’ position. When the candidates begin their political speeches you’ll generally find me over in the corner someplace, probably with a woebegone expression on my face, and most likely shaking my head in disgust. If however, the speaker is advocating infringement of my constitutional rights, or yet another scheme to bring on socialism, you’ll generally find me loudly screaming protests from atop my soapbox.
Today however I’m going to make a few comments about 72 year old Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of the Republican presidential hopefuls, who, contrary to most mainstream press reports, appears to be highly popular with many voters, and is conducting a rather unusual but highly effective campaign. It’s hard to say just what his political leaning actually is, essentially a mix of libertarian and constitutionalist ideas, and a bit of republicanism mixed in. Essentially a pariah to the GOP caucus, Rep Paul, who was the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate, does not hew to the party line, and thus is not a “good” republican worthy of party support. Interestingly enough he has gone from being a “nut” to a “nonentity” to a “fringe” to a “second tier” candidate in an amazingly short time, and he doesn’t appear to be slowing down a bit. During the early presidential debates last spring, leading GOP candidates treated Congressman Paul a bit like a libertarian nut. He was someone to be tolerated or mocked - and even the moderators acted like he was a distraction to endure until they could ask the big guns important questions. The media initially treated him like an interesting oddball, but an oddball nonetheless. Why? Because alone among the Republican candidates, Paul is strongly against the war in Iraq and is highly critical of American military presence anywhere in the Middle East. Of course I might point out that an “ignore him” strategy is not entirely out of fashion either. At least it’s apparently in vogue at MSNBC which wrote their headlines to deny Ron Paul the credit for another straw poll victory. The poll in question was at the recent Nevada Conservative Leadership Conference held in Sparks. In this, Ron Paul didn’t show up in person to shake hands, but he clearly finished first in the poll, while GOP front-runner Mitt Romney did appear, and finished a poor second. The MSNBC article is entitled "ROMNEY LOSES NV STRAW POLL" rather than "Ron Paul Wins NV Straw Poll", and while it mentions Paul’s win exactly once, eighty percent of the article is devoted to Romney. As one Internet commentator put it, "the resulting comments from Ron Paul supporters are priceless."
Attacks on candidate Paul are part of a trend toward belittling him and his constitutionalist message now that ignoring him hasn't worked - as he regularly continues to win straw polls and raise even more funds. The influx of money has helped Paul make his first TV ad in New Hampshire, a luxury several second-tier Republican candidates have yet to indulge in. And he's clearly found a following - if not among Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, then among an apparently widespread and rapidly growing coalition of “old style” conservatives, constitutionalists, disgruntled republicans, the libertarian right, and (perhaps) many of the anti-war left. Like Howard Dean in 2004, Paul has a huge following on the Internet and draws tons of traffic to his websites. He raised $5 million during the third quarter of 2007, giving him more money in the bank than John McCain. Now he's stunned Republican frontrunners by ringing up $4.3 million in donations during a one-day Internet fundraiser. Much like John Kennedy’s revolutionary use of television in 1960, Ron Paul seems to have discovered the political use of the Internet.
But his ideas are definitely catching on with many voters who are totally disgusted with “Republicrat” politics as usual. Here's what Paul said when asked about Republicans and the war: "Republicans have been conservative and anti-war and picked up the pieces when Democrats get us into trouble. It's a constitutional and conservative position. I don't feel out of place ... It discourages me that Republicans aren't open-minded enough to look at their history and look at a traditional Republican conservative position. Because they are going to lose another election if they don't...“ But while Paul's anger over Iraq has generated the headlines, it's his views on other core conservative Republican issues that may be fuelling his success. Paul is, as it happens, also firmly anti-abortion, pro-gun, and anti-NAFTA. He believes the freedoms and liberties of Americans have been threatened by the White House, and cites the Patriot Act as a particular danger. He favors a return to the gold standard, and a drastically reduced federal government that would be primarily responsible for defending America from outside attack and not a heck of a lot else. In a Ron Paul administration - au revoir Federal Reserve, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Education. No one really expects that a new President can wave a magic wand and change policies that have been existent for years, in some cases even before the New Deal was foisted on the American people. It’s hoped what will happen is that a new congress, supporting a Paul administration, will slowly turn the ship of state back to its Constitutional roots and the Republic will be restored. Hard to believe? What’s even more unbelievable is that the American people should allow “politics as usual” to continue eroding the American way of life, and destroying U.S. sovereignty, by supporting candidates from the Republican or Democratic parties that are, in reality, nothing more than another set of puppet mouthpieces for globalized corporate campaign contributors and special interests.
