Friends,
The following was sent by a friend, Colorado State Representative, Larry Liston. I gladly pass it along.
Dan
Friends,
This is no joke. This man was real. Read on.
> > May God Bless Shifty Powers.
> >
> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:38 PM
> >
> > Subject: Memorial Service: you're invited.
> >
> > Men like "Shifty" R few & FAR Between these days! May he rest in peace with the thanks of a grateful Nation!
> >
> > SPOOK
> >
> > Memorial Service: you're invited.
> >
> > We're hearing a lot today about big splashy memorial services.
> >
> > I want a nationwide memorial service for Darrell "Shifty" Powers.
> >
> > Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st Airborne Infantry. If you've seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10 episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.
> >
> > I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn't know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was at the right gate, and noticed the "Screaming Eagle", the symbol of the 101st Airborne, on his hat.
> >
> > Making conversation, I asked him if he'd been in the 101st Airborne or if his son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the 101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served, and how many jumps he made.
> >
> > Quietly and humbly, he said "Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so, and was in until sometime in 1945 . . . " at which point my heart skipped.
> >
> > At that point, again, very humbly, he said "I made the 5 training jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . .. . . do you know where Normandy is?" At this point my heart stopped.
> >
> > I told him yes, I know exactly where Normandy was, and I know what D-Day was. At that point he said "I also made a second jump into Holland , into Arnhem ." I was standing with a genuine war hero . . . . and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of D-Day.
> >
> > I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France , and he said "Yes. And it's real sad because these days so few of the guys are left, and those that are, lots of them can't make the trip." My heart was in my throat and I didn't know what to say.
> >
> > I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in Coach, while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have it, that I'd take his in coach.
> >
> > He said "No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are still some who remember what we did and still care is enough to make an old man very happy." His eyes were filling up as he said it. And mine are brimming up now as I write this.
> >
> > Shifty died on June 17 after fighting cancer.
> >
> > There was no parade.
> >
> > No big event in Staples Center .
> >
> > No wall to wall back to back 24x7 news coverage.
> >
> > No weeping fans on television.
> >
> > And that's not right.
> >
> > Let's give Shifty his own Memorial Service, online, in our own quiet way. Please forward this email to everyone you know. Especially to the veterans.
> >
> > Rest in peace, Shifty.
> >
> > "A nation without heroes is nothing."
> > Roberto Clemente
> >
Dan Lanotte
- The Carpenter's Mate
- Falcon, Colorado
- I am a 31 year Navy veteran, 15 years as a SONAR Technician and 16 years as an Intelligence Officer. I am a Goldwater-Reagan Conservative with a deep love for this wonderful country of opportunity and am concerned about the continued abrogation of our freedoms. In addition to putting my thoughts and political philosophy in these pages I enjoy teaching firearms and personal protection in keeping with the spirit of the Second Amendment. My courses are listed at www.carpmateconsulting.com.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Constitutional Authority 2
Friends,
A few days ago I started a series looking at what I call “extra-constitutional” federal departments. Today I would like to continue that discussion by looking at the Department of Labor. As with the last Discourse, I will link Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution here for your reference.
The Department of Labor came into being under Present Taft in 1913 with the enactment of The Organic Act of the Department of Labor. Prior to this enactment labor issues were under the purview of the Department of Commerce and Labor; this act split the two. “The purpose of the Department of Labor shall be to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. [Public Law 426-62]” The mission statement of DOL is:
The Department of Labor fosters and promotes the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, helping employers find workers, strengthening free collective bargaining, and tracking changes in employment, prices, and other national economic measurements. In carrying out this mission, the Department administers a variety of Federal labor laws including those that guarantee workers’ rights to safe and healthful working conditions; a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay; freedom from employment discrimination; unemployment insurance; and other income support.
This sounds great, giving the impression of a kindly grandfather making sure all of the kids play nicely together. But what happens when one of the kids is able to gain more influence over grandpa then the other kids, and what happens when grandpa allows that influence to make a difference in his judgment? You then have the same relationship as the US government (grandpa) and labor and management (kids). They will do all of this benevolent work on a budget of $10.5B with 16,848 full-time employees.
Let’s take a look at one situation in particular. With enough research I could undoubtedly fill a few volumes on the subject of union corruption but I will just look at the most recent one.
Last year the Bush administration advocated and initiated the bailout of the auto industry. This package has evolved a number of times in the last year, so many times that I am not sure I have the complete picture but I will try to put some of the larger pieces together.
As of 13 June of this year, the United Auto Workers’ health care fund was set to receive 17.5% of General Motors; the government was set to receive 60%; the Canadian government was set to receive 12.5%. That leaves only 10% for the only legitimate claimants to the company, the bond holders. I'm not going to give a blow-by-blow account of the rape and pillaging of the largest auto company in America by the government, but rather concentrate on the macro role played in this travesty by Big Federal Government (I’ll call it BFG), the DOL, and the UAW.
Looking at the DOL mission statement above, how does that square with participating in the destruction of a viable company like General Motors. There are three major players here; the BFG, the DOL, and the UAW. BFG forced the downfall of GM by placing unreasonable restrictions on auto manufacturing over a period of decades, causing the price and complexity of cars to skyrocket. I’m sure there may be a more regulated industry than the auto industry, but one does not come immediately to mind. These regulations cover everything from air bag safety requirements to tire manufacturing specifications, bumper crash survival rates, and gas mileage. Just managing the compliance paperwork alone must be a major cost of doing business.
The DOL is supposed to be looking out for the workers. Where was their advocacy to keep the company viable? I have not found any place where they have performed this function. They have taken on the mantle of surrogate for the UAW against the “big mean management team.” Where has DOL worked to ensure GM’s viability? This is the only way the workers will be able to maintain their jobs. Remember, if GM closes their doors, millions of people are out of work.
