Disloyalty: Barack Obama’s Systematic Destruction Of America

The exponential growth in executive power under the leadership of President Obama is a daily fact of life to which Americans must daily adjust.  New offenses against the Constitution and liberty are sustained nearly every week, and almost every day, by the lusty and lawless individual claiming the hallowed title of “President of the United States.”

But how does a President of the United States whose allegiance is to his country knowingly and in plain sight sabotage his nation’s defenses?  Until recently, the discussions of severe military cuts remained in the appropriate realm of working groups, and few seriously considered Obama’s radical campaign promises to eliminate nuclear weapons from the US arsenal to be of any real validity.  After all, many Democrat presidential contenders before Obama had pandered to pacifists and the armies of the naïve swelling the Democratic base in order to get elected.  But none of these individuals actually took proactive steps to completely remove America’s nuclear triad from the list of strategic options, and our ability to instill fear in the hearts of our enemies, both current and future, was left unquestioned, minor reductions in stockpiles notwithstanding.

Obama has done what no loyal American would do:  Systematically tear down the most vital of America’s defenses, all while America’s enemies wait with bated breath for the nation that owes trillions in debt to be left standing defenseless.  What happens when America lays down its arms?  It seems Obama would like to find out.  Americans may be the unintended (intended?) victims of a perverse social experiment.

Leaks from high-level defense sources reveal that in addition to commitments under the New START agreement, which brings the total number of deliverable US warheads to 1,000–an unacceptably low number that prevents the US from being able to destroy the 3,000 priority strategic targets identified by the DoD–Obama now plans to implement an 80 percent force reduction that will leave America with only 300 deliverable warheads.  Such a move is suicidal.  Such a low number is wholly insufficient to protect America from the growing list of dangerous and erratic nuclear regimes with global ambitions.  Even more crucial to understanding the risk inherent in such a decision is the role of US nuclear weapons stockpiles as a deterrent.

Americans have been able to live the cushy, blissfully ignorant, carefree existence of the last half-century–now taken for granted by new generations of youngsters who have only known prosperity and for whom Cold War politics are moot–only because the US possessed a credible nuclear arsenal capable of devastating any adversary.  It is because of, not in spite of, America’s nuclear assets that America has survived multiple existential threats.

The danger of nuclear confrontation has increased, not decreased, since the end of the Cold War.  The likelihood of nuclear exchange has increased rapidly, mirroring the acquisition of nuclear weapons by small and medium-sized states, with multiple hostile nuclear powers now vying for global influence.  Obama is either gravely naïve, or more likely holds foreign allegiance that has yet to be revealed, if he is pursuing drastic and suicidal cuts to our arsenal at the present time.

In order to obtain expert analysis of the proposed cuts underway, I conducted an exclusive interview with former NORAD director Brig. Gen. Jim L. Cash.  General Cash views the situation thusly:

I consider even consideration of such a move in this day and age to be absolute treason, especially if supported by the President of the United States.  I have watched President Obama closely for the past three years and seldom agreed with the far-left decisions made by his administration.  However, I feel he is now actually threatening the National Security of this nation.  We have already severely cut our nuclear weapons capability under the lead of Obama.  More cuts in the near future should not even be considered…If Obama and his left wing progressive cronies are not voted out of office this year and replaced…we will be past the point of no return.

Obama has been busy gutting American conventional forces as well.

The Army and the Marines are to be significantly downsized, even as their global commitments expand.  Obama has implemented levels deemed insufficient to meet the goals set by the current and previous administrations.  Respected generals and DoD officials are on record communicating the dangers of this single move.

America can no longer simultaneously fight two major wars in two theaters of deployment, a capability deemed vital to ensuring America’s defense against coalitions of aggressor states, now a plausible scenario owing to the Russian military buildup in the Middle East and the increasingly belligerent actions of China on every front.  Both nations are in a Warsaw Pact prototype alliance called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that openly challenges US leadership and engages in maneuvers in which the United States is the target.  Iran is also a member of this organization.  Eliminating the two-war capability would seem ill-advised.  But then, Obama probably knows this.

The Navy thinly escaped Obama’s hacksaw.  Recent studies commissioned by DoD indicate that the present number of aircraft carrier battle groups is not sufficient to maintain an adequate defensive posture in the Pacific, where US-Taiwanese forces are under constant threat of nuclear exchange with China.

