The Founding Fathers

I have read several different articles lately regarding a sort of “revised” history.  Obviously, as we learn new things or study different aspects of history, some views and thoughts about the past are bound to change.  Sometimes it’s something minor, sometimes it’s something major, but it’s bound to happen from time to time. 

One of the most recent articles I read was in regards to a new interpretation of Thomas Jefferson and what views influenced him politically.  The article I read was from the Tenth Amendment Center (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com) and was specifically discussing a new view that was taken by a couple scholars, basically pushing their own political views and trying to show how Jefferson believed the same as they do.

The basic beliefs that they are pushing, which they call “Republicanism”, is a socialistic view on public (group) happiness, participation, and power which completely disregards individualism.  Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers were very individualistic.  They fought a war and founded a nation in order that individuals be free to decide their own path in life, and how best to travel that path. 

While the theory of Socialism is nearly perfect, but the system was, is, and will continue to be an epic failure because it disparages the individual in favor of the group.  While the group is important, the individual is more important, as the individual is the building block of the group.  That’s like building a beautiful new brick building, adding extremely finely crafted details – sculptures, pillars, etc. – but using whatever bricks you could find without regard to quality, manufacturing process, or size of the bricks.  Further, slap them in and ignore them. 

Sure, that building will stand for a while, but eventually it’s going to fall down.  When you spend too much time on beautiful details and ignore the structural cores, whether we’re talking politics or architecture, the result will crumble.

What I Would Love to See a Governor Do

What is the most important quality of a Governor?  Leadership?  Charisma?  A background in Law?

I think those are all fine qualities, but I would argue that the best quality I could find in a governor would be a desire and will power to do what is right.  How many people can honestly say they have both?  In particular, how many politicians can say they have both?  Or either, for that matter.

What is the “right” thing to do when you’re the executive in charge of a state?  How is the “right” thing determined?

I think the right thing to do, no matter what your level in politics, is to defend the rights of the people you represent.  The Mayor and the City Council should defend citizens of that city against unlawful encroachments from County and State levels.  Likewise, Representatives and Senators, as well as Governors, have a duty and obligation to defend their constituents from encroachment by the Feds, as well as ensuring that local governments are following all applicable laws.  How many people feel that your state government is really there to defend you?  I don’t trust my state government any more than I do my Federal government, with the exception of a very few reps who I’ve personally met and conversed with who I honestly believe are there to look out for people.  People like Senator Joe Fain of the 47th Legislative District in Washington State.  Joe votes for freedom, and individual rights, regardless of what anyone else might thing.  I have found no cause to doubt that he truly want’s to ensure individual rights are protected, and I hope that I never do (don’t let me down, Joe). 

As part of the defense of the people you represent, should a Governor stand up to the Feds?  Of course they should!  In places like Arizona and Virginia, we’ve seen the beginnings of a state standing up for itself.  Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, has been seen wagging her finger at the President.  Virginia recently passed a bill into law making it illegal for any state agency, employee, or elected official to assist the Federal Government in detaining any resident of Virginia without due process and probably cause.  Virginia basically told the Feds to shove the NDAA sections 1021 and 1022 up their keisters, we’re not having it!

So what would I love to see a Governor do?  I’d love to see a Governor stand up one day and address a group of people, getting full press coverage, and say:

I have established a commission of nine volunteers - made up of Constitutional scholars, judges, and lawyers – to review all Federal laws and determine if the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to enact that law.  Each unconstitutional Federal Law will be have a bill drafted and introduced to our state legislature, individually, to nullify that law.  The commission will also make a recommendation to either replace the unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, federal law with a similar state law or to replace it with nothing.  Once this is completed, this commission will begin work on Washington State laws, comparing them to the Washington State Constitution and making the same recommendations to the legislature.  This commission will be an ongoing thing, reviewing all new laws at the State and Federal level and making recommendations as they go.  It will be known as the Constitutional Review Commission, and will continue in operation perpetually.

Further, if any member of this commission should no longer be able to continue in the position, for whatever reason, the Governor at that time will join the commission in selecting possible candidates to replace that person.  The commission will then vote on those candidates, and if necessary the Governor will serve the tie breaking vote.  The elected replacement will then be confirmed by the State Legislature to serve as a volunteer in that position for as long as that person wishes.

That would be the greatest thing I’d ever heard from any Governor.

The Next Steps Towards Liberty

This is a post taken directly from http://tenthamendmentcenter.com.  It was just too good not to post.  You can view the original post at http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/04/01/the-next-steps-towards-liberty/.

While you’re there, look around, send them a donation, or click some ads.  These people do fantastic work, and they need all the help they can get.  After all, they defend your rights as much as mine. 

The Next Steps Toward Liberty

Posted by Chris Dixon

One could only imagine the words George Orwell might have to say about the world around us. The visionary of a dystopian future or a man of warning unheeded, he has written a lot of what did come true. There is Animal Farm,  which showed how a new government formed on equality becomes totalitarian and powerful because of lust and greed. Even more well known is Nineteen Eighty-Four, which carries two major themes: the power of propaganda and the expansion of the police state.

We’re at a defining moment in history.

Trillions of dollars in debt, a number in the financial world difficult to stomach (unless you have enough propaganda artists), and because of the turmoil, a government slowly chokes its clinching fingers upon the throat of the Constitution. Both sides of the spectrum have seen grassroots uprisings that threaten the establishment in both parties, with Occupy on the left and the Tea Party on the right. Each has its issues, whether it be social justice or elimination excessive taxation, and it has fueled its growing relevance. But they, like their establishment counterparts, fail to come together towards any meaningful goals. The media still remains successful in maintaining a dark and politically bloody divide.

Liberty has failed to unite up until this point, because of various issues. Capitalism has been given a bad name because of corporatism, and thus, the mere mention of the former incites hatred from the left. But is capitalism all that bad? Not so much, as the big corporations would not have the big government steroids that enable a much larger advantage over the smaller, fair players. On the right, social conservatism enables them to rival their counterparts in the competition for biggest big government policies.

Best way to save the economy? Restore constitutional governance? Make sure two consenting adults do not enter into a contract that does not affect anyone else, simply because it is not of our approval.

It would seem as though we’re never going to find common ground. Can we?

Enter National Defense Authorization Act.