So, now we have a situation where we are throwing $10.5B at an agency of BFG that seems to be working for the destruction of jobs. Also, where in the Constitution is BFG given the authority to take such a hand, heavy or light, into matters of free enterprise? It is a historical fact that when BFG sticks its fingers into a situation, it invariably heads south; just ask the folks at Mustang Ranch (you can Google that one).
Why is DOL working so hard to paint big GM as such bad guys; because their masters at UAW have told them to do so. The unions hold such an iron grip over the DOL that they are sure to get their way; thus they will be receiving a big chunk of GM. But wait, remember BFG’s propensity to screw things up? With their 60% and given their track record, GM should be out of business within two years (I'm being generous here; I don’t think it will take that long). Where is the workers’ advocacy in this situation?
The DOL has not only existed in an extra-constitutional framework, it has actively worked to put American workers out of work. This is another BFG department that needs to go away and let the marketplace work. An adjunct to this is for BFG to let the marketplace determine the regulations placed on the industry. One lesson that BFG has never learned is that the consumer will ultimately determine what features they want and what they do not want.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussions.
Dan
A few days ago I started a series looking at what I call “extra-constitutional” federal departments. Today I would like to continue that discussion by looking at the Department of Labor. As with the last Discourse, I will link Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution here for your reference.
The Department of Labor came into being under Present Taft in 1913 with the enactment of The Organic Act of the Department of Labor. Prior to this enactment labor issues were under the purview of the Department of Commerce and Labor; this act split the two. “The purpose of the Department of Labor shall be to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. [Public Law 426-62]” The mission statement of DOL is:
The Department of Labor fosters and promotes the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, helping employers find workers, strengthening free collective bargaining, and tracking changes in employment, prices, and other national economic measurements. In carrying out this mission, the Department administers a variety of Federal labor laws including those that guarantee workers’ rights to safe and healthful working conditions; a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay; freedom from employment discrimination; unemployment insurance; and other income support.
This sounds great, giving the impression of a kindly grandfather making sure all of the kids play nicely together. But what happens when one of the kids is able to gain more influence over grandpa then the other kids, and what happens when grandpa allows that influence to make a difference in his judgment? You then have the same relationship as the US government (grandpa) and labor and management (kids). They will do all of this benevolent work on a budget of $10.5B with 16,848 full-time employees.
Let’s take a look at one situation in particular. With enough research I could undoubtedly fill a few volumes on the subject of union corruption but I will just look at the most recent one.
Last year the Bush administration advocated and initiated the bailout of the auto industry. This package has evolved a number of times in the last year, so many times that I am not sure I have the complete picture but I will try to put some of the larger pieces together.
As of 13 June of this year, the United Auto Workers’ health care fund was set to receive 17.5% of General Motors; the government was set to receive 60%; the Canadian government was set to receive 12.5%. That leaves only 10% for the only legitimate claimants to the company, the bond holders. I'm not going to give a blow-by-blow account of the rape and pillaging of the largest auto company in America by the government, but rather concentrate on the macro role played in this travesty by Big Federal Government (I’ll call it BFG), the DOL, and the UAW.
Looking at the DOL mission statement above, how does that square with participating in the destruction of a viable company like General Motors. There are three major players here; the BFG, the DOL, and the UAW. BFG forced the downfall of GM by placing unreasonable restrictions on auto manufacturing over a period of decades, causing the price and complexity of cars to skyrocket. I’m sure there may be a more regulated industry than the auto industry, but one does not come immediately to mind. These regulations cover everything from air bag safety requirements to tire manufacturing specifications, bumper crash survival rates, and gas mileage. Just managing the compliance paperwork alone must be a major cost of doing business.
The DOL is supposed to be looking out for the workers. Where was their advocacy to keep the company viable? I have not found any place where they have performed this function. They have taken on the mantle of surrogate for the UAW against the “big mean management team.” Where has DOL worked to ensure GM’s viability? This is the only way the workers will be able to maintain their jobs. Remember, if GM closes their doors, millions of people are out of work.
So, now we have a situation where we are throwing $10.5B at an agency of BFG that seems to be working for the destruction of jobs. Also, where in the Constitution is BFG given the authority to take such a hand, heavy or light, into matters of free enterprise? It is a historical fact that when BFG sticks its fingers into a situation, it invariably heads south; just ask the folks at Mustang Ranch (you can Google that one).
Why is DOL working so hard to paint big GM as such bad guys; because their masters at UAW have told them to do so. The unions hold such an iron grip over the DOL that they are sure to get their way; thus they will be receiving a big chunk of GM. But wait, remember BFG’s propensity to screw things up? With their 60% and given their track record, GM should be out of business within two years (I'm being generous here; I don’t think it will take that long). Where is the workers’ advocacy in this situation?
The DOL has not only existed in an extra-constitutional framework, it has actively worked to put American workers out of work. This is another BFG department that needs to go away and let the marketplace work. An adjunct to this is for BFG to let the marketplace determine the regulations placed on the industry. One lesson that BFG has never learned is that the consumer will ultimately determine what features they want and what they do not want.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussions.
Dan
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Constitutional Authority #1
Friends,
It is time for me to get back up on my soap box. Not a day goes by that this administration and its stooges in Congress don’t make my blood boil. Whether it is the “stimulus package” or the federal government taking over our health care or Attorney General Holder giving consideration to prosecuting the former administration for their decisions, it all boils down to one issue. Where is the constitutional justification for any of their actions?
