"None of us have to settle for the best this [Obama] administration offers -- a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.
"Listen to the way we're spoken to already, as if everyone is stuck in some class or station in life, victims of circumstances beyond our control, with government there to help us cope with our fate.
"It's the exact opposite of everything I learned growing up in Wisconsin, or at college in Ohio.
"When I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That's what we do in this country. That's the American Dream.
"That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."
(Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican Party's nominee for Vice President, from his acceptance speech Wednesday evening)
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Friday, August 31, 2012
Friday, August 24, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Quotes of the day
"Here's what it boils down to: I think that the country could survive four more years of Obama. But I don't believe the country can survive...full of people that would reelect him." (Rush Limbaugh)
"Let us come to the point. Obama is reaching out to his very own special constituency. It is composed of those who believe that the Republicans would put up as their candidate for the presidency a person who in his business life would engage in fraud, tax evasion, even murder. Mr. Obama is casting his net for the moron vote. I do not believe that there are enough morons out there to reelect him." (R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. in The American Spectator)
I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh (this time) and, regrettably, I must disagree with Bob Tyrell -- there are more than enough moronic American voters to sustain this president's assault on Liberty.
"Let us come to the point. Obama is reaching out to his very own special constituency. It is composed of those who believe that the Republicans would put up as their candidate for the presidency a person who in his business life would engage in fraud, tax evasion, even murder. Mr. Obama is casting his net for the moron vote. I do not believe that there are enough morons out there to reelect him." (R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. in The American Spectator)
I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh (this time) and, regrettably, I must disagree with Bob Tyrell -- there are more than enough moronic American voters to sustain this president's assault on Liberty.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Principle & counter-principle
Speaking last Friday in Roanoke, Virginia, Pres. Barack Obama now-infamously said,
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."Mitt Romney, at a campaign event yesterday in Irwin, Pennsylvania, responded:
"Something happened on Friday -- President Obama exposed what he really thinks about free people and the American vision and government, what he really thinks about America itself.And that's the truth -- not bankable truth, alas, but truth nonetheless.
"He probably wants to understand why his policies failed. If you want to understand why his policies have failed, why what he has done has not created jobs or rising incomes in America, you can look at what he said.
"And what he said was this, he said, and I quote -- and he's speaking, by the way, of businesses like this one, small businesses, big businesses, middle-size businesses, mining businesses, manufacturing, service businesses of all kinds. He said this:
'If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'"That 'somebody else' is government, in his view. He goes on to describe the people who deserve the credit for building this business. And, of course, he describes people who we care very deeply about, who make a difference in our lives -- our schoolteachers, firefighters, people who build roads.
"We need those things. We value schoolteachers, firefighters, people who build roads. You really couldn't have a business if you didn't have those things. But, you know, we pay for those things.
"The taxpayers pay for government. It's not like government just provides those to all of us and we say,
'Oh thank you, government, for doing those things.'"No, in fact, we pay for them and we benefit from them, and we appreciate the work that they do and the sacrifices that are done by people who work in government. But they did not build this business."
Friday, June 29, 2012
Unlimited government (illustrated)
If you've been paying attention to right-leaning media since this time yesterday, you've heard this question: Does the Supreme Court's ruling on "Obamacare" signal the end of America as we know it?
Answer: Of course it doesn't. We already knew that the People are being smothered by an intrusive federal government.
It does, however, in this independent citizen-patriot's opinion, mark the end of our country as it was founded.
See, even if the Supreme Court's decision mobilizes Liberty-loving citizens to deny Pres. Obama a second term, or even to press our elected officials to "repeal and replace" Obamacare -- a dumb idea, swapping one big-government program for another -- it establishes precedent at the highest level of the federal judiciary. With a single ruling, the Court cleared the way for our bloated government to regulate and tax not only what we do, but also what we don't do.
(Somewhere, HRH Michael Bloomberg is toasting his unexpected windfall with expensive champagne.)