REDEFINING THE DIVIDE

As previously established, the divide has always been conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Democrat. Ayn Rand once noted that there is only one real battle, and that is freedom vs. tyranny. Republicans fight those bad people in the other party that believe in economic slavery and the Democrats fight those bad people in the other party because they believe in social control. Never mind that Republicans have Medicare Part D and TARP to brag about, while the Democrats continue to insist on social freedom while protecting the government control over that freedom.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 changed everything. Republicans and Democrats found themselves under the same rallying call. Groups scattered at every corner of the spectrum, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Tenth Amendment Center, began standing up to the bill. The point of controversy? Sections 1021 and 1022. The first deals with detention without trial, with the second dealing with military custody.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-California) claimed in an article on RedState that the bill did nothing more than confirm what was previously known as of the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force: that they  “affirm that the military may lawfully detain foreign individuals who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States.” He further states that the provision “explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement.”

All is well, right? Once again, the government solution is always the answer to the problem, right?

Congressman Justin Amash (R-Michigan) however offered a different perspective. While many government figures in the executive and legislative branches have claimed it does nothing more than merely confirm what the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force authorized, Congressman Amash notes that it already authorized indefinite detention. So when Section 2011 of NDAA confirms what we already knew, it does technically uphold the indefinite detention.

In a very careful and complex way, we were nearly fooled. In regards to the bill’s successful passage, Congressman Amash correctly observed, “The NDAA’s backers succeeded in part because of the bill’s length and complexity.”

But we won’t get fooled again. And so goes the infighting within the Republican Party, while Democrats rally against it as well. For political gain?

For liberty.

MAKING A STATEMENT

The Tenth Amendment Center’s NDAA legislative tracking page has a few resolutions passed, a couple half way there, and several introduced. The most recent statement was made by Maine, with the House voting in favor on March 19th and the Senate doing so twenty-four hours later. Although the resolutions themselves are non-binding, they send a clear message: we won’t back down.

This is an important first step to put states on the map. Virginia, Utah, and Maine have all successfully done so. 47 states remain. In the meantime, it is important for these three states to move forward and take the lead. Putting force to the statement, by taking a stand, will encourage others to take the time and effort to stand up.

TAKING A STAND

The Tenth Amendment Center offers three pieces of draft legislation, for varying levels. The first, which the three states noted above have done, is a resolution affirms the roles of government and calls on the federal government to backdown. Although three states have taken this on successfully, NOBODY has made it beyond this point.

Yet.

Because straight-forward nullification may not be viable because of its mainstream reputation and the lack of awareness among the mainstream, it is necessary to take steps. First, the resolution. Then, the non-compliance act. The non-compliance act is an actual law and is binding, which takes the next step of refusing state support of the indefinite detention provisions of the federal law. State agencies would be lawfully required to refuse compliance with the federal government in enforcing the National Defense Authorization Act.

Only then, can a state tackle the final step of the nullification act, which would take the non-compliance act a step further by also making the federal law illegal and setting penalties for those who attempt enforcement.

CAN IT BE DONE?

It seems like a difficult idea to stomach for some: the small little state government taking on the behemoth the federal government has become. How can a state government, that relies on the federal government for funding on many projects, possibly stand its ground?

Flashback to where it all began: the launch of the Tenth Amendment Center and the jumpstart of the modern nullification movement. 2006 saw what has never occurred before on such a large scale and so fast, as many states moved forward to refuse compliance with REAL ID. States either outright refused to allow the bill to move forward in their territory, or they refused to fund the compliance of it, as the States were forced to foot the bill.

Now that the big scary beast has been taunted, it’s going to strike back, right? Funding cuts or threats thereof, federal agents hitting the ground running?

Think again.

March 2, 2007 came around and after the bill’s passage on May 11, 2005, the federal government was still facing heavy resistance it was not used to. The result was the announcement that enforcement would be extended for two years, with the deadline now December 2009.

That was that. The federal government means business and they’re going to put their foot down, right? The states won’t have any impact.

Think again.

The new year rolled around in 2008 and resistance still hadn’t calmed, despite the best hopes from the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. who want to perform the noble deed of keeping us safe from ourselves. Come the 11th of January, another announcement came from the federal government: you’ve been extended, until 2011.

Well, we were lucky to get this far without any real push back. Even with half of the states in the union, at the very least, standing their ground, we were still due to fail. Right?

Wrong.

March 2011 rolled around without much change in the situation, as states still refused to stand down. Still frustrated, but not giving up after six long years, the federal government sent another message to the states: once more, you have been given another chance. The current extension has the date of implementation at January 15, 2013.

Nobody has backed down yet. An extension is likely coming, seven years later.

WE THE PEOPLE

We the people have spoken on various issues, with the Tenth Amendment being applied to right-wing issues such as healthcare, as well as left-wing issues such as the wars. Although the Constitution knows no partisan boundaries, it is used in partisan politics as a weapon to win elections and damage one’s foes. It has become a tool for gain, instead of a shield for the people.

Become a member and support the TAC!

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, with it’s indefinite detention provisions, changes everything. With Occupiers and Tea Partiers, liberals and conservatives, coming together, the people are putting aside their petty differences to stand for what’s right.

United we stand, divided we fall. The message rang true after September 11th, 2001 and it still remains a fact of reality. We, as the greatest experiment in liberty that human history has ever known, must remain united. We can point fingers in our local coffee shops as arguments echo down the halls of Congress, and we can bicker all day, but it will divert us.

This is what the establishment wants. This is what tyranny relies on.

Division leads to easier submission.

But we’re Americans. As a free people, strong and principled, we’re better than that. And we’re going to prove the world wrong by relighting the torch of liberty and holding it high for all the world to see.

And we will do it with nullification.

Chris is the state chapter coordinator for the Maine Tenth Amendment Center.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

The War on War

It seems like everywhere we turn, we’re hearing about the new war on <insert political catch phrase here>.  What a freakin load.  We have Christians screaming about the War on Christmas, Democrats screaming about the War on Women, and the President himself busily trying his best to encourage a War on Success. 

What about a War on War?  I’m sick and tired of these a-holes pulling out the word “war” to describe everything.  They use that word specifically because of the bad feelings and images it brings forth.  Anyone who is trying to influence you to feel negatively about something could do a lot worse than putting the word “war” in their press release and speeches. 

It goes beyond just the extreme overuse of the word, though.  We are currently engaged in military operations in several countries.  We are in more than one country in Africa, along with Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  God only knows were else we are.  Hell, we’re likely to send troops to the Arctic to storm the Castle of the Penguins at any point.  We are the world police, but we don’t enforce the laws of the nations we visit. Instead, we tell them to do it different, and then force them to change.  Perhaps some things do need to change, but how do we have that right?  They are their own nation.  They didn’t ask for our opinion.  They didn’t request assistance.  We simply took it upon ourselves to go let them know they’re doing it wrong.  There are plenty of things we do wrong in our own country, but if Canada sent military forces in to try to straighten us out, we would not cheer.

