Thought For The Day
*
Irony at its best: 290 people get the Swine Flu and everybody wants to wear a mask. Ten million people irrefutably have AIDS and no one wants to wear a condom.
Chrysler headquarters is shown in Auburn Hills, Mich.,
Wednesday April 29, 2009. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
Last Friday, the day after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, I drove past the company’s headquarters on Interstate 75 in Auburn Hills, Mich. As I glanced at the pentagram logo I felt myself tearing up a little bit. Anyone who grew up in the Detroit area, as I did, can’t help but be sad to see a once great company fail.
But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. “One of my clients,” Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”
Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.
This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.
After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as “speculators” by Barack Obama in his news conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown.
The White House denied that it strong-armed Perella Weinberg. The firm issued a statement saying it decided to accept the settlement, but it pointedly did not deny that it had been threatened by the White House. Which is to say, the threat worked.
The same goes for big banks that have received billions in government Troubled Asset Relief Program money. Many of them want to give back the money, but the government won’t let them. They also voted to accept the Chrysler settlement. Nice little bank ya got there, wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.
Left-wing bloggers have been saying that the White House’s denial of making threats should be taken at face value and that Lauria’s statement is not evidence to the contrary. But that’s ridiculous. Lauria is a reputable lawyer and a contributor to Democratic candidates. He has no motive to lie. The White House does.
Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process, it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.
Michigan politicians of both parties joined Obama in denouncing the holdout bondholders. They point to the sad plight of UAW retirees not getting full payment of the health care benefits the union negotiated with Chrysler. But the plight of the beneficiaries of the pension funds represented by the bondholders is sad too. Ordinarily you would expect these claims to be weighed and determined by the rule of law. But not apparently in this administration.
Obama’s attitude toward the rule of law is apparent in the words he used to describe what he is looking for in a nominee to replace Justice David Souter. He wants “someone who understands justice is not just about some abstract legal theory,” he said, but someone who has “empathy.” In other words, judges should decide cases so that the right people win, not according to the rule of law.
The Chrysler negotiations will not be the last occasion for this administration to engage in bailout favoritism and crony capitalism. There’s a May 31 deadline to come up with a settlement for General Motors. And there will be others. In the meantime, who is going to buy bonds from unionized companies if the government is going to take their money away and give it to the union? We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government. It is likely to be part of a continuing series.
By: Michael Barone
Washington Examiner Senior Political Analyst
05/05/09
Find this article at:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/White-House-puts-UAW-ahead-of-property-rights-44415057.html
The Left Is Making a Mistake in Ridiculing the Tea Parties
The political Left in the United States is making a grave mistake indiminishing and dismissing the anger of the American people. Where it may be commonplace for liberals, Leftists, neo-Marxists and Progressive-Leftists to take to the streets over anything and everything, including a change of wind direction, it is entirely a different story with conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives and Republicans don't march in the streets foranything. The fact that they have now taken to the streets in protest of massive government spending and government's encroachment into our liberties speaks volumes to those who would listen.
An amazing thing happened on the way to America's socialistic demise...a revolution has fomented. Born of a righteous anger centered on wasteful and special interest government spending, lack of honest representation in government, a move toward transforming the United States Constitutional Republic into a Socialist Democracy, excessive taxation and many more constitutionally based grievances, conservatives, traditionalists and Republicans, as well as centrists, independents and Democrats, took to the streets of just about every congressional district to protest a behemoth runaway government run by an elitist and opportunistic political class.
From Chicago to New York, St.Louis to San Francisco, St. Paul to Austin and Miami to Portland, hard-working, taxpaying Americans, who aren't too often moved to taking to the streets in protest, took to the streets to redress their government. What makes this "protest" more important and more potent than any petition drive, any email, letter writing or phone campaign, is that it moved conservatives, traditionalists and Republicans to take to the streets, something that in most every instance and in every circumstance they are not wont to do. The question that is being asked now is this: Will this movement grow and gather strength enough to affect real, meaningful and constitutionally friendly "change" or will conservatives, traditionalists and Republicans fall prey to their traditional boogey-man, factionalism?
The Conservative Challenge
For decades - both in my political life and for as long as I have been writing and publishing - I have contended that conservatives and Republicans - the Right - aren't cohesive. Since entering into the new media publishing and non-profit educational venues I have come to understand that they don't financially support the organizations and publications that carry the water for them; who defend the traditionalist ideology from mainstream media and Leftist attacks. They employ ideological litmus tests for their prospective candidates instead of selecting candidates that would dedicate their public service to preserving their individual rights to pursue their special interests. And it is obvious to anyone but those walking around with eyes wide shut that it takes an act outrageous and egregious to motivate conservatives and Republicans to the streets in protest.
While this analysis may sound harsh (and with regard to the lack of financial support for those who carry the water for conservatism it is meant to be), for the most part there is an underlying philosophical reason for the differences between the pack mentality of the Left and the individualism of the Right. Where the Left leans more toward identifying our populace in the collective (what's good for the country is good for the individual), the Right identifies our populace as individuals who, together, make up the whole (what is good for the individual is good for the country). This individualist philosophy lends itself to self-sufficiency and individual responsibility which leads to a community of people who believe that solutions come from individuals and not government. This, of course, leads to a civically responsible community.
A vulnerability that exists in extreme individualism is that it leads to a community of individuals who always want to be the leader. We've all heard the phrase, "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians." When everyone believes that their way of achieving things is the best, factions develop that impede the whole of the community from being effective in achieving common goals. A prime example of this can be found in the ideological litmus test for political candidates. Instead of supporting candidates that would fight to protect an individual's right to pursue matters important to the individual, factions within the conservative community threaten to withhold support if their individual special interests, the subjects and issues most important to them, are not embraced by candidates.
Using the individualist philosophy in political pursuits instead of measuring candidates on their dedication to preserving and defending the individuals' rights to pursue their individual interests makes it next to impossible to not only come to a consensus on a candidate, but slate a candidate that can beat the Left's cohesive, pack-mentality voting style. Extreme individualism is also the main reason that the Right continually falls to the Left in establishing and funding political action and advocacy groups. It is the primary reason why, even though there are people on the right side of the ideological aisle who have even more money than neo-Marxist financier George Soros, there are no groups like MoveOn.org, America Coming Together, Media Matters, etc. Those ideological groups that do exist on the right side of the ideological aisle are almost always extremely limited in what they can do to combat the Leftists because they are so underfunded.
This is why the events of April 15th, 2009, are so incredible and important in and of themselves. It would seem that the acts outrageous and egregious have occurred at the hand of our government, so much so and for so long that - to borrow a line from a Bob Dylan song, "...the times, they are achangin'."
The Beneficiaries of American Political Apathy
The American Fifth Column - an association of one-worlders, neo-Marxists, Progressive-Leftists, Communists, Socialists and anarchists, to name some of the more notable groups - has successfully intruded into our daily lives by implementing a shadow set of societal laws in "political correctness"; a shadow set of rules antithetical to the United States Constitution. This is true to such an extent that elected officials are basing the creation of legislation on these tenets, tenets directly taken from the Marxist-Leninist philosophy. From hate crime laws, whose definitions are open to ideological interpretation, to the mass redistribution of wealth currently being perpetrated upon the American people by the Obama Administration, to the government funded indoctrination of our children into special interest ideology via the public schools system, the elements of our society that believe government is the answer have infiltrated every avenue of our lives and they have placed the importance of their ideology above even the proper execution of representative government.
But most disturbing is that the American Fifth Column has so successfully employed the tactics of Marxist "community organizer" Saul Alinsky to achieve their goal - the radical transformation of America's social and economic structure - that they have taken control of the US government. Nancy Pelosi's oligarchy in the US House of Representatives, combined withthe almost filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the US Senate, place the Legislative Branch firmly in control of the neo-Marxist wing of the Democrat Party.
President Obama - who has talked unabashedly about "economic justice" and the "arrogance" of the United States, and who is a self-declared"community organizer" in the mold of the Alinsky model, has populated his administration with far-Left ideologues - many from the Clinton Administration - including many members of the biased and agendized mainstream media. It can be successfully argued that the neo-Marxist Progressive-Left has become "the establishment" and traditionalist Americans - those who believe in the sanctity of the US Constitution, in freedom, liberty and personal and civic responsibility - have become the "counter-culture." Enter the tea parties...
Goebbels Would Be Proud
As real, hard-working Americans from all walks of life - rich, poor, religious, non-religious, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, white, black, yellow, brown, male and female - took to the streets to send a message to their elected officials; those elected to office to represent the best interests of their constituencies, not their political parties, perhaps the most organized and vicious threat to our Constitutional Republic took to the airwaves to discredit, diminish and otherwise smear 'We the People': the mainstream media.
Make no mistake, while the neo-Marxists elected to office are a threat to our liberty and freedom, and to our Constitutional Republic, they wouldn't be able to come close to the success they have seen so far if it weren't for the propagandists in the mainstream media. The mainstream media disingenuously and blatantly violated their constitutionally mandated responsibility to act as citizen's advocate by championing the Obama campaign in the 2008 elections. By refusing to ask the tough questions and selectively airing favorable coverage of the Obama campaign, while criticizing the McCain campaign for even the most benign faux pas, they ensured a victory for Barack Obama thus violating the public trust.
True journalism is dead in the mainstream media. It has been replaced by a propaganda dissemination mechanism that would have made Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels envious. With regard to the tea parties two examples stand out... Radio talk show host, Bill Press, on FOX News, April 14th, tried to float the idea that nefarious conservative organizations were behind theorganizing of the nationwide tea party assemblage, saying he "didn't see anything genuine or see anything real" about the protests. He advanced a ridiculous theory that because advocate organizations and politicians decided to get on board with the public outrage that they somehow were pulling the strings of the total of protesters from coast-to-coast.
Press may understand protests on the Left to be funded by nefarious political andideological forces - George Soros, MoveOn.org, America Coming Together,Media Matters, the Communist and Socialist Parties, etc. - but conservatives and Republicans aren't that adept at organizing "march-in-the-street"protests.
Another came from CNN's Susan Roesgen who displayed a level of elitism in her interviewing of tea party protesters in Chicago heretofore unseen throughout the history of journalism. Roesgen questioned one protester whose frustration with Barack Obama's totalitarian governmental style led him to equate it to the political stylings of a young, pre-holocaust Adolf Hitler. Forgetting that fascism exists on the left side of an accurate political spectrum, Roesgen chastised the protester for being "offensive." One must question how offended she was when the same thing was happening to President George W. Bush. Then Roesgen, under the guise of asking a question, lectured and entered into debate with another protester before cutting him off and declaring that the entire protest was orchestrated by FOX News and was, in fact, "anti-government," "anti-CNN" and "not family viewing." This blatant disregard for the public's genuine anger lends credence to the argument that the mainstream media is not only in the tank for the Obama Administration, but that they have reached such a level of elitism, possessing such an agenda-driven arrogance, that they have literally become not only an enemy of the Charters of Freedom but an enemy of the people.
Overthrowing Men Who Pervert the Constitution
According to the recently released DHS threat assessment titled, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic & Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization & Recruitment, my proclivity to actively defend the US Constitution, to actively question a reckless government that has strayed from the principles set forth by our Founders and Framers - principles born of Natural Law and Judeo-Christian values, principles that forged a Constitutional Republic, defines me as a threat to our nation.
According to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (please tell me again what her qualifications for this post are?, because I am angry about the government's abdication of effective representative government, I am a threat to the nation, along with US soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and each and every American who turned out for the tea parties across the nation. Both Napolitano and President Obama - for his silence on the matter - consider We the People "the enemy." As of this writing, there are 564 days until the 2010 midterm elections. The questions that remains are these:
Will this truly patriotic movement continue to grow?
Will those who took to the streets on April 15th, 2009, continue to do so until the totalitarian forces of the neo-Marxist Progressive-Left are vanquished once and for all?
Or will conservative, traditionalists, Republicans, concerned centrists and honest Democrats look at their singular achievement and say job well-done as they retreat to the status quo?
To be sure, if the mid-term elections had been held on the day of the teaparties I truly believe most incumbents would have been ousted from office. The anger is that concentrated. But the past holds the truth of the future and it shows that - traditionally - conservatives are hard pressed to maintain cohesiveness over a prolonged period of time. Truthfully, I hope I am proven wrong on this point. The fact is, our nation's future depends on me being wrong.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is credited with having said, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." If the Left is smart - and that is truly being questioned by many Americans - they will form a new-found respect for the admiral's words with regard to the events of April 15th, 2009. If the Right is smart, and in their awakening it appears they are, they will realize this needs to be an ongoing effort, that there is hard work ahead, that everyone must act cohesively and that the revolution starts now!
"We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert theconstitution." - Abraham Lincoln
Frank Salvato
april 17, 2009
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/2009/04172009.htm
Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama's Action
State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama "stimulus" plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time.
In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of "hope" equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government's authority over the states. These states -- Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas -- have passed resolutions reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to "cease and desist" from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.