The more I look at this administration as well as administrations for the past 80 years (and I am being generous) I realize that most, if not all of our economic problems have come as a direct result of the federal government violating its constitutional authority. In this series of Discourses let’s concentrate on just the establishment and operation of what I call extraconstitutional cabinet-level departments. First, I suppose that we should determine which departments are authorized, expressly or by implication, by the Constitution.
I would submit that Treasury, State, Justice, War (now Defense), and Commerce are authorized or implied by the Constitution; there might also be a case for the Department of Interior. I have linked Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution here. This article details the powers of the Congress. You may want to open it in order to refer to it while I go through this discussion.
The first extraconstitutional department I will discuss is the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which came into being during the FDR administration with the enactment of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. HUD was elevated to cabinet-level by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 during the Johnson administration. The stated mission for HUD “is to increase homeownership, support community development and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.” I discussed Our Uncontrollable Debt in December of last year.
Being the simple-minded soul that I am, I have to ask, “Why?” What happened to working toward homeownership? Before you get all riled, I know that in years-gone-by discriminatory lending and home sales practices existed and may still today; but there are free market forces that can and should deal with that. Much of the current financial folly we are enjoying now is a direct result of “making” people eligible for homeownership when they just hadn’t gotten there on their own. What happened to good old American work ethic? What happened to the concept of setting your goals and working toward them? Why is the federal government in the business of business anyway? As a friend of mine is want to query, if you are not a homeowner, what are you? You are a renter. Is that bad? I don’t think so. Someone owns that house or apartment and is living the American dream. If you think it is easy being the owner of a rental unit, just ask those who do. If you don’t want to be a renter why do you have to have a department of the federal government behind you pushing you into a mortgage you can’t afford? If you want homeownership badly enough you go out there and work for it.
This great county has grown because individuals worked. At first it was just to subsist. Then as they worked harder they began to realize that their efforts could pay off and make their lives even better than just subsistence. Is this an easy path? No, but nothing worth the pride of ownership is easy. That is what makes one stick his chest out and say, “I worked for that and I earned it.” Where is the pride in saying “HUD got me this house”?
Looking at the Constitution and the enumerated powers, I do not see any place that allows the federal government to manipulate the marketplace for any group or for any reason. This interference in the marketplace is a very sharp overreach of constitutional authority.
The current budget for HUD is $41.5B. That is money that comes from people who have worked for that dream of homeownership. I can think of a lot more productive ways to spend that money, such as paying down our enormous debt. I can think of a lot more productive ways for people to earn their way into homeownership than working the federal bureaucracy to get a home. Working toward homeownership puts productivity in the community. Achieving that goal and purchasing that home means that someone earned a wage when the home was built, or the prior owner is going into another home that someone had to build. That is the way of economics.
By my way of thinking, if people have achieved the dream of homeownership or they are working toward it, that is good for the state and community in which they live. Doesn’t that make it a state issue? The states and municipalities should be more in tune with the individual citizens than the federal government. Why, then, is the federal government trying, and succeeding, to assume the duties of the states and local communities? While they are doing this, it is a continual degradation of states’ rights and responsibilities; a place the federal government has no business visiting.
This Discourse is very high-level and not in depth. That would take much more time and space to cover. These highlights should be enough to start you thinking.
This is the first in a series of Discourses discussing the gross assumption of power by the federal government. Hopefully, it will encourage a renewed interest in taking our communities and states back which, in turn, will give us our country back.
As always, your comments and discussions are welcome.
Dan
It is time for me to get back up on my soap box. Not a day goes by that this administration and its stooges in Congress don’t make my blood boil. Whether it is the “stimulus package” or the federal government taking over our health care or Attorney General Holder giving consideration to prosecuting the former administration for their decisions, it all boils down to one issue. Where is the constitutional justification for any of their actions?
The more I look at this administration as well as administrations for the past 80 years (and I am being generous) I realize that most, if not all of our economic problems have come as a direct result of the federal government violating its constitutional authority. In this series of Discourses let’s concentrate on just the establishment and operation of what I call extraconstitutional cabinet-level departments. First, I suppose that we should determine which departments are authorized, expressly or by implication, by the Constitution.
I would submit that Treasury, State, Justice, War (now Defense), and Commerce are authorized or implied by the Constitution; there might also be a case for the Department of Interior. I have linked Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution here. This article details the powers of the Congress. You may want to open it in order to refer to it while I go through this discussion.
The first extraconstitutional department I will discuss is the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which came into being during the FDR administration with the enactment of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. HUD was elevated to cabinet-level by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 during the Johnson administration. The stated mission for HUD “is to increase homeownership, support community development and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.” I discussed Our Uncontrollable Debt in December of last year.
Being the simple-minded soul that I am, I have to ask, “Why?” What happened to working toward homeownership? Before you get all riled, I know that in years-gone-by discriminatory lending and home sales practices existed and may still today; but there are free market forces that can and should deal with that. Much of the current financial folly we are enjoying now is a direct result of “making” people eligible for homeownership when they just hadn’t gotten there on their own. What happened to good old American work ethic? What happened to the concept of setting your goals and working toward them? Why is the federal government in the business of business anyway? As a friend of mine is want to query, if you are not a homeowner, what are you? You are a renter. Is that bad? I don’t think so. Someone owns that house or apartment and is living the American dream. If you think it is easy being the owner of a rental unit, just ask those who do. If you don’t want to be a renter why do you have to have a department of the federal government behind you pushing you into a mortgage you can’t afford? If you want homeownership badly enough you go out there and work for it.
This great county has grown because individuals worked. At first it was just to subsist. Then as they worked harder they began to realize that their efforts could pay off and make their lives even better than just subsistence. Is this an easy path? No, but nothing worth the pride of ownership is easy. That is what makes one stick his chest out and say, “I worked for that and I earned it.” Where is the pride in saying “HUD got me this house”?