Yet we cheer when we send in the troops to “fix” other nations.  NO wonder the world thinks we’re arrogant.  We are!

The word “war” is becoming the catch phrase of a generation.  There’s a war on everything.  Around every corner.  We’re bringing Democracy to nations that don’t want it and didn’t ask.  We bring Political Correctness to the masses for fear we might insult someone, anyone.  We overthrow legitimate elected rulers to put in power people who will be more receptive to what we would like to see happen.  We are in a perpetual state of war, at home and abroad, at an ever increasing cost in economic, social, and political terms, not to mention the number of lives spent in military missions that were nothing more than unnecessary invasions of sovereign nations.  People are dying for our government to play “Simon Says” all across the globe. 

Enough is enough.  Bring the men and women of our armed forces home, end military aggression against any and all nations, and stop spending money that my great, great, great grandchildren haven’t earned yet.  You cannot fix what you don’t understand, and looking at our own nation, particularly the economy, it’s very clear we don’t know what the hell we’re doing, either.

What Exactly is the Bill of Rights?

I think most people know of the Bill of Rights, and can even name one or two of them.  Although, I’d bet most people would be hard pressed to put the requirements with the amendment number.  Well, maybe the Second Amendment, since it gets a fair deal of play.  Likely the Fifth Amendment would be relatively popular as well.

What does the Bill of Rights do?  Who does it pertain to?  Why do we need the Bill of Rights at all?

Anyone…. Bueller… Bueller… Bueller…

Nobody?  That’s about what I expected, honestly.  I didn’t know much about it until I started really paying attention and studying politics and the founding documents.  It’s amazing the things you can learn just by doing a little studying. 

The Bill of Rights limits the scope and power of the Federal Government.  It pertains directly to the Federal Government, and what they are not allowed to do.  It also specifically makes mention of the States a few times.  We need it to clarify some things left out of the original Constitution.  For instance, the First Amendment, most commonly known for Freedom of Speech (and sometimes wrongfully referenced for Separation of Church and State, which is nowhere in the Constitution or any Amendments), recognizes freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and stipulates that Congress can neither recognize an official religion nor prevent someone from practicing the religion of their choice.  Notice, it does not say you can’t have the 10 Commandments on a plaque in a court house or any other such non-sense.  It specifically tells Congress what it cannot do.  It cannot censor you for non-violent speech or protest.  Nor can it censor the press.  Nor can it require or prevent you from practicing any religion. 

The Bill of Rights is not a document granting you some rights you didn’t already have.  It’s a document recognizing rights that are inherently in people, based on free will, and forbidding Congress from attempting to interfere with those rights. 

Likewise, the other nine Amendments set forth in the Bill of Rights are not granting you any special power or privilege you didn’t have.  They are all recognizing rights that are yours, and forbidding interference.  In some places you’ll find mention of the States.  In particular, the Tenth Amendment is my favorite. It calls out in detail that the powers of Congress and the Federal Government are limited to what is enumerated in the Constitution, and ONLY what is enumerated in the Constitution.  It goes on to specify that any and all other powers that can be imagined are reserved specifically for the States or the people to decide for themselves.

A right cannot be granted.  People are saying they have a right to medical care.  Bull.  A right doesn’t depend on someone else providing it for your.  Saying you have a right to medical care is like saying you have a right to a small portion of another persons life (the doctors and nurses).  That cannot be. 

I have heard people saying they have a right to a job.  I can’t even fathom how they arrived at that, but it fails for the same reason.  Someone has to employ you, and you cannot claim you have a right to someone else’s time, money, or possessions.  That’s foolish, at best.

My favorite is the right to vote.  There is absolutely NO right to vote in a federal election.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Nor should there be.  If anything, we should be limiting the people who are allowed to vote.  For one, if you’re living solely off the tax money of others, whether as a politician, welfare recipient, or government employee, you should not be allowed to vote for any positions that have any control over the money that is paid to you.  To allow Federal Employees to vote for people who authorize budgets for Federal Departments is a conflict of interest.  Why would they not vote for the person who promises them the most for the least amount of work?  Short sighted self interest is what humanity does best.

Rights are inherent in you.  They do not require action from another person or entity to make them rights.  They do not require assistance from others to provide your right to you.  You have the right to live, liberty, and property.  You have a right to defend yourself.  You do not have a right to get things for free, or to make others take care of some sort of need or desire for you.  Your rights depend entirely on you. 

They also need you to defend them.  Stand up for yourself, and demand that you State stand up against Federal Tyranny on your behalf.  Don’t vote for the person with the best lies.  Vote for the person who knows what a right is.  Pick wisely.

THIS is what this Election is All About

Someone, for the love of God, listen to what is said and understand what is being done.  Obama and Obama-lite (Romney) are not the solution.  They are two heads of the same beast.  

Vote for real change, not the pretend change that the GOP and Dems offer while continuing business as usual after the elections.

