Sandy Hook tragedy - What to do next

The recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT has resulted the normal knee-jerk reaction from politicians.  There must be a need for more gun control.  This is the same old thing again.  Has it worked?

I know, I have heard the reports and comments.   States with stricter gun control laws tend to show that gun violence overall decreases.  And although this appears to support the reactions from the school shooting, it does not.  In fact, what we are talking about is trying to stop mass shootings.  If we are going to talk about reduction in crime, then let that lead the discussion.  But the Sandy Hook tragedy should lead to ways to stop other such shootings, not trying to project a political agenda.

The Columbine shooting, which happened in April 1999, led to discussions about gun control, and even a Michael Moore movie.  Did all this stop these shootings?

The Amish School shooting in Lancaster, PA in 2006 led to more gun control discussions.  Maybe this time these shooting will stop.

Not this time.  The Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 and the Little Rock recruiting office shooting in 2009.  Still more talk about gun control.

This brings us to December 14, 2012 in Sandy Hook, CT.

All this time, and all this discussion about gun control, and will it prevent another mass shooting.  If history shows us anything is that it will not.

So what can we do to stop these shootings.  Obviously politicians, and the general public, want to do something.  Well, the reality is that we have already done something, just not enough.

After Columbine, as well as the other shootings, there were warning signs that the shooters were planning, and talking about, their deeds beforehand.  An eductional initiative went out to all students, teachers, parents and others to keep an eye out for people who are talking about killing or shooting people.  It is really unknown how many school shootings this prevented, but we do know that many people have been stopped.

There is a report from the coroner's office that the shooter in Newtown did not have any physical abnormalities of the brain (like the assassin who shot Reagan) but he was diagnosed with Asperger's disease.  Whether this played a part or not we hope we will find out.  Either way, the cause or the warning signs must be looked at in order to truly prevent these types of crisis in the future.

By the way, the worst mass school killing in the US occurred in Bath Township, Michigan in 1927 (when the Thompson machine gun was the favored weapon of the gangsters).  This killing had nothing to do with firearms though.  This killing was caused by a bomb.

The point is this.  Don't let politicians do the easy thing.  Don't let them automatically start touting some knee-jerk reactions that have little or no effect on school shootings.  So what can we do?

Well, we have already discussed the warning signs to keep an eye out for.  But what if someone still tries to commit another of these crimes?  Then what can be done.

The NRA takes a stand that we should arm at least some people in the schools.  The idea is that if someone starts shooting, that there would be at least some other way to try to stop the shooter other than throwing your unarmed body at him/them, with the hope that this person can disable the shooter before being fatally shot (a tactic that failed miserably at Sandy Hook Elementary School).

I can understand not wanting deadly weapons in the school, especially an elementary school.  But what seems to be absent from the discussion is the presence, of lack there of, non-deadly weapons.  The most notable one would be a taser.  If the principle at Sandy Hook had a taser, then she wouldn't have been killed and the shooter would have been stopped.

I live in New Fairfield, CT; about 25 miles from Sandy Hook.  I have two grandchildren and a niece in this school system.  There are currently discussions about security upgrades for our schools, including a new wall between the office and the rest of the school at Consolidated School (K-2), a rule that says that all doors, including classroom doors, are to remain locked, and additional training, along with the presence of a disaster protocol book within each classroom describing 22 different emergency scenarios, one of which is a school shooting situation.  While all these things sound good, will they really stop a determined shooter?

What happens if the shooter gets into the school anyway.  Consolidated, where my grandson attends kindergarten, has a series of glass doors and floor to ceiling windows near the multipurpose room, where the kids get off the school bus.  If a shooter wants to enter this school, all he has to do is shoot out those windows, like the shooter did in Newtown, and simply walk into the school.  In fact, with the wall between the office and the rest of the school, the safest place ends up being in the office.

If there were fingerprint accessible lock boxes, with a taser inside, located around the corner from every entry point of the school, with the only personnel allowed access are fully trained, then if a teacher or administrator wants to stop the killing, they don't have to throw themselves at the shooter, with likely tragic results.  Instead, they could shoot the gunman with the taser and no one, even the shooter, dies.

I have estimated that New Fairfield should have 15 taser/lock boxes in the High School, 7 or 8 in the Middle School, 5 or 6 at Meeting House Hill School and 4 or 5 at Consolidated School. These 30 or 35 taser/lock boxes could be maintained by the police department, who would also be in charge of background checks and training, and would probably come in less expensive than the changes the town is talking about.  And it would be much more effective at well.

There is no doubt that we need to do something to protect our children and grandchildren.  What we do can be the difference between life and death.  So don't let the politicians monopolize the discussion with new legislation that would have minimal impact on safety, if any.  We guard our workplaces many times better than we protect our children at school.  By putting non-lethal weapons in the hands of those who we expect to protect our kids, maybe together we can stop this madness and let our kids have their school back.

Is this what the founding fathers perceived as the future of the US?

The founding fathers, namely Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Madison among all the others that made up the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, had just finished a long and bloody revolution to rid the American colonies (states) of the tyranny of England.  They wanted to prevent the same thing from developing here.

