The irony of this article by Karl Rove is that the "reversals" (we said all along here that Obama's stance on the military issues would continue Bush policies in spite of his rhetoric) that Rove praises are all doubtful as to their worthy stature. The Iraq War for one and the ethical and legal status of renditions, torture, and the like, for another. In the second half of the article regarding domestic policy, everytime you see the name Barack Obama, replace it with George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, or perhaps the words Republican Congress, and by doing so you would be no less correct! You could even use Ronald Reagan in many of those sentences. In regarding health care and Rove's admonishment of Obama for running against government run health care in the election but changing his tune once in office, one is reminded of the GOP controlled government that insisted on passing a multi trillion dollar (unfunded) obligation in Medicare Part D.
MAY 21, 2009
Our president isn't quite as advertised.
by Karl Rove
Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.
For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.
He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.
Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.
As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.
These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.
We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good.
Mr. Obama campaigned on "responsible fiscal policies," arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the "rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy." In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to "go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work." Even now, he says he'll "cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office" and is "rooting out waste and abuse" in the budget.
However, Mr. Obama's fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government's share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.
On health care, Mr. Obama's election ads decried "government-run health care" as "extreme," saying it would lead to "higher costs." Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, "It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system."
Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama's flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.
In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called "the projection of appealing images." All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image "becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself." Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.
Mr. Obama's appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America's security interests.
Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.
Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Welcome to the Fox News 'tea parties'
To answer the question the author begins the article with: When the protests are substantially organized and have as many of the speakers the same people that foisted the failed, and liberal, "Republican Revolution" on the country, as well as the liberal agenda of the Republican Congressional majority for the years 2000-2006 amid the Bush Administrations own end-run around the Constitution 2000-2008.
April 17, 2009
by Bill Press
When is a protest not a real protest?
When it's all about partisan politics rather than issues, when it's staged by the media, and when nobody knows why they're there. And that's exactly the case with those so-called "tea parties" held around the country on Tax Day, April 15.
Organizers proudly called them "grass-roots" protests. In fact, there was nothing grass-roots about them. As economist Paul Krugman noted, they were more like Astro-turf. The tea parties were hatched, planned and paid for by three right-wing organizations: FreedomWorks, headed by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey; dontGo, which organized last year's GOP public-relations blitz in support of offshore drilling; and Americans for Prosperity, headed by Ralph Reed's former business partner, Tim Phillips.
Having organized the parties, Republicans then showed up to pour the tea. Speakers at various locations included Newt Gingrich, Armey, John Boehner, Alan Keyes, Joe the Plumber, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, several Republican members of Congress and hooker-bait David Vitter.
The tea parties did make history, in one sense. They represent the first time a television network has actually moved from covering events to creating events. For an entire week before April 15, Fox News exclusively hailed the upcoming tea parties, broadcast their locations and encouraged viewers to participate in "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." For those unable to attend an event in person, Fox News even conveniently hosted a "virtual tea party" on its website.
Host Neil Cavuto vehemently denied that he and fellow Foxers had become event sponsors, not just event reporters, insisting that Fox had given just as much advance publicity to the Million Man March in Washington. There's only one problem with that: The Million Man March was held in 1995. The Fox News Network wasn't launched until 1996.
The truth is, the tea parties were a Fox News creation and would never have happened without Fox. Between April 6 and April 13, as documented by Media Matters for America, Fox News featured at least 20 segments on the upcoming "tea parties" and aired over 73 in-show and commercial promotions for their coverage of the events. Not only that, on April 15, Fox anchors Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and others actually went on the road to host various tea parties around the country. In Washington, Fox News analyst Tobin Smith welcomed participants "on behalf of Fox News Channel." Clearly, the old slogan of Fox News – "we report, you decide" – has been replaced by the more accurate "we create, you participate."
Even with Fox's blessing, however, the tea parties were a bust. Some organizers predicted that millions of Americans would attend over 2,000 events around the country. In actuality, there were only a few hundred tea parties, and attendance, based on reports from sites across the country, was in the thousands.
And no wonder. For one thing, nobody could quite explain what the assembled protesters were really protesting. Talk about confusion. I attended the rainy tea party in Washington's Lafayette Square. Not even protesters knew why they were there. I saw signs ranging from "No Queremos Socialismo" to "Hey, Big Brother. Show us your real birth certificate" to "Obama bin Lyin." One lone ranger even showed up to protest the programming schedule on Fox News: "Move Glenn Beck to 7 p.m."
Since the tea parties took place on April 15, you might think they were held in opposition to higher taxes. Yet over 95 percent of those protesters just received a big Obama tax cut, not a tax increase. Others said the protests were held to express bipartisan anger over big government spending. If so, where was this gang when George W. Bush, the biggest spender in history, racked up the biggest budgets, biggest deficits and biggest national debt ever? How many tea parties were held on April 15, 2008? Zero.
No, the evidence is clear. The Fox News tea parties were neither genuine nor spontaneous. And they certainly bore no relation to the original Boston Tea Party protest against "taxation without representation." This year's events were pure partisan political rallies, staged by Republicans and promoted by Fox News, to embarrass President Obama.
In the end, that's what protesters were most unhappy about: They lost the last election.
April 17, 2009
by Bill Press
When is a protest not a real protest?
When it's all about partisan politics rather than issues, when it's staged by the media, and when nobody knows why they're there. And that's exactly the case with those so-called "tea parties" held around the country on Tax Day, April 15.
Organizers proudly called them "grass-roots" protests. In fact, there was nothing grass-roots about them. As economist Paul Krugman noted, they were more like Astro-turf. The tea parties were hatched, planned and paid for by three right-wing organizations: FreedomWorks, headed by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey; dontGo, which organized last year's GOP public-relations blitz in support of offshore drilling; and Americans for Prosperity, headed by Ralph Reed's former business partner, Tim Phillips.
Having organized the parties, Republicans then showed up to pour the tea. Speakers at various locations included Newt Gingrich, Armey, John Boehner, Alan Keyes, Joe the Plumber, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, several Republican members of Congress and hooker-bait David Vitter.
The tea parties did make history, in one sense. They represent the first time a television network has actually moved from covering events to creating events. For an entire week before April 15, Fox News exclusively hailed the upcoming tea parties, broadcast their locations and encouraged viewers to participate in "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." For those unable to attend an event in person, Fox News even conveniently hosted a "virtual tea party" on its website.
Host Neil Cavuto vehemently denied that he and fellow Foxers had become event sponsors, not just event reporters, insisting that Fox had given just as much advance publicity to the Million Man March in Washington. There's only one problem with that: The Million Man March was held in 1995. The Fox News Network wasn't launched until 1996.
The truth is, the tea parties were a Fox News creation and would never have happened without Fox. Between April 6 and April 13, as documented by Media Matters for America, Fox News featured at least 20 segments on the upcoming "tea parties" and aired over 73 in-show and commercial promotions for their coverage of the events. Not only that, on April 15, Fox anchors Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and others actually went on the road to host various tea parties around the country. In Washington, Fox News analyst Tobin Smith welcomed participants "on behalf of Fox News Channel." Clearly, the old slogan of Fox News – "we report, you decide" – has been replaced by the more accurate "we create, you participate."
Even with Fox's blessing, however, the tea parties were a bust. Some organizers predicted that millions of Americans would attend over 2,000 events around the country. In actuality, there were only a few hundred tea parties, and attendance, based on reports from sites across the country, was in the thousands.
And no wonder. For one thing, nobody could quite explain what the assembled protesters were really protesting. Talk about confusion. I attended the rainy tea party in Washington's Lafayette Square. Not even protesters knew why they were there. I saw signs ranging from "No Queremos Socialismo" to "Hey, Big Brother. Show us your real birth certificate" to "Obama bin Lyin." One lone ranger even showed up to protest the programming schedule on Fox News: "Move Glenn Beck to 7 p.m."
Since the tea parties took place on April 15, you might think they were held in opposition to higher taxes. Yet over 95 percent of those protesters just received a big Obama tax cut, not a tax increase. Others said the protests were held to express bipartisan anger over big government spending. If so, where was this gang when George W. Bush, the biggest spender in history, racked up the biggest budgets, biggest deficits and biggest national debt ever? How many tea parties were held on April 15, 2008? Zero.
No, the evidence is clear. The Fox News tea parties were neither genuine nor spontaneous. And they certainly bore no relation to the original Boston Tea Party protest against "taxation without representation." This year's events were pure partisan political rallies, staged by Republicans and promoted by Fox News, to embarrass President Obama.
In the end, that's what protesters were most unhappy about: They lost the last election.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The real tea party movement
by Ilana Mercer
April 17, 2009
Today I offer an interview with James Ostrowski, libertarian extraordinaire, lawyer, writer and tea party organizer. Mr. Ostrowski is the founder of Free Buffalo (2005) and author of the tea party manifesto, "How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot." He's been fighting the political machine for 35 years.
ILANA: The tea party protests across the country are all fueled by that indomitable America spirit. And that's good. However, most tea protesters have yet to arrive at the principles that undergirded the American Revolution. Explain.
OSTROWSKI: What we have now in America is so far from the original idea that it would be unrecognizable to the founders. The old republic slipped away long ago, and while it's not possible to pinpoint the date, I like to say 1917. That year we entered World War I. War leads to higher taxes and the level of federal spending has never returned to pre-World War I levels. Domestically, the twin evils of the income tax and the Federal Reserve started to kick in around then too. So, forget Obama – we need to clear away the dead wood of the Progressive Era to even begin to see what a true republic would look like. I don't think most tea protesters are there yet, but perhaps they can be persuaded. In any event, we need to go far beyond simply bashing Obama and pork.
ILANA: I was coming to that. You've warned of tea parties that focus their attack on Obama and the "Democrats," and whose "own positive agenda is rather thin and focuses on Pavlovian rank and file buzz words like 'pork.'" Or tax tweaks to the exclusion of slashing government. You've cautioned of phonies who aim, in your words, "to return power to the same set of degenerate creeps who set the stage for the God Obama's final sacking of America" – Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Tom DeLay, Dick Army, Lindsey Graham. What sort of agenda will help restore the republic and ward off the Republicans?
OSTROWSKI: I lay out a bold but simple plan, which starts with bringing the troops home and using the savings to begin to liquidate the federal welfare state by buying out Socialism Security recipients with lump sum payments. That paves the way for repeal of the 16th Amendment. Of course, we need to end the Fed and allow the market to determine the forms of money. The market usually chooses gold and silver. Now, establishment Republicans will not go along with that, but I am convinced the rank and file will. We kill two birds with one stone.
ILANA: Do address the other obstacle to reclaiming the republic: the gatekeeper pundits who've been wrong for the past decade about everything; the authors, groups, websites and publications that have consistently dished out Republikeynsian statism – and who'd like Americans to believe that their warfare state is just dandy, and that nipped-and-tucked Republican stimulus and bailouts would be fundamentally different from the equivalent Democratic obscenities.
OSTROWSKI: Well, the funny thing is, don't they sound a lot more like us now that the Republicans are out of power? But yes, the whole gang of wealthy conservative pundits who helped give us the disaster of the Bush administration and the pathetic Republican Congress need to be held accountable. People need to be encouraged to support the authors, thinks tanks and blogs that got it right the last eight years, not the recent converts to limited government.
Again, you can't separate war from big government. The total American credit card debt is about the same as the projected cost of the two Asian land wars. We need to make that connection clear: You can't separate foreign policy from domestic policy and the economy.
ILANA: We were bequeathed a republic, not a democracy. You've written: "Only a republican government can be truly limited. A republican government may only exercise powers delegated by the people that the people actually possess." What do you mean?
OSTROWSKI: Pure democracy is a form of ethical nihilism. Not sure where that comes from – Rousseau probably – but voting is like trying to stop a hurricane with your breath. The main function of voting is to give big government an excuse to push you around. The thugs always have the trump card as we hear constantly now: We won the election!
The founders were Lockean liberals who believed that we had natural rights and could combine to delegate certain powers to the government such as self-protection. But in natural law, no man can steal from another, so you can't delegate that power to the government and create a welfare state. Similarly, the people don't have the right to counterfeit, so they can't delegate that power to the Federal Reserve. And the people do not have the right to rule the world, so they can't delegate to the government the right to create a global military empire.
The founders were not anarchists, but they still had a dim view of taxes. To tax people for purposes other than core government functions is theft and tyranny. Jefferson said that in his own words in his First Inaugural.
ILANA: You write in your manifesto, "How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot": "The vast majority of Americans now support Red Coat government." Explain, with reference to the dangers and deceptions of Republican poseurs, especially. I can't help thinking that Republicans are the real obstacle to winning the "Second American Revolution." With Democrats, what you see is what you get. They really are as odious as all that. (Imagine if Democrats were the only obstacle Ron Paul revolutionaries faced.) Disagree?
OSTROWSKI: True. Democrats tell the truth; Republicans lie. Democrats tell you they think government is great and they deliver. They make it bigger. Republicans tell us they hate big government, but they lie and give us government often bigger and more oppressive than the Dems. George Bush is Exhibit "A," but every Republican president since Hoover made government bigger. I often ask people: Name the last conservative regime that made government smaller? Never got an answer!
Regarding Red Coats, our president is more powerful than King George was and his empire is larger. Our taxes are higher and our corporate state economy takes British Mercantilism to a much higher level.
ILANA: Tell our readers, with reference to the only rights the government is supposed to safeguard, why a "true republic can only have a free market economy." Why "can't a republic have a global military empire"?
OSTROWSKI: A republic exists to protect our natural rights including property. The market is basically the free exchange of property or property titles. So, a market economy is not optional in a republic; it's a necessity. Pragmatically too, in a mixed economy like ours, so many voters are bought off by checks and favors of various kinds that it becomes almost impossible to dislodge the regime. So, that's another reason to stick to a market economy.
Why can't a republic have a global military empire? Among others reasons, empires require huge armies and bureaucracies and oppressive taxes, which violate our right to private property, the right to keep what we earn. Empires, as Washington taught us, invite retaliation and thus the government betrays its only true purpose by jeopardizing the lives and security of its citizens by pointlessly manufacturing foreign enemies.
ILANA: In your manifesto you quote Tolstoy, who "wrote the politician's credo":
"I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means – except by getting off his back."
Unlike Neal Boortz, a Republican in libertarian's clothing, you're clearly not a proponent of the political process. Before he joined the Fox News tea-party fest, the talk show host had pooh-poohed the tea protests, touting the political process instead. In a blog post, "Tea Parties – Give Me a Break," Boortz advocated "registering voters who actually produce and contribute to our society," rather than protesting. Why is politics a rigged charade?
OSTROWSKI: Well, I've been in the trenches for 35 years, since I was a kid. The game is rigged like a poker game where you are the sucker. They gerrymander districts. They use our tax money to buy votes and extract donations. So, even if you get a good candidate, you are outspent 10 to one and outmanned 10 to one since they use "off duty" government employees to campaign against you. I'm an election lawyer, so I know they try to knock you off the ballot or at least tie you up in court. Finally, all the net-tax consumers vote. The rest of us are often too busy or too discouraged. The machine wins 90 percent of the time.