Why Abraham Lincoln was a Horrid President

               
Abraham Lincoln, greatest of Presidents, beloved of school children everywhere in our land.  How could he not be a great man?  He held this nation together during a time of turmoil. He freed the slaves.  Honest Abe. 
Sounds like the ideal politician.  Except history knows that’s all crap.  It’s pure propaganda.  For one, a politician being known as “Honest” is pretty unlikely.  Even the ones that truly are honest wouldn’t be nicknamed as such, because that would make it too hard to fight against them.  Ridiculous. 
What about holding this nation together, and freeing the slaves?  Well, he didn’t actually do either.  The GOP has recently started a campaign to win the hearts and minds of black Americans pointing out that Abe was a Republican and freed the slaves.  This is the kind of garbage that is taught in public schools, too.  Lincoln freed the slaves of the Confederate States.  Which he didn’t have the power to do, since they were a separate nation at that time. 
“What’s that?” you say?  A separate nation?  Yes, indeed, as soon as the Southern States declared their intentions to leave the Union, they were in fact a separate nation.  Not only international law, but our own Constitution agrees on that.  While there is no mechanism in the Constitution dictating the method for states to leave, there is no mention of them having no right to do so.  That in itself guarantees that they do in fact have that right, under the 10th Amendment. 
The 10th Amendment specifically states that all power not delegated to Congress or the Federal Government, nor specifically forbidden to the states, in the Constitution is reserved for the States or the People.   That means the states and the people have nearly unlimited power, and the Federal Government has extremely limited power.
So, by extension, the moment the states left the union, they were free of any and all Federal Regulation.  Which in turn means a few things.  First, the Civil War was not a civil war.  A civil war, by definition, is a war between two factions for control of a government.  There was no such war.  The Confederate States had their capital, the Union had it’s capital, and the Confederacy wanted nothing to do with controlling the Union. They wanted to be free of the Union.  The Union, on the other hand, was set on capturing, conquering, and controlling the Confederacy.  It also means that, far from a defensive action to “hold this nation together”, this was a militaristic aggressive action taken against another nation.
Now, on to the slavery issue.  He didn’t end slavery.  He didn’t free black people.  He wanted to not allow it to spread to any new states or territories, and he made several statements to the effect that it was wrong, but he also made statements, on numerous occasions, that he had no intentions or design on changing anything in regards to slavery in the states where slavery was legal.  During the war between the states, slaves were originally classified as equipment, and could be captured as such.  Later, there were offered the chance to earn their freedom by joining Union forces to fight against the South.  This appealed to many slaves, who had a natural human desire for vengeance or justice, or just wanted to help free others. 
Lincoln was also very sure that blacks and whites would never be able to live in harmony, and the relations between the two, if they lived in the same nation, would always have to be one of superior/inferior. As a white man, believing such, he was content that whites should remain the superior race.  Since he had freed all the Southern blacks during the war (as a means of encouraging them to run away to the North and weaken the armies and economy of the South, not because he cared in the least) and he believed that they could not live together with white people as equals, he was working on plans to solve that problem after the war. 
The most likely plan involved the several hundred thousand acres in what is now Panama.  An owner of a shipping company had somehow ended up as the controlling party of this land, and offered it up for use in Lincolns relocation plans.  The idea being that they transport the blacks there to resettle them, they mine the coal that was supposed to be richly deposited across the area, and sell it back to the US Navy.  The blacks would then use the profits from those sale to found their nation, planting crops, forming their government, etc.  There seems to be some historical argument as to whether or not they would have been a free nation, or perhaps a semi-free US Territory.  Either way, it was land that was uninhabited where Lincoln could solve his problem of blacks and whites living together. 
Before he could see this plan through, someone shot him in the back of the head.  Thus Lincoln, the great liberator of the black people in the United States, the great man who held a nation together, is proven to be the man that violated the rights of millions to forcibly require the unconditional surrender of a free nation so he could swallow it whole and deport a large majority of it’s workforce (the slaves) to another nation where he wouldn’t have to deal with them anymore.  Lincoln, the racist tyrant who ignored the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land, which he took an oath to uphold and defend.  The rest, as they say, is history.
If you’re interested in reading more, most everything that is covered in this blog and a great deal more can be found at http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html.

Armenian Martyr Day

Tomorrow marks the observance of the 97th anniversary of the massacre of the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey).  As yet, if Turkey has ever even acknowledged it, let alone apologized for it, I have yet to hear about it.

Starting in 1915, the Ottoman Empire began murdering and deporting Armenians who lived in Turkey.  The method of deportation was forced march, under conditions specifically and intentionally designed to bring suffering and death to the people being moved.  Marching through the desert with no water isn’t good for anyone.  I’ve seen estimates ranging from 600,000 to 3 million Armenians died during the events of this 8 year period of time. 

Other ethnic groups were targeted for this genocide as well, including Greeks and Assyrians.  Turkey continues to deny that these events were genocidal in nature, despite the fact that genocide scholars, historians, and many nations have officially stated their position that it was an act of genocide on the part of the Ottoman Empire. 

I can’t help but wonder how many of my ancestors died during that time.  The entire population of the Republic of Armenia is now roughly 3 million.  That means that nearly 100 years ago, the Turks wiped out anywhere from 25% to 100% of the current national population of Armenia. 

In 3 years, we will observe the 100th Anniversary of the beginning of the wholesale slaughter of my people.  It would be nice if the nation of Turkey could be bothered to stand and at least admit to the actions of their forefathers.  Maybe even an apology. A nod?  A smile?

Or as usual, nothing more than contempt.  We’ve come to expect no less from the Turks.  Some things will never change.  Armenians have a long memory.  100 years is but a drop in the bucket.

US Involvement in the Middle East

Why are we still in the Middle East? 

We went into Afghanistan to hunt for terrorists, specifically Osama bin Laden.  He is dead now, thanks to Seal Team 6.  No thanks to Pakistan’s useless government.  So that reason is gone.

We went into Iraq because “they have weapons of mass destruction” and Saddam Husain was a nutty SOB who wouldn’t hesitate to kill, kill, kill, kill, kill.  So we went in, found no weapons, hunted his but down in a hole somewhere….  Hell, he was tried, convicted, and executed several years ago now, so that reason is gone, too.

There were rumblings in Libya, so Obama decided we needed to “help”.  So we shot some missiles around the countryside.  Of course, since he didn’t sent in any ground troops, he said he didn’t have to take it to Congress for approval, which is complete horse dung any way you slice it.  He took military action foreign controlled areas.  The War Powers Act, where he drew the authority to command our forces to take that action, also requires him to get a justification ready to present to Congress as to why he believed those actions were necessary, and allow them to vote on whether or not to continue those or further actions.  Congress has the power to declare war, not the President.

Then there’s the freak shows running around in various African nations, killing entire villages in the name of Christ.  So we send troops in there, but not to do anything.  No, we sent troops in the train their people.  What?  Our armed forces are now training other nations armed forces? 

Who’s paying for all this adventurism to far off places?  We, we are, of course, by printing more money that’s nearly useless now.  $15 TRILLION in debt.  That’s $15,000,000,000,000.  That’s a hell of a load of zeros, don’tcha think?  But we’re still printing more money, blowing crap up in other countries, and telling them how to manage their affairs.

Since we helped the Brits overthrow the Democratically Elected leader of Iran in 1953, we haven’t kept our hands out of the Middle East for a single year.  That makes it extremely easy for people there to decide to hate us.  They are urged to hate us by their governments and political groups repeatedly.  Daily.  They are suffering because we put sanctions on nations in the Middle East that don’t run things the way we tell them too, but the people in power won’t go without, so it trickles down.  The average person in many places are so dirt poor that they would kill to come here and live life like one of our homeless. 

Yet we continue the sanctions against these nations, because they don’t do exactly what we tell them.  We cause their people to suffer and to hate us.  We maintain an armed, threatening presence at their borders, if not right smack dab in the middle of their nation.  We say we’re there to help them, and we try to “win the hearts of the people” by handing out bottled water.  Then shooting at them.  We are putting our own sons and daughters in danger to force another nation to do what they don’t want to do.  We lose loved ones every day, and we talk about how they died “defending” our nation.

Defending against what?  A nation that wanted to rule itself? A people that were dirt poor and starving because of our sanctions?