Even though the number of carrier groups is already below capacity, Obama had wanted to cut another carrier battle group from the fleet.  The Navy torpedoed the move, but not without cost.  Modernization efforts have been canned, and shipbuilding will be greatly slowed, decimating replacement capability.

Enter and exit the US Air Force.  The Air Force has been forced to lose several hundred planes, even though its present number is already below the threshold admittedly needed to carry out tactical bombing campaigns.  In Bosnia, when the Air Force was a few times larger than today, it took 40 percent of active aircraft to execute the campaign. Can anyone seriously argue that the US Air Force, which needed nearly half of its resources to prosecute Bosnia, can actually manage a conflict involving multiple major powers at one time, especially if cuts of the magnitude enacted go unchallenged?

America’s President has done more to harm American security than our greatest foes could ever dream of doing, and he has done it with both eyes wide open, willingly, with full knowledge of the implications, which begs the obvious question: What word describes a President that will do this to his own country?

Obama admittedly seeks the eradication of American superpower status.  Even if a case can be made for a reduced US footprint worldwide or for a less interventionist foreign policy, would a loyal American knowingly seek to undermine his or her nation’s greatness merely to satisfy some philosophical pretense to equality with “everybody else”?

Can it be said that Obama is actually an American in this sense of the word?  Yes, he claims to have a piece of paper saying he was born in Hawaii, but do his actions identify him as a man that loves his country and wants it to survive?  It is with great trembling that I must conclude the answer to be a resounding no.

As I asked in my previous piece for WND, “Why else would Obama willfully share top-secret information on U.S. missile defense technology, thereby enabling America’s enemies to identify strategic weaknesses and calibrate their plan of attack accordingly?  What purpose could such transfers of information have other than to critically weaken and expose the United States?”

It is upon this basis that I must conclude that Obama’s systematic deconstruction of America’s defenses is not simply a policy difference to be shrugged off with clichéd avoidance phrases like, “let’s agree to disagree.”  When President Obama made it his mission to expose America to multi-pronged attack by hostile foreign nuclear-armed states, small and large policy differences between the two major parties gave way to more essential questions of patriotism, and most importantly, loyalty.  Some things are non-negotiable and should not be politicized.  America’s survival is one of those things.  Loyalty is another.

The time for pretense is over.  Obama is no friend of America.

 

The ‘Conservatives’ Complicit With Obama


Doug Mills-The New York Times

When Republicans and Democrats unite to prop up a corrupt regime like the Obama administration, it is relevant to ask what purpose, what shared goal unites them. Furthermore, when two such diametrically opposed camps repeatedly, and with almost pathological zeal, advance causes that damage their own political standing and even jeopardize their possibility of re-election, it must be asked what has been promised to these groups of individuals.

Why is so little being done by conservatives in office to counter the damage President Obama is doing to our country? Why does Obama feel he can abuse his office with impunity? Answer: Clearly because those who would oppose him have been placated.

What have they been promised?

It would require much more space than is available here to detail the number and substance of offenses committed against the American people and their Constitution by this president and his allies. So for a start, consider just some of the damage Obama has done to the U.S. in these three categories: the rule of law, civil liberties and American national security.

Rule of law

President Obama is fast becoming the equivalent of an elected dictator, and Republicans are stopping short of the necessary action, placing temporary political considerations above the safety of the United States. Several months ago, President Obama announced that he would begin to spend the American people’s money without the legislative authorization of Congress, an unprecedented step. This announcement came on the heels of Obama intimating that he may use the 14th Amendment to pass a budget without Congress, an egregious abuse of his power. As Obama brazenly declared, “I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress, steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive, and help heal the economy. And we’re going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis.”

Action indeed must be taken, action dedicated to stopping dead in its tracks the creeping disregard of constitutional limits on power, limits that keep Americans free and preserve democratic accountability. If Obama, one of the most unpopular U.S. presidents in history, is able to impose his legally questionable and popularly loathed policies on the American people without the constitutional filtering mechanism of Congress, can it be said that elections have any real purpose or meaning? President Obama’s”actions” are illegal and circumvent the system that guarantees American liberty.

Furthermore, the president is given no authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to create laws – only the power to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The chief executive holds the power to sign or to veto, and there ends his capacity for legislative input.