The nature of government is to have power and control over everything within their domain.  This absolute power practically defines national governments.  If you look throughout history, this is the expected result.  Monarchs, emperors, and others who have seized power were able to do what they wanted.  Taxation was the source of wealth for those who ran or were connected with the government.  Many were able to kill or assassinate anyone they wished, usually without any reprisal.  Even when a revolution or coup occurred, it usually resulted in one tyrannical government replacing another.  The rights of the individual was only related to their connection to their standing in the government.  Many others who did the day to day stuff were either slaves or not much more than that.

Although some evidence of the establishment of human rights in western history goes back through to biblical times, documents like the Magna Carta (1215) and the English Bill of Rights (1689) along with writers such as John Locke and Thomas Paine, established the concepts of human rights in the modern era.  It were these influences that led to the American revolution.

Their original attempt at government, the Articles of Confederation, specifically tried to prevent a federal government with absolute power.  Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation were too weak to sustain one single country.  This led to fighting among the states, barriers set up between them and an ineffective federal government which could do nothing about these problems.

The US Constitution addressed many of the problems that the founding fathers feared about a strong federal government.  It did this by listing the exact powers that the federal government had.  Among these powers, as listed in Article I, are:

1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Other powers do exist in the constitution and include:

• No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws:and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
• The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
• In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
• The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
• The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
• The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
• Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
• New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
• The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
• The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
• The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment…
  The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
• The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

Although this list seems long, it is in fact limiting.  Contrary to the understood powers of national governments of the time, the constitution did not give absolute power to the government.  In fact, the belief that the federal government had a natural right to have this absolute power forced the proposal of a set of amendments that guaranteed this limiting power in order for the ratification of the constitution to take place.  These Bill of Rights (originally twelve but ten were ratified) is considered another document furthering the cause of human rights in the history of western civilization.  These Bill of Rights amendments included:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is arguably one of the most important of the Bill of Rights when it comes to individual freedoms.  Many believe that this is the foundation for the concept of separation of Church and State.  This is important because the British Empire was governed by a King who was also the head of the Church of England, the official religion of Great Britain.  However, one often overlooked part of this amendment is the ban of prohibition of the free exercise thereof.  Modern interpretation of this amendment is that there should be no practice of religion within the confines of a governmental facility.  However, this ban is in fact a prohibition of the free exercise of religion by the employees of such an agency.

Of course, other freedom expressed here are the freedom of the press, the right of a people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  These particular rights have been under attack lately as well (see an earlier blog posting).

---

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There has been a lot of debate about this amendment.  Does this guarantee the individual the right to bear arms or the individual states the right to bear arms?  This discussion we can have at another time.

---

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This amendment seems trivial to us today, but it was extremely important for the founding fathers in the late 18th century.  When the British sent troops to the colonies, they would be able to enter any home they wanted to and stay there as long as they needed.  This was a particular sore point, especially for those in Boston, and this amendment prevented that from ever happening in the US, at least during peace time.

---

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This was also important for the founding fathers.  Another action that was seen as the natural power of the national government was to be able to enter one's home or business anytime they wanted to.  This amendment, of course, invokes a number of motions by defense attorneys across the US to try to get evidence thrown out.  It was also specifically discussed concerning THE PATRIOT ACT, passed after 9/11, that allowed government officials to perform searches of one's premises without the knowledge of the owner.  Unlike what has been written about this, this did not happen without a judge's approval.  The government still needed a warrant.  What THE PATRIOT ACT allowed was the government exercising this warrant without the target of the warrant knowing.  It was an attempt to gather information lawfully without tipping off the terrorists that they were being watched.

---

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I plead the fifth on this amendment.  This prevents one from being forced to incriminate themselves.  This is the basis of the Miranda rights read to everyone arrested.

---

Amendment VI

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 defence.

This amendment guarantees a trial by a jury of our peers and due process.  The attempt by many to try to establish "professional jurors" because of some obvious failures of juries to convict would be a blatant violation of this amendment. This one was put into effect because it was common practice for political prisoners of the British empire to be sent overseas to England for trial, wait years for trial, convicted without direct witness testimony and obviously with a very bias jury or judge.

---

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This guarantees a trial by jury for civil actions.  I don't have much to say about this one.

---

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This guarantees that reasonable bail can be set for criminal arrests and the prohibition of imposition of excessive, cruel or unusual punishments.

---

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This one states that just because the Constitution lists certain rights, it can not infringe the remaining rights of the people of the country.

---

Amendment X

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 is probably the most limiting sentence in the entire constitution.  It state very plainly that any powers not listed in the constitution belong solely to the governments of the individual states.  What the founders were trying to do here is prevent the federal government from grabbing powers from the states, making the individual state governments irrelevant and nothing more than a branch of the federal government.

These are the basis of the limits of power of the federal government.  Although the list seems long, it does leave an awful lot of powers to the states and the individual.  This is what the founders of the US were attempting; To make a strong federal government, one which could effectively govern the states and the country's relationship with other countries, while preserving the powers of the states.

What went wrong?  Does this really exists today?