We send out troops out to die because our government wants to play power games with other nations and tell them how to live.  Our troops, our citizens, Middle Eastern residents, and freedom suffer the consequences of our leaders lust for power and control. 

Presidential War Powers

In 1941, the First War Powers Act was passed, which granted the President a great deal of additional power.  This was deemed necessary at the time because of the threat of Germany and Japan.  It was passed less than two weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and gave the President extensive power, including the right to claim just about any property that the Federal Government might decide they need for a military or naval base, as well as giving him a lot of power to reorganize, create, move, and control Federal Departments that now reported directly to the Executive Branch. 

Just a few months later, the Second War Powers Act was passed.  This act was even worst.  It suspended some of the rights of foreign born citizens that had been granted just a couple years earlier, in 1939, by the Hatch Act, and made confidential census data available to the FBI, which eventually lead to the imprisonment of thousands of American Citizens of Japanese decent being locked away in “internment camps” to prevent sabotage and terroristic acts on US soil. 

Fast forward to 1973.  After many, many, many military “encounters” through the intervening decades, Congress decides it is time to try to rope in the President a little so he can’t just be a cowboy whenever he feels like it.  So they pass the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which Nixon promptly vetoes.  That didn’t sit well with a Congress who was sick and tired of war, and looking to regain a little control over the matter.  The veto was tossed out by the House, then by the Senate, and the bill was passed into law by the override of Congress. 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 limits the President to only taking military actions at the direction of Congress (remember, according to the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war, raise and fund and army, control funding for the war or military action, and pass any laws regarding the manner in which the war is to be Conducted – the President commands the military, and is the de-facto head of the Armed Forces – the Congress is in charge of what constitutes a legal order from the President) OR during a “national emergency created by an attack against the United States, its territories or possessions, or its military forces”.  Therefore, unless we are attacked, the President cannot order military action without the Congress authorizing it. 

Additionally, the President is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of any action that he orders taken, and no military action may last longer than 60 days, with an additional 30 days granted for an orderly withdrawal, without the authorization of Congress.  All of these are well within the Constitutional constraints that Congress (supposedly) operates under.

Regardless, every President since Nixon has declared the constraints to be unconstitutional, and there is, of course, some argument about it. Of course, that’s immaterial, as it’s still the law, and unless someone would like to challenge it before the Supreme Court, it’s not likely to ever be slackened.  That won’t stop a determined President from doing as he damned well pleased, thought.  Clinton ignored it when he bombed Kosovo in 1999, GW Bush ignored it when he ordered drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, and naturally Dear Ruler Obama ignored it in 2011 when he decided to enforce a UN no-fly zone over Libya without Congressional approval.

So what is the purpose of Congress making laws reinforcing their Constitutional powers, limiting the actions that President can take to what is is supposed to be under the Constitution, and then not bothering to enforce those laws against the President when he decides to ignore them?  The law was passed for a reason.  If the President chooses to ignore it, he should be impeached, immediately for breaking the law, failure to uphold his oath of office, failure to defend the Constitution, and Treason against the citizens and States of the United States of America.

Why do we have laws that limit the power or Presidents if they can ignore those laws and do as they wish?  That’s not a President, that’s a Dictator.  Benevolent or not, that’s evil.

Read The Bills Act

This is what I call the super-whammy.  If you haven’t heard of this bill yet, hold on to your butts, cause it’s going to get fun.

The Read The Bills Act, originally authored by DownsizeDC.org in 2006, is finding more and more support.  Recently, Representative Ron Paul, a current GOP Presidential hopeful, announced his support of this bill.  His son Rand, a Senator from Kentucky, has supported it since 2006, and Representative Brian Baird and Senators Jim Bunning and John Ensign have all introduced it to their respective houses of Congress.

This bill would required any and all legislation be posted 7 days prior to the vote for the members of Congress to review it, and any members voting on a bill would be required to sign stating that they have read the bill. 

The main focus of this bill is to slow the out of control growth of the Federal Government, and ensure that we don’t have any 1000 page monsters with God only knows what inside being passed without even the chance to look through it first.

You can read more about RTBA at www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/148/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act

War on (Some) Drugs

The War on Drugs has been raging for decades, and yet drug use, abuse, and sales are not on the decline.  We spend billions of dollars a year on police, courts, jails, public defenders, etc. trying to pop drug dealers and users so we can lock them up.  Why?
Seriously, why?  What’s the point?  The vast majority of drug users are not hardened criminals.  Maybe they smoke pot to relax.  Maybe they do crack because they enjoy the feeling.  Maybe they shoot heroine because they the their life and it offers them a chance to escape. 
Sure, that may be horrible for them.  It may be bad for their families.  Why is that the business of the Federal Government?  Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to legislate and enforce moral behavior?  Why would be ever want Congress, of all the immoral groups on the planet, to be put in charge of the morality of the United States
By crime rates will go up!
No they won’t.  The majority of drug related crime, excluding the purchase, transfer, and sales of those drugs, is caused by people who are unable to find or afford what they ‘need’.  It it were legal, you could go to the corner store and pick up something that is manufactured safely, guaranteed to be what you paid for, taxed, and much, much lower cost.  It’s far easier to manufacture things like that when you don’t have to hide what you’re doing from the entire nation, which means the cost would go way, way, down.  Not only that, but those things will still be crimes.  If someone commits an act that violates your rights to life, liberty, or property, such as assault or theft, they will still go to jail.
But people will be out driving high!
Really?  Do you think the rate of crack heads out on the streets will increase?  Think about this.  Frequently, when someone is high and wants some more, they have to head out and go find a source somewhere that has what they want.  They may be driving all over town for hours looking for what they want, and then by the time they get home, their initial high is worn off.  So they use their new purchase and then still want more.  If they could just walk to the corner store to get it, they wouldn’t have to be out driving all over the countryside.
You can formulate any argument you want against decriminalizing ALL drugs and ending the War on Drugs, but unless admit to yourself that you’re just justifying legislating morality, from a Federal level which is even worse, then you’re still dead wrong.  Now, if you think legislating morality is great, that’s a valid argument.  Just keep in mind, it’s only great for you as long as it’s your morals being legislated, and I promise, it won’t always be.
Fully legalizing all drugs would create an entirely new market segment, which would create new markets for corporations to explore.  That would create thousands of new jobs, from manufacturing to distributions, sales to stocking.  In addition, all of these new products would be taxed in most any state, not to mention all the income taxes the Feds earned from these newly employed people or the Corporate taxes at both the State and Federal levels, which would generate a ton more revenue, while at the same time eliminating several billion dollars a year in wasted costs associated with the War on Drugs. 
Also, reducing prison populations, since these druggies are now guilty of nothing and can be released.  Some estimates I’ve seen shows the prison population to be roughly 75% non-violent offenders, and over half of those are in for drug possession or distribution charges.  And we complain about the costs of housing and feeding all these people, and the lack of space we have in our prisons.  There’s a reason why we have a lack of space  We lock people up for nothing.
In business, if you come up with a plan that improves the quality of the work environment for everyone, while increasing revenue, decreasing costs, and simplifying operations, that’s called a win. 
In government, that’s called a great idea that needs to be discussed (and forgotten about) in committee. This is why we’re in trouble in this nation.
End the selective “War on Peaceful People who enjoy something different than you think they should” now.

