Also on NDAA

It is completely accurate saying that this bill, the National Defense Authorization Act does away with the Bill of rights.  Our president and our Congress have betrayed us, the American people by letting that bill become law.  Every last person who voted for that bill should be thrown out of office.  With this bill we have essentially become Soviet Russia where dissents are carted away to the Gulag (we call it Guantanamo Bay in the U.S.) never to be heard from again.  This bill goes against the principles upon which this country was founded.  One of the grievances that was rendered to King George in the Declaration of Independence was, “For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretend offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws.” 

-Robert Feller

Violating The Constitution

“The Congress shall have the power to declare War” ( Constitution of the United States Article I Section 8)  As stated in said part of the Constitution it shall be the power of Congress to declare war; no General or the even the President can go rogue with the U.S.  Or so it states in the Constitution.  However there has not been one military conflict in the past sixty years for which Congress had brought forth a declaration of War.  Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again are all examples of conflicts where the U.S. military has been deployed without the authorization of the Congress.  These deployments have all been at the discretion of the President.

Under the term a policing action the President can deploy U.S. troops as he, not the United States Congress sees fit.  These policing actions consist of sending our troops over to a foreign nation to fight whichever party or nation is a “threat”.  However to provide a simple definition from Webster war is a, “military conflict between nations or parties.”  So by definition these policing actions are wars, just with a different name, and only the congress shall have the power to declare them.  However in starting with President Truman and Korea, many Presidents have said that the United Nations needs our troops, so they obey the U.N.  Recently in talks congressional committee about acting in Syria the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta boldly stated, “our goal would be to seek international permission, and we would come to the Congress and inform you.”  He basically stated he answers to foreign powers and informs our own Congress if he wants.

First our politicians should not be seeking permission from any foreign nation, or even the U.N. when going to war.  The only people who decide whether we go to war or not is our Congress.  Next our Congress needs to man up and do two things.  If a President says he is going to send our troops off to a foreign land under the guise of a policing action he needs to be impeached for breaching the Constitution.  And the second thing the Congress needs to do if anyone says they are not going to obey the constitution, rather they are going to seek international permission should be charges with treason.  If our politicians are answering to foreign nations they no longer serve the American people.

No War with Iran

We have no reason to put sanctions on Iran or go to war with them.  Iran has committed no act of aggression toward this nation, which has been in the past the deciding factor on whether we go to war.  It should not be the policy of this nation to impose our will on other foreign nations, whether it be through sanctions or the taking up of arms.  Many a war has been started by one country forcing their will upon another people.  An obvious example is the American Revolution.  Instead of treating us like the rest of their citizens Britain decided to abuse as they saw fit, and we rightfully rebelled.  Had England treated us the way it treat the rest of its citizens there would have been no need for bloodshed.  If anyone is going to the spark a war it will be the U.S., not Iran.

During the Cold War there were times when the USSR had more nuclear firepower than we did, and could have easily wiped us of the face of the earth.  Yet while tensions ran high between us we were able to avoid war with Russia which would have been mutually assured destruction.  We have no reason to fear Iran even if they one, two, ten nuclear warheads.  We have tens of thousands, enough to wipe them off the map seven fold.  If anything they should be in fear of us, and if so I cannot blame them for trying to building up a nuclear arsenal. 

Putting sanctions on Iran will not prevent war, it will only drive us closer to a conflict that will result bloodshed.  What if we, the United States were to extend a hand of friendship to Iran and trade with them like we do so many other nations?  Congressman Ron Paul once stated, “Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. “

Serving Us?

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  Today we can see our own Congress being destructive, quickly taking away the rights that we are given by our creator that are protected in the Constitution.  One of the most evident and recent examples of this is the passing of the national Defense Authorization Act a few months ago.

            This bill allowed for Americans who are suspected of terrorism to be seized, indefinitely detained, all without formally being charged or having even committed a crime.  Here was a bill that was supposed to protect Americans from the terrorist that threatened our freedom.  However all this bill does is trample on the constitution and spit in the face of the principles on which this country was founded upon.  First off the people who are suspected of being terrorists are also suspected of being traitors.  In Article III, Section 3 of the constitution it states, “No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”  Next Amendment IV states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”  Being detained for mere suspicion of terrorism definitely constitutes an unreasonable seizures of your person. 