ILANA: On the pragmatic level, you've devised a 12-step program for how each one of us can start to restore the American republic (as opposed to the Republican Party's America).
More symbolically, you exhort Americans to take a pledge – one bearing no resemblance to the pledge members of the "Stupid Party" are always beating us on the head with. (No surprise: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist, Francis Bellamy.)
What is it?
OSTROWSKI: I pledge allegiance to the principles of the American Revolution, stated by Jefferson, and for which the Minutemen and Washington's Army fought: that government's only purpose is to protect our natural rights to life, liberty and property; that any government that does "more" than protect our natural rights must thereby violate those same rights and become a tyranny that the people have the right to alter or abolish. I pledge to resist that tyranny by peaceful means if at all possible.
April 17, 2009
Today I offer an interview with James Ostrowski, libertarian extraordinaire, lawyer, writer and tea party organizer. Mr. Ostrowski is the founder of Free Buffalo (2005) and author of the tea party manifesto, "How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot." He's been fighting the political machine for 35 years.
ILANA: The tea party protests across the country are all fueled by that indomitable America spirit. And that's good. However, most tea protesters have yet to arrive at the principles that undergirded the American Revolution. Explain.
OSTROWSKI: What we have now in America is so far from the original idea that it would be unrecognizable to the founders. The old republic slipped away long ago, and while it's not possible to pinpoint the date, I like to say 1917. That year we entered World War I. War leads to higher taxes and the level of federal spending has never returned to pre-World War I levels. Domestically, the twin evils of the income tax and the Federal Reserve started to kick in around then too. So, forget Obama – we need to clear away the dead wood of the Progressive Era to even begin to see what a true republic would look like. I don't think most tea protesters are there yet, but perhaps they can be persuaded. In any event, we need to go far beyond simply bashing Obama and pork.
ILANA: I was coming to that. You've warned of tea parties that focus their attack on Obama and the "Democrats," and whose "own positive agenda is rather thin and focuses on Pavlovian rank and file buzz words like 'pork.'" Or tax tweaks to the exclusion of slashing government. You've cautioned of phonies who aim, in your words, "to return power to the same set of degenerate creeps who set the stage for the God Obama's final sacking of America" – Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Tom DeLay, Dick Army, Lindsey Graham. What sort of agenda will help restore the republic and ward off the Republicans?
OSTROWSKI: I lay out a bold but simple plan, which starts with bringing the troops home and using the savings to begin to liquidate the federal welfare state by buying out Socialism Security recipients with lump sum payments. That paves the way for repeal of the 16th Amendment. Of course, we need to end the Fed and allow the market to determine the forms of money. The market usually chooses gold and silver. Now, establishment Republicans will not go along with that, but I am convinced the rank and file will. We kill two birds with one stone.
ILANA: Do address the other obstacle to reclaiming the republic: the gatekeeper pundits who've been wrong for the past decade about everything; the authors, groups, websites and publications that have consistently dished out Republikeynsian statism – and who'd like Americans to believe that their warfare state is just dandy, and that nipped-and-tucked Republican stimulus and bailouts would be fundamentally different from the equivalent Democratic obscenities.
OSTROWSKI: Well, the funny thing is, don't they sound a lot more like us now that the Republicans are out of power? But yes, the whole gang of wealthy conservative pundits who helped give us the disaster of the Bush administration and the pathetic Republican Congress need to be held accountable. People need to be encouraged to support the authors, thinks tanks and blogs that got it right the last eight years, not the recent converts to limited government.
Again, you can't separate war from big government. The total American credit card debt is about the same as the projected cost of the two Asian land wars. We need to make that connection clear: You can't separate foreign policy from domestic policy and the economy.
ILANA: We were bequeathed a republic, not a democracy. You've written: "Only a republican government can be truly limited. A republican government may only exercise powers delegated by the people that the people actually possess." What do you mean?
OSTROWSKI: Pure democracy is a form of ethical nihilism. Not sure where that comes from – Rousseau probably – but voting is like trying to stop a hurricane with your breath. The main function of voting is to give big government an excuse to push you around. The thugs always have the trump card as we hear constantly now: We won the election!
The founders were Lockean liberals who believed that we had natural rights and could combine to delegate certain powers to the government such as self-protection. But in natural law, no man can steal from another, so you can't delegate that power to the government and create a welfare state. Similarly, the people don't have the right to counterfeit, so they can't delegate that power to the Federal Reserve. And the people do not have the right to rule the world, so they can't delegate to the government the right to create a global military empire.
The founders were not anarchists, but they still had a dim view of taxes. To tax people for purposes other than core government functions is theft and tyranny. Jefferson said that in his own words in his First Inaugural.
ILANA: You write in your manifesto, "How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot": "The vast majority of Americans now support Red Coat government." Explain, with reference to the dangers and deceptions of Republican poseurs, especially. I can't help thinking that Republicans are the real obstacle to winning the "Second American Revolution." With Democrats, what you see is what you get. They really are as odious as all that. (Imagine if Democrats were the only obstacle Ron Paul revolutionaries faced.) Disagree?
OSTROWSKI: True. Democrats tell the truth; Republicans lie. Democrats tell you they think government is great and they deliver. They make it bigger. Republicans tell us they hate big government, but they lie and give us government often bigger and more oppressive than the Dems. George Bush is Exhibit "A," but every Republican president since Hoover made government bigger. I often ask people: Name the last conservative regime that made government smaller? Never got an answer!
Regarding Red Coats, our president is more powerful than King George was and his empire is larger. Our taxes are higher and our corporate state economy takes British Mercantilism to a much higher level.
ILANA: Tell our readers, with reference to the only rights the government is supposed to safeguard, why a "true republic can only have a free market economy." Why "can't a republic have a global military empire"?
OSTROWSKI: A republic exists to protect our natural rights including property. The market is basically the free exchange of property or property titles. So, a market economy is not optional in a republic; it's a necessity. Pragmatically too, in a mixed economy like ours, so many voters are bought off by checks and favors of various kinds that it becomes almost impossible to dislodge the regime. So, that's another reason to stick to a market economy.
Why can't a republic have a global military empire? Among others reasons, empires require huge armies and bureaucracies and oppressive taxes, which violate our right to private property, the right to keep what we earn. Empires, as Washington taught us, invite retaliation and thus the government betrays its only true purpose by jeopardizing the lives and security of its citizens by pointlessly manufacturing foreign enemies.
ILANA: In your manifesto you quote Tolstoy, who "wrote the politician's credo":
"I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means – except by getting off his back."
Unlike Neal Boortz, a Republican in libertarian's clothing, you're clearly not a proponent of the political process. Before he joined the Fox News tea-party fest, the talk show host had pooh-poohed the tea protests, touting the political process instead. In a blog post, "Tea Parties – Give Me a Break," Boortz advocated "registering voters who actually produce and contribute to our society," rather than protesting. Why is politics a rigged charade?
OSTROWSKI: Well, I've been in the trenches for 35 years, since I was a kid. The game is rigged like a poker game where you are the sucker. They gerrymander districts. They use our tax money to buy votes and extract donations. So, even if you get a good candidate, you are outspent 10 to one and outmanned 10 to one since they use "off duty" government employees to campaign against you. I'm an election lawyer, so I know they try to knock you off the ballot or at least tie you up in court. Finally, all the net-tax consumers vote. The rest of us are often too busy or too discouraged. The machine wins 90 percent of the time.
ILANA: On the pragmatic level, you've devised a 12-step program for how each one of us can start to restore the American republic (as opposed to the Republican Party's America).
More symbolically, you exhort Americans to take a pledge – one bearing no resemblance to the pledge members of the "Stupid Party" are always beating us on the head with. (No surprise: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist, Francis Bellamy.)
What is it?
OSTROWSKI: I pledge allegiance to the principles of the American Revolution, stated by Jefferson, and for which the Minutemen and Washington's Army fought: that government's only purpose is to protect our natural rights to life, liberty and property; that any government that does "more" than protect our natural rights must thereby violate those same rights and become a tyranny that the people have the right to alter or abolish. I pledge to resist that tyranny by peaceful means if at all possible.
Friday, May 01, 2009
President of Everything
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Much as he complained about his predecessor’s imperial reach, from cars to companies nothing eludes Barack Obama’s grasp.
By Brian Doherty
In December 2007, Sen. Barack Obama’s reassurances to the Boston Globe suggested that he understood constitutional limits on executive and government power. He knew that there were things the “president does not have power under the Constitution” to do, including unilaterally authorizing military action and surveilling citizens without warrants. He said he would “reject the Bush administration’s claim that the president has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”
That thoughtful skeptic of executive power now sits in the Oval Office. Isolating random bits of his presidential rhetoric, you can almost believe that he understands how a society really thrives. Obama said in his pseudo-State of the Union Address, “The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.”
But in just three months, we have seen what Obama means when he talks about “reach.” He doesn’t mean “our reach” but his own. His sense of that reach, and the abrupt and scary speed with which he’s used it, marks him as an executive with a tentacled grip—multiple, crushing, inescapable. No longer the cautious critic of presidential power of the campaign trail, he now sees nothing as beyond his grasp.
Less than a hundred days in, the fully articulated ideological contours of his vision remain unclear—just as he wishes. It suits Obama’s self-image as a mere pragmatic problem solver to never explain, to float from power grab to usurpation as if nothing but thoughtful reaction to the exigencies of the moment guides him. But it’s already obvious that those actions veer strongly toward expansive government, limiting our options in every aspect of national life.
Budget: The government fiscal game works as well as it does politically because most people don’t think of government spending in terms of control over their lives. Most see it as a benefit, a graceful solution to a perceived lack. Healthcare? Obama’s approximated buy-in is $600 billion over a decade—a figure sure to come up grossly short if history is any guide. But most think, well, I’m not the one with $600 billion to toss, so why not?
That money, plus all the many other nonexistent trillions Obama is planning to spend, gets paid back either in debt service down the line—funneling a larger percentage of the lifeblood, time, and effort of our children to Washington and thence to whoever’s brave enough to hold U.S. debt by then—or in inflation that eats away at any attempt on our part to save or invest profitably.
When, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of Obama’s spending plans, the U.S. government deficit-spends $9.3 trillion over the next decade, that’s more than an absurd abstraction. It’s enslavement: the hours and days of our lives.
Business and the economy: Here Obama’s grip is far less subtle. He’s clear and decisive: the financial and industrial economy is his, and he’ll do with it as he pleases. What’s decided for the U.S. is what’s decided for General Motors, as presidential pressure pushes out GM chief Rick Wagoner. Obama and his man at Treasury, Timothy Geithner, want the power to confiscate any company whose failure they claim threatens the larger economy.
Now that he occupies the White House, the new president—who justly pilloried Bush for asserting that national security excused any executive ukase—seems to believe that his own vision of economic security empowers him to take whatever he wants and make any decision he deems necessary, from curtailing CEO compensation to renegotiating mortgage terms. What private sector? This is economic war!
And lest one think this is all about being faithful stewards of the public wealth, as Obama and Geithner like to play it, the Wall Street Journal reported that an unnamed bank was not allowed to return money the Feds had stuck it with in the first bailout wave. The strings attached to those bailout funds gave the federal government effective ownership over the bank; evidently the Obama administration values an excuse for control more than it values taxpayer money.
It also seems primed to use more traditional means of throwing weight around the national economy. The president’s pick for antitrust chief, Christine Varney, has already cast a stink eye at Google, expressing concern at a conference last year about the company’s “monopoly in Internet online advertising.” And Obama’s pick to head the Department of Agriculture, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, is an enthusiastic supporter of one of the most foolish and damaging federal economic manipulations around, endless ethanol subsidies. Any noises about damping down agricultural subsidies in general, supposedly part of the “fiscally responsible” Obama agenda, are dying in Congress.
State secrets: Even Obama’s most ardent supporters are disillusioned by his close adherence to the Bush model when it comes to executive privilege. Obama’s DOJ has openly agreed that lawsuits challenging rendition and warrantless-wiretapping programs should be dismissed because trying them would expose state secrets. His legal team declares that the president—and only the president—has the right to make such classified decisions, with neither courts nor Congress, and of course no one as inconsequential as an aggrieved citizen, able to second guess.
That’s troubling enough, but it’s not all. While Attorney General Eric Holder has released some Bush-era documents relating to torture policy, the Obama administration as a whole is, as this article went to press, agonizing over whether to release a further set said to be even more heinous. (Even if they eventually release them, that this wasn’t a no-brainer shows executive secrecy is still far too robust in the administration.) Even an international intellectual-property treaty being actively considered by 27 countries had its contents declared a national-security secret in an Obama DOJ filing in March.
Healthcare: We don’t yet know what combination of mandates, subsidies, government-supplied insurance, and controls will arise. But we do know that the cornerstone of the cost containment Obama seeks will be decisions about what gets covered by the insurance that the government will be guaranteeing, regulating, and demanding. This means rationing and a potentially fatal blow to one of the last markets where expensive and experimental new treatments can be developed and, if found worthwhile, thrive.
Given how Obama has shown such a scrupulous sense of pipers and their right to call the tune in the financial and automotive markets, he is apt to be more explicit than past politicians in insisting that any behavior by companies or individuals that costs the public money must be stringently controlled. That means your health will no longer be your own business but Barack Obama’s.
Environment: The president did not immediately get the cap-and-trade carbon program he wanted. But he is using the powers of the stimulus package and bailout legislation to establish that he can push out corporate execs and take over any company he wants in other fields, so why not in this one, too? His executive branch seems to believe that it can legitimately claim whatever power it says it needs to achieve a goal it can halfway connect to a legitimate congressional mandate.
It is quite possible that Obama’s EPA will claim authority for sweeping action under the Clean Air Act. The president of Clean Air Watch, Frank O’Donnell, told Rolling Stone that an EPA ruling that global warming is a public health danger “gives Obama added leverage in going to Congress. … He can say, ‘I’ve got this authority in my back pocket. If you torpedo cap-and-trade, I’ll have no choice but to deal with this administratively.’”
Foreign policy: Obama claims to be on schedule to wind down our involvement in Iraq. His rosy projections of declining deficits in the out-years—the ones he doesn’t have to worry about now as he tries to keep the plates of an overextended economy spinning for one more month—depend on it. But if a rising insurgency ramps up the killings of U.S. troops or other Iraqis in the last months before the supposed pullout at the end of 2011, who believes that Obama will make good on his pledge?
He has no intention of ending the Bush-era policy of imperial overreach. He’s just shifting the theater in which we act out this timeless drama of collapse, with 21,000 more troops promised to Afghanistan for the potentially eternal mission of ending the Taliban insurgency there.
This survey only scratches the surface of bad actions and ominous portents for President Obama’s exercise of power. His administration is as cynical about federalism as Bush’s, if not more so.
Indeed, he has such a yen for creating independent centers of executive power in the form of policy “czars” that even Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, no advocate of restrained government, recently complained that Obama is threatening “the constitutional system of checks and balances” by giving too much independent authority to the White House outside of Senate-approved department heads. But many other Democrats in Congress are looking to extend presidential reach still further, plumping to give Obama power over the entire food production and distribution system (the proposed “Food Safety Modernization Act”) and to shut down the Internet in a “cybersecurity emergency” (the proposed “Cybersecurity Act of 2009”).