There's been plenty of tangible evidence to Paul’s appeal. He finished third in a recent straw poll at the "Values Voters" convention in Washington - ahead of Fred Thompson, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. And he's got a strong following among economic conservatives furious with President Bush's big-spending habits over the past seven years. It may be that Paul's supporters are not concentrated enough to help in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3rd. But he's dangerous enough that Republican insiders are worried, for his widespread followers are numerous, very vocal, intensely motivated, and quite easily stirred up.
One comment I recently read from the “Ron Paul Revolution” that I particularly liked is - “Americans have had enough. We're going to reclaim our country. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”
Today however I’m going to make a few comments about 72 year old Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of the Republican presidential hopefuls, who, contrary to most mainstream press reports, appears to be highly popular with many voters, and is conducting a rather unusual but highly effective campaign. It’s hard to say just what his political leaning actually is, essentially a mix of libertarian and constitutionalist ideas, and a bit of republicanism mixed in. Essentially a pariah to the GOP caucus, Rep Paul, who was the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate, does not hew to the party line, and thus is not a “good” republican worthy of party support. Interestingly enough he has gone from being a “nut” to a “nonentity” to a “fringe” to a “second tier” candidate in an amazingly short time, and he doesn’t appear to be slowing down a bit. During the early presidential debates last spring, leading GOP candidates treated Congressman Paul a bit like a libertarian nut. He was someone to be tolerated or mocked - and even the moderators acted like he was a distraction to endure until they could ask the big guns important questions. The media initially treated him like an interesting oddball, but an oddball nonetheless. Why? Because alone among the Republican candidates, Paul is strongly against the war in Iraq and is highly critical of American military presence anywhere in the Middle East. Of course I might point out that an “ignore him” strategy is not entirely out of fashion either. At least it’s apparently in vogue at MSNBC which wrote their headlines to deny Ron Paul the credit for another straw poll victory. The poll in question was at the recent Nevada Conservative Leadership Conference held in Sparks. In this, Ron Paul didn’t show up in person to shake hands, but he clearly finished first in the poll, while GOP front-runner Mitt Romney did appear, and finished a poor second. The MSNBC article is entitled "ROMNEY LOSES NV STRAW POLL" rather than "Ron Paul Wins NV Straw Poll", and while it mentions Paul’s win exactly once, eighty percent of the article is devoted to Romney. As one Internet commentator put it, "the resulting comments from Ron Paul supporters are priceless."
Attacks on candidate Paul are part of a trend toward belittling him and his constitutionalist message now that ignoring him hasn't worked - as he regularly continues to win straw polls and raise even more funds. The influx of money has helped Paul make his first TV ad in New Hampshire, a luxury several second-tier Republican candidates have yet to indulge in. And he's clearly found a following - if not among Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, then among an apparently widespread and rapidly growing coalition of “old style” conservatives, constitutionalists, disgruntled republicans, the libertarian right, and (perhaps) many of the anti-war left. Like Howard Dean in 2004, Paul has a huge following on the Internet and draws tons of traffic to his websites. He raised $5 million during the third quarter of 2007, giving him more money in the bank than John McCain. Now he's stunned Republican frontrunners by ringing up $4.3 million in donations during a one-day Internet fundraiser. Much like John Kennedy’s revolutionary use of television in 1960, Ron Paul seems to have discovered the political use of the Internet.