Many iron-fisted regimes were built on the premise that absolute power was needed to advance the “common good.” Obama’s illegal recess appointments and his refusal to heed the rulings of federal judges all smack of a dangerous mindset. Obama’s ilk defended these moves, citing a need for “efficiency.” History repeats.

Speaker of the House John Boehner’s response to these “actions” is to recommend the president take a different approach. Do we really think Obama cares about GOP recommendations? Restoration of the rule of law demands swift action, or restoration may never occur. Resistance to Obama’s power abuses, as evidenced by the tepid wrist-slap from the Boehner camp, is weak and completely inadequate to the task of stopping rogue government. Moreover, Obama’s innumerable and unconstitutional czar appointments, which undermine democratic and accountable government, have been condemned but not defunded.

What have they been promised?

Civil liberties

In the three years since Obama was elected, he has done more to attack civil liberties than the last two presidents combined. Through various czar appointments, Obama has openly attacked free speech. President Obama began by creating his own Ministry of Truth, headed up by Cass Sunstein, a man whothinks that free speech is not in the “interest of citizenship….” Sunstein would admittedly like authority to ban what he deems “falsehoods,” all of which suspiciously tend in the conservative direction.

Mark Lloyd, the new FCC diversity czar, went as far as contending that conservative journalists shouldstep down in favor of liberal counterparts, identifying Hugo Chávez as a suitable model for desired “social change” in media. Lloyd advocated taxing private – and mostly conservative – broadcasters out of existence.

After pursuing regulatory control of speech, Obama sought legislation giving him the authority to shut down certain websites and even the Internet altogether, all under the guise of protecting “national security.” Then there is SOPA. Although publicly opposing SOPA, Obama’s past actions would seem a reason to be skeptical of his present stances, e.g. monitoring social networking sites, encouraging Americans to report on fellow citizens, etc.

But who needs to merely limit speech when brutal intimidation is even more effective? President Obama is the first U.S. president to claim the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process, a power that was broadened by the NDAA to include the detention of American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. Add to this action the instigation of DHS dossiers on journalists (traditional and online). Now that the president can declare anyone a “terrorist” (even his political opponents), who will dare to speak out?

Despite significant public opposition to these moves, the GOP and most Democrats did little to stand in the way of these unconstitutional power seizures. Criminal and illegal actions gravely

detrimental to liberty in America were met with tough rhetoric, but no concrete action was taken to halt these moves. The question must be asked, what have they been promised?

American security

At the same time Obama is expanding his police-state powers and building the architecture of tyranny, he is removing the U.S. military from the chessboard, reducing its size and severely constraining its ability to defend the American people from domestic or foreign attack. Obama admittedly seeks the eradication of American superpower status. Why else would he willfully share top-secret information on U.S. missile technology, thereby enabling America’s enemies to identify strategic weaknesses and calibrate their plan of attack accordingly? What purpose could such transfers of information have other than to critically weaken and expose the United States?

Sharing top-secret information that could result in American deaths is criminal behavior. These are the actions of a man drunk with power. Where are the calls for impeachment, the calls for the legal recourse appropriate in such situations of “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Is Congress dead to the difference between coincidence and malicious intent? Again, the question seems appropriate, what have they been promised?

As former Secretary of Defense James Forrestal once rightly noted, “These men are not incompetent or stupid. If they were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.”

America is in danger, not just from outside attack, but from willful self-destruction of the kind described by President Lincoln in his Lyceum address. By doing nothing in the face of such blatant and transparent subversion, of the rule of law, of liberty and of American security, good men commit the grave error of allowing evil to triumph.

What have they been promised?

John Griffing originally posted on World Net Daily

 

 

1 Comment

America: The Living Portrait of Dorian Gray

The song “God Bless the USA” is often still sung at commemorative events surrounding national days of remembrance like the Fourth of July or Veterans Day.  But, like the “Star-Spangled Banner,” the true meaning behind the vaunted words of this American doxology has been lost.  More importantly, the claims made in Lee Greenwood’s timeless anthem are no longer accurate.

Public religious expression has been squelched in the last century, violating “free exercise” of faith in the deepest sense, and ending America’s status as a nation that unreservedly recognizes freedom of religion.  In one recent exhibition of this new anti-religious zealotry, the Department of Defense (DoD) ordered that Bibles  no longer be available to injured personnel at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Priceless civil liberties like “privacy” have been abolished via anti-terrorism measures that neither sought amendment nor claimed constitutional legitimacy.