GSA Problems Not the Fault of GSA

Yup, that’s it.  I mean what I say.  The GSA is not to blame for it’s massive overspending and lack of concern over partying on taxpayer dollars.  Who could blame them, really?  They have a giant budget and, if they appear to always be on the ragged edge of running out of money, they get an even larger budget.  What could be more “win” than that? 

Congress, the body that is currently investigating this example of ridiculous government waste, is to  blame for this problem.  They have created many of these agencies, and turned a blind eye to dozens more that were created through Executive Order in what can optimistically be labeled a “quasi-legal” manner.  How can they, the keepers of the purse strings, be expected to keep tabs on each and every one of these monsters?

Heck, we have more “Departments” than Congress has Representatives!  We can’t even assign one Congressional overseer per agency.  Not even remotely close.

The general idea behind the GSA is not a bad one.  It took several different little agencies and departments within departments and combined the groups doing similar work into one cohesive unit.  Sounds like a total win to me, but the result of this becoming so large is a reduction in effective management of the individuals in that beast.  Add to that the extreme lack of discipline typically shown when spending someone else’s money, and the traditional lack of oversight and restraint from Congress, and you have a recipe for….   well, this most recent scandal, which is most certainly not the only horrendous example out there.  It just happens to be the one where someone got caught.

I’ve repeatedly stated that it’s time for the States to stand up and assert their Constitutionally defined sovereignty and tell the Feds to back it up.  It’s also time for Congress to stand up.  Congress needs to show the Executive branch that THEY, not the President, are in charge of budgets, and THEY are in charge of creating laws, not agencies that oft as not were created by executive order, affectively without the approval of Congress, and THEY are the ones who will decide what the oversight process is for any legal agency that they create, and do away with any created outside the law.

The Constitution of the United States IS THE LAW! It is time to remind some people of this fact.

Reagan Schools Obama on Socialism

This very well could be the best video I've seen in a long while.  Even better, it does an effective job of pointing out why some of these programs that too many people are supporting are, in fact, horrifyingly bad ideas that should never be contemplated by anyone.

Virginia Refuses to Follow Unconstitutional Law

On Wednesday, April 18th 2012, Virginia became the first state to pass a bill into law that effectively nullified a section of the most recent National Defense Authorization Act. 

The NDAA has two provisions that have stirred a lot of controversy.  Sections 1021 and 1022, in a nutshell, authorize indefinite detainment, without due process, of American citizens.  Furthermore, they are so vaguely worded that it could easily be construed to name just about anyone as “collaborating with the enemy” and be able to whisk them away for an extended, or even permanent disappearance. 

Not so if you’re in Virginia.  Last week, the Virginia Legislature passed a bill effectively nullifying these sections of the NDAA.  The Governor didn’t entirely support that bill, and sent it back with a recommendation.  The Legislature then passed the Governors recommended version by overwhelming numbers.  By Virginia law, that means it doesn’t need to go back to the Governor for signing.  This law becomes effective July1, 2012.

The main thrust of the law “prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia Law or Regulation.”

Freakin fantastic!  Virginia has just told the feds to stuff it, they won’t comply.  It has been 150 years since the last time something this momentous happened, when many of the Union States refused to comply with the Federal Runaway Slave law.  Virginia has also left the playing field wide open with the wording of this law.  By adding the clause about “any Virginia Law or Regulation”, they have left themselves a way of expanding this protection easily, and without having to go back and modify this nullification law. 

Virginia, hats off to you.  When I’ve finally had enough of the Pacific North West, you have moved up to the #1 spot on my list of places to move.

The Power Vested In We

Of all the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which one is your favorite?

The Second gives you the right to own and carry a firearm for the protection of you, your family, and indeed total strangers who need help.  This is a big one for me, since the police are just minutes away when seconds count.

The First forbids Congress from passing any law making an official religion, or barring your participation in any religion of your choice.  I’m not religious, but this is a huge one for a lot of people

How about the Fifth?  That’s great, too.  It protects you from being forced to provide evidence to a court that is trying you for a crime.  That could be the difference between life in prison and freedom for an innocent man or woman.  Or for a guilty one as well, if the police and prosecutor haven’t been able to come up with a solid case. 

What about the Tenth Amendment?  Can you recall what 10A does?  I’m constantly surprised, although less so as the years go by, how many people know so little or even nothing at al about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other founding documents.  Not to mention the additional seventeen Amendments that have been passed since the Bill of Rights.

The Tenth Amendment reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

What does that mean?  Everything.  It means that, unless the Constitution SPECIFICALLY assigns a power to Congress, or the Executive or Judicial branches of the Federal Government, it is absolutely against the law for them to exercise that power. 

How many different alphabet-soup departments does or Federal Government have?  DHS, HHS, BATF, DEA, Dept of Ed, DOE, DOI, EPA, CIA, NSA, FBI, TSA, FCC, FAA, IRS, and on and on and on.  How many of the things that these agencies are responsible would be better handled, more efficiently, at a state, or even County level?  How many of the things these agencies are responsible for are even remotely necessary?

The FCC, for example, makes rules.  Rules that result in fines, sanctions  and license suspension for people or businesses that violate these rules.  That means it’s effectively a “law”.  How can that be, when the FCC is not Congress, and only Congress has the power to create laws for the nation?  Whether or not Congress has the power to regulate the airwaves is open to debate as well, based on the Constitution.

Nearly all of these “departments” create rules, and enforce those rules through fines, sanctions, licensure, and imprisonment at some level or another.  Damned few of these “departments” have any real legal leg to stand on when looking at the Constitution. Most were never approved by Congress and operate under the direct supervision of the Executive branch (the President). 

What a horrifying idea!  One person has the power to direct policy for the entire nation without even bothering to consult Congress on the matter.  That’s not a representative Republic, that is a Depotism!  A Dictatorship, even!  No human being should have that much power, and yet we hand the power, which inherently belongs to us, to a new person every four or eight years.  Then they pass a bunch of laws further restricting our freedom, and we get angry and vote for that other party.  Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.  We go back and forth, getting screwed by the Democrats, then we get mad at them and we get screwed by the Republicans. 