Looking at the Constitution and the enumerated powers, I do not see any place that allows the federal government to manipulate the marketplace for any group or for any reason. This interference in the marketplace is a very sharp overreach of constitutional authority.
The current budget for HUD is $41.5B. That is money that comes from people who have worked for that dream of homeownership. I can think of a lot more productive ways to spend that money, such as paying down our enormous debt. I can think of a lot more productive ways for people to earn their way into homeownership than working the federal bureaucracy to get a home. Working toward homeownership puts productivity in the community. Achieving that goal and purchasing that home means that someone earned a wage when the home was built, or the prior owner is going into another home that someone had to build. That is the way of economics.
By my way of thinking, if people have achieved the dream of homeownership or they are working toward it, that is good for the state and community in which they live. Doesn’t that make it a state issue? The states and municipalities should be more in tune with the individual citizens than the federal government. Why, then, is the federal government trying, and succeeding, to assume the duties of the states and local communities? While they are doing this, it is a continual degradation of states’ rights and responsibilities; a place the federal government has no business visiting.
This Discourse is very high-level and not in depth. That would take much more time and space to cover. These highlights should be enough to start you thinking.
This is the first in a series of Discourses discussing the gross assumption of power by the federal government. Hopefully, it will encourage a renewed interest in taking our communities and states back which, in turn, will give us our country back.
As always, your comments and discussions are welcome.
Dan
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Obama and the UN
Friends,
As you know, I am no fan of the United Nations. Now, it looks like President Obama is becoming more of a Globalist than an American; I will not get into the birth certificate issue. The president wants badly to be seen as a “good guy” by the international community.
Last month, he traveled to Europe, and the Middle East looking for good will. At every stop he apologized for perceived wrongs of America, such as our arrogance. Not to put too fine a point on the issue, but is it arrogant to point out that twice in forty years this country saved the world from the despotism of megalomaniacal tyrants? Is it arrogant to point out that when Europe was in shambles after World War II it was the United States that funded much of the recovery from the utter devastation of that war? Is it arrogant to point out that America, along with our good ally England was able to face down the Soviet Union and end the cold war? Is it arrogant to point out that when Saddam Hussein invaded an ally, it was an American president who built a coalition of world nations to remove him? I might also point out that in none of these circumstances did the United States benefit financially. We did not take over the manufacturing base, agricultural base, or oil production base of any country we assisted. But I digress.
The president even went to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Saudi King. For an American president to bow to a foreign head of state, or for him to bow to anyone, for that matter, causes me to question whether he fully understands the role he has accepted. Let’s look at the relationship the United States shares with the international community, specifically the United Nations.
After World War II, this country joined with our war-time allies to establish a body that would prevent war and other international “man-made disasters.” The problem with the concept is that we made the pact with two devils, the Soviet Union and the Peoples’ Republic of China, not to mention the questionable friendship of France.
Over the history of this body, only one action that I can find has resulted in a victim of aggression being even partially protected, that being South Korea. Even that “police action” has never been finally put to rest. UN presence often results in either complete inability to accomplish the job or deploying thugs that terrorize the local populous, such as has been reported in numerous locations in Africa, or both. Seldom are these failures or abuses addressed by the whole body.
With this kind of track record what is the justification for President Obama to want to snuggle up to the UN? The Obama administration is attempting to gain a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is one of the agencies that is advocating for ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). As we all understand, any ratified treaty has the force of law over established US law.
The aforementioned treaty sounds wonderful until you start to dig into it. The UNCRC seeks to raise the best interest of children to a higher level. Who could argue against that? Well, it seems that the Supreme Court could. The Supreme Court held in Reno vs. Flores in 1993 that “‘the best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.”
The main problem seems to be who will determine what is best for the child. According to the UNCRC it is not you, the parents. This is a major “nanny state” advocacy program. The UN will become the determiner of appropriate discipline of your children. Not only does it supplant US law, it supplants your parental rights.
President Obama may be comfortable turning his daughters over to the state to determine how they are to be reared, but are you ready to do the same?
One of the provisions of the Convention is that if a child does not like the way his or her parents are exercising their responsibilities, the state must provide legal representation for that child in court against the parents. I have a problem with the concept that a child can take the parents to court if the child objects to being grounded for staying out after curfew, of if he or she objects to having a curfew in the first place.
Those countries that have signed this treaty must go before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on a regular basis to report their progress toward implementing the treaty. This just adds another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government.
This is the direction our president wants
to take our country. With each passing day, we are losing more and more of our national identity. Our president is spending an inordinate amount of time and energy denigrating our standing in the world community, not to mention our sovereignty. It is incumbent on all of us to tell him that he is on the wrong track. We are a nation of laws decided upon by our elected officials, not those of other nations.
In Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address he warned, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
President Obama’s desire for ratification of the CRC tracks very well with his disdain of all things culturally American. This is the kind of man elected by those wanting “change.” Well, how is this change working out for you? How is this global lack of respect sitting with you? How is the loss of your parental rights going to work out for you?
If you would like to read more about this problem I would like to direct you to here
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Also, I would like to thank Shyrl for her diligent research in support of this Discourse.
Dan
As you know, I am no fan of the United Nations. Now, it looks like President Obama is becoming more of a Globalist than an American; I will not get into the birth certificate issue. The president wants badly to be seen as a “good guy” by the international community.