The damage is done. There's a deep gash in our founding principles, hemorrhaging Liberty.
July 4th, the day that we celebrate independence, is less than a week away. America is still the best and freest country on Earth and I will, indeed, celebrate that -- but I'll do so on Wednesday with tears in my eyes, knowing that our liberties are, perhaps, mortally wounded.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Unlimited government, affirmed
The Supreme Court today affirmed that the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a "Obamacare," doesn't violate the Constitution -- not because it's permissible under the Commerce Clause to compel citizens to purchase a product or service, but because Congress has the power under the General Welfare Clause to levy taxes.
What was sold to the People as a penalty, not a tax, has been upheld as a tax, not a penalty. It's a distinction without a difference, either way, and now it's settled law.
Chief Justice John Roberts, whose siding with the 5-4 majority confounds me, concluded the Court's opinion with this:
This landmark decision fundamentally transforms our nation. It unleashes a government of virtually limitless reach.
It's dark day for the People, a very dark day for Liberty.
What was sold to the People as a penalty, not a tax, has been upheld as a tax, not a penalty. It's a distinction without a difference, either way, and now it's settled law.
Chief Justice John Roberts, whose siding with the 5-4 majority confounds me, concluded the Court's opinion with this:
"The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people."Limited powers? My ass -- not any more.
This landmark decision fundamentally transforms our nation. It unleashes a government of virtually limitless reach.
It's dark day for the People, a very dark day for Liberty.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Contemptible
This morning Pres. Barack Obama invoked executive privilege, expressing his resolve to withhold documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee -- and thereby from the American People.
The intent of the ATF's gun-running scheme was to manufacture public sentiment in support of unconstitutional gun-grabbing legislation. Once the ploy was discovered and the investigation began, Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice set about stonewalling and outright lying to the committee -- clearly a cover-up of the operation's built-in corruption.
Today's assertion of executive privilege, which historically has been used to shield the confidentiality of the president himself, changes the game completely. In short, it implies that knowledge of Fast and Furious -- or involvement in the official cover-up -- went well beyond the DOJ, all the way to the White House.
Think about that.
Rep. Darrell Issa, who chairs the House committee, has been relentless in pursuit of the truth about Fast and Furious, and I admire his tenacity. Soon his committee will vote on citing Holder for contempt. There's only one proper outcome of that vote, of course, but the process shouldn't end there.
First, the People need to know what's in the documents now being withheld. More important, every elected official, unelected bureaucrat and political appointee who participated in subverting the Constitution -- and I mean every last one, all the way to the White House -- must be sent packing.
The intent of the ATF's gun-running scheme was to manufacture public sentiment in support of unconstitutional gun-grabbing legislation. Once the ploy was discovered and the investigation began, Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice set about stonewalling and outright lying to the committee -- clearly a cover-up of the operation's built-in corruption.
Today's assertion of executive privilege, which historically has been used to shield the confidentiality of the president himself, changes the game completely. In short, it implies that knowledge of Fast and Furious -- or involvement in the official cover-up -- went well beyond the DOJ, all the way to the White House.
Think about that.
Rep. Darrell Issa, who chairs the House committee, has been relentless in pursuit of the truth about Fast and Furious, and I admire his tenacity. Soon his committee will vote on citing Holder for contempt. There's only one proper outcome of that vote, of course, but the process shouldn't end there.
First, the People need to know what's in the documents now being withheld. More important, every elected official, unelected bureaucrat and political appointee who participated in subverting the Constitution -- and I mean every last one, all the way to the White House -- must be sent packing.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Pandering (defined)
"If he became convinced tomorrow that coming out for cannibalism would get him the votes he needs so sorely, he would begin fattening a missionary in the White House yard come Wednesday."
(H.L. Mencken of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936)
Friday, May 25, 2012
Decided (2012 edition)
In 2008, I didn't share my choice for President until the Friday before Election Day. This time 'round I needed far less time to deliberate.
Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama represents, in my view, what's best for my country. Neither proposes to restore what we've lost. Neither has the courage to suggest that he intends to fix what's truly broken. And most important to me, neither Romney nor Obama has demonstrated that he values Liberty.
So today, 166 days before casting my ballot, I've decided to support Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
I categorically reject the simple-minded notion that I have only two viable choices, or that voting for anyone but the Republican nominee virtually guarantees the incumbent a second term.
The dominant parties and their wind-sock ideologies have failed us. Their candidates haven't earned my support.
On November 6th my vote will be a product of conscience, not calculation. Will yours?
Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama represents, in my view, what's best for my country. Neither proposes to restore what we've lost. Neither has the courage to suggest that he intends to fix what's truly broken. And most important to me, neither Romney nor Obama has demonstrated that he values Liberty.
So today, 166 days before casting my ballot, I've decided to support Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
I categorically reject the simple-minded notion that I have only two viable choices, or that voting for anyone but the Republican nominee virtually guarantees the incumbent a second term.
The dominant parties and their wind-sock ideologies have failed us. Their candidates haven't earned my support.
On November 6th my vote will be a product of conscience, not calculation. Will yours?
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
'Federal inmate makes strong showing against Obama in West Virginia primary'
CHARLESTON, West Virginia (AP) -- Just how unpopular is President Barack Obama in some parts of the country? Enough that a man in prison in Texas is getting 4 out of 10 votes in West Virginia's Democratic presidential primary.
The inmate, Keith Judd, is serving time at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Texas for making threats at the University of New Mexico in 1999. With 93% of precincts reporting, Obama was receiving just under 60% of the vote to Judd's 40%.
[Some media are reporting that Inmate No. 11593-051 actually won nine of West Virginia's 55 counties in yesterday's Democratic primary. You can't make this shit up -- read the rest of the AP story here.]
The inmate, Keith Judd, is serving time at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Texas for making threats at the University of New Mexico in 1999. With 93% of precincts reporting, Obama was receiving just under 60% of the vote to Judd's 40%.
[Some media are reporting that Inmate No. 11593-051 actually won nine of West Virginia's 55 counties in yesterday's Democratic primary. You can't make this shit up -- read the rest of the AP story here.]
Thursday, April 5, 2012
On 'judicial activism'
Every time I hear someone accuse the courts of "judicial activism" -- whether this fashionable epithet comes from the Left or the Right -- I can't help remembering what George Carlin said:
Likewise, the perception of judicial activism depends on where one stands. For hardcore partisans in search of ideological absolutes, the matter remains inescapably relative, even if they won't admit it.
Take, for example, Pres. Obama's shot across the Supreme Court's bow on Monday -- "that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law." He characterized the "Affordable Care Act" as "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
That first remark is a breathtaking example of executive arrogance. The second simply doesn't square with the facts.
Clearing away perceptions, exaggerations and outright lies, the only honest place to stand is on principle -- not on party principles, not on ideological principles, but on constitutional principles.
This independent citizen-patriot acknowledges his own subjective nature and yet refuses to bend to influence carried by the latest gust of wind. I stand on the Constitution of the United States.
"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"Here's one that Carlin surely would've appreciated: When I get a tax break, it's a deduction. When someone undeserving (according to me) gets a tax break, it's a damned loophole.
Likewise, the perception of judicial activism depends on where one stands. For hardcore partisans in search of ideological absolutes, the matter remains inescapably relative, even if they won't admit it.
Take, for example, Pres. Obama's shot across the Supreme Court's bow on Monday -- "that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law." He characterized the "Affordable Care Act" as "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
That first remark is a breathtaking example of executive arrogance. The second simply doesn't square with the facts.
Clearing away perceptions, exaggerations and outright lies, the only honest place to stand is on principle -- not on party principles, not on ideological principles, but on constitutional principles.