Did our founding fathers envision a federal government that finds itself involved in every aspect of our citizens' lives?  First. let's examine whether this is really true.  Is the US government really that omnipresent in all of our lives?  Let me provide an example:

I have in front of me a computer monitor.  An ordinary object found in every home and business.  How is the federal government involved?  The government dictates certain things about this monitor such as:

• The safety of the production facility
• The pay rate of the employees
• How much income the employee and the employer keeps
• The safety of the products used to manufacture the monitor.
• How the monitor can be sold.
• Regulates how the monitor can be shipped.
• Regulates how the monitor can be disposed of
• Regulates what content can be shown on the monitor
• The electrical wiring used inside the monitor
• The emissions coming from the monitor, both in gases and in electromagnetic fields
• These regulations also pertain to the shipping materials themselves as well as all the various components
• How the monitor is promoted / advertised

and so on.  Granted, this particular monitor was probably manufactured somewhere outside the US, but our government even controls these things outside the US because it is being shipped into the US.  

I have challenged others to come up with a product or service that isn't loaded down with government interference (I mean regulations).  Not that I am against regulations, but I think when the federal government is so involved in so many aspects of everyday life, that this flies against what the founders were trying to establish.  They felt, for the most part, that the rights of the individual should be protected from an overbearing federal government.  They did, however, provide an avenue for changing the constitution when needed.  There are 27 amendments to the constitution, and I believe there should have been more.

The federal government started their natural progression for expanding their powers with the first Supreme Court rulings, and the expansion continued ever since.  This expansion continued to grow but was particularly fueled by certain milestones.  The most important was the 17th amendment.  Prior to the 17th amendment, the Congress was set up as follows:

1. The House of Representatives, commonly called the Peoples' House, is comprised of members that are directly elected within their districts to represent the people who elected them.  Their short term in office guaranteed that they would have to answer regularly (at least every two years) for their actions in congress.

2.. The Senate was comprised of two senators from every state duly appointed by the various state legislators.  Their longer terms were justified so they would be less likely to be influenced by the whims of the populations or the politics of the states.

The basic difference of these two bodies was simple.  The House represented the people in the federal government.  The Senate represented the states (particularly the state governments) in the federal government.  This changed with the 17th amendment.  Now the senators were to be elected by the people.  The state legislators lost their voice in government.

Is this important?  Do the state governments need to have a voice in the federal government?  Let's see what happened after the 17th amendment.

The 18th amendment, the only amendment so far that was declared a mistake with the passage of the 20th amendment, was for the prohibition of alcohol.  What is interesting here is that the legislators knew that they could not pass any law prohibiting something.  Prohibition of products was a power that only the individual states had.  In order to ban alcohol, they had to change the constitution.  The merits of prohibition are not what I am discussing here, but the fact that only five years after passing the 17th amendment, the congress understood, still, the limit of government regulations.

During prohibition, two other actions by the federal government are interesting to look at.  They knew that the banning of anything would bring up a constitutional crisis.  The enumerated powers listed above did not allow the federal government to ban anything.  But what it did allow was the imposition of taxes.  One of the prized tools of organized crime during prohibition was the automatic Thompson machine gun (the Tommy Gun).  It became a problem, especially since most law enforcement agencies did not have any.  Since the government couldn't ban them, they decided to tax them.  You could only possess one if you had a special license from the federal government, which of course you had to pay for.  They called this a tax and it helped in keeping the Tommy Gun out of so many people's hands.  So, if this worked for the Tommy Gun, why not other things as well.  Because of the prohibition of alcohol, the rise of other drugs, especially marijuana, became prominent.  Instead of banning marijuana, they decided to tax it.  But because it was such a dangerous product, the federal government did not even design, let alone issue, any tax stamps for marijuana.  This violated other tenants of the constitution so the Supreme Court threw this law out in 1964 (?).  Within a year or two, the federal government then passed a law that banned marijuana.  How could they do this?  How could they ban something that only a few decades earlier the congress knew that they could only ban by amending the constitution?  What happened since then?

As the time from the ratification of the 17th amendment stretched on, the lack of the power of the states was weakened and weakened.  Without representation in congress, the states could not stop this encroachment on their rights.  As the Senate and the President kept adding their favorites to the Supreme Court, the court became more friendly to the idea of a powerful federal government, for the "good of the country."  This would have freaked out the majority of the founders of this country.  And the federal government became stronger and stronger.

Today, the federal government has a number of three letter agencies that do the bidding of the government such as the EPA, DEA, HUD, HHS, FCC, FAA and so many others.  The basis for these agencies did not exist a hundred years ago, but somehow they do now.  Should these exists?  Let's explore one in particular, and it is probably one you wouldn't expect me to pick.

The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) regulates air travel and the air space above the United States.  The argument can be made that the reason the FAAs authority was not written in the constitution is because there was no powered flight in existence in the late 17th century.  And of course, I wouldn't argue that.  But does that justify that once powered flight began to occur, that the federal government can simply write a law granting them the power to regulate air travel?  This is a dangerous and slippery slope.  What other technologies lie in the future that the federal government can regulate?

According to the constitution, this power, not listed in the constitution, is relegated to the power of the individual states.  Whatever the reason, the federal government can not, and should not, just write laws granting them new powers.  This leads to tyranny and, in the US, to a constitutional crisis.

There would probably be two arguments that can be used to justify the existence of the FAA as it is now.

1. The federal government is tasked to provide for the common defense.  Air space, just like seas and land borders, need to be protected from foreign invasion.  This I understand.  What I don't understand is using this argument in states like Kansas or Missouri or any other interior part of the country.  It is kind of like the Army opening checkpoints in Oklahoma and saying they are trying to patrol the US borders to prevent an attack from countries south of Texas.  It is an argument that stretches the imagination.

