Just a Thought

Share

A typical exchange with a devout Leftist, George Bush-hater goes as follows:

Leftist: "Bush lied about WMD to take America to war"

Answer: Aactually he simply relied upon and reiterated the same claims made by the former administration, various members of the Democratic party and numerous foreign leaders."

Leftist: "But Bush is the one who took us to war over it."

Now, I could be wrong, but its seems to me that what they are saying is that Bush is to be vilified because he acted in the face of a perceived threat to US national security. What they would prefer is that their leaders merely voiced grave concern about such things while doing absolutely nothing. Never mind the fact that in the face of such dangers the President, and Congress for that matter, is duty bound to act on America's behalf. Failure to do so could justifiably be ruled official nonfeasance. I admit however that the only authority I have for this position is little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America (Article II, Section 2 and Article I, Section 8, respectively).

Let me see if I understand this: Bush should have acted in the interest answering a perceived threat to US national security (attacks on 9/11) based upon intelligence information which everyone reasonably believed to be inaccurate yet he should not have acted in the interest of answering a perceived threat to US national security (Iraq WMD) based upon intelligence information which everyone reasonably believed to be accurate.

I have but one question for those who maintain the "Bush lied about WMD" theory: If the President is evil enough to have lied about the existence of WMD apparently feeling so strongly about it that he participated in a grand international conspiracy to manufacture false intelligence, long before he was elected to the office of the President, wouldn't we have found stockpiles of WMD by now? I mean, surely they would have ensured that WMD were planted sporadically about Iraq where they could be "found" by investigators after the invasion. Just a thought.

Marx is Crying

Share

Sometimes the most important news out of Europe is the news that American “journalists” chose to ignore. Funny how it happens that whenever foreign world leaders criticise the Bush administration, US reporters are falling over themselves to get the word out. They look like a crowd of screaming teenage girls trying to get a look at the Beattles. But let a group of foreign leaders move in the direction of America and they are either ignored or tagged as “puppets” of the Bush administration. Case in point, the election in Germany.

The US media has chosen to ignore this election. It simply doesn’t fit with their view of how things ought to be. The German people voted for Merkel’s Conservative coalition over Schroeder’s Socialists. How dare they!! Schroeder couldn’t just bow out gracefully of course. He had to take the expected cheap shots at Bush and Blair. He criticised what he referred to as “Anglo-Saxon economic policies,” which is to say, economic policies tilted in favour of limited government and free enterprise. This is understandable since Schroeder and Chirac have pushed the European Union further in the direction of unabashed Socialism.

I have often said that the best cure for Socialism is, Socialism. It seems the European people are slowly leaning this lesson as well.

Hurricane Katrina: Questions and Answers

Share

It’s time for a crash course in US government and current events my friends. Any questions?