New legislation promises to permit “indefinite detention” of American citizens, effectively abolishing the right to trial and ending Habeas Corpus rights.  The legislation classifies America as a “battlefield” in the apparently limitless and neverending “War on Terror.”

Free speech is increasingly regulated, and plans are in the works to criminalize select political viewpoints, making those who hold these viewpoints enemies of the state.  One legislative proposal currently before Congress would give government regulators the power to censor political content on the web.

And finally, the American spirit, which balances respect for the individual with community, has been replaced by an entertainment obsession, which is redefining traditional moral set-points with alarming speed.

All things considered, Americans can no longer say that “the flag still stands for freedom, and they can’t take that away.”  Nor can they utter in passing the words, “at least I know I’m free.”

At the root of all these changes is not one political deviant or some organized conspiracy to overthrow freedom and decency in America, but the collective abandonment of God and associated moral virtue by a once God-fearing people.

The changing perception of violence is evidence of this reality.  Consider, for example, that where once gratuitous violence was understood in a cinematic and fanciful context, or in the boxing ring, violence involving the injury of real persons is now visible in seconds within the privacy of one’s own home.  The next generation of youngsters are setting new standards for what is acceptable.

The dire warnings of some that TV and movie violence would one day lead to Romanesque stadiums filled with sanguine patrons looking for the next cheap thrills have proven correct, only these Chicken Littles could not have envisioned the Internet.  We don’t have to see the faces of victims or sweat in the presence of the abused.  We need only point and click and view the horror of the day.

Those who attempt to draw historical parallels between Greco-Roman bloods sports are usually laughed out of the room, but it is hard to joke when videos of gang-beatings are captured on YouTube by heartless teenagers for recreational viewing, or terrorists post scarring images of beheadings that go viral.  Millions watched the execution of Saddam Hussein.  Executions of hated dictators are certainly considered entertaining in uneducated, banana republics, but why should so many Americans find an interest in this gruesome display?

More recently, a gang of fifty-something teenage girls is reported to have camped outside a classmate’s home with guns and knives, shouting death threats at the intended victim.  Two police who intervened were beaten within inches of their lives by this lawless teenage mob.  Teenagers no longer fit the Americana Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello mold.

Few can deny that a substantial shift in community instincts has occurred.  Remember when the injury of a fellow citizen would bring the help of others, and maybe the police?  Now it brings phone cameras and lots of entertained observers.  Something is terribly wrong in America.

If America had a painting of itself hidden away, it would look more like Dorian Gray’s demonic portrait, and less and less like the Thomas Kinkade scenes of small town America that have become the medication of choice for traditional Americans seeking shelter from the cultural firestorm.

Americans are beginning to lose their soul, and if we don’t turn back soon, the Dorian Gray metaphor will be more than just an apt description of present events; it will become the American identity.

And it is not just the few violence-related tapes that should disturb traditional Americans.  The porn industry has warped a generation with so many delusions that arousal requires ever more perverse and fierce displays.

Sexual freedom doesn’t mean the absence of moral responsibility.  There are lines that no one should cross.  But that is the central problem with sexual freedom:  it cannot be contained.  One deviant act will beget another, until the culture is so twisted that it bears no resemblance to its former self.  In many ways, Americans have tunnel vision, living from day to day and therefore missing the reflection in the mirror.

Movies have begun to reflect the change in mentality.  The controversial new superhero movie Kick Ass is representative of the trend.  The new blockbuster features a torture/execution scene supposedly streamed live over the internet.  Everyone watches with almost feigned glee as the heroes are summarily burned alive.  No one attempts to call the cops or locate the site of the event.  Only hours before, these heroes had helped eliminate vicious criminals from the streets and yet were now the spectacle of blood-thirsty audiences with soda and corn-nuts in hand.

When footage of a young school girl abusing another young school girl can draw so much public attention, there is a serious moral problem.  The reason for watching such material is irrelevant.  Americans should not honor these vile and animalistic media stunts with a minute of their time.  And yet, focus on these events is becoming habitual.  Over the last year, numerous wanton acts of violence caught on tape were viewed by millions of Americans.

