Dec 16 2011

Washington DC Dangerously Out Of Control

It seems we have not learned our lesson yet on how badly out of control the federal government is. You’d think we would have learned from ObamaCare and the Frank-Dodd-Morgtage debacle how shoddy (but always ‘well meaning’) legislation can wreak havoc when it finally becomes law, policy, processes and procedures.

The Frank-Dodd-Morgtage disaster is a classic example of DC screwing up in reverse because they did not think things through – or simply ignored the downside risks because they were on a mission for God. The liberals wanted to extend the honor and joy of home ownership to many more people. They did this by removing the responsibility of home ownership and putting that on the back of taxpayers (basically all the truly responsible home owners). The liberal do-gooders did not realize it would only take a small fraction of the over all housing market invested in subprime loans to topple the entire housing market – and wipe out the life savings of tens of millions of people.

The ratio of lower-quality subprime mortgages originated rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004-2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S.[1] A high percentage of these subprime mortgages, over 90% in 2006 for example, were adjustable-rate mortgages.[2] These two changes were part of a broader trend of lowered lending standards and higher-risk mortgage products.[2][3] Further, U.S. households had become increasingly indebted, with the ratio of debt to disposable personal income rising from 77% in 1990 to 127% at the end of 2007, much of this increase mortgage-related.[4]

Instead of more home owners, we now have fewer and the homes have lost much of their value.

ObamaCare is even worse. The Democrats openly admitted we would not know the damage imbedded in the liberal fantasy until the law was passed and mindless bureaucrats started implementing it. So far the news is pretty bad. Most small businesses are dropping their health insurance benefits; therefore, most people cannot keep their current policies as promised. Large or politically connected companies are getting waivers so they don’t have to participate. Medicare/Medicaid are getting gutted to pay for the billion dollar bureaucracy (which will not address a single patient’s medical needs). ObamaCare is the epitome of stupid big-government-solutions thinking. It will waste billions on top of the already high costs of medical care, sucking up the money needed to help patients. Talk about an epic backfire.

Now we have another bill rushed through Congress, probably unread and riddled flaws. Or in this case, is there something much worse than unintended consequences at play:

The bill which would codify into law the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens is about to be passed and sent to Obama’s desk to be signed into law, even as some news outlets still erroneously report that the legislation does not apply to U.S. citizens.

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked [GOP Senator Lindsay] Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

Senator McCain also told Rand Paul during a hearing on the bill that American citizens could be declared an enemy combatant, sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely, “no matter who they are.”

This is a very, very dangerous bill if senators’ statements are true. I do not run off half-cocked on conspiracy theories as should be well known. I did not fall for the Bush-FISA nonsense from the left, nor the Birther BS regarding Obama from the right. I looked objectively at Able Danger, Global Warming and a host of other issues and pull out the facts from the fiction and decide for myself.

So when I say this is a very, very dangerous bill I do so with great hesitation and concern.

The reason we hold those terrorists behind 9-11 and other subsequent attacks (or attempts)  is because we are at war with them. They declared the war decades ago – it just took 9-11 before we took those declaration seriously. These are enemy combatants, since wars are fought outside the normal rules and laws of society. Only the ignorant confuse courts with war zones.

We do not apply the rules of war against ourselves – for obvious reasons. We retain our constitutional rights so that our elected government cannot take away our freedoms – especially by force. Government cannot round people up and lock them away without due process. We are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. At least that was the foundation of America until government started running amok under Carter, Clinton and Obama.

Sadly some are so dense they have lost sight of the obvious. It has becomes a well know affliction inside DC to combine ignorance, impatience and arrogance to create such idiot schemes as ObamaCare. All driven by the naive do-gooders’ self inflated sense that millions of professionals in the field and the combined intelligence of tens of millions of average Americans consumers are no match for the intellect of the political elite (in other words, the free market has no hope of competing with the dim bulbs in DC). The egos now on display are stunning, and only matched by how naive their simple solutions have become.

If this bill passes, then secret information can be used to claim anyone is a terrorist enabler and hauled off indefinitely. We have not needed this crap since 9-11, and nothing tells me we need it now. Our peace has always been through our ass-whooping strength and promise to use it if attacked. A lesson the world seems hell bent to re-learn every 30 years or so. We should never return to the internment camps of WW II to allay unfounded and irrational fear.