2. The federal government is tasked with regulating interstate commerce.  This is my favorite.  With this enumerated power, the federal government has justified almost all of the above three letter agencies, and one's with more than three letters.  This is a complete misunderstanding of this power.  During the Article of Confederation, one of the biggest problems was each individual state putting tolls and excise taxes to prevent products from other states from entering their states.  This power was designed to specifically solve that problem.  Only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce was designed, not to support legislation for this, but to prevent states from generating there own legislation for this.  It was one power that was given to the federal government so that states wouldn't have it.  Now, anytime there is a product or service that crosses state lines (and lets face it, that's EVERYTHING), it can be regulated by the federal government.  In the 17th century, the Stamp Act riots in NYC and the Boston Tea Party were prompted by this kind of exercise of power by the crown.  The amount of control the crown had on the colonists pales in comparison to the powers the US federal government has on us all today.

Now don't misunderstand me.  I am not against the federal government regulating air space.  Realistically, they are the only one's who could and should.  But what I am against is the federal government writing a law that grants them this power.  The constitution provides a process for this granting of additional powers.  It's called the amendment process.  Let me try to explain it as I see it.  There are basically two ways for the constitution to be amended.  Let's use the FAA argument here.

1.  The congress realizes that they need to have the power to regulate air space above the US.  They raise their collective hand and asks the states to give up this 10th amendment state right to the federal government.  They do this by passing the amendment with a super majority of congress (2/3 in favor).  Then the states get to have their say.  They can say yes or no about the granting of this new power.  If 3/4 of the state legislators approve the amendment, then the constitution is changed and the federal government is free to establish the FAA.

2. The state legislators realize that they can not effectively regulate air space above the US in a safe and coordinated way so they raise their collective hands and, with the passing in 2/3 of the state legislators, they can convene a constitutional convention, similar to the one that wrote the constitution in 1791.  Once 3/4 of the members of the convention passes the amendment, it becomes part of the constitution despite what the congress and the President says in Washington.  

Obviously, the first option is the only one that has been used the 27 times the constitution was amended.  It doesn't mean that the other option is invalid.  They are both written in the constitution and both are valid.  It is designed so that the federal government is truly a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

So what should be done now to fix the problem.  The first step would be to give the power back to the states as was envisioned by the founders; Repeal of the 17th amendment's provision of the senators being representatives of the people.  I understand that before the 17th amendment, most senators were already elected.  The legislators just simply authorized the will of the people.  The repeal amendment should be crafted so that it protect the rights of the states as dictated by the 10th amendment.

Secondly, the removal of all the various departments within the government that do not fall under specific powers.  With this government, this would be a broad spectrum reduction in the government.  The fact that is would be such a dramatic change only underlines the problem.  Such a huge part of the federal government violates not just the letter, but the spirit of the constitution.  But then the congress needs to get to work fast.  They can begin crafting amendment legislation reauthorizing these agencies.  But this time, the state legislators and the people would have a greater say as to the encroachment of the federal government.

Is there a threat of nuclear weapons from Iran?

A "news article" from the New York Times was posted on a friend's Facebook page concerning whether we should believe all our intelligence about Iran.  It suggests, once again, that the war in Iraq was some kind of vindication by GW Bush because of a threat of the life of his father (or something like that).  I have had many arguments about this with liberal friends who look at anything GW Bush did as evil and with ulterior motives.  Let put some facts on the table that most of my liberal friends tend to gloss over.

First, lets take on the whole weapons of mass destruction (WMD) argument.  The concept is that the Bush administration, with VP Dick Cheney in the middle of this, used faulty intelligence information to justify invading Iraq.  That there were no such WMD and, if the liberals had their way, Saddam Hussein was an innocent victim of the Bush Administration.  That all Hussein was trying to do was feed his people and the US was preventing him from doing so.

After Saddam Hussein was captured, he admitted that he did not have any WMDs but had to behave like he did in order to keep his neighbors from invading him.  This "behavior" included moving caravans of trucks in the middle of the night into Jordan and interfering with the inspection teams who were there to make sure that the weapons that he did have were destroyed and that his ability to manufacture more was thwarted (remember, he used chemical weapons against Iran as well as against villages in his own country).  The reality is that if you are known to have WMDs, behave like you still do and threaten your neighbors and the US, then don't blame us for shooting at you.  It's kinda like if a cop busts down your door because he has a warrant, you are known to have weapons inside and are not afraid to use them and when the cop says freeze, but instead you pull something out of your pocket, it doesn't matter what that something is, you will be shot.  And you can't blame the cop for it.  If you act like your a threat, you have been a threat and you actually threaten, you will be shot.

But the Iraq war was about so much more than just WMDs.  It was a response from 9/11 as well.  I know the liberals are quick to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  And for the most part that is true.  But 9/11 was about more than just Al Queda and Bin Ladden.  It was about terrorism.  It was about rogue states that allowed safe havens for terrorists groups.  It was about no more complacency when it comes to terrorism.

A report from the state department is required every year to be presented to Congress that details the threats against the US from terrorists.  The report for 2004 is very illuminating when it came to Iraq.

First, some basic background.  Saddam Hussein took power in 1979.  He did so through a military coup that resulted in over 600 executions (that number may actually be higher) and the establishment of a secret police that would take dissenters away in the middle of the night, never to be seen again.  President Carter was the first in a line that included every President since, that called the Saddam Hussein regime a terrorist regime.

