by Walter Williams
A subprime lender is one who makes loans to borrowers who do not qualify for loans from mainstream lenders. It's a market that has evolved to permit borrowers with poor credit history and an unstable financial situation the opportunity to get home mortgages. The catch is they pay a higher and typically an adjustable rate mortgage. Encouraged by the housing bubble, easy credit, along with the expectation that housing prices would continue to appreciate, many subprime borrowers took out mortgages they could not afford in the long run, particularly if interest rates rose and housing prices depreciated.
As with most economic problems, we find the hand of government. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton administration, is a federal law that mandates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. In other words, the Community Reinvestment Act encourages banks and thrifts to make loans to riskier customers.
According to an article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Nov. 4, 2007, titled "Black Atlantans often snared by subprime loans," by Carrie Teegardin, a national study of credit scores, not just mortgage loan applicants, found that 52 percent of blacks have credit scores that would classify them as subprime borrowers compared with 16 percent of whites.
(Column continues below)
Many lenders did make loans to people who had no realistic ability to pay them back. But that doesn't qualify as fraud, although there might have been a bit of exuberance in the repackaging of the mortgages into securities and selling them to investors. Some argue that many borrowers defrauded the banks by misrepresenting their income, the so-called "no doc" loans or "liar's loans."
President Bush's plan to deal with the subprime crisis is to freeze interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages. Freezing interest rates would stop people's mortgage payments from increasing. That is a gross violation of basic contract rights and would appear to be a Fifth Amendment violation. If a contractual agreement is willingly entered into and agreed upon by a borrower and lender, it is binding and if broken by one party or the other, harsh penalties should ensue.
Now here comes government, under the Bush plan, to declare millions of contracts null and void. The long-run effect of the Bush plan is to make lending institutions even more selective in choosing borrowers. Then there's the question: If government can invalidate the terms of one kind of contractual agreement where the borrowers can't pay, what's to say that it won't invalidate other contractual agreements where the borrowers encounter hardship, and what will that do to financial markets?
The Bush bailout, as well as Federal Reserve Bank cuts in interest rates, is a wealth transfer from creditworthy people and taxpayers to those who made ill-advised credit decisions, and that includes banks as well as borrowers. According to Temple University professor of economics William Dunkelberg, 96 percent of all mortgages are being paid on time. Thirty percent of American homeowners have no mortgage. Delinquency rates were higher in the 1980s than they are today. Only 2 to 3 percent of all mortgages are in foreclosure. The government bailout helps a few people at a huge cost to the rest of the economy.
Government policy got us into the subprime mess, and government's measure to fix the mess is going to create more mess. As such I'm reminded of Marcus Cook Connelly's spiritual play, "Green Pastures," where God laments to the Angel Gabriel, "Every time Ah passes a miracle, Ah has to pass fo' or five mo' to ketch up wid it," adding, "Even bein' God ain't no bed of roses." That's something the president and congressmen should think about and leave the miracle business up to God.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
The FBI Deputizes Business
By Matthew Rothschild, February 7, 2008
From the article:
“The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage,” he says. “From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we’d be given specific benefits.” These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out.
But that’s not all.
“Then they said when—not if—martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,” he says.
InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.
“The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members,” the website states. “During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . . The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . . Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided.”
FULL ARTICLE
Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law.
InfraGard is “a child of the FBI,” says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.
InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.
“Then the FBI cloned it,” says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.
InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.
“We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility,” says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.
“At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector,” the InfraGard website states. “InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories.”
In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that “350 of our nation’s Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard.”
To join, each person must be sponsored by “an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization.” The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.
FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. “To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard,” he said. “From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America.” He added a little later, “Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense.”
He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they “note suspicious activity or an unusual event.” And he said they could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers.”
In an interview with InfraGard after the conference, which is featured prominently on the InfraGard members’ website, Mueller says: “It’s a great program.”
The ACLU is not so sanguine.
“There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations—some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers—into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI,” the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.
InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.
“The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members,” the website states. “During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . . The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . . Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided.”
One of the advantages of InfraGard, according to its leading members, is that the FBI gives them a heads-up on a secure portal about any threatening information related to infrastructure disruption or terrorism.
The InfraGard website advertises this. In its list of benefits of joining InfraGard, it states: “Gain access to an FBI secure communication network complete with VPN encrypted website, webmail, listservs, message boards, and much more.”
InfraGard members receive “almost daily updates” on threats “emanating from both domestic sources and overseas,” Hershman says.
“We get very easy access to secure information that only goes to InfraGard members,” Schneck says. “People are happy to be in the know.”
On November 1, 2001, the FBI had information about a potential threat to the bridges of California. The alert went out to the InfraGard membership. Enron was notified, and so, too, was Barry Davis, who worked for Morgan Stanley. He notified his brother Gray, the governor of California.
“He said his brother talked to him before the FBI,” recalls Steve Maviglio, who was Davis’s press secretary at the time. “And the governor got a lot of grief for releasing the information. In his defense, he said, ‘I was on the phone with my brother, who is an investment banker. And if he knows, why shouldn’t the public know?’ ”
Maviglio still sounds perturbed about this: “You’d think an elected official would be the first to know, not the last.”
In return for being in the know, InfraGard members cooperate with the FBI and Homeland Security. “InfraGard members have contributed to about 100 FBI cases,” Schneck says. “What InfraGard brings you is reach into the regional and local communities. We are a 22,000-member vetted body of subject-matter experts that reaches across seventeen matrixes. All the different stovepipes can connect with InfraGard.”
Schneck is proud of the relationships the InfraGard Members Alliance has built with the FBI. “If you had to call 1-800-FBI, you probably wouldn’t bother,” she says. “But if you knew Joe from a local meeting you had with him over a donut, you might call them. Either to give or to get. We want everyone to have a little black book.”
This black book may come in handy in times of an emergency. “On the back of each membership card,” Schneck says, “we have all the numbers you’d need: for Homeland Security, for the FBI, for the cyber center. And by calling up as an InfraGard member, you will be listened to.” She also says that members would have an easier time obtaining a “special telecommunications card that will enable your call to go through when others will not.”
This special status concerns the ACLU.
“The FBI should not be creating a privileged class of Americans who get special treatment,” says Jay Stanley, public education director of the ACLU’s technology and liberty program. “There’s no ‘business class’ in law enforcement. If there’s information the FBI can share with 22,000 corporate bigwigs, why don’t they just share it with the public? That’s who their real ‘special relationship’ is supposed to be with. Secrecy is not a party favor to be given out to friends. . . . This bears a disturbing resemblance to the FBI’s handing out ‘goodies’ to corporations in return for folding them into its domestic surveillance machinery.”
When the government raises its alert levels, InfraGard is in the loop. For instance, in a press release on February 7, 2003, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General announced that the national alert level was being raised from yellow to orange. They then listed “additional steps” that agencies were taking to “increase their protective measures.” One of those steps was to “provide alert information to InfraGard program.”
“They’re very much looped into our readiness capability,” says Amy Kudwa, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security. “We provide speakers, as well as do joint presentations [with the FBI]. We also train alongside them, and they have participated in readiness exercises.”
On May 9, 2007, George Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 entitled “National Continuity Policy.” In it, he instructed the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate with “private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.”
Asked if the InfraGard National Members Alliance was involved with these plans, Schneck said it was “not directly participating at this point.” Hershman, chairman of the group’s advisory board, however, said that it was.
InfraGard members, sometimes hundreds at a time, have been used in “national emergency preparation drills,” Schneck acknowledges.
“In case something happens, everybody is ready,” says Norm Arendt, the head of the Madison, Wisconsin, chapter of InfraGard, and the safety director for the consulting firm Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. “There’s been lots of discussions about what happens under an emergency.”
One business owner in the United States tells me that InfraGard members are being advised on how to prepare for a martial law situation—and what their role might be. He showed me his InfraGard card, with his name and e-mail address on the front, along with the InfraGard logo and its slogan, “Partnership for Protection.” On the back of the card were the emergency numbers that Schneck mentioned.
This business owner says he attended a small InfraGard meeting where agents of the FBI and Homeland Security discussed in astonishing detail what InfraGard members may be called upon to do.
“The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage,” he says. “From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we’d be given specific benefits.” These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out.
But that’s not all.
“Then they said when—not if—martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,” he says.
I was able to confirm that the meeting took place where he said it had, and that the FBI and Homeland Security did make presentations there. One InfraGard member who attended that meeting denies that the subject of lethal force came up. But the whistleblower is 100 percent certain of it. “I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and everything to lose,” he adds. “I’m so nervous about this, and I’m not someone who gets nervous.”
Though Schneck says that FBI and Homeland Security agents do make presentations to InfraGard, she denies that InfraGard members would have any civil patrol or law enforcement functions. “I have never heard of InfraGard members being told to use lethal force anywhere,” Schneck says.
The FBI adamantly denies it, also. “That’s ridiculous,” says Catherine Milhoan, an FBI spokesperson. “If you want to quote a businessperson saying that, knock yourself out. If that’s what you want to print, fine.”
But one other InfraGard member corroborated the whistleblower’s account, and another would not deny it.
Christine Moerke is a business continuity consultant for Alliant Energy in Madison, Wisconsin. She says she’s an InfraGard member, and she confirms that she has attended InfraGard meetings that went into the details about what kind of civil patrol function—including engaging in lethal force—that InfraGard members may be called upon to perform.
“There have been discussions like that, that I’ve heard of and participated in,” she says.
Curt Haugen is CEO of S’Curo Group, a company that does “strategic planning, business continuity planning and disaster recovery, physical and IT security, policy development, internal control, personnel selection, and travel safety,” according to its website. Haugen tells me he is a former FBI agent and that he has been an InfraGard member for many years. He is a huge booster. “It’s the only true organization where there is the public-private partnership,” he says. “It’s all who knows who. You know a face, you trust a face. That’s what makes it work.”
He says InfraGard “absolutely” does emergency preparedness exercises. When I ask about discussions the FBI and Homeland Security have had with InfraGard members about their use of lethal force, he says: “That much I cannot comment on. But as a private citizen, you have the right to use force if you feel threatened.”
“We were assured that if we were forced to kill someone to protect our infrastructure, there would be no repercussions,” the whistleblower says. “It gave me goose bumps. It chilled me to the bone.”
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine and the author of "You Have No Rights: Stories of America in an Age of Repression." This article, "The FBI Deputizes Business," is the cover story of the March issue of The Progressive.
see also: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0802g.pdf for more information
From the article:
“The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage,” he says. “From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we’d be given specific benefits.” These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out.
But that’s not all.
“Then they said when—not if—martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,” he says.
InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.
“The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members,” the website states. “During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . . The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . . Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided.”
FULL ARTICLE
Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law.
InfraGard is “a child of the FBI,” says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.
InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.
“Then the FBI cloned it,” says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.
InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.
“We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility,” says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.
“At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector,” the InfraGard website states. “InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories.”
In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that “350 of our nation’s Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard.”
To join, each person must be sponsored by “an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization.” The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.
FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. “To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard,” he said. “From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America.” He added a little later, “Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense.”
He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they “note suspicious activity or an unusual event.” And he said they could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers.”
In an interview with InfraGard after the conference, which is featured prominently on the InfraGard members’ website, Mueller says: “It’s a great program.”
The ACLU is not so sanguine.
“There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations—some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers—into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI,” the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.
InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.
“The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members,” the website states. “During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . . The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . . Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided.”
One of the advantages of InfraGard, according to its leading members, is that the FBI gives them a heads-up on a secure portal about any threatening information related to infrastructure disruption or terrorism.
The InfraGard website advertises this. In its list of benefits of joining InfraGard, it states: “Gain access to an FBI secure communication network complete with VPN encrypted website, webmail, listservs, message boards, and much more.”
InfraGard members receive “almost daily updates” on threats “emanating from both domestic sources and overseas,” Hershman says.
“We get very easy access to secure information that only goes to InfraGard members,” Schneck says. “People are happy to be in the know.”
On November 1, 2001, the FBI had information about a potential threat to the bridges of California. The alert went out to the InfraGard membership. Enron was notified, and so, too, was Barry Davis, who worked for Morgan Stanley. He notified his brother Gray, the governor of California.
“He said his brother talked to him before the FBI,” recalls Steve Maviglio, who was Davis’s press secretary at the time. “And the governor got a lot of grief for releasing the information. In his defense, he said, ‘I was on the phone with my brother, who is an investment banker. And if he knows, why shouldn’t the public know?’ ”
Maviglio still sounds perturbed about this: “You’d think an elected official would be the first to know, not the last.”
In return for being in the know, InfraGard members cooperate with the FBI and Homeland Security. “InfraGard members have contributed to about 100 FBI cases,” Schneck says. “What InfraGard brings you is reach into the regional and local communities. We are a 22,000-member vetted body of subject-matter experts that reaches across seventeen matrixes. All the different stovepipes can connect with InfraGard.”
Schneck is proud of the relationships the InfraGard Members Alliance has built with the FBI. “If you had to call 1-800-FBI, you probably wouldn’t bother,” she says. “But if you knew Joe from a local meeting you had with him over a donut, you might call them. Either to give or to get. We want everyone to have a little black book.”
This black book may come in handy in times of an emergency. “On the back of each membership card,” Schneck says, “we have all the numbers you’d need: for Homeland Security, for the FBI, for the cyber center. And by calling up as an InfraGard member, you will be listened to.” She also says that members would have an easier time obtaining a “special telecommunications card that will enable your call to go through when others will not.”
This special status concerns the ACLU.
“The FBI should not be creating a privileged class of Americans who get special treatment,” says Jay Stanley, public education director of the ACLU’s technology and liberty program. “There’s no ‘business class’ in law enforcement. If there’s information the FBI can share with 22,000 corporate bigwigs, why don’t they just share it with the public? That’s who their real ‘special relationship’ is supposed to be with. Secrecy is not a party favor to be given out to friends. . . . This bears a disturbing resemblance to the FBI’s handing out ‘goodies’ to corporations in return for folding them into its domestic surveillance machinery.”
When the government raises its alert levels, InfraGard is in the loop. For instance, in a press release on February 7, 2003, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General announced that the national alert level was being raised from yellow to orange. They then listed “additional steps” that agencies were taking to “increase their protective measures.” One of those steps was to “provide alert information to InfraGard program.”