Q – Why did it take so long for the federal government to respond?
A – Actually this was the fastest federal response to any natural disaster in US history. You have to keep in mind that prior to the levies breaking, President Bush was on the phone urging the Mayor to evacuate the city. The President also urged the Governor to declare a state-of-emergency. This is the first step to obtaining federal assistance. The Mayor later ordered an evacuation yet, in hindsight, it was already too late to be effective. Additionally the feds began preparing for a response two days before Katrina made landfall.
Q – Two questions. Why didn’t Bush order the evacuation or force the Mayor to do so and if the feds were in place two days before why did it take 24hours for the relief to reach the victims?
A – I’m glad you asked. The federal government has no authority over State and local governments. The only time the feds can assume such control is in cases of national security yet they still have to work with State and Local officials. Barring a national security crisis, the feds can only make recommendations. As for the time-lag in getting relief to the victims. Understand that the staging areas were at a distance from the coast. This was simple logic. Had they been in the expected disaster area prior to the event they would have been wiped away along with everything else thus defeating the purpose. What was not anticipated were the logistical problems associated with getting the aid to the victims in the wake of the levies breaking. Additionally, it did not take 24hours for the feds to respond. It took several hours for the Governor to request federal assistance.
Q – Why didn’t the feds simply take control of the situation? Didn’t they see that the people were suffering? Why all the bureaucracy and red-tape?
A – Let me answer these in reverse order. The fact that there is a separation of power between federal and state governments is not bureaucracy. This is a reasonable and legitimate system designed to safeguard the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. There are specific limits placed upon federal authority and for good reason. We live in a system wherein laws rule rather than men. You should thank God or accident of birth for that. I personally do not want to live under the rule of a dictator, benevolent or otherwise. The feds (Bush) saw the problem but lacked the requisite authority to respond without a specific request from the state. In case you are wondering, the answer is, “No.” Bush could not assume control under the guise of a national security crisis. Sorry but the ends do not justify the means.
Q – Couldn’t Bush have ordered the National Guard into action then? He does have control over the military doesn’t he?
A – Yes and No. The National Guard are State troops. The federal government has control over federal troops, Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines. The Coast Guard is actually a police agency and therefore free to perform any and all actions (i.e. search and rescue) which fall under its charter. Hence when performing their chartered duties, No specific federal or state order is required. The National Guard receives its orders from the State and can only be controlled by the feds if the State so authorises it. Again, in cases of national security, the feds may assume control absent permission from the State. Federal troops cannot be tasked within a State without permission from the State government. Additionally, they cannot perform police functions. This is the Posse Comitatas rule.
Q – Well, I don’t know about all the laws but one thing is clear: if we cant handle something like this how are we going to handle something like a dirty bomb?
A – Excellent point. This was a natural disaster and as such it is within the jurisdiction of the state. For this reason the federal government could not act in the absence of State permission. On the other hand, a terrorist attack such as a dirty bomb is a national security issue and is automatically within the jurisdiction of the federal government under the Constitution. The feds would not have to wait for State approval to do such things as federalizing the National Guard and implementing a disaster relief plan. I have heard this comparison several times over the weekend so I’m happy to have had an opportunity to respond to it.
Q – That’s all fine and good but you have to admit that there was a lot of red-tape that contributed to the delay in getting help to the victims.
A – That’s actually a statement, not a question but I’ll accept it. This may simply be a matter of semantics but I’m not sure what you mean by red-tape. I’m certain that there was considerable disorganization in the immediate aftermath of the events. There was little or no interagency communication and at that point, no aerial recon had been performed. Hence the first-responders were flying blind and therefore unaware of the scope of the disaster, the exact location of victims and the best access routes to the victims they aware of. They first had to gather intelligence. Second, workout a plan of action. Third, they had to workout the logistics. I’m not sure how many of you are familiar with the military but what you call red-tape (in most cases), the military calls intelligence gathering, effective planning and logistics.

That’s all the time we have for now but please keep those questions coming.

Is Louisiana A State?

Share

Watching the coverage of the devastation caused by Katrina, I am left in a state of absolute befuddlement over the dirth of knowledge and basic common sense of the reporters, residents, victims and politicians.

America is a unique nation in the world. It is the only nation that is not a nation-state. While Europe is making an attempt to replicate it, American remains the only country that is actually a union of independent and sovereign states. Fifty of them to be precise.

Each state in this country functions with a great degree of independence and self-sufficiency, although there are those who have been trying to destroy that systems in favour of a centralized federal collectivism. When a disaster strikes a state, other than an attack from foreign entities such as happened in New York, it is primarily the responsibility of the state to respond. State and local officials are to assess the situation and marshal that their resources to meet the challenge. This includes, but is not limited to, calling up the state’s National Guard, instituting search and rescue operations, establishing order and security and providing for the basic necessities of life (food, water, shelter and medical assistance). If need be a state-of-emergency may be declared and federal assistance requested. In this case, the Governor MUST make a specific request from the federal government for same. So my first question is, why are people acting as if the President was in control of the State of Louisiana? Does Louisiana not have its own system of government? Where is the Governor and the state’s legislature?

Being a sovereign state, the federal government cannot simply barge in and take control of matters based solely on its belief that it can do better. Even though that is true in the current situation – once the feds took over the situation stabilized – we remain a nation of laws, not of men. Based on the feelings, and I do mean feelings (no one has shut up long enough to think), expressed thus far, many seem to believe that state government is irrelevant and laws exists only when convenient.

Shall we simply declare all state government obsolete and turn over total control to the feds? Shall we make it an official policy that the Rule of Law is the standard in American unless of course the Law is inconvenient? Some may say that this is exactly what has been done for the past several years. If we look and listen to the manner in which people have responded and complained about the situation if Louisiana, this is exactly what most people want.