Given the realities of Obama’s practice of presidential power, his official vision seems less important. His team hasn’t yet spelled out anything as sinister as the loopholes John Yoo devised for Bush from his Office of Legal Counsel, if only because Obama’s pick for OLC, Dawn Johnsen, has had her appointment held up in the Senate, largely over her abortion views. From her record, it’s unlikely that she’ll give her boss a formalized framework of power. That’s not how Obama likes to sell himself. But just because Johnson doesn’t deliver some tortuous explanation for why the president can do whatever he wants doesn’t mean that her boss will be any more constrained than his predecessor.
For example, the Obama Justice Department’s filings in the habeas hearings before U.S. District Court Judge John Bates in the legal challenge by four Bagram detainees no longer relies, as Bush did, on bald declarations of inherent presidential power. But Obama’s DOJ does not therefore conclude that the president does not have the power to keep “enemy combatants” locked up indefinitely without habeas rights, even as Obama moves to shut down the public-relations nightmare of Guantanamo and abandon the term “enemy combatants.”
The power Obama’s Justice Department claims might not be “inherent” any longer. But as explained by Duke Law School’s Christopher Schroeder on the website Executive Watch, Obama’s team still “argues there is ample authority to detain in the combination of the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force] itself, the president’s conceded central role in executing the country’s war powers, and international law.” Those poor bastards languishing at Bagram and other mystery detention centers aren’t likely to be cheered by this supposed change in theories of executive power.
U.S. presidents have been acting outside the explicit bounds of their constitutional mandates from the Adams and Jefferson eras—Alien and Sedition Acts, Louisiana Purchase—through Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson to Bush and now Obama. The story of the decay and destruction of constitutional limits on power is as old as the Republic itself. And expansions of executive power—see Richard Nixon with his plethora of new regulatory agencies and wage and price controls—need not be combined with an explicitly developed theory that supports and encourages government metastasis.
Executive overstretch has dominated American government for so long that we usually only hear effective complaints from those fighting to oust the incumbents steamrolling our liberties at any given moment. That’s why candidate Obama was so sharp about criticizing Bush’s extraconstitutional power claims and was able to find the one war he could be unequivocally against: the one he could blame on his political opponents. Now he perpetuates the same policies, albeit under different names and with different excuses (secrecy and “enemy combatants”) or with promises to stop them eventually (Iraq).
As predictable as out-party opposition is in-party realization that, as Obama’s right-hand man Rahm Emanuel openly put it, there’s no sense in letting a crisis go to waste. After all, the costs of classic, FDR-style “bold, persistent experimentation” are low in such crises. American presidential powerhouses have had various rationales for their abuses—from war for Lincoln, Wilson, and Bush to economic crisis for Roosevelt to playing on a wealthy society’s sense of fairness and guilt for Johnson.
Obama’s specialty is shaping up to be particularly dangerous because it’s hard to dispute given the average American’s sensibilities. No call for liberty and constitutional principle seems convincing when Obama is arguing that those relying on government giveaways should have to follow government-set rules. That is, once you’ve allowed them to go ahead with the handouts, the political game is almost over. Under the guise of “managing the taxpayers’ money,” Obama and his crew are rewriting mortgages, deciding executive compensation, tossing out CEO’s. And note carefully that his plans for where taxpayers’ money should go continue to swell, from healthcare to the environment to energy policy to expanded “national service” programs. When taxpayers’ money is everywhere—and Obama is doing his best to make sure it is—then Obama’s control is everywhere.
The Octo-potus is claiming his space and flexing his grip. As far as he’s concerned, it’s Barack Obama’s country. We’re just living in it.
__________________________________________
Brian Doherty is a senior editor at Reason and author of the books This is Burning Man, Radicals for Capitalism, and Gun Control on Trial.
Much as he complained about his predecessor’s imperial reach, from cars to companies nothing eludes Barack Obama’s grasp.
By Brian Doherty
In December 2007, Sen. Barack Obama’s reassurances to the Boston Globe suggested that he understood constitutional limits on executive and government power. He knew that there were things the “president does not have power under the Constitution” to do, including unilaterally authorizing military action and surveilling citizens without warrants. He said he would “reject the Bush administration’s claim that the president has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”
That thoughtful skeptic of executive power now sits in the Oval Office. Isolating random bits of his presidential rhetoric, you can almost believe that he understands how a society really thrives. Obama said in his pseudo-State of the Union Address, “The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.”
But in just three months, we have seen what Obama means when he talks about “reach.” He doesn’t mean “our reach” but his own. His sense of that reach, and the abrupt and scary speed with which he’s used it, marks him as an executive with a tentacled grip—multiple, crushing, inescapable. No longer the cautious critic of presidential power of the campaign trail, he now sees nothing as beyond his grasp.
Less than a hundred days in, the fully articulated ideological contours of his vision remain unclear—just as he wishes. It suits Obama’s self-image as a mere pragmatic problem solver to never explain, to float from power grab to usurpation as if nothing but thoughtful reaction to the exigencies of the moment guides him. But it’s already obvious that those actions veer strongly toward expansive government, limiting our options in every aspect of national life.
Budget: The government fiscal game works as well as it does politically because most people don’t think of government spending in terms of control over their lives. Most see it as a benefit, a graceful solution to a perceived lack. Healthcare? Obama’s approximated buy-in is $600 billion over a decade—a figure sure to come up grossly short if history is any guide. But most think, well, I’m not the one with $600 billion to toss, so why not?
That money, plus all the many other nonexistent trillions Obama is planning to spend, gets paid back either in debt service down the line—funneling a larger percentage of the lifeblood, time, and effort of our children to Washington and thence to whoever’s brave enough to hold U.S. debt by then—or in inflation that eats away at any attempt on our part to save or invest profitably.
When, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of Obama’s spending plans, the U.S. government deficit-spends $9.3 trillion over the next decade, that’s more than an absurd abstraction. It’s enslavement: the hours and days of our lives.
Business and the economy: Here Obama’s grip is far less subtle. He’s clear and decisive: the financial and industrial economy is his, and he’ll do with it as he pleases. What’s decided for the U.S. is what’s decided for General Motors, as presidential pressure pushes out GM chief Rick Wagoner. Obama and his man at Treasury, Timothy Geithner, want the power to confiscate any company whose failure they claim threatens the larger economy.
Now that he occupies the White House, the new president—who justly pilloried Bush for asserting that national security excused any executive ukase—seems to believe that his own vision of economic security empowers him to take whatever he wants and make any decision he deems necessary, from curtailing CEO compensation to renegotiating mortgage terms. What private sector? This is economic war!
And lest one think this is all about being faithful stewards of the public wealth, as Obama and Geithner like to play it, the Wall Street Journal reported that an unnamed bank was not allowed to return money the Feds had stuck it with in the first bailout wave. The strings attached to those bailout funds gave the federal government effective ownership over the bank; evidently the Obama administration values an excuse for control more than it values taxpayer money.
It also seems primed to use more traditional means of throwing weight around the national economy. The president’s pick for antitrust chief, Christine Varney, has already cast a stink eye at Google, expressing concern at a conference last year about the company’s “monopoly in Internet online advertising.” And Obama’s pick to head the Department of Agriculture, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, is an enthusiastic supporter of one of the most foolish and damaging federal economic manipulations around, endless ethanol subsidies. Any noises about damping down agricultural subsidies in general, supposedly part of the “fiscally responsible” Obama agenda, are dying in Congress.
State secrets: Even Obama’s most ardent supporters are disillusioned by his close adherence to the Bush model when it comes to executive privilege. Obama’s DOJ has openly agreed that lawsuits challenging rendition and warrantless-wiretapping programs should be dismissed because trying them would expose state secrets. His legal team declares that the president—and only the president—has the right to make such classified decisions, with neither courts nor Congress, and of course no one as inconsequential as an aggrieved citizen, able to second guess.
That’s troubling enough, but it’s not all. While Attorney General Eric Holder has released some Bush-era documents relating to torture policy, the Obama administration as a whole is, as this article went to press, agonizing over whether to release a further set said to be even more heinous. (Even if they eventually release them, that this wasn’t a no-brainer shows executive secrecy is still far too robust in the administration.) Even an international intellectual-property treaty being actively considered by 27 countries had its contents declared a national-security secret in an Obama DOJ filing in March.
Healthcare: We don’t yet know what combination of mandates, subsidies, government-supplied insurance, and controls will arise. But we do know that the cornerstone of the cost containment Obama seeks will be decisions about what gets covered by the insurance that the government will be guaranteeing, regulating, and demanding. This means rationing and a potentially fatal blow to one of the last markets where expensive and experimental new treatments can be developed and, if found worthwhile, thrive.
Given how Obama has shown such a scrupulous sense of pipers and their right to call the tune in the financial and automotive markets, he is apt to be more explicit than past politicians in insisting that any behavior by companies or individuals that costs the public money must be stringently controlled. That means your health will no longer be your own business but Barack Obama’s.
Environment: The president did not immediately get the cap-and-trade carbon program he wanted. But he is using the powers of the stimulus package and bailout legislation to establish that he can push out corporate execs and take over any company he wants in other fields, so why not in this one, too? His executive branch seems to believe that it can legitimately claim whatever power it says it needs to achieve a goal it can halfway connect to a legitimate congressional mandate.
It is quite possible that Obama’s EPA will claim authority for sweeping action under the Clean Air Act. The president of Clean Air Watch, Frank O’Donnell, told Rolling Stone that an EPA ruling that global warming is a public health danger “gives Obama added leverage in going to Congress. … He can say, ‘I’ve got this authority in my back pocket. If you torpedo cap-and-trade, I’ll have no choice but to deal with this administratively.’”
Foreign policy: Obama claims to be on schedule to wind down our involvement in Iraq. His rosy projections of declining deficits in the out-years—the ones he doesn’t have to worry about now as he tries to keep the plates of an overextended economy spinning for one more month—depend on it. But if a rising insurgency ramps up the killings of U.S. troops or other Iraqis in the last months before the supposed pullout at the end of 2011, who believes that Obama will make good on his pledge?
He has no intention of ending the Bush-era policy of imperial overreach. He’s just shifting the theater in which we act out this timeless drama of collapse, with 21,000 more troops promised to Afghanistan for the potentially eternal mission of ending the Taliban insurgency there.
This survey only scratches the surface of bad actions and ominous portents for President Obama’s exercise of power. His administration is as cynical about federalism as Bush’s, if not more so.
Indeed, he has such a yen for creating independent centers of executive power in the form of policy “czars” that even Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, no advocate of restrained government, recently complained that Obama is threatening “the constitutional system of checks and balances” by giving too much independent authority to the White House outside of Senate-approved department heads. But many other Democrats in Congress are looking to extend presidential reach still further, plumping to give Obama power over the entire food production and distribution system (the proposed “Food Safety Modernization Act”) and to shut down the Internet in a “cybersecurity emergency” (the proposed “Cybersecurity Act of 2009”).
Given the realities of Obama’s practice of presidential power, his official vision seems less important. His team hasn’t yet spelled out anything as sinister as the loopholes John Yoo devised for Bush from his Office of Legal Counsel, if only because Obama’s pick for OLC, Dawn Johnsen, has had her appointment held up in the Senate, largely over her abortion views. From her record, it’s unlikely that she’ll give her boss a formalized framework of power. That’s not how Obama likes to sell himself. But just because Johnson doesn’t deliver some tortuous explanation for why the president can do whatever he wants doesn’t mean that her boss will be any more constrained than his predecessor.
For example, the Obama Justice Department’s filings in the habeas hearings before U.S. District Court Judge John Bates in the legal challenge by four Bagram detainees no longer relies, as Bush did, on bald declarations of inherent presidential power. But Obama’s DOJ does not therefore conclude that the president does not have the power to keep “enemy combatants” locked up indefinitely without habeas rights, even as Obama moves to shut down the public-relations nightmare of Guantanamo and abandon the term “enemy combatants.”
The power Obama’s Justice Department claims might not be “inherent” any longer. But as explained by Duke Law School’s Christopher Schroeder on the website Executive Watch, Obama’s team still “argues there is ample authority to detain in the combination of the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force] itself, the president’s conceded central role in executing the country’s war powers, and international law.” Those poor bastards languishing at Bagram and other mystery detention centers aren’t likely to be cheered by this supposed change in theories of executive power.
U.S. presidents have been acting outside the explicit bounds of their constitutional mandates from the Adams and Jefferson eras—Alien and Sedition Acts, Louisiana Purchase—through Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson to Bush and now Obama. The story of the decay and destruction of constitutional limits on power is as old as the Republic itself. And expansions of executive power—see Richard Nixon with his plethora of new regulatory agencies and wage and price controls—need not be combined with an explicitly developed theory that supports and encourages government metastasis.
Executive overstretch has dominated American government for so long that we usually only hear effective complaints from those fighting to oust the incumbents steamrolling our liberties at any given moment. That’s why candidate Obama was so sharp about criticizing Bush’s extraconstitutional power claims and was able to find the one war he could be unequivocally against: the one he could blame on his political opponents. Now he perpetuates the same policies, albeit under different names and with different excuses (secrecy and “enemy combatants”) or with promises to stop them eventually (Iraq).
As predictable as out-party opposition is in-party realization that, as Obama’s right-hand man Rahm Emanuel openly put it, there’s no sense in letting a crisis go to waste. After all, the costs of classic, FDR-style “bold, persistent experimentation” are low in such crises. American presidential powerhouses have had various rationales for their abuses—from war for Lincoln, Wilson, and Bush to economic crisis for Roosevelt to playing on a wealthy society’s sense of fairness and guilt for Johnson.
Obama’s specialty is shaping up to be particularly dangerous because it’s hard to dispute given the average American’s sensibilities. No call for liberty and constitutional principle seems convincing when Obama is arguing that those relying on government giveaways should have to follow government-set rules. That is, once you’ve allowed them to go ahead with the handouts, the political game is almost over. Under the guise of “managing the taxpayers’ money,” Obama and his crew are rewriting mortgages, deciding executive compensation, tossing out CEO’s. And note carefully that his plans for where taxpayers’ money should go continue to swell, from healthcare to the environment to energy policy to expanded “national service” programs. When taxpayers’ money is everywhere—and Obama is doing his best to make sure it is—then Obama’s control is everywhere.
The Octo-potus is claiming his space and flexing his grip. As far as he’s concerned, it’s Barack Obama’s country. We’re just living in it.
__________________________________________
Brian Doherty is a senior editor at Reason and author of the books This is Burning Man, Radicals for Capitalism, and Gun Control on Trial.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
State considers return to gold, silver dollars
March 16, 2009
By Drew Zahn
A bill being considered in the Montana Legislature blasts the Federal Reserve's role in America's money policy and permits the state to conduct business in gold and silver instead of the Fed's legal tender notes.
Montana H.B. 639, sponsored by State Rep. Bob Wagner, R-Harrison, doesn't require the state or citizens to conduct business in gold or silver, but it does require the state to calculate certain transactions in both the current legal tender system and in an electronic gold currency. It further mandates that the state must accept payments in gold or silver for various fees and purchases.