When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The use of the 10th Amendment in conjunction with nullification garnered much attention in 1828, when the federal government passed a tariff that southerners believed affected them disproportionately. When the 1828 tariff was complemented by another in 1832, Vice President John C. Calhoun resigned the Vice Presidency to lead his home state of South Carolina in pursuit of an "ordinance of nullification," which was no less a declaration of the sovereignty of each individual state within the union than the declarations now being made.
Calhoun was simply exercising what he recognized to be his state's right to defend liberty within its borders by rejecting the dictates of an overbearing central government. While his efforts culminated in a tense affair referred to as the "nullification crisis," which witnessed everything from threats of a federal invasion of South Carolina to an ongoing and near union-rending debate over national power vs. state's rights, they also succeeded in turning back the tariffs that had been passed in spite of the Constitutional limits on federal power.
This time around, in 2009, appeals to the 10th Amendment are not based on tariffs but on unfettered government expansion in Obama's "stimulus bill," federal mandates on abortion that violate state laws, and infringements on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, among other things.
For example, Family Security Matters reports that Missouri's "House Concurrent Resolution 0004 (2009) reasserts its sovereignty based on Barack Obama's stated intention to sign into law a federal ‘Freedom of Choice Act', [because] the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or state law ‘enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment' and would effectively prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the future."
The resolution in Montana grew out of concerns over coming attacks on the 2nd Amendment, thus its preface describes it as, "An Act Exempting From Federal Regulation Under The Commerce Clause Of The Constitution Of The United States A Firearm, A Firearm Accessory, Or Ammunition Manufactured And Retained In Montana."
New Hampshire's resolution actually references certain federal actions that would be nullified within that state were they pushed by Obama's administration, according to americandaily.com. Among these are "Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press, [and any] further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.
Regardless of the specific reason behind each of the resolutions in the 11 states, all of them direct the federal government to "cease and desist" in its reckless violation of state's rights. In this way, South Carolina's resolution is typical of the others issued to date:
"The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution...
Be it...resolved that this resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as South Carolina's agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates...beyond the scope of the federal government's constitutionally delegated powers."
What these state assemblies and congresses have hit upon here is key to our entire conservative interpretation of the Constitution, for these states understand that the Constitution limits the federal government, not the people. Or to put it another way, it guarantees the freedom of the people by limiting the government.
Every conservative should relish the call for the federal government to "cease and desist all mandates that are beyond the scope of [its] constitutionally delegated powers." In this way, we honor the Constitution that enumerates a number of our liberties yet also guarantees us other liberties that are neither enumerated nor denied in the document.
Liberals don't respect the Constitution, and liberals in Congress don't hesitate to propose legislation that would clearly violate it. The current push to give Washington, D.C. a voting representative in the House of Representatives is a good example; even liberal Prof. Jonathan Turley told a Congressional hearing that this bill is patently unconstitutional. But they press on with it.
Our Constitutional system of checks and balances is always thought of as enabling two of the three branches of the federal government to keep the third within its constitutional bounds. But there is a fourth check, the states, which also have a Constitutional function. It is to them this burden now falls. The states can choose between allowing the federal government to impose untenable conditions on them if they accept the stimulus money, or to reject it.
These eleven states have the right to reject the stimulus plan. And they must.
There is no other option. For this federal expansion will not stop unless we stand in its way with courage in our hearts and the Constitution in our hands.
by A.W.R. Hawkins
02/23/2009
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30807
Hat tip: Dave Cogburn
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
--------------------------
Additional information resources:
Glenn Beck - 20 States Move to Declare Sovereignty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzwAzB7lfA8
In a video (see above) released February 20th, Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois that launched the new president's national political career, calls Barack Obama a communist and usurper and says he refuses to acknowledge the validity of Obama's inauguration over lingering questions about the 44th president's birthplace.
The U.S. Constitution requires any president be born an American citizen. Barack Obama has steadfastly refused to provide evidence of his place of birth with an original birth certificate.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
It's hard to pinpoint the worst part of the public lands legislation bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling up for an under-the-radar Sunday vote tomorrow.
The 1200-page, pork-laden, $10 billion proposal locks up millions of acres of energy-rich property by designating it as environmentalist-friendly "federal wilderness" area where not even as much as a bicycle would be permitted to travel across the land. Many of these areas recently became available when the ban on domestic drilling in Western states expired last fall and the liberal left couldn't muster the courage to keep it in place due to rising energy prices. Now Democratic leaders are using different legislative strategies to put a new kind of ban in place.
One Republican House staffer put it this way: "Reid is going to make it federal land so no one can touch it. He's locking up the equivalent of ANWR."
The bill, S.22 "Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009," would cordon off more than 3 million acres from energy leasing by restricting various areas as "federal wilderness" or "wild and scenic" river ways.
Since the price of gasoline has dropped and attention has diverted to other matters, such as President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration, Leader Reid has made the land grab a priority and is calling members of the Senate back to Washington on Sunday to rush it through. And the bill, which is basically an omnibus compilation of pet projects and land seizures sponsored by individual House members and senators, has wide-ranging, bipartisan support since it helps many of them secure support from stakeholders in their home states and districts.
For example, one piece of the bill that has drawn the ire of the Wall Street Journal is a provision sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.). He'd like to make a robust, container shipping port located in his district's Taunton River into a scenic tourist destination. This would have the liberally convenient side effect of killing a proposal to create a terminal to import liquefied natural gas.
Then, as to be expected in an omnibus bill, there's the pork. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.) is requesting $461 million to legally settle a dispute over the San Joaquin River with the environmentalist group Natural Resources Defense Council. The money would be used for a water project that has the "minimum goal" of restoring 500 salmon to the river. (That's nearly $1 million per fish!) Montana Sen. Jon Tester (D.) wants $5 million to fund a "Wolf Compensation and Prevention Program" to assist property owners use "non-lethal" measures to prohibit wolves from killing their livestock.
The lands bill chief opponent Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) argues it's foolish to add acreage to the federal government's responsibility when it can't even properly manage treasured properties like the Statue of Liberty or National Mall appropriately. And, "we're not exactly suffering from a shortage of wilderness," his spokesman John Hart said in a conversation with Townhall.
Coburn has drafted 13 amendments to the bill, but Reid is not allowing him to offer a single one of them. One of them is a common-sense measure to just require that the current maintenance backlogs of government property be brought up to date.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) is urging his fellow Republicans to just skip the vote, as a means of opposing the bill and drawing attention to the fact it's been more than 120 days since Reid allowed a GOP amendment to be accepted on the floor.
Several Republicans, however, have their own projects in the bill making it a difficult vote to skip. Republican Sen. John Barasso of Wyoming, who is typically a reliable conservative vote, has a provision tucked away in the bill to withdraw 1.2 million acres of state land from mineral leasing and energy exploration, where 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 331 million barrels of recoverable oil are estimated to exist.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
-------- Response by Marty Dillian:
The U.S. Senate passed the bill Sunday by a vote of 66-12.
Next year we are to bring the soldiers home
For lack of money, and it is all right.
Places they guarded, or kept orderly,
Must guard themselves, and keep themselves orderly.
We want the money for ourselves at home
Instead of working. And this is all right.
It's hard to say who wanted it to happen,
But now it's been decided nobody minds.
The places are a long way off, not here,
Which is all right, and from what we hear
The soldiers there only made trouble happen.
Next year we shall be easier in our minds,
Next year we shall be living in a country
That brought its soldiers home for lack of money.
The statues will be standing in the same
Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same.
Our children will not know it's a different country.
All we can hope to leave them now is money.
Free republics are not known to have long life expectancies. At the ripe old age of two hundred and thirty-two, America is definitely showing her age. She is long past her prime, and some are predicting her demise. No, some are PLANNING her demise.
Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of this once-great country believed there was a controlling cabal that was crafting America's servitude. With the assistance of Heaven, they decided to fight those forces. Pastors fought with fiery sermons from the pulpit; newsmen fought with the power of the pen; statesmen fought in the halls of Congress; and merchants fought with the sacrifice of their material gain. Together, they lifted Lady Liberty to her feet and defeated the powers of darkness.
It took the global elite a long time to recover, but they have reemerged with a vengeance. They are now on the precipice of accomplishing what their great granddaddies failed to do: bring the "Liberty or Death" colonists under their power and control.
Sadly, we no longer have the will to resist servitude. Our pulpits are too busy preaching a prosperity gospel; newsmen are in bed with the forces they once disdained; statesmen have been replaced with opportunistic, self-serving politicians; and merchants know no god but money. Hence, it is left to a small--and I mean very small--remnant to sound the clarion call for freedom and independence. Unfortunately, few seem to be listening to their cries.
2010 seems to be a banner year for these designers of despotism. That is the target year for the implementation of the North American Community, which will commercially unite the United States with Canada and Mexico. The global elite suffered a minor setback when the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Bush/McCain/Kennedy/Graham amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill. But if you think that John McCain is going to let that bill lie on the floor of defeat, you don't understand these people. Should McCain become President, he will do everything he can to implement some kind of amnesty law. Barack Obama will do the same. The reason? It is essential to the designers of despotism that our borders be eliminated.
Yes, I am saying it: George W. Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama are part of the global elite that seeks America's entrance into an international New World Order. In fact, neither Presidential candidate from the two major parties will offer any resistance to this obstinate and oppressive oligarchy.
Perhaps one day the American people will wake up and realize that they are being led as sheep to the slaughter. I'm just not sure that it will be soon enough, however. 2010 is just around the corner.
There seems to be only one obstacle standing in the way of the globalists: America's citizens are the most heavily armed people in the world. That fact must surely stick in the throats of the globalists like a chicken bone.
Thank God that America's founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution. Without America's deep-rooted commitment to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, we would have been sold into slavery decades ago.
Without the intellectual understanding of the principles of freedom and the moral resolve to maintain those principles, however, guns, by themselves, will only protect us for so long. In the end, our strength and protection come from God, and not too many people these days seem to be interested in His opinion.
Lady Liberty is walking very gingerly these days, and the path she treads is laden with traps and quicksand. The globalists have their handpicked puppets positioned to take up where The Three Amigos (George Bush I, Bill Clinton, and George Bush II) have left off. The pieces of the puzzle are almost all in place. 2010 just might be the year that Lady Liberty lowers her torch, folds her arms, and falls fast asleep.
For what it is worth, however, I pledge no loyalty to this emerging New World Order. Neither will I let Lady Liberty die without a fight. I will say it again: the battle today is not between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats. It is a battle between Americans and globalists.
And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am an American!
By Chuck Baldwin
July 18, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Anyone familiar with the threat posed by the advancing American Fifth Column understands all too clearly that our Constitution is under attack. Whether it is the insistence that the Constitution is a living document meant to conform to the will of the times or the institution of political correctness - a shadow set of laws effectively usurping the laws of our Constitutional Republic - the American Fifth Column is slowly, incrementally, systematically, chipping away at the wisdom as set forth by our Founders and Framers. With news that a non-governmentally charged commission is introducing a measure that would impose "group think" on the Commander-in-Chief, it is evidenced that the American Fifth Column is on the march.
Recently, a story surfaced regarding the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution states:
"... the President of The United States of America can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States of America is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Act requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and forbids troops from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of force or a declaration of war."
This is already a stretch on the authority placed in the Executive Branch by our Framers. Article II, Section 2 of the United State Constitution states:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;..."
The check and balance to this authority rests exclusively in Article I, Section 8 whereby Congress is charged with the authority:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
"To provide and maintain a Navy;
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;..."
As is made clear - beyond any reasonable argument - the Executive Branch is charged with commanding the Armed Forces and the Legislative Branch is charged with the funding of the Armed Forces.
Check. Balance.
Should the will of the people be that an armed conflict is unjust, the representatives of the people have the wherewithal to defund the Armed Forces, thus denying them not only compensation but the ability to procure weapons, tactical and sustainable goods and ammunition. This ability to defund presents both an intentional and moral pressure on the Commander-in-Chief. No able leader would deprive his soldiers of arms, ammunition or the security in knowing provisions are in place for their families.
Of course, the above passages from the US Constitution were enacted during a time of honor; during a time when it was unheard of and, in fact, disgraceful for one to abdicate either their personal or civic responsibility. These articles and sections were created and enacted in a time when good government was placed before the narcissism of the politically opportune.
We do not live in a time when politicians can be expected to give a damn about honor. We live in an age when taking responsibility for ones actions is seldom a reality and usually the exception to the rule. We live in an age of "group think" and "truth by consensus." If those responsible for enacting and executing the laws of our land deem a situation too politically damaging you can bet the farm they will establish a commission or a blue ribbon panel to "group think" the issue. By creating the "group think consensus" politicians avoid having to take a stand that may be unpopular, abdicating their responsibility to their constituency to a faceless, nameless "commission."
(As an aside, the ideas of "group think" and "truth by consensus," although Orwellian in their tone, are in fact Marxist/Leninist leaning notions based in moral relativism.)
While many commissions and blue ribbon panels are seated by our elected officials, others are formed by private institutions, institutions of higher learning and philanthropic institutions. Where the recent story of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is concerned, we are faced with a commission from all three.