But his ideas are definitely catching on with many voters who are totally disgusted with “Republicrat” politics as usual. Here's what Paul said when asked about Republicans and the war: "Republicans have been conservative and anti-war and picked up the pieces when Democrats get us into trouble. It's a constitutional and conservative position. I don't feel out of place ... It discourages me that Republicans aren't open-minded enough to look at their history and look at a traditional Republican conservative position. Because they are going to lose another election if they don't...“ But while Paul's anger over Iraq has generated the headlines, it's his views on other core conservative Republican issues that may be fuelling his success. Paul is, as it happens, also firmly anti-abortion, pro-gun, and anti-NAFTA. He believes the freedoms and liberties of Americans have been threatened by the White House, and cites the Patriot Act as a particular danger. He favors a return to the gold standard, and a drastically reduced federal government that would be primarily responsible for defending America from outside attack and not a heck of a lot else. In a Ron Paul administration - au revoir Federal Reserve, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Education. No one really expects that a new President can wave a magic wand and change policies that have been existent for years, in some cases even before the New Deal was foisted on the American people. It’s hoped what will happen is that a new congress, supporting a Paul administration, will slowly turn the ship of state back to its Constitutional roots and the Republic will be restored. Hard to believe? What’s even more unbelievable is that the American people should allow “politics as usual” to continue eroding the American way of life, and destroying U.S. sovereignty, by supporting candidates from the Republican or Democratic parties that are, in reality, nothing more than another set of puppet mouthpieces for globalized corporate campaign contributors and special interests.
There's been plenty of tangible evidence to Paul’s appeal. He finished third in a recent straw poll at the "Values Voters" convention in Washington - ahead of Fred Thompson, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. And he's got a strong following among economic conservatives furious with President Bush's big-spending habits over the past seven years. It may be that Paul's supporters are not concentrated enough to help in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3rd. But he's dangerous enough that Republican insiders are worried, for his widespread followers are numerous, very vocal, intensely motivated, and quite easily stirred up.
One comment I recently read from the “Ron Paul Revolution” that I particularly liked is - “Americans have had enough. We're going to reclaim our country. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The Law
Americans are justly proud of their nation, it’s history, and it’s people. With a touch of smugness, and a lot of history to back us up, we loudly proclaim ourselves to be “The land of the free, and the home of the brave”. Since the first colonists landed on our shores, we’ve been a people set apart from our European roots, highly independent, self sufficient, innovative, curious, adaptable, and nearly always looking to the future. A meld of all European cultures, and with not a just few folks from other parts of the world mixed in, America became a melting pot that produced a boisterous, hardy, rough and tumble lot, equally willing to shake hands and share a tot of whiskey with a stranger, or engage him in a knock-down drag out fight, as circumstances warranted. We had a strong independent streak, a well overdeveloped sense of right and wrong, and the good sense to keep our noses out of other peoples business, admirable traits that are quite definitely reflected in the wording of our Constitution. We became a people that proudly went when and where we pleased, allowing no interference and submitting to no limitations on our individual rights and freedom.
But in reality, just how free are we today? Well, we can go nearly anywhere and do almost anything we want, as long as we stay within the limitations of a long and constantly growing list of laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and directives, as ordered by a seemingly endless line of local, state, and federal governing bodies that severely restrict our activities. I guess it’s a necessity for bureaucratic purposes, but we start out by requiring a birth certificate, a piece of paper that tells all and sundry that we were born. If someone is standing right there in front of me, I suspect I can safely assume that he was born… for despite my private thoughts about a few people, I rather doubt they actually crawled out from under a rock. We require a social security number as well, ostensibly so the government can keep track of our earnings through the years, and hopefully supply us with an equitable pittance if we live long enough to retire. It’s also a real handy means of tracking our place of employment whenever the authorities decide they want to discuss some infraction of the rules with us. The law requires that we send our kids to school (in some cases a total waste of time and resources I think), thereby creating a paper trail of scholastic records that follow those young people throughout their lives. The law tells us what the kids are expected to study in school, although I do think that the three R’s are probably quite difficult enough in most cases. But have you ever really looked at the list of “subjects” required by law, and offered for scholastic credit these days!? Throughout our lives we’re followed by a paper trail, mandated by law, of school records, legal records, tax records, military records, employment records, financial records, census records, and the Lord only knows what other records the government has hidden away in the files!