While Wagner was unavailable for comment, the bill's language clearly alleges the nation's current financial system, with its reliance on the private Federal Reserve system for money supply, is a danger to American freedom.
"The absence of gold and silver coin, whether in that form or in the form of an electronic gold currency, as media of exchange," the bill states, "abridges, infringes on and interferes with the sovereignty and independence of this state … and exposes this state and Montana citizens, inhabitants and businesses to chronic problems and potentially serious crises that may arise from the economic and political instability of the present domestic and international systems of coinage, currency, banking and credit."
Further, the bill states, relying only on the depreciating legal tender issued by the Fed subjects citizens to "losses in purchasing power" inflicted by the government, a dilemma the bill says amounts to the "incremental confiscation" of property by government in violation of the U.S. Constitution's protections for just compensation and due process.
The Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Critics of the current financial system argue that using Federal Reserve notes as legal tender, rather than gold- or silver-backed currency, means the value of Americans' money – and thus their "property" – is siphoned away by inflation, a process perpetuated by the government's reliance on legal tender. Gold and silver, critics say, don't lose their value on the whims of the Federal Reserve.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, even favors abolishing the Fed's system of fiat currency to return to dollars backed by gold.
"Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar," the Texas Republican said. "Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy.
"How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation," he said.
Wagner joins legislators in several other states encouraging their respective governments to reconsider accepting gold as a form of payment. Indiana's S.B. 453, Colorado's H.B. 09-1206, Missouri's H.B. 0561, Georgia's H.B. 430 and Maryland's H.J.R. 5 are among the gold currency bills introduced just this year in various legislatures.
Montana's H.B. 639 has been referred to the Legislature's State Administration Committee.
By Drew Zahn
A bill being considered in the Montana Legislature blasts the Federal Reserve's role in America's money policy and permits the state to conduct business in gold and silver instead of the Fed's legal tender notes.
Montana H.B. 639, sponsored by State Rep. Bob Wagner, R-Harrison, doesn't require the state or citizens to conduct business in gold or silver, but it does require the state to calculate certain transactions in both the current legal tender system and in an electronic gold currency. It further mandates that the state must accept payments in gold or silver for various fees and purchases.
While Wagner was unavailable for comment, the bill's language clearly alleges the nation's current financial system, with its reliance on the private Federal Reserve system for money supply, is a danger to American freedom.
"The absence of gold and silver coin, whether in that form or in the form of an electronic gold currency, as media of exchange," the bill states, "abridges, infringes on and interferes with the sovereignty and independence of this state … and exposes this state and Montana citizens, inhabitants and businesses to chronic problems and potentially serious crises that may arise from the economic and political instability of the present domestic and international systems of coinage, currency, banking and credit."
Further, the bill states, relying only on the depreciating legal tender issued by the Fed subjects citizens to "losses in purchasing power" inflicted by the government, a dilemma the bill says amounts to the "incremental confiscation" of property by government in violation of the U.S. Constitution's protections for just compensation and due process.
The Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Critics of the current financial system argue that using Federal Reserve notes as legal tender, rather than gold- or silver-backed currency, means the value of Americans' money – and thus their "property" – is siphoned away by inflation, a process perpetuated by the government's reliance on legal tender. Gold and silver, critics say, don't lose their value on the whims of the Federal Reserve.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, even favors abolishing the Fed's system of fiat currency to return to dollars backed by gold.
"Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar," the Texas Republican said. "Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy.
"How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation," he said.
Wagner joins legislators in several other states encouraging their respective governments to reconsider accepting gold as a form of payment. Indiana's S.B. 453, Colorado's H.B. 09-1206, Missouri's H.B. 0561, Georgia's H.B. 430 and Maryland's H.J.R. 5 are among the gold currency bills introduced just this year in various legislatures.
Montana's H.B. 639 has been referred to the Legislature's State Administration Committee.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Act forces Congress' return to limited government
Update: The piece of legislation (H.R. 450) discussed in this article now has 20 co-sponsors. All Republican. This of course also means 158 Republicans don't see the value of the bill, furthering the argument the difference in the two parties is nuance only.
Legislator to colleagues: 'Your laws not authorized by Constitution'
April 09, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
As a reminder of the federal government's limited powers, 20 representatives want to ensure that every single piece of legislation passing through Congress includes a statement citing specific constitutional authority for enacting it.
Sponsored by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., H.R. 450, or the Enumerated Powers Act, states, "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. …"
When he introduced the proposal Jan. 9, Shadegg gave a House floor speech reminding his colleagues of limited authority granted in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
It 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."
Stand up for the Supreme Law of the Land and shock your fellow citizens into thinking with WND's "Legalize the Constitution!" magnetic bumper sticker.
"What that means is that the Founding Fathers intended our national government to be a limited government, a government of limited powers that cannot expand its legislative authority into areas reserved to the states or to the people," Shadegg said. "As the final amendment in the 10 Bill of Rights, it is clear that the Constitution establishes a Federal Government of specifically enumerated and limited powers."
For that reason, Shadegg said he has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act each year that he's been in Congress.
"This measure would enforce a constant and ongoing re-examination of the role of our national government," he said. "… It is simply intended to require a scrutiny that we should look at what we enact and that, by doing so, we can slow the growth and reach of the Federal Government, and leave to the states or the people, those functions that were reserved to them by the Constitution."
Shadegg said the act would perform three important functions:
1. It would encourage members of Congress to consider whether their proposed legislation belongs in the federal level in the allocation of powers or whether it belongs with the states or the people.
2. It would force lawmakers to include statements explaining by what authority they are acting.
3. It would give the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to scrutinize constitutional justification for every piece of legislation. If the justification does not hold up, the courts and the people could hold Congress accountable and eliminate acts that reach beyond the scope of the Constitution.
He said the Founding Fathers granted specific, limited powers to the national government to protect the people's freedom.
"As a result, the Constitution gives the Federal Government only 18 specific enumerated powers, just 18 powers," Shadegg noted.
Beginning with President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, he said, Congress has ignored the 10th Amendment and greatly expanded federal government.
"Let me be clear," he said. "Virtually all the measures which go beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government by the 10th amendment are well-intentioned. But unfortunately, many of them are not authorized by the Constitution. The Federal Government has ignored the Constitution and expanded its authority into every aspect of human conduct, and quite sadly, it is not doing many of those things very well."
While many believe government "can do anything," that is not what the Founding Fathers intended for the nation, Shadegg contends.
WND columnist Henry Lamb has been urging voters to contact representatives and ask directly if they will co-sponsor and vote for the Enumerated Powers Act, or explain why not – in writing.
The legislation has 19 co-sponsors – all Republicans.
Lamb suggested the act become the theme song of the tea parties taking place around the nation.
"Nothing short of massive public pressure will force congressmen to take a position on this important bill." Lamb wrote. "Nothing short of a return to the Constitution can save this great nation."
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairs the House Rules Committee, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee – where the act was referred Jan. 9 and remains today.
"Both of these committee chairs should be bombarded with phone calls and e-mails asking that H.R. 450 be brought to the House floor for a recorded vote," Lamb wrote.
Shadegg said the federal government has acted too long without constitutional restraint and has blatantly ignored principles of federalism.
He urged his colleagues to join him in "supporting a review and a criticism and an evaluation of the proper role of the Federal Government in order to empower the American people and to distribute power as the Constitution contemplated it."
Legislator to colleagues: 'Your laws not authorized by Constitution'
April 09, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
As a reminder of the federal government's limited powers, 20 representatives want to ensure that every single piece of legislation passing through Congress includes a statement citing specific constitutional authority for enacting it.
Sponsored by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., H.R. 450, or the Enumerated Powers Act, states, "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. …"
When he introduced the proposal Jan. 9, Shadegg gave a House floor speech reminding his colleagues of limited authority granted in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
It 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."
Stand up for the Supreme Law of the Land and shock your fellow citizens into thinking with WND's "Legalize the Constitution!" magnetic bumper sticker.
"What that means is that the Founding Fathers intended our national government to be a limited government, a government of limited powers that cannot expand its legislative authority into areas reserved to the states or to the people," Shadegg said. "As the final amendment in the 10 Bill of Rights, it is clear that the Constitution establishes a Federal Government of specifically enumerated and limited powers."
For that reason, Shadegg said he has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act each year that he's been in Congress.
"This measure would enforce a constant and ongoing re-examination of the role of our national government," he said. "… It is simply intended to require a scrutiny that we should look at what we enact and that, by doing so, we can slow the growth and reach of the Federal Government, and leave to the states or the people, those functions that were reserved to them by the Constitution."
Shadegg said the act would perform three important functions:
1. It would encourage members of Congress to consider whether their proposed legislation belongs in the federal level in the allocation of powers or whether it belongs with the states or the people.
2. It would force lawmakers to include statements explaining by what authority they are acting.
3. It would give the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to scrutinize constitutional justification for every piece of legislation. If the justification does not hold up, the courts and the people could hold Congress accountable and eliminate acts that reach beyond the scope of the Constitution.
He said the Founding Fathers granted specific, limited powers to the national government to protect the people's freedom.
"As a result, the Constitution gives the Federal Government only 18 specific enumerated powers, just 18 powers," Shadegg noted.
Beginning with President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, he said, Congress has ignored the 10th Amendment and greatly expanded federal government.
"Let me be clear," he said. "Virtually all the measures which go beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government by the 10th amendment are well-intentioned. But unfortunately, many of them are not authorized by the Constitution. The Federal Government has ignored the Constitution and expanded its authority into every aspect of human conduct, and quite sadly, it is not doing many of those things very well."
While many believe government "can do anything," that is not what the Founding Fathers intended for the nation, Shadegg contends.
WND columnist Henry Lamb has been urging voters to contact representatives and ask directly if they will co-sponsor and vote for the Enumerated Powers Act, or explain why not – in writing.
The legislation has 19 co-sponsors – all Republicans.
Lamb suggested the act become the theme song of the tea parties taking place around the nation.
"Nothing short of massive public pressure will force congressmen to take a position on this important bill." Lamb wrote. "Nothing short of a return to the Constitution can save this great nation."
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairs the House Rules Committee, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee – where the act was referred Jan. 9 and remains today.
"Both of these committee chairs should be bombarded with phone calls and e-mails asking that H.R. 450 be brought to the House floor for a recorded vote," Lamb wrote.
Shadegg said the federal government has acted too long without constitutional restraint and has blatantly ignored principles of federalism.
He urged his colleagues to join him in "supporting a review and a criticism and an evaluation of the proper role of the Federal Government in order to empower the American people and to distribute power as the Constitution contemplated it."
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The dangers of majoritarian tyranny
Please also revisit an earlier post from June 8, 2008, "Republic v Democracy":
http://wiconstitutionalist.blogspot.com/2008/06/republic-v-democracy.html
April 15, 2009
by Walter Williams
Democracy and majority rule give an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. Think about it. How many decisions in our day-to-day lives would we like to be made through majority rule or the democratic process? How about the decision whether you should watch a football game on television or "Law and Order"? What about whether you drive a Chevrolet or a Ford, or whether your Easter dinner is turkey or ham? Were such decisions made in the political arena, most of us would deem it tyranny. Why isn't it also tyranny for the democratic process to mandate what type of light bulbs we use, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or whether money should be taken out of our paycheck for retirement?
The founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams predicted, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Our founders intended for us to have a republican form of limited government where the protection of individual God-given rights was the primary job of government.
Alert to the dangers of majoritarian tyranny, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. One such rule is that election of the president is not decided by a majority vote but instead by the Electoral College. Nine states have over 50 percent of the U.S. population. If a simple majority were the rule, conceivably these nine states could determine the presidency. Fortunately, they can't because they have only 225 Electoral College votes when 270 of the 538 total are needed. Were it not for the Electoral College, that some politicians say is antiquated and would like to do away with, presidential candidates could safely ignore the less populous states.
Part of the reason our founders created two houses of Congress was to have another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the designs of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to weaken the power of 535 members of both houses of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.
To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both Houses to propose an amendment, and to be enacted requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. The Constitution's Article V empowers two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments that become law when ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. I used to be for this option as a means of enacting a spending limitation amendment to the Constitution but have since reconsidered. Unlike the 1787 convention attended by men of high stature such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams, today's attendees would be moral midgets: the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Olympia Snowe and Nancy Pelosi.
In addition to an abhorrence of democracy, and the recognition that government posed the gravest threat to liberty, our founders harbored a deep distrust and suspicion of Congress. This suspicion and distrust is exemplified by the phraseology used throughout the Constitution, particularly our Bill of Rights, containing phrases such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage or violate. Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a particular measure is a good idea or bad idea should determine passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt.
http://wiconstitutionalist.blogspot.com/2008/06/republic-v-democracy.html
April 15, 2009
by Walter Williams
Democracy and majority rule give an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. Think about it. How many decisions in our day-to-day lives would we like to be made through majority rule or the democratic process? How about the decision whether you should watch a football game on television or "Law and Order"? What about whether you drive a Chevrolet or a Ford, or whether your Easter dinner is turkey or ham? Were such decisions made in the political arena, most of us would deem it tyranny. Why isn't it also tyranny for the democratic process to mandate what type of light bulbs we use, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or whether money should be taken out of our paycheck for retirement?
The founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams predicted, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Our founders intended for us to have a republican form of limited government where the protection of individual God-given rights was the primary job of government.
Alert to the dangers of majoritarian tyranny, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. One such rule is that election of the president is not decided by a majority vote but instead by the Electoral College. Nine states have over 50 percent of the U.S. population. If a simple majority were the rule, conceivably these nine states could determine the presidency. Fortunately, they can't because they have only 225 Electoral College votes when 270 of the 538 total are needed. Were it not for the Electoral College, that some politicians say is antiquated and would like to do away with, presidential candidates could safely ignore the less populous states.
Part of the reason our founders created two houses of Congress was to have another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the designs of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to weaken the power of 535 members of both houses of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.
To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both Houses to propose an amendment, and to be enacted requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. The Constitution's Article V empowers two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments that become law when ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. I used to be for this option as a means of enacting a spending limitation amendment to the Constitution but have since reconsidered. Unlike the 1787 convention attended by men of high stature such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams, today's attendees would be moral midgets: the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Olympia Snowe and Nancy Pelosi.
In addition to an abhorrence of democracy, and the recognition that government posed the gravest threat to liberty, our founders harbored a deep distrust and suspicion of Congress. This suspicion and distrust is exemplified by the phraseology used throughout the Constitution, particularly our Bill of Rights, containing phrases such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage or violate. Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a particular measure is a good idea or bad idea should determine passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
States' rebellion begins to rumble
March 25, 2009
by Walter Williams
Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today it's the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George's actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance – perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we've become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants – has made us easy prey for Washington's tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans' characteristic spirit of rebellion.
Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There's speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.
You might ask, "Isn't the 10th Amendment that no-good states' rights amendment that Dixie governors, such as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, used to thwart school desegregation and black civil rights?" That's the kind of constitutional disrespect and ignorance big-government proponents, whether they're liberals or conservatives, want you to have. The reason is that they want Washington to have total control over our lives. The founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: "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."