It would appear that the Miller Center for Public Affairs, emanating from the University of Virginia, has assembled one National War Powers Commission. The commission is co-chaired by former Secretaries of State James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher. Those seated on the commission include: Sen. Slade Gorton, US Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, Carla A. Hills, John O. Marsh, Jr., Edwin Meese, III, Abner J. Mikva, J. Paul Reason, Brent Scowcroft, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Strobe Talbott.
This commission, touted as non-partisan, has issued a report suggesting that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 be replaced with the War Powers Consultation Act.
The War Powers Consultation Act:
▪ Provides that the president shall consult with Congress before deploying US troops into "significant armed conflict" - i.e., combat operations lasting, or expected to last, more than a week.
▪ Defines the types of hostilities that would or would not be considered "significant armed conflicts."
▪ Creates a new Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, which includes leaders of both Houses as well as the chair and ranking members of key committees.
▪ Establishes a permanent bipartisan staff with access to the national security and intelligence information necessary to conduct its work.
▪ Calls on Congress, to vote up or down on significant armed conflicts within 30 days.
When one understands the authorities granted to the Executive and Legislative Branches of the United States Government, it is painfully obvious that not only does the War Powers Consultation Act continue the unconstitutional usurpation of the Commander-in-Chief's authority to command our Armed Forces; it proposes a further encroachment on the separation of powers.
"Provides that the president shall consult with Congress before deploying US troops into "significant armed conflict," provides a literal seat at the table where Executive Branch military decision making is concerned.
"Defines the types of hostilities that would or would not be considered ‘significant armed conflicts,'" effectively limits the Commander-in-Chief in the ability to act should our nation find itself, "already under attack or serious threat," both definitions being subjected to Legislative Branch interpretation.
"Creates a new Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, which includes leaders of both Houses as well as the chair and ranking members of key committees," attempts to transition the onus of declarative responsibility regarding military action from the singular voice of the Commander-in-Chief to "group think consensus" of a committee plus one.
And, "establishes a permanent bipartisan staff with access to the national security and intelligence information necessary to conduct its work," not only encroaches on the privilege granted to the Commander-in-Chief and his staff in times of conflict, it opens any and all military operations up to politization; even more so than it is already.
In fact, the only provision in this absurdly unconstitutional proposal, that exists within the boundaries of the Constitution is the right for "Congress to vote up or down on significant armed conflicts within 30 days."
That James Baker, Warren Christopher and the rest of the National War Powers Commission believe they know better how to vest constitutional powers than the Framers of our Constitution is a testimony to the definition of arrogance. That they would consider usurping the authority of the United States Constitution by allowing the partisan Congress to encroach upon the awesome and singular responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief places them squarely at the service of the American Fifth Column.
The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief. He alone commands the US Armed Forces. The Congress funds the Armed Forces. Should Congress ever feel that the US Armed Forces are engaged in a dishonorable action they have the wherewithal to defund it mission and thus bring it to an end. All they have to do is actually have the courage to do so. Today, there is no courage on Capitol Hill...only consensus.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Not long ago, I was having a gathering of about eight people at my house. The last guy to show up walked right into my kitchen and then protested because he couldn't find any bottled water in the refrigerator. Next, he complained that we ate all the snacks before he showed up thirty-five minutes late. When he finally came into the living room to sit down, he asked what we were talking about. I told him we were talking about economics, which involves not just demand but supply. I joked that he wouldn't have to demand any bottled water and snacks if he'd remembered to supply some, too. That drew a laugh from one of our mutual friends.
This trait of being more in love with consumption than production is one shared by most of my socialist colleagues in academia. They base their lives on the idea of taking "from each according to his ability" and giving "to each according to his need." The problem is that they do a better job of articulating their needs than promoting their abilities. This is, of course, because socialists are generally short on abilities. They seek socialism because they think being guaranteed an average outcome is safer than trying to beat the average in a system based on merit, which is otherwise known as ability.
Anyone watching the 2008 presidential race has doubtless seen a similar dynamic among supporters of Barack H. Obama. Most of his supporters have been talking about rights without any mention of the notion of responsibilities. Like supply and demand, and need and ability, the terms rights and responsibilities are best understood in relation to one another. For example, I have a 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms that the government cannot simply take away from me on a whim. But I also have a responsibility for everything that occurs between the time I discharge a bullet and the time the bullet comes to its final stopping point. But consider the following list of "rights" that supporters of Obama have recently told me that we all have: Everyone has the right to a college education. I can't imagine what it will be like as a college professor once Obama implements this one. I've been teaching to the occasional unqualified black and the occasional unqualified athlete for years. But now that everyone, including, presumably, the mentally retarded, has a right to a college degree, I might just retire and become a firearms instructor. Hopefully, Obama will not grant a Right to Firearms Education to both idiots and the insane.
(Author's Note: This one came from Obama himself). Everyone has a right to breathe clean air. This is a really bad idea for the Obama campaign. If everyone starts to enforce his right to breathe clean air in the presence of swarthy young Muslims, Obama might lose an important part of his electoral base. Everyone has a right to free health care. I recently learned this from an incoming Drexel law student appearing on The O'Reilly Factor. Bill did a great job by asking her whether this right is in the constitution or whether it just comes from the fact that she is a really nice person. She was forced to admit that it was not in the constitution. She should do really well in law school because she's a really nice person.
Everyone has a right to demand that the rich pay taxes in proportion to their ability to pay taxes. I recently learned this from an incoming Yale law student on the same segment of The Factor. Everyone agrees that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor. What is controversial is the notion that they should also pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. But that was not the issue in this segment. The issue was whether the existing gap in the proportion of taxes paid by the poor and the rich should be widened and, if so, by how much. When someone says we have a right to tax the rich "in proportion to their ability to pay" they mean "tax them until they can no longer pay" or "tax them until they are bankrupt." Many people who hold this view were not actually alive during the Carter Administration. But they have taken history classes from people who assure us that he was really not such a bad president.
Every gay man has a right to feel comfortable. I heard this one from a first-year law student at Yale. He actually informed me thrice that his right to be comfortable as a gay man trumps the First Amendment. I guess they don't teach constitutional law until the second year of the Yale law program. But the question is: How did this sissy get into Yale Law School?
After spending only a little time listening to followers of the Dali Bama I have concluded that, in Obama's America, everyone gets to declare at least one new fundamental right regardless of whether it is written into the constitution. And so, naturally, I am going to declare first that I have a right to unlimited rights. (This is sort of like making one's only wish a request for unlimited wishes). My second declaration of a new right is a little more complicated. First, I believe that I have a right to demand that you show me a copy of the U.S. Constitution every time you demand a new right. And if you cannot identify the constitutional basis of your proposed right, you forfeit that right as well as your right to vote in 2008. And, of course, I get to cast the vote you forfeited. So, those of you prone to simply announce fundamental rights without any constitutional basis should beware that this could soon deprive you of the right to vote. Until now, it's only deprived of you the right to sound intelligent.
Mike S. Adams
July 07, 2008
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/07/07/my_right_to_unlimited_rights
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
June 26th, the United State Supreme Court issued the opinion in District of Columbia, et.al. Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller, the first decision by the court to truly address the nature of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the extent of the rights it protects. As such, this was a highly anticipated decision, with momentous bearing on one of the most hotly contested issues in American society at the beginning of the 21st century. On one side of the debate stood millions of gun owners and the largest grassroots lobby in the United States, the NRA, and on the other a well funded lobby, and other citizens committed to the idea that guns are an unnecessary danger, prevalent in our society.
While the national corporate media has covered the outcome of this case, their analysis has been (and will be) long on the sensationalism of the arguments between these two sides, and very short on what the opinion actually says. For those who are interested in the actual language and analysis of the Heller decision, as well as some educated guesses as to the likely directions this decision will take us in the future, this analysis will deal with the issues of importance that stand out to both practicing criminal defense attorney and political science professor.
The most important things about Heller, other than the mere fact that it squarely addresses the Second Amendment, are that it is far more comprehensive than the national media are explaining. This is no mere overturning of the District of Columbia's pervasive gun ban, it absolutely establishes that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individuals right to own and use firearms, as separate and distinct from any government controlled military organization. Justice Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority, carefully analyzes each and every word of the Amendment, and does so from both a linguistic, legal, and historical perspective. He defines "arms", "bear", "people", "right", "keep", "militia", "state", and fully deconstructs how they are put together. There is nothing left to define here, no words about which the meaning can be speculated, and no syntax structure left to be manipulated. Short of outright overturn of the decision (which every Supreme Court abhors to do), the individual nature of this right is now set in stone. Further, Justice Scalia (rightly) heaps scorn on some of the more obtuse and insultingly disingenuous arguments that have been made to eviscerate the meaning of the Second Amendment over the last few decades. We begin our examination of Heller with its disposal of those "chestnuts".
For at least a couple of decades, we've been forced to endure the catchphrase that the Second Amendment only would allow private ownership of muskets and muzzleloaders, since that was what the founders were calling firearms. This was what would be called a "compromise position" uttered by the self congratulatory, semi-educated, through a haze of clove cigarette smoke. Justice Scalia harshly brought them to reality with the following:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 19th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima faciae, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
The second venerable "chestnut" that has long been a lamppost for gun opponents to slouch against during any debate, has been to claim that the Second Amendment is only a "collective" right, indicating that it has to do with "militia service" or some existent group organized by the government, such as police forces, National Guard Units, or the proverbial "posse". While Justice Scalia spends considerable time on the exploration of the "militia" idea, before disposing of the gun opponents agenda for that phrase, he deals a swift death blow to the idea that the Second Amendment is some kind of "collective" right. He notes that the Second Amendment specifically says the "right of the people", and goes on to add that;
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology.[direct quote removed] All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
In footnote here he says that Justice Stevens contention that the right is conditioned on membership in a militia, and is "primarily collective in nature", Justice Scalia calls "deadwrong", citing McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479(1985) which defined the historical origins of another individual right set forth in the Bill of Rights. Writing for the majority Justice Scalia notes that, "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right." In fact, he says, "We start therefore with the presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
The opinion spends much of its length dealing with just how, precisely; the "militia" concept is entwined with the right to bear arms. In short, he says that the Second Amendment is divided into two distinct parts. The part that talks about "militia" is what he calls a "prefatory clause", a phrase used only to clarify or justify the important part of the statement, the "operative clause". The operative clause here is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
He clearly states that the operative clause is based on the long standing conflicts in England, where the government sought to disarm groups that opposed it, to better establish tyranny, and is the codification of a pre-existing right. Hence, the word "infringed", making it clear that the people already have a right to keep and bear arms. Had the amendment been designed to give a heretofore unknown right to the people, it would have read something like, "…does hereby grant to the people a right to keep and bear arms". (The founders were followers of the philosophy of the 18th century liberals philosophers, like John Locke, and believed that humans had inalienable rights, not that humans were only to be "given" rights by a sovereign.)
He says that the prefatory clause does not serve as a limit on the operative clause, and that "…operative provisions should be given effect as operative provisions, and prologues as prologues….[if]the prologue itself should be one of the factors that go into the determination of whether the operative provision is ambiguous [that] would cause the prologue to be used to produce ambiguity rather than resolve it."
He notes that the Constitution itself empowers congress to make a Navy and to raise Armies, but that the militias are something different. He argues that the plain language and history indicate the militias were pre-existing to the government, and were composed of all able bodied men, armed with their personal weapons. He conveys that there were many reasons the founders felt that a militia would be "necessary to the security of a free state", among them repelling invasion. Though he does not mention it specifically, it is worth noting that Admiral Yamamoto advised the Japanese military ruling council against a land invasion of California, primarily because the large number of armed citizens would make it an ungovernable quagmire. This shows that the founders belief that the security of the nation would be bolstered by having an armed populace was borne out, at least through the 20th century. Scalia also draws attention to the writings of Hamilton describing that a nation of armed, able bodied men, are better able to resist tyranny, and also spends some time discussing the history of the struggles between Catholics and Protestants for control of the monarchy, as the origins of this knowledge of armed resistance to tyranny. Thus he illuminates that the prefatory phrase about the militia is merely explanatory as to the operative phrase of just why it is so important that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The fundamental right established, the remaining three elements of this decision, upon which so many people waited so anxiously, were how the court was to deal with "crime", "regulation", and the types of "arms" protected.
Justice Scalia repeatedly referred to the right to use firearms to protect oneself in the home or on ones property. Over and over again, this entered into his analysis at all levels. This established two things never before addressed by the Court. First, that the 2nd Amendment is now related to an individual's right of self defense, not merely as a mechanism for defense of the nation against foreign aggression or domestic tyranny. Secondly it clearly establishes the right of a person to use a firearm in self defense. This second point, while it has escaped comment in the popular media, was hammered home, by repetition, throughout the opinion. By choosing this language, Judge Scalia laid a bulwark against any future efforts to undermine this right of self defense, such as is currently happening in England. There, many recent cases have found persons convicted for using deadly force to defend themselves from violent attack. It seems likely Judge Scalia took this opportunity to prevent such a perversion of justice from finding roots here in America. He goes so far as to call it the "core lawful purpose of self defense".