If we own property we have to abide with planning and zoning rules, along with numerous building codes, neighborhood association rules, and property restrictions, all limiting what we may or may not do with our property. If we own a car or a truck, the law tells us what we can or can’t do with that vehicle and how it is to be equipped, along with requiring an assortment of permits, a drivers license, vehicle license, and of course insurance (heaven help us if we neglect to get all of them), along with a confusing jumble of regional traffic laws as well. If we want to go hunting or fishing, we have to abide by all sorts of fish and game rules and regulations, requiring licenses, tags, stamps, and permits. We’re supposed to be politically correct and sensitive to the feelings of others, no matter what those feelings might entail. And don’t forget that either, lest you be tried and convicted of bigotry and “hate crimes” as defined under an assortment of rather vague laws. I guess I’m confessing to committing a crime, but I really do hate it when the law orders the symbols of my religion removed from public display because they might disturb the tender sensitivities of someone of a different religion, but their religious symbols can be legally displayed despite my sensitivities. I also hate it when some people can indiscriminately kill Americans in the name of their religion, and we’re required by law to be considerate of their feelings!
The founders of our nation gave us a Constitutional Republic, and not (contrary to popular belief) the mob rule of an open democracy. Essentially we are expected to select the “brightest and best” of our citizens to represent our interests in the ruling of our nation. These elected representatives supposedly serve at our pleasure, and are expected to do what is best for the nation and by that what is best for the American people. In this day and age however, it seems that our “lawmakers” have taken the job title seriously and spend their time producing an endless series of new laws based on nearly every hare-brained scheme and dumb idea that comes along! Admittedly they will, on occasion, come up with something useful, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. It wouldn’t be so bad I expect, if every new law had a mandatory “sunset clause” attached, whereby it automatically expired after a given period of time. Such a provision would be particularly useful if we consider the vast number of hundred plus year old “Blue Laws” still on the books nationwide, and never having been repealed are still quite enforceable!
At the same time, and I will repeat, we are not a democracy. Nonetheless, following that “Democracy” idea, we have presidential candidates vying with each other to pass even more laws, spending what’s left of our public funds in vote buying social engineering schemes. Many of these candidates want to pass laws giving all kinds of money, benefits, and even social security to illegal immigrants. Leaving no child behind, we have laws requiring a massive increase in educational expenses, that will probably be expanded into government mandated classes in hard rock appreciation and the glories of the Hollywierd drug culture. Along with the drive for laws creating nationwide socialized medicine, we can also expect to see laws generating a nationwide children’s health insurance program that not only covers poverty stricken or low income families, but every child in the country including those whose fortunate parents make a few million dollars a year!
Laws, rules, regulations… government orders enforced by the police and the military, controlling and restricting every aspect of a supposedly free peoples existence. Laws, major and minor, that fill our overcrowded prisons with people convicted of all sorts of offenses, both serious crimes and some quite frivolous mistakes. In my mind, what we need are far fewer laws, and more common sense, in this country. Of course a little self-discipline on the part of many citizens wouldn’t hurt either, but in accordance with the law, neither parents nor our schools can teach that subject anymore.