This independent citizen-patriot acknowledges his own subjective nature and yet refuses to bend to influence carried by the latest gust of wind. I stand on the Constitution of the United States.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Touché
"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you’ve heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress."
"[The president's statement] has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. So I want to be sure that you're telling us the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."
"The letter [which the Justice Department must submit to the court by noon on Thursday, April 5th] needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president's statements."
(U.S. Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith, addressing U.S. Justice Department lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang during oral arguments yesterday in Houston. The appeals court is reviewing a provision of the "Affordable Care Act" that blocks federal medical payments to certain hospitals. Judge Smith was appointed by Pres. Ronald Reagan.)
"[The president's statement] has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. So I want to be sure that you're telling us the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."
"The letter [which the Justice Department must submit to the court by noon on Thursday, April 5th] needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president's statements."
(U.S. Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith, addressing U.S. Justice Department lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang during oral arguments yesterday in Houston. The appeals court is reviewing a provision of the "Affordable Care Act" that blocks federal medical payments to certain hospitals. Judge Smith was appointed by Pres. Ronald Reagan.)
Really? Even if it's unconstitutional?
"I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
(U.S. President -- and former professor of constitutional law -- Barack Obama, at a press conference on Monday, lobbing threats at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is preparing to rule on the "Affordable Care Act," a.k.a. "Obamacare")
"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
(U.S. President -- and former professor of constitutional law -- Barack Obama, at a press conference on Monday, lobbing threats at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is preparing to rule on the "Affordable Care Act," a.k.a. "Obamacare")
Monday, March 26, 2012
Using an Etch A Sketch as a national-security tool
An open mic caught Pres. Barack Obama and current Russian Pres. Dmitri Medvedev wrapping up their discussion today about Russia's demand that the U.S. abandon its plans for a missile-defense shield.
"This is my last election," Pres. Obama said. "After my election I have more flexibility."
"I understand," Pres Medvedev said. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir" (referring to incoming Russian Pres. Putin).
It's a window into classic lame-duck politics, what virtually every elected official does without the burden of another campaign.
But here, on this subject and with these stakes, it's scary as hell.
Watch the video of today's unguarded moment (below) and ask yourself: How many times has this president has offered similar assurances, abroad and at home, and to whom?
"This is my last election," Pres. Obama said. "After my election I have more flexibility."
"I understand," Pres Medvedev said. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir" (referring to incoming Russian Pres. Putin).
It's a window into classic lame-duck politics, what virtually every elected official does without the burden of another campaign.
But here, on this subject and with these stakes, it's scary as hell.
Watch the video of today's unguarded moment (below) and ask yourself: How many times has this president has offered similar assurances, abroad and at home, and to whom?
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
It's about Liberty
Here's a news flash: opposing the president's re-election won't save our nation. Considering the current crop of GOP hopefuls, hell, replacing Pres. Obama won't even move us in the right direction.
Campaign season litters the landscape with canards. Candidates exhort us to reclaim "family values," restore capitalism or fight for religious freedom. Most of that rhetoric is nothing but pandering; all of it distracts us from what threatens the future of our country.
What we're losing, fundamentally and insidiously, is individual Liberty. A handful of examples:
Nothing personal -- I mean, if you're reading this there's a good chance that you're not part of the problem. You love this country. You chart your own course, independent of prevailing winds, and you earn your keep. You cherish Liberty -- every moment, above all.
And you join me in the minority.
In this moment of frustration I'm recalling an old Remington ad I posted here last year:
This stark contrast captures our challenge. It reminds us what's at stake: Liberty.
Campaign season litters the landscape with canards. Candidates exhort us to reclaim "family values," restore capitalism or fight for religious freedom. Most of that rhetoric is nothing but pandering; all of it distracts us from what threatens the future of our country.
What we're losing, fundamentally and insidiously, is individual Liberty. A handful of examples:
Obama's Executive Order Authorizes Peacetime Martial LawThis is the government we deserve. As citizens we've abdicated our duty to preserve, protect and defend the freedoms we crow about only on national holidays.