TV violence has escalated to a level few baby boomers could envision even ten years ago.  The same goes for TV sex, which has reached borderline pornographic levels.  The problem is so extensive that Saturday Night Live was able to depict Betty White, 88 year old classic television heavyweight, in severely compromising sexual positions of the most grotesque and perverse variety.  And children are the real victims of such behavior.  Previous generations, having “liberated” themselves from traditional social parameters, are setting a terrible example for future generations of Americans.  Kids see and kids do.  And they are doing quite a bit with this newfound liberation, a situation which is causing many parents, many of whom are equally at fault for inviting lewd displays into the home, to express outrage.  But the reaction may be too late.  In this conundrum is a profound truth:  morality and law are not two separate spheres, but one cohesive whole.

Freedom itself is the result of a nation with laws.  And nations with laws are the product of cultures grounded in religious morality.  The two items are inseparable.  Legal boundaries are based on moral boundaries.  For example, why is it wrong to kill if there is no God, or alternatively, no universal source of morality?

In the same way, what is done in private cannot be separated from what is done in public.  At some point, worlds collide, and lawlessness is unleashed.  Warped minds in private will always yield warped behavior in public.  This claim is substantiated in numerous psychological studies.

As famous philosopher Nietzsche proclaimed at the end of a century:  “God is dead.”  In the place of traditional religious orientation, Americans worship entertainment.  Americans have lost sight of the principles that made America the world’s greatest superpower.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said in his documented journey to America, “If America ever ceases to be good, it will cease to be great.”  Tocqueville has proven prophetic.  American church attendance is now below 40 percent, as it is in most western countries.  But in Europe, Islam has filled the void.  Not so in America.  In America, consumerism and entertainment media have filled the gaping chasm left by Christian ancestors.  Even Christians seem to be OK with the change in ethos.  In fact, according to Pew Forum, over 60 percent of professing Christians say other systems of morality are just as valid as the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Most Americans would not see themselves as amoral sadists, and at present there is a prevailing dogma that defends traditional conceptions of morality.  But the baby boomers are dying off.  What signs have we seen from Gen-Xers that traditional notions of morality like, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” will survive past the next thirty years?  “Occupy” protesters assaulting grannies outside tea party gatherings are not a good indicator of what awaits.

The Roman Empire, second only to the United States in power and prestige, was destroyed, not because of Goth invaders or Persian debacles as some historians have claimed.  These events were merely that outward consequence of a deeper weakness.  Long before Rome abandoned its outer defenses and strained its soldiers in endless foreign wars, Rome became a cesspool of vice and corruption.  Women stopped having children, and men turned to less traditional means of sexual fulfillment.  Before the Goths ever set foot across the Danube, Rome lacked the social strength to resist the stronger, more unified Germanic culture.  Rome disarmed itself when it chose pleasure over long-term security.

If America is to be saved from the fate of Rome, it must first find its soul.  A nation of vice cannot be the beacon of hope for the free world.  Ben Franklin said it best, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”  Will we be a nation of upright freemen, or slaves to vice?

The Hitman Cometh

An old adage reads, “If it quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.”  The push by the Obama Administration to progressively strip Americans of basic liberties in the pursuit of political objectives has now taken on more draconian overtones, and no one seems to have noticed.  While the media quibbles over Romney versus Gingrich, the Occupy movement, and other diversions, President Obama continues to undermine law and order, dismantling the US Constitution piece by piece. When public officials seek to limit freedom, it can be concluded that these officials want to rule instead of govern.  Cloaking seizures of power in clever misnomers does not validate the abuse of public office.  What else can we conclude when Obama claims the illegal power to assassinate citizens at his whim?  If citizen assassination was the only example of executive malfeasance emanating from Washington, Americans could breathe easier, except that citizen assassination, e.g. Awlaki, has opened the floodgates for a barrage of new power seizures.  The ground softened, the first brick laid, Obama can now proceed unchallenged.

As I warned repeatedly in multiple articles over the last two years, the machinery put in place to thwart Islamic terrorism could be turned against citizens for political purposes, due to the broad constructions used in terror definitions.  Only no one could have imagined the speed at which these things would come to pass.  As I explained in a previous article:

The broad and ambiguous language found in the PATRIOT Act gives the president, whoever that may be, the power to determine what is and is not “terror.”  Section 411, G, vi, II of the PATRIOT Act defines a terrorist as anyone “designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General.”

Everything that follows is contingent on this loose definition — i.e. warrantless wiretapping, warrantless entry, human tracking, access to bank statements and phone records, access to internet records, “enhanced” interrogation, and now assassination.