The court acknowledges the difficulties posed to communities by "handgun violence" but says that the Constitution leaves communities with a variety of tools for combating the problem, "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table". To wit, governments and communities can't absolutely prohibit handguns, "held and used for self defense in the home".
As to the right of the government(s) to regulate ownership of firearms, the court clearly states that some regulations are permissible.. The court notes that like most rights, this right is not unlimited. Just as there are permissible limits on the freedom of speech, and the freedom to practice ones religions, so too there are reasonable limits that can be placed on ones right to keep and bear armaments. Scalia and the court note that the longstanding prohibitions which prevent convicted felons, or the mentally ill from owning firearms is permissible, as are restrictions preventing the carrying of firearms into sensitive locations. Specifically named are schools, and government buildings. Likewise the opinion specifically permits laws which impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Scalia says these are merely examples, and are not to be seen as the complete list, so we can presume that many more specific restrictions will not be undone by this opinion. It seems the BATF officers who conduct checks on gun stores and licensed dealers will not need to be updating their resume's, nor will the wand wielding inspectors at our courts, schools, and airports. However, the strong wording on the right to use a firearm to defend oneself in the home makes it likely any "school zone" bans which overlap anyone individuals private residence are likely defunct.
Lastly, the court did give some guidance in the area of the types of firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment, the area of great interest to both the enemies of gun ownership and firearms enthusiasts alike. Over the last couple of decades, this has been the central arena in the battle over guns in the US. Though this decision in no way creates a definitive list of what specific guns can be regulated or to degree, there is some pretty strong language limiting the governments reach in this regard.. On several occasion in the opinion, the court specifically upholds the ban on sawed off shotguns, as an example of the type of permissible regulation of weapons that are "unsafe" and not typical of the weapons used by the average soldier. The opinion cites the colonial regulations on the storage of gunpowder to minimize fire damage, and a singular colonial era regulation on keeping a loaded firearm for its danger to firefighters. This analysis would indicate that the government may prohibit ownership of particularly unusual or dangerous armaments. Do not expect regulations prohibiting flame throwers, rocket launchers, explosives or heavy weapons to be invalidated. However, this does not seem to extend to any weapons commonly used by the average soldier, or citizen. The popularity and utility of handguns, for use in personal self defense is given a great deal of discussion, and it seems that any "handgun" ban is going to be absolutely unconstitutional. Justice Scalia notes that many people prefer handguns for defense within the home because of their ease of handling in close quarters, and the fact that they free a second hand to do such necessary tasks as dialing the police, and though he doesn't mention it, hold a flashlight.
Of great interest in light of the recent battles fought over "assault style weapons", was a singular paragraph of great depth and analysis, that this author has yet to see addressed in the popular media. It is almost a summation of the entire analysis of the 2nd Amendment;
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like- may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias of the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large….But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
This seems to say that like the analysis of the right of speech to be extended to our fax machines and cell phones, the right to militarily useful weapons should be protected. Light machine guns, and squad automatic weapons are probably not protected and may be "infringed", but the average infantryman's rifle, "M-16 rifles and the like", appear to be protected specifically by the Second Amendment. At least, for as long as the Supreme Court stands as it does today.
That said, the opinion does expose some weaknesses in the protection if affords. The exceptions made for regulation and licensing of firearms would be deeply disturbing if adopted on a wider scale than by the small political areas that will now be losing their comprehensive bans. The weakness in the decision, specifically, is that there is great deference shown to "licensing", which is treated as an acceptable accommodation to the right, for the District of Columbia. If licensing is a permissible way to regulate handguns, then by analogy, it would be permissible for the Federal government to potentially require licensing of all firearms. To allow this to occur would build a fatal weakness into our basic freedom, since registration makes later confiscation, by tyrant or invader, not only possible but likely. Historical examples of registration based confiscation are common, and not limited to the activities of the Nazi's, both in Germany and immediately upon conquest of a neighboring state which "enjoyed" a gun registration scheme.
Also, there is the phraseology that places it within governmental power to regulate the commercial sale and interstate commercial transport of arms. This may be the single greatest threat to our continued enjoyment of the benefits of the Second Amendment. There have been and continue to be ongoing attempts to prohibit or limit the person to person sale of firearms, without involving a "licensed" intermediary. These efforts to "close the gun show loophole" are largely unopposed by the firearms manufacture and retail industries, because they see the used gun market as competition to their revenue flow. However, this simple custom in the law is the razor thin edge between our current system and de facto national registration. This is not merely speculation, for this author personally seen basic, simple, felony criminal cases in Arizona, which directly demonstrated the existence of national gun registration as early as the year 2003.
In the several months before these cases went to trial, the prosecution was able to send the serial number of a pistol to the BATF, who contacted a licensed gun dealer in an outlying city in Arizona. That dealer FAXed the firearm purchase form, which had been filled out nearly 10 years prior, at the purchase of the pistol by an individual now accused of the crime. During trial, the local deputy county prosecutor was able to produce a copy of the actual form filled out by the defendant, with his handwriting, and signature, from a lawful purchase nearly a decade old. Bear in mind, this was not a federal crime, or even a high profile crime (the accused had no criminal record, and there were no injuries). If a low level, local, prosecutor, chasing down a simple local crime, can easily acquire the purchase forms from a lawful firearms purchase, nearly a decade old, from merely a manufacturers serial number, how is that not a national registration scheme already in place? The only current limitation on this registration scheme is that if a "gun confiscator" came to the addresses on each of those forms, the persons named could now answer, "I sold it to some guy 5 years ago". If the Heller decision permits laws to be passed which require all purchases to be either from licensed dealers, or that the transaction be done through a licensed dealer, the we automatically have national gun registration. The first and most important step for confiscation by either invader or tyrant.
While Justice Scalia concludes the majority opinion by writing "it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct", it will unfortunately require ongoing activism and vigilance to make sure another government body does not make it moot.
By David Roth
David Roth is a Generation X, former political science professor, now practicing law in Phoenix.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
The Gods of Globalism: The Devil is in the Details
The Constitution of the United States of America-Preamble
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.
The (self-anointed – emphasis added) Gods of Globalism will require a new Preamble. Perhaps this one will do:
We the people of the Integrated Western Hemisphere, in order to form a more harmonized union, redefine justice, socially engineer domestic tranquility, redistribute wealth for the social good and higher purposes, encourage hemispheric welfare, and confiscate the blessings of liberty from our former selves to our new and more desired posterity, do abstain from any former sovereign constitutions and embrace a new social order under the guise of democracy.
I have been made aware of two pieces of legislation, thanks to the constant vigilance of the patriots at SOSUSA.US. I send my most sincere thanks to them, for bringing it to my attention, so that I might bring it to yours. This legislation has just confirmed the opinion I have long held that members of our congress have either lost their damn minds, are complete incompetents, or are intentionally complicit in the destruction of our national sovereignty. Either way, I am tired of being the hog tied, blindfolded, gagged passenger in a vehicle driven by suicidal maniacs.
Yet another piece is being added to the framework, set in place for the demise of our national sovereignty. I hope, by now, you have read my past article The Demise Of Our American Identity, which exposes and explains that a deeply embedded program is already in place to move our nation into a fully integrated Western Hemisphere.
This framework strives to harmonize our nation with international law through the United Nations, the Summit of the Americas, The Organization of American States (OAS) and the Inter-American System and has been moved progressively forward by way of NAFTA, the SPP and the soon to come NAU which will finally complete the permanent dissolution of our nation into a hemispheric conglomerate where all knees shall bend to the Gods of Globalism and a new social order shall reign supreme. God help us all.
The following are just a few excerpts from one more piece of the integration puzzle. As you are reading what is obviously the bankrupting of our nation, think of the lives that have been lost for the cause of our liberty. Think of the past generations who suffered and struggled to bring us to the comfort, security and national wealth we have all enjoyed and often taken for granted. Think of our soldiers fighting and dying, even now, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then, think of your children and grandchildren. Read the words that will enslave and impoverish them. Our children will not be free as we have been. They will never know the liberty we have known. They will never know the prosperity that was possible for us, if we worked hard and studied and applied ourselves to our successful endeavors. They will not be Americans, as we perceive America, unless this generation wakes up, pays attention and makes significant changes, quickly. Time is short.
If you are waiting for someone else to rush in and save the day, stop waiting. This is your country, your sovereignty, your freedom, you home, your family and your future. This is your problem. You must be a part of the solution or you have no one to blame but yourself.
The move to Progressive socialism marches on and we are woefully behind is stamping it down. To make changes, you must understand the plan. Remember; this is just ONE piece of the puzzle.
(Excerpts) Social Investment and Economic Development for the Americas Act of 2007 Senate Bill 2120
OCTOBER 1, 2007
Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DODD, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
A BILL To authorize the establishment of a Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, and for other purposes.
(3) The United States contributes, on average, $820,000,000 in bilateral development assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean each year and has continued to strengthen its commitment to promoting our shared values, heritage, and culture while confronting the common challenges we face.
(4) The United States has also contributed through the Millennium Challenge Account more than $269,000,000 in development assistance.
(5) Poverty and inequality remain historic and persistent problems in the region, which undermine progress on social and economic development. These problems contribute to the rise of populist ideas and add to inequality.
The President, acting through the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development and working with foreign governments and civil society, shall provide increased and sustained assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere by helping to—
(1) Improve the quality of life and invest in human capital, specifically by promoting education, improving health and disease prevention, and increasing the access to and quality of housing;
There is established within the United States Agency for International Development an advisory committee to be known as the Western Hemisphere Economic Investment and Development Advisory
They are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter, including for purposes of reducing poverty, expanding the middle class, and fostering increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, in addition to amounts of United States Foreign Assistance Funds (Function 150) otherwise authorized and appropriated and the $820,000,000 in bilateral development assistance provided by the United States, on average, to Latin America and the Caribbean each year, the following amounts:
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
$75,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
$125,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2016.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2017.
The Inter-American Development Bank Act
The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director at the Bank to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to urge the Bank to establish an account to be known as the ‘Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas.
The Fund shall be used to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the size of the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere by helping to:
(3) leverage personal remittances and reduce the cost of remittances sent to Latin America and the Caribbean, for the purpose of advancing economic and social development by
(A) increasing access to financial institutions for the poor, and working with local financial institutions to reduce fees and other costs associated with sending or receiving remittances;
(B) working with local financial institutions to develop programs whereby personal remittances can be used as the basis for credit for mortgages and loans for small business, microenterprises, housing, and other enterprises;
(C) providing matching funds for private entities in the United States that send donations for development projects in Latin America and the Caribbean; and
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act should be used to help countries in Latin America and the Caribbean focus on improving indicators in the area of investing in people, as that term is used in section 607(b)(3) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7706(b)(3)), and consistent with the transformational development program of the Department of State; [Read]
(1) the Multilateral Investment Fund, which was fully established in 1993 as part of President George H.W. Bush’s Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, has been successful in promoting inclusive economic growth in Latin America and the Caribbean;
(4) as stated in section 499L of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as added by section 3, amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to the amendments made by this Act for a fiscal year for initiatives to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere are in addition to amounts that would be allocated or projected in the President’s budget request for Latin America and Caribbean for such fiscal year. [Read] [Read]
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury $51,000,000 for payment to the Inter-American Development Bank of arrears owed by the United States to the Multilateral Investment Fund. [Read]
You might wonder if the members of the House will save us from the insanity of the members of the Senate sponsoring this legislation. It will not be reassuring to learn that the House has its own version of this monstrosity.
HOUSE VERSION
H.R.3692 (introduced 9/27/2007)
Sponsor Rep Eliot Engel and thirty co-sponsors
Title: To authorize the establishment of a Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, and for other purposes.
Citizens of the United States of America, we can no longer entrust the sovereignty of this nation to most of those who are now in positions of power in our government. Our best interests are not being served. I pray that Americans will finally understand the consequences of our apathy or lack of understanding and will begin to step forward into the political arena and replace those disgraces that now hold our national sovereignty by the throat.
Until we see the truth and understand it, until we vote these scoundrels out of office and replace them with constitutionally directed candidates, we are on a collision course with disaster. Our future leaders are out there somewhere, maybe even reading this now. If so, I am asking that they step forward, trust in the citizen of this nation to see their value, and begin to bring our nation back towards a sound, sane foreign policy.
We can defeat this insanity and we must. The very survival of our nation now depends on all of us. Do all that you can to support candidates who will defend our constitution? Send the rest of them back to the obscurity they so deserve. They should hang their heads in shame for the disservice they have done this nation and our citizens.
Unfortunately; I don’t believe shame is a part of their DNA.
It is time for the awakening of our citizens. Do your part.
Godspeed and God Bless the USA
By CJ Graham
June 28, 2008
http://www.newswithviews.com/Graham/cj2.htm
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
A Presidential Power not designated by the Constitution
By Harry V. Martin with research assistance from David Caul
Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States (emphasis added), which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." When the Constitution was proposed, those opposed to a strong central government, the anti-Federalists, argued that there was no Bill of Rights to protect the people and that a centralized government would become too powerful, usurping the rights of the individual States.