Meanwhile, the people in the States, who truly hold all the power, do nothing.  The Tenth Amendment specifically calls out what is already detailed in the Constitution.  The power is ours.  The power resides with the States, which are run by the people. 

Get involved at your local level.  Tell your local Representatives, we will not stand by and do nothing.  If the Feds don’t want to follow the rules, we will nullify their laws.  We will pass state legislation declaring Federal rules void.  We will do so at a local level if we have to.  The Federal Government SERVES the people, it does not RULE the people!!

Help send that message to DC.  Support the Tenth Amendment Center.  TenthAmendmentCenter.com.

The Storm that Sinks a Nation…

James Madison wrote about the downfall of this nation in Federalist Paper 46.  Not so much as a prediction, but as a “how could it ever happen” sort of musing. 

He was so convinced that what the founders had forged was to stand against time; so convinced of the love of freedom that the American people have, that he could not fathom how it could come to an end. 

He wrote about the Federal Government encroaching on the power of the States, and how that could not happen because the states would obviously object. 

He wrote about how the States would raise up their militias to defend themselves, and since the Federal Government has not the power of a standing army to take every state that objected to their abuse of power, they would be forced to back down.

He wrote about the states seeing the “gathering storm” and simply ceasing to supply the Federal Government with the raw materials, money, and resource that it would need in order to build itself a force capable of quelling all resistance to its edicts.

How many powers of the States have been completely removed from the States?

How many states would be able to make even the slimmest attempt at defending itself against military action taken by the Federal Government?

How many states realize that they are in peril and have refused to supply the enemy with more materials with which to subdue them?

The states and the people continue to supply more and more to the Federal Government, while more and more of the powers that are supposed to be reserved to the states are removed from their control.  When will it hit the fan? 

One hundred years?

Twenty years?

Tomorrow?

I won’t tell you to repent, but I will tell you the end is nigh.  Are you ready for the second American Revolution?

Are Iranian Leaders Suicidal?

Originally posted by James Wilson at DownsizeDC.org

If you're concerned that Iran's leaders seek martyrdom through nuclear war, then you'll want to read what follows.
I sent the letter below to Congress this morning, using our campaign that opposes conflict with Iran.
The hardwired letter for that campaign reads:"Ioppose conflictwithIran."
Here's what I added to that (you can copy from it if you want):
I want you to treat Iran the same way we treatedthe SovietUnion-- withdeterrence, NOT aggression.
Many in Congress object that this cannotbe done because Iran's leaders are suicidal,religious nuts who seek mass martyrdom through nuclear war.Butthisidea is the functionalequivalent ofIraq's mythical weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons didn't exist,andneitherdoes thissupposed Iranian lust for martyrdom.
Iran's leaders are evil, but they are NOT suicidal.
Please heed what Meir Dagan said on "60 Minutes." He was the head of Israel's intelligence agency. He says Iran's leaders are rational. They believe bad things, but they are NOT crazy or suicidal.Ifyou missed the interview please watch it: http://bit.ly/zMJ3LE
The evidence for the "suicidal Iran" idea is simply non-existent. But this hasn't stoppedwar-mongers from trying to invent evidence, just like they did with Iraq. "The Economist" looked at this supposed evidence and found it to be fabricated. You can read about that here: http://econ.st/vuK6ZM
Iran's leaders have long claimed that theydon't want nuclear weapons. Perhaps they're actually telling the truth. Remember, Saddam Hussein said he had dismantled his weapons of mass destruction, and that turned out to be true. Sometimes evil people do tell the truth. Thinkaboutthe incentives involved . . .
Iran's leaders know that if they build a bombso willtheirSunnineighbors,andtheydon'twant that. So why would they want a bomb?
Iran's main incentive for MAYBE wanting a bomb is to prevent regime change by the United States. After all, we overthrew the democratic government in Iran in 1953 and installed a dictator there. We also changed governments in the two nations that border Iran -- Afghanistan and Iraq. We also have soldiers posted on both of Iran's borders. No wonder they're paranoid! So let's do the following . . .
Bring home our troops from the Middle East. All of them! Then, renounce the policy of regime change in Iran. Leave that to the Iranian people. Remember, the Iranian people made it very clear during the recent revolts there that theyDO NOT WANT OURHELP.Payattention tothis. I mean REALLY pay attention to it by doing the following. . .
Lift all trade sanctions with Iran. Do this unilaterally without any concessions from the Iranian government. Do this in order to support the Iranian people, to lessen the paranoia of Iran's leaders, and even to lower gasoline prices here at home.Sanctions don'twork.Theirhistoryis that they usually entrench dictators in power while only harming the people they are supposed to help. Pay attention to this record of failure.
Most of all, quit making enemies for the American people. I know that the Military-Industrial Complex wants to justify the money it loots from mywallet,butI nolongertrust the hysterical claims of danger. There have been too many lies and disasters. I do NOT trust my leaders to be honest. You must work to regain my trust. In the meantime . . .
I withdraw my consent to be governed underthe current policies. Change the policies. I want no conflict of ANY KIND with Iran.
END LETTER
You can send your own letter on this subject using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/iran-non-intervention/
Perry Willis Vice President DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Original article at http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/are-iranian-leaders-suicidal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DownsizeDCorg+%28DownsizeDC.org+-+DC+vs.+Innovation%29

The Peoples Options…

When faced with the overwhelming force that is today’s Federal government, what options do we have to secure liberty for ourselves?  It seems like more and more the “old ways” just don’t work.  Assuming the ever did.

There are 4 basic options to solve problems.  They are rather simple, perhaps even elegant in their simplicity.  But do they work?

1. Vote the bums out.
2. Petition, protest, and lobby.
3. Judicial action.
4. Just say ‘no’.

I won’t expand on 1, 2, or 3 too much, since they are all basically the same option.  1, you’re getting rid of old bums to replace them with new bums.  Even if you get new ones that believe as you do, what are the odds that the one new person you send will convince a majority of the 534 others that are already there to do what they should?  Pretty slim.  2 and 3 are basically asking “please”.  2 you’re asking your elected officials.  The very people who have already shown they don’t really care by their actions.  3 you’re asking judges, who are employed and appointed by those people who don’t care. 

4.  Yes, number 4.  We tell our kids this when talking to them about drugs.  We expect young men to realize that “no means no'” when they enter the dating world, and we tell our young ladies that “it’s alright to say no”.  Why can’t we do this with the government?