But in reality, just how free are we today? Well, we can go nearly anywhere and do almost anything we want, as long as we stay within the limitations of a long and constantly growing list of laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and directives, as ordered by a seemingly endless line of local, state, and federal governing bodies that severely restrict our activities. I guess it’s a necessity for bureaucratic purposes, but we start out by requiring a birth certificate, a piece of paper that tells all and sundry that we were born. If someone is standing right there in front of me, I suspect I can safely assume that he was born… for despite my private thoughts about a few people, I rather doubt they actually crawled out from under a rock. We require a social security number as well, ostensibly so the government can keep track of our earnings through the years, and hopefully supply us with an equitable pittance if we live long enough to retire. It’s also a real handy means of tracking our place of employment whenever the authorities decide they want to discuss some infraction of the rules with us. The law requires that we send our kids to school (in some cases a total waste of time and resources I think), thereby creating a paper trail of scholastic records that follow those young people throughout their lives. The law tells us what the kids are expected to study in school, although I do think that the three R’s are probably quite difficult enough in most cases. But have you ever really looked at the list of “subjects” required by law, and offered for scholastic credit these days!? Throughout our lives we’re followed by a paper trail, mandated by law, of school records, legal records, tax records, military records, employment records, financial records, census records, and the Lord only knows what other records the government has hidden away in the files!
If we own property we have to abide with planning and zoning rules, along with numerous building codes, neighborhood association rules, and property restrictions, all limiting what we may or may not do with our property. If we own a car or a truck, the law tells us what we can or can’t do with that vehicle and how it is to be equipped, along with requiring an assortment of permits, a drivers license, vehicle license, and of course insurance (heaven help us if we neglect to get all of them), along with a confusing jumble of regional traffic laws as well. If we want to go hunting or fishing, we have to abide by all sorts of fish and game rules and regulations, requiring licenses, tags, stamps, and permits. We’re supposed to be politically correct and sensitive to the feelings of others, no matter what those feelings might entail. And don’t forget that either, lest you be tried and convicted of bigotry and “hate crimes” as defined under an assortment of rather vague laws. I guess I’m confessing to committing a crime, but I really do hate it when the law orders the symbols of my religion removed from public display because they might disturb the tender sensitivities of someone of a different religion, but their religious symbols can be legally displayed despite my sensitivities. I also hate it when some people can indiscriminately kill Americans in the name of their religion, and we’re required by law to be considerate of their feelings!
The founders of our nation gave us a Constitutional Republic, and not (contrary to popular belief) the mob rule of an open democracy. Essentially we are expected to select the “brightest and best” of our citizens to represent our interests in the ruling of our nation. These elected representatives supposedly serve at our pleasure, and are expected to do what is best for the nation and by that what is best for the American people. In this day and age however, it seems that our “lawmakers” have taken the job title seriously and spend their time producing an endless series of new laws based on nearly every hare-brained scheme and dumb idea that comes along! Admittedly they will, on occasion, come up with something useful, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. It wouldn’t be so bad I expect, if every new law had a mandatory “sunset clause” attached, whereby it automatically expired after a given period of time. Such a provision would be particularly useful if we consider the vast number of hundred plus year old “Blue Laws” still on the books nationwide, and never having been repealed are still quite enforceable!
At the same time, and I will repeat, we are not a democracy. Nonetheless, following that “Democracy” idea, we have presidential candidates vying with each other to pass even more laws, spending what’s left of our public funds in vote buying social engineering schemes. Many of these candidates want to pass laws giving all kinds of money, benefits, and even social security to illegal immigrants. Leaving no child behind, we have laws requiring a massive increase in educational expenses, that will probably be expanded into government mandated classes in hard rock appreciation and the glories of the Hollywierd drug culture. Along with the drive for laws creating nationwide socialized medicine, we can also expect to see laws generating a nationwide children’s health insurance program that not only covers poverty stricken or low income families, but every child in the country including those whose fortunate parents make a few million dollars a year!
Laws, rules, regulations… government orders enforced by the police and the military, controlling and restricting every aspect of a supposedly free peoples existence. Laws, major and minor, that fill our overcrowded prisons with people convicted of all sorts of offenses, both serious crimes and some quite frivolous mistakes. In my mind, what we need are far fewer laws, and more common sense, in this country. Of course a little self-discipline on the part of many citizens wouldn’t hurt either, but in accordance with the law, neither parents nor our schools can teach that subject anymore.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Appeasement
There’s an old saying that’s seemingly been around forever, “If you can’t learn the lessons of history, then you’re cursed to relive them.” It’s pretty much the same thing as when your Dad told you that he was trying to save you from making the same mistakes he made. Unfortunately for most of us, we hear, but we don’t listen, and we suffer the consequences as a result. There are reasons to study history… to understand the mistakes made in the past, and use that knowledge to avoid making those same mistakes now. But I guess its human nature to learn the hard way, and it appears we’re on the verge of doing it again.