At the time of its formation, the Constitution was created in secrecy and in direct contradiction to the mandate of the Congress, which was to amend the Articles of Confederation that were governing the infant nation since the end of the American revolution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the President of the United States was known as the President of the United States in Congress Assembled. The one-year Presidency was very limited in its scope, responsibility and authority. The Constitution, in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, established a strong four-year Presidency, but still only providing extremely limited powers to the office.
The greatest fear the founders of this nation had was the establishment of a strong central government and a strong political leader at the center of that government. They no longer wanted kings, potentates or czars, they wanted a loose association of States in which the power emanated from the States and not from the central government. (emphasis added)
John Adams advocated that a good government consists of three balancing powers, the legislative, executive and the judicial, that would produce an equilibrium of interests and thereby promote the happiness of the whole community. It was Adams' theory that the only effectual method to secure the rights of the people and promote their welfare was to create an opposition of interests between the members of two distinct bodies (legislative and executive) in the exercise of the powers of government, and balanced by those of a third (judicial).
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
On June 8, 1789, James Madison proposed the Bills of Rights to the new Congress. Its eventual creation was the outcropping of arguments made in the respective State legislatures debating ratification of the new Constitution. Madison had previously been opposed to the establishment of the Bill of Rights, but the treatises of Thomas Jefferson convinced him of the necessity of such Constitutional amendments. The concept was simple, according to Madison, "That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution."
He further advocated, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship...The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor for applying to the legislature by petitions or remonstrances for redress of their grievances...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The framework of this nation is embodied in the Bill of Rights, unequaled in its time, and surpassed by none to date. Madison also stated, "The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized." He added, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN TIME OF WAR
Many of the fears of the founding fathers may now be coming to fruition. Today, the executive branch of the government is immensely powerful, much more powerful than the founding fathers had envisioned or wanted. Congressional legislative powers have been usurped. There is no greater example of that usurpation than in the form of the Presidential Executive Order. The process totally by-passes Congressional legislative authority and places in the hands of the President almost unilateral power. The Executive Order governs everything from the Flag Code of the United States to the ability to single-handedly declare Martial Law. Presidents have used the Executive Order in times of emergencies to override the Constitution of the United States and the Congress.
President Andrew Jackson used executive powers to force the law-abiding Cherokee Nation off their ancestral lands. The Cherokee fought the illegal action in the U.S. Supreme Court and won. But Jackson, using the power of the Presidency, continued to order the removal of the Cherokee Nation and defied the Court's ruling. He stated, "Let the Court try to enforce their ruling." The Cherokee lost their land and commenced a series of journeys that would be called The Trail of Tears.
President Abraham Lincoln suspended many fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He closed down newspapers opposed to his war-time policies and imprisoned what many historians now call political prisoners. He suspended the right of trial and the right to be confronted by accusers. Lincoln's justification for such drastic actions was the preservation of the Union above all things. After the war and Lincoln's death, Constitutional law was restored.
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson could not persuade Congress to arm United States vessels plying hostile German waters before the United States entered World War One. When Congress balked, Wilson invoked the policy through a Presidential Executive Order.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941. His order forced 100,000 Japanese residents in the United States to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps. The property of the Japanese was confiscated. Both Lincoln's and Roosevelt's actions were taken during wartime, when the very life of the United States was threatened. Wilson's action was taken on the eve of the United States entering World War One. Whether history judges these actions as just, proper or legal, the decision must be left to time. The dire life struggle associated with these actions provided plausible argumentation favoring their implementation during a time when hysteria ruled an age.
THE NEW DANGERS
A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:
(emphasis added)
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis, domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status.
Many of the Executive Orders cited here have been on the books for over a quarter of a century and have not been applied. Therefore, what makes them more dangerous today than yesteryear? There has been a steady, consistent series of new Executive Orders, originating from President Richard Nixon and added to by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and George Bush that provide an ominous Orwellian portrait, the portrait of George Orwell's 1984.
THE EROSION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
A series of Executive Orders, internal governmental departmental laws, unpassed by Congress, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, has whittled down Constitutional law substantially. These new Executive Orders and Congressional Acts allow for the construction of concentration camps, suspension of rights and the ability of the President to declare Martial Law in the event of a drug crisis. Congress will have no power to prevent the Martial Law declaration and can only review the process six months after Martial Law has been declared. The most critical Executive Order was issued on August 1, 1971. Nixon signed both a proclamation and Executive Order 11615. Proclamation No. 4074 states, "I hereby declare a national emergency," thus establishing an economic crisis. That national emergency order has not been rescinded.
The crisis that changed the direction of governmental thinking was the anti-Vietnam protests. Fear that such demonstrations might explode into civil unrest, Executive Orders began to be created to allow extreme measures to be implemented to curtail the demonstrations. The recent Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King jury verdict only reinforced the government's concern about potential civil unrest and the need to have an effective mechanism to curtail such demonstrations.
Here are the later Executive Orders: (emphasis added)
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."
The Violent Crime Control Act of 1991 provides additional powers to the President of the United States, allowing the suspension of the Constitution and Constitutional rights of Americans during a "drug crisis". It provides for the construction of detention camps, seizure of property, and military control of populated areas. This, teamed with the Executive Orders of the President, enables Orwellian prophecies to rest on whoever occupies the White House. The power provided by these "laws" allows suspension of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights during any civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes and allows the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of Martial Law.
When the Constitution of the United States was framed it placed the exclusive legislative authority in the hands of Congress and with the President. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.
Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of arch-conservative activist Howard J. Ruff. "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it."
Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
------------
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Subject: National Continuity Policy
Purpose
(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.
Definitions
(2) In this directive:
(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;
(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means 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;
(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;
(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;
(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;
(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;
(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and
(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.
Policy
(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.
Implementation Actions
(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.
(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:
(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.
(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.
(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.
(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.
(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.
(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.
(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:
(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;
(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;
(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;
(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;
(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;
(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and
(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.
(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.
(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:
(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;
(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and
(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.
(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:
(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;
(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and
(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.
(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:
(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and
(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.
(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;
(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;
(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;
(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;
(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and
(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.
(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.
(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.
(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:
(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;
(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;
(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;
(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and
(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities
General Provisions
(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.
(21) This directive:
(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;
(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and
(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.
(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
We have heard during this presidential election cycle – ad nauseam – how our country is in dire need of “change.” We are promised by each of the candidates that they are the ones – the only ones – who can bring about this much needed change. Of course, this is all disingenuous politicking. The fact of the matter is this: the office of the presidency is quite limited in its power to affect any change at all. The real entity capable of affecting immediate and dramatic change in government, the governmental branch with the real power, is the Legislative Branch.
When we examine the Charters of Freedom – and specifically the US Constitution – it is clear that the Executive Branch is charged with executing the laws of the land created by the Legislative Branch (with the consent of the Executive Branch via the signature of the President) and that the Legislative Branch is charged with crafting legislation; charged with debating, weighing and then enacting legislation that would become the law of the land. The Framers even established a mechanism where the Legislative Branch might “override” a presidential veto should the Executive Branch oppose legislation brought forth by an enlarged majority of Congress.
This factuality accepted, it is next to impossible, but for the bully pulpit afforded the stature of the presidency, for the President of the United States to be an effective “change agent.” While he (or she) can certainly execute executive orders and signing statements, the fact remains, it is Congress that holds the power to legislate and fund laws and government programs. Therefore, simple logic mandates that for all the tall rhetoric of “change” coming from the presidential candidates – especially the Democrats – their promises will, for the most part, ring hollow. In order to bring about real change in government, one must “change” the Legislative Branch. In this truth the American people are in luck.
By the structure of our constitutional government we find that the easiest political contests to affect are in the Legislative Branch. This is so because each of those we vote for are specific to our location, one more immediate than the other. Where the president represents the whole of the nation’s populace, our US Senators are elected by the whole of the populace in a singular state. Even more localized in voter constituency are those selected to become US Representatives.
It is for this reason that so many of the constitutionally literate take issue with senators and representatives taking it upon themselves to dabble in foreign relations. Senators and representatives are not elected by the total of the American electorate and do not officially represent the total of the American people, no matter what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would have us think. In reality, those senators and representatives who do partake in unsanctioned foreign relations are rogue and should be recognized as such.
Accepting the constitutional and electoral realities of the Legislative Branch, it is clear that it is the American people and not the presidential candidates that have the power to bring about real change, this power being the ability to easily vote to and out of office those elected officials who represent us in the US Congress. So, why is it that the American electorate is repeatedly duped into believing that it is the president who can bring about change? For that matter, why is it that the American electorate believes that the responsibility for the foibles of national government should be laid – completely – at the foot of the Executive Branch?
The answer to those two questions is one in the same. It is easier to blame one man (or woman) than it is to blame 535. That said, when one looks at the performance of those in the Legislative Branch it is clear that We the People certainly do need “change” in Washington, DC.
Admittedly, some actions taken by the Executive Branch – by President Bush and his administration – have been disappointing but when compared to the dismal performance of Congress over the past several decades it is clear that the Legislative Branch has become corrupted throughout and that they have used the tools of deception and deflection – aided by an agenda-driven media – to blame a singular man in the President of the United States for bad government executed at their hand.
It is Congress that enacts financial allocations and who is, therefore, responsible for the deficit. It is Congress that has created so many unconstitutionally mandated entitlement programs that roughly a third of our paychecks isn’t enough revenue to satisfy the annual federal budget. It is Congress that has failed to rescue Social Security. It is Congress that refuses to simplify and make more equitable the tax system. It is Congress that refuses to cease the practice of earmarking. It is Congress that is dragging its feet on funding the securing of our borders. It is Congress that has elongated the military action in the Iraqi theater of the Global War against Islamofascism by refusing to learn from their past mistake of injecting politics into military operations when US boots are on the ground. And it is Congress – the Legislative Branch – that has seated those currently under indictment for financial and procedural malfeasance.
The despotic quality of today’s Legislative Branch is not a malady unforeseen. In fact, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 13, 245.4 (1784), Thomas Jefferson professed his belief that the concentration of government power in the Legislative Branch, “...is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots [the number of the Virginia legislators] would surely be as oppressive as one...An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of the government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others...”
To be certain, our country does need “change.” But to believe that we need to rely on the three candidates vying for the presidency to bring about this change is to be deceived by those who quest to maintain their seats of power at the American public’s expense. If we are to have change it must come through the Legislative Branch. If we are to affect change through the Legislative Branch then we have to honestly look at those we elect to the US Congress and that means taking the time to be informed and to get involved...locally.
We all vote for the president. But we are all responsible – and therefore, culpable – for those we send to Congress.
Frank Salvato
4/18/2008
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for Basics Project
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/2008/print/04182008.htm
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
The liberals have come up with a clever way of ratifying dangerous treaties, which now require a two-thirds vote (67) to pass in the Senate. They will introduce them as legislation, requiring only a majority vote to pass. The model for this new approach is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which President Bush mistakenly refers to as a treaty.
Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been portrayed by our media as being opposed to it. In fact, they want to make NAFTA stronger. They want to renegotiate the pact and attach binding commitments and strong enforcement mechanisms on labor and environmental issues. In effect, the Democrats are calling for NAFTA to assume even more supranational authority over economic activity in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. This could be the next step on the road to a proposed North American Union.
Regarding NAFTA, Hillary says she wants “to fix NAFTA by making it clear that we’ll have core labor and environmental standards in the agreement. We will do everything we can to make it enforceable, which it is not now. “Obama says, “As president of the United States, I intend to make certain that every agreement that we sign has the labor standards, the environmental standards and the safety standards that are going to protect not just workers, but also consumers.”
When President Bush criticized these comments as tantamount to threatening a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, he said that “It’s not good policy on the merits and it’s not good policy as a message to send to...people who have in good faith signed a treaty and worked with us on a treaty.”
But it was not treated as a treaty in the U.S.
Clinton submitted NAFTA as an agreement, requiring only a majority of votes in both Houses of Congress for passage, and not a treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote in favor in the Senate. NAFTA passed by votes of 234-200 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate.
Clinton did it this way because he didn’t have the votes to pass NAFTA as a treaty (requiring 67 votes) in the Senate. But how did he pull off such a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional move?
Although the strict text of the U.S. Constitution includes the treaty clause as the only means by which the U.S. can enter into such international agreements, there’s a growing body of mostly liberal-left “legal opinion” that holds that “congressional-executive agreements” like NAFTA can serve as substitutes for treaties.
Clinton’s move was seen at the time, even by some on the left, as an effort to bypass constitutional processes and the United Steelworkers challenged NAFTA’s constitutionality in court. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, after lower courts had thrown the case out, saying it was a political matter between the President and Congress. The Bush Administration sided with Clinton and the Supreme Court declined to get involved.
The Bush Administration’s support for the unconstitutional Clinton approach could easily backfire on conservatives if the Democrats take the White House and hold Congress in the fall elections. Citing NAFTA as a precedent, liberal Democrats could submit and pass treaties by a simple majority vote.