This was verified after the fall of Baghdad.  The State Department report to Congress on terrorism lists no less than five terrorists organizations who were either protected by or financially supported by or both by Saddam Hussein.  They included:

• The Abul Nidal Organization (ANO).  Abul Nidal was one of the most notorious terrorists in the 60's and 70's, responsible for the hijacking of numerous planes and the execution style murders of a number of people worldwide.  By 2004, Abul Nidal was dead but his organization was operating in Baghdad and was helping Saddam Hussein with kidnappings and assassinations.
• The Palestine Liberation Front, headed by Abu Abbas, was originally based out of Tunisia with operations in Lybia.  Abbas was responsible for the operations that resulted in the  Achille Lauro hijacking, resulting in the execution of Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The PLF was also responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie Scotland and the bombing of a German disco that was frequented by US servicemen.  After Reagan's attack on Lybia and increasing pressure the international community, Abu Abbas left Lybia for the only place that would give him safe have, Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  After the fall of Baghdad, Abu Abbas was arrested there.
• Much is said about Saddam Hussein's attacks against Kurdish groups within his own country.  What is not widely known is that there were Kurdish groups that were supported by Saddam Hussein.  Two of them (they both have three letter acronyms but I don't remember them specifically) were responsible for attacks against other Kurdish groups, especially those based out of Turkey.
• Anslar al-Islam is the fifth group.  This was another Kurdish "paramilitary" group that was supported by Saddam Hussein.  After a nearly total defeat, the Hussein regime wanted to rebuild this group.  There are some sketchy reports that some members of Saddam's intelligence agency approached Usama Bin Ladin for help in rebuilding Anslar al-Islam.  Bin Laddin's response was to send  Ayman al-Zawahiri to help.  Al-Zawahiri was the head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization, formally headed by Sheik Rahman (AKA The Blind Sheik) who was responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1992.  The Blind Sheik was arrested about a year after that in New York City, with his co-conspirators, with plans to bomb a number of NYC landmarks including the Holland Tunnel, the NY Stock Exchange among others.   Ayman al-Zawahiri took control of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization.  He was summoned by Sheik Rahman;s close friend, Usama Bin Ladin, to go to Iraq and to rebuild Anslar al-Islam into a terrorist organization.  There were reports that their base was located in or right next to an Iraqi military base and that they were using an airplane fuselage to train terrorists how to take over the plane.  There are also reports that Bin Ladden became upset with the 9/11 terrorists in the US by the end of August because they hadn't even set a date for the "planes operation."  Coincidentally, Al Jawahiri pledge fayat to Bin Laddin in late August 2001.  This is significant.  Pledging fayat to someone in the middle east means that you are pledging absolute loyalty to that person, even if he asked them to die for him.  Shortly after this in August,  Ayman al-Zawahiri went to Afghanistan to join Bin Laddin as his second in command of Al Qaeda.  So for those who need a link between Bin Laddin and Hussein, there it is.

The point is that Saddam Hussein was the head of a terrorist regime, supported both financially and operationally, several very notorious terrorist organization within his own borders and he had a history of WMD production and use.  Were we supposed to wait for another 9/11 with chemical weapons before we acted?  Many liberal like to say that Bush called Iraq in 2002 "an imminent threat".  That is not what he said.  He said is was a growing threat.  By the time a country becomes an imminent threat, it is already too late.  If we look at North Korea, we see how this happens.  Now, if we attack North Korea, our forces and the neighboring countries are under a threat of nuclear destruction.  If we waited until Hussein was an immanent threat, then our soldiers, and the countries around Iraq, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel, would be targets.

But what else was going on just prior to the Iraqi invasion.  The UN authorized a limited release of oil from Iraq so the funds could be used to provide humanitarian aid.  Unfortunately, those funds were used for more than just food and clothing.  Saddam accumulated huge caches of weapons.  Some of these were found stockpiled near civilian targets such as schools and hospitals.  A clear violation of the Geneva Accords.  He also used the funds to build reinforced bunkers and huge palaces for his family and upper members of his government.  Finally, he used hundreds of millions of those dollars to pay off government officials throughout the world, including the son of the Secretary General of the UN and governmental officials from countries such as France, Germany and Russia.  Interesting that these were the countries that opposed joining the coalition against Saddam Hussein.  After his capture, Hussein stated that he was using those funds to help lift all sanctions against Iraq so he could resume production of WMDs.  Interesting, isn't it.

Now, no rogue nation in Iraq.  The terrorists organizations within Iraq, and there are some still there, do not get support and protection from the Iraqi government.  Instead, they are hunted down by the Iraqi government, as they should be.  That was the problem with Afghanistan.  We only wanted Bin Laddin and his co-conspirators responsible for 9/11.  The Taliban refused and the Bush Doctrine was born..  Our fight was with the terrorists and any government that harbors or supports them.  This was the famous "Your Either With Us or Against Us" speech.  

Now we have another situation.  Iran has begun production of refined uranium and plutonium, supposedly to be used only for the production of electricity.  Remember, this is a country sitting on one of the largest oil fields in the world.  They should have no problem producing electricity for centuries, yet they feel the need to produce atomic energy, using uranium not found in their country.  Do they really want their electricity to be reliant on foreign sources?  A stretch of the imagination for nearly anyone.  