Sixty years ago appeasement cost millions of Jews their lives, as England and France negotiated and hesitated far too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to meaningless agreements. Appeasement legitimized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, suppressive and quite murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though they had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, Europeans debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do their work for them, and not incidentally saving tens of thousands of Muslim lives.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now ignores suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is discovered that the loudest critics of the American war in Iraq made tens of billions of illicit dollars in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.And now we are faced with other forms of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Europe? By suggesting that they really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany! A substantial fraction of the German Government, and if the polls are correct the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will spare them from the wrath of fanatical Muslims. I recall the pictures of Neville Chamberlain waving the White Paper signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the western public and its political leadership catch on? There is a sort of crusade underway, a crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against Western societies, and fully intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It’s a conflict that will probably continue longer than any war of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be “appeased” by the liberals much touted compromise, nor tamed by tolerance and accommodation, but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for a sign of weakness.
For his policies, President Bush risks the fall of the dollar, additional national debt, a massive burden on the American economy, and political suicide… because unlike almost all of Europe, he realizes what is at stake - literally everything. While Europeans criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, they timidly defend their Social Welfare systems. “Stay out of it!” they wail, “It could get expensive!” In this country we'd rather discuss reducing our workweek, the costs of health care, or the price of gasoline. Or listen to the anti-was crowd preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists… understand and forgive". Today, we find America’s liberals preaching much the same thing as their European brethren, all conveniently forgetting that if you once pay the Danegeld you still have the Danes to contend with, and they will be back next year, with even greater demands.
The somewhat misnamed “War on Terror” is not being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those are merely individual battles in a world wide war that pits the western concept of a free and open civilization against a fifteen hundred year old dictatorial religion founded in the deserts of the mid-east by a warlike nomadic society, and based on total subjugation to the will of a few “rulers”. The first crusade of 1095 AD was ostensibly fought to free the holy land from non-Christians, or at least that was the general excuse. It was also fought to halt Muslim excursions (read “invasions”) into western Christian lands, most notably the vestiges of the Eastern Holy Roman Empire in Constantinople. That crusade was marginally successful only because the Arabic Muslims were disorganized both politically and militarily. They also had no real idea of how to fight the heavily armored knights of Europe. Over the following centuries the Arabs became better organized, and adopted the highly mobile light cavalry tactics of the eastern steppe nomads, to which the western knights in their turn could not adapt. The following crusades became an ongoing war of attrition which the west was ill suited to sustain, and subsequently Europe lost its tenuous hold on the Holy Land.
Since those long ago days, the Arabic style of war changed little until the twentieth century and the massive influx of western “petro-dollars”. With that money they could buy the modern toys of the more developed nations. Today we see Arab national armies equipped with modern western weapons, which for the most part they little understand and are generally ill suited to use against our western armies. However, the Arabic fundamentalists understand this problem, and unlike the west are adapting to the changing times. They are not fighting us tank for tank, or jet fighter for jet fighter. Instead they utilize a form of guerrilla warfare, terror, pitting the snipers bullet, IED, and suicide bomber against civilians. Guerrilla warfare is something that western leaders have been notoriously slow to understand, and against which our conventional military wisdom has had little success over the last fifty years.
Fortunately for the west, the Arabs are again politically disorganized, and divided along religious lines. But we, in our arrogance, mistakenly assume that Islamic fundamentalists think in the same manner we do, that they have similar values, and that they can be swayed by our logic. We thought much the same about Hitler, and about the Communists. We failed to heed the warnings of Mien Kampf, and got WW II as the result. We ignored the Communist Manifesto, and got the Cold War. Today we fail to heed the warnings of the Quran, and hope to “appease” fundamentalist Islam.
