We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
For the founders or our nation, the preamble to our Constitution meant providing an environment where free men could strive and succeed, or they could also fail. In our modern day, that leads us to the question of entitlements. The U.S. Constitution (considered by many Leftists an annoying anachronism rather than the legal core of this Nation), contains the word "entitled" four times. Three of those refer to representation of the several States. Only one refers to individuals: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” There is nothing said about free anything. And the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 thru 10 for those who slept through class) enshrine our Civil Rights, but they also say nothing about entitlements. The only "entitlements" that I recognize are Social Security/Medicare, and only because we’re forced to pay into the system during our working lives, along with VA benefits, which are paid for in advance, all too often in blood. There are also municipal and state services that our elected representatives have instituted. Thus, if you don't want fire protection, start objecting at your city council meetings. As to access to health care, we are entitled to access I’m sure, but nothing says it’s got to be free. In fact, you’re completely free to charge whatever you want for your services. And if the customer doesn’t want to pay what you charge, he’s equally free to go elsewhere in search of that service. But it all costs money, and that’s where the rub comes in.
Money is defined as anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services. It’s nothing more than medium of exchange and a store of value. Essentially it’s an indicator of work, in that, if I do an hours work at something, I will receive an agreed upon amount of “money” in exchange. Then, I can trade that money for the fruit of someone else’s work. (In this day and age however, an awful lot of work doesn’t seem to go very far!) The concept of “money” immediately leads to “Debt”, or “that which is owed”, usually referring to some sort of assets owed to someone. Debt is a means of using future purchasing power before the work has been done and the money for that work is received. A debt is created when a creditor lends a value to a debtor, in expectation of repayment, usually including interest. Debt allows people and organizations to do things that they would otherwise not be able to do with the cash on hand. Most folks commonly use debt to purchase fancy houses, SUV’s, big screen TV’s, and many other things too expensive to readily buy with whatever cash they have on hand. Business often uses debt to enable business expansion. For both companies and individuals, the cost of servicing the debt (paying the interest) can grow beyond the ability to pay due to either external events (income loss) or internal difficulties (poor management). Excess debt normally causes both individuals and governments to reduce their consumption of products and services, and utilizing the available money to pay off that debt and its interest.
Then however we often find those folks that think money grows on trees, or at least in one way or another is inexhaustible. Sometimes those folks get control of the government, where they spend the national treasure on assorted hairbrained schemes, and then raise the taxes to generate even more treasure that they can spend, and completely forget that debt HAS to be paid off, one way or another. That said, about 40% of the people in this country believe they're entitled to health care, food, shelter, and clothing, and that the government should provide it whatever the cost to the nation. Wrong, they’re entitled to access those things, but whether that access is easy or difficult depends on their life style, where they choose to live, what work they seek, and how well they perform it. After all, once you're an adult, you are solely responsible for those choices.
Historically, debt was responsible for the creation of debtor’s prisons, indentured servitude, and in worst case situations, the debtor was sold into chattel slavery. More commonly the debtor became a “wage slave”. Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person is dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned, particularly when the dependency is total and immediate. When government gets too far into debt, really bad things happen. Governments can, and do, collapse economically, which leads to the fall of the government, civil wars, assorted foreign invasions, starvation, and a lot of death and destruction. Just ask the Romans.
Louis XIV's finance minister was once asked what to do about the severe national deficit, to which he replied, "Nothing, it's too serious." Well, history shows us that nothing got done, the deficit got worse, and ninety years later the French Revolution put an end to the problem… along with the French nobility and the government.
Our current leaders really need to recognize the one immutable law of economics, namely, the TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) law.
In the spirit of the season, I’ll wish everyone a Merry Christmas. If, due to “political Correctness”, you object to the word “Christmas”… tough. Have a Merry Christmas anyway.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Climategate
Surprise, Surprise, scientists are disagreeing on the severity, causes, and eventual outcome of what's now called "climate change", or even if it exists at all. The idea of “Global Warming” seems to be based on our apparent global climatic change, a lot of junk science, the wistful thinking of the far left gloom and doom set, and research data modified to produce the desired outcome. There’s hardly any agreement among scientists with some knowledge of global warming, or of humanity's possible role in producing it, but you wouldn't know that if you listen to the Obama administration. As the Climate-gate controversy continues to grow amid numerous charges of manipulating data and suppressing research by opposition scientists who challenge the theory, there is one often repeated “defense”, in that other data-sets all show the same thing. "I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science ... I think that this notion that there's some debate . . . on the science is kind of silly," claims Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, when asked about the president's response to the University of East Anglia dataset that’s being questioned. In fact, Mr. Gibbs seems to be mostly angry with the hackers who exposed the scandal, but not at the scientists who falsified the data his statements hinge on! Despite the ongoing scandal, Britain's National Weather Service claims: "we remain completely confident in the data. The three independent data sets show a strong correlation is highlighting an increase in global temperatures."
The three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report came from the University of East Anglia, NASA, and the British Met Office. Even better, the Met Office apparently depends on the other two organizations to provide the hard research date they use, which is kept a deep dark secret from everybody else. Why are global warming advocates so secretive about their data? So far, the spotlight has been on the University of East Anglia and its refusal to release their surface temperature data, by far the most comprehensive long-term worldwide surface data available. Unfortunately, the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the UEA. Queens University in Belfast has amassed one of the longest-running data collections on tree rings, spanning 7000 years and covering 1,500 sites around the world. How much a tree grows each season can tell us a lot about temperatures and other climate related variables. You would expect that institute to be proud of all this data they have so diligently created, and expect them to share the data with anyone who is interested. Not so apparently, as some scholars have been trying for two-and-a-half years through the UK's Freedom of Information Acts to force Queen's University to release the data, all to no avail. Even NASA, which has been caught in other embarrassing “mistakes” regarding climate research, refuses to release its data so that others can figure out past temperature estimate inconsistencies. All that researchers really wanted from both Queen’s University and NASA, was the temperature data used in numerous papers that global warming advocates had already published. One of the most disturbing elements of the ongoing scandal suggests an worldwide organized effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics. It is not clear if any data was destroyed, but at least two U.S. researchers have denied that suggestion.
The purloined e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. That raises a science ethics question because free access to information is important to other scientists who can repeat experiments as a part of the scientific method. "I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them." When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."
NASA faces a particularly embarrassing situation. Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.org pointed out in 2007 that thru serious math errors in NASA’s published work, 1998 was not the warmest year on record, 1934 was. And the third hottest year was 1921, not 2006. Instead of the 10 hottest years occurring since 1990, six of the 10 had occurred before 1940. NASA finally released the corrected temperature estimates, but later recalculated yet again and somehow 1934 is again reported to be cooler than either 1998 or 2006. As with all these “errors”, how many more might be lurking in other estimates made at these institutions? On the other hand, perhaps the latest NASA revision was a merely a statistical "adjustment," similar to what apparently happened at East Anglia. Nobody outside a small group at NASA knows, but given the leftist political advocacy of James Hansen, NASA’s top climatologist, we might be somewhat suspicious. OK, so they’re “adjusting” scientific data to fit a set of predetermined conclusions. In my rather crude and un-scientific manner, I’d call that “cooking the books”, and if ‘ya do that at home the IRS gets really upset!
So why all the insistence on human caused global warming, to the extent of apparently falsifying research data? We could make a real good “conspiracy theory” out of this one! Socialist political theory demands the existence of a “one world” planet wide government to be successful. (So does the UN, but that’s a different theory.) This means that more and more government control of the world’s population is required, which is exactly what the Copenhagen accord is all about. In the guise of handling the “global warming” problem, government can control our energy usage (coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, and probably firewood as well), to the extent of regulating us back to a medieval sustenance type economy, where we can all share equally in the soon to be nonexistent wealth... with of course our socialist leaders being the Lord of the Manor and getting the lions share.
What does this have to do with falsifying scientific data? Well, most scientific research survives on government grants, and it’s always best to keep your employer happy if you like your comfortable high-paying job…
The three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report came from the University of East Anglia, NASA, and the British Met Office. Even better, the Met Office apparently depends on the other two organizations to provide the hard research date they use, which is kept a deep dark secret from everybody else. Why are global warming advocates so secretive about their data? So far, the spotlight has been on the University of East Anglia and its refusal to release their surface temperature data, by far the most comprehensive long-term worldwide surface data available. Unfortunately, the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the UEA. Queens University in Belfast has amassed one of the longest-running data collections on tree rings, spanning 7000 years and covering 1,500 sites around the world. How much a tree grows each season can tell us a lot about temperatures and other climate related variables. You would expect that institute to be proud of all this data they have so diligently created, and expect them to share the data with anyone who is interested. Not so apparently, as some scholars have been trying for two-and-a-half years through the UK's Freedom of Information Acts to force Queen's University to release the data, all to no avail. Even NASA, which has been caught in other embarrassing “mistakes” regarding climate research, refuses to release its data so that others can figure out past temperature estimate inconsistencies. All that researchers really wanted from both Queen’s University and NASA, was the temperature data used in numerous papers that global warming advocates had already published. One of the most disturbing elements of the ongoing scandal suggests an worldwide organized effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics. It is not clear if any data was destroyed, but at least two U.S. researchers have denied that suggestion.
The purloined e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. That raises a science ethics question because free access to information is important to other scientists who can repeat experiments as a part of the scientific method. "I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them." When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."
NASA faces a particularly embarrassing situation. Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.org pointed out in 2007 that thru serious math errors in NASA’s published work, 1998 was not the warmest year on record, 1934 was. And the third hottest year was 1921, not 2006. Instead of the 10 hottest years occurring since 1990, six of the 10 had occurred before 1940. NASA finally released the corrected temperature estimates, but later recalculated yet again and somehow 1934 is again reported to be cooler than either 1998 or 2006. As with all these “errors”, how many more might be lurking in other estimates made at these institutions? On the other hand, perhaps the latest NASA revision was a merely a statistical "adjustment," similar to what apparently happened at East Anglia. Nobody outside a small group at NASA knows, but given the leftist political advocacy of James Hansen, NASA’s top climatologist, we might be somewhat suspicious. OK, so they’re “adjusting” scientific data to fit a set of predetermined conclusions. In my rather crude and un-scientific manner, I’d call that “cooking the books”, and if ‘ya do that at home the IRS gets really upset!
So why all the insistence on human caused global warming, to the extent of apparently falsifying research data? We could make a real good “conspiracy theory” out of this one! Socialist political theory demands the existence of a “one world” planet wide government to be successful. (So does the UN, but that’s a different theory.) This means that more and more government control of the world’s population is required, which is exactly what the Copenhagen accord is all about. In the guise of handling the “global warming” problem, government can control our energy usage (coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, and probably firewood as well), to the extent of regulating us back to a medieval sustenance type economy, where we can all share equally in the soon to be nonexistent wealth... with of course our socialist leaders being the Lord of the Manor and getting the lions share.
What does this have to do with falsifying scientific data? Well, most scientific research survives on government grants, and it’s always best to keep your employer happy if you like your comfortable high-paying job…
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Another Surge
A man named Fehrenback once said that “you can fly over a territory, you can bombard it, you can blow it to hell, you can even sterilize it, but you don’t own it until you stand a seventeen year old kid with a rifle on top of it.” That statement is very true, and unfortunately it’s something that our nation’s leaders appear to have either forgotten, or that they never learned. As a result of that lapse, we’re today paying the butchers bill in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two days before Mr. Obama gave the speech at West Point in which he announced that we would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, a Senate Committee report was released that blames an insufficient number of troops for bin Laden’s escape from American forces in 2001. The committee chairman, Sen. John Kerry, implied that it was a lack of soldiers under the Bush administration that was responsible for “laying the foundation for today’s protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.” Yet it was our democratic Congress who repeatedly refused the troop buildup that would have given us the necessary soldiers today.
Increased troop numbers was Bush’s policy, and since we all know Bush was evil (just ask the mainstream media), the opposite policy must be good. The aggressiveness that we associate with President Bush is actually, in Mr. Obama’s hands, the righteous corrective to Bush’s evil actions. (Perhaps a Democrat can explain that one to me?) Mr. Obama is proving himself an expert manipulator of public opinion, capitalizing on the McChrystal and Eikenberry leaks to give the impression of deep deliberations over whether to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He’s playing the old “good cop/bad cop” routine, with VP Joe Biden, who dutifully argued against more troops, overall a rather cynical act. And it’s almost uncanny to hear from the liberal Obama the same tales about nation-building and creating democratic institutions that led us into an undemocratic Iraq in the first place. Warlord-run Afghanistan is nothing like Iraq either, or any other civilized country for that matter. It’s more like warlord-run Somalia. Ahh… remember Somalia, with Bill Clinton’s hesitation to provide the military with the needed strength, and of course our rather hurried withdrawal? Today however the media is still using the word “surge” to describe the troop increase as if it’s only a temporary boost, when in truth it’s just another name for minimal “reinforcements”, which immediately brings to mind the image of a lost cause. Since the first day of combat action in Afghanistan we’ve heard calls for troop increases, with the latest being for forty to eighty thousand additional troops. Instead Mr. Obama decides to send only thirty thousand, with a large number of these being civilian contractors. One pundit commented, tongue-in-cheek I hope, that it’s too bad China isn’t in NATO, as their Army is big enough to stand shoulder to shoulder and march from Afghanistan to Iraq, cleaning up the whole mess! Quite so, but how do we get ‘em to go home afterwards?
Political writer Jacob Weisberg claims that one of Obama’s great accomplishments has been that, “after a much-disparaged period of review, he has announced a new strategy in Afghanistan.” But then, Weisberg praises Obama for “preventing a depression, remaking America's global image, and winning universal health insurance.” Never mind that unemployment is the highest it’s been in decades, and that any Democratic president with a Democratic majority in Congress could have passed a similar stimulus package. “Universal health care” is far from a done deal, and as for remaking America’s global image, well, images are made with actions, not words. But Obama is not Bush we are told, the people who dislike him are dreadful racists, the opposition is fierce, and, well, he’s the only game in town, etc, etc. No, Mr. Obama is not President Bush. If anything, he is solidly convinced that his radical liberalism is divinely guided, and that he holds “the truth” in his hands. Unlike President Bush however, Mr. Obama seems to withdraw into a blue funk whenever he fails to convince Americans that his is the truth of the ages.
It’s easy to say “pull out all the troops and let the Afghani’s deal with their own problems”. So if those issues spill over into America, what then? American troops cannot just pack up and leave with the snap of a finger. "Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of much, if not most, of the country and likely a renewed civil war," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Taliban-ruled areas could in short order become, once again, a sanctuary for al-Qaeda as well as a staging area for resurgent militant groups on the offensive in Pakistan." (And Pakistan has nuclear weapons.) I'm sure that if we pulled out tomorrow, the people who strap bombs to themselves to blow up anyone who doesn't think that women are property, and that Jews and Christians should be wiped out, would happily join us in hammering our arms into plowshares. Ahh… our arms, not theirs.
But Obama has tied his decision ordering more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to a pledge that they'll start returning home in 2011. But he was rather quiet on his plans for the growing Afghan army, which still remains the best way to bring American soldiers home. As the 219th poorest nation in the world, Afghanistan simply can't afford to pay for a big military. Afghan forces today are largely slipshod and corrupt, professional U.S. officers say, capable of doing little more than basic operations. In fact, many U.S. officers say that Afghans have a "God-willing” mentality that "delays progress for all routine and major actions", and such tendencies “freeze subordinates into doing nothing until specifically ordered”.