Let's take a quick look at Iran and see if we can determine any other motives.  Iran became a radical Islamic state after their revolution ousted the Shah in 1979 and the taking of the US embassy and holding embassy personnel hostage for over a year.  If we had any other President, this would have been seen as an act of war worthy of military action.  Carter's only attempt was a failed, relatively small, attempt to rescue the hostages.  The ordeal ended with the election of Ronald Reagan.  Iranians interviewed since stated that with the election of Reagan, the Iranian government felt that one of the first acts Reagan would do was attack, with full force, Iran.  That is why when Reagan was taken the oath of office, the hostages were being freed.  Since the hostage taking, Iran was labelled a terrorist state.

This was further accentuated by the hostage taking of US and European citizens throughout the middle east.  This became a very big problem in the mid-1980's.  Was Iran responsible?  Absolutely.  Everyone knew this.  My liberal friends will remember the Arms for Hostages scandal.  This was were the US government would arrange for Iran to buy high quality US made weapons in exchange for Iran arranging for the release of hostages.  This deal would never have been possible if Iran was not in control of the terrorists who held these hostages.

Let's bring this to more recent times.  Hezbollah and Hamas are responsible for assassinations and bombings throughout Israel and Lebanon and are supported, most directly, by Syria.  This support comes originally from Iran.  Iran does already have WMDs and used them against Iraq during their ten year was against each other.  Iran now has the capability of producing nukes.  Do we need to wait until another 9/11 with nukes before we take action?  The leaders of Iran have repeatedly stated that their goal is the total annihilation of the state of Israel.  Nuclear weapons gives them that capability; and all in the name of Allah.  Will they actually do it?  I believe they would in a heart beat.  They would do it before they themselves are attacked to prevent them.  This is a growing threat to us and our allies.  We should act before it is an imminent threat.

Is War Ever Justified?

Yes, this is another response to a Facebook posting; its amazing how many time I come here to respond to a Facebook posting.  The posting was in response to the following picture:

What amazes me is the response that some made of this picture.  First of all, I think this pic says a lot about how most feel towards our vets.  A young man thanking a vet.  What could be better?

Well, when you start to read the comments, a discussion about the justification of war broke out.  A Kaye Bryant said that, basically, war is never justified.  Its just sanctioned murder and vets, by definition, went to war to kill.  Unfortunately, this thinking is not new.  Since we entered Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been anti-war protesters in our local city of Danbury, CT protesting against war.  These people amaze me.  Although nobody really likes war, sometimes it is necessary.  That is why we have a military.  But lets take a walk down through our history to see what I mean.

Human history is filled with conflict.  Some bad and some good.  I don't want to argue all wars, just those of the past hundred years.  Almost one hundred years ago, Europe erupted in what could be described as the last war in Europe fought over disputes between monarchies.  Whatever the reason, many millions of people died; that is until the United States went to war and, under the direction of General Pershing, we ended that war in months.  Was our entry in that war justified?  History says yes.  If we didn't, how much longer would the stalemate have lasted?  What other types of chemical weapons would have been developed and used?  So, we went to war and then there was peace in Europe, at least for a little while.

In 1917, revolution broke out in Russia.  There was mass lawlessness and panic in the streets.  The Communists, under Lenin, began to gain control.  It is a little known fact that the US sent troops into Russia to try to establish some order.  The effort was minimal; after all, we just ended one war in Europe, why should we jump into another.  The result, it is estimated that the Communists killed nearly 75 million people.  Maybe our attempt at intervention was actually justified.

In 1939, after Hitler conquered a number of eastern European nations, the British Prime Minister Chamberlain met with him and he saw no reason to worry about Hitler's plans.  Almost immediately after that, Germany invaded Poland.  Great Britain, France and the other allied nations, except the US, declared war on Germany again.  Chamberlain was so wrong about Hitler that he resigned as Prime Minister.  The US stayed out of the war officially for another two plus years.  However, we did not stay out completely.  We sent weapons and equipment to our British allies and we helped China defend against Germany's ally, Japan.  After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we finally entered the war.  Was this war justified?  When done, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 60 million people were killed, not to mention the 10-12 million killed in Hitler's death camps.  Sometimes we need to enter war.  Sometimes it is justified.

Since WWII, the US has been involved militarily during every Presidency.  We went into Korea because the people of South Korea did not want to be ruled by communists.  We went into Vietnam for the same reason.  We found ourselves trying, and failing, to invade Iran in 1980.  We had troops in Beirut because of the bloody civil war that was resulting in civilian slaughters and kidnappings.  We went into Granada because we had some American students held under siege by communists.  We invaded Panama because Noriega was working directly with the drug smugglers in Columbia.  We went into the Persian Gulf war because Saddam Hussein invaded his neighbor Kuwait and threatened, with hundreds of thousands of troops, to invade Saudi Arabia.  The Iraqi army orchestrated the killing, raping and pillaging of thousands in Kuwait.  In Somalia, people were starving because of a drought that wiped out crops and the warlords were ambushing aid supplies, then selling them to the highest bidder, which were not the general population.  In Croatia, Milosevic attempted to wipe out the ethnic population with his campaign of ethnic cleansing, which meant slaughtering all the males and raping and impregnating the women with Serbian babies.  The same thing began happening in Kosovo.  Usama Bin Ladin formed Al Quada in order to wreck havoc against the west, especially the US.  They killed thousands of civilian on 9/11 as well as hundreds around the world in numerous attacks, including the two US embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and several bombings in Saudi Arabia against US forces.  There was even a connection with Al Quada and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1992.  Recently, we sent troops into Libya in order to prevent Qaddafi, a known terrorist sympathizer, from slaughtering his own people.

