Radical Right?

Apparently us low life country hicks have managed to attract the government’s concern yet again. The Department of Homeland Security Office’s of Intelligence and Analysis recently released a new assessment of the national security situation, and came to the conclusion that “The consequences of a prolonged economic downturn–including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit–could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities”. (The report can be seen at http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf Read it, and be prepared to get good and mad.) “In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.” “A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009,” according to the DHS, which describes “extremists” as those “that are primarily hate-oriented” and those that “reject federal authority.” Also targeted are veterans, people expecting even more restrictions of their Second Amendment rights, those concerned about lost of U.S. sovereignty, folks having general anti-government feelings or who prefer local or state government to federal control over almost anything. The report implies that people with such views are not only racist, but potential terrorists as well. I guess it’s nice to know that our government thinks so highly of us!

Another report, issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center last year includes the “possibility” that the vocal supporters of Rep. Ron Paul’s 2008 bid for the presidency are also potential terrorists! (See the report at: http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/miac-militia-2009.pdf) Under the heading "Political Paraphernalia," the Missouri report states, "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional [sic] Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr." Can you imagine the political brouhaha had the names mentioned been Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters!?

Then we have the (April 15th, 2009) Maryland National Guard alerted to be on the lookout for dangerous people who “have formed recently to express displeasure/anger over recent federal/state government actions: more taxes, increased spending, higher deficits, a surge of borrowing to pay for it all, bailout of the financial institutions.” “This movement can be identified by different variations of “TEA Party” or “Tea Party.” Past “TEA Party” events have been peaceful. “TEA” stands for “Taxed Enough Already,” the report continues. An obvious challange to the government I suppose. And with that, several years back while out on a fire I managed to read a US Forest Service briefing paper for fire staff officers, one that told them to be careful of what they might say to us north Idaho folks, as we’re all anti-government, and won’t “listen to reason” either.

So, it appears that if you oppose any of the following, you could be profiled (along with being investigated and possibly arrested) as a potential dangerous "militia member" or terrorist: The United Nations, The New World Order, Gun Control, The violation of Posse Comitatus, The Federal Reserve, The Income Tax, The Ammunition and Accountability Act, A possible Constitutional Convention, The North American Union, Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), Abortion, or Illegal Immigration. Looking at that list I’d bet that three quarters the American people oppose at least one of the items, but even that opposition is sufficient to mark them as potentially violence prone and anti-government. Looks to me as if the government is either painting itself into a corner, or is planning to arrest just about everybody in the country!

All in all this looks like a most disturbing trend in our government. Dissidents are commonly referred to as "extremists" in these reports (similar to the old Soviet practice of claiming that all dissidents were mentally deranged), and people who express their opposing views in public are now being singled out by name. If we do nothing about this situation it will soon be too late to stop it… it will become a leviathan bureaucracy monitoring and controlling the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country. The Feds already monitor nearly every phone call, email, or public speech. How long before these reports will be used to justify the arrest, and to incarcerate people, because of their ideas and opinions differ from the official line, making them a "threat" or "dangerous" to the officially approved society? Shades of Orwell’s “1984”! For this I spent most of my working life in the armed forces and the fire service!? You might remember Mr. Obama’s campaign speech in Pennsylvania where he said: "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." This comment could be interpreted as targeting people who hold different views from the elitist liberal view -- and not because they're particularly "bitter" or lashing out at a far left political system that appears to have discarded them.

Another report from the DHS that is quite irritating to me personally has an entire section dedicated to “Disgruntled Military Veterans.” (People who are against abortion and illegal immigration also got special mention.) I am after all one of those millions of Americans who once wrote a blank check to the American people, a check that was “payable with my life if necessary”. The idea that our veterans, who have sworn to defend this nation against all comers, would be at high risk to overthrow our country is dead wrong. If anyone has an allegiance to this nation, and have put their life on the line for the nation and the safety of our people, it’s the veteran. He’s the one that is more apt to stand up for the flag and say, “For better or for worse, I love my country” because he long ago made that commitment, and willingly took that oath. To me, reports and assessments such as these do little more than demonstrate the distain in which our government holds the American people, their wishes, and desires. It aptly shows our left wing elitist government in action, and their mad scramble to forcibly control every aspect of our lives. It completely rejects the fact that federal authority is ultimately derived from “We the People”, and that such authority cannot exist without our express permission.