“They’re very much looped into our readiness capability,” says Amy Kudwa, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security. “We provide speakers, as well as do joint presentations [with the FBI]. We also train alongside them, and they have participated in readiness exercises.”
On May 9, 2007, George Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 entitled “National Continuity Policy.” In it, he instructed the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate with “private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.”
Asked if the InfraGard National Members Alliance was involved with these plans, Schneck said it was “not directly participating at this point.” Hershman, chairman of the group’s advisory board, however, said that it was.
InfraGard members, sometimes hundreds at a time, have been used in “national emergency preparation drills,” Schneck acknowledges.
“In case something happens, everybody is ready,” says Norm Arendt, the head of the Madison, Wisconsin, chapter of InfraGard, and the safety director for the consulting firm Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. “There’s been lots of discussions about what happens under an emergency.”
One business owner in the United States tells me that InfraGard members are being advised on how to prepare for a martial law situation—and what their role might be. He showed me his InfraGard card, with his name and e-mail address on the front, along with the InfraGard logo and its slogan, “Partnership for Protection.” On the back of the card were the emergency numbers that Schneck mentioned.
This business owner says he attended a small InfraGard meeting where agents of the FBI and Homeland Security discussed in astonishing detail what InfraGard members may be called upon to do.
“The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage,” he says. “From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we’d be given specific benefits.” These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out.
But that’s not all.
“Then they said when—not if—martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,” he says.
I was able to confirm that the meeting took place where he said it had, and that the FBI and Homeland Security did make presentations there. One InfraGard member who attended that meeting denies that the subject of lethal force came up. But the whistleblower is 100 percent certain of it. “I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and everything to lose,” he adds. “I’m so nervous about this, and I’m not someone who gets nervous.”
Though Schneck says that FBI and Homeland Security agents do make presentations to InfraGard, she denies that InfraGard members would have any civil patrol or law enforcement functions. “I have never heard of InfraGard members being told to use lethal force anywhere,” Schneck says.
The FBI adamantly denies it, also. “That’s ridiculous,” says Catherine Milhoan, an FBI spokesperson. “If you want to quote a businessperson saying that, knock yourself out. If that’s what you want to print, fine.”
But one other InfraGard member corroborated the whistleblower’s account, and another would not deny it.
Christine Moerke is a business continuity consultant for Alliant Energy in Madison, Wisconsin. She says she’s an InfraGard member, and she confirms that she has attended InfraGard meetings that went into the details about what kind of civil patrol function—including engaging in lethal force—that InfraGard members may be called upon to perform.
“There have been discussions like that, that I’ve heard of and participated in,” she says.
Curt Haugen is CEO of S’Curo Group, a company that does “strategic planning, business continuity planning and disaster recovery, physical and IT security, policy development, internal control, personnel selection, and travel safety,” according to its website. Haugen tells me he is a former FBI agent and that he has been an InfraGard member for many years. He is a huge booster. “It’s the only true organization where there is the public-private partnership,” he says. “It’s all who knows who. You know a face, you trust a face. That’s what makes it work.”
He says InfraGard “absolutely” does emergency preparedness exercises. When I ask about discussions the FBI and Homeland Security have had with InfraGard members about their use of lethal force, he says: “That much I cannot comment on. But as a private citizen, you have the right to use force if you feel threatened.”
“We were assured that if we were forced to kill someone to protect our infrastructure, there would be no repercussions,” the whistleblower says. “It gave me goose bumps. It chilled me to the bone.”
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine and the author of "You Have No Rights: Stories of America in an Age of Repression." This article, "The FBI Deputizes Business," is the cover story of the March issue of The Progressive.
see also: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0802g.pdf for more information
Monday, January 21, 2008
Bush Administration: National Firearm Ban "Reasonable"
U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement noted since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions. Clement was nominated by George W. Bush in March 2005 and confirmed in June of the same year. His clerkships include Antonin Scalia.
Full article follows:
by Bob Unruh
A Second Amendment advocacy organization is asking the Bush administration to withdraw a legal brief that leaders fear could be used to support "any gun ban – no matter how sweeping," as long as some court somewhere determines it is "reasonable."
The concern comes from Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, whose group is pleading with the Bush administration to withdraw an anti-gun brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General in a Supreme Court case regarding a District of Columbia ban on handguns.
The document from U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement noted since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.
His brief suggests gun rights are limited and since they are subject to "reasonable regulation," all gun limits imposed by the federal government should be affirmed as constitutional.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," he wrote in the brief.
But Gun Owners of America, a grass-roots lobby representing more than 300,000 Americans, said the opinion creates a huge threat to the constitutional provision banning the "infringement" of the right to bear arms.
"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional…" Pratt said.
Worse, when the standard for evaluating gun bans becomes "reasonable," there is nothing else needed in order for a court somewhere to decide that all guns should be forbidden.
"In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by 'compelling state interests,' the Second Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail," said Pratt.
He said the legal opinion could have been written by a gun limit lobby and it could be used in support of a ban on all guns by a government proclaiming "this is a reasonable regulation" even while affirming the "right" to bear arms.
Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, in fact earlier said he saluted the position paper.
But Pratt said it would be analogous to the situation in the state of Illinois, where the state constitution provides a right to keep and bear arms, "subject to the police power," he said. Not surprisingly, Illinois has one of the most restrictive atmospheres in the nation regarding guns, he told WND.
"Under the administration's amicus brief, a national ban on all firearms – including hunting rifles – could be 'constitutional,' even if the Supreme Court decides – on ample historical evidence – that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right," he continued.
"Rather than argue that 'shall not be infringed' is a categorical prohibition on government gun-banning, the administration has chosen to align itself with those who do not believe in self defense or civilian gun ownership," Pratt said.
He said his organization is issuing a public call for the Justice Department to withdraw the anti-gun statements, and is inviting other organizations to join in its battle against such a precedent.
In the case at hand, a Washington, D.C., ban on all handguns kept by residents in their homes for self-defense is being challenged.
Alan Gura, who is heading up the challenge, said he was troubled by Clement's actions, and described the statements as "hostile" to his Second Amendment position.
"We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights," he said.
Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the Second Amendment includes a right for individuals to have a gun, or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.
The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the Second Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.
But his brief urges the Supreme Court to decide most current restrictions on guns and gun owners cannot be overturned by citing the Second Amendment.
"Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood … calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms," he wrote.
The court's hearing on the case has not yet been held.
For more information:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/us-supports-gun-rights-but-more-narrowly/
Full article follows:
by Bob Unruh
A Second Amendment advocacy organization is asking the Bush administration to withdraw a legal brief that leaders fear could be used to support "any gun ban – no matter how sweeping," as long as some court somewhere determines it is "reasonable."
The concern comes from Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, whose group is pleading with the Bush administration to withdraw an anti-gun brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General in a Supreme Court case regarding a District of Columbia ban on handguns.
The document from U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement noted since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.
His brief suggests gun rights are limited and since they are subject to "reasonable regulation," all gun limits imposed by the federal government should be affirmed as constitutional.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," he wrote in the brief.
But Gun Owners of America, a grass-roots lobby representing more than 300,000 Americans, said the opinion creates a huge threat to the constitutional provision banning the "infringement" of the right to bear arms.
"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional…" Pratt said.
Worse, when the standard for evaluating gun bans becomes "reasonable," there is nothing else needed in order for a court somewhere to decide that all guns should be forbidden.
"In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by 'compelling state interests,' the Second Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail," said Pratt.
He said the legal opinion could have been written by a gun limit lobby and it could be used in support of a ban on all guns by a government proclaiming "this is a reasonable regulation" even while affirming the "right" to bear arms.
Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, in fact earlier said he saluted the position paper.
But Pratt said it would be analogous to the situation in the state of Illinois, where the state constitution provides a right to keep and bear arms, "subject to the police power," he said. Not surprisingly, Illinois has one of the most restrictive atmospheres in the nation regarding guns, he told WND.
"Under the administration's amicus brief, a national ban on all firearms – including hunting rifles – could be 'constitutional,' even if the Supreme Court decides – on ample historical evidence – that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right," he continued.
"Rather than argue that 'shall not be infringed' is a categorical prohibition on government gun-banning, the administration has chosen to align itself with those who do not believe in self defense or civilian gun ownership," Pratt said.
He said his organization is issuing a public call for the Justice Department to withdraw the anti-gun statements, and is inviting other organizations to join in its battle against such a precedent.
In the case at hand, a Washington, D.C., ban on all handguns kept by residents in their homes for self-defense is being challenged.
Alan Gura, who is heading up the challenge, said he was troubled by Clement's actions, and described the statements as "hostile" to his Second Amendment position.
"We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights," he said.
Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the Second Amendment includes a right for individuals to have a gun, or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.
The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the Second Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.
But his brief urges the Supreme Court to decide most current restrictions on guns and gun owners cannot be overturned by citing the Second Amendment.
"Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood … calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms," he wrote.
The court's hearing on the case has not yet been held.
For more information:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/us-supports-gun-rights-but-more-narrowly/
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Are Republicans Conservative? (Part I of III)
Part I of III
by Jeffrey Robbins
Introduction
As a Republican, do you find the positions and actions of your party increasingly difficult to defend in light of the principles upon which the party claims to continue to stand for, namely, limited government, non-interventionism, and laissez-faire capitalism? Do you find yourself "compromising" your principles election after election, justifying your vote for the party favorite as an earnest effort to avoid putting the next Clinton or Gore in power? The "lesser of two evils" mantra must ring a bell. Have you heard the Republican party-line that they simply "lost their way" during their four-year period of complete control of the federal government? Have you swallowed hard to make yourself believe it? Before you continue further down the path of Republican Party apologism, you owe it to yourself to read on and see how the pieces fit together, forming a far different picture than the one you believe you see.
It is particularly difficult to change the mind of Republican voters who maintain apologist stances in defense of their Party. You have certainly tried in vain to convince a Democrat that their Party ideals are bound to decline into Socialism or worse, Tyranny one day. At some point I imagine you told them that the government has no business being involved in what their Party proposes, that taxes are too high, that spending is too much, our Federal debt is unimaginable, etc. Since I have always operated in some form from the Right, I choose my words carefully and understand how difficult it may be to believe it when I say exactly the same thing to you: Your party's actions have led to socialism, and at worst may in fact lead to outright tyranny one day.
One quote still stands out to me in relation to the difficulty encountered as we begin such an argument. Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1897 said, “It is in the nature of a man’s mind. A thing which you enjoyed and used as your own for a long time, whether property or opinion, takes root in your being and cannot be torn away without your resenting the act and trying to defend yourself, however you came by it.” I speak from experience, as it was I, a Republican supporter of George H.W. Bush in 1990, who was first approached many years ago with the same proposition: post-World War II Republicans have come to share far more with Democrats in principle and action than either Party would care to admit or have widely known. I can say from experience that indeed, the first step is denial. I denied for many years, later took on casual study, and gradually as I built the study came to the same stunning conclusion. In fact, the difference between the Parties is not meaningful. The task before you, the study, the intellectual honesty required of you the reader, is within your ability I am certain. What you must set aside, albeit temporarily, is your allegiance (psychologically and philosophically) to what you believe is truly happening in government, which for years or perhaps many decades, have been imprinted and reinforced by nearly everyone and everything around you: the high school teachers, the professors you had in college, your friends who follow politics, Fox News, ABC, your favorite newspapers, the family members who enjoy discussing ideas, - all have very likely reinforced that there are differences between Democrats and Republicans worth arguing, debating, and fighting over. To them it is this conclusion that is not debatable. But here I sit, telling you quite the opposite.
It is my very sincere hope that for the future of our country you embark on this study yourself and ask difficult questions in pursuit of truth. I am not trying to win a debate here. No tricks to win a point. My pursuit herein is the truth and I ask the same of you. I present facts and evidence and after many books and pages read, stand firm that these facts and evidence point where I say they do. At a minimum, I appeal to your desire to hear a different viewpoint, to critique, discuss, and to learn. I do so in full realization that you are at stage one, denial.
The Contract With America - We Signed, They Didn't
Recall that in 1994 a Revolution swept the United States. It was called the Republican Revolution, complete with the "Contract With America." In January 1995, the change in power swept the Republicans to control the House for the first time in 40 years (from the 1952 election to 1954). In addition to the gain of 54 seats in the House, the pickup of 8 seats in the Senate also helped them gain control of the Senate. But the Republicans weren't done. Strong gains were made in the States as well with a pickup of 12 Governorships giving the Republicans the majority of State Governorships for the first time since 1972. They also gained a total of 472 seats across all of the State Legislatures thus gaining control of 20 State Legislatures from the Democrats and holding a majority of State Legislatures for the first time in 50 years. Republican voters wanted to extend this Revolution: they wanted control of the Presidency. Only with control of both houses and the Executive Branch could real change finally be made. While William J. Clinton won the 1996 campaign, it wasn't long before the Executive Branch was won back by the Republicans in 2000 with George W. Bush at the helm.
After the 2000 election, the dream of Republicans looked to be at hand, until GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001. The Senate switched to Republican control after the November 2002 elections, for the first time in decades giving the Republican party control of the federal government. From 2002-2006, the Republicans maintained clear majorities in the Legislative Branch and controlled the Executive Branch. The dream had arrived in its fullest form.
The dream ended in the 2006 elections, when Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans) and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats) as well as the majority of state governorships (28-22). This event may be seen as the end of the Republican Revolution. Maybe it ended before it started. During the twelve-year Revolution of the "party of limited government," the Federal budget shot up from$1.461 Trillion (1994) to $2.6 Trillion (2006).
Let's revisit the Contract With America. One would expect the Contract created by the party of limited government to have clear Constitutional support for each provision: not so. William F. Jasper wrote of the Contract's Constitutional shortcomings just months after it was signed, in a 1995 article entitled "Gingrich's Constitutional Con": http://thenewamerican.com/node/1527 Jasper brought to light provisions such as the "Take Back Our Streets Act." The Republicans felt more Federal money should be spent on beat cops in the nations cities rather than night basketball programs. First, the Contract is silent on the Constitutional support for Federal funding for state and local law enforcement efforts. Secondly, our allegedly small government brethren opted for a new, bloated series of Federal grants to pay for more beat cops. Of course it was sold as "Republicans tough on crime, Democrats weak." And many bought it. A Republican (the Old Right) of many decades ago would have stood up and stopped the unconstitutional flow of money to begin with and by doing so, lowered your taxes. Another example from "Gingrich's Constitutional Con" is the "The National Security Restoration Act." Among other things, it would have lowered U.S. funding of U.N. "peacekeeping" missions to 25% from 32%. Again, the Contract is silent on the Constitutional authority for funding an organization with roots in people like Alger Hiss, but merely sought to placate the Republican masses by reducing (likely temporarily) the funding. Note, that even if this was heralded as a great first step, there was no language questioning the legitimacy of placing U.S. troops or U.S. law under U.N. auspices.