New Hampshire's 10th Amendment resolution typifies others and, in part, reads: "That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." Put simply, these 10th Amendment resolutions insist that the states and their people are the masters and that Congress and the White House are the servants. Put yet another way, Washington is a creature of the states, not the other way around.
Congress and the White House will laugh off these state resolutions. State legislatures must take measures that put some teeth into their 10th Amendment resolutions. Congress will simply threaten a state, for example, with a cutoff of highway construction funds if it doesn't obey a congressional mandate, such as those that require seat belt laws or that lower the legal blood-alcohol level to .08 for drivers. States might take a lead explored by Colorado.
In 1994, the Colorado Legislature passed a 10th Amendment resolution and later introduced a bill titled "State Sovereignty Act." Had the State Sovereignty Act passed both houses of the legislature, it would have required all people liable for any federal tax that's a component of the highway users fund, such as a gasoline tax, to remit those taxes directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The money would have been deposited in an escrow account called the "Federal Tax Fund" and remitted monthly to the IRS, along with a list of payees and respective amounts paid. If Congress imposed sanctions on Colorado for failure to obey an unconstitutional mandate and penalized the state by withholding funds due, say $5 million for highway construction, the State Sovereignty Act would have prohibited the state treasurer from remitting any funds in the escrow account to the IRS. Instead, Colorado would have imposed a $5 million surcharge on the Federal Tax Fund account to continue the highway construction.
The eight state legislatures that have enacted 10th Amendment resolutions deserve our praise, but their next step is to give them teeth.
by Walter Williams
Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today it's the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George's actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance – perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we've become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants – has made us easy prey for Washington's tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans' characteristic spirit of rebellion.
Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There's speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.
You might ask, "Isn't the 10th Amendment that no-good states' rights amendment that Dixie governors, such as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, used to thwart school desegregation and black civil rights?" That's the kind of constitutional disrespect and ignorance big-government proponents, whether they're liberals or conservatives, want you to have. The reason is that they want Washington to have total control over our lives. The founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: "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."
New Hampshire's 10th Amendment resolution typifies others and, in part, reads: "That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." Put simply, these 10th Amendment resolutions insist that the states and their people are the masters and that Congress and the White House are the servants. Put yet another way, Washington is a creature of the states, not the other way around.
Congress and the White House will laugh off these state resolutions. State legislatures must take measures that put some teeth into their 10th Amendment resolutions. Congress will simply threaten a state, for example, with a cutoff of highway construction funds if it doesn't obey a congressional mandate, such as those that require seat belt laws or that lower the legal blood-alcohol level to .08 for drivers. States might take a lead explored by Colorado.
In 1994, the Colorado Legislature passed a 10th Amendment resolution and later introduced a bill titled "State Sovereignty Act." Had the State Sovereignty Act passed both houses of the legislature, it would have required all people liable for any federal tax that's a component of the highway users fund, such as a gasoline tax, to remit those taxes directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The money would have been deposited in an escrow account called the "Federal Tax Fund" and remitted monthly to the IRS, along with a list of payees and respective amounts paid. If Congress imposed sanctions on Colorado for failure to obey an unconstitutional mandate and penalized the state by withholding funds due, say $5 million for highway construction, the State Sovereignty Act would have prohibited the state treasurer from remitting any funds in the escrow account to the IRS. Instead, Colorado would have imposed a $5 million surcharge on the Federal Tax Fund account to continue the highway construction.
The eight state legislatures that have enacted 10th Amendment resolutions deserve our praise, but their next step is to give them teeth.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Noninterventionists Need Not Apply
March 24, 2009
(Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA employee. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.)
by Michael Scheuer
In a recent issue of Newsweek, the journal's inexplicably renowned Muslim-world and foreign-policy expert Fareed Zakaria had a cover story called "Learning to Live With Radical Islam." To my surprise, I received a call from Newsweek editor Will Tacy, who said that the journal was canvassing other "experts" for a 700-word comment on Zakaria's article and asked if I would write a contribution. I agreed, wrote an article of the requisite length, and submitted the piece before the deadline. Mr. Tacy acknowledged receiving the commentary, but I have never heard from him again – despite sending several notes and leaving voice-mail – and the piece was not printed.
Why? Well there is always the chance that my comment stunk. But if that was the case, it was no worse than the article on which it commented. No, I think the reason for Mr. Tacy's silence is that my piece told Newsweek's readers that Mr. Zakaria: (a) had been a supporter of the neocons and the invasion of Iraq; (b) was desperately seeking Democratic friends with embarrassingly sycophantic praise for the sophisticated genius of President Obama; (c) had delineated an absolute refusal to take our Islamist enemies seriously; and (d) could not rally enough brain cells to even imagine that prolonged U.S. intervention in the Muslim world had caused and is prolonging the conflict with al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies.
I suspect the last item, on the mortal perils of interventionism, probably clinched my exclusion from the published comments on Mr. Zakaria's article. (NB: Similarly, last May the New Republic asked me about al-Qaeda's future. I wrote that if U.S. intervention continued, then al-Qaeda and its allies would win. The journal rejected the piece, instead printing an "al-Qaeda-is-imploding" fantasy that found no fault with the interventionist status quo.) Overall, Mr. Zakaria; Newsweek; the Obama administration; the Republicans; other journals, such as the Weekly Standard, National Review, and the Wall Street Journal; and most mainstream and cable media outlets are of one mind: U.S. interventionism must be continued, and, through it, secular democracy must be imposed on unlimited numbers of our little brown brothers by either bayonets or a U.S. taxpayer-funded overseas New Deal. Sadly for Americans, this means more intervention; higher taxes; more unconstitutional wars with Muslims; and the further erosion of U.S. national security.
My comment on Mr. Zakaria's recent article follows.
Learning to Increase America's Vulnerability, With Fareed Zakaria
In "Learning to Live With Radical Islam," Fareed Zakaria extends his range of misperceptions about the Islamic world. Once a champion of President Bush's spreading-democracy mania and the invasion of Iraq, he revises his tune to please the less martial – but still feckless – foreign-policy approach of President Obama. The revision is also embarrassing, as we find Mr. Zakaria searching for buddies in Democratic Washington by urging the drafting of "a more sophisticated strategy" by Obama, for whom, he says with exquisite sycophancy, such a task "should come naturally."
Stripping the flattery of Obama and the requisite damning of old Republican friends, Mr. Zakaria's words show no concern for America's defense. Speaking in an anti-Muslim voice worthy of a viceroy of British India, Mr. Zakaria concludes, "The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women."
Take that, you darned medieval, superstitious Muslims. You folks may think Islam is a legitimate "world view," one that provides divine guidance for all aspects of life – from manners and morals to personal relationships to helping the poor to governing to war – but you would be dead wrong. Mr. Zakaria and Westerners know better. Their Western "world view" is superior to any religion-based world view – which by definition has "no answers" for the worldly wise – and so, can't you Muslims see, Islam cannot satisfy the aspirations of people who are truly modern and respectable.
Mr. Zakaria's distaste for Islam stems, it seems, from a common Western malady, an inability to differentiate between modernization and Westernization. Most Muslims – Islamists and others – appear to be eager, innovative users of modernity's tools, whether armaments, communications, consumer goods, or information technology. The stunningly adept use of communications and information technology by the Afghan Taliban since 2001 makes this point. What overwhelming numbers of Muslims seem to oppose is Westernization, that grinning, giddy tolerance for nearly everything Allah advises against, such as the brothels, bars, and pornography brought to Kabul by Western NGOs and NATO forces. At base, for Mr. Zakaria, if Muslims are not willing to go on a whoring, whiskey-soaked bender they cannot aspire to modernity, and until they are so willing: "We [the U.S. and the West] should mount a spirited defense of our views and values. We should pursue aggressively policies that will make these values succeed." In other words, onward you soldiers of secular imperialism, teach them heathen Muslims to hate their religion and become good Westerners.
Besides finding no value in the world view of Islamists or other Muslim faithful, Mr. Zakaria finds no fault in U.S. policy in the Muslim world. He leaves readers believing Islamists have no rational basis for attacking America. On this point, Mr. Zakaria unwittingly shows the foreign-policy continuity from Bush to Obama, which amounts to: Islamists and other Muslims attack us because they hate how Americans live and think, and not for what Washington does in the Muslim world. Here Mr. Zakaria is at his most obtuse and – with his praise for such "thinkers" (?) as Gerecht, Gerges, Kilcullen, etc. – at his most use to bin Laden and other Islamists as what the Cold War-era called a "useful idiot." (emphasis added)
America's vulnerability to Islamist militancy has steadily risen since 2001, because Republican and Democratic leaders and their academic and media acolytes have lied to Americans about their enemies' motivation. We are at war not because of our secularism and gender equality, but because we try to force those values on Muslims at bayonet-point, while wholeheartedly supporting those who Muslims see as Islam's worst enemies: Israel and such Arab tyrannies as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
It is commonsense to conclude we cannot learn to live with radical Islam until we understand it and see the stark decision at hand: either amend foreign policies to make them consonant with U.S. interests or face endless wars. Sadly, Mr. Zakaria's advice brings Americans no closer to that understanding. It viciously denigrates the "world view" of Muslim believers and leaves America vulnerable to a foe sure of why he is fighting and confident that U.S. leaders have no clue why America is losing.
(Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA employee. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.)
by Michael Scheuer
In a recent issue of Newsweek, the journal's inexplicably renowned Muslim-world and foreign-policy expert Fareed Zakaria had a cover story called "Learning to Live With Radical Islam." To my surprise, I received a call from Newsweek editor Will Tacy, who said that the journal was canvassing other "experts" for a 700-word comment on Zakaria's article and asked if I would write a contribution. I agreed, wrote an article of the requisite length, and submitted the piece before the deadline. Mr. Tacy acknowledged receiving the commentary, but I have never heard from him again – despite sending several notes and leaving voice-mail – and the piece was not printed.
Why? Well there is always the chance that my comment stunk. But if that was the case, it was no worse than the article on which it commented. No, I think the reason for Mr. Tacy's silence is that my piece told Newsweek's readers that Mr. Zakaria: (a) had been a supporter of the neocons and the invasion of Iraq; (b) was desperately seeking Democratic friends with embarrassingly sycophantic praise for the sophisticated genius of President Obama; (c) had delineated an absolute refusal to take our Islamist enemies seriously; and (d) could not rally enough brain cells to even imagine that prolonged U.S. intervention in the Muslim world had caused and is prolonging the conflict with al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies.
I suspect the last item, on the mortal perils of interventionism, probably clinched my exclusion from the published comments on Mr. Zakaria's article. (NB: Similarly, last May the New Republic asked me about al-Qaeda's future. I wrote that if U.S. intervention continued, then al-Qaeda and its allies would win. The journal rejected the piece, instead printing an "al-Qaeda-is-imploding" fantasy that found no fault with the interventionist status quo.) Overall, Mr. Zakaria; Newsweek; the Obama administration; the Republicans; other journals, such as the Weekly Standard, National Review, and the Wall Street Journal; and most mainstream and cable media outlets are of one mind: U.S. interventionism must be continued, and, through it, secular democracy must be imposed on unlimited numbers of our little brown brothers by either bayonets or a U.S. taxpayer-funded overseas New Deal. Sadly for Americans, this means more intervention; higher taxes; more unconstitutional wars with Muslims; and the further erosion of U.S. national security.
My comment on Mr. Zakaria's recent article follows.
Learning to Increase America's Vulnerability, With Fareed Zakaria
In "Learning to Live With Radical Islam," Fareed Zakaria extends his range of misperceptions about the Islamic world. Once a champion of President Bush's spreading-democracy mania and the invasion of Iraq, he revises his tune to please the less martial – but still feckless – foreign-policy approach of President Obama. The revision is also embarrassing, as we find Mr. Zakaria searching for buddies in Democratic Washington by urging the drafting of "a more sophisticated strategy" by Obama, for whom, he says with exquisite sycophancy, such a task "should come naturally."
Stripping the flattery of Obama and the requisite damning of old Republican friends, Mr. Zakaria's words show no concern for America's defense. Speaking in an anti-Muslim voice worthy of a viceroy of British India, Mr. Zakaria concludes, "The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women."
Take that, you darned medieval, superstitious Muslims. You folks may think Islam is a legitimate "world view," one that provides divine guidance for all aspects of life – from manners and morals to personal relationships to helping the poor to governing to war – but you would be dead wrong. Mr. Zakaria and Westerners know better. Their Western "world view" is superior to any religion-based world view – which by definition has "no answers" for the worldly wise – and so, can't you Muslims see, Islam cannot satisfy the aspirations of people who are truly modern and respectable.
Mr. Zakaria's distaste for Islam stems, it seems, from a common Western malady, an inability to differentiate between modernization and Westernization. Most Muslims – Islamists and others – appear to be eager, innovative users of modernity's tools, whether armaments, communications, consumer goods, or information technology. The stunningly adept use of communications and information technology by the Afghan Taliban since 2001 makes this point. What overwhelming numbers of Muslims seem to oppose is Westernization, that grinning, giddy tolerance for nearly everything Allah advises against, such as the brothels, bars, and pornography brought to Kabul by Western NGOs and NATO forces. At base, for Mr. Zakaria, if Muslims are not willing to go on a whoring, whiskey-soaked bender they cannot aspire to modernity, and until they are so willing: "We [the U.S. and the West] should mount a spirited defense of our views and values. We should pursue aggressively policies that will make these values succeed." In other words, onward you soldiers of secular imperialism, teach them heathen Muslims to hate their religion and become good Westerners.
Besides finding no value in the world view of Islamists or other Muslim faithful, Mr. Zakaria finds no fault in U.S. policy in the Muslim world. He leaves readers believing Islamists have no rational basis for attacking America. On this point, Mr. Zakaria unwittingly shows the foreign-policy continuity from Bush to Obama, which amounts to: Islamists and other Muslims attack us because they hate how Americans live and think, and not for what Washington does in the Muslim world. Here Mr. Zakaria is at his most obtuse and – with his praise for such "thinkers" (?) as Gerecht, Gerges, Kilcullen, etc. – at his most use to bin Laden and other Islamists as what the Cold War-era called a "useful idiot." (emphasis added)
America's vulnerability to Islamist militancy has steadily risen since 2001, because Republican and Democratic leaders and their academic and media acolytes have lied to Americans about their enemies' motivation. We are at war not because of our secularism and gender equality, but because we try to force those values on Muslims at bayonet-point, while wholeheartedly supporting those who Muslims see as Islam's worst enemies: Israel and such Arab tyrannies as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
It is commonsense to conclude we cannot learn to live with radical Islam until we understand it and see the stark decision at hand: either amend foreign policies to make them consonant with U.S. interests or face endless wars. Sadly, Mr. Zakaria's advice brings Americans no closer to that understanding. It viciously denigrates the "world view" of Muslim believers and leaves America vulnerable to a foe sure of why he is fighting and confident that U.S. leaders have no clue why America is losing.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
TSA detains official from Ron Paul group
April 6, 2009
Washington Times
The Transportation Security Administration is investigating the detention and harassment of a Ron Paul organization official by airport screeners, an incident that was caught on tape at a St. Louis airport.