In an article in the liberal American Prospect, Thomas Geoghegan lamented that the Kyoto global warming treaty and the International Criminal Court “are among the great global projects of our day” but are not getting through the Senate because of the two-thirds majority required for passage. “So what’s the way out of this bind? It’s the same way out we used for NAFTA or for fast-track free-trade agreements. That is, we just pass a simple law,” he said.
Geoghegan says the reason liberals can’t get these measures currently passed in the Senate is because this body “overrepresents” states like “Wyoming, Idaho and America’s backwoods.” In other words, Red State Senators have too much clout under the Constitution. They are obstructing the “progressive” vision.
Geoghegan says legal justification for this new approach can be found in an article in the American Journal of International Law by Steve Charnovitz, an associate professor of international law at the George Washington University School of Law. The article complains about Senate inaction on such treaties as the feminist Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the anti-parent U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on Biological Diversity, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, and various U.N. human rights treaties.
Since this article appeared, in October of 2004, the Bush Administration has been trying to pressure the Senate into ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty. It now awaits full Senate action.
Charnovitz admits the approach of pushing these treaties as mere agreements would be controversial. But he finds comfort in the fact that the legal action against NAFTA was thrown out.
It would make a good issue for John McCain, except for the fact that he’s for NAFTA and most of the U.N. treaty agenda.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Prediction: There is a 100% chance that government will continue to grow
It’s the season of predictions. Here are mine:
1. Government will consume an increasing share of the economy.
2. Most Americans won’t care.
3. Because most Americans won’t care, most politicians won’t do anything about it.
4. Because most politicians won’t do anything about it, future generations face lives of serfdom, which is defined as working more hours for the government than for themselves.
Before backing up the predictions with facts, let me pause here and insult myself to save those on the political right and left from having to do so.
Cantoni, you’re nothing but a cynic and defeatist.
That’s what conservatives typically say when I say that government growth is unstoppable. Because I deal in facts, they mistakenly think that I want to throw in the towel and let left-liberals win without a fight.
Cantoni, you’re a selfish, mean-spirited jerk.
That’s what left-liberals typically say when I say that government growth should be stopped. They mistakenly think that I don’t care about the poor. They also are delusional and think that most government spending has something to do with the poor.
Okay, insults or not, the facts are still the facts. And the facts are as follows:
A. Total government spending (federal, state, local) has increased from 6.9% of Gross Domestic Product in 1902 to an estimated 34.6% in 2008.
This fact alone does not prove that government spending will increase from one year to the next, because spending as a percent of GDP has fluctuated widely from one year to the next, especially in years in which the nation went from peace to war and from war to peace. For example, the figure increased from 9.8% in 1915 to 22.1% in 1918. Conversely, it decreased from 35.9% in 1946 to 23.9% in 1950
However, if the year-to-year fluctuations are smoothed by drawing a regression line through the data for the last 100 years, the slope of the line is positive. There is no reason to expect that the slope will change, especially considering other facts that we will turn to momentarily.
Notes:
(1) For annual GDP and spending numbers from 1902 to today, go to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php.
(2) Some economists believe that national income is a better denominator than GDP in determining government’s share of the economy. If national income is used instead of GDP, the government’s share of the economy climbs to 44%, as shown at http://mwhodges.home.att.net/piechart.htm.
B. The unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare are over $60 trillion, according to reliable estimates.
To put the $60 trillion in perspective, this staggering number is over four times the estimated economic output of the country for 2008. And the number does not include the unfunded liabilities for state and local pensions, most of which are significantly under funded, due to dishonest government bookkeeping that makes Enron’s bookkeeping look saintly by comparison. These liabilities are not reflected in current deficit numbers.
C. The cost of complying with government regulations is estimated to be 14% of national income and growing.
My 1992 book on bureaucracy detailed the natural tendency of all bureaucrats and bureaucracies. The tendency, of course, is to increase their power. And an increase in power means an increase in the compliance costs inflicted on others.
As an example, the US General Accounting Office estimated in 1994 that state education agencies had to hire 13,400 employees to administer federal education diktats. Another example: According to the US Office of Management and Budget, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 burdened state and local education agencies/districts with 6.6 million hours of paperwork.
(see http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm1406.cfm)
I posit that if the federal bureaucracy were reduced to one bureaucrat, that one bureaucrat could destroy the economy single-handedly if he were given unrestrained authority to issue diktats to other government agencies and to industry. For this reason, the size of the government workforce is less important than the authority given to it. There are approximately 23 million federal, state and local employees. It would be less costly if the 23 million had no authority than if the government workforce were shrunk to one bureaucrat with total authority.
An anecdote: When Bill Bradley was a U.S. Senator and testified with me before a congressional committee, he said that if he were to decide to leave government, a primary reason would be that even a Senator was powerless to control the federal bureaucracy.
A rant: The ignoramuses in the mainstream media blabber about the loss of manufacturing employment but say nothing about the growth in government employment.
D. Over half of Americans are dependent on the government.
Over half of Americans are either dependent on entitlements, on welfare, or on subsidies; or they work for the government or make a living administering government regulations. Many of them are self-described conservatives who rail against big government, but they are not about to vote in the privacy of a voting booth to do away with their government rice bowl. The cold reality is that we’ve passed the tipping point. It’s now politically impossible to right the teeter-totter.
E. Since 1990, the number of federal subsidy programs has grown 44%.
The US Department of Agriculture had the largest increase in subsidy programs: 78. (See the Cato Institute’s “Tax & Budget Bulletin No. 41)
Have the presidential candidates been asked if they would end farm subsidies? Have they been asked if it is morally right for a fat-cat on Park Ave. to invest in a farm in order to receive a subsidy that comes at the expense of poor people who have to pay more for groceries? Well, no. Tellingly, they really aren’t asked any tough questions about our culture of kleptocracy. Why? Because such questions aren’t asked in a culture of kleptocracy.
The truth is that whoever ends up in the Oval Office, the new president will be powerless to end farm subsidies. Yet many Americans believe that their favorite presidential candidate will be able to fix more complicated problems and save the nation from decline. Ha!
Subsidies prove the political science theory of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. That is, those who receive a subsidy will be better organized and more politically influential than those who foot the bill, although those who foot the bill vastly outnumber those who receive the benefit. This is the fatal flaw of those democracies that allow some people to receive government loot at the expense of everyone else. The United States has the fatal flaw.
F. Ninety percent of Americans are educated in government schools, and teacher unions and the rest of the public education establishment comprise the most powerful lobby in state legislatures.
Next to their families, impressionable children spend most of their time in their formative years in government schools. We can debate the value of that education, but one thing is not debatable: It is not in the self-interest of government schools and their minions to teach that big government is bad. In my experience, Americans who have come to that conclusion have had an epiphany outside of the classroom.
In closing, you can ignore these facts and call me a selfish, mean-spirited jerk, cynic and defeatist. But your insults won’t change either the facts or my prediction. Happy New Year!
By Craig J. Cantoni
Jan. 2, 2008
Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT.org). He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
__________________
Addendum from the author: I found a supporting study in the current issue of Reason Magazine, which is retyped below. It supports my contention that government will grow, regardless of tax cuts and changes in tax methods, as long as the root problem isn't solved--namely, Americans thinking it's okay to use government coercion to take money from their neighbors for themselves.
__________________
The beast still eats Cut Taxes and Spend
Brian Doherty
Reason Magazine
February 2008
From Milton Friedman to Ronald Reagan, fiscal conservatives have hoped tax cuts could keep government from overspending by denying it revenues--a theory dubbed "starving the beast." A new study by University of California at Berkeley economists Christina D. Romer and David H. Romber, published by the national Bureau of Economic Research, indicates that the beast is thriving despite the tax cuts of the last three decades. Government spending seems to march on regardless of revenue or tax rates.
The economists studied the effects of four major legislated changes in U.S. tax rates and policy since World War II, choosing episodes where the "starve the beast" motivation was most conspicuous. After looking at the data every which way, with multiple regressions and time lags, and accounting for wars and military spending, they found that the one thing most clearly connected to tax cuts was not spending cuts but future tax increases.
"Although a tax cut leads to a sharp fall in revenues in the short run, it does not have any clear impact on revenues at horizons beyond about two years," the economists write. "Between one-half and four-fifths of the tax cut is offset by legislated tax increases over the next several years."
And spending cuts? "In no episode [of postwar American tax cuts] was there a discernible slowdown in spending following the tax cut," the economists conclude. "Indeed, in all of the episodes, there was an acceleration of spending." The beast finds its food, no matter what.
Is Religion’s Standing in American Society Absolute?
John W. Howard
A young man came into my office last week looking for a job as an associate in my law firm. He seemed bright enough, went to an Ivy college and a great law school, and graduated law review at the top of his class. During our interview, though, I was stunned by some of what he said. He observed that the law is merely a tool to be used in service of our clients and is entitled to no more dignity than any other set of arbitrary rules when it comes to getting our clients what they want. When I asked if that meant he would allow a client to lie in court, he said “certainly.” There is a higher purpose to what we do, he said, than to slavishly observe laws against perjury. Everybody lies in court. If we are unwilling to let our client do so as well, we will be at a tremendous competitive disadvantage. We are there to help our clients and if the way to do that is to lie, then that is what we have to do.
“In fact”, he said, “I am not above a little intimidation, if necessary.” Horrified, I asked him what he meant by that. He told me that the object of litigation is to win and that if witnesses exist who are inclined to hurt our case, he would not have a problem with a visit to suggest that if they step forward, we may not only take action against them in court, but they could find themselves in physical danger. He felt that the higher purpose was our clients’ wishes.
“But what about discovery rules?” I asked. He told me that if there were documents of which we were aware that hurt our client’s case, we have not only the right but the responsibility to destroy them, so the other side cannot see them and use them against us. When I pointed out that the statutes forbid this, he said “Laws are made to be broken. When our clients’ goals are at stake, we cannot afford to be fastidious with observing the rules.”
He went on to tell me that some people should not be entitled to the same rights we enjoy under the law, in any event. Some, he told me, subscribe to philosophies that we just should not approve of and it is entirely appropriate to fine them for that, forbid their discussing their discredited ideas and charge them a special tax for believing as they do. “What about the First Amendment?” I asked. He said the First Amendment is not absolute and as far as he is concerned it protects only “right” ideas, not all ideas. It would be absurd, he observed, to think that this society, or any society, should tolerate ideas so contrary to its values.
I was horrified and did not hire him. But did I have the right to discriminate against him on the basis of his ideas? He had clearly thought them through but it seemed to me that they were so contrary to what we stand for as lawyers devoted to the rule of law (not to mention the fundamental basis in individual freedom that defines us as a nation), I simply could not hire him when his views were so contrary to my own and what I perceive to be the nature and purpose of law. It seemed to me likely that he would undermine what we stand for and the work we do.
If you think I was right in refusing to hire someone whose ideas strike at the very heart of American justice, would your answer be different if I were to tell you that his views were tenets of his religion? We have laws that prohibit discrimination against people on the basis of religion. So, how can we square our horror at the views of a person that are so anathema to the fundamental philosophical foundations of our nation with the prohibition against discriminating against him on the basis of those views? Must I receive into my life and business people who seek to destroy what I hold dear, much less provide them with the resources with which to do so?
It is no mistake that the first freedom protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution is freedom of worship. That reflects not only the huge place religion, primarily the Christian religion, occupied in the minds of the Framers, but demonstrates the extent to which protection of religious freedom was the very object of the founding. From the earliest days of colonial America until the recent past, we have observed a deference to religion and religious belief that is unequaled anywhere else. Religious values, we believe, are those most deeply held. If religion means anything, it is as a guide to our lives and conduct, and informs and defines our very purpose. If religion is something to be compartmentalized and observed mainly on the Sabbath in houses of worship, and otherwise ignored during the rest of the week in the conduct of our lives, it has little value and does not hold the importance most people of faith believe it does.
So it is that the Constitution prohibits “religious tests” for holding public office and protects the free exercise of our various religious faiths. So it is that the first anti-discrimination laws were directed toward the protection of citizens from discrimination on the basis of religion. So it is that even now, we instinctively shrink from harsh judgment on the basis of religion and religious views. That is, in part, why this nation has avoided the sectarian conflicts that have torn others apart, even in the modern age: think of Ireland as a First World country, and India as a Third World nation.
But if religion informs the conduct of its adherents, it follows that one may judge the likely acts of a religious person by reference to his religion. There was no applicant to my law firm such as I have described here. But what if there had been? All of the views I set forth for my mythical applicant were consistent with Islamic teaching and the treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic countries. The views I described are contrary to the obligations we undertake as lawyers when we take our oaths of office to stand for the rule of law and zealously protect the integrity of the system of justice. How, then, could anyone give a lawyer who has those views a job which would require that he either violate the tenets of his faith or conduct his law practice in an unethical manner; thwarting, in the bargain, justice as we have defined it?