One lesson we should learn from history is that soldiers seldom have much say in how their efforts are applied. Armed force is but a blunt instrument of politics, quite liable to do more harm than good unless aimed with exquisite precision. At best, all the military can do is buy time for the politicians to repair the political mistakes that left no choice but armed violence in the first place. Isn’t it nice to know that our man in the driver’s seat has absolutely no military experience, and apparently won’t listen to his advisors who do have that experience.
Increased troop numbers was Bush’s policy, and since we all know Bush was evil (just ask the mainstream media), the opposite policy must be good. The aggressiveness that we associate with President Bush is actually, in Mr. Obama’s hands, the righteous corrective to Bush’s evil actions. (Perhaps a Democrat can explain that one to me?) Mr. Obama is proving himself an expert manipulator of public opinion, capitalizing on the McChrystal and Eikenberry leaks to give the impression of deep deliberations over whether to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He’s playing the old “good cop/bad cop” routine, with VP Joe Biden, who dutifully argued against more troops, overall a rather cynical act. And it’s almost uncanny to hear from the liberal Obama the same tales about nation-building and creating democratic institutions that led us into an undemocratic Iraq in the first place. Warlord-run Afghanistan is nothing like Iraq either, or any other civilized country for that matter. It’s more like warlord-run Somalia. Ahh… remember Somalia, with Bill Clinton’s hesitation to provide the military with the needed strength, and of course our rather hurried withdrawal? Today however the media is still using the word “surge” to describe the troop increase as if it’s only a temporary boost, when in truth it’s just another name for minimal “reinforcements”, which immediately brings to mind the image of a lost cause. Since the first day of combat action in Afghanistan we’ve heard calls for troop increases, with the latest being for forty to eighty thousand additional troops. Instead Mr. Obama decides to send only thirty thousand, with a large number of these being civilian contractors. One pundit commented, tongue-in-cheek I hope, that it’s too bad China isn’t in NATO, as their Army is big enough to stand shoulder to shoulder and march from Afghanistan to Iraq, cleaning up the whole mess! Quite so, but how do we get ‘em to go home afterwards?
Political writer Jacob Weisberg claims that one of Obama’s great accomplishments has been that, “after a much-disparaged period of review, he has announced a new strategy in Afghanistan.” But then, Weisberg praises Obama for “preventing a depression, remaking America's global image, and winning universal health insurance.” Never mind that unemployment is the highest it’s been in decades, and that any Democratic president with a Democratic majority in Congress could have passed a similar stimulus package. “Universal health care” is far from a done deal, and as for remaking America’s global image, well, images are made with actions, not words. But Obama is not Bush we are told, the people who dislike him are dreadful racists, the opposition is fierce, and, well, he’s the only game in town, etc, etc. No, Mr. Obama is not President Bush. If anything, he is solidly convinced that his radical liberalism is divinely guided, and that he holds “the truth” in his hands. Unlike President Bush however, Mr. Obama seems to withdraw into a blue funk whenever he fails to convince Americans that his is the truth of the ages.
It’s easy to say “pull out all the troops and let the Afghani’s deal with their own problems”. So if those issues spill over into America, what then? American troops cannot just pack up and leave with the snap of a finger. "Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of much, if not most, of the country and likely a renewed civil war," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Taliban-ruled areas could in short order become, once again, a sanctuary for al-Qaeda as well as a staging area for resurgent militant groups on the offensive in Pakistan." (And Pakistan has nuclear weapons.) I'm sure that if we pulled out tomorrow, the people who strap bombs to themselves to blow up anyone who doesn't think that women are property, and that Jews and Christians should be wiped out, would happily join us in hammering our arms into plowshares. Ahh… our arms, not theirs.
But Obama has tied his decision ordering more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to a pledge that they'll start returning home in 2011. But he was rather quiet on his plans for the growing Afghan army, which still remains the best way to bring American soldiers home. As the 219th poorest nation in the world, Afghanistan simply can't afford to pay for a big military. Afghan forces today are largely slipshod and corrupt, professional U.S. officers say, capable of doing little more than basic operations. In fact, many U.S. officers say that Afghans have a "God-willing” mentality that "delays progress for all routine and major actions", and such tendencies “freeze subordinates into doing nothing until specifically ordered”.
One lesson we should learn from history is that soldiers seldom have much say in how their efforts are applied. Armed force is but a blunt instrument of politics, quite liable to do more harm than good unless aimed with exquisite precision. At best, all the military can do is buy time for the politicians to repair the political mistakes that left no choice but armed violence in the first place. Isn’t it nice to know that our man in the driver’s seat has absolutely no military experience, and apparently won’t listen to his advisors who do have that experience.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Plague
“Realpolitik” is defined as the belief that a pragmatic pursuit of self-interest and power, backed up by force when convenient, is the only realistic option for a great state. The term was coined in 1859 to describe German chancellor Bismarck’s policies. “Practical politics” are those based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations. That term comes from H.L. Mencken's definition: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." OK, I’ll agree that not all threats exploited by political leaders are imaginary, with a number of them being quite real, but generally they’re blown all out of proportion to where they become caricatures of reality. The current "public health crisis" over the prospect of a swine flu "pandemic" appears to fall into that category.
Although eight years have passed since 9-11, we need no reminder of the shock value of mass terrorism on the American population. 9-11 left us shocked and enraged, but it was still incidental to the everyday concerns of most Americans. It was an atrocity that didn't threaten the existence of American society, despite the efforts of political opportunists to describe the attack as apocalyptic. However, our political leaders have drawn tremendous political valuata from that attack, in that a major (and completely unnecessary) revolution in American political, legal, and strategic affairs was brought on by that one incident. Ten years ago, it would have been unimaginable that today’s mass media and our politicians would accept the idea that the President of the United States has the quasi-medieval authority to issue orders that have the effect of law, to lock-up people at will, and even have them tortured. But because of the practical politics of post-9/11 America that is what we now see. The possibility of nuclear annihilation is difficult to make real to the individual, unless it's part of a larger picture such as a war between superpowers, or the prospect of nukes in the hands of terrorists. With that said, The Bomb has little to offer in terms of "practical politics." The same can be said of the practical political value of environmentalism or “the collapse of the global biosphere” through various sorts of contamination. The “revenge of a poisoned planet” might make interesting science fiction stories, but other than that it’s little more than a certain political career crowned by the Nobel Peace Prize. Relatively few people other than those most likely to profit from it share Gore’s insistence that saving the environment should be the "central organizing principle" of human society. And despite the fact that they would force the rest of us to live like medieval serfs, they're willing to sacrifice none of the goodies that give them a huge "carbon footprint." Unlike the above threats, the prospect of a plague is completely terrifying in a personal sense. We all have memories of what it feels like to be sick and helpless, and likely have witnessed death from disease at one time or another. So, as a weapon of practical politics, microbes are far more serious than nuclear weapons. All of this should be kept in mind as we evaluate the seriousness of the "public health emergency" declared on April 26 by the UN's World Health Organization and shortly thereafter by the Obama administration over what is being described as the potential swine flu pandemic. Considering that over 30,000 people die in the US every year from the flu, it’s rather amusing to see all the panic over a relative handful of deaths. Still, most "public servants" are in jobs that thrive on alarmism, so we really shouldn't expect any sober risk assessments from them. It’s quite likely that what concerns the medical community is the genetic makeup of this new H1N1 virus that carries swine, avian, and spanish flu DNA. The question is, where did it come from? It is extremely unlikely that three different strains of flu virus could accidentally share genetic material without some sort of outside help in the process. Two strains perhaps, but I’d seriously doubt three. This leaves us with the possibility that the H1N1 virus, which, according to several well-credentialed medical experts appears to have been synthesized in a laboratory, and was deliberately released on the public. This would not necessarily have been the work of the US government; as it could have easily been carried out by any one of numerous other parties. I think the medical community is honestly concerned as they still don’t know what will happen if swine flu reached China and India, "where populations are so dense and health infrastructure is still insufficient.” The "Spanish Flu" epidemic of 1918 killed 583,000 Americans (approximately one tenth of one percent of the American population), and an estimated 20-50 million people worldwide, an overall figure that rivals the Black Death of the 14th Century. The virus causing the 1918 outbreak was quite similar to the H5N1 virus, better known as the "Bird Flu", and has been the center of a multi-billion-dollar international effort of development and store of what is hoped to be an effective vaccine.
Well, how many of these do you remember? The Oil Crisis (70's), the New Ice Age (70's), the Killer Bee invasion, the Ozone hole, Mad Cow Disease, SARS, Avian Flu, Y2K, Global Warming ... and now Swine Flu. The result is always the same - ever growing Statism. How many billions of dollars have we spent on these non-events? How many more billions are we going to spend on this latest event, and how much more freedom are we willing to lose?
Whatever else may occur we can expect the Obama administration to assume greater control over the emergency medical system. In the event that this emergency does turn into a legitimate pandemic, the “Obamatrons” will have the justification to mobilize Homeland Security. A memo issued by the DHS notes that "The Department of Justice has established legal federal authorities pertaining to the implementation of a quarantine and enforcement. Under approval from HHS, the Surgeon General has the authority to issue quarantines." Quarantine of course means disarming the public as we saw happen in New Orleans, and "isolating" us in our new confinment centers.
When the government’s involved, always ask yourself: qui bono? Who benefits?
Although eight years have passed since 9-11, we need no reminder of the shock value of mass terrorism on the American population. 9-11 left us shocked and enraged, but it was still incidental to the everyday concerns of most Americans. It was an atrocity that didn't threaten the existence of American society, despite the efforts of political opportunists to describe the attack as apocalyptic. However, our political leaders have drawn tremendous political valuata from that attack, in that a major (and completely unnecessary) revolution in American political, legal, and strategic affairs was brought on by that one incident. Ten years ago, it would have been unimaginable that today’s mass media and our politicians would accept the idea that the President of the United States has the quasi-medieval authority to issue orders that have the effect of law, to lock-up people at will, and even have them tortured. But because of the practical politics of post-9/11 America that is what we now see. The possibility of nuclear annihilation is difficult to make real to the individual, unless it's part of a larger picture such as a war between superpowers, or the prospect of nukes in the hands of terrorists. With that said, The Bomb has little to offer in terms of "practical politics." The same can be said of the practical political value of environmentalism or “the collapse of the global biosphere” through various sorts of contamination. The “revenge of a poisoned planet” might make interesting science fiction stories, but other than that it’s little more than a certain political career crowned by the Nobel Peace Prize. Relatively few people other than those most likely to profit from it share Gore’s insistence that saving the environment should be the "central organizing principle" of human society. And despite the fact that they would force the rest of us to live like medieval serfs, they're willing to sacrifice none of the goodies that give them a huge "carbon footprint." Unlike the above threats, the prospect of a plague is completely terrifying in a personal sense. We all have memories of what it feels like to be sick and helpless, and likely have witnessed death from disease at one time or another. So, as a weapon of practical politics, microbes are far more serious than nuclear weapons. All of this should be kept in mind as we evaluate the seriousness of the "public health emergency" declared on April 26 by the UN's World Health Organization and shortly thereafter by the Obama administration over what is being described as the potential swine flu pandemic. Considering that over 30,000 people die in the US every year from the flu, it’s rather amusing to see all the panic over a relative handful of deaths. Still, most "public servants" are in jobs that thrive on alarmism, so we really shouldn't expect any sober risk assessments from them. It’s quite likely that what concerns the medical community is the genetic makeup of this new H1N1 virus that carries swine, avian, and spanish flu DNA. The question is, where did it come from? It is extremely unlikely that three different strains of flu virus could accidentally share genetic material without some sort of outside help in the process. Two strains perhaps, but I’d seriously doubt three. This leaves us with the possibility that the H1N1 virus, which, according to several well-credentialed medical experts appears to have been synthesized in a laboratory, and was deliberately released on the public. This would not necessarily have been the work of the US government; as it could have easily been carried out by any one of numerous other parties. I think the medical community is honestly concerned as they still don’t know what will happen if swine flu reached China and India, "where populations are so dense and health infrastructure is still insufficient.” The "Spanish Flu" epidemic of 1918 killed 583,000 Americans (approximately one tenth of one percent of the American population), and an estimated 20-50 million people worldwide, an overall figure that rivals the Black Death of the 14th Century. The virus causing the 1918 outbreak was quite similar to the H5N1 virus, better known as the "Bird Flu", and has been the center of a multi-billion-dollar international effort of development and store of what is hoped to be an effective vaccine.
Well, how many of these do you remember? The Oil Crisis (70's), the New Ice Age (70's), the Killer Bee invasion, the Ozone hole, Mad Cow Disease, SARS, Avian Flu, Y2K, Global Warming ... and now Swine Flu. The result is always the same - ever growing Statism. How many billions of dollars have we spent on these non-events? How many more billions are we going to spend on this latest event, and how much more freedom are we willing to lose?
Whatever else may occur we can expect the Obama administration to assume greater control over the emergency medical system. In the event that this emergency does turn into a legitimate pandemic, the “Obamatrons” will have the justification to mobilize Homeland Security. A memo issued by the DHS notes that "The Department of Justice has established legal federal authorities pertaining to the implementation of a quarantine and enforcement. Under approval from HHS, the Surgeon General has the authority to issue quarantines." Quarantine of course means disarming the public as we saw happen in New Orleans, and "isolating" us in our new confinment centers.
When the government’s involved, always ask yourself: qui bono? Who benefits?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
ADC
“COLORADO SPRINGS — The commander of military forces protecting North America has ordered a review of the costly air defenses intended to prevent another Sept. 11-style terrorism attack, an assessment aimed at determining whether the commitment of jet fighters, other aircraft and crews remains justified. Senior officers involved in the effort say the assessment is to gauge the likelihood that terrorists may succeed in hijacking an airliner or flying their own smaller craft into the United States or Canada. The study is focused on circumstances in which the attack would be aimed not at a public building or landmark but instead at a power plant or a critical link in the nation’s financial network, like a major electrical grid or a computer network hub.”
Of the 8 years I spent in the Air Force, ‘bout three quarters of them were in ADC (Air Defense Command), primarily assigned to fighter interceptor squadrons. Admittedly I was never a “senior officer” (actually I was little more than a mid-grade NCO), nor an expert on the subject, but I do tend to think that I have a fair working knowledge of intercepting intruding aircraft. A good many people will remember the Cold War days of the 1950’s and 60’s when the US air defenses consisted of radar sites scattered all over the country (there was one such site on Cottonwood Butte), and couple of thousand jet fighters in nearly a hundred fighter squadrons all across the nation. The Navy added to the effort with radar picket ships and planes on the high seas, while the Army had numerous anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air missiles sited around every vital target they could think of. Established in March of 1946, ADC became Aerospace Defense Command in 1968 (reflecting the new emphasis on guided missiles), and was finally deactivated in 1979 as a cost cutting measure due to the steadily decreasing likelihood of a mass Soviet air attack. NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) is a joint venture of the United States and Canada that still exists, but today is primarily concerned with space operations. The fighters are gone, the anti-aircraft guns and missiles are gone, the radars have been taken over by the FAA (and are mostly gone). ADC cost us billions of dollars through its lifetime, but I’d say it was money well spent… or at least I never heard of a Soviet bomb falling on Kalamazoo, and I have no doubt the Soviet’s would have tried if they had ever thought they could get away with it. In comparison, only 14 aircraft at seven bases nationwide were on alert status before 9-11.
Today our air defenses are nearly nonexistent, consisting of little more than FAA radars that don’t cover the entire country, can’t see anything flying at less than 15,000 feet or so, and can’t even see an airliner if he’s got his transponder turned off! I understand that our fighter defense presently consists of a dozen or so National Guard F-16’s assigned a defense role in addition to everything else expected of them. Yet 9-11 aptly demonstrated that this country CAN be attacked from the air, and statistics provided by NORAD show that there were more than 1,000 “suspicious” air incidents in 2008, of which more than 200 actually required the scrambling of jet fighters. Yet in order to “save money” we’re considering eliminating even that miniscule effort!?