Last month, he traveled to Europe, and the Middle East looking for good will. At every stop he apologized for perceived wrongs of America, such as our arrogance. Not to put too fine a point on the issue, but is it arrogant to point out that twice in forty years this country saved the world from the despotism of megalomaniacal tyrants? Is it arrogant to point out that when Europe was in shambles after World War II it was the United States that funded much of the recovery from the utter devastation of that war? Is it arrogant to point out that America, along with our good ally England was able to face down the Soviet Union and end the cold war? Is it arrogant to point out that when Saddam Hussein invaded an ally, it was an American president who built a coalition of world nations to remove him? I might also point out that in none of these circumstances did the United States benefit financially. We did not take over the manufacturing base, agricultural base, or oil production base of any country we assisted. But I digress.
The president even went to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Saudi King. For an American president to bow to a foreign head of state, or for him to bow to anyone, for that matter, causes me to question whether he fully understands the role he has accepted. Let’s look at the relationship the United States shares with the international community, specifically the United Nations.
After World War II, this country joined with our war-time allies to establish a body that would prevent war and other international “man-made disasters.” The problem with the concept is that we made the pact with two devils, the Soviet Union and the Peoples’ Republic of China, not to mention the questionable friendship of France.
Over the history of this body, only one action that I can find has resulted in a victim of aggression being even partially protected, that being South Korea. Even that “police action” has never been finally put to rest. UN presence often results in either complete inability to accomplish the job or deploying thugs that terrorize the local populous, such as has been reported in numerous locations in Africa, or both. Seldom are these failures or abuses addressed by the whole body.
With this kind of track record what is the justification for President Obama to want to snuggle up to the UN? The Obama administration is attempting to gain a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is one of the agencies that is advocating for ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). As we all understand, any ratified treaty has the force of law over established US law.
The aforementioned treaty sounds wonderful until you start to dig into it. The UNCRC seeks to raise the best interest of children to a higher level. Who could argue against that? Well, it seems that the Supreme Court could. The Supreme Court held in Reno vs. Flores in 1993 that “‘the best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.”
The main problem seems to be who will determine what is best for the child. According to the UNCRC it is not you, the parents. This is a major “nanny state” advocacy program. The UN will become the determiner of appropriate discipline of your children. Not only does it supplant US law, it supplants your parental rights.
President Obama may be comfortable turning his daughters over to the state to determine how they are to be reared, but are you ready to do the same?
One of the provisions of the Convention is that if a child does not like the way his or her parents are exercising their responsibilities, the state must provide legal representation for that child in court against the parents. I have a problem with the concept that a child can take the parents to court if the child objects to being grounded for staying out after curfew, of if he or she objects to having a curfew in the first place.
Those countries that have signed this treaty must go before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on a regular basis to report their progress toward implementing the treaty. This just adds another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government.
This is the direction our president wants
to take our country. With each passing day, we are losing more and more of our national identity. Our president is spending an inordinate amount of time and energy denigrating our standing in the world community, not to mention our sovereignty. It is incumbent on all of us to tell him that he is on the wrong track. We are a nation of laws decided upon by our elected officials, not those of other nations.
In Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address he warned, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
President Obama’s desire for ratification of the CRC tracks very well with his disdain of all things culturally American. This is the kind of man elected by those wanting “change.” Well, how is this change working out for you? How is this global lack of respect sitting with you? How is the loss of your parental rights going to work out for you?
If you would like to read more about this problem I would like to direct you to here
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Also, I would like to thank Shyrl for her diligent research in support of this Discourse.
Dan
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Beware of Right-Wing Extremists
Friends,
When little boys were growing up in the age of true American heroes like Lieutenant Audie Murphy, General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, General of the Army Omar Bradley, General George Patton, and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, they pictured themselves doing heroic things such as saving their comrades from certain death or rescuing the city from certain calamity. One picture they did not have of themselves was that of a terrorist.
We grew up steeped in patriotism. We had just emerged from under the cloud of three despotic megalomaniacs who wanted to split the world into three pieces for them to rule with their iron fists. Our thoughts were of the preservation of our freedoms and our nation. However in this day of globalism, these thoughts put my generation and those of like minds squarely in the crosshairs of our new administration and the agency tasked with preserving those freedoms.
I question whether members of our current administration fully appreciate how close we have come to losing our very national identity. With few exceptions, we have never gone into a war with a certainty of success. The number of Americans killed in action during all major wars since the Revolution stands at over 2.7 million. Those lives were sacrificed to guarantee that we would not have to live under the boot heel of despots.
The current list of patriots now includes the soccer moms, who want to protect their kids from crushing debt and oppressive government regulation; citizens who work every day to support their families and don’t want to see illegals come in and take their jobs; caring, loving parents who cherish their children and do not believe that a child is a throw-away commodity; and ordinary citizens, like myself, who “cling to their guns and Bibles” because they are guaranteed under our Constitution by the Founders.
The Department of Homeland Security sent a memo out to all law enforcement agencies in the US giving their assessment of Right-Wing extremist groups. You can view this memo here. (If DHS takes the link down you may email me and I will send you a copy of it.) The most astounding part of their concern is that they characterize returning veterans as potential terrorists. Why is this list of patriots now viewed by the DHS as potential terrorists and worthy of being watched? This may seem like a perplexing question but there is a simple answer. The current crop of Liberals has a major problem with criticism as evidenced by their push for reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine.”
One question that we patriots should be asking ourselves is “What freedoms will we lose under the guise of preventing Right-Wing-Extremism?” Already mentioned is curtailment of our First Amendment rights under the “Fairness Doctrine.” Additionally, if Right-Wing groups are seen as a threat, will the government try to limit our right of free assembly? Will groups like the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, www.ccm-cos.com, be banned from meeting or at least be required to obtain a permit? What about our Second Amendment rights? If those of us clinging to our guns and Bibles are viewed as a threat, can gun confiscation be far behind?