As a source of general information, http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/publications/ is the government webpage listing a wide assortment of DHS publications. I don’t think I’m violating national security (and thus subject to arrest as an enemy of the people) by posting this web address, as the website is currently available to the public. In addition, despite my somewhat precarious position as a rather vocal conservative and military veteran, if we consider my advancing years and declining health, I rather doubt I’m any real threat to the United States government, no matter if I agree with their policies or not.

But then, if I’m not here next week…

Pirates

With the attempted Somali pirate takeover of the U.S.-flagged merchant ship Maersk Alabama, the entire world was once again expecting to see the United States again exposed as a “paper tiger”, seemingly unable to protect her citizens from purely criminal activity, as well as being unable to recover Capt. Richard Phillips unharmed. The other option would have been a disastrously failed rescue attempt. But wait! The White House authorized a rescue (including the use of deadly force if necessary), then sat back and awaited the outcome! Apparently there was no micromanagement from on high, no weeping over the social or political consequences, no left-wing humanitarian hand-wringing, and no leaks to the world’s press. Capt. Phillips was rescued, three of the pirates were killed, and I for one am quite pleasantly surprised with Mr. Obama’s response! (I don’t generally say things like that about democrats in the White House either.)

Perhaps this will sound familiar. An American skipper in the hands of seafaring rogues. Some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes under attack. Tough men from a messy patch of Africa eluding and harassing the world’s greatest powers. Well, it’s not Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean, but pirates from the Barbary Coast (today’s Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya) who hijacked European ships with impunity, and ransomed the crews, nearly 200 years ago. Frank Lambert, a professor at Purdue who is an expert on the Barbary pirates, explained how those brigands, like today’s Somalis, usually kept their hostages alive, not from any enlightened sense of humanity, but rather it was simply good business. The Barbary pirates actually had an ambassador, and the pirates worked for a government. The Barbary rulers commissioned them to rob and pillage and kidnap, and the rulers got a cut. It was all official. And open. It was truly state-sponsored terrorism. And the Western nations’ response was to pay “tribute,” a fancy word for blackmail. Well, they did until the United States sent most of its then quite small Navy to explain the error of their ways…

If a country paid tribute to the Barbary pirates, the 18th-century pirates would leave its ships alone. Today, shipping companies hand over millions of dollars in ransom to the Somali pirates, a strategy that does save their cargoes, but also attracts even more unemployed Somali fishermen into the lucrative hijacking business. The Barbary pirates used small boats powered by slaves chained to the oars to attack western shipping. Crude, but they were effective, much like today’s Somali pirates who captured a Saudi super tanker, from a dinghy! Merchant ships facing the Barbary pirates were often armed and could, if the crew was willing to defend themselves, fend off an attack. Today’s merchant ships are unarmed (for fear of harming someone), and told to surrender if they can’t outrun or outmaneuver the pirates. But then, the Barbary pirates’ bravado brought about their downfall, something the Somalis might want to remember. Eventually, the American shippers got tired of paying off a bunch of knife wielding thugs in blousy pants. That’s what led Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to send in the Navy and Marines, whence “the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn, and of course the violent fall of the Barbary corsairs.