Granted that high-jacking an airliner today might be a bit more difficult than it was in 2001, and that terrorists are really quite ingenious at finding other ways to kill people, an assault by air is still one of the best means to do something in a spectacular manner. Remember that just about every Muslim country in the world has its own national airline, and most of them fly to the US on a regular basis. A 747, loaded to the ‘gunnels with explosives, and flown by a suicidal crew would make a jim-dandy kamikaze if it hit New York, Washington, Boston, Miami, or Los Angles. What might happen if one were targeted at one of the Columbia River Dams… or perhaps Hanford? Even worse would be one loaded with chemical or biological agents flying over one of our major cities. Smaller corporate jet aircraft are easy to come by, quick and agile, can fly to nearly anywhere, and generally carry a pretty fair payload. A nuclear artillery shell (if terrorists could steal one) can even be carried by the proverbial Piper Cub, and detonated by a suicidal pilot! Of course the next question is, how to get something like that into the country? Well… we don’t seem to be having much luck in stopping the flow of illegal drugs… or illegal immigrants…
If we must have a “stimulus program” handing out a trillion dollars or so (and probably Stimulus II as well), I’ll suggest that part of the money would be much better spent rebuilding a national air defense capability rather than just handing the money out at random. At least we’d have something to show for it. Nor do we need the $150 million each F-22 Raptor multi-role stealth fighter in an “at home” air defense role. In a purely air defense situation the 1980’s designed (at $15 million a copy) Northrop F-20 Tigershark air superiority fighter would be much better suited to the role. Perhaps we don’t need a system quite as extensive as that of the Cold War, but events have proven that we definitely do need the ability to defend ourselves from air attack, irregardless of whether or not the Generals want to spend the money. Of those two hundred aerial incidents that demanded a response? It only takes one… Are you listening Congress?
Of the 8 years I spent in the Air Force, ‘bout three quarters of them were in ADC (Air Defense Command), primarily assigned to fighter interceptor squadrons. Admittedly I was never a “senior officer” (actually I was little more than a mid-grade NCO), nor an expert on the subject, but I do tend to think that I have a fair working knowledge of intercepting intruding aircraft. A good many people will remember the Cold War days of the 1950’s and 60’s when the US air defenses consisted of radar sites scattered all over the country (there was one such site on Cottonwood Butte), and couple of thousand jet fighters in nearly a hundred fighter squadrons all across the nation. The Navy added to the effort with radar picket ships and planes on the high seas, while the Army had numerous anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air missiles sited around every vital target they could think of. Established in March of 1946, ADC became Aerospace Defense Command in 1968 (reflecting the new emphasis on guided missiles), and was finally deactivated in 1979 as a cost cutting measure due to the steadily decreasing likelihood of a mass Soviet air attack. NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) is a joint venture of the United States and Canada that still exists, but today is primarily concerned with space operations. The fighters are gone, the anti-aircraft guns and missiles are gone, the radars have been taken over by the FAA (and are mostly gone). ADC cost us billions of dollars through its lifetime, but I’d say it was money well spent… or at least I never heard of a Soviet bomb falling on Kalamazoo, and I have no doubt the Soviet’s would have tried if they had ever thought they could get away with it. In comparison, only 14 aircraft at seven bases nationwide were on alert status before 9-11.
Today our air defenses are nearly nonexistent, consisting of little more than FAA radars that don’t cover the entire country, can’t see anything flying at less than 15,000 feet or so, and can’t even see an airliner if he’s got his transponder turned off! I understand that our fighter defense presently consists of a dozen or so National Guard F-16’s assigned a defense role in addition to everything else expected of them. Yet 9-11 aptly demonstrated that this country CAN be attacked from the air, and statistics provided by NORAD show that there were more than 1,000 “suspicious” air incidents in 2008, of which more than 200 actually required the scrambling of jet fighters. Yet in order to “save money” we’re considering eliminating even that miniscule effort!?
Granted that high-jacking an airliner today might be a bit more difficult than it was in 2001, and that terrorists are really quite ingenious at finding other ways to kill people, an assault by air is still one of the best means to do something in a spectacular manner. Remember that just about every Muslim country in the world has its own national airline, and most of them fly to the US on a regular basis. A 747, loaded to the ‘gunnels with explosives, and flown by a suicidal crew would make a jim-dandy kamikaze if it hit New York, Washington, Boston, Miami, or Los Angles. What might happen if one were targeted at one of the Columbia River Dams… or perhaps Hanford? Even worse would be one loaded with chemical or biological agents flying over one of our major cities. Smaller corporate jet aircraft are easy to come by, quick and agile, can fly to nearly anywhere, and generally carry a pretty fair payload. A nuclear artillery shell (if terrorists could steal one) can even be carried by the proverbial Piper Cub, and detonated by a suicidal pilot! Of course the next question is, how to get something like that into the country? Well… we don’t seem to be having much luck in stopping the flow of illegal drugs… or illegal immigrants…
If we must have a “stimulus program” handing out a trillion dollars or so (and probably Stimulus II as well), I’ll suggest that part of the money would be much better spent rebuilding a national air defense capability rather than just handing the money out at random. At least we’d have something to show for it. Nor do we need the $150 million each F-22 Raptor multi-role stealth fighter in an “at home” air defense role. In a purely air defense situation the 1980’s designed (at $15 million a copy) Northrop F-20 Tigershark air superiority fighter would be much better suited to the role. Perhaps we don’t need a system quite as extensive as that of the Cold War, but events have proven that we definitely do need the ability to defend ourselves from air attack, irregardless of whether or not the Generals want to spend the money. Of those two hundred aerial incidents that demanded a response? It only takes one… Are you listening Congress?
Monday, November 23, 2009
Freedom Lost
Do you like living free? Oh? And just how free have you felt over the last few years?
We can't just sit back and allow the loss of our freedoms… or can we? We elect the government, and it works for us, or at least that’s the theory. Remember the famous phrase “Of the people, by the people, and for the people”? We are the government after all, and government is not supposed to be a mob of radicals (either far left, or far right) sitting in Washington giving every appearance of being completely disconnected from reality, and quite happily forcing their wishes on the rest of us. As we watch Obama’s plan for health care being rammed through an uncaring Congress despite overall public opposition, we can only ask how our government got so arrogant that it now presumes it can dictate how we live our personal lives. The House of Representatives voted (by only a five vote majority you may have noticed) to have the federal government manage the health care of every American. If this bill passes the Senate and becomes law, the federal government will be legally able to force you to buy medical insurance you might not want, or may not need, or cannot afford. If you don’t purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don’t do so when they tell you to do it, and if you don’t buy just what they think is right for you, the government may fine you up to a quarter million dollars, and even put you in jail for five years. I’ve often said than anyone who drives down the street without auto insurance is out of their mind, and in this day and age medical insurance is much the same. But I strenuously object to the government telling me the “what’s, where’s, and how’s” of insuring my little corner of the world! It is after all my corner, and MY choice! Actually this entire runaround is a good example of the socialist elite style of governing, “do what we tell you or go to jail."
In the aftermath of 9-11, the Bush administration hurriedly pushed the “Patriot Act” through a panicky Congress, and soon presented us with the Department of Homeland Security, all in the name of fighting a war on terror and thus making us “safe”. With that, our government can declare anyone who disagrees with the official line a terrorist, spy on them, strip search them at the airport, search their home without permission or a search warrant, lock them away for an indefinite period without charges, restrict any financial dealing they might have (if they have any money left that is), restrict their travels, and even interfere with the enjoyment of various (potentially terrorist oriented I assume) hobbies! It restricts immigration and naturalization of those who would like to become American citizens, but doesn’t seem to have had any effect on the illegal immigration problem. It hasn’t had much effect on terrorism either, at least none that I can see.
Although I haven’t seen it yet, I understand there’s a provision in the upcoming “cap-and-trade” bill that will require you to have an EPA permit to sell your house, that’s intended to make sure that your home meets all the latest government energy standards. Anyone who has ever dealt with the FHA or VA should understand all the hoops that will require you to jump through.
Mr. Obama has proposed to double the national debt within one year, a debt that has taken us more than two centuries to accumulate, and additionally proposes to double the debt yet again within the next 10 years. Sen. Reid on the other hand is reportedly planning to cover the estimated $1.2 trillion dollar cost of Obamacare with increased payroll taxes on “the rich”. Just how many “rich folks” do they think we have in this country, and if their taxes keep going up, just how long will they remain that way?!
Strangely enough, the United States has more proven oil reserves in the ground than does Saudi Arabia, yet half-baked environmental regulations don’t allow us to extract or use that oil, effectively keeping us in economic thralldom to foreign nations. Environmental laws deny us the use or enjoyment of our own public lands. “Political correctness” determines what I can say, where I can say it, and even how I can say it.
Things were not supposed to be this way. Our founders determined that we would elect the government, and that it would work for us. How did things get so removed, so unbridled, that government thinks it can now tell us how to live our lives? “Freedoms lost” rarely comes upon us in one fell swoop, and liberty is rarely lost with one stroke of the pen. It happens gradually over time, through the years and decades. A little stretch of the rules here, a little oversight there, and powers are slowly taken from the states and the people. Before you know it, we have one massive government that recognizes no restraints, and claims the power to regulate any activity, tax any behavior, and demand conformity to any standard it chooses. Our nation’s founders did not give us the government we seem to have today. The government enacted by our Constitution was strictly limited in its powers, was to guaranteed individual liberty, preserved the free market, and on private matters was supposed to keep its nose out of our business. When writing our Constitution, our nations Founders built in a series of checks and balances. If the Congress got out of hand, the states could restrain it. If the states stole our liberty or property, Congress could rein them in. If the President tried to become king, the Supreme Court would prevent it. And today?
So what can we now do about the loss of freedom? As Fox News commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano says, “For starters, we can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices! We can persuade our state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care -- where the Constitution gives the Feds zero authority. We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.” Sounds like good advice to me, as we sure can’t just sit back on our behinds and let government walk all over us.
I’m told that Americans are the freest people on Earth. If that’s the case, and looking back at what we’ve lost over the last thirty years, the rest of the world has my deepest sympathies!
We can't just sit back and allow the loss of our freedoms… or can we? We elect the government, and it works for us, or at least that’s the theory. Remember the famous phrase “Of the people, by the people, and for the people”? We are the government after all, and government is not supposed to be a mob of radicals (either far left, or far right) sitting in Washington giving every appearance of being completely disconnected from reality, and quite happily forcing their wishes on the rest of us. As we watch Obama’s plan for health care being rammed through an uncaring Congress despite overall public opposition, we can only ask how our government got so arrogant that it now presumes it can dictate how we live our personal lives. The House of Representatives voted (by only a five vote majority you may have noticed) to have the federal government manage the health care of every American. If this bill passes the Senate and becomes law, the federal government will be legally able to force you to buy medical insurance you might not want, or may not need, or cannot afford. If you don’t purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don’t do so when they tell you to do it, and if you don’t buy just what they think is right for you, the government may fine you up to a quarter million dollars, and even put you in jail for five years. I’ve often said than anyone who drives down the street without auto insurance is out of their mind, and in this day and age medical insurance is much the same. But I strenuously object to the government telling me the “what’s, where’s, and how’s” of insuring my little corner of the world! It is after all my corner, and MY choice! Actually this entire runaround is a good example of the socialist elite style of governing, “do what we tell you or go to jail."
In the aftermath of 9-11, the Bush administration hurriedly pushed the “Patriot Act” through a panicky Congress, and soon presented us with the Department of Homeland Security, all in the name of fighting a war on terror and thus making us “safe”. With that, our government can declare anyone who disagrees with the official line a terrorist, spy on them, strip search them at the airport, search their home without permission or a search warrant, lock them away for an indefinite period without charges, restrict any financial dealing they might have (if they have any money left that is), restrict their travels, and even interfere with the enjoyment of various (potentially terrorist oriented I assume) hobbies! It restricts immigration and naturalization of those who would like to become American citizens, but doesn’t seem to have had any effect on the illegal immigration problem. It hasn’t had much effect on terrorism either, at least none that I can see.
Although I haven’t seen it yet, I understand there’s a provision in the upcoming “cap-and-trade” bill that will require you to have an EPA permit to sell your house, that’s intended to make sure that your home meets all the latest government energy standards. Anyone who has ever dealt with the FHA or VA should understand all the hoops that will require you to jump through.
Mr. Obama has proposed to double the national debt within one year, a debt that has taken us more than two centuries to accumulate, and additionally proposes to double the debt yet again within the next 10 years. Sen. Reid on the other hand is reportedly planning to cover the estimated $1.2 trillion dollar cost of Obamacare with increased payroll taxes on “the rich”. Just how many “rich folks” do they think we have in this country, and if their taxes keep going up, just how long will they remain that way?!
Strangely enough, the United States has more proven oil reserves in the ground than does Saudi Arabia, yet half-baked environmental regulations don’t allow us to extract or use that oil, effectively keeping us in economic thralldom to foreign nations. Environmental laws deny us the use or enjoyment of our own public lands. “Political correctness” determines what I can say, where I can say it, and even how I can say it.
Things were not supposed to be this way. Our founders determined that we would elect the government, and that it would work for us. How did things get so removed, so unbridled, that government thinks it can now tell us how to live our lives? “Freedoms lost” rarely comes upon us in one fell swoop, and liberty is rarely lost with one stroke of the pen. It happens gradually over time, through the years and decades. A little stretch of the rules here, a little oversight there, and powers are slowly taken from the states and the people. Before you know it, we have one massive government that recognizes no restraints, and claims the power to regulate any activity, tax any behavior, and demand conformity to any standard it chooses. Our nation’s founders did not give us the government we seem to have today. The government enacted by our Constitution was strictly limited in its powers, was to guaranteed individual liberty, preserved the free market, and on private matters was supposed to keep its nose out of our business. When writing our Constitution, our nations Founders built in a series of checks and balances. If the Congress got out of hand, the states could restrain it. If the states stole our liberty or property, Congress could rein them in. If the President tried to become king, the Supreme Court would prevent it. And today?
So what can we now do about the loss of freedom? As Fox News commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano says, “For starters, we can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices! We can persuade our state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care -- where the Constitution gives the Feds zero authority. We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.” Sounds like good advice to me, as we sure can’t just sit back on our behinds and let government walk all over us.
I’m told that Americans are the freest people on Earth. If that’s the case, and looking back at what we’ve lost over the last thirty years, the rest of the world has my deepest sympathies!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
A Third Party?
American political parties aren’t dead, but they’ve both been doing a pretty creditable job of simulating just that for several decades now. The trouble with the Democratic Party is that they’ve been chasing after social theories and reading Marxist books instead of studying human nature. ‘Course the Republicans have been equally busy chasing after a centralized government since the first day they were organized. Both parties seem to have forgotten that the United States of America was founded on the precept of a maximum of individual liberty, and a minimum of government interference. Now, with both parties advocating big government, big spending and globalism, they have effectively merged in all but name. And both face a perhaps insurmountable challenge. Third party candidates are shaking things up in quite a few political races, and the success of those candidates is a warning shot across the bow of the “Republicrats”. Fired by voters angry and disillusioned by politics as usual, this points to an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment sentiment that could become quite serious by the 2010 congressional elections. "What it says is the public is looking for less self-interested parties and candidates who can reflect the needs of a very frustrated public," said Douglas Astolfi, a history professor at Florida's St. Leo University. "We have two wars and we're in a recession that neither party seems to address in any positive way. There's a deep sense that government has abandoned the common man. People are frustrated and angry." A recent news poll found that trust in government is at a 12-year low, and half of all Americans now support the creation of a new political party, even though we already have over two hundred registered parties in the United States. Nine of those splinter parties are registered as Communist/Marxist, and I often think the loony left ought to officially join that list! There are six Right wing parties, four centrist parties, six Left wing parties, five Libertarian parties, and a whole herd of small special interest groups.