Even an apologist from The Cato Institute, Stephen Moore, concedes that the Contract, on many counts, was a dismal failure, in his article from June, 2004 at www.cato.org titled "Contract Revisited." Moore, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and president of the Club for Growth, was a staff member for former Rep. Dick Armey (R-Tex.). "It is chic these days to criticize the Contract with America and write it off as a failed revolution. That would be a misreading of history." Really? Here is Mr. Moore being a bit more honest:
"Most impressive of all, the Contract with America budget called for eliminating three whole Cabinet departments: Education, Commerce and Energy... Perhaps Republicans over-promised, but in the end, politics triumphed over good fiscal common sense. Ten years later, most of the useless programs still flourish. Here are some disappointing examples:
The Americorps program has grown 181 percent and President Bush wants to expand it further.
The Education Department budget has almost tripled since 1995.
The Goals 2000 budget has grown from $231 million to $700 million.
The wool and mohair subsidy was terminated (hooray) but then resurrected by Congress in 1997 and now spends more money than ever.
Amtrak subsidies were supposed to be phased out entirely by the year 2000. But this year the railroad asked for a $2 billion bailout and Congress is likely to grant it."
Did politics triumph over good fiscal common sense? Or perhaps, as you will see later on from Irving Kristol, was this expansion of government largesse and increased encroachment on your freedom part of the plan all along?
The Grand Old (Spending) Party
The Wall Street Journal noted the recent presidents' average annual real increases in domestic discretionary spending:
Lyndon Johnson, fiscal years 1965-69, 4.3 percent
Richard Nixon, 1970-75, 6.8 percent
Gerald Ford, 1976-77, 8.0 percent
Jimmy Carter, 1978-81, 2.0 percent
Ronald Reagan, 1982-89, 1.3 percent decrease
G.H.W. Bush, 1990-93, 4.0 percent
Bill Clinton, 1994-2001, 2.5 percent
George W. Bush, 2002-04, 8.2 percent
(see also "The Grand Old Spending Party" at the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf
Taking a look at the list, I note the top 3 positions are occupied by Republicans. LBJ narrowly loses to Bush I for the fourth spot (That's four of five spots occupied by big government Republicans). The Heritage Foundation even chimed in on the question of the reality of spending by the Establisment parties:
"Conventional wisdom holds that non-defense discretionary spending has been cut to make room for defense spending increases. Conventional wisdom is wrong. According to OMB, non-defense discretionary outlays – adjusted for inflation – surged by 34 percent between 1999 and 2005. That is the largest six-year expansion since the 1970s. One way to compare current discretionary spending trends is by presidential administration:
Overall discretionary outlays rose 2.3 percent annually under President Clinton, compared to 9.7 percent annually under President Bush. Defense was
virtually frozen in nominal dollars under President Clinton, and has averaged 12 percent annual growth under President Bush. Non-defense discretionary
outlays rose 4 percent annually under President Clinton, versus 8 percent annually under President Bush.
Let me re-emphasize that last point: Non-defense discretionary spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton. Examples of
discretionary spending increases between 2001 and 2006 include the following:
Education is up 62 percent, or 10 percent annually; International affairs is up 74 percent, or 12 percent annually; Health research and regulation is up 57
percent, or 9 percent annually; Veterans’ benefits are up 46 percent, or 8 percent annually; Science and basic research is up 40 percent, or 7 percent annually. and Overall non-defense discretionary outlays are up 46 percent, or 7.8 percent annually."
HillaryCare vs. Medicare Part D
What began as an outcry against "HillaryCare" in Republican rhetoric turned into the enactment by the same Republicans of another leg of socialized medicine in Medicare Part D (the prescription drug expansion of Medicare orchestrated by Republicans in 2003). Who would have predicted that the smaller government, capitalist, market solution-oriented Party would bring us another step toward socialized medicine when they in fact controlled all three branches? Perhaps they thought we needed another unfunded multi-trillion dollar liability.
A November 2007 study by Columbia University found that the Medicare Part D drug plan cost $32 billion in 2006, its first year of existence. The study concluded that by 2015 the cost would accumulate to $797 billion. Frank Lichtenberg, a co-author of the study, stated: "Our findings do not necessarily mean that the Medicare Part D program is economically inefficient, because there are potential long-term health care savings when people can afford to take necessary medications. However, we need to think carefully about the economic implications of this program, which the federal government will ultimately have to raise taxes to pay for." (emphasis added) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/01/AR2007110101183.html
Of course the review of spending shows that it is not a phenomenon, as the Party would now have and desperately wants you to believe, of the last few Bush years. Indeed, the spending differences between Republicans and Democrats are negligible over many decades as you have seen.
Have voters for Republican candidates been able to depend on the Republican rhetoric that they represent smaller government, lower Constitutional spending, and free-market solutions? Even if we haven't been able to depend on Republicans to deliver Constitutional spending, smaller government, and lower future taxes, perhaps they have delivered in the Judiciary. In Part II of "Are Republicans Conservative?," we will explore the Supreme Court. It is the nomination of conservative Justices that many Republican voters pine for and point to in defense of their votes for, as we have learned in the preceding paragraphs, big-government Republicans.
(If you think a friend, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, would enjoy reading this, please send them the address for the blog http://wiconstitutionalist.blogspot.com/ or use the tool below (envelope with arrow) to send this article to a friend.) Knowledge grows when shared.
by Jeffrey Robbins
Introduction
As a Republican, do you find the positions and actions of your party increasingly difficult to defend in light of the principles upon which the party claims to continue to stand for, namely, limited government, non-interventionism, and laissez-faire capitalism? Do you find yourself "compromising" your principles election after election, justifying your vote for the party favorite as an earnest effort to avoid putting the next Clinton or Gore in power? The "lesser of two evils" mantra must ring a bell. Have you heard the Republican party-line that they simply "lost their way" during their four-year period of complete control of the federal government? Have you swallowed hard to make yourself believe it? Before you continue further down the path of Republican Party apologism, you owe it to yourself to read on and see how the pieces fit together, forming a far different picture than the one you believe you see.
It is particularly difficult to change the mind of Republican voters who maintain apologist stances in defense of their Party. You have certainly tried in vain to convince a Democrat that their Party ideals are bound to decline into Socialism or worse, Tyranny one day. At some point I imagine you told them that the government has no business being involved in what their Party proposes, that taxes are too high, that spending is too much, our Federal debt is unimaginable, etc. Since I have always operated in some form from the Right, I choose my words carefully and understand how difficult it may be to believe it when I say exactly the same thing to you: Your party's actions have led to socialism, and at worst may in fact lead to outright tyranny one day.
One quote still stands out to me in relation to the difficulty encountered as we begin such an argument. Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1897 said, “It is in the nature of a man’s mind. A thing which you enjoyed and used as your own for a long time, whether property or opinion, takes root in your being and cannot be torn away without your resenting the act and trying to defend yourself, however you came by it.” I speak from experience, as it was I, a Republican supporter of George H.W. Bush in 1990, who was first approached many years ago with the same proposition: post-World War II Republicans have come to share far more with Democrats in principle and action than either Party would care to admit or have widely known. I can say from experience that indeed, the first step is denial. I denied for many years, later took on casual study, and gradually as I built the study came to the same stunning conclusion. In fact, the difference between the Parties is not meaningful. The task before you, the study, the intellectual honesty required of you the reader, is within your ability I am certain. What you must set aside, albeit temporarily, is your allegiance (psychologically and philosophically) to what you believe is truly happening in government, which for years or perhaps many decades, have been imprinted and reinforced by nearly everyone and everything around you: the high school teachers, the professors you had in college, your friends who follow politics, Fox News, ABC, your favorite newspapers, the family members who enjoy discussing ideas, - all have very likely reinforced that there are differences between Democrats and Republicans worth arguing, debating, and fighting over. To them it is this conclusion that is not debatable. But here I sit, telling you quite the opposite.
It is my very sincere hope that for the future of our country you embark on this study yourself and ask difficult questions in pursuit of truth. I am not trying to win a debate here. No tricks to win a point. My pursuit herein is the truth and I ask the same of you. I present facts and evidence and after many books and pages read, stand firm that these facts and evidence point where I say they do. At a minimum, I appeal to your desire to hear a different viewpoint, to critique, discuss, and to learn. I do so in full realization that you are at stage one, denial.
The Contract With America - We Signed, They Didn't
Recall that in 1994 a Revolution swept the United States. It was called the Republican Revolution, complete with the "Contract With America." In January 1995, the change in power swept the Republicans to control the House for the first time in 40 years (from the 1952 election to 1954). In addition to the gain of 54 seats in the House, the pickup of 8 seats in the Senate also helped them gain control of the Senate. But the Republicans weren't done. Strong gains were made in the States as well with a pickup of 12 Governorships giving the Republicans the majority of State Governorships for the first time since 1972. They also gained a total of 472 seats across all of the State Legislatures thus gaining control of 20 State Legislatures from the Democrats and holding a majority of State Legislatures for the first time in 50 years. Republican voters wanted to extend this Revolution: they wanted control of the Presidency. Only with control of both houses and the Executive Branch could real change finally be made. While William J. Clinton won the 1996 campaign, it wasn't long before the Executive Branch was won back by the Republicans in 2000 with George W. Bush at the helm.
After the 2000 election, the dream of Republicans looked to be at hand, until GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001. The Senate switched to Republican control after the November 2002 elections, for the first time in decades giving the Republican party control of the federal government. From 2002-2006, the Republicans maintained clear majorities in the Legislative Branch and controlled the Executive Branch. The dream had arrived in its fullest form.
The dream ended in the 2006 elections, when Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans) and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats) as well as the majority of state governorships (28-22). This event may be seen as the end of the Republican Revolution. Maybe it ended before it started. During the twelve-year Revolution of the "party of limited government," the Federal budget shot up from$1.461 Trillion (1994) to $2.6 Trillion (2006).
Let's revisit the Contract With America. One would expect the Contract created by the party of limited government to have clear Constitutional support for each provision: not so. William F. Jasper wrote of the Contract's Constitutional shortcomings just months after it was signed, in a 1995 article entitled "Gingrich's Constitutional Con": http://thenewamerican.com/node/1527 Jasper brought to light provisions such as the "Take Back Our Streets Act." The Republicans felt more Federal money should be spent on beat cops in the nations cities rather than night basketball programs. First, the Contract is silent on the Constitutional support for Federal funding for state and local law enforcement efforts. Secondly, our allegedly small government brethren opted for a new, bloated series of Federal grants to pay for more beat cops. Of course it was sold as "Republicans tough on crime, Democrats weak." And many bought it. A Republican (the Old Right) of many decades ago would have stood up and stopped the unconstitutional flow of money to begin with and by doing so, lowered your taxes. Another example from "Gingrich's Constitutional Con" is the "The National Security Restoration Act." Among other things, it would have lowered U.S. funding of U.N. "peacekeeping" missions to 25% from 32%. Again, the Contract is silent on the Constitutional authority for funding an organization with roots in people like Alger Hiss, but merely sought to placate the Republican masses by reducing (likely temporarily) the funding. Note, that even if this was heralded as a great first step, there was no language questioning the legitimacy of placing U.S. troops or U.S. law under U.N. auspices.
Even an apologist from The Cato Institute, Stephen Moore, concedes that the Contract, on many counts, was a dismal failure, in his article from June, 2004 at www.cato.org titled "Contract Revisited." Moore, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and president of the Club for Growth, was a staff member for former Rep. Dick Armey (R-Tex.). "It is chic these days to criticize the Contract with America and write it off as a failed revolution. That would be a misreading of history." Really? Here is Mr. Moore being a bit more honest:
"Most impressive of all, the Contract with America budget called for eliminating three whole Cabinet departments: Education, Commerce and Energy... Perhaps Republicans over-promised, but in the end, politics triumphed over good fiscal common sense. Ten years later, most of the useless programs still flourish. Here are some disappointing examples:
The Americorps program has grown 181 percent and President Bush wants to expand it further.
The Education Department budget has almost tripled since 1995.
The Goals 2000 budget has grown from $231 million to $700 million.
The wool and mohair subsidy was terminated (hooray) but then resurrected by Congress in 1997 and now spends more money than ever.
Amtrak subsidies were supposed to be phased out entirely by the year 2000. But this year the railroad asked for a $2 billion bailout and Congress is likely to grant it."
Did politics triumph over good fiscal common sense? Or perhaps, as you will see later on from Irving Kristol, was this expansion of government largesse and increased encroachment on your freedom part of the plan all along?
The Grand Old (Spending) Party
The Wall Street Journal noted the recent presidents' average annual real increases in domestic discretionary spending:
Lyndon Johnson, fiscal years 1965-69, 4.3 percent
Richard Nixon, 1970-75, 6.8 percent
Gerald Ford, 1976-77, 8.0 percent
Jimmy Carter, 1978-81, 2.0 percent
Ronald Reagan, 1982-89, 1.3 percent decrease
G.H.W. Bush, 1990-93, 4.0 percent
Bill Clinton, 1994-2001, 2.5 percent
George W. Bush, 2002-04, 8.2 percent
(see also "The Grand Old Spending Party" at the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf
Taking a look at the list, I note the top 3 positions are occupied by Republicans. LBJ narrowly loses to Bush I for the fourth spot (That's four of five spots occupied by big government Republicans). The Heritage Foundation even chimed in on the question of the reality of spending by the Establisment parties:
"Conventional wisdom holds that non-defense discretionary spending has been cut to make room for defense spending increases. Conventional wisdom is wrong. According to OMB, non-defense discretionary outlays – adjusted for inflation – surged by 34 percent between 1999 and 2005. That is the largest six-year expansion since the 1970s. One way to compare current discretionary spending trends is by presidential administration:
Overall discretionary outlays rose 2.3 percent annually under President Clinton, compared to 9.7 percent annually under President Bush. Defense was
virtually frozen in nominal dollars under President Clinton, and has averaged 12 percent annual growth under President Bush. Non-defense discretionary
outlays rose 4 percent annually under President Clinton, versus 8 percent annually under President Bush.