So why now? What is so pressing (besides some naive need to make free Americans equal to blood thirsty Islamo Fascists) that we need this craziness?

Could the real reason behind the madness be something else?

[Democrat Senator Carl Levin] “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

As I said, secret information could be claimed to designate someone an enemy combatant. Information that cannot be made public – therefore may not even exist. Look at what this administration did with the Ft Hood assassin who yelled “Allah Ahkbar” as he mowed down 30 innocent Americans:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence …

If the administration can call a massacre by a jihadist nothing more than workforce violence, what stops them from declaring work force violence terrorism? Nothing!

This bill needs to be stopped and stopped now. The GOP is being duped again. Or worse, they are so brain washed into the Political Industrial Complex own superiority complex they have decided the masses are the real threat. Either way, this is tantamount to our government declaring war on We The People. That is the only reason to go down this insane path.

It looks like the Political Industrial Complex may be ready to do what it takes to stay in control. Maybe what we are seeing are steps towards something much worse. We have seen the only political outsider (Herman Cain) in the 2012 presidential race nullified by unfounded rumors and the media arm of the Political Industrial Complex. We have seen the two parties join in neutralizing the 2010 congressional elections by way of the Super Committee and an intransigent Senate that refuses to take bold action. We have seen legislation to limit free speech on the blogosphere. We have seen time and time again DC ignore the will of We The People and idiotically expect to get re-elected.

And America is taking notice – hopefully not too late:

.. they failed to understand what really scares Americans, who in vast numbers now think that Big Government, not Big Business, is the biggest threat.

Yes, the latest Gallup poll found that 64 percent of those surveyed said big government was the greatest threat to the country, compared to 26 percent who said big business was their gravest concern and 8 percent who feared big labor.

Long term trend in Gallup Poll here.

What are we to think now that we can be rounded based up on secret information and packed off to GITMO like an al Qaeda mass murderer? President Bush was quite balanced and measured when he adjusted FISA laws to allow the FBI to INVESTIGATE suspected terrorist activities here in the US and by US Citizens. The results was always a trial in line with our Constitutional rights. Even in our darkest days after 9-11 he did not see a need for this. Why now? Why this President?

Who are these people who have decided they have the right to rip these rights away from us like this? What is the pending emergency – except possibly the next wave of anti-government votes coming in 2012. For once, I fear this nation is on the brink of going extinct. Living on in name only. And this bill would be the big step towards that end.

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Washington DC Dangerously Out Of Control”

  1. [...] is getting drunk with power.  He’s a scary drunk. Be Sociable, Share! Share [...]

  2. lurker9876 says:

    The problem is that this bill on the indefinite detainment of US citizens without trial is that it simply re-emphasized existing laws. There is case law already in the books on this one as it’s nothing new.

  3. WWS says:

    Lindsey Graham once more proves he’s a complete idiot. Honestly, I much prefer open and honest big-government liberals to some mincing pretend “conservative” who never met a big-government position he didn’t fall in love with.

    When he says: “It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all” and then chortles about how they don’t get a lawyer, did he even once stop to consider this set of events?

    “I’m telling you, I never heard of Al Qaeda, I have no connection at all to Al Qaeda, my name is only on that list because I’ve made political enemies in this administration who decided this was the best way to shut me up.!”

    Lindsey Graham’s answer, in his own words, to that person would be: “Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.”

    That’s going down the proverbial slippery slope on a jet-powered snowmobile!

  4. lurker9876 says:

    This happened when fdr was in the office. Fdr rounded up those that spoke up against fdr, including those parents ratted by their kids when the parents spoke up against fdr at the dinner table.

  5. Redteam says:

    “We have seen the only political outsider (Herman Cain) in the 2012 presidential race nullified by unfounded rumors”
    Cain didn’t exit the race for ‘unfounded rumors’ he exited because he had to face the reality that America doesn’t like the fact that a married man is having an affair for 13 years. Integrity counts.

    Lindsay Graham has never been accused of having good sense. I lived in SC for about 13 years and some how or other Graham had a lot of South Carolinians fooled into thinking he is a conservative. And to think, some law school actually gave him a degree. and I say ‘gave’ because there is no way he could have ‘earned’ it because he obviously didn’t learn a damn thing about the Constitution.