Since the formation of organized political parties in the 1830s, this country has had a two party system in which the “winner take all” Electoral College makes “sharing” the governing power as we see in a Parliamentary system nearly impossible. Secondly, it’s extremely difficult for a third party to raise the funds needed to seriously challenge the primary parties. Ballot access laws make it very hard for third party candidates to even get on the ballot in all 50 states. Still, it can be done, and the candidates can make an impressive showing as was demonstrated by Teddy Roosevelt with his “Bull Moose” party, George Wallace and the American Independent Party, and most recently in 1992 when Ross Perot ran as an Independent. Although third parties never win nationally, and rarely win locally, they can certainly have an effect on elections. Third parties can draw attention to issues being ignored by the majority parties, and depending on voter response, one or both of the major parties may adopt the issue. Also, a third party may be used by the voter to cast a protest vote. Third parties may also help bring more people to the polls. Third party candidates at the top of the ticket can help to draw attention to other party candidates down the ballot, helping them to win local or state office. Most effectively, they act as “spoilers”, in that they draw off much of the voting strength of one or the other primary party. We saw that when Ross Perot drew so many voters away from George Bush in 1992, that he effectively handed the election to Bill Clinton.
At present the concern in this country is not an existing third party, but rather the potential splitting of the Republican Party into its conservative and moderate wings, which would be a blessing for the Democrats. In New York, a candidate chosen by GOP leaders was forced out of the race by a Conservative Party candidate. In the New Jersey governor's race, an independent has gone from afterthought to player in a contest pitting an unpopular incumbent against a Republican challenger. In numerous contests next year, conservatives furious at the Republican establishment are mounting even more challenges against mainstream candidates favored by the national party. On the other side of the street, Democratic strategists worry that progressives, disgusted by the bank bailout and disillusioned with Barack Obama's apparent lack of fight might keep many people from voting. That could cost Democrats a few seats across the ballot. And both parties ignore such sentiment at their peril.
While I often think I’d prefer having a third choice, considering the realities of the American political system a third political party really isn’t a viable solution. We’d be much better served if our existing parties (particularly the Republicans) would get off their respective high horses and work together for a change. Jacobin political policies have always been the curse of America. Now political operatives are keeping an eye on independent voters, an important and growing group that often decides elections. Both parties would do well to consider the wishes of those Independents as we enter a midterm election season and our nation considers who will be granted the honor of leading us in the days ahead. The Independents would do well to remember that the times in which we live demand that we choose wisely.
A few of those qualities desperately needed in our public leaders would include the courage to make hard decisions, along with the character and core values that would merit our trust. With those core values we could also expect to see a modicum of self discipline. A clear vision for the future and the flexibility to learn, improve and adjust is something we seldom see anymore, but none-the-less is sorely needed. A track record of placing the good of the people over personal ambition is a trait sadly lacking in most of our elected officials, and were it a required qualification for office would probably eliminate about 95% of the members of Congress. Finally, having the patience of Job and the Wisdom of Solomon would help I’d think.
Nations survive on the ability of their leaders. The quality of our leaders is dependent on us.
Since the formation of organized political parties in the 1830s, this country has had a two party system in which the “winner take all” Electoral College makes “sharing” the governing power as we see in a Parliamentary system nearly impossible. Secondly, it’s extremely difficult for a third party to raise the funds needed to seriously challenge the primary parties. Ballot access laws make it very hard for third party candidates to even get on the ballot in all 50 states. Still, it can be done, and the candidates can make an impressive showing as was demonstrated by Teddy Roosevelt with his “Bull Moose” party, George Wallace and the American Independent Party, and most recently in 1992 when Ross Perot ran as an Independent. Although third parties never win nationally, and rarely win locally, they can certainly have an effect on elections. Third parties can draw attention to issues being ignored by the majority parties, and depending on voter response, one or both of the major parties may adopt the issue. Also, a third party may be used by the voter to cast a protest vote. Third parties may also help bring more people to the polls. Third party candidates at the top of the ticket can help to draw attention to other party candidates down the ballot, helping them to win local or state office. Most effectively, they act as “spoilers”, in that they draw off much of the voting strength of one or the other primary party. We saw that when Ross Perot drew so many voters away from George Bush in 1992, that he effectively handed the election to Bill Clinton.
At present the concern in this country is not an existing third party, but rather the potential splitting of the Republican Party into its conservative and moderate wings, which would be a blessing for the Democrats. In New York, a candidate chosen by GOP leaders was forced out of the race by a Conservative Party candidate. In the New Jersey governor's race, an independent has gone from afterthought to player in a contest pitting an unpopular incumbent against a Republican challenger. In numerous contests next year, conservatives furious at the Republican establishment are mounting even more challenges against mainstream candidates favored by the national party. On the other side of the street, Democratic strategists worry that progressives, disgusted by the bank bailout and disillusioned with Barack Obama's apparent lack of fight might keep many people from voting. That could cost Democrats a few seats across the ballot. And both parties ignore such sentiment at their peril.
While I often think I’d prefer having a third choice, considering the realities of the American political system a third political party really isn’t a viable solution. We’d be much better served if our existing parties (particularly the Republicans) would get off their respective high horses and work together for a change. Jacobin political policies have always been the curse of America. Now political operatives are keeping an eye on independent voters, an important and growing group that often decides elections. Both parties would do well to consider the wishes of those Independents as we enter a midterm election season and our nation considers who will be granted the honor of leading us in the days ahead. The Independents would do well to remember that the times in which we live demand that we choose wisely.
A few of those qualities desperately needed in our public leaders would include the courage to make hard decisions, along with the character and core values that would merit our trust. With those core values we could also expect to see a modicum of self discipline. A clear vision for the future and the flexibility to learn, improve and adjust is something we seldom see anymore, but none-the-less is sorely needed. A track record of placing the good of the people over personal ambition is a trait sadly lacking in most of our elected officials, and were it a required qualification for office would probably eliminate about 95% of the members of Congress. Finally, having the patience of Job and the Wisdom of Solomon would help I’d think.
Nations survive on the ability of their leaders. The quality of our leaders is dependent on us.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Preventive Detention
As inevitably happens following nearly any political campaign, we expected a number of broken promises. But now it seems that we’re getting ‘em in spades! The hopes and expectations following Barack Obama's inauguration had many people thinking that perhaps he could “pull us together again”. Unfortunately, his performance over the last few months makes Bill Clinton look like the ideal of integrity and follow-through! From healthcare to torture, from the economy to the war, Mr. Obama has backed off on a wide assortment of the nearly 500 campaign promises he made.
Certainly I wasn’t all that happy with many of President Bush’s programs, or his way of doing things, but at least I could understand the “what and why” of most of what he was attempting. Some of his failings could be blamed on simple bureaucratic failures and others on a totally partisan congress. Many were pure and simply his own darn fault. Still, during his first-term, President Bush was unwilling to go to Congress to get expanded presidential powers, even where Congress would have been happy to give them to him; during his second term, Bush, like Obama today, was more than willing to allow Congress to rubber stamp his proposals, hence, the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc. and etc. ad nauseaum.
Mr. Obama travels overseas (at taxpayer expense) to apologize to our enemies for being the richest and most powerful country in the world. He apologizes to Muslim nations because we’re a Christian nation. He apologizes to Marxist dictators because Americans believe in liberty. He apologizes to Africa over a slavery situation that occurred a hundred and fifty years ago. What’s next, will he apologize to Germany for the Normandy invasion?! He’s reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, apparently in fear of annoying the Turkish government. He’s reneged on his campaign promise to allow a period of public comment before signing Bills presented by Congress. We are currently engaged in two comparatively “small” wars in which our military is terribly overextended and taking an unnecessary beating. The Generals are begging for troops to prosecute those wars and save American lives, and Mr. Obama now wants to cut our faltering military strength by 25%! He appoints “Czars” to handle everything under the sun, bypassing the normal federal bureaucracy. The only qualification necessary to be a Czar is an avowed belief in Marxism! He runs the federal deficit up to astronomical numbers in the name of “sharing the wealth”, but it seems the only people getting a share are corporate campaign contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists, and assorted corrupt politicians! He won’t (or can’t) even prove that he’s legally qualified to hold office! Obama apparently knows nothing about economics, diplomacy, the military, or national affairs. Effectively he’s useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous, which is why he ought to resign before he drags us even further down the path to destruction.
The latest pronouncement from the anointed one is “preventive detentions.” Essentially, Mr. Obama wants an "entirely new chapter in American law". With this latest bright idea, if a cop or any other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, they can arrest you or anyone else right off the street, and hold you indefinitely in what’s called "prolonged detention." Media reports imply that this new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, any potential “sorta-kinda thinking about terrorism” types. Of course the authorities also get to define just what that potential terrorism is, which would likely include what George Orwell called "thought-crime" in his book “1984”. (If Congress buys into this plan, please don’t annoy anyone in authority!) Preventive detention under whatever name is a classic characteristic of any dictatorship, because a dictatorial regimes top priority is self-preservation rather than improving the people's lives. They worry about the one thing they can't control, individual thought that just might lead to rebellious activity. Independent thoughts are potentially dangerous to a totalitarian regime. (Vietnam vets will remember Charlie’s habit of torturing and killing anyone who might ever become a threat to communist control.) Locking people away who haven't done anything wrong is not only un-American; it’s a direct attack on the basic principles of law. It’s also contrary to the notions of human decency. What kind of monster do we have sitting in the White House, who would even consider promoting such an offense against civilization itself! And even if you’re comfortable with Mr. Obama having this sort of power because you trust him not to abuse it, are you comfortable with the idea of some future President having the power of indefinite "preventive detention"?
The New York Times pontificated that "Prolonged detention” would be inflicted upon "terrorism suspects who cannot be tried." Ah… Okay, and just why can’t they be tried? What they mean of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys imprisoned at Gitmo and the thousands of "detainees" the Obama Administration apparently anticipates arresting in the future cannot be convicted of any actual crime. Much like the Soviet Union, where putting enemies of the state on trial wasn't enough, conviction had to be guaranteed, or there would be no trial, just a long time in “detention”. The Soviets had their Gulag… and now we get “Detention Centers”. Obama stated that "Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted." If we follow the law, any terrorist suspect can be tried. Rightfully, anyone can be tried for committing any crime, within a specific jurisdiction. But consider that there is a Somali teenager sitting in a New York prison, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where U.S. law has no legal jurisdiction. Anyone accused of committing a crime can be tried. However, where the legal system still works it’s assumed that people against whom there is a "lack of evidence" are innocent. They walk. Where the rule of law prevails, in places free of leaders whose only concern is staying in power, "tainted evidence" is not even considered evidence. If you can't prove that the defendant committed a crime--an actual crime, not a thought crime—the last I heard you have to release him. Mr. Obama is a Law Proffessor 'fer 'th luvva Pete, and he dosen't understand that!? It’s amazing that after all the illegal things the Democrats accused President Bush of, they don’t understand these basic rules either. Obama's White House Counsel described him as "The first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law". Well, technically that is a form of change I guess, but probably not what many Obama supporters expected.
It’s ironic that the man who campaigned on “transparency in government” is less transparent than the president he attacked for excessive secrecy. At least Bush and Cheney believed they had the constitutional right to act in any way they saw fit, regardless of what the public understands about Constitutional law. Bush declared "I'm the decider" and he definitely meant it. This administration apparently believes it has the same right, and just pretends otherwise.
Certainly I wasn’t all that happy with many of President Bush’s programs, or his way of doing things, but at least I could understand the “what and why” of most of what he was attempting. Some of his failings could be blamed on simple bureaucratic failures and others on a totally partisan congress. Many were pure and simply his own darn fault. Still, during his first-term, President Bush was unwilling to go to Congress to get expanded presidential powers, even where Congress would have been happy to give them to him; during his second term, Bush, like Obama today, was more than willing to allow Congress to rubber stamp his proposals, hence, the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc. and etc. ad nauseaum.
Mr. Obama travels overseas (at taxpayer expense) to apologize to our enemies for being the richest and most powerful country in the world. He apologizes to Muslim nations because we’re a Christian nation. He apologizes to Marxist dictators because Americans believe in liberty. He apologizes to Africa over a slavery situation that occurred a hundred and fifty years ago. What’s next, will he apologize to Germany for the Normandy invasion?! He’s reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, apparently in fear of annoying the Turkish government. He’s reneged on his campaign promise to allow a period of public comment before signing Bills presented by Congress. We are currently engaged in two comparatively “small” wars in which our military is terribly overextended and taking an unnecessary beating. The Generals are begging for troops to prosecute those wars and save American lives, and Mr. Obama now wants to cut our faltering military strength by 25%! He appoints “Czars” to handle everything under the sun, bypassing the normal federal bureaucracy. The only qualification necessary to be a Czar is an avowed belief in Marxism! He runs the federal deficit up to astronomical numbers in the name of “sharing the wealth”, but it seems the only people getting a share are corporate campaign contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists, and assorted corrupt politicians! He won’t (or can’t) even prove that he’s legally qualified to hold office! Obama apparently knows nothing about economics, diplomacy, the military, or national affairs. Effectively he’s useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous, which is why he ought to resign before he drags us even further down the path to destruction.
The latest pronouncement from the anointed one is “preventive detentions.” Essentially, Mr. Obama wants an "entirely new chapter in American law". With this latest bright idea, if a cop or any other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, they can arrest you or anyone else right off the street, and hold you indefinitely in what’s called "prolonged detention." Media reports imply that this new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, any potential “sorta-kinda thinking about terrorism” types. Of course the authorities also get to define just what that potential terrorism is, which would likely include what George Orwell called "thought-crime" in his book “1984”. (If Congress buys into this plan, please don’t annoy anyone in authority!) Preventive detention under whatever name is a classic characteristic of any dictatorship, because a dictatorial regimes top priority is self-preservation rather than improving the people's lives. They worry about the one thing they can't control, individual thought that just might lead to rebellious activity. Independent thoughts are potentially dangerous to a totalitarian regime. (Vietnam vets will remember Charlie’s habit of torturing and killing anyone who might ever become a threat to communist control.) Locking people away who haven't done anything wrong is not only un-American; it’s a direct attack on the basic principles of law. It’s also contrary to the notions of human decency. What kind of monster do we have sitting in the White House, who would even consider promoting such an offense against civilization itself! And even if you’re comfortable with Mr. Obama having this sort of power because you trust him not to abuse it, are you comfortable with the idea of some future President having the power of indefinite "preventive detention"?