Last year, there were more than 120 pirate attacks off the African coast, and the pirates made off with more than $100 million in ransom. There are reportedly more than 1,200 pirates roaming the coast of Africa now, mostly from Somalia. Rather than the cannon, cutlass and dagger of yesteryear, today’s pirates are armed with light machineguns, RPG’s, and AK-47’s, essentially light infantry weapons easily outclassed by only slightly heavier weapons commonly carried aboard small naval patrol boats. The modern 9,000 ton destroyer USS Bainbridge could probably whip nearly warship afloat today, but it really isn’t the proper platform for running down pirate speedboats, which would be somewhat like swatting flies with a billion dollar sledgehammer. The idea is to have lots cats chasing the mice, instead of a few hulking lions wandering around off-shore. For years, military planners have been calling for the U.S. to build a fleet on small, fast, and cheap ships that can patrol inshore. This eventually lead to the Littoral Combat Ship program, and a problem laden effort to build 55 relatively inexpensive ($450-$600 million apiece) coastal patrol ships. However, even the Navy’s vaunted LCS is, at 3,000 tons, bigger than a WW II era destroyer, only slightly faster, and armed with small guns and lots of anti-ship missiles, making it appear to be another “multi-purpose” warship rather than a dedicated pirate hunter. To catch pirates I’d hazard a guess that something on the lines of the inexpensive Motor Torpedo Boats of WW II would be much more appropriate. Unless the world’s navies are allowed to attack the pirate lairs (which is highly doubtful due to international law), the world is going to need a lot of these patrol boats as well, because there are a lot of pirates out there. Reported pirate incidents from 2002 are: Indonesia: 103. Gulf of Aden/red Sea: 11. Ecuador: 12. Guyana: 12. Vietnam: 12. Nigeria: 14. Malaysia: 14. Malacca Straits: 16. India: 18. Bangladesh: 32. The numbers increase every year as the pirates get bolder, better organized, and better equipped.

It is also of interest that the number of incidents is on the rise. 106 cases of piracy were recorded in 1992. By 2002 there were 370 minor and major incidents reported. The statistics go on to say that: the majority of ships have been boarded whilst at anchor, that 10 crew members were killed by pirates in 2001 and 97 serious injuries were sustained. The professionalism and desperation of these elements is growing as the records show. "The big worry is that the attacks are getting much more violent… It's moved on from being maritime petty theft, where half a dozen robbers would steal something and escape, to much more organized, with much greater use of weaponry… They're carrying AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades," says Andrew Linington, of the maritime officers' union. He's amazed that the attacks haven't resulted in a major maritime disaster, yet.

The world’s navies could of course wipe out the pirate lairs, sink their vessels, and kill them in large numbers, leaving the base problem to fester on, and pirates to crop up again and again. A better response would be to crush the pirate’s power, demonstrating that crime doesn’t pay, and in addition find their recruits an alternative form of employment, whatever that might be. In reality the humanitarians will weep and wail, governments will continue to waffle, navies will continue to chase their tails, shippers will continues to pay ransom, leaving nothing to change as long as the world considers that it has “bigger” problems to worry about. For Obama, his handling of the crisis showed a president who was comfortable in relying on the U.S. military, much as George W. Bush did. But it also showed a commander in chief who was willing to bring in federal law enforcement officials to handle the judicial elements of the crisis. Will Obama see any political gain? This crisis will have faded into distant memory by the time voters reach the polls in 2012.

Revolution?

I was born an American; I will live an American; I shall die an American; and I intend to perform the duties incumbent upon me in that character to the end of my career. I mean to do this with absolute disregard of personal consequences. What are the personal consequences? What is the individual man, with all the good or evil which may befall a great country, and in the midst of great transactions which concern that country's fate? Let the consequences be what they will, I am careless. No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer, or if he fall, in the defense of the liberties and constitution of his country.

Daniel Webster

In the course of roaming the internet, I often come across webpages that discuss “The Second American Revolution” or the “Coming Revolution”. (I rather prefer “The coming revolution” myself, as like most history buffs I consider the Civil War to have been our second revolution.) Usually these articles range from purely fictional stories to some “way out” radical right wing stuff, and I look at them accordingly. Occasionally however I’ll find an article on the subject that is factual, well thought out, and certainly to the point. Fortunately for all concerned, these articles don’t promote an armed revolution, as that’s all highly illegal, and would soon have everybody in the government coming down on the authors head, with a long stretch in jail as their end goal. Besides, an armed rebellion against the US government in this day and age of professional armies and high-tech weaponry is probably a really good way to commit suicide!