    I’m not sure who, or more specifically, the law (does or will) apply to.
    If it’s an American caught in a foreign country, say on a battlefield, fighting against Americans, then put him in a neutral site prison, such as Gitmo, the same as any person caught under those circumstances.
    Why would or should an American (in the above circumstance) have any more access to the protection of the US Constitution than anyone else. We sure don’t give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the constitutional protections he may be entitled to in Pakistan. Anyone outside the country committing terrorists acts against the USA (American or not) is an enemy of the US and should be put into Gitmo. I have no problem with all those persons having a lawyer represent them.
    Note: again, I emphasize I am talking of persons NOT in the USA. A US citizen within the US is entitled to the full protection of the constitution. A person in Gitmo is NOT in the US.

  6. WWS says:

    “Why would or should an American (in the above circumstance) have any more access to the protection of the US Constitution than anyone else?”

    Simple answer – because the US Constitution says they do. This is one of those cases where you have to choose between what’s expedient and between what the Constitution plainly and clearly states. Big Government liberals have no problem ripping up the Constitution in favor of whatever they want to do at the moment; it’s just a moth eaten old rag to them. But I don’t think anyone who thinks the Constitution deserves respect and force of law should do the same.

    As long as a US Citizen is under the authority of the US Government, he or she is under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. When he crosses a border, then he is under the jurisdiction of whatever nation he happens to be in. But there is no place on earth, or off it, where the US Government is legally free to ignore the Constitution in relation to it’s own citizens; there is no clause in the Constitution which says that all the government has to do is get you 2 feet outside some geographic line and suddenly the Bill of Rights is suspended.

    The Bill of Rights applies to ALL US citizens, ALL the time, EVERYwhere, when dealing with our own government. It has no geographical limitations; that is what makes Americans so different than every other people and nation on the planet; that is the heritage we cherish.

    The clause in question is the 6th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights:

    (note especially the first and the last lines)

    “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

    (now for Federal Crimes and crimes against the US committed outside US borders, there are extraterritorial jurisdiction statutes that define the procedures for those trials, note the clause which contains the phrase “ascertained by law”. But the point is, the 6th amendment still applies, even in those cases)

    The reason Gitmo has been a point of controversy is that no US Civil Courts have jurisdiction over Gitmo, as it is a military base on foreign soil – and since we have no diplomatic relations with Cuba, the host country has no jurisdiction either. For that reason Military law is the only law which can be applied there, and foreign nationals confined there have no avenue of appeal to regular US courts.

    BUT… unless martial law has been declared, military law has no jurisdiction over US civilians, and any US civilian citizen who is detained for any reason must be transferred over to the civil authorities as soon as possible. Foreign nationals, fine, there’s a long tradition of military justice being applied to them.

    BUT NOT US CITIZENS. Either it means something special to be a US Citizen, or it does not. I find it extremely sad that so many people are willing to go along with the attempts of this regime to say that it does not.

    Let me state clearly – I believe in following the Constitution faithfully, even when it is difficult, and even when people cry that it’s way too much trouble. I believe, just like our founders did, that the extra trouble in these cases is worth it.

  7. kathie says:

    I’m beginning to think that Perry is right about having a half time Congress. How could we elect such stupid people? Send them all home with a copy of the Constitution please.

  8. Redteam says:

    WWS, you either didn’t read what I wrote very carefully or you just choose to ignore it. Do you consider a US citizen that is a member of al qaeda that is aiming guns and shooting at the US Army in Afghanistan to be entitled to full US citizen rights if he is never in the USA? Why?
    So why not give Khalid Sheik Muhammad all the rights that his constitution in Pakistan gives him. After all, doesn’t it mean something special to Pakistani’s to be Pakistani or not?