It would seem that far too many of our national leaders refuse to learn from history, and once again are sentencing us to relive it.
Sixty years ago appeasement cost millions of Jews their lives, as England and France negotiated and hesitated far too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to meaningless agreements. Appeasement legitimized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, suppressive and quite murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though they had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, Europeans debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do their work for them, and not incidentally saving tens of thousands of Muslim lives.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now ignores suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is discovered that the loudest critics of the American war in Iraq made tens of billions of illicit dollars in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.And now we are faced with other forms of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Europe? By suggesting that they really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany! A substantial fraction of the German Government, and if the polls are correct the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will spare them from the wrath of fanatical Muslims. I recall the pictures of Neville Chamberlain waving the White Paper signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the western public and its political leadership catch on? There is a sort of crusade underway, a crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against Western societies, and fully intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It’s a conflict that will probably continue longer than any war of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be “appeased” by the liberals much touted compromise, nor tamed by tolerance and accommodation, but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for a sign of weakness.
For his policies, President Bush risks the fall of the dollar, additional national debt, a massive burden on the American economy, and political suicide… because unlike almost all of Europe, he realizes what is at stake - literally everything. While Europeans criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, they timidly defend their Social Welfare systems. “Stay out of it!” they wail, “It could get expensive!” In this country we'd rather discuss reducing our workweek, the costs of health care, or the price of gasoline. Or listen to the anti-was crowd preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists… understand and forgive". Today, we find America’s liberals preaching much the same thing as their European brethren, all conveniently forgetting that if you once pay the Danegeld you still have the Danes to contend with, and they will be back next year, with even greater demands.
The somewhat misnamed “War on Terror” is not being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those are merely individual battles in a world wide war that pits the western concept of a free and open civilization against a fifteen hundred year old dictatorial religion founded in the deserts of the mid-east by a warlike nomadic society, and based on total subjugation to the will of a few “rulers”. The first crusade of 1095 AD was ostensibly fought to free the holy land from non-Christians, or at least that was the general excuse. It was also fought to halt Muslim excursions (read “invasions”) into western Christian lands, most notably the vestiges of the Eastern Holy Roman Empire in Constantinople. That crusade was marginally successful only because the Arabic Muslims were disorganized both politically and militarily. They also had no real idea of how to fight the heavily armored knights of Europe. Over the following centuries the Arabs became better organized, and adopted the highly mobile light cavalry tactics of the eastern steppe nomads, to which the western knights in their turn could not adapt. The following crusades became an ongoing war of attrition which the west was ill suited to sustain, and subsequently Europe lost its tenuous hold on the Holy Land.
Since those long ago days, the Arabic style of war changed little until the twentieth century and the massive influx of western “petro-dollars”. With that money they could buy the modern toys of the more developed nations. Today we see Arab national armies equipped with modern western weapons, which for the most part they little understand and are generally ill suited to use against our western armies. However, the Arabic fundamentalists understand this problem, and unlike the west are adapting to the changing times. They are not fighting us tank for tank, or jet fighter for jet fighter. Instead they utilize a form of guerrilla warfare, terror, pitting the snipers bullet, IED, and suicide bomber against civilians. Guerrilla warfare is something that western leaders have been notoriously slow to understand, and against which our conventional military wisdom has had little success over the last fifty years.
Fortunately for the west, the Arabs are again politically disorganized, and divided along religious lines. But we, in our arrogance, mistakenly assume that Islamic fundamentalists think in the same manner we do, that they have similar values, and that they can be swayed by our logic. We thought much the same about Hitler, and about the Communists. We failed to heed the warnings of Mien Kampf, and got WW II as the result. We ignored the Communist Manifesto, and got the Cold War. Today we fail to heed the warnings of the Quran, and hope to “appease” fundamentalist Islam.
It would seem that far too many of our national leaders refuse to learn from history, and once again are sentencing us to relive it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)