In pointing out the sacred place religion occupied in the minds of the Framers, I observed, advisedly, that their main object was the protection of the various sects of Christianity. I anticipated that some readers might be offended by that observation, even though it is true, but it was made to make the point that the Framers did not, could not, have anticipated that there might some day arrive on our shores a religion that preaches a body of thought that runs so completely counter to the very fundamental ideas that define this nation. Even as late as the 20th Century, Islam was virtually unknown to Americans and ill-understood by those with a passing familiarity with it. What was never clear was the extent to which fundamentalist Islam strikes at the heart of the notion of American liberty.
Perhaps, then, it is time to revisit our reluctance to judge and our prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion. If religion governs ideas and ideas govern conduct, it might be time to refine our deference to religious impulses. Perhaps it is time to be more precise with what is protected. A good start would be for courts to begin to recognize that the free exercise of religion is no more absolute than freedom of speech and the press. There are times when speech may be stilled; when presses may be stopped. When religion becomes ideology or, worse, an anti-social movement of civil mayhem, it must lose the protection the Framers so lovingly conferred on that institution they held most dear. There is, after all, no prohibition against discrimination on the basis of political views. Charles Willis Manson devised a religion of sorts for his followers and got them to follow his murderous orders on the basis that, as he put it: “Charles’ will is man’s son.” Is our society constitutionally bound to tolerate the practice of that religion? What about Jim Jones’ religion? The answer is an emphatic “no.”
That is why constitutional analysis now must account for the existence of political/social movements cast as religion by more carefully reviewing what religious exercises must be tolerated and which need not be. Free speech jurisprudence allows the prohibition or punishment of defamation, “fighting words” and the disclosure of state secrets, among other things. Current jurisprudence allows for the prohibition of the use of certain drugs in religious observances. Legislators must now courageously consider what conduct, irrespective of religious basis, can, and must, be prohibited, and courts must not shrink from sustaining such laws on the basis of a broad reading of the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion.
No one should be forced to support someone whose views are so anathema to him as to constitute an assault on his very being. So, perhaps now is the time to revisit our prohibition against religious discrimination on an individual basis. If my apocryphal applicant had truly sought work at my firm, I could never, in good conscience, have extended an offer to him and I should not be made to suffer for that discrimination against ideas. Religion is not, as race or gender, an immutable characteristic. It is a body of ideas one voluntarily assumes. And certainly, we may, and should, make judgments about people on the basis of their ideas.
This issue, as we have seen in the current presidential race, has broader implications. There are those who refuse to vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. I frankly know nothing of Mormonism, but my experience with dozens of Mormon friends over the years has been that they are honest, hard-working people of great integrity and traditional values for the most part consistent with my own. But what if a candidate for office embraced a religion that endorsed the ideas I put in the mouth of my mythical applicant? What then?
It is not enough to assure us that his religion would not affect his conduct in office. We have already seen many examples of religion’s actually having done so. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, by many accounts, freed dangerous convicts on the basis of his religious conviction of Christian redemption. President Bush has forbidden federal funding of stem cell research and the use of federal funds for abortion on the basis of his religious belief in the sanctity of life and the immorality of abortion. Public policy has been governed by the religious views of public officials from the very beginning of the republic.
Because religion is a choice and a non-immutable adoption of a body of ideas, the embracement of one is a voluntary act upon which we may properly judge. Because religious conviction is that we hold most deeply, for the most part, and more thoroughly informs our behavior than any other set of ideas, it certainly must be a guide for predicting the conduct of its adherents. It is altogether legitimate, therefore, for a voter to consider the religion of a candidate, among other characteristics, such as his political views. If the candidate’s religion embraces ideas the voter believes may result in official conduct of which he would disapprove, there is nothing illegitimate in discriminating against that candidate on the basis of his ideas, irrespective of whether or not they are religiously based. To do otherwise would be to ignore what is probably the greatest single factor governing the candidate’s conduct.
Anticipating that someone will protest that my view in this regard violates the “no religious test” prohibition in the Constitution, I point out only that that prohibition is against government discrimination, not individual discrimination. In voting, the choice is entirely that of the voter. And the voter’s greatest obligation is to vote his conscience.
John W. Howard practices business and commercial law in the state of California.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
George Orwell would be proud. FBI Prepares Vast Database Of Biometrics
CLARKSBURG, W. Va. - The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.
Digital images of faces, fingerprints and palm patterns are already flowing into FBI systems in a climate-controlled, secure basement here. Next month, the FBI intends to award a 10-year contract that would significantly expand the amount and kinds of biometric information it receives. And in the coming years, law enforcement authorities around the world will be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars and perhaps even the unique ways people walk and talk, to solve crimes and identify criminals and terrorists. The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law.
"Bigger. Faster. Better. That's the bottom line," said Thomas E. Bush III, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, which operates the database from its headquarters in the Appalachian foothills.
The increasing use of biometrics for identification is raising questions about the ability of Americans to avoid unwanted scrutiny. It is drawing criticism from those who worry that people's bodies will become de facto national identification cards. Critics say that such government initiatives should not proceed without proof that the technology really can pick a criminal out of a crowd.
The use of biometric data is increasing throughout the government. For the past two years, the Defense Department has been storing in a database images of fingerprints, irises and faces of more than 1.5 million Iraqi and Afghan detainees, Iraqi citizens and foreigners who need access to U.S. military bases. The Pentagon also collects DNA samples from some Iraqi detainees, which are stored separately.The Department of Homeland Security has been using iris scans at some airports to verify the identity of travelers who have passed background checks and who want to move through lines quickly. The department is also looking to apply iris- and face-recognition techniques to other programs. The DHS already has a database of millions of sets of fingerprints, which includes records collected from U.S. and foreign travelers stopped at borders for criminal violations, from U.S. citizens adopting children overseas, and from visa applicants abroad. There could be multiple records of one person's prints.
"It's going to be an essential component of tracking," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's enabling the Always On Surveillance Society."
If successful, the system planned by the FBI, called Next Generation Identification, will collect a wide variety of biometric information in one place for identification and forensic purposes.
In an underground facility the size of two football fields, a request reaches an FBI server every second from somewhere in the United States or Canada, comparing a set of digital fingerprints against the FBI's database of 55 million sets of electronic fingerprints. A possible match is made -- or ruled out--as many as 100,000 times a day.
Fast fingerprint checks
Soon, the server at CJIS headquarters will also compare palm prints and, eventually, iris images and face-shape data such as the shape of an earlobe. If all goes as planned, a police officer making a traffic stop or a border agent at an airport could run a 10-fingerprint check on a suspect and within seconds know if the person is on a database of the most wanted criminals and terrorists. An analyst could take palm prints lifted from a crime scene and run them against the expanded database. Intelligence agents could exchange biometric information worldwide.
More than 55 percent of the search requests now are made for background checks on civilians in sensitive positions in the federal government, and jobs that involve children and the elderly, Bush said. Currently those prints are destroyed or returned when the checks are completed. But the FBI is planning a "rap-back" service, under which employers could ask the FBI to keep employees' fingerprints in the database, subject to state privacy laws, so that if that employees are ever arrested or charged with a crime, the employers would be notified.
Advocates say bringing together information from a wide variety of sources and making it available to multiple agencies increases the chances to catch criminals. The Pentagon has already matched several Iraqi suspects against the FBI's criminal fingerprint database. The FBI intends to make both criminal and civilian data available to authorized users, officials said. There are 900,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers who can query the fingerprint database today, they said.
Covert recognition technology
The FBI's biometric database, which includes criminal history records, communicates with the Terrorist Screening Center's database of suspects and the National Crime Information Center database, which is the FBI's master criminal database of felons, fugitives and terrorism suspects.
The FBI is building its system according to standards shared by Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
At the West Virginia University Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR), 45 minutes north of the FBI's biometric facility in Clarksburg, researchers are working on capturing images of people's irises at distances of up to 15 feet, and of faces from as far away as 200 yards. Soon, those researchers will do biometric research for the FBI.
Covert iris- and face-image capture is several years away, but it is of great interest to government agencies.
Think of a Navy ship approaching a foreign vessel, said Bojan Cukic, CITeR's co-director. "It would help to know before you go on board whether the people on that ship that you can image from a distance, whether they are foreign warfighters, and run them against a database of known or suspected terrorists," he said.
Reliability questioned
Skeptics say that such projects are proceeding before there is evidence that they reliably match suspects against a huge database.
In the world's first large-scale, scientific study on how well face recognition works in a crowd, the German government this year found that the technology, while promising, was not yet effective enough to allow its use by police. The study was conducted from October 2006 through January at a train station in Mainz, Germany, which draws 23,000 passengers daily. The study found that the technology was able to match travelers' faces against a database of volunteers more than 60 percent of the time during the day, when the lighting was best. But the rate fell to 10 to 20 percent at night.
To achieve those rates, the German police agency said it would tolerate a false positive rate of 0.1 percent, or the erroneous identification of 23 people a day. In real life, those 23 people would be subjected to further screening measures, the report said.
Accuracy improves as techniques are combined, said Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI's biometric services section chief. The Next Generation database is intended to "fuse" fingerprint, face, iris and palm matching capabilities by 2013, she said.
To safeguard privacy, audit trails are kept on everyone who has access to a record in the fingerprint database, Del Greco said. People may request copies of their records, and the FBI audits all agencies that have access to the database every three years, she said.
"We have very stringent laws that control who can go in there and to secure the data," Bush said.
Privacy concerns
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the ability to share data across systems is problematic. "You're giving the federal government access to an extraordinary amount of information linked to biometric identifiers that is becoming increasingly inaccurate," he said.
In 2004, the Electronic Privacy Information Center objected to the FBI's exemption of the National Crime Information Center database from the Privacy Act requirement that records be accurate. The group noted that the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2001 found that information in the system was "not fully reliable" and that files "may be incomplete or inaccurate." FBI officials justified that exemption by claiming that in law enforcement data collection, "it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete."
Privacy advocates worry about the ability of people to correct false information. "Unlike say, a credit card number, biometric data is forever," said Paul Saffo, a Silicon Valley technology forecaster. He said he feared that the FBI, whose computer technology record has been marred by expensive failures, could not guarantee the data's security. "If someone steals and spoofs your iris image, you can't just get a new eyeball," Saffo said.
In the future, said CITeR director Lawrence A. Hornak, devices will be able to "recognize us and adapt to us."
"The long-term goal," Hornak said, is "ubiquitous use" of biometrics. A traveler may walk down an airport corridor and allow his face and iris images to be captured without ever stepping up to a kiosk and looking into a camera, he said.
"That's the key," he said. "You've chosen it. You have chosen to say, 'Yeah, I want this place to recognize me.' "
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Our Rights at Stake in Michael Savage Case
By Cliff Kincaid
December 14, 2007
Michael Savage, who is being accused of "hate speech" by a Muslim group whose own holy book The Koran is full of hate against Christians, Jews and other unbelievers.
Radio personality Michael Savage wrote a book on why liberalism is a mental disorder. That helps explain why he is under attack by radical Muslims, who are fellow travelers with the liberals in trying to dismantle American defenses against terrorists and criminals.
Two recent developments, the banning of capital punishment by politicians in New Jersey and the House vote to ban the waterboarding, or simulated drowning of terrorists, provide more evidence of Savage’s thesis. Why is it that liberals are so determined to keep convicted killers alive at public expense? Why are they so determined to spare terrorists from a few seconds of discomfort? It is because they have a mental disorder. For them, it is fashionable to be indifferent to the suffering of the real people who should count—American citizens.
In this battle, however, good sometimes wins over evil. That occurred when “a measure to expand hate-crime protections,” as the liberal Washington Post put it, was dropped from a Pentagon spending bill by House and Senate negotiators. The measure had been introduced in the Senate by the notorious Ted Kennedy, who goes down in history as the only senator in U.S. history to let a young girl die in the bottom of his submerged car. That was a fate much worse than waterboarding. Kennedy, of course, is also opposed to waterboarding. Terrorists, he believes, should enjoy more rights than Mary Jo Kopechne, who died in that car struggling to breathe as the water enveloped her.
Kennedy is a concrete example of liberalism as a mental disorder. In his warped world view, real people and real victims such as Mary Jo Kopechne have no rights, but it is wrong to “hate” people and such “hate” should be rooted out and punished by federal authorities. This is their agenda—making us think like them, or at least getting us to quit thinking and quit acting on behalf of what is truly important in this country, such as the survival of our nation and our families.
Credit goes to the White House and Congressional Republicans for forcing the dropping of the “hate crimes” provision. The White House had threatened to veto the measure. It would elevate homosexuals, the supposed victims of “hate crimes,” to protected status under law, and would leave other classes of people (such as the elderly, the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status.
Now who are these “homosexuals?” Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth held a December 5 National Press Club news conference to unveil a video of what took place at the Folsom Street Fair in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district. The video showed naked homosexuals masturbating and having sex in public as children walked down the streets near them. Some were dressed up as animals being led around by leashes. Others were dressed in leather and being whipped. Homosexual pornography was sold openly. See it for yourself here.