The New York Times pontificated that "Prolonged detention” would be inflicted upon "terrorism suspects who cannot be tried." Ah… Okay, and just why can’t they be tried? What they mean of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys imprisoned at Gitmo and the thousands of "detainees" the Obama Administration apparently anticipates arresting in the future cannot be convicted of any actual crime. Much like the Soviet Union, where putting enemies of the state on trial wasn't enough, conviction had to be guaranteed, or there would be no trial, just a long time in “detention”. The Soviets had their Gulag… and now we get “Detention Centers”. Obama stated that "Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted." If we follow the law, any terrorist suspect can be tried. Rightfully, anyone can be tried for committing any crime, within a specific jurisdiction. But consider that there is a Somali teenager sitting in a New York prison, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where U.S. law has no legal jurisdiction. Anyone accused of committing a crime can be tried. However, where the legal system still works it’s assumed that people against whom there is a "lack of evidence" are innocent. They walk. Where the rule of law prevails, in places free of leaders whose only concern is staying in power, "tainted evidence" is not even considered evidence. If you can't prove that the defendant committed a crime--an actual crime, not a thought crime—the last I heard you have to release him. Mr. Obama is a Law Proffessor 'fer 'th luvva Pete, and he dosen't understand that!? It’s amazing that after all the illegal things the Democrats accused President Bush of, they don’t understand these basic rules either. Obama's White House Counsel described him as "The first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law". Well, technically that is a form of change I guess, but probably not what many Obama supporters expected.
It’s ironic that the man who campaigned on “transparency in government” is less transparent than the president he attacked for excessive secrecy. At least Bush and Cheney believed they had the constitutional right to act in any way they saw fit, regardless of what the public understands about Constitutional law. Bush declared "I'm the decider" and he definitely meant it. This administration apparently believes it has the same right, and just pretends otherwise.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Alienated
“If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
I’ve commented several times in these pages that when I joined the armed forces of this nation I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I’ve also stated that even now, in my declining years, I still consider that oath binding. The one question that always arises is, who is the enemy, and who has the authority to make such a declaration? Back in the “old days” that really wasn’t much of a problem, as the “enemy” was whoever the President and Congress jointly said they were. A few things have changed in the intervening years however, and have added quite a bit of confusion to the issue. The President of the United States is considered to be the supreme command authority by the armed forces, and by all federal agencies, and there are strict constitutional restraints placed on his exercise of power. But nowdays, it seems the President can determine that we have an enemy, without the advice and consent of Congress.
With the sole exception of habeas corpus, the Constitution does not allow the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency, yet with the “War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933”, Congress placed the United States under a “state of emergency” (and effectively suspended the Constitution), that has never rescinded that act. With this act, the President now has a variety of extraordinary powers to use in response to crisis or emergency circumstances threatening the nation, and they are not limited to military or war situations either. Some of these emergency powers are continuously available, while others exist on a standby basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national emergency. Under those dormant powers, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize control of transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, and restrict travel, all within the United States, thus controlling the everyday lives of United States citizens. With this, if the President (not Congress) determines that a State of Emergency exists for whatever reason, he can immediately assume dictatorial powers. On top of that, we have Executive Order 11921, which states that Congress may not review any presidential emergency action for a period of six months! (After six months of a complete dictatorship, would we even have a congress?)
In the brief time Mr. Obama has been in office, we’ve had "truthers," "birthers," Tea Party activists and town-hall dissenters disturbing the loony left’s peace of mind, and I’ll bet causing more than a few ulcers. Now we have the "Oath Keepers", causing a few more sleepless nights at the White House. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath Keepers, depending on your view, are "either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia." Recently formed, “they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders.” Thus, if the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate our Second Amendment rights by disarming the people (in obedience to Executive Orders), Oath Keepers say they will not obey. "The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here," says founder Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. "My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can't do it without them.” "We say if the American people decide it's time for a revolution, we'll fight with you." The establishment's reaction to the Oath Keepers will be interesting to watch. Particularly so as our political and media elite seem to have lost touch with the nation, and are locked into a socialist vision of America that is totally divorced from reality. If you think the Pelosi-Reid branch of the loony left went ballistic over town-hall protesters, you can imagine what they’ll do with the Oath Keepers! The credo of this group is expressed in their “Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey”, which states in part…
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
(The “Oath Keepers” can be found at: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ )
One pundit wrote: “This sounds all well and good, if you do not obey the orders you will be relieved of duty, court-martialed, and thrown out of whatever service you are in. There is not enough of you to make a difference or to stop the government from doing what they want, or enforcing whatever law they decide to make against the American people.” He is in all likelihood correct as to their numbers, but their mere existence should give the government pause for thought. These are the same Americans who dedicated their lives to the defense of the nation and the American people. As to a Court-Martial, well… if they’re no longer in military service, they’re not subject to the UCMJ. If they are in military service, they’re duty bound not to obey illegal orders. And what can you do to a disobedient Cop… other than fire him? And I also noticed that they don’t say anything about starting the rebellion either.
Liberals are the people who cannot comprehend that Middle America distrusts its burgeoning liberal/socialist government, yet we’ve seen these folks many times before. They were Perot supporters in 1992, opposed NAFTA in 1993, blocked the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty in 2007, and supported Ron Paul in 2008. America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.
I’ve commented several times in these pages that when I joined the armed forces of this nation I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I’ve also stated that even now, in my declining years, I still consider that oath binding. The one question that always arises is, who is the enemy, and who has the authority to make such a declaration? Back in the “old days” that really wasn’t much of a problem, as the “enemy” was whoever the President and Congress jointly said they were. A few things have changed in the intervening years however, and have added quite a bit of confusion to the issue. The President of the United States is considered to be the supreme command authority by the armed forces, and by all federal agencies, and there are strict constitutional restraints placed on his exercise of power. But nowdays, it seems the President can determine that we have an enemy, without the advice and consent of Congress.
With the sole exception of habeas corpus, the Constitution does not allow the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency, yet with the “War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933”, Congress placed the United States under a “state of emergency” (and effectively suspended the Constitution), that has never rescinded that act. With this act, the President now has a variety of extraordinary powers to use in response to crisis or emergency circumstances threatening the nation, and they are not limited to military or war situations either. Some of these emergency powers are continuously available, while others exist on a standby basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national emergency. Under those dormant powers, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize control of transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, and restrict travel, all within the United States, thus controlling the everyday lives of United States citizens. With this, if the President (not Congress) determines that a State of Emergency exists for whatever reason, he can immediately assume dictatorial powers. On top of that, we have Executive Order 11921, which states that Congress may not review any presidential emergency action for a period of six months! (After six months of a complete dictatorship, would we even have a congress?)
In the brief time Mr. Obama has been in office, we’ve had "truthers," "birthers," Tea Party activists and town-hall dissenters disturbing the loony left’s peace of mind, and I’ll bet causing more than a few ulcers. Now we have the "Oath Keepers", causing a few more sleepless nights at the White House. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath Keepers, depending on your view, are "either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia." Recently formed, “they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders.” Thus, if the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate our Second Amendment rights by disarming the people (in obedience to Executive Orders), Oath Keepers say they will not obey. "The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here," says founder Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. "My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can't do it without them.” "We say if the American people decide it's time for a revolution, we'll fight with you." The establishment's reaction to the Oath Keepers will be interesting to watch. Particularly so as our political and media elite seem to have lost touch with the nation, and are locked into a socialist vision of America that is totally divorced from reality. If you think the Pelosi-Reid branch of the loony left went ballistic over town-hall protesters, you can imagine what they’ll do with the Oath Keepers! The credo of this group is expressed in their “Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey”, which states in part…
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
(The “Oath Keepers” can be found at: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ )
One pundit wrote: “This sounds all well and good, if you do not obey the orders you will be relieved of duty, court-martialed, and thrown out of whatever service you are in. There is not enough of you to make a difference or to stop the government from doing what they want, or enforcing whatever law they decide to make against the American people.” He is in all likelihood correct as to their numbers, but their mere existence should give the government pause for thought. These are the same Americans who dedicated their lives to the defense of the nation and the American people. As to a Court-Martial, well… if they’re no longer in military service, they’re not subject to the UCMJ. If they are in military service, they’re duty bound not to obey illegal orders. And what can you do to a disobedient Cop… other than fire him? And I also noticed that they don’t say anything about starting the rebellion either.
Liberals are the people who cannot comprehend that Middle America distrusts its burgeoning liberal/socialist government, yet we’ve seen these folks many times before. They were Perot supporters in 1992, opposed NAFTA in 1993, blocked the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty in 2007, and supported Ron Paul in 2008. America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Destabilization
I read Kathy Hedberg’s recent column about tech-challenged folks the other day, and had to laugh quite a bit. It’s nice to know that I’m not the only person in the world that has trouble with computers and all these other new-fangled gadgets. Not that I’m computer illiterate you understand, just severely impaired. Our local computer guru considers me to be one of his steadiest customers, and a call to my place is his idea of the next best thing to a low-cost coffee shop. Strange as it may seem however I’m really not a total stranger to technology either. I used to be a radar and computer technician of sorts… back when the US Air Force had some of the biggest radars and the best computers in the world, even if they were the size of a very large barn, and took the greater part of Hoover Dam’s total output to power ‘em up. That of course was long ago and far away, back in the days when I was a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed kid, and was proudly wearing the uniform of my countries armed forces.
Back in those days almost every kid was expected to serve a hitch in the military if he was physically qualified. Why? Well, among other things we were taught that as American citizens we had certain civic duties that included respecting our parents (and Mom’s apple pie), obeying the law, and defending the nation as needed. Those duties even included silly little things like being informed voters, although that was somewhat difficult at times. We somewhat reluctantly went to school, and even attended church on a semi-regular basis. In school we learned things like American history and how our government worked (well, how it used to work), and about a concept called patriotism, although I understand that in our modern day and age those subjects are considered propaganda and are very much out of favor with politically correct “educators”, while attending church taught us morality, and how to tell right from wrong. Christianity also seems to be somewhat politically incorrect nowdays as well. Some of us enlisted in the military directly out of high school, others went to college first, and quite a few went to work and waited for the draft to catch up with them, but eventually all of us had a chance at becoming soldiers.
It’s an old American tradition to avoid military service during peacetime, stemming I believe from our long distrust of large standing armies. Yet those same folks who avoided the military like the plague in peacetime were the first in line to enlist whenever war was forced upon us, and they proved to be pretty darn good soldiers. Most of us were imbued with the ideals of “Duty, Honor, Country”, (which just happens to be the West Point motto), irregardless of whether or not we realized that fact. Yet it seems like a lot of younger folk of today take the view that even wartime military service is only for fools and incompetents. Where, might we ask, after two hundred years of American dedication to the defense of our lifestyle and our country, have we lost that proud tradition?
Back in the 1950’s there were numerous books published that stressed the dangers of communism. The authors came from a very wide range of anti-communist zealots, people who had extensive experience with communism, and were very well aware of the threat. One fact constantly stressed by all was the threat of ideological subversion or “psychological warfare”, which is essentially a means to change the targeted person’s perceptions of reality. Most of us have heard the quote “if you tell a lie often and long enough, people will believe it”, and that is quite true. In the early 1800’s, many political thinkers observed the unfairness of the then almost feudal social/economic system existent in Europe, and began looking for a better way to do things. The ideas they developed were later described by Karl Marx in his rather turgid “Communist Manifesto”, were rapidly adopted by the socialists of the era, and were taught as gospel to their students. In America, philosophers (who were largely educators) were quick to follow the lead of their European brethren, and began teaching the glories of socialist theories to their students (a practice that continues to this day). Following the revolution, Russian communists under Lenin found a ready made following in the believers of American socialism, jumped to their aid, and soon began the subversion of the worlds leading capitalist country.
Essentially, communist subversion is divided into several stages, the first being Demoralization. Generally it takes about 15 to 30 years to demoralize a nation, because this is the time needed to educate one generation of students. Today, after being exposed to Marxist socialist ideology for three generations, with none of it being counter-balanced by morality and basic American values, is it really any wonder that so many of America’s youth are totally confused and lack any direction? Stage two is Destabilization. With a fragmented, demoralized people who have no idea of what or who they are, it only takes a few years to destabilize their economy and wreck their foreign relations. The nest stage of course is Crisis. It may take only a few weeks to bring the country to the verge of an internal crisis, as we often see happening in the third world. And after crisis with its violent changes of power, structure, and economy, you have so called period of normalization. Normalization is what happens when the following dictatorship assumes absolute power.
The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, and aptly demonstrated that Marxism is an unworkable political system. Still, once the demoralization of a nation has begun, it continues by its own inertia, and needs no further aid or direction from outside. Wannabe “Benevolent dictators” get themselves elected and will promise people all kind of goodies in order to continue destabilizing the nation… they will try to eliminate the principle of free market competition, wreck the economy, and will endeavor to put a Big Brother Government in charge of nearly everything. Once a dictator comes to power, all these fuzzy headed people who believe in a free lunch and who preach socialism are no longer needed, they will probably be lined up and shot. For an example of that we have only to look at the French revolution and the ensuing mass executions of the “Terror”.
Back in those days almost every kid was expected to serve a hitch in the military if he was physically qualified. Why? Well, among other things we were taught that as American citizens we had certain civic duties that included respecting our parents (and Mom’s apple pie), obeying the law, and defending the nation as needed. Those duties even included silly little things like being informed voters, although that was somewhat difficult at times. We somewhat reluctantly went to school, and even attended church on a semi-regular basis. In school we learned things like American history and how our government worked (well, how it used to work), and about a concept called patriotism, although I understand that in our modern day and age those subjects are considered propaganda and are very much out of favor with politically correct “educators”, while attending church taught us morality, and how to tell right from wrong. Christianity also seems to be somewhat politically incorrect nowdays as well. Some of us enlisted in the military directly out of high school, others went to college first, and quite a few went to work and waited for the draft to catch up with them, but eventually all of us had a chance at becoming soldiers.
It’s an old American tradition to avoid military service during peacetime, stemming I believe from our long distrust of large standing armies. Yet those same folks who avoided the military like the plague in peacetime were the first in line to enlist whenever war was forced upon us, and they proved to be pretty darn good soldiers. Most of us were imbued with the ideals of “Duty, Honor, Country”, (which just happens to be the West Point motto), irregardless of whether or not we realized that fact. Yet it seems like a lot of younger folk of today take the view that even wartime military service is only for fools and incompetents. Where, might we ask, after two hundred years of American dedication to the defense of our lifestyle and our country, have we lost that proud tradition?
Back in the 1950’s there were numerous books published that stressed the dangers of communism. The authors came from a very wide range of anti-communist zealots, people who had extensive experience with communism, and were very well aware of the threat. One fact constantly stressed by all was the threat of ideological subversion or “psychological warfare”, which is essentially a means to change the targeted person’s perceptions of reality. Most of us have heard the quote “if you tell a lie often and long enough, people will believe it”, and that is quite true. In the early 1800’s, many political thinkers observed the unfairness of the then almost feudal social/economic system existent in Europe, and began looking for a better way to do things. The ideas they developed were later described by Karl Marx in his rather turgid “Communist Manifesto”, were rapidly adopted by the socialists of the era, and were taught as gospel to their students. In America, philosophers (who were largely educators) were quick to follow the lead of their European brethren, and began teaching the glories of socialist theories to their students (a practice that continues to this day). Following the revolution, Russian communists under Lenin found a ready made following in the believers of American socialism, jumped to their aid, and soon began the subversion of the worlds leading capitalist country.
Essentially, communist subversion is divided into several stages, the first being Demoralization. Generally it takes about 15 to 30 years to demoralize a nation, because this is the time needed to educate one generation of students. Today, after being exposed to Marxist socialist ideology for three generations, with none of it being counter-balanced by morality and basic American values, is it really any wonder that so many of America’s youth are totally confused and lack any direction? Stage two is Destabilization. With a fragmented, demoralized people who have no idea of what or who they are, it only takes a few years to destabilize their economy and wreck their foreign relations. The nest stage of course is Crisis. It may take only a few weeks to bring the country to the verge of an internal crisis, as we often see happening in the third world. And after crisis with its violent changes of power, structure, and economy, you have so called period of normalization. Normalization is what happens when the following dictatorship assumes absolute power.