Let me re-emphasize that last point: Non-defense discretionary spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton. Examples of
discretionary spending increases between 2001 and 2006 include the following:
Education is up 62 percent, or 10 percent annually; International affairs is up 74 percent, or 12 percent annually; Health research and regulation is up 57
percent, or 9 percent annually; Veterans’ benefits are up 46 percent, or 8 percent annually; Science and basic research is up 40 percent, or 7 percent annually. and Overall non-defense discretionary outlays are up 46 percent, or 7.8 percent annually."
HillaryCare vs. Medicare Part D
What began as an outcry against "HillaryCare" in Republican rhetoric turned into the enactment by the same Republicans of another leg of socialized medicine in Medicare Part D (the prescription drug expansion of Medicare orchestrated by Republicans in 2003). Who would have predicted that the smaller government, capitalist, market solution-oriented Party would bring us another step toward socialized medicine when they in fact controlled all three branches? Perhaps they thought we needed another unfunded multi-trillion dollar liability.
A November 2007 study by Columbia University found that the Medicare Part D drug plan cost $32 billion in 2006, its first year of existence. The study concluded that by 2015 the cost would accumulate to $797 billion. Frank Lichtenberg, a co-author of the study, stated: "Our findings do not necessarily mean that the Medicare Part D program is economically inefficient, because there are potential long-term health care savings when people can afford to take necessary medications. However, we need to think carefully about the economic implications of this program, which the federal government will ultimately have to raise taxes to pay for." (emphasis added) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/01/AR2007110101183.html
Of course the review of spending shows that it is not a phenomenon, as the Party would now have and desperately wants you to believe, of the last few Bush years. Indeed, the spending differences between Republicans and Democrats are negligible over many decades as you have seen.
Have voters for Republican candidates been able to depend on the Republican rhetoric that they represent smaller government, lower Constitutional spending, and free-market solutions? Even if we haven't been able to depend on Republicans to deliver Constitutional spending, smaller government, and lower future taxes, perhaps they have delivered in the Judiciary. In Part II of "Are Republicans Conservative?," we will explore the Supreme Court. It is the nomination of conservative Justices that many Republican voters pine for and point to in defense of their votes for, as we have learned in the preceding paragraphs, big-government Republicans.
(If you think a friend, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, would enjoy reading this, please send them the address for the blog http://wiconstitutionalist.blogspot.com/ or use the tool below (envelope with arrow) to send this article to a friend.) Knowledge grows when shared.
Are Republicans Conservative (Part III)
by Jeffrey Robbins
Part III of III
We hopefully find the reader by this point viewing the "accomplishments" of Republicans in all three branches as more open to debate than when we first started, willing to remain open to a different perspective, and wanting to learn even more. This article, in three parts, is meant only to serve as an appeal to the apologists of the Republican Party for genuine thought, reading, and study, outside of their normal scope. For other readers who see the political landscape for what it is and have already done demonstrable study in the proper areas, these articles hopefully serve to reinforce your considered beliefs.
Pumping Up the Presidency With Signing Statements
Surely the Republicans we elect would at least respect the rule of law put in place by Congress, and not attempt to skirt or rewrite that law at the Executive level. Let's look next at Republicans' history with signing statements. A signing statement is a written proclamation issued by a government's executive branch that accompanies the signing of a law passed by the government's legislature. Historically their main use is for rhetorical or political proclamations. An excellent primer article on signing statements by John W. Dean is here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
Bush's use of signing statements has raised eyebrows among legal and constitutional scholars alike. "There is an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing statements by President George W. Bush to modify the meaning of laws. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." (wikipedia.org) "Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Here is an excerpt from the Dean article cited above:
"Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements. His 2002 book, By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action, assesses the uses and abuses of signing statements by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Cooper has updated his material in a recent essay for the Presidential Studies Quarterly, to encompass the use of signing statements by now-President Bush as well.
By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.
That number may be approaching 600 challenges by now. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single bill, notwithstanding all these claims, in his own signing statements, that they are unconstitutional insofar as they relate to him.
Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.
Bush has quietly been using these statements to bolster presidential powers. It is a calculated, systematic scheme that has gone largely unnoticed (even though these statements are published in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents) until recently, when President Bush's used a signing statement to attempt to nullify the recent, controversial McCain amendment regarding torture, which drew some media attention.
Generally, Bush's signing statements tend to be brief and very broad, and they seldom cite the authority on which the president is relying for his reading of the law. None has yet been tested in court. But they do appear to be bulking up the powers of the presidency. Here are a few examples:
Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."
The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.
Or suppose a new law suggests even the slightest intrusion into the President's undefined "prerogative powers" under Article II of the Constitution, relating to national security, intelligence gathering, or law enforcement. Bush's signing statement will claim that notwithstanding the clear intent of Congress, which has used mandatory language, the provision will be considered as "advisory."
The upshot? It is as if Congress had acted as a mere advisor, with no more formal power than, say, Karl Rove - not as a coordinate and coequal branch of government, which in fact it is.
As Phillip Cooper observes, the President's signing statements are, in some instances, effectively rewriting the laws by reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Notably, Cooper finds some of Bush's signing statements - and he has the benefit of judging them against his extensive knowledge of other President's signing statements -- "excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational.""
More on Signing Statements
Edward Lazarus explores further in this article the use of singing statements in "interpreting away constraints on Executive Power." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20060105.html
Jennifer Van Bergen addressed signing statements in the broader context of the Bush's Administration's embrace of the so-called "unitary executive" concept, the claim that a president totally controls the executive branch and has standing equal to the courts in interpreting the constitution as it relates to his branch. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
I ask the reader to tell me now, what protection on freedom and the rule of law and personal rights have been protected by electing Republicans from the Establishment?
Conclusion
How does it happen then that the Republican Party finds itself morphed into a Leftist organization? How does a Party that once would have cautioned, as the Founders did, about fighting wars in foreign countries now advocate democratic change in other sovereign nations with hundreds of bases in foreign lands? The Department of Defense Fiscal 2007 Real Property Inventory lists 108,356 buildings on 823 foreign base sites in 39 foreign countries (see http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/BSR_2007_Baseline.pdf). Dare we do this down the barrel of a gun? At what point, if we are willing to commit atrocities abroad on citizens of other sovereign countries, have we lost the moral compass? What if China wanted regime change here and marched down our streets? Are the warnings of the Old Right, that militarism leads to loss of freedom and increasing big government bureaucracy at home accurate? Is $1 trillion and counting in Iraq worth it? How about estimates, albeit the worst ones, that 600,000-1.2 million Iraqi civilians have suffered the ultimate liberation - death? How about the well over 3,000 brave U.S. service men and women dead in the War? What of the 100,000 or more Serbs dead at the hands of the Bosnian Muslims that we ironically supported under George H.W. Bush and William Clinton? What of supporting Iraq vs. Iran in the 1980-1988 only to fight them just three years later and again now? I am sure you can recall on your own countless other foreign policy gaffes in the past 60+ years. Note too the general continuance of foreign policy from Democratic administration to Republican administration. Which Democratic frontrunner is advocating a full pullback from Iraq? What year was the Korean War? How many troops do we have inside that sovereign nation today?
Perhaps there is something to what much has been written about: Neoconservatives, who began appearing on the scene in the 1950's are intellectual heirs to Leon Trotsky - the Ukrainian-born Bolshevik revolutionary and Marxist theorist. Many have compared the neoconservatives and liberals willingness to go abroad and expand the military complex to Trotsky's belief in permanent revolution abroad and socialism at home (some modicum of economic growth is necessary to continue funding their worldview and therefore outright and total communism was not necessarily desired by Trotsky).
Irving Kristol, the "god-father" and one of the founders of neoconservatism, stated five basic policies of neoconservatism that distinguish it from other "movements" or "persuasions". These policies, he claimed, "result in popular Republican presidencies":
Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."
Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."
Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservatives in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."
Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."
National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."
If you read those five carefully, it should sound familiar. We are living it. Indeed, a careful study of the Old Right versus what has been sold as Conservatism over the past few decades will show you there was a hijacking and no one told you. Or we didn't listen. Or we didn't bother reading to find out. This article has been just the tip of the iceberg. I hope you don't stop here.
Next Steps?
If this article struck any chord whatsoever, what can you do?
Continue to educate yourself. A great place to start is The New American magazine. They have a great online archive, search tool, and topic index. http://www.thenewamerican.com/
Check to see how your Senators and Representatives actually vote. You are likely to be surprised how few Congressmen and Congresswomen actually uphold the oaths they took, ignoring (or ignorant?) of the Constitution, voting you into citizenship within a Socialist state at best, in spite of their campaign rhetoric. Learn to separate their rhetoric from their actual voting record. For a comprehensive 10-page review of the 109th Congress, please visit: http://thenewamerican.com/files/ci-109-4.pdf
For a look at the current 110th Congress please visit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/fi-110-1.pdf
These Indexes of Congressional votes are complete with a brief summary of the bill. A "+" after your Congressman's name was a vote which is consistent with a strict Constitutionalist view. A "-" is a vote recorded as inconsistent with the Constitution. Please keep in mind that attention to your Congressmen is more important in many ways due to their legislative means.
When you vote for someone at the local, state, or federal level and with your new knowledge, you begin to realize they are consistently voting for unconstitutional items, hold their feet to the fire. Contact their office by phone, email, or mail. If your Representatives or Senators make trips back to your home state for "town hall meetings" or such, go, and ask the hard questions. Why continue to allow them to pose as conservatives when we all know better?
As you continually discover, you may well want to increase and expand your learning to books to learn such things as how the United Nations came to be, what happened to Old Right Conservatism, the history of the EU and what is the NAU (the "North American Union," in store for the U.S. based on the European Union concept), and gain a truer understanding of liberty and why you have seen it consistently withered by both Parties despite your votes for "small-government" Republicans. These are just a few of many examples. You may also consider getting together like-minded true conservatives and run for office.
We must only support people who are committed to defending and preserving constitutional government. A socialist Republican is no better than a socialist Democrat. Why believe that electing big-government Republicans is a genuine alternative to electing big-government Democrats?
(If you think a friend, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, would enjoy reading this, please send them the address for the blog http://wiconstitutionalist.blogspot.com/ or use the tool below (envelope with arrow) to send this article to a friend.) Knowledge grows when shared.
Part III of III
We hopefully find the reader by this point viewing the "accomplishments" of Republicans in all three branches as more open to debate than when we first started, willing to remain open to a different perspective, and wanting to learn even more. This article, in three parts, is meant only to serve as an appeal to the apologists of the Republican Party for genuine thought, reading, and study, outside of their normal scope. For other readers who see the political landscape for what it is and have already done demonstrable study in the proper areas, these articles hopefully serve to reinforce your considered beliefs.
Pumping Up the Presidency With Signing Statements
Surely the Republicans we elect would at least respect the rule of law put in place by Congress, and not attempt to skirt or rewrite that law at the Executive level. Let's look next at Republicans' history with signing statements. A signing statement is a written proclamation issued by a government's executive branch that accompanies the signing of a law passed by the government's legislature. Historically their main use is for rhetorical or political proclamations. An excellent primer article on signing statements by John W. Dean is here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
Bush's use of signing statements has raised eyebrows among legal and constitutional scholars alike. "There is an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing statements by President George W. Bush to modify the meaning of laws. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." (wikipedia.org) "Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Here is an excerpt from the Dean article cited above:
"Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements. His 2002 book, By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action, assesses the uses and abuses of signing statements by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Cooper has updated his material in a recent essay for the Presidential Studies Quarterly, to encompass the use of signing statements by now-President Bush as well.
By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.
That number may be approaching 600 challenges by now. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single bill, notwithstanding all these claims, in his own signing statements, that they are unconstitutional insofar as they relate to him.
Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.
Bush has quietly been using these statements to bolster presidential powers. It is a calculated, systematic scheme that has gone largely unnoticed (even though these statements are published in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents) until recently, when President Bush's used a signing statement to attempt to nullify the recent, controversial McCain amendment regarding torture, which drew some media attention.
Generally, Bush's signing statements tend to be brief and very broad, and they seldom cite the authority on which the president is relying for his reading of the law. None has yet been tested in court. But they do appear to be bulking up the powers of the presidency. Here are a few examples:
Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."
The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.
Or suppose a new law suggests even the slightest intrusion into the President's undefined "prerogative powers" under Article II of the Constitution, relating to national security, intelligence gathering, or law enforcement. Bush's signing statement will claim that notwithstanding the clear intent of Congress, which has used mandatory language, the provision will be considered as "advisory."
The upshot? It is as if Congress had acted as a mere advisor, with no more formal power than, say, Karl Rove - not as a coordinate and coequal branch of government, which in fact it is.
As Phillip Cooper observes, the President's signing statements are, in some instances, effectively rewriting the laws by reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Notably, Cooper finds some of Bush's signing statements - and he has the benefit of judging them against his extensive knowledge of other President's signing statements -- "excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational.""
More on Signing Statements
Edward Lazarus explores further in this article the use of singing statements in "interpreting away constraints on Executive Power." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20060105.html
Jennifer Van Bergen addressed signing statements in the broader context of the Bush's Administration's embrace of the so-called "unitary executive" concept, the claim that a president totally controls the executive branch and has standing equal to the courts in interpreting the constitution as it relates to his branch. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
I ask the reader to tell me now, what protection on freedom and the rule of law and personal rights have been protected by electing Republicans from the Establishment?
Conclusion
How does it happen then that the Republican Party finds itself morphed into a Leftist organization? How does a Party that once would have cautioned, as the Founders did, about fighting wars in foreign countries now advocate democratic change in other sovereign nations with hundreds of bases in foreign lands? The Department of Defense Fiscal 2007 Real Property Inventory lists 108,356 buildings on 823 foreign base sites in 39 foreign countries (see http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/BSR_2007_Baseline.pdf). Dare we do this down the barrel of a gun? At what point, if we are willing to commit atrocities abroad on citizens of other sovereign countries, have we lost the moral compass? What if China wanted regime change here and marched down our streets? Are the warnings of the Old Right, that militarism leads to loss of freedom and increasing big government bureaucracy at home accurate? Is $1 trillion and counting in Iraq worth it? How about estimates, albeit the worst ones, that 600,000-1.2 million Iraqi civilians have suffered the ultimate liberation - death? How about the well over 3,000 brave U.S. service men and women dead in the War? What of the 100,000 or more Serbs dead at the hands of the Bosnian Muslims that we ironically supported under George H.W. Bush and William Clinton? What of supporting Iraq vs. Iran in the 1980-1988 only to fight them just three years later and again now? I am sure you can recall on your own countless other foreign policy gaffes in the past 60+ years. Note too the general continuance of foreign policy from Democratic administration to Republican administration. Which Democratic frontrunner is advocating a full pullback from Iraq? What year was the Korean War? How many troops do we have inside that sovereign nation today?