Was LaBarbera guilty of a “hate crime” for bringing this perverted behavior to the public’s attention and demanding that Pelosi condemn it? That is what the homosexuals would like you to believe. That is apparently why all of the television media, with the exception of Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel, ignored LaBarbera’s news conference. Who wants to suffer the wrath of the militant homosexuals by focusing attention on what they actually do?
In another indication of a mental disorder, we are being told that waterboarding, which involves pouring water over a terrorist’s face, is torture and should never be used. This mentality is what drove Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives to actually pass a bill banning the practice. During a time of war, can you believe that the House would actually vote to tell terrorists in advance how we will interrogate them? Can you believe that the House would vote to ban a practice that has saved American lives and disrupted terrorist plots against America? The House does this because it has lost sight of who really died on 9/11 and because it puts the “rights” of terrorists above the right to live of ordinary Americans. For all intents and purposes, the House is acting like a terrorist front group.
Similarly, New Jersey politicians have voted to ban capital punishment. Like the measure to ban waterboarding, this can only result in more lives lost. That means that a murder in New Jersey, no matter how vicious, can never be punished by the death penalty. The practical result will be that crimes will go unsolved because police and prosecutors will not be able to threaten to use capital punishment to get information out of criminals. It means criminals will know that no matter who they kill or how many, they will be kept alive at taxpayer expense. Banning the death penalty constitutes open season on law-abiding citizens.
Which brings up the case of Michael Savage, who is being accused of “hate speech” by a Muslim group whose own holy book The Koran is full of hate against Christians, Jews and other unbelievers. Muslims are killing or threatening to kill people around the world over Teddy Bears and cartoons but companies advertising on his Savage Nation radio show are being pressured to stop sponsoring his program because he dares to exercise his First Amendment right of free speech and to criticize Islam.
There is some dispute over which companies have withdrawn advertising from his show. The names of those companies are less important than the campaign itself which is now underway. The purpose of the “Hate Hurts America” group that is now leading the charge against him is to intimidate companies into never advertising on his show. The names of those companies we may never know. This is the insidious danger of this campaign. It will force him off the air eventually—unless we speak up now.
(The) new book, The Death of Talk Radio?, makes the critical point that what we are seeing in the Savage case will become official federal policy if the liberals manage to capture the White House in 2008 and take control of the Federal Communications Commission.
Those determined to kill us are on the offensive, and they have powerful friends in important positions of influence in the media and politics today. It is literally a battle to the death. Our constitutional rights and our lives are at stake. (emphasis added)
The original article can be read at the excellent Accuracy In Media website:
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5982_0_3_0_C/
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
We live in an age where the protections of personal liberty afforded to us by our Constitution and tradition are being undermined from sources outside the erected protection barriers. While we have been vigilant to prevent the government from building massive, vertical information databases on citizens using social security numbers and a national identity card, we allowed private enterprise to build exactly those databases under the guise of "credit reporting." TRW, Experian, and Equifax have painfully detailed information about our lives. The government then does an end-run and simply uses those commercial databases as though they had created the files themselves.
Funny that TRW also builds spook satellites - hmmm?
Now, the same thing is happening with supposedly commercial search engine technology. By opening all government files and databases to search engines like Google, claiming this to be in the name "open and transparent government" this is also "open and transparent and easy" to all other parts of the government.
What good is a right to privacy in your personal papers and effects from government intrusion, if private citizens regularly wander through your house taking pictures of all your documents and possessions, and then sell them to the government agent standing outside your back door? It is even worse when the private citizens doing that business get a plethora of incentives, subsidies, and contracts, to engage themselves in the business of rifling through their neighbor’s houses. Let’s not forget that it was IBM that provided the census data management systems for Hitler to locate the Jews for rounding up in the holocaust.
The constitutional protections and legislation have severely lagged behind the technology, and I fear that all semblance of privacy is being lost to the twin headed monster of Big Government, and Big Business. The technical name for that style of governance is "Fascism." It may be convenient for national security types to hunt bad guys, but it is easy for a change in governance to redefine "bad guys." An example of the sliding scale by which the government and even differing administrations redefine who they want to persecute, is going on beneath the ripples we see in the new ‘right’ now. I'm not in the pornography business, but it sure doesn't seem like a threat to national security. Yet I know for a fact that the Feds are already using the laws written to combat terrorism and drugs to trace and prosecute pornography, and I'm not even talking child porn. This is one of the underlying (and under reported) elements of the Alberto Gonzales federal prosecutor firings. A lot of the prosecutors were not "putting enough effort" into pursuing those cases. Who is to say the next administration may target gun owners? Or bloggers they think contribute to "radical right wing sites", or supporters of Don Imus? How far can this go in the days of criminalized "hate speech?"
What we need is legislation, or a Supreme Court Ruling, that neither big business nor the government want to implement. Our personal information and credit reports should be private. We need federal legislation, extending to all states, that the right to privacy includes any and all personally identifiable financial/demographic/medical information. It should be a crime to transmit, but not to store and retain that information. The violation would be to transmit that information to a person or entity other than the person to which it pertains (any third party), without the written consent of the person to which the information pertains. The crime should be punishable by fine per incidence of unauthorized sharing of information, and should also be a cause for civil liability with a minimum presumed damage amount stated in the statute. This way persons applying for credit, or a lease, could voluntarily allow their data to be examined when they seek to accrue a benefit by assuring their creditor of their good history, however it wouldn't allow nosy persons/entities to snoop at their records without their knowledge or consent.
There should also be an exemption from this law for law enforcement, but acquiring the information, when personalized, should require a warrant, just like searching a person’s house, and the acquisition of a particularized warrant would exempt and immunize the agent and agency from the application statute on individual cases.
This is the only way a ‘right’ to privacy will continue to have any meaningful existence in this country into the 21st century. Otherwise, technology has rendered it a sham.
By David Roth
May 18, 2007
RESPONSE from Carol U.:
May 19, 2007
I hate to disagree. Reason being that a month ago I got a letter from TJX, parent company of TJ Max and Marshalls, etc. Someone had hacked into their files and they were concerned and wanted me to know and wanted to inform me as to what to do to see if my identity had been stolen. Since I did not have their credit card I wondered shy I had gotten the letter so I called. I was informed that since I had returned something to one of their stores without a receipt they used my driver's license and took down the number and since in AZ you can use your SSN as your license number they wanted me to be aware. When I moved to AZ, I did use my SSN as my driver’s license number. I thought it was a good idea. Then with all this identity theft going on I changed it several years ago. Not only did the company make me aware of all this but they provided me with the names, phone numbers, etc of the Credit Companies so that I could make sure that all was correct on my credit report. I did inform Equifax, etc and in a very timely manner I received my credit report from all three companies. I was happy to see that all was in order, that no one had stolen my identity and used it and all was right with the world. I do not consider it a violation of my privacy as long as I have nothing to hide in my financial life I am glad that someone has all my information at their fingertips. I guess I am a little jaded coming from my professional background but the only thing I care about is someone stealing all this info and using it in a negative manner. I think that there are far more important issues to get excited about.
RESPONSE to Carol from Red State Patriot:
May 20, 2007
Carol, never be hesitant to disagree!!! Good for you. We’re glad to see that people are thinking. That's the point.
I would like to respectfully suggest to you that the author was making an extremely important point that still remains unaddressed: The information (which the government is not allowed to collect and store in a database by law), is made freely available to the government by organizations such as Equifax. If the government is not allowed to collect and store such personal data for privacy reasons and the Bill of Rights, then it is a bit ludicrous that organizations such as Equifax, TRW and others, protected and facilitated by federal legislation, simply collect the information and provide it to the government upon their request. Such personal data and information would require a search warrant if it were being directly sought by the government.
In other words, an act which would otherwise be illegal is somehow OK, if you can get a third party to do for you what you by law cannot.
Congress might as well just repeal the Bill of Rights if the intent of the 4th Amendment is so easily circumvented. But that would take a Constitutional Amendment which is a long and tedious process. Better to just ignore the Bill of Rights.
The 4th Amendment reads in summary: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The plain language reading is pretty clear. One can do the “dance of the seven maidens” trying to read into the plain wording something that is not being elucidated. The 4th Amendment was intended as a protection of the citizen (you and me) from the government. Are we going to ignore the 4th Amendment’s provisions? We can’t just
equivocate and say, “I have nothing to hide.” That’s not the point. There are much bigger issues at stake. It is your incremental loss of your property rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. Each of the first ten Amendments is a form of “property rights.”
In addition, the U.S. Constitution provides several mechanisms for changing (amending) it, none of which include Congress unilaterally voting to change it; or the Executive Branch simply ignoring the Constitutional safeguards intended to protect citizens like you and me; or the federal Judiciary legislating constitutional changes from the bench.
As for the privacy dangers for citizens, I suspect the author envisions a fateful day when the government may use the information in some form of endgame when they decide to rule rather than govern, a day which might be much closer than most people consider possible. His assertions regarding IBM are a historical fact, sad to say, but you
probably already knew that. Data (and the information derived from the data) has historically been used for either good or evil, depending upon who was in control (the government or the citizens).
Anyway, good response. Keep reading. That's how we all keep abreast of important issues.
I've come to understand, and it took longer than it should have because it's incredulous, that Democrats truly (sincerely) believe the three branches of American government are the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the liberal courts. It seems clear to me after years of observation, and too many conversations with devout socialists (who aspire to mind-numbing levels of egalitarianism), that Democrats see issues in a single-minded framework, i.e., an attempt by one branch (Republicans) to usurp the powers of another branch (the liberal courts), and so, see the Democratic Party's role as properly protecting the Constitution.
When I first had this intuitive grasp of reality, this epiphany, my reaction was, "It couldn't be." However, Democrats, in their contemporary view, clearly consider the courts to be the legislative branch of the federal government. They see the Democratic Party's role being, not to attempt to legislate their agenda in Congress using a procedure constitutionally and historically based on a representative plurality of Americans, but instead to install activist jurists in State and Federal courts (with life tenure) who will legislate according to a Democratic Party agenda of advancing socialism. Who needs elections?
But the more I considered it, this truly is the understanding of the three branches of government that most liberals have. More importantly, it explains a great deal about the behavior of Democrats and liberal Republicans for the last 60 years. Today Democrats are obstructing all legislation (and all but the most liberal court nominees to a Judiciary out of constitutional control). The American Judiciary has become that hard nucleus about which liberals have formed in their quest for power. Emboldened by the Judiciary’s defiance of Congress and every legislature across the country, and most recently in KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108) 268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed., there is no doubt about what Americans can expect in the future. One can only hope liberals, misguided and ignorant of history, are going to like what they are going to get.
The focus of liberal socialism is nothing less than power and control, whereas the focus of conservatives is liberty with all its commensurate freedoms, i.e., freedom in each and every aspect of life. God, family and country are frequent references to a conservative’s core values. The one and only core value of liberals is “self.” Liberals state that ‘truth’ is relative and that each man and woman must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Conservatives on the other hand see nothing relative in the concept of truth.
Yes, each man and woman must decide to do what is right and avoid doing what is wrong, and there are finite consequences to every decision we make. At issue is the foundation for each individual choice. If there are no rules that govern individual behavior that society will respect, that minorities of the population will accept when decided by the majority, then by definition there can be no laws. At that point, any laws take on a different intent, i.e., to passify and control a submissive population, advance an agenda, and maintain control. Why is that? Would you be surprised to learn that the basic tenet of atheism, secularism, and even Satanism are identical – that each individual should do as he or she pleases? The ultimate result of this philosophy is first anarchy and later totalitarianism in an effort to regain control of a society without rules. It would be easy to argue that we are very close to anarchy in every aspect and at every level of society, from border to border and sea to shinning sea.
Why are liberals and particularly Hillary Rodham Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and the likes of John Kerry still proudly proclaiming their socialist ideals and egalitarian objectives? It is a fact that centuries of socialists' experiments, whether by utopians, Marxists, or Fabians, have always (without exception)ended in economic failure, destitution and a loss of personal liberty. More than a fact, since there are no exceptions, it is a universal truth. Another universal truth is the unchanging motivation of liberalism, i.e., self interest of the political elite, which increases exponentially in the form of power with each incremental loss of our personal liberty.
What then is the solution? Here is a hint: Without private property, which is the legal, moral and intellectual concept behind every one of the Bill of Rights, liberty cannot exist. Each and every "right" protected in the Bill of Rights is a form of private property.
You may think because you are an American, you are free, but you would be wrong. You may think you have freedom, but freedom is relative because without private property, you only have as much freedom as the government decides to let you have - and that is not liberty. Private property ended in the United States with the passage of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and with it our freedoms began to erode with each and every small step toward socialism.
Sadly, Americans have choosen to listen to the sirens of liberalism whose sweet song lures them to their doom - rather than heed centuries of warnings by failed example. Americans are steering their own ship of state onto the rocks. The few who have stopped up their ears with wax remain conservative (with value systems still intact and a healthy respect for the original U.S. Constitution) and can only watch in disbelief as the shoals draw visibly closer.
Red State Patriot
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” —Patrick Henry