However, there is a way to go about having a full scale rebellion, throwing the present government out on their ears, that is all perfectly legal! And that would be what’s presently called a “Voters Rebellion”. I’m more convinced every day that a much needed voter revolution is brewing, and I certainly hope that it will happen in whatever’s left of my lifetime. The cause of this rebellion can be seen all around us. It can be seen in our ever increasing national debt. It can be seen in the ever increasing taxes that never seem to catch up with that debt. It can be seen in our government’s misuse of our laws. It can be seen in our courts interpreting the constitution in whatever manner they happen to see fit at the time. It can be seen in the increase arbitrary government rules and regulations that have the effect of law. It can be seen in the everyday lack of common sense displayed by our “leaders”. Worst of all it can be seen in the mad dash towards socialism we see promoted by our intelligentsia and followed by our politicians. The birth pains of this voter revolution can be seen through the current political polarities. It was felt through the surge of the constitutional community in supporting Rep. Ron Paul. It was felt in evangelicals' and conservatives' frustration with the election of our current president. It was felt in the response to John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for his vice-presidential candidate. It was felt in our recent nearly unanimous disapproval rating of Congress. America does have some good congressmen of course, but those good politicians are few and far between. The majority of them desperately need to be replaced, which isn’t going to happen until Americans get their act together! Such a revolution would bring in politicians who will make sweeping changes, and who are genuinely committed to the America established by our Founders. They would defend our nation and our civil rights, cut government waste, stop pork-barrel spending, reject political perks, dump the lobbyists, quit borrowing from other countries, put an end to our amateur attempts at nation building, reduce the flow of government aid overseas, and bring back pride in America.

Far to many people will jump on the idea of a voter rebellion with the question “Why do we need a voter revolution?” To which the simple answer is “To save our nation as we know it.” We have a choice of course. We can, as a free nation and a free people go quietly into the night, or we can stand up and fight. Our Constitution and our way of life are under attack by the same men who have sworn to uphold it. Many of these men are the same people who did their best to tear down our country in their youth, and who, with their socialist/totalitarian goals unchanged, now promote themselves as the best to lead us into the new millennia (with themselves as the new age rulers of course). These are evil men, whose only goal is the accumulation of position, wealth, and personal power. They lead impressionable youth with vague promises of a utopian world where everyone “shares equally”, disregarding the fallacy of such socialistic claims. And our youth knows no better. The political left is betting on the American people being so cowed by the fear of poverty, befuddled by the incessant demands of modern life, and so consumed by the desire for personal security, that we will go along with this socialist agenda. Now, before it’s to late, is the time for all Americans to stand up and show these people that we will sell neither our personal liberty nor the greatness of our nation. In his Inaugural Address, Thomas Jefferson told us: “Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.”

There are three common-sense steps toward a voter revolution: First, examine the doings of your representatives and ask yourself: Do they represent the people? Do they have the type of character that can resist the temptations of political power and special interest groups? Secondly, if your answer is "no", get them out of office. Call them by name and explain to people why they should be ousted. Third, fight to elect solid, reputable, law-abiding, Constitution-honoring representatives. A politician's personal honor and integrity must be above reproach, whereupon they are far more likely to do what they've promised. In May of 1770, British orator Edmund Burke stated “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. Words that we would do well to remember today. Evil has flourished in this nation for far too long. It's well past time that “we the people” join hands and rise up in another revolution, not just sit back and hope everything turns out OK.

"We the people are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

UN Again

No matter how hard I ignore them, it seems that the environmentalists and their precious Kyoto Treaty and its successor, the Copenhagen Accord, just won’t go away! Now it appears that the
United Nations is pushing even harder with a new "climate change" plan that envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes. … all under the supervision of that august world body naturally. Those and other results are discussed in a United Nations "information note" on the possible consequences of the measures industrialized nations will have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord (Kyoto Treaty, part 2), after it’s negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming. Yet nobody seems to agree on whether “Global Warming” or “Global Cooling” exists at all, to what degree it may exist, or to possible causes. Adding to the confusion, science has found that all the planets in our solar system are warming to some degree, and the Sun’s magnetic field seems to be doing some strange things as well! I might suggest that Mr. Obama’s government back off in making changes in our nation until we see just what actually is happening, or even if we could really do anything about it!