The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, and aptly demonstrated that Marxism is an unworkable political system. Still, once the demoralization of a nation has begun, it continues by its own inertia, and needs no further aid or direction from outside. Wannabe “Benevolent dictators” get themselves elected and will promise people all kind of goodies in order to continue destabilizing the nation… they will try to eliminate the principle of free market competition, wreck the economy, and will endeavor to put a Big Brother Government in charge of nearly everything. Once a dictator comes to power, all these fuzzy headed people who believe in a free lunch and who preach socialism are no longer needed, they will probably be lined up and shot. For an example of that we have only to look at the French revolution and the ensuing mass executions of the “Terror”.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Peace Prize?
Mr. Barack Obama is the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. At best, the world was “stunned” and “shocked” by the rather “unexpected” choice so early in the presidential term, a term that began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. A beaming Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that he that was honored and humbled to win the Nobel Peace Prize, but that he wasn't sure he had done enough to earn the award, or deserved to be in the company of the others who had won it before him. But, he said, "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." Obama is the third U.S. president to win the prize while in office, after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Obama's selection as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday left many Americans puzzled about why he deserved the honor. Quoting a few comments: "It would be wonderful if I could think why he won." "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for." "My first opinion is that he got it because he's black. What did he do that was so great? He hasn't even finished office yet." Former President Jimmy Carter, who won the prize in 2002, said "It is a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment to peace and harmony in international relations." Then we have Rush Limbaugh’s comment: "Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and he gets a prize for it." Others have commented that: "This is the Nobel committee giving Obama the 'you are not George W. Bush' award." "Why not give him the literature prize? At least he's actually written a couple of books." And of course my own immortal comment upon reading of the award… “Huh?”
The Peace Prize has been handed out for 108 years, supposedly for activities involving peaceful activities. Recipients include Jean Henri Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross and initiator of the Geneva Convention, Teddy Roosevelt, who brought about the 1905 peace treaty between Russia and Japan. In 1919 the prize was awarded to Woodrow Wilson, who is credited with founding the League of Nations. However, I’d think that awards to such people as Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, and Martin Luther King Jr. are somewhat counter-balanced by the rather dubious awards to Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho!
The Nobel Prize was established by the 1895 will and estate of Swedish chemist and inventor Alfred Nobel, and was first awarded in 1901. The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature) and the Prize in Economics, which is commonly identified with them, are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields. The Nobel Peace Prize on the other hand conveys social prestige and is often controversial. This year’s award will apparently be no exception.
Really though, we have to stop and think about what the award committee was trying to say, and what were they trying to do? Mr. Obama is not Woodrow Wilson who won it because he created the League of Nations, the forerunner to the United Nations. That I can understand. I can understand Teddy Roosevelt’s win for stopping a particularly nasty war between Japan and Imperial Russia. But in this case I’d be tempted to think it’s more of an anti-Bush statement from Europe. And I think that they are saying that the United States has been resistant to the kind of peaceable fraternal efforts that are the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize. The odd part is we’re still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Guantanamo Bay is still open. Mr. Obama has made some nice sounding statements to a number of tyrants, and has apologized to the Muslims for the Twin Towers getting in front of a couple of Arab piloted airliners. But I really find it difficult to believe that this makes him the equal of Albert Schweitzer! Still, Europeans do have what I consider to be rather odd ideas of war and peace. I’m mindfull of World War One, where all of Europe exploded into a mass frenzy of mayhem and destruction over the deaths of two people. Then there was World War Two, where Europeans spent years weeping and wailing about the evils of Nazi Germany, and were still wringing their hands when Hitler burst out of his borders. But I also notice that FDR didn’t get any prize for bringing the United States into Europe’s fight and pulling their chestnuts out of the fire. Ike didn’t get one for ending the Korean War, nor did Nixon for ending the Vietnam War. But Mr. Obama gets one for nothing more than mouthing a few platitudes? I guess this goes to prove that you really can become anything you want in America.
A straw poll by MSNBC asked whether Obama deserved the honor. 62 percent of more than 194,000 responders said no, 24 percent said yes, and 13 percent said the award was premature. Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who generally applauds Obama, praised the award, saying it was "a positive measure" that was more a criticism of past U.S. policies than recognition of Obama's accomplishments. The Nobel Committee announced that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change. So being able to listen to Europe’s lectures on international goodwill is enough to win a prize worth $1.4 million, and have a place in history. And that diminishes both the president and the prize in a way that it should not. Obama got his award for the kind of fuzzy internationalism in which he bows to the United Nations. They might love that in Norway but it’s not what an American president is elected to do.
Dunno about the motives of the Nobel Committee, nor do I really care about world opinion, but had I been President in the aftermath of 911, and tasked with the defense of America, either the Moslems would have quickly gotten a hammerlock on their fanatics, or the Nobel Committee would have had to invent a prize for war. "Shock and Awe" would have taken on entirely new meanings!
Obama's selection as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday left many Americans puzzled about why he deserved the honor. Quoting a few comments: "It would be wonderful if I could think why he won." "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for." "My first opinion is that he got it because he's black. What did he do that was so great? He hasn't even finished office yet." Former President Jimmy Carter, who won the prize in 2002, said "It is a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment to peace and harmony in international relations." Then we have Rush Limbaugh’s comment: "Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and he gets a prize for it." Others have commented that: "This is the Nobel committee giving Obama the 'you are not George W. Bush' award." "Why not give him the literature prize? At least he's actually written a couple of books." And of course my own immortal comment upon reading of the award… “Huh?”
The Peace Prize has been handed out for 108 years, supposedly for activities involving peaceful activities. Recipients include Jean Henri Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross and initiator of the Geneva Convention, Teddy Roosevelt, who brought about the 1905 peace treaty between Russia and Japan. In 1919 the prize was awarded to Woodrow Wilson, who is credited with founding the League of Nations. However, I’d think that awards to such people as Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, and Martin Luther King Jr. are somewhat counter-balanced by the rather dubious awards to Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho!
The Nobel Prize was established by the 1895 will and estate of Swedish chemist and inventor Alfred Nobel, and was first awarded in 1901. The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature) and the Prize in Economics, which is commonly identified with them, are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields. The Nobel Peace Prize on the other hand conveys social prestige and is often controversial. This year’s award will apparently be no exception.
Really though, we have to stop and think about what the award committee was trying to say, and what were they trying to do? Mr. Obama is not Woodrow Wilson who won it because he created the League of Nations, the forerunner to the United Nations. That I can understand. I can understand Teddy Roosevelt’s win for stopping a particularly nasty war between Japan and Imperial Russia. But in this case I’d be tempted to think it’s more of an anti-Bush statement from Europe. And I think that they are saying that the United States has been resistant to the kind of peaceable fraternal efforts that are the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize. The odd part is we’re still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Guantanamo Bay is still open. Mr. Obama has made some nice sounding statements to a number of tyrants, and has apologized to the Muslims for the Twin Towers getting in front of a couple of Arab piloted airliners. But I really find it difficult to believe that this makes him the equal of Albert Schweitzer! Still, Europeans do have what I consider to be rather odd ideas of war and peace. I’m mindfull of World War One, where all of Europe exploded into a mass frenzy of mayhem and destruction over the deaths of two people. Then there was World War Two, where Europeans spent years weeping and wailing about the evils of Nazi Germany, and were still wringing their hands when Hitler burst out of his borders. But I also notice that FDR didn’t get any prize for bringing the United States into Europe’s fight and pulling their chestnuts out of the fire. Ike didn’t get one for ending the Korean War, nor did Nixon for ending the Vietnam War. But Mr. Obama gets one for nothing more than mouthing a few platitudes? I guess this goes to prove that you really can become anything you want in America.
A straw poll by MSNBC asked whether Obama deserved the honor. 62 percent of more than 194,000 responders said no, 24 percent said yes, and 13 percent said the award was premature. Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who generally applauds Obama, praised the award, saying it was "a positive measure" that was more a criticism of past U.S. policies than recognition of Obama's accomplishments. The Nobel Committee announced that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change. So being able to listen to Europe’s lectures on international goodwill is enough to win a prize worth $1.4 million, and have a place in history. And that diminishes both the president and the prize in a way that it should not. Obama got his award for the kind of fuzzy internationalism in which he bows to the United Nations. They might love that in Norway but it’s not what an American president is elected to do.
Dunno about the motives of the Nobel Committee, nor do I really care about world opinion, but had I been President in the aftermath of 911, and tasked with the defense of America, either the Moslems would have quickly gotten a hammerlock on their fanatics, or the Nobel Committee would have had to invent a prize for war. "Shock and Awe" would have taken on entirely new meanings!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Yet more on Obama
When the votes were tallied, and Mr. Barrack H. Obama was more or less declared the winner of our latest presidential election, the American media burst out singing his praises in the loudest possible terms. The European media was beside themselves with joy, proclaiming to all and sundry that those ignorant gun slinging American cowboys had finally elected a President who would properly respect the wishes of “civilized” Europeans, follow their “wiser” lead, and refrain from “dangerous excursions” in international relations. Worldwide, the socialists declared a day of rejoicing while the conservatives were looking at this latest American development with a wary eye. Back at the ranch, Mr. Obama’s approval rating was at a high 69%, the Democrats were gloating, and the Republicans were finding out how it felt to be run over by a steamroller. Sen. McCain hobbled home to lick his wounds, chubby Michael Moore was reportedly doing handsprings in the streets, and the RNC seemed to be blaming the entire fiasco on Sarah Paulin. All-in-all, Mr. Obama certainly started out with a bang!
Now however, looking back at the last few months of Mr. Obama’s administration, things seem to have changed somewhat. Barrack’s popularity rating is now hovering around the 51% level here at home, and I have no doubt it will fall even more. (That’s normal for almost every administration I understand.) It is rather strange that the average approval rating for all presidents since FDR at the 9 month point of their first term is 64%, somewhat higher than Mr. Obama’s current 51%. Democrats consistently rate him very high, Independents consider him somewhat mediocre, and I won’t mention his standing with the Republicans. Still, his ratings remain generally high in Europe, although wavering somewhat. Not surprisingly his popularity in both Russia and Iran has increased significantly… after the announcement that he was abandoning the “Missile Shield” that is. Asia remains somewhat neutral at the moment, well aware that US policies can change with only a moments notice, and usually to the detriment of our Far Eastern Allies. Still, US Presidents aren’t elected by Europeans, Asians, or any other foreign national (unless we start letting illegal immigrants vote), and the liberal’s New Messiah seems to be a lot lower in the public standings than I might expect.
I’ve nearly worn out the old saying that “If we can’t learn from history we’re cursed to relive it”, and often compared what happened to the Roman Republic with what is happening to the United States today. Our nation’s founders were students of Roman history and could readily understand what had happened to the Romans. Despite that, they had boundless faith in the common sense of the American people, and presented us with a republic anyhow. Both of course were ruled by the people rather than the local nobility, and it follows that that rule was intended to be in the best interest of the people and not necessarily that of the nobility. Both had the foundation of their law “set in stone”, literally so in the “Twelve Tablets” of Rome, and figuratively in the Constitution of the United States. The Romans started out with term limits applied to the holders of political office, and placed a lot of severe restrictions on just who could hold office and how long they had to wait before they could stand for another election. Our founders passed on term limits unfortunately, but set things up so that “any boy could grow up to be President”. Both governmental systems had any numbers of checks and balances that severely limited government authority. Both nations became the premier world power of their era, both ran up a tremendous national debt, and both entered any number of ill advised foreign excursions. Then, over time, both slowly slipped away from their plebian base, ignored their constitution, and became (or in our case are rapidly becoming) imperial states, feared by others but certainly not respected. In the case of Rome it took over 450 years for the Republic to die. In the United States, our Republic has nearly vanished, and we haven’t even been around for 250 years!
Many Americans see this shift away from those things that made America great, and loudly bemoan the fact. Nor is this destruction of America un-noticed elsewhere. The British Media calls Mr. Obama “President Pantywaist”, and asks why does he hate America so badly, with one editorial saying “If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.” The editorial continues; “Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens.”
It appears he has never abandoned the campaign trail, and that’s why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to make a quick trip Langley, to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. So, the next senior al-Qaeda hood that’s captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers. Mr. Obama’s recent world tour wherein he was all buddy-buddy with the bad guys, and apologizing to all and sundry for just about everything in our history indicates that his only enemies are Americans. And that brings up the question, why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Who would have believed that an American President would distance himself from America's Christian heritage and speak of the "Holy Quran" in a nation that will not allow Christian conversions to take place? Who would have believed that an American President would speak about "common ground" with a theocratic political system that wants to rule the world and eliminate all other religions? Who would have believed that the government of the United States, at the direction of the President, would own major private businesses with no opposition from the media or Congress? Who would have believed that a few members of the media would refer to a sitting president as "some sort of god"?
All these recent events remind me of happenings in the fictional “Twilight Zone”!
Now however, looking back at the last few months of Mr. Obama’s administration, things seem to have changed somewhat. Barrack’s popularity rating is now hovering around the 51% level here at home, and I have no doubt it will fall even more. (That’s normal for almost every administration I understand.) It is rather strange that the average approval rating for all presidents since FDR at the 9 month point of their first term is 64%, somewhat higher than Mr. Obama’s current 51%. Democrats consistently rate him very high, Independents consider him somewhat mediocre, and I won’t mention his standing with the Republicans. Still, his ratings remain generally high in Europe, although wavering somewhat. Not surprisingly his popularity in both Russia and Iran has increased significantly… after the announcement that he was abandoning the “Missile Shield” that is. Asia remains somewhat neutral at the moment, well aware that US policies can change with only a moments notice, and usually to the detriment of our Far Eastern Allies. Still, US Presidents aren’t elected by Europeans, Asians, or any other foreign national (unless we start letting illegal immigrants vote), and the liberal’s New Messiah seems to be a lot lower in the public standings than I might expect.
I’ve nearly worn out the old saying that “If we can’t learn from history we’re cursed to relive it”, and often compared what happened to the Roman Republic with what is happening to the United States today. Our nation’s founders were students of Roman history and could readily understand what had happened to the Romans. Despite that, they had boundless faith in the common sense of the American people, and presented us with a republic anyhow. Both of course were ruled by the people rather than the local nobility, and it follows that that rule was intended to be in the best interest of the people and not necessarily that of the nobility. Both had the foundation of their law “set in stone”, literally so in the “Twelve Tablets” of Rome, and figuratively in the Constitution of the United States. The Romans started out with term limits applied to the holders of political office, and placed a lot of severe restrictions on just who could hold office and how long they had to wait before they could stand for another election. Our founders passed on term limits unfortunately, but set things up so that “any boy could grow up to be President”. Both governmental systems had any numbers of checks and balances that severely limited government authority. Both nations became the premier world power of their era, both ran up a tremendous national debt, and both entered any number of ill advised foreign excursions. Then, over time, both slowly slipped away from their plebian base, ignored their constitution, and became (or in our case are rapidly becoming) imperial states, feared by others but certainly not respected. In the case of Rome it took over 450 years for the Republic to die. In the United States, our Republic has nearly vanished, and we haven’t even been around for 250 years!
Many Americans see this shift away from those things that made America great, and loudly bemoan the fact. Nor is this destruction of America un-noticed elsewhere. The British Media calls Mr. Obama “President Pantywaist”, and asks why does he hate America so badly, with one editorial saying “If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.” The editorial continues; “Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens.”