This egregious memo closely resembles one put out by the Missouri law enforcement folks a couple of months ago. They received so much heat for their memo that they removed it from distribution.
Now, Secretary Napolitano has released a statement saying that her department is not profiling anyone but that it is the department’s responsibility to safeguard the country and they are constantly “on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs.” This sounds like a bit of double-speak. The department’s memo tells law enforcement agencies across the country to beware of all of these Right-Wing groups, including returning veterans. Someone please correct my thought process. How can you be associated with a Right-Wing group unless you have political beliefs that lean to the right? But the secretary says that they do not monitor ideology or political beliefs. Maybe I’m missing something.
The bottom line is that Secretary Napolitano’s “clarification” falls a bit short. The memo is still out there providing guidance for our country’s law enforcement agencies. I find this to be offensive to the extreme. This administration is pitting the government against its citizens just the way Lenin, Stalin, and Mao did. It is past time for the citizens of this great nation to tell the federal government to stay out of our meetings, churches, and homes.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
When little boys were growing up in the age of true American heroes like Lieutenant Audie Murphy, General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, General of the Army Omar Bradley, General George Patton, and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, they pictured themselves doing heroic things such as saving their comrades from certain death or rescuing the city from certain calamity. One picture they did not have of themselves was that of a terrorist.
We grew up steeped in patriotism. We had just emerged from under the cloud of three despotic megalomaniacs who wanted to split the world into three pieces for them to rule with their iron fists. Our thoughts were of the preservation of our freedoms and our nation. However in this day of globalism, these thoughts put my generation and those of like minds squarely in the crosshairs of our new administration and the agency tasked with preserving those freedoms.
I question whether members of our current administration fully appreciate how close we have come to losing our very national identity. With few exceptions, we have never gone into a war with a certainty of success. The number of Americans killed in action during all major wars since the Revolution stands at over 2.7 million. Those lives were sacrificed to guarantee that we would not have to live under the boot heel of despots.
The current list of patriots now includes the soccer moms, who want to protect their kids from crushing debt and oppressive government regulation; citizens who work every day to support their families and don’t want to see illegals come in and take their jobs; caring, loving parents who cherish their children and do not believe that a child is a throw-away commodity; and ordinary citizens, like myself, who “cling to their guns and Bibles” because they are guaranteed under our Constitution by the Founders.
The Department of Homeland Security sent a memo out to all law enforcement agencies in the US giving their assessment of Right-Wing extremist groups. You can view this memo here. (If DHS takes the link down you may email me and I will send you a copy of it.) The most astounding part of their concern is that they characterize returning veterans as potential terrorists. Why is this list of patriots now viewed by the DHS as potential terrorists and worthy of being watched? This may seem like a perplexing question but there is a simple answer. The current crop of Liberals has a major problem with criticism as evidenced by their push for reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine.”
One question that we patriots should be asking ourselves is “What freedoms will we lose under the guise of preventing Right-Wing-Extremism?” Already mentioned is curtailment of our First Amendment rights under the “Fairness Doctrine.” Additionally, if Right-Wing groups are seen as a threat, will the government try to limit our right of free assembly? Will groups like the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, www.ccm-cos.com, be banned from meeting or at least be required to obtain a permit? What about our Second Amendment rights? If those of us clinging to our guns and Bibles are viewed as a threat, can gun confiscation be far behind?
This egregious memo closely resembles one put out by the Missouri law enforcement folks a couple of months ago. They received so much heat for their memo that they removed it from distribution.
Now, Secretary Napolitano has released a statement saying that her department is not profiling anyone but that it is the department’s responsibility to safeguard the country and they are constantly “on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs.” This sounds like a bit of double-speak. The department’s memo tells law enforcement agencies across the country to beware of all of these Right-Wing groups, including returning veterans. Someone please correct my thought process. How can you be associated with a Right-Wing group unless you have political beliefs that lean to the right? But the secretary says that they do not monitor ideology or political beliefs. Maybe I’m missing something.
The bottom line is that Secretary Napolitano’s “clarification” falls a bit short. The memo is still out there providing guidance for our country’s law enforcement agencies. I find this to be offensive to the extreme. This administration is pitting the government against its citizens just the way Lenin, Stalin, and Mao did. It is past time for the citizens of this great nation to tell the federal government to stay out of our meetings, churches, and homes.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Enumerated Powers Act
Friends,
Wow! There is a new concept brewing in Congress, HR 450, also known as the Enumerated Powers Act. If this bill passes it would state “Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress….”
What a concept, basing the actions of the federal government on only those powers granted by the Constitution. Now why didn’t I think of that? Actually, the Founders did think of it and spelled it out quite succinctly in the 10th Amendment which states, “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.” This tells me that Congress, the President, and the Courts have specific powers and only those powers.
My hat is flying off my head to salute Representative John Shadegg, R-Ariz. and the 19 other representatives who have signed on to this ground-breaking bill that will receive no notice in the main-stream press or by the Democrat leadership.
As it turns out, this is not the first time Representative Shadegg has introduced the bill. He has introduced it every year he has been in Congress. I have a couple of questions for every member of Congress; “Why is it necessary that this bill should even be required?” and “Why do I not see every member of the House of Representatives name as a cosponsor and the same in the Senate on a companion bill?” I do not think that these are rhetorical questions. I want an answer from each and every one of these individuals. For over 150 years, successive congresses, presidents, and courts have taken on powers not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. To see the cosponsors of this bill go here.