(The New American)
Holder 1995: We Must 'Brainwash' People on Guns
(Breitbart)
No Kugel for you!
(The New York Post)
New laws: No caffeine in beer, shark fins in soup
(The Washington Times)
Obama's Most Fateful Decision
(The Huffington Post)
Throw a Football or Frisbee on an L.A. Beach, Pay a Thousand-Dollar Fine
(Reason)
The Nanny State Owns Your Kids: 'Educators,' Not Parents, 'Know Best,' Insists Michigan Bureaucrat
(Republic Magazine)
Nothing personal -- I mean, if you're reading this there's a good chance that you're not part of the problem. You love this country. You chart your own course, independent of prevailing winds, and you earn your keep. You cherish Liberty -- every moment, above all.
And you join me in the minority.
In this moment of frustration I'm recalling an old Remington ad I posted here last year:
"No poison-pollen of Old World imperialism gone to seed can contaminate -- nor any attempt of crowd-sickened collectivism undermine -- the priceless individualism of the American who truly keeps his feet on the earth."The antitheses -- "crowd-sickened collectivism" versus "priceless individualism" -- stand out, don't they?
This stark contrast captures our challenge. It reminds us what's at stake: Liberty.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Idiocy filled the air yesterday
"The Lord has blessed me and cursed me with an ability to see over the horizon." (Glenn Beck, declaring himself a prophet)
"The Democrat Party base, fringe Alinskyite, Marxist leftists that they are, are the number one impediment to progress in this country." (Rush Limbaugh, ringing bells for his mindless poodles)
"Climate change, global warming appears to be in full effect. ... It was announced today that the cherry blossom festival dates have been moved up in Washington, D.C. by a month because warm weather has caused them to blossom that much earlier." (CNN's Erin Burnett, confusing climate with weather)
"Lately, we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians talking down these new sources of energy. ... If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they probably would have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society." (Pres. Barack Obama, making the case for exacerbating our national economic crisis)
"The Democrat Party base, fringe Alinskyite, Marxist leftists that they are, are the number one impediment to progress in this country." (Rush Limbaugh, ringing bells for his mindless poodles)
"Climate change, global warming appears to be in full effect. ... It was announced today that the cherry blossom festival dates have been moved up in Washington, D.C. by a month because warm weather has caused them to blossom that much earlier." (CNN's Erin Burnett, confusing climate with weather)
"Lately, we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians talking down these new sources of energy. ... If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they probably would have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society." (Pres. Barack Obama, making the case for exacerbating our national economic crisis)
Friday, March 2, 2012
![The Greatest Gun Salesman In America: President Barack Obama [CLICK TO VIEW LARGER]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_voMtTfmQrvGQ5zh2XkjmvNqLUPQpNpZY4IwK5ZuPZiXY2KSe8Wq3v7nMIY7BlIfnFr61Pkz3zSRHrXB99iD0RWnpoauNXlbCPCnMO3ZG_MUGKNEkhMNZRGukrO2ALUY0iJXQjdMFBBQbj-72UT_DLOzp0grpTwiUPoNZyELyEMmClUsjxt=s0-d)
Friday, January 27, 2012
Quote of the week
"If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them."
(Left-wingnut George Soros, in an interview Wednesday with Chrystia Freeland of Reuters)
(Left-wingnut George Soros, in an interview Wednesday with Chrystia Freeland of Reuters)
Monday, December 12, 2011
Know this
[The Huffington Post's left-leaning editorial content seldom interests me. Jim Garrison's piece, "Obama's Most Fateful Decision," posted this morning, was a pleasant surprise. Give attention, please, to his message -- our situation is as perilous as he says it is, the picture he paints justifiably stark. Liberty-loving citizens must not ignore it.]