It appears he has never abandoned the campaign trail, and that’s why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to make a quick trip Langley, to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. So, the next senior al-Qaeda hood that’s captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers. Mr. Obama’s recent world tour wherein he was all buddy-buddy with the bad guys, and apologizing to all and sundry for just about everything in our history indicates that his only enemies are Americans. And that brings up the question, why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Who would have believed that an American President would distance himself from America's Christian heritage and speak of the "Holy Quran" in a nation that will not allow Christian conversions to take place? Who would have believed that an American President would speak about "common ground" with a theocratic political system that wants to rule the world and eliminate all other religions? Who would have believed that the government of the United States, at the direction of the President, would own major private businesses with no opposition from the media or Congress? Who would have believed that a few members of the media would refer to a sitting president as "some sort of god"?
All these recent events remind me of happenings in the fictional “Twilight Zone”!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Tax and Spend
According to the White House website, Mr. Obama’s “stimulus” plan was to focus on economic recovery, whereby “America would become a stronger and more prosperous nation”. The thought is that “the current economic crisis is the result of many years of irresponsibility, both in government and in the private sector.” The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is supposed to make long-term investments in health care, education, energy, and infrastructure. Among other objectives, the recovery will increase production of alternative energy, modernize and weatherize buildings and homes, expand broadband technology across the country, and computerize the health care system. It’s also claimed that the recovery plan will save or create about 3.5 million jobs while investing in priorities that create sustainable economic growth, and will create a new regulatory framework that holds market players responsible for their actions and stops fraudulent practices before they take hold. The White House is also demanding accountability and transparency on Wall Street and in Washington. On the surface this all sounds well and fine, but the question remains, will it work? First, in my not so humble opinion, is the fact that the current economic crisis was brought about by nothing more than greed in our financial system, and government controls that did little more than augment that greed. And I’ll certainly agree with the “irresponsibility” part and lay that at the doorstep of big government as well, particularly when considering the social welfare state we seem to have become.
The disaster of the 1929 depression established the conditions where FDR could get elected in 1932 on a welfare platform. In his acceptance speech, Roosevelt declared: “Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.” As we all know, Roosevelt was elected, and the “New Deal” became a reality. But, both during and for long after his presidency conservative critics questioned not only his policies but also the enormous expansion of government debt during Roosevelt's time in office. In 1929 the national debt was a bit less than 20% of the Gross National Product. The New Deal raised that to slightly over 40%, and WW II ran that up to a wopping 130%! By 1950 the debt was paid down to a meer 90% of the GNP. By 1980 the debt had been paid down to almost 35%, and has again been climbing slowly but steadily ever since. By 2008 the debt had reached slightly over ten trillion dollars, then with the Bush bailouts and now Mr. Obama’s continuation of the stimulus programs, we’re well over 80%, and the line on the graph is going straight up! Just who pray tell, is going to pay off that debt… and how long is it going to take!? Well shoot, HOW are we going to pay off that debt!? Remember that with consumer spending going down in our current crisis, business is going to be laying people off — not hiring them. Nor can you blame business for doing this, as its all part of a vicious economic cycle. And you can't blame consumers for not spending (or paying high taxes), when the economy is in the basement. Much like FDR’s public works projects, “stimulus” might put a few people to work for awhile, but what happens when the money runs out? And run out it will.
In the meantime, the current crisis has taught us once again just how dependant we’ve become on financial markets and institutions, and the severe impact they can have on working folks. Following the current meltdown, the government has tried (unsuccessfully it seems) to get credit flowing once again so that small businesses can rebuild, and American families can again afford to send their kids off to college. And how was this done? By “bailing-out” the banking industry with taxpayer money, and not incidentally putting my grandkids deep into debt! Adding insult to injury, the ‘Fed’ has lowered the Federal Reserve interest rate to about the lowest level in history. Effectively this hands a LOT of ‘free’ federal money to big banks so they can loan it to us… at whatever interest rates the market will bear, and putting the profits into their pockets. You might make note that all that very profitable federal money has to go through the big banks, it’s certainly not directly available to John Q. Citizen at that nearly nonexistent interest rate.
All of this economic slight-of-hand has to be paid for somehow, and that’s supposed to be done through taxes. And that, according to Mr. Obama, will be accomplished by “taxing the rich”, and that nobody making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase. Well, he might consider the fact that the richest 1% of Americans already pay nearly 41% of our total tax burden. This year New York’s rich were tapped like never before. The state’s wealthy pay higher income tax rates, higher taxes on their limos, airplanes, and yachts, more to enter their ponies in a horse race, and more to play in the real estate market. They’re also losing tax loopholes and deductions that others get. Now, early figures indicate that taxing the wealthy may have driven away richer New Yorkers. “You heard the mantra, ‘Tax the rich, tax the rich’” Gov. David Paterson said, “We’ve done that. We’ve probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state. People aren’t wedded to a geographic place as they once were. It’s a different world.” Both Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and Rush Limbaugh became ex-New Yorkers this year, due to the higher tax rates. Golly, could any liberal have anticipated that happening?
Stimulus money is helping many states to plug the leaks in their budget, but a lot of officials are now worried about supporting assorted programs after the federal funds run out. Around $90 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package was dedicated to supporting state Medicaid programs. The money, which is known as FMAP funds, has moved faster than other stimulus dollars allocated to many other spending categories. The GAO found that most states were using their Medicaid funds to cover increased caseloads and to maintain their current services and eligibility criteria. Some states are using the funds to avoid cutting overly large payments to doctors and hospitals. Some State officials “expressed concern about the longer-term sustainability of their Medicaid programs after the increased FMAP funds are no longer available, beginning in January 2011,” the GAO report said. The report also found some states were using Medicaid funds to finance general state budget needs. No wonder a good friend of mine is having so much trouble getting Medicaid assistance following a catastrophic illness.
Republicans have criticized the funds for state governments, saying they encourage states to postpone hard budget decisions and do little to create jobs or growth. They have also attacked the plan’s effectiveness overall, citing the 26-year high in unemployment. Members of the administration say the plan is working, and that it has kept the recession from being worse.
To all this federal waste and confusion we may add “Social justice has been served and government is here to help you…”
The disaster of the 1929 depression established the conditions where FDR could get elected in 1932 on a welfare platform. In his acceptance speech, Roosevelt declared: “Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.” As we all know, Roosevelt was elected, and the “New Deal” became a reality. But, both during and for long after his presidency conservative critics questioned not only his policies but also the enormous expansion of government debt during Roosevelt's time in office. In 1929 the national debt was a bit less than 20% of the Gross National Product. The New Deal raised that to slightly over 40%, and WW II ran that up to a wopping 130%! By 1950 the debt was paid down to a meer 90% of the GNP. By 1980 the debt had been paid down to almost 35%, and has again been climbing slowly but steadily ever since. By 2008 the debt had reached slightly over ten trillion dollars, then with the Bush bailouts and now Mr. Obama’s continuation of the stimulus programs, we’re well over 80%, and the line on the graph is going straight up! Just who pray tell, is going to pay off that debt… and how long is it going to take!? Well shoot, HOW are we going to pay off that debt!? Remember that with consumer spending going down in our current crisis, business is going to be laying people off — not hiring them. Nor can you blame business for doing this, as its all part of a vicious economic cycle. And you can't blame consumers for not spending (or paying high taxes), when the economy is in the basement. Much like FDR’s public works projects, “stimulus” might put a few people to work for awhile, but what happens when the money runs out? And run out it will.
In the meantime, the current crisis has taught us once again just how dependant we’ve become on financial markets and institutions, and the severe impact they can have on working folks. Following the current meltdown, the government has tried (unsuccessfully it seems) to get credit flowing once again so that small businesses can rebuild, and American families can again afford to send their kids off to college. And how was this done? By “bailing-out” the banking industry with taxpayer money, and not incidentally putting my grandkids deep into debt! Adding insult to injury, the ‘Fed’ has lowered the Federal Reserve interest rate to about the lowest level in history. Effectively this hands a LOT of ‘free’ federal money to big banks so they can loan it to us… at whatever interest rates the market will bear, and putting the profits into their pockets. You might make note that all that very profitable federal money has to go through the big banks, it’s certainly not directly available to John Q. Citizen at that nearly nonexistent interest rate.
All of this economic slight-of-hand has to be paid for somehow, and that’s supposed to be done through taxes. And that, according to Mr. Obama, will be accomplished by “taxing the rich”, and that nobody making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase. Well, he might consider the fact that the richest 1% of Americans already pay nearly 41% of our total tax burden. This year New York’s rich were tapped like never before. The state’s wealthy pay higher income tax rates, higher taxes on their limos, airplanes, and yachts, more to enter their ponies in a horse race, and more to play in the real estate market. They’re also losing tax loopholes and deductions that others get. Now, early figures indicate that taxing the wealthy may have driven away richer New Yorkers. “You heard the mantra, ‘Tax the rich, tax the rich’” Gov. David Paterson said, “We’ve done that. We’ve probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state. People aren’t wedded to a geographic place as they once were. It’s a different world.” Both Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and Rush Limbaugh became ex-New Yorkers this year, due to the higher tax rates. Golly, could any liberal have anticipated that happening?
Stimulus money is helping many states to plug the leaks in their budget, but a lot of officials are now worried about supporting assorted programs after the federal funds run out. Around $90 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package was dedicated to supporting state Medicaid programs. The money, which is known as FMAP funds, has moved faster than other stimulus dollars allocated to many other spending categories. The GAO found that most states were using their Medicaid funds to cover increased caseloads and to maintain their current services and eligibility criteria. Some states are using the funds to avoid cutting overly large payments to doctors and hospitals. Some State officials “expressed concern about the longer-term sustainability of their Medicaid programs after the increased FMAP funds are no longer available, beginning in January 2011,” the GAO report said. The report also found some states were using Medicaid funds to finance general state budget needs. No wonder a good friend of mine is having so much trouble getting Medicaid assistance following a catastrophic illness.
Republicans have criticized the funds for state governments, saying they encourage states to postpone hard budget decisions and do little to create jobs or growth. They have also attacked the plan’s effectiveness overall, citing the 26-year high in unemployment. Members of the administration say the plan is working, and that it has kept the recession from being worse.
To all this federal waste and confusion we may add “Social justice has been served and government is here to help you…”
Racist
It’s now official I guess, I’m a racist… and no less a personage than former president Jimmy Carter has said so. Apparently, according to the loony left that is, if I oppose the government takeover of another 17% of our national economy under the guise of health care reform, I hate black people. (“Another 17%”? Well, remember that the federal government has already nationalized about 60% of the auto industry, and a large part of the major banks.) Now there’s a major push to cram “ObamaCare” down out throats, which is nothing less than an attempt to nationalize the Health Care industry. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that twelve percent (12%) of voters nationwide believe that most opponents of Mr. Obama’s health care reform plan are racist, 67% of voters disagree, and 21% are not sure. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans reject the notion, as do 78% of voters not affiliated with either party, and 39% of Democrats. Twenty-two percent (22%) of the Democrats believe that most of the opposition to his plans come from racists, and another 39% aren’t sure.
‘Racism’ is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others”, and also includes “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races”. Since the presidential campaign, many Democrats have claimed that opposition to Mr. Obama is nothing less that racism, a claim I find rather difficult to believe. Presidents are always criticized, and it’s always been that way. But now that Obama is in the oval office, criticism is racism, and anyone who see things a different way than those on the left are racists! But even Mr. Obama disagreed with this when he told NBC's David Gregory, “The media loves to have a conversation about race, this is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in American history that’s very powerful. And it invokes some very strong emotions.” The leftist media does have a habit of making mountains out of molehills after all.
The defining moment of the racism card came when Joe Wilson, in a rather unparliamentarily manner, shouted "liar!" at Obama when he said that the new law would not entail rationing. Yet the program he’s pressing uses that word to describe how it would work, therefore Mr. Obama was indeed lying, or at least stretching the point considerably, but to say so in public is racist?! As to the central problem, certainly the US faces healthcare policy problems, and something needs to be done about it! But, what would happen if the uninsured were allowed the option of buying into the existing MediCare program? Or if the individual states were allowed to run their own healthcare systems as California does with MediCal? I seriously doubt that would be considered racism… at least not by anyone to the right of Max Baucus! The real problem facing Mr. Obama is that “We the People” are sick and tired of watching our liberties being eroded by the socialist left, and are ready to fight for our rights, leaving the question; is the left able to see the peoples resolve? The recent march on Washington should have demonstrated that determination, hence the racism card is somewhat like an old child's trick, i.e. when you’re losing start calling people names! People who claim this is racist only want to distract others from discussing the real issues. Also, the left seem to think that they alone get to define racism, sexism, etc. They do not, they are not in charge of the language, and they have been revealed as a bunch of people who only want power and money… without working for it. Carter's comment is insulting, as a good majority of those Washington marchers didn’t support “HillaryCare” fifteen ago either, and that certainly wasn’t “racism”. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, and protests against Mr. Obama’s policies are not only about health care. We objected to the erosion of our liberty Under President Bush, with his Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, but that didn’t make us racist. We objected to the “Bailout” and the “Stimulus” giveaways under both Bush and Obama, but that didn’t make us racists either. But now, if we object to ObamaCare we’re suddenly racists who hate Black people and Illegal immigrants?
My objection to the present administration, and the congressional majority, is their head-long rush to spend my grandchildren's future. I don't see how that makes me a racist, but, since I'm of European descent I must be, at least in the view of the liberal left. ‘Course I also believe that most politicians are so far removed from normal people's lives that they have no business saying what the average American thinks.
For the most part Americas loathed the policies of Democrat Jimmy Carter and his filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress. They turned him out of office by a landslide in favor of a Conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan. They rejected the policies of Walter Mondale and re-elected the Republicans by an even larger landslide. America rejected the policies of Michael Dukakis and elected Bush the Elder, another conservative Republican, by a large margin. That President broke his read-my-lips no-new-taxes pledge, and was rejected in favor of Democrat Bill Clinton (who promised to cut middle-class taxes), by less than a 50% popular majority. After Clinton broke his tax cut pledge, pushed for gays in the military, and tried to impose socialized health care on America, we turned the House of Representatives over to the GOP for the first time in 40 years. Clinton was re-elected after he followed the lead of the Conservative GOP Congress to enact welfare reform, push for free trade and supply side tax cuts. Al Gore ran far to the left of Slick Willie’s marginally successful Presidency and lost to Bush the Younger, a Republican who favored tax cuts. “Dubbya”, who enacted the tax cuts that prevented a post-911 recession, and who somehow kept the terrorists at bay after 911, was re-elected over another liberal Democrat. Shortly thereafter the Great Recession hits White and Black Americans alike, and the American electorate (more than 78% White) selected a Liberal Black Democrat, Barack Obama, who promised he would not raise taxes on anyone earning over $250K, and gave him a filibuster proof Congress. So he promptly repeats the mistakes of Carter and Clinton by advocating a horde of far left liberal policies, causing both he and Congress to fall in the polls. The vast majority of Americans care a whole lot about their wallets, their liberty, and about national security. BUT… because they object to liberal policies… they are suddenly raciest? Seems to me that what those rejected politicians have in common is not skin color, but rather their failed liberal policies!
I watched a movie on TV the other evening (about vampires of course, which seems to be the stock fare in this day and age), and I noticed that all the victims were sweet, innocent, young ladies (cute ones at that). I can only guess that power hungry self centered politicians don’t taste all that good to a vampire. Come to think of it, I can’t stomach ‘em either…
‘Racism’ is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others”, and also includes “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races”. Since the presidential campaign, many Democrats have claimed that opposition to Mr. Obama is nothing less that racism, a claim I find rather difficult to believe. Presidents are always criticized, and it’s always been that way. But now that Obama is in the oval office, criticism is racism, and anyone who see things a different way than those on the left are racists! But even Mr. Obama disagreed with this when he told NBC's David Gregory, “The media loves to have a conversation about race, this is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in American history that’s very powerful. And it invokes some very strong emotions.” The leftist media does have a habit of making mountains out of molehills after all.