Wow, that list is long; and I'm sure I left some conflicts out.  The point is that the US has used our military force repeatedly throughout the past hundred years.  Although some may disagree with the decisions to use force, every time was justified, at least in my mind.  All one has to do is put themselves in the place of the people that we are sent to save.

Now lets confront the primary argument that anti-war protesters use.  "What makes you think that we are right.  Isn't it a bit arrogant to say that the American way is the right way?"  I love this argument.  These are the same people who will argue that Gitmo detention is wrong because it violates our enemies rights and maybe even the Geneva convention.  What a minute. LMAO (sorry, had to do it).

The point is that it is the US and our allies that abide by the Geneva Convention.  If we so much as slap a illegal combatant, then that soldier is looking at spending years in Leavenworth.  Our enemies, on the other hand, kill civilians, torture captives and never abide by these rules of war.  That is why they are our enemies. Period.

If we didn't invade Europe not once, not twice, but three times in the past century (WWI, WWII, and Croatia), many more millions would have been wipe out and the blood of genocide would have been on the hands of all those nations who were complacent.  Saddam Hussein was already in production of chemical weapons within Kuwait by the time we entered.  How many more would he have slaughtered; after all, he used these weapons on towns within his own country.  Milosevic, probably one of the worst butchers in the post WWII era, would have successfully wiped out the Croatian and Kosovar populations.  Pol Pot, after we left Vietnam, did manage to slaughter a million plus.  Since we didn't intervene, the slaughter in Uganda in the 1990's resulted in an estimated 800,000 plus being butchered by machetes. (I remember seeing a documentary where a TV crew went back to a town that was being attacked when the crew originally left.  There were skeletons laying all over the place because so many were butchered, there was no one left to bury the bodies.  The rat population was huge because they were able to feed on the bodies for years.)  And the examples can go on and on.

So the question is, is war justified?  My answer: Yes.  As long as there are bad people in this world, then we must fight them.  But then what?  The argument that democracy is not for some people in the world is wrong. This same argument was used in the middle of the 19th century.  Slavery had always existed.  Since the beginning of civilization, there have always been slaves.  Why should those of the North try to dictate their opinions and views on those of the South?  What makes the US think it is arrogant enough to force the South to change its ways?  The answer is that is was right.  Slavery was wrong. Period.

By the same token, slaughtering civilians is wrong, no matter who is doing it.  Violations of the Geneva convention, which specifically prevents civilians as being targets, as well as shields, is wrong.  And I for one believe that we, as the most powerful superpower the world has ever known, should fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.  I think that the Croatians and Kosovars would think the same way.  I think the Kuwaitis would think the same way.  I think the Somalians who were starving would think the same way.  

Americanization of the world means the spread of democracy and ability of the population to have the same rights that we have:

• Freedom of Speech
• Freedom of Assembly and, yes, dissent
• Freedom of the Press
• Freedom from the oppressive nature of the government
• Freedom to chose, and change, your government
• Freedom to experience those inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

I will support our use of military force to guaranty these rights, not just for American citizens, but for Humans throughout the world.  The reason: Because our Creator did not give these rights just to Americans.  They were given to the entire human race.  If that defines Americanization of the World and if we have to go to war because of it, then so be it.  Period.

An attack on our Freedom of Speech

Congress just passed H.R. 347 which prohibits protests on government or even private property whenever the secret service is involved in security.  The article (the link below explains the bill in more detail) explains the apparent motivation of the lawmakers when they passed it.

First, this was in response of the Occupy Wall Street movement that has gripped several major cities across the country of the past several months.  Although I disagree with the message of this protest, I do defend their right to peacefully protest.  It is the foundation of democracy to allow protests, especially political protests.  What is interesting is that it was the Occupy Wall Street movement that lead to this legislation, not the TEA Party movement.  The difference in the two movements is like night and day.  The TEA Party movement began with the Pledge of Allegiance and remained peaceful, organized, had a specific message, and they left the area clean.   The Occupy movement was the exact opposite.  Drug use, human defication, and utter disrespect for the people who lived and worked in the area was all too common.

Second, the other reason cited in the article was to prevent protests of the G8 summit.  This is incredible.  The rest of the world would be criticized if the host country prevented protests at the G8 summit and the US will as well.  And it should be.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Violent protests should result in some serious charges, especially against the organizers.  It is up to these organizers to keep the protest peaceful.  However, with a President that was a founding member of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), I would be surprised if he does in fact sign this bill into law.  If he does, I wonder how his fellow community organizers will feel.

However, the reasons for passage that congress gave are only the tip of the iceberg.  What this bill does is prevent protests whenever the secret service is involved in security.  Really?  That means that no one will be able to protest any Presidential candidate, or even the conventions.  So much for freedom of speech.  Although I do believe that this bill will not survive a review by the supreme court, the court wouldn't even be giving the argument until October and they may not hear the case until next year.  That gets all the politicians past the 2012 election without having to deal with protest from the American people.