The UN note is to be distributed at the negotiating session that started on March 29 in Bonn, Germany. This is one of three sessions intended to decide the national commitments involved in this new arrangement. In language that is normal for important U.N. sessions, the negotiators are known as the "Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol." (Even the “spell and grammar check” mode of my computer chokes on that one!) The consequences of their “negotiations” could be nothing less than world-changing, with catastrophic results for the United States population! Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to bother our new regime in the mad dash toward globalism. At present, closing the deal has become the United Nations' highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is a critical step on that path to what the U.N. claims is an "ambitious and effective international response to climate change," The U. N.s goals can be seen at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf . The paper offers little detail about the positive and negative consequences to the industrial nations will most enforce the greenhouse gas reduction targets. Nor does it make any effort to calculate the costs and disruption involved, but makes it very clear that they will impact the entire global economy.

Among the considerations are “the cap-and-trade system for controlling carbon emissions that has been espoused by the Obama administration; "carbon taxes" on imported fuels and energy-intensive goods and industries, including airline transportation; and lower subsidies for those same goods, as well as new or higher subsidies for goods that are considered "environmentally sound." Other considerations are vaguely referred to, including "energy policy reform," which could affect "large-scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports." The note claims that such reform could have "positive consequences for alternative transportation providers and producers of alternative fuels." While that could be good news for some people, it’s going to be rough on the folks that work in the oil industry. Actually it’s going to be rough on all of us to one extent or another. “Cap and Trade”, or perhaps more properly called “Cap and Tax” is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth, in a very strange way. It takes from working folks and gives to the rich, just the opposite of what Mr. Obama told us during his campaign. It takes from an industrial America that is already struggling, and gives to rich Wall Street “green” investors who know how to pull political strings. How does that happen? With much higher taxes on energy usage, and on fossil fuels, both imported and domestic. MIT researchers have released their “Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals,” which shows that the increase would be more than $3,000 a year for each American household. You can also expect to see much of those taxes being turned over to the UN. The note adds that "If they were implemented fairly, such schemes would leave trade and investment patterns unchanged." Nothing is said of course about how such fairness is to be achieved, nor of the consequences if it’s not. The impact, the note states, "would be functionally equivalent to an increased tariff: decreased market share for covered foreign producers."

The UN note informs negotiators that cap-and-trade schemes "may induce some industrial relocation" to "less regulated host countries." While the system urges manufacturers toward less polluting technologies, many of them will simply move to another country that doesn’t have stringent pollution regulations. The note adds that such relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment." But also "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries." Humm… sounds somewhat like the UN is planning to move your job to Africa, with or without you.

What does this mean for the United States? Pretty much an economic disaster I’m afraid, on top of the one we’re already dealing with! That doesn’t bother the environmentalists who are working so hard towards this “realignment”, it doesn’t seem to bother the democratic regime presently in power, and it certainly doesn’t bother the third world nations who can only profit from all this “change”. In addition to greatly increased taxes, we can expect to see skyrocketing prices for everything energy related or energy dependant. That includes just about everything in our technological world of today. Well… I always wondered about living in a semi-primitive world. The Ladies can look forward to cooking on wood stoves, and using washboards and flat-irons, while the guys can figure on plowing the fields and skidding firewood with a team of horses. Considering that home made candles really don’t produce all that much light, and that kerosene will be outrageously expensive, I guess we can plan on going to bed early as well. A Sunday drive will mean horse and buggy, with ten dollar a gallon gasoline being to expensive to waste in any but emergency conditions.

In a nutshell, the UN plan that Mr. Obama so strongly supports is to force the world’s industrial nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. While this may or may not be a good idea, it will effectively wreck those countries economy and standard of living as industry packs up and goes elsewhere. Just what, pray tell, will the United States do when we find ourselves inundated with another hundred million or so suddenly unemployed citizens!? I’m afraid it’s merely another step to the socialist “nanny state” that the far left is steadily pushing us towards.