As I have noted on numerous occasions, I am no Constitutional Scholar, but in my reading of this venerable document I have found no constitutional justification for bailing out any private corporation; no constitutional justification for ordering a corporate executive to resign; or even the constitutional justification to tell petroleum companies when or where they can explore or drill for oil. Where in our Constitution does it say that the federal government has the authority to tell us who will have health care insurance, or who will pay for it? Please do not misunderstand me, I want everyone to be able to have access to health care but it is not within the purview of the federal government to determine the scope of that need or provide it.
The continuous over-reach of the federal government has accelerated to the point where we will not be out of debt for at least three generations unless we turn this trend around now. This means taking a number of immediate steps:
1. Cancel the “Stimulus Package”
2. Cut corporate taxes to a maximum rate of 14%
3. Repeal the 16th Amendment
4. Pass a new amendment that guarantees all taxes will be fairly and equitably levied
5. Eliminate all cabinet/federal departments that do not directly fall in line with the enumerated goals and powers in the Constitution.
These measures only address the financial mess with which the federal government has saddled us. There are many more measures that should be taken to return the United States to the greatness that we once enjoyed. But our economy is arguably at the fore of our thought process at this time.
As usual, I welcome your comments and discussion
Dan
Wow! There is a new concept brewing in Congress, HR 450, also known as the Enumerated Powers Act. If this bill passes it would state “Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress….”
What a concept, basing the actions of the federal government on only those powers granted by the Constitution. Now why didn’t I think of that? Actually, the Founders did think of it and spelled it out quite succinctly in the 10th Amendment which states, “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.” This tells me that Congress, the President, and the Courts have specific powers and only those powers.
My hat is flying off my head to salute Representative John Shadegg, R-Ariz. and the 19 other representatives who have signed on to this ground-breaking bill that will receive no notice in the main-stream press or by the Democrat leadership.
As it turns out, this is not the first time Representative Shadegg has introduced the bill. He has introduced it every year he has been in Congress. I have a couple of questions for every member of Congress; “Why is it necessary that this bill should even be required?” and “Why do I not see every member of the House of Representatives name as a cosponsor and the same in the Senate on a companion bill?” I do not think that these are rhetorical questions. I want an answer from each and every one of these individuals. For over 150 years, successive congresses, presidents, and courts have taken on powers not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. To see the cosponsors of this bill go here.
As I have noted on numerous occasions, I am no Constitutional Scholar, but in my reading of this venerable document I have found no constitutional justification for bailing out any private corporation; no constitutional justification for ordering a corporate executive to resign; or even the constitutional justification to tell petroleum companies when or where they can explore or drill for oil. Where in our Constitution does it say that the federal government has the authority to tell us who will have health care insurance, or who will pay for it? Please do not misunderstand me, I want everyone to be able to have access to health care but it is not within the purview of the federal government to determine the scope of that need or provide it.
The continuous over-reach of the federal government has accelerated to the point where we will not be out of debt for at least three generations unless we turn this trend around now. This means taking a number of immediate steps:
1. Cancel the “Stimulus Package”
2. Cut corporate taxes to a maximum rate of 14%
3. Repeal the 16th Amendment
4. Pass a new amendment that guarantees all taxes will be fairly and equitably levied
5. Eliminate all cabinet/federal departments that do not directly fall in line with the enumerated goals and powers in the Constitution.
These measures only address the financial mess with which the federal government has saddled us. There are many more measures that should be taken to return the United States to the greatness that we once enjoyed. But our economy is arguably at the fore of our thought process at this time.
As usual, I welcome your comments and discussion
Dan
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Guest Writer - RNC "Survey"
Friends,
How many of you have received “surveys” from the RNC. These surveys are merely restatements of RNC policies and positions. They always end up asking for money. A friend of mine received one in the latest round of mailings and responded with a letter to Chairman Steele instead of filling out the “survey.” This is what he said:
Mr. Steele, et al,
The survey that precipitated this note is nearly the same as scores of previous surveys…you ask obvious questions. But yet I should be asking you the questions:
1. Precisely what are the top 3 innovations you will implement, different from all prior RNC efforts that will recapture Washington? Spare no detail - - I want to see your entire plan.
2. Why are you asking questions with verbiage such as “Should Republicans unite…?” and “Should we resist…?” etc? These are pathetic questions - - these actions should be already nailed down: unity, resistance, opposition, etc. If you are still asking these “feel good” questions, you are arriving at the dance too late. You’ve got a lot of time and lost ground to make up…now.
3. You and the RNC appear to have no fight. When the Dems are so bold as to publicly announce that they will exclude us from legislative deliberations (because “we won”). You tuck your tail and crouch in the corner. You should be raising ceaseless noise about it. You should be encouraging and leading the “tea parties.” You should be broadcasting all the e-mail addresses, the phone numbers, and the surface addresses for all members of the DNC, White House, and cabinet. You should lead the opposition, not merely observe it. In short, you and RNC hi-visibility senior leaders should be multiplying American voices; there are millions who hate the directions we see in our future. But no one feels threatened by ordinary people - - - but if we act together, the synergism will be noticed. Get out there.
4. Immediately use some of your budget to quickly publish a directory of the Dem’s info in “3” above. Flood the market with it. Send it to more than RNC members – make it available to Dems who also are worried about Obama. I’d like to see that directory on the streets in 30 days – we can’t let another month go by with the DNC railroad in full operation. You can do this - - - - Right?