Perhaps there is something to what much has been written about: Neoconservatives, who began appearing on the scene in the 1950's are intellectual heirs to Leon Trotsky - the Ukrainian-born Bolshevik revolutionary and Marxist theorist. Many have compared the neoconservatives and liberals willingness to go abroad and expand the military complex to Trotsky's belief in permanent revolution abroad and socialism at home (some modicum of economic growth is necessary to continue funding their worldview and therefore outright and total communism was not necessarily desired by Trotsky).
Irving Kristol, the "god-father" and one of the founders of neoconservatism, stated five basic policies of neoconservatism that distinguish it from other "movements" or "persuasions". These policies, he claimed, "result in popular Republican presidencies":
Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."
Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."
Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservatives in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."
Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."
National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."
If you read those five carefully, it should sound familiar. We are living it. Indeed, a careful study of the Old Right versus what has been sold as Conservatism over the past few decades will show you there was a hijacking and no one told you. Or we didn't listen. Or we didn't bother reading to find out. This article has been just the tip of the iceberg. I hope you don't stop here.
Next Steps?
If this article struck any chord whatsoever, what can you do?
Continue to educate yourself. A great place to start is The New American magazine. They have a great online archive, search tool, and topic index. http://www.thenewamerican.com/
Check to see how your Senators and Representatives actually vote. You are likely to be surprised how few Congressmen and Congresswomen actually uphold the oaths they took, ignoring (or ignorant?) of the Constitution, voting you into citizenship within a Socialist state at best, in spite of their campaign rhetoric. Learn to separate their rhetoric from their actual voting record. For a comprehensive 10-page review of the 109th Congress, please visit: http://thenewamerican.com/files/ci-109-4.pdf
For a look at the current 110th Congress please visit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/fi-110-1.pdf
These Indexes of Congressional votes are complete with a brief summary of the bill. A "+" after your Congressman's name was a vote which is consistent with a strict Constitutionalist view. A "-" is a vote recorded as inconsistent with the Constitution. Please keep in mind that attention to your Congressmen is more important in many ways due to their legislative means.
When you vote for someone at the local, state, or federal level and with your new knowledge, you begin to realize they are consistently voting for unconstitutional items, hold their feet to the fire. Contact their office by phone, email, or mail. If your Representatives or Senators make trips back to your home state for "town hall meetings" or such, go, and ask the hard questions. Why continue to allow them to pose as conservatives when we all know better?
As you continually discover, you may well want to increase and expand your learning to books to learn such things as how the United Nations came to be, what happened to Old Right Conservatism, the history of the EU and what is the NAU (the "North American Union," in store for the U.S. based on the European Union concept), and gain a truer understanding of liberty and why you have seen it consistently withered by both Parties despite your votes for "small-government" Republicans. These are just a few of many examples. You may also consider getting together like-minded true conservatives and run for office.
We must only support people who are committed to defending and preserving constitutional government. A socialist Republican is no better than a socialist Democrat. Why believe that electing big-government Republicans is a genuine alternative to electing big-government Democrats?
(If you think a friend, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, would enjoy reading this, please send them the address for the blog http://wiconstitutionalist.blogspot.com/ or use the tool below (envelope with arrow) to send this article to a friend.) Knowledge grows when shared.
Are Republicans Conservative? (Part II)
Part II of III
by Jeffrey Robbins
In Part One we used domestic discretionary spending as our metric and discovered that when the dream came of both the Legislative and Executive branches being controlled by their Party, the Republicans grew government faster than the Democrats had been able to when they controlled both the Legislature and Executive branch. Let's now turn our attention to the Judiciary Branch.
The Supreme Court - Republican Nominees Without Conservatives
"But even if the Republicans are big spenders, we need to elect someone who will appoint conservative judges," says the apologist. Among the Justices serving on the Court during the Republican Revolution, how many were put on the bench by Republicans and how many by Democrats? The Supreme Court composition from 1994-2005 was William J. Rehnquist (Richard Nixon), John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford), Sandra Day O'Connor (Ronald Reagan), Antonin Scalia (Ronald Reagan), Anthony Kennedy (Ronald Reagan), David Souter (George H.W. Bush), Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (William Clinton), and Stephen Breyer (William Clinton). During the time of the Republican Revolution, we see that the Republicans had more of "their guys" on the Supreme Court than the Democrats by a 7-2 margin.
Yet, in the eyes of many, the Court was known to be "evenly divided" in this period, perhaps with a slight conservative slant. The well-known conservative block consisted of Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas; the liberals were Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter; with Stevens, O'Conner, and Kennedy being the "moderates." Are we to believe that the Republican Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush were unaware that the Justices they were nominating were "moderate" at best, and often part of the liberal voting block? One would think, if this reason to vote for the Republicans holds water, the exclamation would be, "Look! We have been able to nominate 7 conservative Justices." Yet, if the Establishment Republicans couldn't get it right on 5 of 7 tries, are we really getting what we are voting for by voting for Republican Presidents?
By my count, as far back as the early Warren Burger Court in 1970-1971, Republican nominated Justices have held at least a 5-4 margin over Justices nominated by Democrats. Even as far back as the 1981-1986 Warren Burger Court, the Republican nominees had a firm 7-2 lead over nominees to the Court by Democrats. To a large extent, the Jury, so to speak, remains out on George W. Bush nominated Justices Samual Alito and John Roberts. They replace Rehnquist and O'Conner, thus maintaining the 7-2 margin.
In sum, given a nearly forty year run of more Republican nominated Justices sitting versus Democrat nominated Justices, which direction has the slope pointed?
I have heard it said that even if the Establishment Republicans are big government spenders at best, it will be worth their continued election for the Supreme Court nominations they are able to make. First, the statistics above certainly cast doubt on the ability of Republican Presidents to carry out their voters' wishes. Second, the statement of relative worth waves the white flag on the issues of unconstitutional spending, the addition of trillions of dollars (Trillions!) in unfunded liabilities on the back of U.S. taxpayers, the further encroachment into education by the federal government, government spending increasing far greater than inflation, another illegal war, to name just a few, are worth it, all in the name of getting some nominees that history (we have just learned) shows us might be conservative.
I could ask a simpler question. We can see that during this entire time period of 1994-2006, all three branches of the federal government, the Executive, the Legislative, and now, the Judicial Branch, have been put in power by Republican voters seeking conservative principles, who favor smaller government, individual rights, and defense of the Constitution. The result? Who among us believes our federal government has shrunk as a result of less spending, our state has less debt, we count on lower future taxes due to the reduction in future unconstitutional liabilities, and that our freedom has been resolutely expanded? Anyone? A truly unusual event when our allegedly capitalistic, limited-government, Constitutionalists have controlled most of the federal government for twelve years.
The Rollback of Judicial Activism?
What significant Constitutional precedents could be pointed to given the long run of a Supreme Court dominated by Justices nominated by Republicans? In "Has the Court Moved Right?" http://thenewamerican.com/node/4822 the author cites a New York Times article which observes that the new Court, while heralded as "the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that liberals feared," has managed to overturn only three precedential opinions, two of which related to missed filing deadlines.
The article continues: "...when ruling on federal environmental controls in Massachusetts v. EPA, none of the “conservative” justices questioned the constitutionality of the federal Clean Air Act. It was a golden opportunity to declare that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to regulate the environment. Not a single justice addressed that opportunity. In fact, in a 5-4 decision a majority of them concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency not only possessed the authority to regulate greenhouse gases in auto emissions but must regulate those gases unless it provided a scientific basis for not regulating."
"The court’s 5-4 decision against partial-birth abortion is viewed as a swing to the right. But this ruling must be kept in perspective: it kept on the books a federal law against a form of infanticide (killing a baby while in the process of being born) without challenging the infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand."
Abortion
Pro-choice and Republican voters believe that if only more pro-choice Conservatives are able to be placed on the Supreme Court, the Court could then overturn Roe v. Wade at the Federal level, at the very least throwing the power back to the States. However, a look at the Roe v. Wade Court itself compels one to a different conclusion. The vast majority of voters likely believe as I once did that the Roe v. Wade Court comprised itself of mostly holdovers from FDR, JFK, and LBJ. Yet, at the time of Roe v. Wade, the number of Republican-nominated Justices outnumbered Democrat-nominated Justices by a 5-4 margin. In fact, in spite of the 5-4 margin enjoyed by Republican nominated "conservatives" the vote itself was 7-2, with only Rehnquist (Nixon) and White (JFK) dissenting. Yet, how many millions of pro-life citizens of any Party affiliation have cast votes for Republican presidential candidates and senators using the abortion issue as a litmus test? Indeed, it is arguably the largest question of contention during confirmation hearings and a prominent question if running for legislative office at virtually any level of government. Perhaps it is time for voters who vote strongly Republican due to this issue to rethink voting blindly based on their candidates rhetoric, without looking at the results such candidates have achieved.
Others, including author, talk-radio host, and pastor Chuck Baldwin have asserted that the vast majority of Republicans are full of hot air when they make claim to their pro-life stance. An article Mr. Baldwin wrote on the topic can be found here: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071130.html
In the article Baldwin points out a piece of legislation introduced by Ron Paul (R-TX), the Sanctity of Life Act. In introducing the legislation in 2005 and 2007, Rep. Paul is recognizing a check on the Judiciary provided for in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The bill would recognize that life begins at conception and as such nullify the Roe v. Wade decision throwing the authority back the each individual State to decide. Among all the so-called pro-life Republicans in the House, how many came out with Ron Paul to sign as a co-sponsor? Four. Did pro-life McCain, a very senior Senate member, push to introduce it in the Senate? Why in 2005, with the Legislature resolutely in control of the Republicans did a Bill seemingly this important to their constituency and these Republican lawmakers not even make it out of sub-committee for a vote?
Rise of the Justice Department, the Decline of Freedom
It also occurs to me that another important cog (and all too often ignored in the discussion of Courts and the law) to consider is that position which comes with the job description of "chief law enforcement officer of the United States government" - the U.S. Attorney General. First up, John Ashcroft, George W. Bush's nominee. Surely a Republican U.S. Attorney General would uphold the Republican principles of limiting government intrusion into the personal lives of U.S. citizens. Yet, Attorney General Ashcroft spent countless hours promoting the Patriot Act during his tenure. If you are not already familiar with the gross suspensions of personal liberties that the Patriot Act allows, Ron Paul (R-TX) provided the following summary on May 2, 2005:
"Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.
The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.
The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications. I wonder how my congressional colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.”
It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security."
In sum, the Patriot Act, among other things:
Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and
Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.
For more on the dangers inherent in the Patriot Act, please read two articles:
"Ashcroft's Reign of Terror"
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2020 ("This man is the harbinger of the American Counterrevolution: the liberties the patriots of 1776 fought and died to establish are being systematically disestablished by John Ashcroft, a Torquemada for our times.")
and
"Why Ashcroft Must Go"
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2667 (How the Patriot Act was used against Brandon Mayfield. "Using the power granted them by the "PATRIOT" Act, FBI agents broke into his house and conducted a search in his absence, rifling through his kids' Spanish homework, and leaving the doors double-bolted - which immediately alerted the Mayfield family that someone had been on the premises.")
Et tu Alberto?
Let's move on to Alberto Gonzales, the next George W. Bush appointee, who came close to impeachment proceedings, at least in part due to his role in the dismissal of seven US Attorneys from the US Department of Justice. Gonzales compounded his problems when he was frequently caught in inconsistent testimony as well as demonstrating a remarkably poor memory in regards to the matter.
From the Wikipedia.org entry on Alberto Gonzales: On January 18, 2007, Gonzales was invited to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he shocked the committee's ranking member, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, with statements regarding the right of habeas corpus in the United States Constitution. Habeas Corpus is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The right of habeas corpus - or rather, the right to petition for the writ - has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. An excerpt of the Spector-Gonzales exchange follows:
GONZALES: The fact that the Constitution—again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme—
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
Senator Specter was referring to 2nd Clause of Section 9 of Article One of the Constitution of the United States which reads: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This passage has been historically interpreted to mean that the right of habeas corpus is inherently established.
As Robert Parry writes in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel:
"Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the Constitution’s granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment…"
Further controversy over Gonzales ensued when it was revealed that the National Security Agency, the U.S. government's cryptologic intelligence agency, was engaged in eavesdropping of U.S. citizens without proper warrants. Problems continued with Executive Order 13233, drafted by Gonzales and issued by George W. Bush on November 1, 2001 shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, attempted to place limitations on the Freedom of Information Act by restricting access to the records of former presidents.
In Part III we will explore the further consolidation of power in the Executive with a tool called signing statements. The use of signing statements began in earnest with President Ronald Reagan, quickened under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton, and have flourished under George W. Bush. As they have often been used over recent decades, will they prove to our reader a tool for conservative, Constitutional governance? Part III will push us to some conclusions and also, I hope, a beginning for some of the readers.
(If you think a friend, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, would enjoy reading this, please send them the address for the blog http://wiconstitutionalist.blogspot.com/ or use the tool below (envelope with arrow) to send this article to a friend.) Knowledge grows when shared.
by Jeffrey Robbins
In Part One we used domestic discretionary spending as our metric and discovered that when the dream came of both the Legislative and Executive branches being controlled by their Party, the Republicans grew government faster than the Democrats had been able to when they controlled both the Legislature and Executive branch. Let's now turn our attention to the Judiciary Branch.
The Supreme Court - Republican Nominees Without Conservatives
"But even if the Republicans are big spenders, we need to elect someone who will appoint conservative judges," says the apologist. Among the Justices serving on the Court during the Republican Revolution, how many were put on the bench by Republicans and how many by Democrats? The Supreme Court composition from 1994-2005 was William J. Rehnquist (Richard Nixon), John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford), Sandra Day O'Connor (Ronald Reagan), Antonin Scalia (Ronald Reagan), Anthony Kennedy (Ronald Reagan), David Souter (George H.W. Bush), Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (William Clinton), and Stephen Breyer (William Clinton). During the time of the Republican Revolution, we see that the Republicans had more of "their guys" on the Supreme Court than the Democrats by a 7-2 margin.