Illustrating the danger of such a legal construction is the fact that “terrorism” is increasingly used as a subjective slur to intimidate opponents.  Recall that Democrats recently accused Republicans of “terrorism,” in place of presenting actual solutions to America’s budget crisis.  The definition is adaptable it seems.

When the first citizen was felled by President Obama’s new citizen assassination program, the act was lauded by members of both parties as a tough and needed measure to successfully prosecute the war on terror.  I counseled that this new and self-declared power would quickly morph into something dangerous to both democratic dialogue and the expression of ideas, potentially putting anyone with the temerity to criticize the President at risk.  Since no one has seen the names of the persons supposedly on the classified “hit list,” there is no accountability in the way the new program is leveraged or organized.

And as CIA General Counsel Stephen Preston said to the American Bar Association (ABA) this past week, “I will make this observation that citizenship does not confer immunity on one who takes up arms against his own country. It didn’t in World War Two….”  Preston conveniently forgets Supreme Court precedent voiding the actions of President Roosevelt against American citizens of Japanese descent.[i] This kind of semantic bantering though avoids the real issue:  public officials, especially unelected ones, do not have the constitutional authority to decide when or under what circumstances to revoke the rights conferred by citizenship.  Citizenship is, or it is not, but bureaucrats cannot be permitted to make citizenship conditional.  If citizenship can be redefined by self-appointed political overlords, then the social contract that undergirds the American system ceases to exist.  Besides, the Constitution already provides the mechanisms by which to address treason and rebellion.  The attempt to make citizenship conditional then is a thinly-veiled means of silencing those standing in the way of total control, a goal apparently prized by Obama.  Recall when Obama instructed his staff to “identify all those areas in which we can act administratively without additional congressional authorization and just get it done.”   And consider that every major legislative “achievement” attributable to Obama has consisted of massive transfers of power to the executive branch from Congress and the American people.

I wish I had been wrong about my predictions.  But legitimized citizen assassination has paved the way for even more Orwellian designs.  Several weeks ago, Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) advanced legislation in the Senate that would designate the continental United States as a “battlefield.”  Under the provisions of the legislation, the military could then deploy within the US without any formal authorization under Posse Comitatus, which limits domestic deployment and guards against a police state.  No declaration of martial law is necessary.  Obama only need give the order, and then troops can march down American streets in search of “terrorists,” real or hypothetical, since no real threat need be demonstrated.  In his first term, Obama authored an executive order that transferred the power of deploying troops domestically from state governors to a council of persons answerable only to himself. A recipe for despotism and the virtual end of freedom in America now exist when this order and current proposals are combined.  The horrific implications of converting America into an active warzone are obvious to any keen observer.

Other sections of the legislation illegally claim the authority to round up citizens deemed terrorists by would-be apparatchiks at the White House and hold them “indefinitely,” usurping the Habeas Corpus rights of American citizens.  Section 1031 of the NDAA reads: “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force … includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…. [including] [d]etention under the law of war without trial….”

If President Obama is willing to mirandize self-avowed foreign Islamic terrorists, but kill on sight an American citizen without so much as an attempt at peaceful apprehension, what can Americans expect from the President once “indefinite detention” becomes law?  Considering Obama’s clearly inverted understanding of how US law applies, i.e. civil rights in court extended to foreign persons and not to citizens, might it be prudent to conclude that he will also have the same inverse understanding of when and where to apply “enhanced interrogation?”

Why are Obama and his allies in Congress so eager to snuff out the lamp of liberty at home, for the promise of safety already attained?  Previously imposed security measures have arguably already achieved the needed safeguards against domestic terror.  Have any terrorist plots succeeded since 9/11?

Prior to becoming president, Obama once implied the need to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution….”  He now applies the same philosophical bent, at odds with his oath of office, to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), telling the press categorically that he will not veto the legislation.  Put simply, Obama sides with the enemies of freedom in Congress, and will allow the indefinite detention of American citizens to proceed.  This is indeed a predictable response, considering Obama’s abhorrent constitutional record, e.g. unconfirmed czars, undeclared wars, illegal drilling bans, private sector nationalization, rule by executive fiat, and more recently, execution of citizens without due process. Obama rationalized his support of the legislation because it gives him “discretion” as to how the controversial provisions will be applied.  That is supremely comforting.