            Amendment V says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…  nor shall (any citizen) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself , nor deprived of life, liberty, or property, with due process of law.”  The NDAA violates everything this amendment says and makes the due process of law null and void.  Amendment VI states that the accused shall have the right to a public trial and Amendment VII assures that no cruel or unusual punishments will be inflicted.  Both of these amendments are smitten in the face of this bill.

            According to the 1803 Supreme Court Case, Marbury v.Madison Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the constitution.  Yet all save few members of congress had the tenacity to pass this bill that says otherwise.  This one bill shows that congress no longer serves the best interest of the American Public.

Why Can't We do this Today?

An article published on the blog Minutemen Pac titled US Deported 1.3 Million Illegal immigrants Nearly 60 Years Ago shows us how we can learn from our past.  Today everyone knows that our borders are not secure that our borders are not truly secured, that illegal immigrants can come as they please, and that the authorities do very little about it.  But this article suggests that we should take a lesson from our past.

In one fell swoop during the Eisenhower administration more than 1.3 million immigrants were deported.  The article states, “On June 17, 1954, under the direction of President Eisenhower, Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) began a roundup of illegal immigrants for deportation in what became known as “Operation Wetback” (infowars.com).  Also, “With only 750 federal agents, compared to the reported 20,000 agents we have today, the INS removed 1.3 million illegal immigrants (including those who self-deported) in just three months” (infowars.com). 

The author writes this article not as a history lesson; rather it is to criticize today’s immigration policies.  He states that with fewer numbers and much inferior technology the INS was able to do a much better job than our numerous and better equipped immigration officers do today.  Apparently the author knows their history and is able to relate it to situations of today, which many people cannot do today.  The argument is compelling that if 750 immigration officers with WWII equipment and buses can do such a good job in such a short time, why can’t our immigration officers do that today?

 

http://www.infowars.com/us-deported-1-3-million-illegal-iimmigrants-nearly-60-years-ago/

Are the Whigs Back?

On the website freerepublic.com an article called The Whigs are Back was posted by a man named of Chuck Morse.  The article was originally published on Mr. Morse’s website A Whig Manifesto.  Mr. Morse considers his himself a modern day Whig (a political party that existed at born during Jackson’s time as president but died out during the civil war).  In his article Mr. Morse asserts that the whig party has been reborn as, “economic nationalists who encourage free enterprise at home with low taxes while raising revenue through taxing imports, overseas transactions, and through high royalties on the profits derived from domestic natural resources such as oil, gas, and coal”, and those who, “support fair trade tariffs on imports, taxes on American corporations and individuals doing business overseas, and laws that encourage domestic capital formation, accumulation, and investment” (freerublic.com).  The Whigs of the 19^th century established themselves for several reasons.  One was stop politically tyranny (mainly the rogue actions of Andrew Jackson).  Another reason the Whigs were formed was for economic protectionism.  In protection tariffs and restrictive quotas are imposed on importation.  Imposing the restriction would help strengthen a countries economy as people would purchase more domestic goods.  Mr. Morse’s claim that economic nationalists are the modern Whigs makes a lot of sense.  Both of them have nationalist fervor, wanting to decrease importation there by strengthening the American economy.  However it can be argued that what Morse is calling a modern Whig could just be someone who supports a free market.  Whig Morse states are not left or right wing, yet many of principles that Morse says Whigs believe in are follow by people of the extreme right wing.  So it could be concluded that Morse is partially right that Whigs have been reborn.

 

Senate struggles to pay for highway programs

There are a couple of reasons to read the Austin American Statesman’s article “Senate struggles to pay for highway programs”.  First the article talks about a transportation bill that is in the Senate right now that would help pay for highways.  However the Senate is having trouble allocating funds for the projects.  Why this might be pertinent to the average reader is because this is how their tax dollars are being spent.  If we turn a blind eye to the government spending they will run wild.  Also since the article was published in the statesman which gives it a local perspective on a national issue which would help to better connect with readers.