The defining moment of the racism card came when Joe Wilson, in a rather unparliamentarily manner, shouted "liar!" at Obama when he said that the new law would not entail rationing. Yet the program he’s pressing uses that word to describe how it would work, therefore Mr. Obama was indeed lying, or at least stretching the point considerably, but to say so in public is racist?! As to the central problem, certainly the US faces healthcare policy problems, and something needs to be done about it! But, what would happen if the uninsured were allowed the option of buying into the existing MediCare program? Or if the individual states were allowed to run their own healthcare systems as California does with MediCal? I seriously doubt that would be considered racism… at least not by anyone to the right of Max Baucus! The real problem facing Mr. Obama is that “We the People” are sick and tired of watching our liberties being eroded by the socialist left, and are ready to fight for our rights, leaving the question; is the left able to see the peoples resolve? The recent march on Washington should have demonstrated that determination, hence the racism card is somewhat like an old child's trick, i.e. when you’re losing start calling people names! People who claim this is racist only want to distract others from discussing the real issues. Also, the left seem to think that they alone get to define racism, sexism, etc. They do not, they are not in charge of the language, and they have been revealed as a bunch of people who only want power and money… without working for it. Carter's comment is insulting, as a good majority of those Washington marchers didn’t support “HillaryCare” fifteen ago either, and that certainly wasn’t “racism”. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, and protests against Mr. Obama’s policies are not only about health care. We objected to the erosion of our liberty Under President Bush, with his Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, but that didn’t make us racist. We objected to the “Bailout” and the “Stimulus” giveaways under both Bush and Obama, but that didn’t make us racists either. But now, if we object to ObamaCare we’re suddenly racists who hate Black people and Illegal immigrants?
My objection to the present administration, and the congressional majority, is their head-long rush to spend my grandchildren's future. I don't see how that makes me a racist, but, since I'm of European descent I must be, at least in the view of the liberal left. ‘Course I also believe that most politicians are so far removed from normal people's lives that they have no business saying what the average American thinks.
For the most part Americas loathed the policies of Democrat Jimmy Carter and his filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress. They turned him out of office by a landslide in favor of a Conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan. They rejected the policies of Walter Mondale and re-elected the Republicans by an even larger landslide. America rejected the policies of Michael Dukakis and elected Bush the Elder, another conservative Republican, by a large margin. That President broke his read-my-lips no-new-taxes pledge, and was rejected in favor of Democrat Bill Clinton (who promised to cut middle-class taxes), by less than a 50% popular majority. After Clinton broke his tax cut pledge, pushed for gays in the military, and tried to impose socialized health care on America, we turned the House of Representatives over to the GOP for the first time in 40 years. Clinton was re-elected after he followed the lead of the Conservative GOP Congress to enact welfare reform, push for free trade and supply side tax cuts. Al Gore ran far to the left of Slick Willie’s marginally successful Presidency and lost to Bush the Younger, a Republican who favored tax cuts. “Dubbya”, who enacted the tax cuts that prevented a post-911 recession, and who somehow kept the terrorists at bay after 911, was re-elected over another liberal Democrat. Shortly thereafter the Great Recession hits White and Black Americans alike, and the American electorate (more than 78% White) selected a Liberal Black Democrat, Barack Obama, who promised he would not raise taxes on anyone earning over $250K, and gave him a filibuster proof Congress. So he promptly repeats the mistakes of Carter and Clinton by advocating a horde of far left liberal policies, causing both he and Congress to fall in the polls. The vast majority of Americans care a whole lot about their wallets, their liberty, and about national security. BUT… because they object to liberal policies… they are suddenly raciest? Seems to me that what those rejected politicians have in common is not skin color, but rather their failed liberal policies!
I watched a movie on TV the other evening (about vampires of course, which seems to be the stock fare in this day and age), and I noticed that all the victims were sweet, innocent, young ladies (cute ones at that). I can only guess that power hungry self centered politicians don’t taste all that good to a vampire. Come to think of it, I can’t stomach ‘em either…
Monday, September 21, 2009
National Police?
It’s reported that Mr. Obama is once again calling for a “National Police Force”, intended apparently to provide federal augmentation to the local Gendarmes nationwide, and naturally to provide “security” within our borders. During the late presidential campaign, Mr. Obama claimed that “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Something might occur within the United States that the US ARMY with a million or so soldiers can’t handle!? That I find very hard to believe! And now we need a civilian police type “security force” armed with machine guns, tanks, and attack helicopters!? And all this time I thought that having Police SWAT teams and FBI snipers was quite bad enough.
My first thought was why can’t the Army handle things? After all, the Posse Comitatis Act was passed in 1878 and was intended to severely limit the federal government in using the military for law enforcement. But, recent bills passed by our Congress allow the armed forces to be used under the revised “Insurrection Act”, to “restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or other such condition occurs in the United States, or when the President determines that domestic violence has occurred, where the legal authorities of that State are unable to maintain public order, or to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy. Also, if such a condition hinders the execution of the laws of a State, or if a State opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States.”
Then there are an entire series of “Executive Orders” authorized in times of “increased international tension, economic crisis, and/or financial crisis”, to “institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to establish control over the mechanisms of production, distribution, energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money”. “Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20”, signed by President Bush, claims the power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency", construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." Naturally most of these presidential directives and executive orders are classified, so we really have no idea of what they say the president can or can’t do, and at present even interested congressmen are denied access to them. But an unclassified portion of one directive claims that the president has the power to declare a catastrophic emergency, but does not specify who has the power to declare the emergency over. The signing of these directives were not covered by the media, or discussed by Congress, which has, according to the National Emergencies Act passed in 1976, oversight of presidential emergency powers. On October 1, 2002 the United States Army established it’s “Northern Command”, to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense mission, and to coordinate the DoD support of civil authorities. Again, the Army is supposed to handle whatever situation, not some sort of presidential Preatorian Guard. What’s interesting here is that Congress has over the years delegated much of it’s authority to the office of the president, with no oversite or “checks and balances” in place, and I have yet to see anything in the Constitution allowing them to do that! It sounds to me as if the White House has pretty well covered everything needed to seize total control of this country and everyone in it, and yet Mr. Obama is now calling for additional federal forces!?
So what are we to think of this “National Police” organization? Perhaps we’re to have our very own Secret Police? Secret police (sometimes called political police) are defined as a government agency which operates in secrecy against internal threats to the state. Such police forces are nearly always associated with totalitarian regimes where they’re used to maintain the “president for life” in political power, and are quite often used to uphold the dictator’s orders by operating above and beyond duly established law. “Secret police” are accountable only to the executive branch, with their operations hidden from the public and most government officials, and are used as instruments of political repression. And we might remember that, after the Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas incidents, and along with the clandestine records keeping and electronic eavesdropping going on, the FBI is considered by many people to be a secret police agency in it’s own right.
Probably the best known secret police organization was the Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police, abbreviated “Gestapo”) organized by the Nazis in 1933. The Gestapo, through its power of arrest and confinement without recourse to law, was the principal means for eliminating any enemies of the Nazi regime. They operated without any restriction by civil authority, which meant that its members could not be tried for any crimes committed in the course of their “police” activities. Under the law, the only appeal of the accused was to the next higher authority within the Gestapo itself. They were given the responsibility of administering the concentration camps, wherein the arrest and commitment to the camps was usually because the person “endangered, by his attitude the existence and security of the people and the State”. This included offenses like "working against the Greater German Reich with an illegal resistance organization," "being a Jew," "suspected of working for the detriment of the Reich," "being strongly suspected of aiding desertion," "because as a relative of a deserter he is expected to take advantage of every occasion to harm the German Reich," "refusal to work," "sexual intercourse with a Pole," "religious propaganda," "working against the Reich," "loafing on the job," or "defeatist statements." Concentration Camps huh… Well, at least we don’t have to worry about that… or do we?
While the stories are impossible to properly confirm or deny, reports abound that a number of internment camps have been established, and are ready to detain citizens if mass insurrections occur. These reports come from a wide range of sources, both from the far right, and even from members of the US Congress! Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) declared that the government “might use a pandemic disease or national disaster as an excuse to declare martial law.” (I’ve noticed that the government is threatening us with a Swine Flu epidemic this fall…) In his September 2008 newsletter, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) stated “Even though we know that detention facilities are already in place, [the government] now wants to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever-popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency.” Legislation introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.) would have the DHS establishing at least half a dozen national emergency centers for large-scale imprisonment of American citizens on military installations in a Guantanamo-style setting… after martial law is declared. To counteract these charges, some claim the “renovated military bases” will simply be used to hold illegal aliens. The Idaho Observer recently reported that “… it was revealed that Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), had received a $385 million contract to build detention facilities ‘for an emergency influx of immigrants.’” Halliburton? It figures.Claiming that these camps are to hold illegal immigrants doesn’t make much sense either, considering that the government is so “undocumented immigrant” friendly. More likely detainees would be tax protesters and those deemed “extremists” and “enemies of the state” by the recent DHS report about “homegrown right-wing terrorists.” I’ve personally seen the rather disturbing U.S. Army advertisement recruiting soldiers who might be interested in becoming ‘internment / resettlement’ specialists. The job description is “Internment/Resettlement (I/R) specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility.” That’s normally not a military job that needs much recruiting, as there isn’t much call for those troops, and the position is usually filled by regular Military Police personnel. With that, I’ve also seen pictures of what are reported to be the prison railcars, again built by Halliburton, to be used to transport “detainees” to the camps.
Is all this for real, or is it nothing more than another panicky conspiracy theory? Personally I don’t know, and I guess I won’t know until it happens. But remember, the US Government has a history of illegally imprisoning dissidents that goes clear back to 1836, and Mr. Obama did quite plainly tell us that he planned to “Change America”. He just didn’t say what he and the far left intend to change us to… And remember that government, no matter how well intentioned it may claim to be, is inherently the enemy of freedom.
A lot of European Jews disbelieved the rumors of Nazi evils, right up to the point they were being herded into the gas chambers.
My first thought was why can’t the Army handle things? After all, the Posse Comitatis Act was passed in 1878 and was intended to severely limit the federal government in using the military for law enforcement. But, recent bills passed by our Congress allow the armed forces to be used under the revised “Insurrection Act”, to “restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or other such condition occurs in the United States, or when the President determines that domestic violence has occurred, where the legal authorities of that State are unable to maintain public order, or to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy. Also, if such a condition hinders the execution of the laws of a State, or if a State opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States.”
Then there are an entire series of “Executive Orders” authorized in times of “increased international tension, economic crisis, and/or financial crisis”, to “institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to establish control over the mechanisms of production, distribution, energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money”. “Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20”, signed by President Bush, claims the power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency", construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." Naturally most of these presidential directives and executive orders are classified, so we really have no idea of what they say the president can or can’t do, and at present even interested congressmen are denied access to them. But an unclassified portion of one directive claims that the president has the power to declare a catastrophic emergency, but does not specify who has the power to declare the emergency over. The signing of these directives were not covered by the media, or discussed by Congress, which has, according to the National Emergencies Act passed in 1976, oversight of presidential emergency powers. On October 1, 2002 the United States Army established it’s “Northern Command”, to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense mission, and to coordinate the DoD support of civil authorities. Again, the Army is supposed to handle whatever situation, not some sort of presidential Preatorian Guard. What’s interesting here is that Congress has over the years delegated much of it’s authority to the office of the president, with no oversite or “checks and balances” in place, and I have yet to see anything in the Constitution allowing them to do that! It sounds to me as if the White House has pretty well covered everything needed to seize total control of this country and everyone in it, and yet Mr. Obama is now calling for additional federal forces!?
So what are we to think of this “National Police” organization? Perhaps we’re to have our very own Secret Police? Secret police (sometimes called political police) are defined as a government agency which operates in secrecy against internal threats to the state. Such police forces are nearly always associated with totalitarian regimes where they’re used to maintain the “president for life” in political power, and are quite often used to uphold the dictator’s orders by operating above and beyond duly established law. “Secret police” are accountable only to the executive branch, with their operations hidden from the public and most government officials, and are used as instruments of political repression. And we might remember that, after the Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas incidents, and along with the clandestine records keeping and electronic eavesdropping going on, the FBI is considered by many people to be a secret police agency in it’s own right.
Probably the best known secret police organization was the Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police, abbreviated “Gestapo”) organized by the Nazis in 1933. The Gestapo, through its power of arrest and confinement without recourse to law, was the principal means for eliminating any enemies of the Nazi regime. They operated without any restriction by civil authority, which meant that its members could not be tried for any crimes committed in the course of their “police” activities. Under the law, the only appeal of the accused was to the next higher authority within the Gestapo itself. They were given the responsibility of administering the concentration camps, wherein the arrest and commitment to the camps was usually because the person “endangered, by his attitude the existence and security of the people and the State”. This included offenses like "working against the Greater German Reich with an illegal resistance organization," "being a Jew," "suspected of working for the detriment of the Reich," "being strongly suspected of aiding desertion," "because as a relative of a deserter he is expected to take advantage of every occasion to harm the German Reich," "refusal to work," "sexual intercourse with a Pole," "religious propaganda," "working against the Reich," "loafing on the job," or "defeatist statements." Concentration Camps huh… Well, at least we don’t have to worry about that… or do we?
While the stories are impossible to properly confirm or deny, reports abound that a number of internment camps have been established, and are ready to detain citizens if mass insurrections occur. These reports come from a wide range of sources, both from the far right, and even from members of the US Congress! Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) declared that the government “might use a pandemic disease or national disaster as an excuse to declare martial law.” (I’ve noticed that the government is threatening us with a Swine Flu epidemic this fall…) In his September 2008 newsletter, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) stated “Even though we know that detention facilities are already in place, [the government] now wants to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever-popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency.” Legislation introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.) would have the DHS establishing at least half a dozen national emergency centers for large-scale imprisonment of American citizens on military installations in a Guantanamo-style setting… after martial law is declared. To counteract these charges, some claim the “renovated military bases” will simply be used to hold illegal aliens. The Idaho Observer recently reported that “… it was revealed that Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), had received a $385 million contract to build detention facilities ‘for an emergency influx of immigrants.’” Halliburton? It figures.Claiming that these camps are to hold illegal immigrants doesn’t make much sense either, considering that the government is so “undocumented immigrant” friendly. More likely detainees would be tax protesters and those deemed “extremists” and “enemies of the state” by the recent DHS report about “homegrown right-wing terrorists.” I’ve personally seen the rather disturbing U.S. Army advertisement recruiting soldiers who might be interested in becoming ‘internment / resettlement’ specialists. The job description is “Internment/Resettlement (I/R) specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility.” That’s normally not a military job that needs much recruiting, as there isn’t much call for those troops, and the position is usually filled by regular Military Police personnel. With that, I’ve also seen pictures of what are reported to be the prison railcars, again built by Halliburton, to be used to transport “detainees” to the camps.
Is all this for real, or is it nothing more than another panicky conspiracy theory? Personally I don’t know, and I guess I won’t know until it happens. But remember, the US Government has a history of illegally imprisoning dissidents that goes clear back to 1836, and Mr. Obama did quite plainly tell us that he planned to “Change America”. He just didn’t say what he and the far left intend to change us to… And remember that government, no matter how well intentioned it may claim to be, is inherently the enemy of freedom.
A lot of European Jews disbelieved the rumors of Nazi evils, right up to the point they were being herded into the gas chambers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)