Steve Bierfeldt, director of development for Campaign for Liberty, was selected for additional screening after officials spotted a metal box in his luggage that contained a large amount of cash and checks made out to the campaign.
Mr. Bierfeldt was attending his organization's regional conference in St. Louis and said he was keenly aware, as the situation unfolded March 29, of a controversial report issued to Missouri law enforcement officials intended to identify members of radical militia members.
"Militia members most commonly associate with third-party political groups," said the report, issued Feb. 20 by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr."
Mr. Bierfeldt was carrying Campaign for Liberty bumper stickers and other campaign literature, and was interrogated by TSA screeners and airport police at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport for nearly a half-hour before being allowed on his flight to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
The money he was carrying, more than $4,700, was in the form of cash and checks received from ticket sales, bumper stickers, books and other conference-related items.
Mr. Bierfeldt recorded the event on his iPhone, and provided a copy to The Washington Times for review. (Click here to listen to the audio)
On the tape, Mr. Bierfeldt is asked repeatedly where he works, where he obtained the money and why he was in St. Louis.
In each instance, Mr. Bierfeldt asked whether he was required by law to answer the questions.
"You want to play smartass, and I'm not going to play your f--ing game," the TSA official said.
Mr. Bierfeldt continued to refuse to answer, asking whether he was compelled by law to do so. The officers accused him of "doublespeak" and "acting like a child."
"Are you from this planet?" one officer asked.
The officers threatened to handcuff him and turn him over to the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration for questioning.
"You're going to have to prove why you have so much money to the DEA," a second unidentified officer said.
"We're going to help you understand [the law]," the TSA official said.
As he was being led away by the officers questioning him in the recording, another unidentified officer approached the group and asked Mr. Bierfeldt whether he worked for Mr. Paul and whether the money was campaign contributions.
Mr. Bierfeldt responded, "Yes," and was told by that officer that he was "free to go."
But one of the detaining officers said he was "not all that ready to let him walk" back onto the concourse, and held him for another five minutes.
"I was not refusing to answer the questions. I was only saying, as per the law, 'Am I legally required to answer the questions?'" Mr. Bierfeldt later said in an interview with The Times.
"We are becoming far too eager to give away our liberties in the face of false security. We want to make our plane and we don't want a five-minute hassle so we are eager to give up our freedom, and that is unfortunate," Mr. Bierfeldt said.
"I don't believe I was legally required to tell them. Carrying cash is not a crime," Mr. Bierfeldt said. "It is a dangerous precedent if the government can order you to tell them where you get your money, and no law requires them to know where I work or where I spend my free time and where I go on vacation."
Asked whether his employment with Mr. Paul's committee prompted more scrutiny, Mr. Bierfeldt said: "I don't know, but it may not have helped that they were aware of where I worked.
"I was obviously with the campaign and I was aware of that report. I didn't want to tell them off the bat that I worked for the campaign and Ron Paul, because the report said we were potential members of the militia, and that's why I asked what my rights were," Mr. Bierfeldt said.
Mr. Paul, a U.S. House member and honorary chairman of the grass-roots lobbying organization, said he was "rather shocked" by the incident.
"This sort of encounter is a sign of bad things to come," said the Texas Republican and 2008 presidential-primary contender.
"People need to know their rights, and law enforcement officers, even if their intentions are noble, should never be allowed to bully and detain law-abiding citizens," Mr. Paul said. "Steve´s experience is a prime example of how our liberties are in real peril and that we need to wake up to what's going on in our country."
The TSA issued a statement Friday confirming that the metal box triggered the "need for additional screening," but said the behavior of the screening officer was inappropriate.
"Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area," the statement said.
"The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action," the statement said.
The Homeland Security agency further explained that carrying large amounts of cash through airport checkpoints "may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected."
"As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry," the TSA said.
Mr. Bierfeldt made his flight on time and said he had not decided whether to file a formal complaint against the officers or the agency.
"Everyone in these types of situations needs to stand up for their rights," said Mr. Bierfeldt, whose organization describes itself as supporting constitutional ideals and a free-market society.
The Campaign for Liberty already had objected to Missouri's militia report. On March 24, Missouri Department of Public Safety Director John Britt sent a letter to all the named candidates acknowledging the state had made a mistake.
"I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations," Mr. Britt said. "Additionally, you may rest assured that the report is not posted on any website maintained by the State of Missouri."
"The Missouri Department of Public Safety regrets any inconvenience or issues caused inadvertently by the unnecessary inclusion of certain components by MIAC in its militia report," Mr. Britt said.
Washington Times
The Transportation Security Administration is investigating the detention and harassment of a Ron Paul organization official by airport screeners, an incident that was caught on tape at a St. Louis airport.
Steve Bierfeldt, director of development for Campaign for Liberty, was selected for additional screening after officials spotted a metal box in his luggage that contained a large amount of cash and checks made out to the campaign.
Mr. Bierfeldt was attending his organization's regional conference in St. Louis and said he was keenly aware, as the situation unfolded March 29, of a controversial report issued to Missouri law enforcement officials intended to identify members of radical militia members.
"Militia members most commonly associate with third-party political groups," said the report, issued Feb. 20 by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr."
Mr. Bierfeldt was carrying Campaign for Liberty bumper stickers and other campaign literature, and was interrogated by TSA screeners and airport police at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport for nearly a half-hour before being allowed on his flight to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
The money he was carrying, more than $4,700, was in the form of cash and checks received from ticket sales, bumper stickers, books and other conference-related items.
Mr. Bierfeldt recorded the event on his iPhone, and provided a copy to The Washington Times for review. (Click here to listen to the audio)
On the tape, Mr. Bierfeldt is asked repeatedly where he works, where he obtained the money and why he was in St. Louis.
In each instance, Mr. Bierfeldt asked whether he was required by law to answer the questions.
"You want to play smartass, and I'm not going to play your f--ing game," the TSA official said.
Mr. Bierfeldt continued to refuse to answer, asking whether he was compelled by law to do so. The officers accused him of "doublespeak" and "acting like a child."
"Are you from this planet?" one officer asked.
The officers threatened to handcuff him and turn him over to the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration for questioning.
"You're going to have to prove why you have so much money to the DEA," a second unidentified officer said.
"We're going to help you understand [the law]," the TSA official said.
As he was being led away by the officers questioning him in the recording, another unidentified officer approached the group and asked Mr. Bierfeldt whether he worked for Mr. Paul and whether the money was campaign contributions.
Mr. Bierfeldt responded, "Yes," and was told by that officer that he was "free to go."
But one of the detaining officers said he was "not all that ready to let him walk" back onto the concourse, and held him for another five minutes.
"I was not refusing to answer the questions. I was only saying, as per the law, 'Am I legally required to answer the questions?'" Mr. Bierfeldt later said in an interview with The Times.
"We are becoming far too eager to give away our liberties in the face of false security. We want to make our plane and we don't want a five-minute hassle so we are eager to give up our freedom, and that is unfortunate," Mr. Bierfeldt said.
"I don't believe I was legally required to tell them. Carrying cash is not a crime," Mr. Bierfeldt said. "It is a dangerous precedent if the government can order you to tell them where you get your money, and no law requires them to know where I work or where I spend my free time and where I go on vacation."
Asked whether his employment with Mr. Paul's committee prompted more scrutiny, Mr. Bierfeldt said: "I don't know, but it may not have helped that they were aware of where I worked.
"I was obviously with the campaign and I was aware of that report. I didn't want to tell them off the bat that I worked for the campaign and Ron Paul, because the report said we were potential members of the militia, and that's why I asked what my rights were," Mr. Bierfeldt said.
Mr. Paul, a U.S. House member and honorary chairman of the grass-roots lobbying organization, said he was "rather shocked" by the incident.
"This sort of encounter is a sign of bad things to come," said the Texas Republican and 2008 presidential-primary contender.
"People need to know their rights, and law enforcement officers, even if their intentions are noble, should never be allowed to bully and detain law-abiding citizens," Mr. Paul said. "Steve´s experience is a prime example of how our liberties are in real peril and that we need to wake up to what's going on in our country."
The TSA issued a statement Friday confirming that the metal box triggered the "need for additional screening," but said the behavior of the screening officer was inappropriate.
"Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area," the statement said.
"The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action," the statement said.
The Homeland Security agency further explained that carrying large amounts of cash through airport checkpoints "may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected."
"As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry," the TSA said.
Mr. Bierfeldt made his flight on time and said he had not decided whether to file a formal complaint against the officers or the agency.
"Everyone in these types of situations needs to stand up for their rights," said Mr. Bierfeldt, whose organization describes itself as supporting constitutional ideals and a free-market society.
The Campaign for Liberty already had objected to Missouri's militia report. On March 24, Missouri Department of Public Safety Director John Britt sent a letter to all the named candidates acknowledging the state had made a mistake.
"I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations," Mr. Britt said. "Additionally, you may rest assured that the report is not posted on any website maintained by the State of Missouri."
"The Missouri Department of Public Safety regrets any inconvenience or issues caused inadvertently by the unnecessary inclusion of certain components by MIAC in its militia report," Mr. Britt said.
Friday, April 03, 2009
The moral dilemma of today's statists
by Walter Williams April 01, 2009
Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. You say, "That's a pretty heavy charge, Williams. You'd better be prepared to back it up with evidence!" I'll try with a few questions for you to answer.
Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions, but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.
In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That's simple. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.
The reason why your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government.
Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They'll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes. As it stands now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability, and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy.
I am all too afraid that a historian, a hundred years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government, but it all returned to mankind's normal state of affairs – arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.
Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. You say, "That's a pretty heavy charge, Williams. You'd better be prepared to back it up with evidence!" I'll try with a few questions for you to answer.
Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions, but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.
In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That's simple. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.
The reason why your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government.
Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They'll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes. As it stands now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability, and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy.
I am all too afraid that a historian, a hundred years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government, but it all returned to mankind's normal state of affairs – arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
My Response To MIAC Report
Includes update near bottom as of 3/27/09
by Chuck Baldwin
March 24, 2009
By now, readers should be familiar with the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report dated 02/20/09 and titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement."
You may view the MIAC Strategic Report here:
http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/
You may read a Columbia MO newspaper article regarding here:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/
In this dreadfully malicious and slanderous "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members." I would venture to guess that more than 75% of the entire population of the United States would fit the MIAC's broad definition of someone who would fall into the aforementioned category.
According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":
The United Nations
The New World Order
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion
Illegal Immigration
Again, I would bet that at least 75% of the American people would oppose at least one or more items on the above list. Well, according to the MIAC report, that is sufficient to make them potential dangerous "militia members."
However, it is the following statement contained in the MIAC report that is particularly disturbing to yours truly. Under the heading "Political Paraphernalia," the report states, "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional [sic] Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."
The obvious inference of the above statement links Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself to potential dangerous "militia members." The broader implication is that the millions of people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself are likewise categorized as potential dangerous "militia members." This is a classic case of broad-brushed police profiling. Can you imagine the fallout of this preposterous report had the names Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters been used instead of the names Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr?
Accordingly, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I wrote a formal letter to the above-named Missouri officials demanding "that the following-described document be immediately removed from any and all websites associated with or maintained by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof, including the MIAC; that the said document no longer be circulated by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof or associated therewith; and that the state of Missouri repudiate its references to the three of us contained therein."
To view the full text of our letter to Governor Nixon of Missouri, go here:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/MIAC-Letter.pdf
Ladies and gentlemen, we simply cannot allow this kind of police profiling to continue. I assure you, this phenomenon is not limited to the State of Missouri. Every state that has a "Fusion Center" is being fed this kind of nonsense on a regular basis. You and I are commonly referred to as "extremists" in these secret police reports. This has been happening in earnest for the past couple of months and is operating under the auspices of the federal Department of Homeland Security. And people with a public platform (such as myself, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and a host of others) are now being singled out by name. How long will it be before police agencies begin "picking up and hauling away" those people whose names are mentioned in these reports? It may be sooner than we think.
To see if your state has a "Fusion Center," go here:
http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/programs/gc_1156877184684.shtm
The only thing that will stymie this nonsense is a huge public outcry opposing it. Yes, the people of this country (that means YOU) still have the power to put a stop to this kind of totalitarian thinking. If we do nothing, however, it will soon be too late to stop it. We either stop it now, or it will quickly mushroom into a leviathan that will both monitor and control the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country. No, I am not exaggerating.
The Feds already monitor virtually every phone call, email, and public speech in the country. How long before these secret police reports will be used as justification to arrest and incarcerate people because of their ideas and opinions, labeling them as a "threat" or as "dangerous" to society?
Here is the contact information for the appropriate officials in Missouri:
Email address: Brandon.middleton@mshp.dps.mo.gov
Missouri Information Analysis Center
Division of Drugs & Crime Control
P. O. Box 568
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0568
Phone: 573-751-6422
Toll Free: 866-362-6422
Fax: 573-751-9950
And while you are at it, you should also contact the state police agency as well as the governor's office in your state, especially if your state has a "Fusion Center" (see web site above). Mark it down: if you have ever publicly opposed any of the above-mentioned issues or organizations, or have ever publicly supported an independent Presidential candidate, YOU ARE BEING PROFILED RIGHT NOW!
We await the State of Missouri's response. In the meantime, what are you going to do?
P.S. Even as this column is being distributed, we have just received a reply from the Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety, John Britt. I will analyze and respond to this statement in my next column.
UPDATE from Chuck Baldwin 03/27/09: Well, there is still hope for liberty after all! After multiple thousands of phone calls, emails, faxes, and other communications from outraged citizens, the State of Missouri has rescinded its controversial "militia" report. This proves the point I made in this column recently that the most effective way to fight an ever-encroaching federal leviathan is to focus on our individual states.
Let me review the events of the last few weeks so as to help readers familiarize themselves with this historic--and I do mean historic--episode.
On February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri, via its Department of Public Safety, issued what was called "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this report, people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly were referenced as being connected to potentially dangerous "militia members." But the inference did not stop there. People of conservative ideology were also identified in the State Police report as being potentially dangerous. People who held political opinions opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., were profiled in the MIAC report.
Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding "conservative" or "right-wing" philosophies were identified in the MIAC report.
The MIAC report was categorized as "Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive," meaning the report was intended for law enforcement personnel only. Fortunately, an unidentified (for obvious reasons) Missouri law enforcement officer, who was extremely disturbed by this report, sent a copy to nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones. Of course, Jones immediately "blew the whistle" on the story. This was on March 11.
On March 14, the Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune ran a story on the subject, and on March 17, I wrote my first column about it. From that point, the story went viral.
Internet sites, radio talk show hosts, and bloggers all over America picked up the story, and thousands of outraged citizens began bombarding the appropriate officials in Missouri with protests. Even Fox News Channel talk show host Glenn Beck ran a feature on the story on Friday, March 20, and again on Monday, March 23. The Constitution Party issued a "Travel Advisory" for the State of Missouri, warning tourists and residents about the possibility of being profiled by State Police for such things as having bumper stickers with political statements on their vehicles, etc. All of this commotion was not lost on several Missouri State legislators and executive officers, either.
Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder called on Governor Jay Nixon (who had previously stood by and defended the MIAC report) to place Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on administrative leave pending an investigation into the report. In addition, several Missouri State legislators said they would introduce an amendment to the Department of Public Safety's budget barring the agency from using "state or federal funds for political profiling."
On March 23, DPS Director John Britt sent an apology letter to Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and me stating, "I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations."
While Ron, Bob, and I appreciated the apology and retraction from Mr. Britt, the overriding offense of the report still lingered: namely, the report, with a very broad brush, linked people holding conservative political opinions to dangerous and violence-prone "militias," which Missouri law enforcement personnel were instructed to be on guard against. Therefore, public outcry against the MIAC report continued, Mr. Britt's apology notwithstanding.
Then, on Wednesday, March 25, the head of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Col. James F. Keathley, ordered the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) to "permanently cease distribution" of this abysmal report. Keathley said that neither he nor Britt had read the report before it was distributed.
Keathley also noted that the report was filled with numerous spelling and grammatical errors and did not cite any sources for its broad statements about "right-wing" militias. He further said that his department would now review how the MIAC distributes intelligence reports to police officers. He said the process "needs improvement."
Dear readers, please take a bow! Because of tens of thousands of patriotic, freedom-loving Americans--including thousands of courageous Missourians--the long arm of totalitarianism was shortened just a bit.
This sordid story is truly an embarrassment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State of Missouri. Governor Nixon, especially, is left with egg on his face for foolishly and stupidly standing behind the report, when he had either never read it, or, if he had, was just as guilty of political profiling as the ones who wrote the report.
Why DHS, you ask? Because the MIAC report is similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies courtesy of DHS-sponsored "Fusion Centers." There is another side of this story that is even more sinister, however.
If we can continue to probe the details of the MIAC report, I am absolutely convinced we will find that this report actually originates with Morris Dees and his ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center. And if my hunch (a very educated hunch, I might add) is correct, it means that the DHS and various State police agencies around the country are allowing a left-wing special interest group to use them to harass, intimidate, and profile people with conservative political opinions.
I would further proffer that those of us who are outraged by this event should not stop with the MIAC report being removed. While this is very good news, the fear and intimidation associated with those referenced in this report has already taken place. Are people opposed to abortion, illegal immigration, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., now afraid to express their opinions publicly (especially in Missouri)? If so, this seems to me to be the basis for legal action, based on the abridgment of the First Amendment freedom of speech by a State (and perhaps federal) law enforcement agency.
There is yet another chilling question that must be answered: by saying Missouri State Police will "review" how MIAC distributes intelligence reports to police officers, does Col. Keathley mean that the State of Missouri's law enforcement agencies will continue to promote similar reports, but simply make them "Classified"? In other words, will they (and other State police agencies around the country) simply employ greater secrecy when issuing such reports, but do nothing to change the content of future reports? Hopefully not, but we shall see.
With that said, here are the lessons all of us need to take to heart:
*Every police officer, deputy sheriff, and law enforcement officer in America who believes in constitutional government, individual liberty, and the Bill of Rights needs to be alert for any report that smacks of the MIAC report, and be willing to quickly "blow the whistle" on any such report they see.
*Lovers of freedom should be much encouraged to see what can happen when they are willing to stand up to their State governing officials as they see abridgements to their liberties taking place. I say again, the best way to fight these mushrooming despotic tendencies of government we seem to see everywhere is to focus on our State governments. Do you now see why I say that? Even if DHS was behind the MIAC report, it was the State of Missouri that had to implement it; and it was the State of Missouri that (under pressure) killed it.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090327.html
by Chuck Baldwin
March 24, 2009
By now, readers should be familiar with the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report dated 02/20/09 and titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement."
You may view the MIAC Strategic Report here:
http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/
You may read a Columbia MO newspaper article regarding here:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/
In this dreadfully malicious and slanderous "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members." I would venture to guess that more than 75% of the entire population of the United States would fit the MIAC's broad definition of someone who would fall into the aforementioned category.
According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":
The United Nations
The New World Order
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion
Illegal Immigration
Again, I would bet that at least 75% of the American people would oppose at least one or more items on the above list. Well, according to the MIAC report, that is sufficient to make them potential dangerous "militia members."
However, it is the following statement contained in the MIAC report that is particularly disturbing to yours truly. Under the heading "Political Paraphernalia," the report states, "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional [sic] Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."
The obvious inference of the above statement links Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself to potential dangerous "militia members." The broader implication is that the millions of people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself are likewise categorized as potential dangerous "militia members." This is a classic case of broad-brushed police profiling. Can you imagine the fallout of this preposterous report had the names Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters been used instead of the names Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr?
Accordingly, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I wrote a formal letter to the above-named Missouri officials demanding "that the following-described document be immediately removed from any and all websites associated with or maintained by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof, including the MIAC; that the said document no longer be circulated by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof or associated therewith; and that the state of Missouri repudiate its references to the three of us contained therein."
To view the full text of our letter to Governor Nixon of Missouri, go here:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/MIAC-Letter.pdf
Ladies and gentlemen, we simply cannot allow this kind of police profiling to continue. I assure you, this phenomenon is not limited to the State of Missouri. Every state that has a "Fusion Center" is being fed this kind of nonsense on a regular basis. You and I are commonly referred to as "extremists" in these secret police reports. This has been happening in earnest for the past couple of months and is operating under the auspices of the federal Department of Homeland Security. And people with a public platform (such as myself, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and a host of others) are now being singled out by name. How long will it be before police agencies begin "picking up and hauling away" those people whose names are mentioned in these reports? It may be sooner than we think.
To see if your state has a "Fusion Center," go here:
http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/programs/gc_1156877184684.shtm
The only thing that will stymie this nonsense is a huge public outcry opposing it. Yes, the people of this country (that means YOU) still have the power to put a stop to this kind of totalitarian thinking. If we do nothing, however, it will soon be too late to stop it. We either stop it now, or it will quickly mushroom into a leviathan that will both monitor and control the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country. No, I am not exaggerating.
The Feds already monitor virtually every phone call, email, and public speech in the country. How long before these secret police reports will be used as justification to arrest and incarcerate people because of their ideas and opinions, labeling them as a "threat" or as "dangerous" to society?
Here is the contact information for the appropriate officials in Missouri:
Email address: Brandon.middleton@mshp.dps.mo.gov
Missouri Information Analysis Center
Division of Drugs & Crime Control
P. O. Box 568
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0568
Phone: 573-751-6422
Toll Free: 866-362-6422
Fax: 573-751-9950
And while you are at it, you should also contact the state police agency as well as the governor's office in your state, especially if your state has a "Fusion Center" (see web site above). Mark it down: if you have ever publicly opposed any of the above-mentioned issues or organizations, or have ever publicly supported an independent Presidential candidate, YOU ARE BEING PROFILED RIGHT NOW!
We await the State of Missouri's response. In the meantime, what are you going to do?
P.S. Even as this column is being distributed, we have just received a reply from the Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety, John Britt. I will analyze and respond to this statement in my next column.
UPDATE from Chuck Baldwin 03/27/09: Well, there is still hope for liberty after all! After multiple thousands of phone calls, emails, faxes, and other communications from outraged citizens, the State of Missouri has rescinded its controversial "militia" report. This proves the point I made in this column recently that the most effective way to fight an ever-encroaching federal leviathan is to focus on our individual states.
Let me review the events of the last few weeks so as to help readers familiarize themselves with this historic--and I do mean historic--episode.
On February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri, via its Department of Public Safety, issued what was called "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this report, people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly were referenced as being connected to potentially dangerous "militia members." But the inference did not stop there. People of conservative ideology were also identified in the State Police report as being potentially dangerous. People who held political opinions opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., were profiled in the MIAC report.
Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding "conservative" or "right-wing" philosophies were identified in the MIAC report.
The MIAC report was categorized as "Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive," meaning the report was intended for law enforcement personnel only. Fortunately, an unidentified (for obvious reasons) Missouri law enforcement officer, who was extremely disturbed by this report, sent a copy to nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones. Of course, Jones immediately "blew the whistle" on the story. This was on March 11.
On March 14, the Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune ran a story on the subject, and on March 17, I wrote my first column about it. From that point, the story went viral.
Internet sites, radio talk show hosts, and bloggers all over America picked up the story, and thousands of outraged citizens began bombarding the appropriate officials in Missouri with protests. Even Fox News Channel talk show host Glenn Beck ran a feature on the story on Friday, March 20, and again on Monday, March 23. The Constitution Party issued a "Travel Advisory" for the State of Missouri, warning tourists and residents about the possibility of being profiled by State Police for such things as having bumper stickers with political statements on their vehicles, etc. All of this commotion was not lost on several Missouri State legislators and executive officers, either.
Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder called on Governor Jay Nixon (who had previously stood by and defended the MIAC report) to place Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on administrative leave pending an investigation into the report. In addition, several Missouri State legislators said they would introduce an amendment to the Department of Public Safety's budget barring the agency from using "state or federal funds for political profiling."
On March 23, DPS Director John Britt sent an apology letter to Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and me stating, "I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations."
While Ron, Bob, and I appreciated the apology and retraction from Mr. Britt, the overriding offense of the report still lingered: namely, the report, with a very broad brush, linked people holding conservative political opinions to dangerous and violence-prone "militias," which Missouri law enforcement personnel were instructed to be on guard against. Therefore, public outcry against the MIAC report continued, Mr. Britt's apology notwithstanding.
Then, on Wednesday, March 25, the head of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Col. James F. Keathley, ordered the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) to "permanently cease distribution" of this abysmal report. Keathley said that neither he nor Britt had read the report before it was distributed.
Keathley also noted that the report was filled with numerous spelling and grammatical errors and did not cite any sources for its broad statements about "right-wing" militias. He further said that his department would now review how the MIAC distributes intelligence reports to police officers. He said the process "needs improvement."
Dear readers, please take a bow! Because of tens of thousands of patriotic, freedom-loving Americans--including thousands of courageous Missourians--the long arm of totalitarianism was shortened just a bit.
This sordid story is truly an embarrassment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State of Missouri. Governor Nixon, especially, is left with egg on his face for foolishly and stupidly standing behind the report, when he had either never read it, or, if he had, was just as guilty of political profiling as the ones who wrote the report.
Why DHS, you ask? Because the MIAC report is similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies courtesy of DHS-sponsored "Fusion Centers." There is another side of this story that is even more sinister, however.
If we can continue to probe the details of the MIAC report, I am absolutely convinced we will find that this report actually originates with Morris Dees and his ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center. And if my hunch (a very educated hunch, I might add) is correct, it means that the DHS and various State police agencies around the country are allowing a left-wing special interest group to use them to harass, intimidate, and profile people with conservative political opinions.
I would further proffer that those of us who are outraged by this event should not stop with the MIAC report being removed. While this is very good news, the fear and intimidation associated with those referenced in this report has already taken place. Are people opposed to abortion, illegal immigration, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., now afraid to express their opinions publicly (especially in Missouri)? If so, this seems to me to be the basis for legal action, based on the abridgment of the First Amendment freedom of speech by a State (and perhaps federal) law enforcement agency.
There is yet another chilling question that must be answered: by saying Missouri State Police will "review" how MIAC distributes intelligence reports to police officers, does Col. Keathley mean that the State of Missouri's law enforcement agencies will continue to promote similar reports, but simply make them "Classified"? In other words, will they (and other State police agencies around the country) simply employ greater secrecy when issuing such reports, but do nothing to change the content of future reports? Hopefully not, but we shall see.
With that said, here are the lessons all of us need to take to heart:
*Every police officer, deputy sheriff, and law enforcement officer in America who believes in constitutional government, individual liberty, and the Bill of Rights needs to be alert for any report that smacks of the MIAC report, and be willing to quickly "blow the whistle" on any such report they see.
*Lovers of freedom should be much encouraged to see what can happen when they are willing to stand up to their State governing officials as they see abridgements to their liberties taking place. I say again, the best way to fight these mushrooming despotic tendencies of government we seem to see everywhere is to focus on our State governments. Do you now see why I say that? Even if DHS was behind the MIAC report, it was the State of Missouri that had to implement it; and it was the State of Missouri that (under pressure) killed it.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090327.html
Monday, March 16, 2009
Welcome to global governance
March 12, 2009
by Henry Lamb
For more than a century, the idea of a world government has persisted. From Cecil Rhodes' vision of a global British Empire, to Woodrow Wilson's vision of a League of Nations, to Franklin Roosevelt's creation of the United Nations, this dream of a world government has advanced. In Berlin, Barack Obama announced that he is a "citizen of the world." He and his administration are about to pay homage to that global citizenship.
The people who created the League of Nations for Woodrow Wilson were behind-the-scenes advisers. In the United States, Wilson's advisers were known as Edward Mandell House's "Inquiry." In England, the government was advised by Alfred Milner's group called the "Chatham House Gang," created by Cecil Rhodes in 1891. These two groups drafted the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War and created the League of Nations.
During the final days of treaty negotiations, these two groups met at the Majestic Hotel in Paris and decided to formalize their organizations. The European group became the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and House's group became the Council on Foreign Relations. These two groups have been the sustaining power behind the idea of world government throughout the 20th century.
Franklin Roosevelt served in Wilson's administration and knew well Mandell House's Inquiry and the Council on Foreign Relations. Roosevelt's administration was filled with members of the CFR. In fact, Roosevelt's "New Deal" was a product of the CFR.
Roosevelt's son-in-law wrote:
For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the USA. But he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, was carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR-One World Money Group. (Curtis Dall, "FDR: My exploited Father-in-law," 1967)
The majority of Roosevelt's committee that drafted the United Nations Charter were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Every administration since Roosevelt's has been dominated by members of the CFR. During Bill Clinton's administration, Washington Post writer Richard Harwood reported that the Council on Foreign Relations is "… the closest thing we have to a ruling Establishment in the United States," and went on to identify dozens of CFR members in the White House. (Washington Post, Oct. 30, 1993, p. A-21)
CFR members dominated both of the Bush administrations. Richard Haass served in both. Until June 2003, he was director of planning at the State Department. He resigned to become the president of the Council on Foreign Relations in July 2003.
Haass continues to push the idea of world government. In an article for the Taipei Times, Haass said: "… states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function." (Feb. 21, 2006)
Here is the crux of the matter: National sovereignty and global governance are mutually exclusive. Both cannot exist at the same time. A nation is either sovereign, or it is not.
The League of Nations failed because the United States was unwilling to cede its sovereignty to an international system. The United Nations has not failed because nations, including the United States, continue to cede sovereignty, as Haass says, to "world bodies."
The Council on Foreign Relations, and much of official Europe, are convinced that the only way the world can survive is through some form of global governance. They contend that: "Governance is not government – it is the framework of rules, institutions and practices that set limits on the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies." (U.N. Human Development Report, 1999, page 34) Any authority that can "… limit … the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies" – is a government.