Yet, in the eyes of many, the Court was known to be "evenly divided" in this period, perhaps with a slight conservative slant. The well-known conservative block consisted of Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas; the liberals were Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter; with Stevens, O'Conner, and Kennedy being the "moderates." Are we to believe that the Republican Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush were unaware that the Justices they were nominating were "moderate" at best, and often part of the liberal voting block? One would think, if this reason to vote for the Republicans holds water, the exclamation would be, "Look! We have been able to nominate 7 conservative Justices." Yet, if the Establishment Republicans couldn't get it right on 5 of 7 tries, are we really getting what we are voting for by voting for Republican Presidents?
By my count, as far back as the early Warren Burger Court in 1970-1971, Republican nominated Justices have held at least a 5-4 margin over Justices nominated by Democrats. Even as far back as the 1981-1986 Warren Burger Court, the Republican nominees had a firm 7-2 lead over nominees to the Court by Democrats. To a large extent, the Jury, so to speak, remains out on George W. Bush nominated Justices Samual Alito and John Roberts. They replace Rehnquist and O'Conner, thus maintaining the 7-2 margin.
In sum, given a nearly forty year run of more Republican nominated Justices sitting versus Democrat nominated Justices, which direction has the slope pointed?
I have heard it said that even if the Establishment Republicans are big government spenders at best, it will be worth their continued election for the Supreme Court nominations they are able to make. First, the statistics above certainly cast doubt on the ability of Republican Presidents to carry out their voters' wishes. Second, the statement of relative worth waves the white flag on the issues of unconstitutional spending, the addition of trillions of dollars (Trillions!) in unfunded liabilities on the back of U.S. taxpayers, the further encroachment into education by the federal government, government spending increasing far greater than inflation, another illegal war, to name just a few, are worth it, all in the name of getting some nominees that history (we have just learned) shows us might be conservative.
I could ask a simpler question. We can see that during this entire time period of 1994-2006, all three branches of the federal government, the Executive, the Legislative, and now, the Judicial Branch, have been put in power by Republican voters seeking conservative principles, who favor smaller government, individual rights, and defense of the Constitution. The result? Who among us believes our federal government has shrunk as a result of less spending, our state has less debt, we count on lower future taxes due to the reduction in future unconstitutional liabilities, and that our freedom has been resolutely expanded? Anyone? A truly unusual event when our allegedly capitalistic, limited-government, Constitutionalists have controlled most of the federal government for twelve years.
The Rollback of Judicial Activism?
What significant Constitutional precedents could be pointed to given the long run of a Supreme Court dominated by Justices nominated by Republicans? In "Has the Court Moved Right?" http://thenewamerican.com/node/4822 the author cites a New York Times article which observes that the new Court, while heralded as "the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that liberals feared," has managed to overturn only three precedential opinions, two of which related to missed filing deadlines.
The article continues: "...when ruling on federal environmental controls in Massachusetts v. EPA, none of the “conservative” justices questioned the constitutionality of the federal Clean Air Act. It was a golden opportunity to declare that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to regulate the environment. Not a single justice addressed that opportunity. In fact, in a 5-4 decision a majority of them concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency not only possessed the authority to regulate greenhouse gases in auto emissions but must regulate those gases unless it provided a scientific basis for not regulating."
"The court’s 5-4 decision against partial-birth abortion is viewed as a swing to the right. But this ruling must be kept in perspective: it kept on the books a federal law against a form of infanticide (killing a baby while in the process of being born) without challenging the infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand."
Abortion
Pro-choice and Republican voters believe that if only more pro-choice Conservatives are able to be placed on the Supreme Court, the Court could then overturn Roe v. Wade at the Federal level, at the very least throwing the power back to the States. However, a look at the Roe v. Wade Court itself compels one to a different conclusion. The vast majority of voters likely believe as I once did that the Roe v. Wade Court comprised itself of mostly holdovers from FDR, JFK, and LBJ. Yet, at the time of Roe v. Wade, the number of Republican-nominated Justices outnumbered Democrat-nominated Justices by a 5-4 margin. In fact, in spite of the 5-4 margin enjoyed by Republican nominated "conservatives" the vote itself was 7-2, with only Rehnquist (Nixon) and White (JFK) dissenting. Yet, how many millions of pro-life citizens of any Party affiliation have cast votes for Republican presidential candidates and senators using the abortion issue as a litmus test? Indeed, it is arguably the largest question of contention during confirmation hearings and a prominent question if running for legislative office at virtually any level of government. Perhaps it is time for voters who vote strongly Republican due to this issue to rethink voting blindly based on their candidates rhetoric, without looking at the results such candidates have achieved.
Others, including author, talk-radio host, and pastor Chuck Baldwin have asserted that the vast majority of Republicans are full of hot air when they make claim to their pro-life stance. An article Mr. Baldwin wrote on the topic can be found here: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071130.html
In the article Baldwin points out a piece of legislation introduced by Ron Paul (R-TX), the Sanctity of Life Act. In introducing the legislation in 2005 and 2007, Rep. Paul is recognizing a check on the Judiciary provided for in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The bill would recognize that life begins at conception and as such nullify the Roe v. Wade decision throwing the authority back the each individual State to decide. Among all the so-called pro-life Republicans in the House, how many came out with Ron Paul to sign as a co-sponsor? Four. Did pro-life McCain, a very senior Senate member, push to introduce it in the Senate? Why in 2005, with the Legislature resolutely in control of the Republicans did a Bill seemingly this important to their constituency and these Republican lawmakers not even make it out of sub-committee for a vote?
Rise of the Justice Department, the Decline of Freedom
It also occurs to me that another important cog (and all too often ignored in the discussion of Courts and the law) to consider is that position which comes with the job description of "chief law enforcement officer of the United States government" - the U.S. Attorney General. First up, John Ashcroft, George W. Bush's nominee. Surely a Republican U.S. Attorney General would uphold the Republican principles of limiting government intrusion into the personal lives of U.S. citizens. Yet, Attorney General Ashcroft spent countless hours promoting the Patriot Act during his tenure. If you are not already familiar with the gross suspensions of personal liberties that the Patriot Act allows, Ron Paul (R-TX) provided the following summary on May 2, 2005:
"Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.
The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.
The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications. I wonder how my congressional colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.”
It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security."
In sum, the Patriot Act, among other things:
Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and
Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.
For more on the dangers inherent in the Patriot Act, please read two articles:
"Ashcroft's Reign of Terror"
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2020 ("This man is the harbinger of the American Counterrevolution: the liberties the patriots of 1776 fought and died to establish are being systematically disestablished by John Ashcroft, a Torquemada for our times.")
and
"Why Ashcroft Must Go"
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2667 (How the Patriot Act was used against Brandon Mayfield. "Using the power granted them by the "PATRIOT" Act, FBI agents broke into his house and conducted a search in his absence, rifling through his kids' Spanish homework, and leaving the doors double-bolted - which immediately alerted the Mayfield family that someone had been on the premises.")
Et tu Alberto?
Let's move on to Alberto Gonzales, the next George W. Bush appointee, who came close to impeachment proceedings, at least in part due to his role in the dismissal of seven US Attorneys from the US Department of Justice. Gonzales compounded his problems when he was frequently caught in inconsistent testimony as well as demonstrating a remarkably poor memory in regards to the matter.
From the Wikipedia.org entry on Alberto Gonzales: On January 18, 2007, Gonzales was invited to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he shocked the committee's ranking member, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, with statements regarding the right of habeas corpus in the United States Constitution. Habeas Corpus is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The right of habeas corpus - or rather, the right to petition for the writ - has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. An excerpt of the Spector-Gonzales exchange follows:
GONZALES: The fact that the Constitution—again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme—
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
Senator Specter was referring to 2nd Clause of Section 9 of Article One of the Constitution of the United States which reads: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This passage has been historically interpreted to mean that the right of habeas corpus is inherently established.
As Robert Parry writes in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel:
"Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the Constitution’s granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment…"
Further controversy over Gonzales ensued when it was revealed that the National Security Agency, the U.S. government's cryptologic intelligence agency, was engaged in eavesdropping of U.S. citizens without proper warrants. Problems continued with Executive Order 13233, drafted by Gonzales and issued by George W. Bush on November 1, 2001 shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, attempted to place limitations on the Freedom of Information Act by restricting access to the records of former presidents.
In Part III we will explore the further consolidation of power in the Executive with a tool called signing statements. The use of signing statements began in earnest with President Ronald Reagan, quickened under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton, and have flourished under George W. Bush. As they have often been used over recent decades, will they prove to our reader a tool for conservative, Constitutional governance? Part III will push us to some conclusions and also, I hope, a beginning for some of the readers.
(If you think a friend, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, would enjoy reading this, please send them the address for the blog http://wiconstitutionalist.blogspot.com/ or use the tool below (envelope with arrow) to send this article to a friend.) Knowledge grows when shared.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Ex-Mexican prez: 'Amero' on the way
Vicente Fox confirms long-term deal worked out with President Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 9, 2007
1:15 p.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Ex-Mexican President Vicente Fox last night on CNN
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox confirmed the existence of a plan conceived with President Bush to create a new regional currency in the Americas, in an interview last night on CNN's "Larry King Live."
It possibly was the first time a leader of Mexico, Canada or the U.S. openly confirmed a plan for a regional currency. Fox explained the current regional trade agreement that encompasses the Western Hemisphere is intended to evolve into other previously hidden aspects of integration.
According to a transcript published by CNN, King, near the end of the broadcast, asked Fox a question e-mailed from a listener, a Ms. Gonzalez from Elizabeth, N.J.: "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"
Fox answered in the affirmative, indicating it was a long-term plan. He admitted he and President Bush had agreed to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas – a free-trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere, suggesting part of the plan was to institute eventually a regional currency.
"Long term, very long term," he said. "What we proposed together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all the Americas."
ALCA is the acronym for the Area de Libre Comercio de las Américas, the name of the FTAA in Spanish.
King, evidently startled by Fox's revelation of the currency, asked pointedly, "It's going to be like the euro dollar (sic), you mean?"
"Well, that would be long, long term," Fox repeated.
Fox noted the FTAA plan had been thwarted by Hugo Chavez, the radical socialist president of Venezuela.
"Everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came," Fox commented. "He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea."
Fox explained that he and Bush intended to proceed incrementally, establishing FTAA as an economic agreement first and waiting to create an amero-type currency later – a plan he also suggested was in place for NAFTA itself.
"I think the process to go, first step is trading agreement," Fox said. "And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA."
Fox's reply to the CNN viewer was captured in a clip posted on YouTube.com. CNN posted video of the interview but did not include the segment with questions from viewers.
Last week, WND reported BankIntroductions.com, a Canadian company that specializes in global banking strategies and currency consulting, is advising clients the amero may be the currency of North America within 10 years.
Coin designer Daniel Carr has issued for sale a series of private-issue fantasy pattern amero coins that have drawn attention on the Internet.
WND also reported the African Union is moving down the path of regional economic integration, with the African Central Bank planning to create the "Gold Mandela" as a single African continental currency by 2010.
The Council on Foreign Relations has supported regional and global currencies designed to replace nationally issued currencies.
In an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled "The End of National Currency," CFR economist Benn Steil asserts the dollar is a temporary currency.
Steil concluded "countries should abandon monetary nationalism," moving to adopt regional currencies, on the road to a global "one world currency."
WND previously reported Steve Previs, a vice president at Jeffries International Ltd. in London, said the amero "is the proposed new currency for the North American Community which is being developed right now between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico."
A video clip of the CNBC interview in November with Jeffries is now available at YouTube.com.
WND also has reported a continued slide in the value of the dollar on world currency markets could set up conditions in which the adoption of the amero as a North American currency gains momentum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 9, 2007
1:15 p.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Ex-Mexican President Vicente Fox last night on CNN
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox confirmed the existence of a plan conceived with President Bush to create a new regional currency in the Americas, in an interview last night on CNN's "Larry King Live."
It possibly was the first time a leader of Mexico, Canada or the U.S. openly confirmed a plan for a regional currency. Fox explained the current regional trade agreement that encompasses the Western Hemisphere is intended to evolve into other previously hidden aspects of integration.
According to a transcript published by CNN, King, near the end of the broadcast, asked Fox a question e-mailed from a listener, a Ms. Gonzalez from Elizabeth, N.J.: "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"
Fox answered in the affirmative, indicating it was a long-term plan. He admitted he and President Bush had agreed to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas – a free-trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere, suggesting part of the plan was to institute eventually a regional currency.
"Long term, very long term," he said. "What we proposed together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all the Americas."
ALCA is the acronym for the Area de Libre Comercio de las Américas, the name of the FTAA in Spanish.
King, evidently startled by Fox's revelation of the currency, asked pointedly, "It's going to be like the euro dollar (sic), you mean?"
"Well, that would be long, long term," Fox repeated.
Fox noted the FTAA plan had been thwarted by Hugo Chavez, the radical socialist president of Venezuela.
"Everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came," Fox commented. "He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea."
Fox explained that he and Bush intended to proceed incrementally, establishing FTAA as an economic agreement first and waiting to create an amero-type currency later – a plan he also suggested was in place for NAFTA itself.
"I think the process to go, first step is trading agreement," Fox said. "And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA."
Fox's reply to the CNN viewer was captured in a clip posted on YouTube.com. CNN posted video of the interview but did not include the segment with questions from viewers.
Last week, WND reported BankIntroductions.com, a Canadian company that specializes in global banking strategies and currency consulting, is advising clients the amero may be the currency of North America within 10 years.
Coin designer Daniel Carr has issued for sale a series of private-issue fantasy pattern amero coins that have drawn attention on the Internet.
WND also reported the African Union is moving down the path of regional economic integration, with the African Central Bank planning to create the "Gold Mandela" as a single African continental currency by 2010.
The Council on Foreign Relations has supported regional and global currencies designed to replace nationally issued currencies.
In an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled "The End of National Currency," CFR economist Benn Steil asserts the dollar is a temporary currency.
Steil concluded "countries should abandon monetary nationalism," moving to adopt regional currencies, on the road to a global "one world currency."
WND previously reported Steve Previs, a vice president at Jeffries International Ltd. in London, said the amero "is the proposed new currency for the North American Community which is being developed right now between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico."
A video clip of the CNBC interview in November with Jeffries is now available at YouTube.com.