What the Senate Should Ask John Roberts

Share

Now that we know who President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is, the buzz has now started over what he thinks. Not about the Constitution mind you. The Democrats and their Leftist brethren are concerned with his views on “key issues”, particularly Abortion.

When will Americans dispense with the notion that a Supreme Court nominee’s personal views on any one or one hundred issues is relevant to his/her qualifications as a Supreme Court Justice. What does matter is the nominee’s view on the Constitution. Namely, does the nominee view the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” or a contract between the people and their government. If a nominee chooses the former, he/she is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court that is. Such a person would be well-suited for the Supreme Court of France or Canada.

This “living, breathing document” nonsense is what has led the Court to engage in Constitutional Amendment via judicial fiat. The Court’s duty is to decide cases based solely on the U.S. Constitution; not personal feelings, public opinion, judicial precedent, or the interests of social justice. Where the Constitution is silent, the court has no authority on the issue. When the court is engaged in judicial review, which is to say, reviewing Acts of the legislature, they are to base such review, again, on the Constitution. Where no Constitutional authority can be found, the court must find the Act unconstitutional. Prior court decisions are not part of the Constitution and have no more authority than one gives them. These decisions may not serve as the basis for deciding cases before the court however the court may take judicial notice thereof and make adequate reference to same.

With that said, I don’t care how a judge feels about a specific issue. All I need know is how he/she views the Constitution. For it is clear to me that anyone who views the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” naturally believes that the Court has the authority to create laws and rights where non exists; that the Court must step in and act when the legislature has failed to do so. Those who hold this view do so because they believe, like the late Senator Fullbright, that the Constitution unduly limits their ability to do for the people what they know is best. This is not social justice. This is judicial tyranny.

Do we really want people on the Supreme Court who believe that their world-view must take the place of and fill the perceived holes in the Constitution of the United States of America?

The Left's Indecent "Dissent"

Share

With all of the caterwauling over the U.S. prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it seems necessary to visit the facts for just a moment.

If you have ever read Alice in Wonderland, you are familiar with the following exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty concerning the obvious meaning of words:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it
means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” —Louis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland.

Humpty Dumpty’s philosophy is the epitome of how Leftists argue this and all other issues. So maybe we should come to an accurate understanding of certain terms used and often misused, in this debate.

Guantamamo Bay – This is not a prison facility. It is a U.S. Naval/Air station that has exited since February 1903 wherein a prison facility was erected in 2001 for the sole purpose of detaining and interrogating known terror suspects and Illegal Enemy Combatants. Leftists understand the distinction however their calls for the closure of “Guantanamo Bay” as opposed to the “prison facility” on the base, is a relic of Cold War socialist hostility towards U.S. power. Many Leftists have never been comfortable with the U.S. presence in Cuba and this feeling grew more strident in the wake of the 1959 communist revolution which ushered in the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Leftists generally believe that the treaty(s) that originally gave the U.S. the right to reside in Guantanamo Bay, were, as a result of revolution, moot. In their view the base should have been vacated and returned to Cuba. The U.S. on the other hand has continued to pay the Cuban Government the agreed upon lease amount on an annual basis. There is no evidence that Castro’s government has ever cashed the checks.

Illegal Enemy Combatant – This is not an Enemy Prisoner of War. This is an individual captured while engaged in combat with U.S. forces who cannot be readily identified with the warring nation. Illegal Enemy Combatants do not fight while wearing uniforms or openly carrying weapons. Additionally their targets include both military personnel as well as known civilian non-combatants. They masquerade as civilians for strategic purposes; conducting war by subterfuge. For this reason they are not covered under the Geneva Conventions respecting the treatment of “Prisoners of War.” Leftists seek to have these individuals classified as Prisoners of War based in part on a flawed use of Article 4, Section 2 which states that Prisoners of War includes “members of militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied…” What they fail to accept is that Section 2 goes on to state that such persons must be a) commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, b) have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, c) carry arms openly, and d) conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Absent their meeting these criteria, the only legitimate classification for said persons is that of Illegal Enemy Combatants. While the U.S. does not torture persons held under its authority, the primary reason for making this distinction is to combat the belief that such persons must be afforded the jurisprudential protections applicable to Prisoners of War which includes, but is not limited to, the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (See Geneva Conventions, Article 3, Section 1(d)).