    At any rate, you seem to be interpreting all situations as if the person in question is inside the USA when he’s picked up.

    you said: “The reason Gitmo has been a point of controversy is that no US Civil Courts have jurisdiction over Gitmo, as it is a military base on foreign soil – and since we have no diplomatic relations with Cuba, the host country has no jurisdiction either. For that reason Military law is the only law which can be applied there, and foreign nationals confined there have no avenue of appeal to regular US courts.” exactly, and that would apply to a US citizen that happened to get himself into a treasonous position as I described. Give all of them (in Gitmo) a lawyer and follow the laws of each individual’s country constitution or follow military law. In any case treat them all the same. In my opinion, a US citizen that has chosen to be a traitor and is shooting at American military people, should be shot on sight, to hell with ‘rights’ in that case. I’m not even exactly sure how you know a person picked up on a battle field in Afghanistan is a US citizen? Are they required to carry a certified copy of their birth certificate? Just haul all of them to Gitmo and sort it all out in about 20 years.

    you also said: “Simple answer – because the US Constitution says they do. This is one of those cases where you have to choose between what’s expedient and between what the Constitution plainly and clearly states” plainly and clearly states? as in “natural born citizen?”

  9. Redteam says:

    That’s the same reason it was legally decided recently that killing American citizens in Yemen that are directing attacks against Americans are fair game for a drone visit. I kinda think when you declare war against the US you might, and should, lose some of your ‘constitutional’ protection. (again, if and only if, you are outside the US) And I’m a strong conservative, not a Big Government Liberal.

    Anyone, even in the USA that has a gun pointed at someone, is gonna lose some constitutional rights if a policeman shoots that person. No lawyer, no trial, only a funeral…

  10. WWS says:

    First, the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed example is not appropriate – the US gov’t is under no obligation to enforce other countries laws. But the US government IS required to enforce US laws when dealing with US citizens. There are no exceptions.

    “Do you consider a US citizen that is a member of al qaeda that is aiming guns and shooting at the US Army in Afghanistan to be entitled to full US citizen rights if he is never in the USA?”

    Yes, absolutely. But as long as he is actively using force against the US, the US is entitled to use deadly force to stop him, there is no dispute about that. The dispute comes when someone is taken prisoner.

    Consider this example:

    Is a criminal inside the US entitled to full US citizen rights even if he is shooting at the police? Of course he is, although the police have the authority to use deadly force against him as long as he is an active threat. But if he is taken prisoner, he is no longer an active threat, and he has an absolute right to a public trial and an absolute right to assistance of counsel.

    There is no geographic limitation on the relationship between a US citizen and the US government. The Constitution ALWAYS applies.
    The Constitution is a limitation on the US Government itself. It states that there are certain things that the Government cannot do, no matter how much it wants to.

    “Why?” Because a US citizen gets different treatment than a foreign national, regardless of his actions, because of the special respect we accord those who hold the position of “US Citizen”. Being a US citizen gives one a special legal relationship with this government. This is why diminishing this status is not aimed at the person in question, but instead diminishes the rights of every one of us.

    Being a US citizen gives one special status. Now if you want to propose a law to strip someone of his citizenship, fine. Have Congress pass rules that would govern this and go through the process when necessary. But don’t let some bureaucrat put a name on a list and say “this man no longer has any constitutional rights”, just on that bureaucrats say-so. That is the quick path to tyranny, and it has to be opposed whenever the urge to do this rears its ugly head.

  11. WWS says:

    one more thing I meant to address.

    “Anyone, even in the USA that has a gun pointed at someone, is gonna lose some constitutional rights if a policeman shoots that person. No lawyer, no trial, only a funeral…”

    That’s a misunderstanding of what Constitutional rights are. Inherent in what is called the “Police Power” of the State is the authority to use deadly force against anyone who is posing a clear and present danger to citizens of the United States. That’s why police are allowed to carry and use guns. A person subjects himself to this risk whenever he takes actions that pose an imminent threat to the US or its citizens.

    So, in terms of having to take out someone who is actively shooting at us, we have no dispute. There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts the use of force in these cases.

    The conflict comes once the person is taken into custody. THEN the person is NOT a clear and present danger, because they have been physically restrained and their ability to cause mayhem curtailed. Now the obligation is on the Government to guarantee that their constitutional protections are curtailed.

    Is the government allowed to kill someone, even a US citizen on the field of combat? Yes, absolutely. But can the US government capture that citizen and hold him indefinitely without trial and without counsel? Absolutely not – to do so is an attack on the rights that protect us all, because it gives our Government a power over person that it was never intended to have.

    It may seem a bit odd when it’s put that way, but those are the rules we live by.