I believe that this is a travesty.  In the House, only three representatives voted against the bill.  What amazes me is that these three were Republicans.  I thought it was the Democrats that supported the free speech rights of the population.  I thought it was the Democrats that would not support such a bill.  Unfortunately, most Republican also voted for it as well.  In the Senate, the vote was by unanimous consent, which means we do not know who voted for it or who voted against it.  What a way to stay incognito on this subject.

I think that this is one of those times that, if the President signs the bill into law, that the American population should go out and purposefully violate this law and force the government's hand.  I, for one, would go to Washington DC and protest in front of the White House so that I could get arrested.  I am sure that if the American people saw this bill for what it is, a power grab by the government, that they would vote out every one of their representatives that passed such a law.

Click Here is the link for the article explaining the bill.

Joseph Kony, International Criminal

I just watched an eye opening movie on a man named Joseph Kony.  I have to admit that before today, I did not know the name.  Unfortunately, many in Uganda know his name.  He is considered a rebel leader but I don't see him as that.

In a part of the world where gangs become armies, Joseph Kony is a gang leader.  He abducts children, forces them to kill their parents, and makes them into child "soldiers."  The girls are made into sex slaves.  If this happened in the United States to this level, Joseph Kony would have his picture on just about every news broadcast.  Instead, I just heard about him today, 20+ years after he started his terror and slaughter.

What can we do about that?  What interest is it of us in the United States?

My answer is slightly different than, I think, of those who made this movie.  Without a doubt, we should go after this poor excuse of a human being.  But Joseph Kony hasn't been the first bad guy and, unfortunately, he probably won't be the last.  The 20th century is filled with these types of characters.  Our response has been anything but consistent.

Hitler, of course, comes to mind first.  He slaughtered millions.  Why?  Because Hitler was a bad guy.  Pol Pot slaughtered million in Cambodia and Laos.  Why? Because he was a bad guy.  Milosovec slaughtered millions in his "ethnic cleansing" campaigns.  Why?  Because he was a bad guy.  Millions have been slaughtered in Kosovo, Uganda, Darfur, Tibet, Iraq, Somalia, Central and South America among so many other places.  Sometimes we get involved.  Sometimes we don't.  Well, the time for complacency has ended.  It is time for the United States, with or without our allies, to stop this madness no matter where we find it.  Justice, human justice, not just American justice, must be administered and the time is now.

Let us start with Joseph Kony.  The United States has no political or economic interest in helping to catch him.  But it is the right thing to do.

Here is the video I watched.  Please watch and share.  Get the word out.  KONY 2012

Joseph Kony Video

Democrats want to silence Rush

http://dccc.org/pages/denounce-rush

Check this site out.  The Democrat party wants the Republicans to denounce Rush Limbaugh for his recent comments about women who want free birth control to "make a sex video."  The vitriol coming from the left over this comment is nothing but amazing.  They are demonizing Rush, on top of calling him a fat drug addict.  Funny.  Kudos to Rush.  If you ever actually listen to him, you can probably realize that Rush uses satire all the time.  Remember SATIRE.  It has been used in political debates at least as far back as the mid-19th century.  I remember reading a short story in high school. published in London, about how to cook and eat humans; Irish humans.  It wasn't a call to slaughter and devour the Irish people.  It was a satirical attack against the British oppression in Northern Ireland.  Rush has based the majority of his show on satire.  Why?  Because it's funny and entertaining.  Besides, when people are offended, it sparks publicity and debate over the real issue.  So lets stop getting distracted by this and talk about the real issues, like public financed abortions and contraceptives being described by Obama as "preventative care."

But I can't let this go by without a simple comparison.  Michael Moore basically accused President George W. Bush as being responsible for the attacks on 9/11.  He insinuated that he didn't care that we were attacked and that he was possibly criminally responsible.  This was not denounced by the Democrats.  Instead, Mr. Moore was given the prized seat at the Kerry acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004...this was the seat next to Kerry's wife.

So, it seems there is a double standard.  Strange.  Oh, wait a minute.  That's right.  There always has been a double standard.  The Democrats can say and do whatever they want without repercussions from the left wing media but should someone on the right make a satirical comment, and he is demonized to the point that the Democratic party distributes a petition to have the Republicans denounce Rush. This is simply an attempt to silence Rush, especially during this election.  They are afraid of Rush.  And they should be.  They should be VERY afraid because his core audience doesn't care what the Republican party does about him.  Therefore, it won't get him off the airwaves and he will continue what he has done for twenty plus years; provide political commentary.  And his commentary has a much larger impact on conservatives in general than on the Republican party itself.

Finally, the comment about him being a "fat drug addicted a**hole" is typical of the liberals misinformation, let alone the nastiness of the liberals in general.  First, Rush is far from being fat.  He lost an incredible amount of weight and looks healthy.  As for the drugs, that is something that he dealt with, in full view of the public.  He is no longer addicted to the pain killers that he took to help with his back pain.  What about Obama?  Rush at least was using drugs prescribed by a doctor.  Obama's cocaine use never involved doctors, but instead involved dangerous street dealers and gang members.  And I know that the liberals will point out that was many years ago.  Well, so was Rush's drug problem.  Maybe not as many years ago as Obama's, but Rush isn't President is he.