WND also has reported a continued slide in the value of the dollar on world currency markets could set up conditions in which the adoption of the amero as a North American currency gains momentum.
What the Neocons Need
November 2, 2007
LRC columnist Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for MilitaryWeek.com, hosted the call-in radio show American Forum, and blogs occasionally for Huffingtonpost.com and Liberty and Power. To receive automatic announcements of new articles, click here.
Copyright © 2007 Karen Kwiatkowski
With one leg firmly planted at the American Enterprise Institute and the other even more firmly planted in the jelly-like mass we know as the United States Congress, neocons in Washington are in serious need of something constructive to do.
Like so many mortals, the neocons have confused what they think they need with what they really need. They firmly believe they need war, war, and more war. To get the right kind of Muslim carnage in the Middle East, neocons hope to instigate an act of war against Iran that will – in one fell swoop – merge four other conflicts into one burning pulsating endless bloodfest.
Which four conflicts? Palestinian versus Israeli, Kurd versus Turks and mullahs, Iraqis versus Americans, Iraqis, Kurds, Saudis, Kuwaitis and Iranians, and lastly, Afghans versus Americans, Paks, and Iranians. To merge the fires set by Washington’s neocon cultists and fanned by the President’s lisping and grunting Rasputins, the obedient Pentagon has established thousands of Iranian targets, and requested funding to fit the Stealth B2 bomber with bunker buster bomb rails.
Condi, the American Delilah, sensuously fans the flames of war, her Samson not the President but our constitutional republic, with its admonitions to avoid foreign entanglements, and to honor the rule that only Congress can declare war. Our Christian Dictator-in-Chief can scarcely control the quivering of his frothing jowls, his small eyes gleaming with what he imagines to be holy vengeance for Iran’s imagined crimes.
To get the unwarranted and illegal attack on Iran, the neocons chant each evening for a provocation, even as they provoke. They appeal to war gods at midnight for an accident in the region, even as they preside over the train wreck of their comprehensive foreign policy. They whisper and worry each other about the unknown, hoped-for date of an Israeli strike on Iran that will be the starting gunshot in a race they themselves will never run, and would never dream of running. The running and the dying should rightfully be conducted by lesser beings, those who follow orders, and ask no questions, those humans who, in the neocon world, must be either ruled, or destroyed.
Unlike select war lovers in Tel Aviv – the Washington neocons do not fear a change of administration in 2009. They’re voting Hilliani Clintonrude, the presa canario candidate, blissfully unaware of the power of people to occasionally ignore voting edicts from Washington. Thus they scheme like thirty-somethings living in their mother’s basement of the great things they will accomplish someday, if only.
Like the underemployed, spiritually vacant, and nanny-dependent everywhere – what the neocons whiningly demand is never going to satisfy them. In a revealing speech at the American Enterprise Institute on September 10th of this year, intellectual poseur Newt Gingrich provides insight into this syndrome.
He observes that, "The heart of our problem is in attitude. Wars require bold efforts and undertaking real risks. We must recognize the requirements for change and we must adopt a spirit that it is better to make mistakes of commission and then fix them than it is to avoid achievement by avoiding failure.”
Sounding even more like an underachieving basement dweller, Gingrich goes on: “This rethinking of the last six years is designed to make it easier to be creative about the next six years.” Newt wishes to rethink the last six years, and the lack of “bold efforts” and “real risk” that surrounds him and his friends. Americans, who for the past six years have paid, and paid, and continue to pay in blood, honor and treasure for neocon fascistic bloodlust, may wonder exactly what it is young Newtie is talking about.
He goes on to describe the “absence of context” – a context that he believes should be understood by every American as the global physical struggle of Islam against the rest of us. The neocons, and only the neocons, call this presumed antagonist “Islamofascism.” It matters not that there’s no such thing as Islamofascism – not only does it not currently exist in any form – it cannot conceivably exist without a radical change in either the definition of fascism, or the tenets of Islam. The neocons need context, but sadly, they demand the hollow and fantastical instead of dealing with a more personal reality.
The bulk of Gingrich’s speech is apparently notes from his underground, and shortlived, presidential campaign. Like so many great ideas from basement dwellers, perennially unemployed and dependent on Mommy for a hot meal and a kiss before bedtime, Gingrich’s grandiose plan to achieve infamy as visionary brass-knuckled president of the world fizzled out shortly after he wrote those notes.
Gingrich concludes with some moving oratory, and I feel compelled to include it here, partly because it is hilariously silly, given the neocon audience at AEI, and their tragic-comic track record.
[My fellow neocons] …[l]et us reason together, face the facts, invent the solutions and mobilize the resources for victory. With leadership, it will be the terrorists who are defeated and the free people who are triumphant. With leadership, the free people of the world will form an unshakable alliance against evil and an enormous system in defense of the innocent.
It is in the best American tradition that we have the courage at home that we expect on the battlefield. There is no shortcut. This is the road to victory over evil. This is the road to safety, freedom and prosperity for the civilized world.
Intellectually dishonest and lacking a moral compass, Gingrich’s assessment of the situation is predictably wrong and inherently dangerous. There is a road to safety, freedom and prosperity for America and for the world. But that road doesn’t require governmental leadership, governmental mobilization of resources, governmental defeat of "the terrorists," or "an enormous system in defense of the innocent," whatever that is. The idea that powerful centralized governments might ever be part of some war against evil is quite simply unsubstantiated by 4,000 years of human history.
Real freedom is lack of coercion – and this lack of coercion brings prosperity. Together, "safety" is endowed and expanded. The road to freedom is the simple minute-by-minute pursuit of life, liberty and happiness by millions of people – in America, in the Middle East and elsewhere –unbothered, undirected, uncontrolled, unmanaged, unconstrained and unterrorized by central forces of government. And as the current HGTV slogan reminds us, we really should "Start at Home."
For Newt and the neocons, central domination of a country, a people, or a nation is a necessary prerequisite for any further thought or action. This framework of force and diktat perverts their domestic politics, their foreign policy prescriptions, and the sustainability of neoconservatism as an ideology separate from fascism.
Because the neoconservative network of fearful and frustrated bully boys demand this perverted form of political and social perfection in order to step up, they remain in mother’s basement, endlessly discussing what they would do, what they might have done, how they should rethink their strategies and do-over their toy soldier tactics.
Neocons want another war, this time in Iran, and they are loudly demanding an unwarranted mulligan from the American soldier and the American taxpayer. What the neocons need is to put on a clean shirt, face reality, man up and get a real job. Then, and only then, we can talk about what neocons bring to the table of freedom, prosperity and safety.
LRC columnist Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for MilitaryWeek.com, hosted the call-in radio show American Forum, and blogs occasionally for Huffingtonpost.com and Liberty and Power. To receive automatic announcements of new articles, click here.
Copyright © 2007 Karen Kwiatkowski
With one leg firmly planted at the American Enterprise Institute and the other even more firmly planted in the jelly-like mass we know as the United States Congress, neocons in Washington are in serious need of something constructive to do.
Like so many mortals, the neocons have confused what they think they need with what they really need. They firmly believe they need war, war, and more war. To get the right kind of Muslim carnage in the Middle East, neocons hope to instigate an act of war against Iran that will – in one fell swoop – merge four other conflicts into one burning pulsating endless bloodfest.
Which four conflicts? Palestinian versus Israeli, Kurd versus Turks and mullahs, Iraqis versus Americans, Iraqis, Kurds, Saudis, Kuwaitis and Iranians, and lastly, Afghans versus Americans, Paks, and Iranians. To merge the fires set by Washington’s neocon cultists and fanned by the President’s lisping and grunting Rasputins, the obedient Pentagon has established thousands of Iranian targets, and requested funding to fit the Stealth B2 bomber with bunker buster bomb rails.
Condi, the American Delilah, sensuously fans the flames of war, her Samson not the President but our constitutional republic, with its admonitions to avoid foreign entanglements, and to honor the rule that only Congress can declare war. Our Christian Dictator-in-Chief can scarcely control the quivering of his frothing jowls, his small eyes gleaming with what he imagines to be holy vengeance for Iran’s imagined crimes.
To get the unwarranted and illegal attack on Iran, the neocons chant each evening for a provocation, even as they provoke. They appeal to war gods at midnight for an accident in the region, even as they preside over the train wreck of their comprehensive foreign policy. They whisper and worry each other about the unknown, hoped-for date of an Israeli strike on Iran that will be the starting gunshot in a race they themselves will never run, and would never dream of running. The running and the dying should rightfully be conducted by lesser beings, those who follow orders, and ask no questions, those humans who, in the neocon world, must be either ruled, or destroyed.
Unlike select war lovers in Tel Aviv – the Washington neocons do not fear a change of administration in 2009. They’re voting Hilliani Clintonrude, the presa canario candidate, blissfully unaware of the power of people to occasionally ignore voting edicts from Washington. Thus they scheme like thirty-somethings living in their mother’s basement of the great things they will accomplish someday, if only.
Like the underemployed, spiritually vacant, and nanny-dependent everywhere – what the neocons whiningly demand is never going to satisfy them. In a revealing speech at the American Enterprise Institute on September 10th of this year, intellectual poseur Newt Gingrich provides insight into this syndrome.
He observes that, "The heart of our problem is in attitude. Wars require bold efforts and undertaking real risks. We must recognize the requirements for change and we must adopt a spirit that it is better to make mistakes of commission and then fix them than it is to avoid achievement by avoiding failure.”
Sounding even more like an underachieving basement dweller, Gingrich goes on: “This rethinking of the last six years is designed to make it easier to be creative about the next six years.” Newt wishes to rethink the last six years, and the lack of “bold efforts” and “real risk” that surrounds him and his friends. Americans, who for the past six years have paid, and paid, and continue to pay in blood, honor and treasure for neocon fascistic bloodlust, may wonder exactly what it is young Newtie is talking about.
He goes on to describe the “absence of context” – a context that he believes should be understood by every American as the global physical struggle of Islam against the rest of us. The neocons, and only the neocons, call this presumed antagonist “Islamofascism.” It matters not that there’s no such thing as Islamofascism – not only does it not currently exist in any form – it cannot conceivably exist without a radical change in either the definition of fascism, or the tenets of Islam. The neocons need context, but sadly, they demand the hollow and fantastical instead of dealing with a more personal reality.
The bulk of Gingrich’s speech is apparently notes from his underground, and shortlived, presidential campaign. Like so many great ideas from basement dwellers, perennially unemployed and dependent on Mommy for a hot meal and a kiss before bedtime, Gingrich’s grandiose plan to achieve infamy as visionary brass-knuckled president of the world fizzled out shortly after he wrote those notes.
Gingrich concludes with some moving oratory, and I feel compelled to include it here, partly because it is hilariously silly, given the neocon audience at AEI, and their tragic-comic track record.
[My fellow neocons] …[l]et us reason together, face the facts, invent the solutions and mobilize the resources for victory. With leadership, it will be the terrorists who are defeated and the free people who are triumphant. With leadership, the free people of the world will form an unshakable alliance against evil and an enormous system in defense of the innocent.
It is in the best American tradition that we have the courage at home that we expect on the battlefield. There is no shortcut. This is the road to victory over evil. This is the road to safety, freedom and prosperity for the civilized world.
Intellectually dishonest and lacking a moral compass, Gingrich’s assessment of the situation is predictably wrong and inherently dangerous. There is a road to safety, freedom and prosperity for America and for the world. But that road doesn’t require governmental leadership, governmental mobilization of resources, governmental defeat of "the terrorists," or "an enormous system in defense of the innocent," whatever that is. The idea that powerful centralized governments might ever be part of some war against evil is quite simply unsubstantiated by 4,000 years of human history.
Real freedom is lack of coercion – and this lack of coercion brings prosperity. Together, "safety" is endowed and expanded. The road to freedom is the simple minute-by-minute pursuit of life, liberty and happiness by millions of people – in America, in the Middle East and elsewhere –unbothered, undirected, uncontrolled, unmanaged, unconstrained and unterrorized by central forces of government. And as the current HGTV slogan reminds us, we really should "Start at Home."
For Newt and the neocons, central domination of a country, a people, or a nation is a necessary prerequisite for any further thought or action. This framework of force and diktat perverts their domestic politics, their foreign policy prescriptions, and the sustainability of neoconservatism as an ideology separate from fascism.
Because the neoconservative network of fearful and frustrated bully boys demand this perverted form of political and social perfection in order to step up, they remain in mother’s basement, endlessly discussing what they would do, what they might have done, how they should rethink their strategies and do-over their toy soldier tactics.
Neocons want another war, this time in Iran, and they are loudly demanding an unwarranted mulligan from the American soldier and the American taxpayer. What the neocons need is to put on a clean shirt, face reality, man up and get a real job. Then, and only then, we can talk about what neocons bring to the table of freedom, prosperity and safety.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
U.S. defense contractor in Chinese-purchase deal
3Com makes 'intrusion prevention' technology maker for Pentagon, Huawei founder is ex-PLA officer
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The joint acquisition, announced yesterday, of 3Com, the U.S. computer networking group, by Bain Capital, the U.S. private equity firm and China's Huawei Technologies, a telecoms equipment maker, is being called "really worrisome" by a former Pentagon cybersecurity expert.
The $2.2 billion cash deal gives Bain an over 80-percent stake in 3Com and Huawei – pronounced 'wah-way' – just under 20 percent.
for rest of article, click on article title above...
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The joint acquisition, announced yesterday, of 3Com, the U.S. computer networking group, by Bain Capital, the U.S. private equity firm and China's Huawei Technologies, a telecoms equipment maker, is being called "really worrisome" by a former Pentagon cybersecurity expert.
The $2.2 billion cash deal gives Bain an over 80-percent stake in 3Com and Huawei – pronounced 'wah-way' – just under 20 percent.
for rest of article, click on article title above...
"The Fix Is In"
(c) Chuck Baldwin
"Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats." This is the
title of a much under-reported news story, which appeared in The
Examiner on September 24th. The Examiner opens the story by saying,
"President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary
Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can
effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president."
The story stems from an interview with White House Chief of Staff,
Josh Bolten, for The Examiner's Senior White House correspondent Bill
Sammon's new book, "The Evangelical President."
The Examiner said "Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy
that 'even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a
legitimate presence there.'" Bolten went on to say that "He [Bush]
wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the
leeway, but the obligation to see it [the war in Iraq] out."
Bolten made it clear that Bush expects the war in Iraq to continue
"[n]o matter who the president is, no matter what party . . ."