  12. AJStrata says:

    WWS,

    Nice job explaining the blunt obvious. Sadly, none of this should require explanation at all!

  13. dbostan says:

    It can be seen, again, that the repubic establishment is either stupid, or evil, maybe not as evil as the demsheviks, but that difference doesn`t matter at one point.
    We need to completely take over the gov. and the two parties if we want the country to survive.

  14. Redteam says:

    WWS, “”“Do you consider a US citizen that is a member of al qaeda that is aiming guns and shooting at the US Army in Afghanistan to be entitled to full US citizen rights if he is never in the USA?”

    Yes, absolutely. But as long as he is actively using force against the US, the US is entitled to use deadly force to stop him, there is no dispute about that. The dispute comes when someone is taken prisoner.

    Where is the dispute when someone is taken prisoner?
    take this case
    1. a US citizen is shooting at the US Army in Afghanistan
    2. Khalid Sheik Muhammed is shooting at the US Army in Afghanistan

    an Afghanistani captures both of them. They are both sent to a neutral site and guarded by neutral guards.

    Is the US citizen accorded full constitutional rights of the US?
    Is Muhammad accorded full constitutional rights of Pakistan?

    Then change only the guard, make it a US Marine. What changes?

    If you say the US citizen then becomes entitled to US constitution protection, then Does the same apply to Muhammed?

    Suppose you change the guard again and make it a Pakistani guard. What changes.

    In this circumstance, how do you know the US Citizen is a US citizen? Is it branded on his forehead? does he carry a certified copy of his birth certificate? how do we verify it? You know very well that the US has a real problem identifying who is or is not a US citizen.

    Anyhow the other point, I think you are trying to sound like you have the noble high ground by stating that a US citizen ALWAYS, ALWAYS, has the protection of the US constitution, but then crawfish on that by saying, well sometimes he is actually more subject to the Police Power of the State than he is to the constitution.
    you can’t have it both ways: he either is ALWAYS subject to the constitution or he is not. If he is sometimes subject to judgement and execution on the spot then unless you want to claim that it is a constitutional right to be shot by a person(without your permission) with a gun, then he is subject to something else.

    That American taken out by the drone in Yemen was only observing his constitutional right to be killed by an unmanned drone without the benefit of arrest, a lawyer, a trial. That wasn’t even an imminent threat, just a likelihood that he would eventually kill someone.

    It is not clear to me from what I read above if this bill or law applies to Americans on US soil or only US citizens captured outside of US soil. It definitely makes a difference in the circumstances. If they are in the US and are arrested for a crime, they are (and I’ll use the word) ALWAYS entitled to full American judiciary system. If they are arrested elsewhere and are not brought into the US, then the circumstances are entirely different. including the burden of even allowing them the right to prove that they are a US citizen. If a captured person ‘claims’ to be an American citizen do you give him full rights to prove it? Does that apply to everyone, even Muhammed?

    Just curious: ” So, in terms of having to take out someone who is actively shooting at us, we have no dispute. There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts the use of force in these cases.” Doesn’t the constitution guarantee everyone the right to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’? Wouldn’t being shot dead restrict those rights a little?

    WWS, don’t take anything I say as being personal, I’m only arguing the comments and demonstrating, I think, that most things put out or tackled by the government has at least two sides, sometimes both right and sometimes both wrong.

  15. Redteam says:

    dbostan, you may be correct. neither party in Washington is serving the public. They are all(with a few exceptions) looking out for No. 1 only.
    The public be damned if it makes them(the politicians) a few bucks.
    I have not seen one single new law or bill passed lately that is or was done solely for the public good. Only vote buying.

    a great example is Solyndra: I heard the question asked, how could they have been so wrong?

    what are they talking about? It went absolutely straight down the road as it was designed to do.

    Start a phony company, get billions in handouts to Obama’s cronies, declare bankruptcy, cronies make sure Obama gets his cut, Oversight committee decides something was wrong but wipes the slate clean, then, poof: start over.

    How do you think Obama went from a community organizer to a multimillionaire? He sure didn’t do it on brain power (takes very little to read a teleprompter poorly)

    That’s our government. Of the people, for the crooks..

  16. kathie says:

    ‘When the Legend Becomes Fact, Print the Legend’ written by VDH found at PJ Media, worth reading.