Obama's Most Fateful Decision
by Jim Garrison
The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, if signed into law, will signal the death knell of our constitutional republic and the formal inception of a legalized police state in the United States. Passed by the House on May 26, 2011 (HR 1540), the Senate version (S. 1867) was passed on Dec. 1, 2011. Now only one man -- Barack Obama, a scholar of constitutional law -- will make the decision as to whether the Bill of Rights he went to Harvard to study will be superseded by a law that abrogates it.
First, let's be clear what is at stake. Most critical are Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Act, which authorize detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without charge or trial if deemed necessary by the president. The bill would allow federal officials to take these steps based on suspicions only, without having to demonstrate to any judicial official that there is solid evidence to justify their actions. No reasonable proof will any longer be required for the government to suspend an American citizen's constitutional rights. Detentions can follow mere membership, past or present, in "suspect organizations." Government agents would have unchecked authority to arrest, interrogate, and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat to "national security." Further, military personnel anywhere in the world would be authorized to seize U.S. citizens without due process. As Senator Lindsay Graham put it, under this Act the U.S. homeland is considered a "battlefield."
What is at stake is more than the Constitution itself, as central as that document has been to the American experiment in democracy. What is a stake is nothing short of the basic fundamentals of western jurisprudence. Central to civilized law is the notion that a person cannot be held without a charge and cannot be detained indefinitely without a trial. These principles date back to Greco-Roman times, were developed by English common law beginning in 1215 with the Magna Carta, and were universalized by the Enlightenment in the century before the American Constitution and Bill of Rights were fought for and adopted as the supreme law of the land.
For more than two centuries of constitutional development since then, the United States has been heralded as the light to the world precisely because of the liberties it enshrined in its Declaration of Independence and Constitution as inalienable. It now seems as if the events of 9/11 have been determined to be of such a threatening magnitude that our national leaders feel justified to abrogate in their entirety the very inalienable principles upon which our Republic was founded.
At the heart of this Act is the most fundamental question we must ask ourselves as a free people: is 9/11 worth the Republic? The question screaming at us through this bill is whether the war on terror is a better model around which to shape our destiny than our constitutional liberties. It compels the question of whether we remain an ongoing experiment in democracy, pioneering new frontiers in the name of liberty and justice for all, or have we become a national security state, having financially corrupted and militarized our democracy to such an extent that we define ourselves, as Sparta did, only through the exigencies of war?
Within a week of 9/11, the Use of Military Force Act was approved which authorized the full application of U.S. military power against "terrorism." A month later, on Oct. 26, 2001, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act that began the legislative assault on the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment right to freedom of association was gutted as federal officials were authorized to prosecute citizens for alleged association with "undesirable groups." The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was compromised by permitting indefinite detentions of those suspected of "terrorism." The Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy was obliterated as unchecked surveillance was authorized to access personal records, financial dealings, and medical records of any citizen at any time without any judicial oversight or permission. Evidence obtained extra-judicially could be withheld from defense attorneys.
The Patriot Act also criminalized "domestic terrorism." It stated that civil conduct can be considered "domestic terrorism" if such actions aim to "influence by intimidation or coercion" or "intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Put in plain language, this means that actions such as Occupy Wall Street can be designated as "domestic terrorism" by Federal authorities without judicial oversight and dealt with outside the due process of constitutional protections.
Two weeks after passage of the Patriot Act, on Nov. 13, President Bush issued Military Order No. 1 authorizing the executive branch and the military to capture, kidnap, or otherwise arrest non-citizens anywhere in the world if suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. Proof was not required. It stipulated that trials, if held, would be military tribunals, not civil courts, and that evidence obtained by torture was permissible. No right of appeal was afforded to those convicted. Numerous executive orders, findings, and National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives followed, further consolidating the militarization of due process under the law and enabling the executive branch to act without legal constraint after it has defined a person or group as potentially engaging in "terrorist" activity.