Mike and team: I am in my second career, serving the aerospace industry. I already completed my first career, having served in the U.S. Air Force for more than 26 years. Mark it well: I did not serve for more than a quarter century so that my America can be stolen away one piece at a time. I did not serve so that I can watch any of the following:
• Gun rights weakened or eliminated
• Human life killed for research
• Statecraft reduced to kumbaya sessions with terrorists
• Release of terrorists who still want to kill you, me, and my family
• Doctors prosecuted for following their moral conscience
• Transfer of wealth from honest earners to productivity refuseniks
• The environment elevated to god-like status that trumps the American way of life, productivity, Divine authority, academic truth, and national security
• Military force structure and posture reduced to another Carter-like and Clinton-like shell, the remnants of which might be subordinated to the UN
• Cooperation by the US with forces wanting one-world governance and/or currency
• Punitive tax rates that drain money from every family, business, and estate
• Education based on union-driven mediocrity that eschews superior achievement by teachers or students
• Illegal immigrants being awarded front-of-the-line status to citizenship, free medical care, preferential in-state tuition, and government shields from arrest and deportation, abetted by “sanctuary city” officials
• Intrusion of family privacy, such as government access to medical records or submission of thumbprints to sell a home in Chicago - - - and similar invasions equally insidious
• Etc. etc, etc.
The list goes on and on, but I do not have time to write more. I sincerely hope I made myself crystal clear. I am exponentially disappointed in the RNC. The time is ripe for historic reversals in Washington in the 2010 elections. Yet there is not anything I see, hear, read, watch, receive, or research that indicates that my disappointment will be reduced one iota.
Forget the grade school-level surveys. Just go out and be a tiger. You and senior RNC and elected Republicans already know the right positions.
Thanks for listening,
Bill Weiford,
I would like to add to this letter, but to do so would be to detract from its effectiveness. It clearly states the Conservative viewpoint. This is the direction Conservatives must move to take back our State and our Nation.
If you agree with this letter, join us at the Coalition for a Conservative Majority www.ccmajority.org and our local Colorado Springs chapter www.ccm-cos.com.
As usual, your comments and discussions are welcome.
Dan
How many of you have received “surveys” from the RNC. These surveys are merely restatements of RNC policies and positions. They always end up asking for money. A friend of mine received one in the latest round of mailings and responded with a letter to Chairman Steele instead of filling out the “survey.” This is what he said:
Mr. Steele, et al,
The survey that precipitated this note is nearly the same as scores of previous surveys…you ask obvious questions. But yet I should be asking you the questions:
1. Precisely what are the top 3 innovations you will implement, different from all prior RNC efforts that will recapture Washington? Spare no detail - - I want to see your entire plan.
2. Why are you asking questions with verbiage such as “Should Republicans unite…?” and “Should we resist…?” etc? These are pathetic questions - - these actions should be already nailed down: unity, resistance, opposition, etc. If you are still asking these “feel good” questions, you are arriving at the dance too late. You’ve got a lot of time and lost ground to make up…now.
3. You and the RNC appear to have no fight. When the Dems are so bold as to publicly announce that they will exclude us from legislative deliberations (because “we won”). You tuck your tail and crouch in the corner. You should be raising ceaseless noise about it. You should be encouraging and leading the “tea parties.” You should be broadcasting all the e-mail addresses, the phone numbers, and the surface addresses for all members of the DNC, White House, and cabinet. You should lead the opposition, not merely observe it. In short, you and RNC hi-visibility senior leaders should be multiplying American voices; there are millions who hate the directions we see in our future. But no one feels threatened by ordinary people - - - but if we act together, the synergism will be noticed. Get out there.
4. Immediately use some of your budget to quickly publish a directory of the Dem’s info in “3” above. Flood the market with it. Send it to more than RNC members – make it available to Dems who also are worried about Obama. I’d like to see that directory on the streets in 30 days – we can’t let another month go by with the DNC railroad in full operation. You can do this - - - - Right?
Mike and team: I am in my second career, serving the aerospace industry. I already completed my first career, having served in the U.S. Air Force for more than 26 years. Mark it well: I did not serve for more than a quarter century so that my America can be stolen away one piece at a time. I did not serve so that I can watch any of the following:
• Gun rights weakened or eliminated
• Human life killed for research
• Statecraft reduced to kumbaya sessions with terrorists
• Release of terrorists who still want to kill you, me, and my family
• Doctors prosecuted for following their moral conscience
• Transfer of wealth from honest earners to productivity refuseniks
• The environment elevated to god-like status that trumps the American way of life, productivity, Divine authority, academic truth, and national security
• Military force structure and posture reduced to another Carter-like and Clinton-like shell, the remnants of which might be subordinated to the UN
• Cooperation by the US with forces wanting one-world governance and/or currency
• Punitive tax rates that drain money from every family, business, and estate
• Education based on union-driven mediocrity that eschews superior achievement by teachers or students
• Illegal immigrants being awarded front-of-the-line status to citizenship, free medical care, preferential in-state tuition, and government shields from arrest and deportation, abetted by “sanctuary city” officials
• Intrusion of family privacy, such as government access to medical records or submission of thumbprints to sell a home in Chicago - - - and similar invasions equally insidious
• Etc. etc, etc.
The list goes on and on, but I do not have time to write more. I sincerely hope I made myself crystal clear. I am exponentially disappointed in the RNC. The time is ripe for historic reversals in Washington in the 2010 elections. Yet there is not anything I see, hear, read, watch, receive, or research that indicates that my disappointment will be reduced one iota.
Forget the grade school-level surveys. Just go out and be a tiger. You and senior RNC and elected Republicans already know the right positions.
Thanks for listening,
Bill Weiford,
I would like to add to this letter, but to do so would be to detract from its effectiveness. It clearly states the Conservative viewpoint. This is the direction Conservatives must move to take back our State and our Nation.
If you agree with this letter, join us at the Coalition for a Conservative Majority www.ccmajority.org and our local Colorado Springs chapter www.ccm-cos.com.
As usual, your comments and discussions are welcome.
Dan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)