The Examiner story also reported, "A senior White House official said
the administration did not put much stock in pledges by Democratic
presidential candidates to swiftly end the Iraq war if elected."
The White House official said, "They [the Democratic frontrunners] are
being advised by smart people. We've got colleagues here on the staff
who have good communications with some of the thinkers on that side.
"And there is recognition by most of them that there has to be a
long-term presence [in Iraq] by the United States . . ."
The Examiner also quotes Vice President Dick Cheney as saying, "And I
think we'll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the
next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be."
As you read the above, did you not ask the question, "Why is this not
a front page story in the mainstream media?" If the media truly wanted
to do its job, this story would be page one in every major newspaper
and the lead story on every television and radio network news show.
But it's not. Why? Because the powers that control the mainstream
media are the same ones who control the two major parties and they
don't want the American people to know that the "fix" is already in.
George W. Bush knows it; Hillary Clinton knows it; Dick Cheney knows
it; the CFR knows it; Democrat and Republican insiders know it; and
now you know it.
I have attempted to warn my readers that the Bushes and Clintons have
been "best buds" for years (see
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070717.html ).
My initial source for this report was someone who was among the
Clintons' closest friends for much of his life. Whatever acrimony one
may perceive to exist between the two families is purely for show.
Democrats expect the Clintons to lambaste the Bushes. Republicans
expect the Bushes to do the same thing to the Clintons. So they do. It
is all political theater.
For that matter, Bill Sammon's new book promoting the idea that Bush
is an "Evangelical President" is more political theater. Bush has
simply hijacked the evangelical movement in order to push forward a
globalist New World Order agenda.
Believe me, the Bushes and Clintons are friends, and have been for
decades--at least since George H.W. Bush was President and Bill
Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. At least since then--probably
longer.
However, the connection between the Bushes and Clintons is much deeper
than that. Both families are also part of the inside cabal of New
World Order globalists. They share the same clubs, the same parties,
and the same agenda. Why else do you think that when G.W. Bush became
President he did not undo anything Bill Clinton had done? For the same
reason that Hillary Clinton will not undo anything that G.W. Bush has
done when she becomes President--and that includes the Iraq war.
Mark it down: Hillary will keep U.S. troops in Iraq. She will also
follow through with whatever other military plans Bush has already put
in place. She will continue with Bush's push for the North American
Union, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAFTA Superhighway. She
will continue the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, and even Bush's
"enemy combatant" classification for American citizens. She will also
do nothing to restore Posse Comitatus.
Those Democrats who really believe they are voting for "change" when
they vote for Hillary next year are in for a rude awakening. They will
awaken to the same reality that those who thought they were voting for
change when they voted for Dubya have come to realize: it does not
matter to a tinker's dam whether G.W. or Hillary is elected President.
They are both marching to the same drummer. (Neither would it matter
should Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack
Obama, or John Edwards become President.) The "fix" is in. So much so
that G.W. Bush is already privately counseling Hillary on what to do
after she becomes President.
I tried to warn my readers of this connection as far back as 2002 (see
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2002/cbarchive_20020913.html ). I
thought the set up would put Hillary in the White House in 2004, but
obviously, my timing was off one election. 2008 is the year the global
elite--with much help from both the Clinton and Bush machines--will
put Hillary in the White House.
It is no accident, my friends, that there is no "top tier" contender
in the GOP this year that is able to galvanize grassroots Republicans.
Neither is it an accident that Bush's policies are increasingly
unpopular, thus further alienating both the Republican and
conservative base and the American people in general from the GOP
ticket next year. Dubya is merely setting up a Hillary victory in much
the same way that Daddy Bush set up a victory for Bill back in 1992.
Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the "anointed" pick of
her fellow elitists to become President of the United States in 2008.
Obviously, a wholesale political revolution could derail the plans of
the elitist egomaniacs who control our country right now, but I don't
believe the American people, and especially the pastors (who have the
most power to accomplish this task), have the stomach for it.
The only way for the American people to thwart the plans of the
international cabal currently calling the shots in Washington, D.C.,
and New York City is by a massive rejection of both major parties'
prominent Presidential candidates. This would require wholesale
support for independent-minded, non-elitist candidates such as Ron
Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keyes. Even better, a
grassroots uprising of support for independent constitutionalists such
as Jerome Corsi or Judge Roy Moore--on a Constitution Party ticket
(see http://www.constitutionparty.com/ )--would put the elitists in
retreat for decades to come. However, I see little hope for such a
revolution. (Then again, there was little hope for George Washington
and the boys either.)
So, come November 2008, Hillary Clinton will be your President, and
she will continue the same basic policies of one George W. Bush, who
continued the same basic policies of one Bill Clinton, who continued
the same basic policies of one George Herbert Walker Bush. One would
think that eventually the American people would begin to catch on.
Until they do, however, the "fix" is in.
"Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats." This is the
title of a much under-reported news story, which appeared in The
Examiner on September 24th. The Examiner opens the story by saying,
"President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary
Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can
effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president."
The story stems from an interview with White House Chief of Staff,
Josh Bolten, for The Examiner's Senior White House correspondent Bill
Sammon's new book, "The Evangelical President."
The Examiner said "Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy
that 'even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a
legitimate presence there.'" Bolten went on to say that "He [Bush]
wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the
leeway, but the obligation to see it [the war in Iraq] out."
Bolten made it clear that Bush expects the war in Iraq to continue
"[n]o matter who the president is, no matter what party . . ."
The Examiner story also reported, "A senior White House official said
the administration did not put much stock in pledges by Democratic
presidential candidates to swiftly end the Iraq war if elected."
The White House official said, "They [the Democratic frontrunners] are
being advised by smart people. We've got colleagues here on the staff
who have good communications with some of the thinkers on that side.
"And there is recognition by most of them that there has to be a
long-term presence [in Iraq] by the United States . . ."
The Examiner also quotes Vice President Dick Cheney as saying, "And I
think we'll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the
next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be."
As you read the above, did you not ask the question, "Why is this not
a front page story in the mainstream media?" If the media truly wanted
to do its job, this story would be page one in every major newspaper
and the lead story on every television and radio network news show.
But it's not. Why? Because the powers that control the mainstream
media are the same ones who control the two major parties and they
don't want the American people to know that the "fix" is already in.
George W. Bush knows it; Hillary Clinton knows it; Dick Cheney knows
it; the CFR knows it; Democrat and Republican insiders know it; and
now you know it.
I have attempted to warn my readers that the Bushes and Clintons have
been "best buds" for years (see
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070717.html ).
My initial source for this report was someone who was among the
Clintons' closest friends for much of his life. Whatever acrimony one
may perceive to exist between the two families is purely for show.
Democrats expect the Clintons to lambaste the Bushes. Republicans
expect the Bushes to do the same thing to the Clintons. So they do. It
is all political theater.
For that matter, Bill Sammon's new book promoting the idea that Bush
is an "Evangelical President" is more political theater. Bush has
simply hijacked the evangelical movement in order to push forward a
globalist New World Order agenda.
Believe me, the Bushes and Clintons are friends, and have been for
decades--at least since George H.W. Bush was President and Bill
Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. At least since then--probably
longer.
However, the connection between the Bushes and Clintons is much deeper
than that. Both families are also part of the inside cabal of New
World Order globalists. They share the same clubs, the same parties,
and the same agenda. Why else do you think that when G.W. Bush became
President he did not undo anything Bill Clinton had done? For the same
reason that Hillary Clinton will not undo anything that G.W. Bush has
done when she becomes President--and that includes the Iraq war.
Mark it down: Hillary will keep U.S. troops in Iraq. She will also
follow through with whatever other military plans Bush has already put
in place. She will continue with Bush's push for the North American
Union, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAFTA Superhighway. She
will continue the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, and even Bush's
"enemy combatant" classification for American citizens. She will also
do nothing to restore Posse Comitatus.
Those Democrats who really believe they are voting for "change" when
they vote for Hillary next year are in for a rude awakening. They will
awaken to the same reality that those who thought they were voting for
change when they voted for Dubya have come to realize: it does not
matter to a tinker's dam whether G.W. or Hillary is elected President.
They are both marching to the same drummer. (Neither would it matter
should Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack
Obama, or John Edwards become President.) The "fix" is in. So much so
that G.W. Bush is already privately counseling Hillary on what to do
after she becomes President.
I tried to warn my readers of this connection as far back as 2002 (see
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2002/cbarchive_20020913.html ). I
thought the set up would put Hillary in the White House in 2004, but
obviously, my timing was off one election. 2008 is the year the global
elite--with much help from both the Clinton and Bush machines--will
put Hillary in the White House.
It is no accident, my friends, that there is no "top tier" contender
in the GOP this year that is able to galvanize grassroots Republicans.
Neither is it an accident that Bush's policies are increasingly
unpopular, thus further alienating both the Republican and
conservative base and the American people in general from the GOP
ticket next year. Dubya is merely setting up a Hillary victory in much
the same way that Daddy Bush set up a victory for Bill back in 1992.
Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the "anointed" pick of
her fellow elitists to become President of the United States in 2008.
Obviously, a wholesale political revolution could derail the plans of
the elitist egomaniacs who control our country right now, but I don't
believe the American people, and especially the pastors (who have the
most power to accomplish this task), have the stomach for it.
The only way for the American people to thwart the plans of the
international cabal currently calling the shots in Washington, D.C.,
and New York City is by a massive rejection of both major parties'
prominent Presidential candidates. This would require wholesale
support for independent-minded, non-elitist candidates such as Ron
Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keyes. Even better, a
grassroots uprising of support for independent constitutionalists such
as Jerome Corsi or Judge Roy Moore--on a Constitution Party ticket
(see http://www.constitutionparty.com/ )--would put the elitists in
retreat for decades to come. However, I see little hope for such a
revolution. (Then again, there was little hope for George Washington
and the boys either.)
So, come November 2008, Hillary Clinton will be your President, and
she will continue the same basic policies of one George W. Bush, who
continued the same basic policies of one Bill Clinton, who continued
the same basic policies of one George Herbert Walker Bush. One would
think that eventually the American people would begin to catch on.
Until they do, however, the "fix" is in.
'A Coup Has Occurred'
by Daniel Ellsberg
Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming war with Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at an American University symposium on Sept. 20.
Below is an edited transcript of Ellsberg's remarkable speech:
I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state.
If there's another 9/11 under this regime ... it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.
Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? ... They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they're not now they will be after another 9/11.
And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps.
It's a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran's reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law. ...
This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it.
Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don't think so.
Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in – and there's no move to do this at this point – unless that happens I don't see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic.
The Next Coup
Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It's not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That's the next coup, that completes the first.
The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, ... what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.
There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.
I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution.
I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn't have the exact challenge that we have today.
That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren't found out in time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government.
It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive president – elected or not – with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.
When I say this I'm not saying they are traitors. I don't think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country – but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought.
They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we're getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says "I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate."
It's [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution.
Founders Had It Right
Now I'm appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right.
It's not just "our way of doing things" – it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming.
That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. ...
But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don't mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it's not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences.
Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn't, it doesn't even make it unlikely.
That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress – Democrats and Republicans – and the public and the media, we have freed the White House – the president and the vice president – from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever.
And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs.
And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. ... I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible.
What I'm talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do.
And ... we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that's where we're heading. That's a very ugly, ugly prospect.
However, I think it's up to us to work to increase that small perhaps – anyway not large – possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives.
Restoring the Republic
Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don't get started now, it won't be started under the next administration.
Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can't be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little...
We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, "traitor," "weak on terrorism" – names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called.
How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn't just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office.
I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services.
And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran.
I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do.
I've often said that Lt. Ehren Watada – who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war – is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously in upholding his oath.
The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. And that's the standard that I think we should be asking of people.
Congressional Courage
On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate – and frankly of the Republicans – that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority.
I'm not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that.
Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they're acting like it's their sole concern. Which is business as usual. "We have a majority, let's not lose it, let's keep it. Let's keep those chairmanships." Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?
I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we ... get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution.
We need some way, and Ann Wright has one way, of sitting in, in Conyers office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested, pushed out the other day for saying the simple words "swear him in" when it came to testimony.
I think we've got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it's only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran.
And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves – they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree.
That has to change. And it's the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you.
Reprinted with permission from Consortium News.
Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming war with Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at an American University symposium on Sept. 20.
Below is an edited transcript of Ellsberg's remarkable speech:
I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state.
If there's another 9/11 under this regime ... it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.
Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? ... They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they're not now they will be after another 9/11.
And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps.
It's a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran's reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law. ...
This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it.
Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don't think so.
Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in – and there's no move to do this at this point – unless that happens I don't see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic.
The Next Coup
Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It's not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That's the next coup, that completes the first.
The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, ... what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.
There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.
I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution.
I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn't have the exact challenge that we have today.
That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren't found out in time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government.
It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive president – elected or not – with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.
When I say this I'm not saying they are traitors. I don't think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country – but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought.
They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we're getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says "I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate."
It's [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution.
Founders Had It Right
Now I'm appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right.
It's not just "our way of doing things" – it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming.
That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. ...
But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don't mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it's not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences.
Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn't, it doesn't even make it unlikely.
That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress – Democrats and Republicans – and the public and the media, we have freed the White House – the president and the vice president – from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever.
And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs.
And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. ... I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible.
What I'm talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do.
And ... we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that's where we're heading. That's a very ugly, ugly prospect.
However, I think it's up to us to work to increase that small perhaps – anyway not large – possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives.
Restoring the Republic
Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don't get started now, it won't be started under the next administration.
Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can't be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little...
We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, "traitor," "weak on terrorism" – names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called.
How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn't just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office.
I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services.
And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran.
I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do.
I've often said that Lt. Ehren Watada – who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war – is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously in upholding his oath.
The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. And that's the standard that I think we should be asking of people.
Congressional Courage
On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate – and frankly of the Republicans – that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority.
I'm not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that.
Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they're acting like it's their sole concern. Which is business as usual. "We have a majority, let's not lose it, let's keep it. Let's keep those chairmanships." Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?
I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we ... get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution.
We need some way, and Ann Wright has one way, of sitting in, in Conyers office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested, pushed out the other day for saying the simple words "swear him in" when it came to testimony.
I think we've got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it's only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran.
And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves – they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree.
That has to change. And it's the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you.
Reprinted with permission from Consortium News.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)