For such a system of "governance" to work there must be a procedure for making laws and rules, an independent revenue stream and a mechanism for enforcement. The rule-making procedure is well-established. The International Criminal Court provides the basis for enforcement. But the absence, so far, of an independent revenue stream has prevented the United Nations from becoming the world government so many have envisioned for so long. The current economic crisis is the excuse needed to create a global mechanism to control the global economy and siphon off an independent revenue stream for the world government.
The United Nations first adopted a "New International Economic Order" in 1974 (A/RES/S-6/3201). It called for a global socialist economic system under the auspices of the United Nations. Fortunately, the United States ignored the idea and it faded away, but it did not die.
In 1995, The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance released its final report called, "Our Global Neighborhood." Among the many recommendations made to effect global governance was a call to create a new Economic Security Council. Its jurisdiction would include:
…long-term threats to security in its widest sense, such as shared ecological crises, economic instability, rising unemployment ... mass poverty ... and the promotion of sustainable development.
The U.S. representative on the Commission on Global Governance was Adele Simmons, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Before he left office, President Bush called a meeting of the G20 to set the agenda for an April meeting in London. They hope to create a global system to finally control the global economy. Whatever the structure that comes out of the meeting, it will likely be empowered to control the global economy and to connect economic actions with ecological and social justice issues as well – just as prescribed by the Commission on Global Governance.
The creation of the World Trade Organization went a long way toward giving a "world body" power to regulate trade. The United States ceded significant sovereignty when it agreed to conform its rules and laws to the dictates of this U.N. agency.
The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements are not yet run by the consensus of boards arbitrarily appointed by the U.N. And so far, the U.N. has not been able to find a way to siphon off a revenue stream from international currency exchange. But this could change beginning with the April 2 meeting in London.
Already, European leaders are making noises about tighter international control over the global economy. Among the ideas advanced in the past are things such as U.N. licensing and even tighter regulation of international trade; U.N. representation in the boardrooms of international corporations; and international taxation for the privilege of doing business globally.
Whoever controls the flow of money controls the activity of those who have money, as well as those who want it. For example, whatever international economic structure may arise can insist that a nation adopt U.N.-prescribed global warming goals as a condition for participating in economic flows. This new international economic structure could dictate tax rates, interest rates and credit terms.
This proposed international economic structure could sap the last vestige of sovereignty from the United States. Aside from Ron Paul and Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel, there is very little concern being expressed by the media or by politicians.
Global governance is at the world's doorstep. Gustav Speth, who served on Bill Clinton's transition team before being appointed to head the U.N. Development program told a 1997 global conference:
"Global governance is here, here to stay, and, driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand."
Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton's deputy secretary of state, said in Time magazine:
"… within the next hundred years … nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority."
Both Speth and Talbott are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Timothy Geithner, secretary of the treasury, and Lawrence Summers, the president's chief economic adviser, will represent the United States at the G20 meeting in April. Both are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, publicly endorsed world government when she praised Walter Cronkite for his work that earned him the World Federalist Association's "Global Governance" award.
Throughout the Clinton years, and the Bush years, members of the Council on Foreign Relations have pushed to advance global governance. Opposition in the House and Senate, and sometimes, an obstinate President Bush, blocked U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the imposition of a U.N. tax on international currency exchange.
Today, opposition to global governance has diminished in Congress and has vanished from the White House. With eyes wide open, the United States is welcoming global governance. This administration, with approval of the majority of Congress, will cede our sovereignty to an international system that is beyond accountability and devoid of morality. The U.N. is eager to fund its nefarious adventures with money placed under its care by those who bought the promise of hope and blindly voted for change.
Once the U.N. has an independent revenue stream to fund its "peacekeeping" forces, which can enforce treaties and the decrees of the International Criminal Court, there will be no force on earth with the power to overthrow it. When the United States realizes the true cost global governance, it will be much too late. The U.N. will control the flow of both money and energy available to the U.S.
Obama and the current congressional majority will be long gone, leaving the next generation to curse their parent's stupidity – and only wonder what freedom was.
by Henry Lamb
For more than a century, the idea of a world government has persisted. From Cecil Rhodes' vision of a global British Empire, to Woodrow Wilson's vision of a League of Nations, to Franklin Roosevelt's creation of the United Nations, this dream of a world government has advanced. In Berlin, Barack Obama announced that he is a "citizen of the world." He and his administration are about to pay homage to that global citizenship.
The people who created the League of Nations for Woodrow Wilson were behind-the-scenes advisers. In the United States, Wilson's advisers were known as Edward Mandell House's "Inquiry." In England, the government was advised by Alfred Milner's group called the "Chatham House Gang," created by Cecil Rhodes in 1891. These two groups drafted the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War and created the League of Nations.
During the final days of treaty negotiations, these two groups met at the Majestic Hotel in Paris and decided to formalize their organizations. The European group became the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and House's group became the Council on Foreign Relations. These two groups have been the sustaining power behind the idea of world government throughout the 20th century.
Franklin Roosevelt served in Wilson's administration and knew well Mandell House's Inquiry and the Council on Foreign Relations. Roosevelt's administration was filled with members of the CFR. In fact, Roosevelt's "New Deal" was a product of the CFR.
Roosevelt's son-in-law wrote:
For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the USA. But he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, was carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR-One World Money Group. (Curtis Dall, "FDR: My exploited Father-in-law," 1967)
The majority of Roosevelt's committee that drafted the United Nations Charter were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Every administration since Roosevelt's has been dominated by members of the CFR. During Bill Clinton's administration, Washington Post writer Richard Harwood reported that the Council on Foreign Relations is "… the closest thing we have to a ruling Establishment in the United States," and went on to identify dozens of CFR members in the White House. (Washington Post, Oct. 30, 1993, p. A-21)
CFR members dominated both of the Bush administrations. Richard Haass served in both. Until June 2003, he was director of planning at the State Department. He resigned to become the president of the Council on Foreign Relations in July 2003.
Haass continues to push the idea of world government. In an article for the Taipei Times, Haass said: "… states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function." (Feb. 21, 2006)
Here is the crux of the matter: National sovereignty and global governance are mutually exclusive. Both cannot exist at the same time. A nation is either sovereign, or it is not.
The League of Nations failed because the United States was unwilling to cede its sovereignty to an international system. The United Nations has not failed because nations, including the United States, continue to cede sovereignty, as Haass says, to "world bodies."
The Council on Foreign Relations, and much of official Europe, are convinced that the only way the world can survive is through some form of global governance. They contend that: "Governance is not government – it is the framework of rules, institutions and practices that set limits on the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies." (U.N. Human Development Report, 1999, page 34) Any authority that can "… limit … the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies" – is a government.
For such a system of "governance" to work there must be a procedure for making laws and rules, an independent revenue stream and a mechanism for enforcement. The rule-making procedure is well-established. The International Criminal Court provides the basis for enforcement. But the absence, so far, of an independent revenue stream has prevented the United Nations from becoming the world government so many have envisioned for so long. The current economic crisis is the excuse needed to create a global mechanism to control the global economy and siphon off an independent revenue stream for the world government.
The United Nations first adopted a "New International Economic Order" in 1974 (A/RES/S-6/3201). It called for a global socialist economic system under the auspices of the United Nations. Fortunately, the United States ignored the idea and it faded away, but it did not die.
In 1995, The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance released its final report called, "Our Global Neighborhood." Among the many recommendations made to effect global governance was a call to create a new Economic Security Council. Its jurisdiction would include:
…long-term threats to security in its widest sense, such as shared ecological crises, economic instability, rising unemployment ... mass poverty ... and the promotion of sustainable development.
The U.S. representative on the Commission on Global Governance was Adele Simmons, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Before he left office, President Bush called a meeting of the G20 to set the agenda for an April meeting in London. They hope to create a global system to finally control the global economy. Whatever the structure that comes out of the meeting, it will likely be empowered to control the global economy and to connect economic actions with ecological and social justice issues as well – just as prescribed by the Commission on Global Governance.
The creation of the World Trade Organization went a long way toward giving a "world body" power to regulate trade. The United States ceded significant sovereignty when it agreed to conform its rules and laws to the dictates of this U.N. agency.
The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements are not yet run by the consensus of boards arbitrarily appointed by the U.N. And so far, the U.N. has not been able to find a way to siphon off a revenue stream from international currency exchange. But this could change beginning with the April 2 meeting in London.
Already, European leaders are making noises about tighter international control over the global economy. Among the ideas advanced in the past are things such as U.N. licensing and even tighter regulation of international trade; U.N. representation in the boardrooms of international corporations; and international taxation for the privilege of doing business globally.
Whoever controls the flow of money controls the activity of those who have money, as well as those who want it. For example, whatever international economic structure may arise can insist that a nation adopt U.N.-prescribed global warming goals as a condition for participating in economic flows. This new international economic structure could dictate tax rates, interest rates and credit terms.
This proposed international economic structure could sap the last vestige of sovereignty from the United States. Aside from Ron Paul and Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel, there is very little concern being expressed by the media or by politicians.
Global governance is at the world's doorstep. Gustav Speth, who served on Bill Clinton's transition team before being appointed to head the U.N. Development program told a 1997 global conference:
"Global governance is here, here to stay, and, driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand."
Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton's deputy secretary of state, said in Time magazine:
"… within the next hundred years … nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority."
Both Speth and Talbott are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Timothy Geithner, secretary of the treasury, and Lawrence Summers, the president's chief economic adviser, will represent the United States at the G20 meeting in April. Both are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, publicly endorsed world government when she praised Walter Cronkite for his work that earned him the World Federalist Association's "Global Governance" award.
Throughout the Clinton years, and the Bush years, members of the Council on Foreign Relations have pushed to advance global governance. Opposition in the House and Senate, and sometimes, an obstinate President Bush, blocked U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the imposition of a U.N. tax on international currency exchange.
Today, opposition to global governance has diminished in Congress and has vanished from the White House. With eyes wide open, the United States is welcoming global governance. This administration, with approval of the majority of Congress, will cede our sovereignty to an international system that is beyond accountability and devoid of morality. The U.N. is eager to fund its nefarious adventures with money placed under its care by those who bought the promise of hope and blindly voted for change.
Once the U.N. has an independent revenue stream to fund its "peacekeeping" forces, which can enforce treaties and the decrees of the International Criminal Court, there will be no force on earth with the power to overthrow it. When the United States realizes the true cost global governance, it will be much too late. The U.N. will control the flow of both money and energy available to the U.S.
Obama and the current congressional majority will be long gone, leaving the next generation to curse their parent's stupidity – and only wonder what freedom was.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
'General welfare' myth debunked
by Walter Williams
March 11, 2009
During winter months, I work out 10 minutes on the treadmill and lift weights at seven stations four mornings a week. Over the years, during the spring through fall months, I racked up about 2,000 miles on my road bike. This level of exercise helps account for why, at 73 years, I'm in such good health and physical fitness. So my question to you is whether you think regular exercise is a good idea. I think the answer is definitely yes, if nothing other than its beneficial effects on health care costs. Since exercise is a good idea, would you support a congressional mandate that all Americans engage in regular exercise?
Instead of simply saying, "Williams, you're a lunatic!" and rejecting such a congressional mandate out of hand, let's ask why it should be rejected. We should keep in mind that there's precedent for congressionally mandated measures to protect our health and safety. Seatbelt and helmet laws are examples. If you're in an accident and wind up a vegetable, you will be a burden on taxpayers; therefore, it's argued, Congress has a right to mandate seatbelt and helmet usage. Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to people who might burden our health care system because of obesity or sedentary lifestyles? If it is a good idea for Congress to force us to buckle up and wear a helmet on a motorcycle, isn't it also a good idea to force us to regularly exercise?
There is only one question to ask were there to be a debate over whether Congress should mandate regular exercise. Whether regular exercise is a good idea or a bad idea is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant question is: Is it permissible under the Constitution? That means we must examine the Constitution to see whether it authorizes Congress to mandate exercise. From my reading, the Constitution grants no such authority.
You say, "Aha, Williams, you've blown it this time. What about Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says Congress shall provide for the 'general welfare of the United States'? Surely, healthy Americans contribute to the nation's general welfare." That's precisely the response I'd expect from your average law professor, congressman or derelict U.S. Supreme Court justice. Let's look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about its general welfare clause. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one. ..." Madison also said, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
If you compare the vision of our nation's founders to the behavior of today's Congress, White House and U.S. Supreme Court, you would have to conclude that there is no longer rule of law where there is a set of general rules applicable to all persons. Today, we are commanded by legislative thugs who, with Supreme Court sanction, issue orders commanding particular people to do particular things. Most Americans neither understand nor appreciate the spirit and letter of the Constitution and accept Congress' arbitrary orders and privileges based upon status.
What to do? Thomas Jefferson advised, "Whensoever the General (federal) Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That bit of Jeffersonian advice is dangerous. While Congress does not have constitutional authority for most of what it does, it does have police and military power to inflict great pain and punishment for disobedience.
March 11, 2009
During winter months, I work out 10 minutes on the treadmill and lift weights at seven stations four mornings a week. Over the years, during the spring through fall months, I racked up about 2,000 miles on my road bike. This level of exercise helps account for why, at 73 years, I'm in such good health and physical fitness. So my question to you is whether you think regular exercise is a good idea. I think the answer is definitely yes, if nothing other than its beneficial effects on health care costs. Since exercise is a good idea, would you support a congressional mandate that all Americans engage in regular exercise?
Instead of simply saying, "Williams, you're a lunatic!" and rejecting such a congressional mandate out of hand, let's ask why it should be rejected. We should keep in mind that there's precedent for congressionally mandated measures to protect our health and safety. Seatbelt and helmet laws are examples. If you're in an accident and wind up a vegetable, you will be a burden on taxpayers; therefore, it's argued, Congress has a right to mandate seatbelt and helmet usage. Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to people who might burden our health care system because of obesity or sedentary lifestyles? If it is a good idea for Congress to force us to buckle up and wear a helmet on a motorcycle, isn't it also a good idea to force us to regularly exercise?
There is only one question to ask were there to be a debate over whether Congress should mandate regular exercise. Whether regular exercise is a good idea or a bad idea is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant question is: Is it permissible under the Constitution? That means we must examine the Constitution to see whether it authorizes Congress to mandate exercise. From my reading, the Constitution grants no such authority.
You say, "Aha, Williams, you've blown it this time. What about Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says Congress shall provide for the 'general welfare of the United States'? Surely, healthy Americans contribute to the nation's general welfare." That's precisely the response I'd expect from your average law professor, congressman or derelict U.S. Supreme Court justice. Let's look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about its general welfare clause. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one. ..." Madison also said, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
If you compare the vision of our nation's founders to the behavior of today's Congress, White House and U.S. Supreme Court, you would have to conclude that there is no longer rule of law where there is a set of general rules applicable to all persons. Today, we are commanded by legislative thugs who, with Supreme Court sanction, issue orders commanding particular people to do particular things. Most Americans neither understand nor appreciate the spirit and letter of the Constitution and accept Congress' arbitrary orders and privileges based upon status.
What to do? Thomas Jefferson advised, "Whensoever the General (federal) Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That bit of Jeffersonian advice is dangerous. While Congress does not have constitutional authority for most of what it does, it does have police and military power to inflict great pain and punishment for disobedience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)