Why, we can, of course!  It was never intended that the Federal government should “rule” the states.  The Federal government’s roll in this nation was intended to be as small as possible while ensuring the states worked together for common defense. It has slowly expanded over the decades and centuries to the horrifying lump of idiocy that it is today.  Republican, Democrat… it makes no difference.  Damn few of the folks in DC really care about what’s right, just, or legal.  It’s only what they can get away with.  What benefits them, personally or professionally.

A few months back, I wrote an article about the Kentucky Resolutions.  (http://nwpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/12/kentucky-resolutions-of-1798.html)  In that article, I mention nullification.  The Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolutions were all about nullification.  It set forth legal precedent.  It was a basis for what should be a very strong weapon in the hands of the States to help keep their sovereignty and force the Feds to back off when they overstep their bounds.

Unfortunately, you don’t really see the states wielding this weapon.  When they do attempt to, the effort is usually thwarted by members of the state legislature who want to avoid the confrontation with the Feds for a variety of reasons, non of which I consider truly valid, since the Federal Government has gone far and above their legal claim to power and reached too far, too often to expand that power. 

Option 4 is nullification, and state rights.  States must stand up for themselves against the tyranny of the Federal Regime, or it will be too late to do anything about it.  Once freedom is lost, it will be difficult or impossible to get it back without extreme bloodshed.  But if we can fight this war before all is lost, it’s possible that we can keep what little we have, and even win back what has been taken from us, without shedding a drop of blood or picking up any weapon more deadly than a computer.

The time is near, and one can only hope that this American Revolution can be fought without bullets and gun powder.  The States must step up to do their part. 

Post written based on article at http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/19/are-we-out-of-options/.  Please check out the Tenth Amendment Center and support them in any way you’re able.

North Korea and Nuclear Weapons

I suppose most of you have heard about the failed launch in North Korea this week.  It’s been all over the news.  Apparently, as the story goes, they invited a bunch of media type folks over to watch the launch during the celebration of their recently dead rulers 100th birthday. 

I’m sure he was watching from whatever plain of existence he currently resides on and is likely furious.  It was a truly craptastic showing, as you might expect.  North Korea simply doesn’t have the knowledge or resources to be a credible global nuclear threat. 

There’s the argument.  Apparently, there are many people who disagree with me.  I have people just screaming for sanctions.  As stunning of a plan as that is, I see no reason to do the same thing that has failed for over half a century again.  Economic sanctions against other nations have never gotten us anything by enmity from them.  It doesn’t prevent anything, it pisses them off. 

Imagine that.  Blockading a nation might anger them.  Who would have guessed that?

I also hear people talking about war with North Korea.  That scares me far more than NK having a global capable nuke.  Here’s the deal.  An ICBM launch would be detected before the missile was halfway out of it’s silo.  Interceptor missiles would be fired and aircraft launched as a backup to those missiles, before it cleared North Korean Airspace.  It would be destroyed shortly thereafter. 

North Korea is not a credible threat to anyone but South Korea, and only then using conventional military forces and weapons.  Any nuclear launch would be detected faster than immediately and destroyed well before it was a threat to anything. 

Iran is another topic.  Their nuke program is similar to that of North Korea.  It’s not a threat to anyone.  IF they were to be dumb enough to make an attempt to follow through with the threat to try to destroy Israel, they would fail, and they would get their collective asses handed to them by just about every other nation on the planet.  It would be an epic fail moment in the history of their country.  Ridiculously so.

So, we have a choice.  There are three options open to us, that I see.  First, we issue more BS posturing and sanctions, pissing off North Korea.  Second, we can call in the military and end the situation.  Lastly, and the option we really should be pushing for.  We do nothing.  They haven’t threatened anyone recently, and the last time they did we choose to do nothing about it.  They don’t have the ability to be a credible threat, and by pushing them further into the corner, we force them to think of alternative ways to defend themselves.  If we continue, we will end up battling North Korean terrorists as well as the Middle Eastern terrorists we already have to deal with.

Because we don’t know when to leave other nations the hell alone.

Should Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum Call It Quits?

I’ve heard lots of people mouthing off lately about how one or more of these people should realize they’re not going to win and drop out of the race.  The general idea being that a ton of money is being spent on this little preliminary step that could be better spent to fight Obama. 

I disagree.  Entirely.  Completely.  Whole-heartedly.

Yes, there is a metric butt-load of money being spent.  There’s always a ton of money being spent.  It’s what politicians do.  They spend a ton of money given to them by supporters to get into office and demand money from everyone so they can spend even more.  Tis the way of the world in the 21st century.  While that’s not particularly a good thing, the people complaining about it are really a little out of touch with reality. Here’s a quick fact check.

IF all three of these candidates dropped out and left only Romney, he would most certainly get he nomination.  The Republican National Convention would be over before it started, and we’d be on to the press covering Obama as he talks about how horrible the GOP and Mitt Romney are because they want to kill old people and deport starving students.  Maybe he’d be more creative than that, but not much. 

On the other hand, with all these candidates, we’re helping to keep some people focused on the race.  Even the Democrats are watching to see what happens.  Some of them like what they are hearing from some of the Republican candidates.  Ron Paul in particular has a great deal of pull for some Democrat party-line voters, but there are some Dems that like Santorum or Newt as well.  There are a lot of Dems who are not happy with Obama, being that he broke nearly every promise he made during his campaign.  Some of those people will gladly support another candidate, if they hear from one they like, but they don’t think they’ll ever support a Republican.

They just don’t know it yet.  The circus that the GOP has going on right now is keeping people interested, keeping the media covering the Republican candidates, and keeping people hearing messages that normally they would not hear.  If we want to just drop all that and have Romney go head to head with an incumbent President, we can do that.  And he’ll lose.  Badly.  At least this way, even though I believe Romney will lose, he has a fighting chance. 

Keep people focused, keep people listening, and keep people caring about what is going on.  The more we’re hearing from the R’s, the less we’re hearing from the D’s.  That’s a good thing in and of itself.

I’m back again… finally

Yes, it’s true.  I am finally back, after having had to send my machine back for warranty work the day after getting it back from having warranty work done.  So far, it’s working fine, now that I’ve spend a bunch of time restoring it.  Who knows how long that will last. 

I can promise you, if this thing goes back again, I’m going to blast a certain computer company every where I can, and I can blast in a lot of places.  NOT a happy guy in regards to this garbage, but if it’s finally fixed correctly, I’m willing to let it go.

Prepare thyself, for I shall be posting 3 – 5 times a week from here on out.  At least, that’s the goal.  That’ll be a good bit of reading for ya’ll!