To the everlasting shame of conservatives, certain members of the GOP are lending their support to these gargantuan power-grabs.  Sen. Lindsey Graham praised the indefinite detention provisions, rejoicing “for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and that people can be detained without trial, “American citizen or not.”  God help us.

Together, citizen assassination and indefinite detention represent the biggest attack on freedom and human rights in American history, and this assessment includes the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The founding fathers had a word to describe the events transpiring in America today, the disregard of the Constitution, the centralization of power in a few hands: tyranny.

This will either be a nation of free men and women, or it will be the next in a long line of tyrannies.  There is no one to save America if America falls.  This generation must decide the fate of American liberty.


[i] Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944).

The Iron Lady’s Real Economic Record

“Prosperity comes not from grand conferences of economists but by countless acts of personal self-confidence and self-reliance.”

~Margaret Thatcher

With the death of Ronald Reagan seven years ago, many heard for the first time about the successful economic policies advanced in the eighties, and the resulting expansion in the United States.  As media coverage broadened, Americans also became reacquainted with his contemporary Margaret Thatcher (who recently celebrated her 86th birthday), and learned that under her leadership, a similar phenomenon had occurred in Britain.  Alas, this period of even-handed factual reporting was short-lived, and the media filter is once again in place.  But a new generation is catching on—conservative policies work wherever they are implemented.  And conservative economic success (and the resulting rancor from the left) is not just an American phenomenon.

The Labour Party in Britain has for the last decade spread falsehoods about the period during which Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, riding the 1990 recession into four terms of parliamentary leadership.  Labour tirelessly repeats myths about Thatcher’s impressive accomplishments.  And now Hollywood screenwriters, intellectually lazy and most likely ideologically-driven, have assigned themselves the task of institutionalizing these myths via the vehicle of cinema. Oscar-winner Meryl Streep has lent her reputation to this demagogic enterprise.  If leftists in Britain and the United States really believed what they say they believe, they would be willing to engage in open debate about the merits and pitfalls of the conservative economic paradigm, which in this case emphasizes standard supply-side policies such as low marginal tax rates and minimal government regulation.  Instead, leftists rewrite the record, taking advantage of Thatcher’s reduced mental capacity to challenge them.  Someone must “set the world to rights” and dispel the various popular myths about one of the greatest beacons of conservative competence in history.

Myth One: The Labour government preceding Lady Thatcher had a better employment record.

Prior to Thatcher’s premiership a false façade of higher employment existed.  But in actual fact, the Socialist philosophy of the then Labour Party required placing large sectors of the British economy under the national government’s control.  This policy of nationalization was initiated in the wake of World War II and was allowed to continue under the leadership of milquetoast conservatives who were afraid to lose the electorate’s mandate, and of Labour governments who promised “more of the same.”  As is typical with Socialism, even when actual productivity was falling, these industries were subsidized, and jobs that would naturally have become unprofitable were preserved.  There was no reason for people to look for better jobs, or work harder in hopes of making more money.  The trade unions, another instrument of Labour’s Socialist policies, constantly demanded and ensured wage increases for these nationalized industries, even though output never increased proportionately.  This led predictably to higher prices, which inevitably hurt the economy.

At first Thatcher’s “medicine” as she put it in her famous “The Lady’s Not for Turning” speech, seemed worse than the disease.  As Thatcher explained, “If I could press a button and genuinely solve the unemployment problem, do you think that I would not press that button this instant? Does anyone imagine that there is the smallest political gain in letting this unemployment continue, or that there is some obscure economic religion which demands this unemployment as part of its ritual? This Government are pursuing the only policy which gives any hope of bringing our people back to real and lasting employment.”

After de-nationalizing industry, e.g. British Gas and British Telecom, businesses were actually able to terminate expensive, inefficient, and unproductive segments of their workforce. This created a short-term spike in unemployment, but with Thatcher’s subsequent Trade-Union Reform (which kept trade unions from denying people jobs simply because they weren’t members), a vast surge in employment occurred.  Between 1980 and 1990, the number of British people unemployed dropped below two million.  This was a new record, and by the end of Maggie’s third term, 3 million more “real” jobs were created.[i]

Myth Two: Margaret Thatcher’s government increased inflation. In fact, the rate of inflation under Thatcher went as low as 4 percent compared to the previous Labour government’s paralyzing rate of over 20 percent.[ii] Her critics’ demagogic claim that inflation increased was based strictly on one fact, taken out of context.  The rate of inflation did go up a bit at the end of the Thatcher era due to an effective parliamentary coup d’état within her own government.   Even so, Thatcher brought inflation to less than half of what it been under her predecessor.