A year later, on Nov. 25, 2002, the Homeland Security Act was passed that for the first time integrated all U.S. intelligence agencies, both domestic and foreign, into a single interactive network under the president. The Act gave these intelligence agencies complete freedom to collect any and all data on anyone anywhere in the United States and, working with allies abroad, to access complete information on anyone anywhere in the world, working closely with local police, intelligence agencies, and the corporate sector. This dissolved the distinctions between domestic and foreign spying and made more ambiguous the distinction between domestic and foreign "terrorism."
The next major step took place on Oct. 17, 2006, when Congress passed the Military Commissions Act that effectively abrogated habeas corpus for domestic and foreign enemies alike, stating, "Any person is punishable who aides, abets, counsels, commands, or procures" material support for alleged terrorist groups. One of the most basic principles of both our democracy and our civilization, that a person cannot be held without being charged, was surrendered, and done so by substantial majorities in both houses. On the same day, the 2007 NDAA was passed, which amended the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting U.S. military personnel from acting upon U.S. citizens within U.S. borders. Not only was anything allowable in the pursuit of "terrorists," but the military was authorized to conduct operations inside the homeland in their pursuit.
Now comes the 2012 NDAA, which completes the process and thus serves as the coup de grace for a democratically voted metamorphosis from republic to national security state. It puts the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution by designating the entire United States as essentially the same "battlefield" in the war on terror as Iraq or Afghanistan, and authorizes the executive branch and the military to take whatever actions they consider legitimate against any human being anywhere on planet earth, civilian or enemy combatant, and to do so without any judicial oversight or constitutional constraint. If this Act is passed, the Bill of Rights will no longer protect American citizens from their government. The Constitution will no longer be the ultimate law of the land.
The House and Senate versions of the Act must now be reconciled and the Act sent to the president to either sign or veto. With his decision, he will determine the fate of those very liberties which, up to this point, have been integral to and indeed have defined America.
Obama's Most Fateful Decision
by Jim Garrison
The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, if signed into law, will signal the death knell of our constitutional republic and the formal inception of a legalized police state in the United States. Passed by the House on May 26, 2011 (HR 1540), the Senate version (S. 1867) was passed on Dec. 1, 2011. Now only one man -- Barack Obama, a scholar of constitutional law -- will make the decision as to whether the Bill of Rights he went to Harvard to study will be superseded by a law that abrogates it.
First, let's be clear what is at stake. Most critical are Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Act, which authorize detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without charge or trial if deemed necessary by the president. The bill would allow federal officials to take these steps based on suspicions only, without having to demonstrate to any judicial official that there is solid evidence to justify their actions. No reasonable proof will any longer be required for the government to suspend an American citizen's constitutional rights. Detentions can follow mere membership, past or present, in "suspect organizations." Government agents would have unchecked authority to arrest, interrogate, and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat to "national security." Further, military personnel anywhere in the world would be authorized to seize U.S. citizens without due process. As Senator Lindsay Graham put it, under this Act the U.S. homeland is considered a "battlefield."
What is at stake is more than the Constitution itself, as central as that document has been to the American experiment in democracy. What is a stake is nothing short of the basic fundamentals of western jurisprudence. Central to civilized law is the notion that a person cannot be held without a charge and cannot be detained indefinitely without a trial. These principles date back to Greco-Roman times, were developed by English common law beginning in 1215 with the Magna Carta, and were universalized by the Enlightenment in the century before the American Constitution and Bill of Rights were fought for and adopted as the supreme law of the land.
For more than two centuries of constitutional development since then, the United States has been heralded as the light to the world precisely because of the liberties it enshrined in its Declaration of Independence and Constitution as inalienable. It now seems as if the events of 9/11 have been determined to be of such a threatening magnitude that our national leaders feel justified to abrogate in their entirety the very inalienable principles upon which our Republic was founded.
