“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?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)