Torture – There is considerable reluctance on the part of the Left to define this word. The problem with applying a definition is that the definition limits the duplicitous, Humpty Dumpty manner in which they choose to argue. A word that means nothing ultimately means everything. In brief, “torture”, is the intentional infliction of great physical pain and/or extraordinary mental distress. I will presume that anyone reading this is of at least average intelligence therefore I will not condescend to define “great physical pain and/or extraordinary mental distress.” The Left however believes or perhaps pretends to believe that “torture” includes anything that a detainee finds unpleasant. Needless to say, this deliberate use of ambiguity is convenient for anyone wishing to make a political statement. Unfortunately it also aids and abets this country’s enemies in the process by creating the impression that the U.S. is exactly the same as its enemies yesterday and today. Note that members of Al Queda (among others) have been instructed to make false accusations of torture against their captors. Although any and all such accusations must be thoroughly investigated, it is appalling that the Left elects to uncritically accept them as unequivocal truth.

It appears that the Left’s abhorrence of definitions impedes their ability to understand that there is a difference between a question and an accusation. They level accusations against the U.S. government and when met with criticism they retreat into the fortress of victimhood while asking, “Do we not have the right to question our government?” Accusing another of a wrong is not a question. One’s opponent need not answer. For when an accusation is made the burden of proof rests with the accuser to prove it, not the accused to disprove it. Yet with every passing day this administration is asked to disprove accusations of “torture” which are all too often the fanciful elevation of any inconvenience to the level of horrors visited upon the prisoners at Auschwitz.

While I would like to believe that Leftists have America’s best interests at heart, that their sole purpose for accusing the U.S. government of crimes against humanity and comparing the U.S. government to the Soviets, Nazi’s and Pol Pot is to force a policy shift in the interests of improving America’s image around the world, reason, logic, facts and evidence leads me to another, rather disheartening conclusion. When considering the totality of their baseless accusations, virulent protestations and feigned outrages, one can only conclude that their views on this matter are shaped by their hatred of the current administration. It seems rather obvious that their desire to harm the Bush administration is more important that their desire to seek the truth. Many Leftists understand that the consequences of their actions include increasing the danger faced by U.S. forces and fomenting the hateful passions of America’s enemies the world over yet it does not seem to matter. George Bush, his administrations and to a lesser degree America, is the enemy and in that respect the Left’s behaviour is right out of the Sun Tzu/Machiavellian playbook, “Whatever weakens your enemy strengthens you.”

Deep Delusions

Share

Many in the media are salivating over the recent revelation by former FBI official, W. Mark Felt, that he was in fact the “Deep Throat” mentioned by Woodward and Bernstein in their Washington Post article which ultimately lead to the resignation of President Richard Nixon more than 30 years ago. I am not amazed that they would be so giddy over this after all, they get the opportunity to relive the glory days when they could present stories under the veil of “objectivity” and “journalistic integrity” while knowing full well that they were largely nothing more than 60’s era Leftists activists sans Bohemian attire. No, what amazes me is the fact that they are still attempting to present this entire matter as a disinterested search for truth in the interest of rooting out corruption in government. Pardon me if I seem a tad incredulous.

This is not to say that the actions of President Nixon were consistent with our expectations of same where government officials are concerned. But were those actions any different than those of William J. Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Lindon B. Johnson, Harry S. Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt? In short, the answer is a resounding, No! Anyone who believes that the media is interested in finding and redressing corruption in government need only consider their utter desertion from the battlefield during the Clinton era. Rather than investigating numerous issues of impropriety, the media establishment (with the obvious exception of those referred to as “conservative media”) spent this period reacting to and investigating the motives of those who made charges against the Clintons and the Clinton Administration.

The fact is, the media establishment is as partisan today as it was yesteryear. They continue to wear the mask of “journalistic objectivity” which is nothing more than a euphemism for the intellectual dishonesty that they so flagrantly perpetrate upon the public mind.

Make no mistake about it, the identity of “Deep Throat” is a legitimate news story. But the continued spin which paints W. Mark Felt’s actions as well of those of Woodward and Bernstein, as courageous and heroic, is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ above room temperature.