At the heart of this Act is the most fundamental question we must ask ourselves as a free people: is 9/11 worth the Republic? The question screaming at us through this bill is whether the war on terror is a better model around which to shape our destiny than our constitutional liberties. It compels the question of whether we remain an ongoing experiment in democracy, pioneering new frontiers in the name of liberty and justice for all, or have we become a national security state, having financially corrupted and militarized our democracy to such an extent that we define ourselves, as Sparta did, only through the exigencies of war?
Within a week of 9/11, the Use of Military Force Act was approved which authorized the full application of U.S. military power against "terrorism." A month later, on Oct. 26, 2001, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act that began the legislative assault on the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment right to freedom of association was gutted as federal officials were authorized to prosecute citizens for alleged association with "undesirable groups." The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was compromised by permitting indefinite detentions of those suspected of "terrorism." The Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy was obliterated as unchecked surveillance was authorized to access personal records, financial dealings, and medical records of any citizen at any time without any judicial oversight or permission. Evidence obtained extra-judicially could be withheld from defense attorneys.
The Patriot Act also criminalized "domestic terrorism." It stated that civil conduct can be considered "domestic terrorism" if such actions aim to "influence by intimidation or coercion" or "intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Put in plain language, this means that actions such as Occupy Wall Street can be designated as "domestic terrorism" by Federal authorities without judicial oversight and dealt with outside the due process of constitutional protections.
Two weeks after passage of the Patriot Act, on Nov. 13, President Bush issued Military Order No. 1 authorizing the executive branch and the military to capture, kidnap, or otherwise arrest non-citizens anywhere in the world if suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. Proof was not required. It stipulated that trials, if held, would be military tribunals, not civil courts, and that evidence obtained by torture was permissible. No right of appeal was afforded to those convicted. Numerous executive orders, findings, and National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives followed, further consolidating the militarization of due process under the law and enabling the executive branch to act without legal constraint after it has defined a person or group as potentially engaging in "terrorist" activity.
A year later, on Nov. 25, 2002, the Homeland Security Act was passed that for the first time integrated all U.S. intelligence agencies, both domestic and foreign, into a single interactive network under the president. The Act gave these intelligence agencies complete freedom to collect any and all data on anyone anywhere in the United States and, working with allies abroad, to access complete information on anyone anywhere in the world, working closely with local police, intelligence agencies, and the corporate sector. This dissolved the distinctions between domestic and foreign spying and made more ambiguous the distinction between domestic and foreign "terrorism."
The next major step took place on Oct. 17, 2006, when Congress passed the Military Commissions Act that effectively abrogated habeas corpus for domestic and foreign enemies alike, stating, "Any person is punishable who aides, abets, counsels, commands, or procures" material support for alleged terrorist groups. One of the most basic principles of both our democracy and our civilization, that a person cannot be held without being charged, was surrendered, and done so by substantial majorities in both houses. On the same day, the 2007 NDAA was passed, which amended the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting U.S. military personnel from acting upon U.S. citizens within U.S. borders. Not only was anything allowable in the pursuit of "terrorists," but the military was authorized to conduct operations inside the homeland in their pursuit.
Now comes the 2012 NDAA, which completes the process and thus serves as the coup de grace for a democratically voted metamorphosis from republic to national security state. It puts the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution by designating the entire United States as essentially the same "battlefield" in the war on terror as Iraq or Afghanistan, and authorizes the executive branch and the military to take whatever actions they consider legitimate against any human being anywhere on planet earth, civilian or enemy combatant, and to do so without any judicial oversight or constitutional constraint. If this Act is passed, the Bill of Rights will no longer protect American citizens from their government. The Constitution will no longer be the ultimate law of the land.
The House and Senate versions of the Act must now be reconciled and the Act sent to the president to either sign or veto. With his decision, he will determine the fate of those very liberties which, up to this point, have been integral to and indeed have defined America.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
NRA: 'Fire Holder'
My family and I saw this commercial for the first time during dinner last night. Give it a look and, if you agree with us, click here to sign the National Rifle Association's petition demanding that Pres. Barack Obama fire Attorney General Eric Holder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