Myth Three: The poor got poorer under Margaret Thatcher. This is pure falsehood.  The Labour Party of the day talked of the economy as a fixed entity, which supposedly never expanded or contracted.  This is called static economic analysis.  It is upon this basis that Labour members of parliament spoke of a growing gap between the rich and poor, and a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.  Sounds like American liberals talking about Reaganomics.  Thatcher eloquently described Labour’s view as preferring that “the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich.”

Thatcher had hit on an important point.  What Socialists or liberals never talk about is income mobility, and specifically, upward income mobility.  People moved into higher income brackets under Thatcher.[iii] Women did particularly well.  By increasing taxes on higher brackets to punish those with greater affluence, Thatcher realized that the poor would actually be the victims, since median income growth would stagnate, which hurts the poor more than those with means.  Instead of erasing the gap, such punitive tax policies would merely move the gap down on the median scale, depressing wages.

The New Earnings Survey for the years 1977-1997 show that the three broadest wage groups all experienced significant increases, which, along with a lowering of inflation, meant that income growth during the Thatcher era was very real.  And yet, income quintiles are merely a relative group measure of affluence, not an accurate measure of individual wealth, because mobility in and out of quintiles has little or no impact on the average income of the quintile left.  Investment is a better indicator of disposable income growth. And the increase in non-corporate investment during the Thatcher years appears to contrast with the claim that Brits saw a reduction in their standard of living.  The number of shareholders went from 3 million to 11 million.[iv]

 

Myth Four: Margaret Thatcher spent less than the Labour Party on disabled persons during her tenure. In terms of purchasing power, Thatcher actually spent more on the disabled.  Since inflation had come down substantially, purchasing power was up.  As a percentage of GDP, government spending as a whole remained virtually unchanged.[v]

Myth Five: Margaret Thatcher forced poor unskilled coal miners into boxes. All Thatcher did was allow normal market forces to resume.  This is precisely what should have happened in any healthy Capitalist economy.  Had the hiring and firing, i.e. “creative destruction,” been allowed to happen sooner, the pain would have been lessened.  Downsizing is something that must often occur in business in order to keep all sectors of the economy productive and competitive.  The real fault lay with Labour policies which allowed trade unions, for political purposes, to block the unemployed from rebounding into new jobs.  If the economy had been truly laissez-faire, this tragedy could have been averted.

Myth Six: Margaret Thatcher caused the Exchange Rate Mechanism fiasco which cost one million British jobs at the end of her third term. The Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was an economically questionable arrangement favored by a number of conservatives in Thatcher’s government which tied the value of the pound to German interest rates, predictably causing the slight increase in inflation discussed earlier, and massive layoffs due to the inevitable cost fluctuations that resulted.  Margaret Thatcher was completely innocent in this matter.

In Britain, various Cabinet ministers have a greater degree of policy-related independence than in the United States.  Nigel Lawson, Chancellor of the Exchequer, often mentioned as one of Margaret Thatcher’s favorite ministers, thought ERM was a good idea.  Without consulting Thatcher, Lawson began to implement ERM in Britain.  This entire fiasco caused a recession the size of which prompted Lawson to resign, leaving Thatcher to pick up the pieces.  The British press was only too eager to link “Thatcherism” with ERM.

 

Despite the attempts of Hollywood and leftists in Britain to redefine the Thatcher era, the facts are there for any who care to investigate.  Conservative economic policies work, even when put in place by liberals like JFK, who spurred U.S. economic growth by cutting taxes, or Tony Blair, who unabashedly continued (and took credit for) most of Thatcher’s policies.

For any serious student of policies that work, Margaret Thatcher’s record is an excellent place to start.


[i] The Modernization of Britain’s Tax and Benefit System. Number One. Employment Opportunity in a

Changing Labour Market. Govt. White Paper.

[ii] Office of National Statistics

[iii] The Modernization of Britain’s Tax and Benefit System. Number One. Employment Opportunity in a

Changing Labour Market. Govt. White Paper.

[iv] “What We Can Learn from Margaret Thatcher.” Heritage Foundation.

[v] Office of National Statistics

4 Comments