There is a time for every purpose under heaven. Now is our place in time.…Now is our moment in history and our purpose is clear... We have returned to the path our forefathers created. A road forgotten by many. We have become the reminders…the guides... models for our younger… we are the unelected leaders…and if not us who and if not now when…?
The road we travel, absent of foot prints, is overgrown and hard to see. There are no sign posts and none are needed. We remember.. The farther we go the more familiar the road seems. Good stewards cut this road with axes and sweat and left hidden notes pinned here and there saying "go this way", "don't go that way', and always assuring us the we can do it. Our confidence builds with each step taken. We just forgot the simple lesson taught and it was that freedom is never free. Liberty did not come down to us in perpetuity. We simply lost sight that we and the generation before and after us must pay the toll. The creation of this nation was about the pursuit of life and liberty, and the operative word is pursuit. There was never a promise from anyone at anytime that we would own freedom, that it would simply exist for us. Only the idea itself was set in concrete...What our founders assured us is that government would be pursing its quest for power over people relentlessly. Yet another lesson forgotten. Forgotten even with their dire warnings that we should always keep our guns for a time we must protect the nation from external enemies as well as the enemy within. In our time our votes are the guns... experientially as well as intuitively. The forefathers knew that government, no matter what shape or form, would always strive to secure it position and garner power/control over the people it had sworn to serve and protect.
Our current president has, along with elected governmental officials, pursued governmental powers over citizens like no other government before in our history. They overwhelm us daily with some new law, regulations, or social program that takes not only more or our income but burdens us with debts that we cannot pay in most of our lifetimes.
Without liberty and freedom happiness can't be achieved. Nor a sense of safety, well being, or stability for ourselves or for our children.
Below is the congressional history of not passing a budget and shutting down our government. Many of our readers lived through all of the 'shut downs'. They have occurred so often and for so long it means nothing more that a big YAWN. And yet, the president, the DEMs, and the press were still able once again to frighten the citizens with suggestions that the country was coming to an end with the potential shutdown.
How easy it is to manipulate naive citizens. All of this to-do about shutting down the government and the disasters that would follow. As you look at the list note what congress did, in terms of shutting down the government, in 1977…All of us lived through this political silliness many times before. It is as if the American voter doesn't understand that 'shutting down the government' during budget negotiations is a political ploy that has been used and reused by GOP and DEMS. How is it we forget this?
Government shutdowns
Started Ended No.Days
9/30/76 10/11/76 10
9/30/77 10/13/77 12
10/31/77 11/9/77 8
11/30/77 12/9/77 8
9/30/78 10/18/78 17
9/30/79 10/12/79 11
11/20/81 11/23/81 2
9/30/82 10/2/82 1
12/17/82 12/21/82 3
11/10/83 11/14/83 3
9/30/84 10/03/84 2
10/3/84 10/05/84 1
10/16/86 10/18/86 1
12/18/87 12/20/87 1
10/5/90 10/09/90 3
11/13/95 11/19/95 5
12/15/95 1/06/96 21
We are coming to the same moment with the 'raising of the debt ceiling'. The drums are already beating…The DEMS along with their brothers in the media are already chanting that the world as we know it will come to an end if we don't raise the debt ceiling. What nonsense, the world as we know it would be happy if we don’t agree to go into to debt ceiling….Tax money flows into Washington every day. There is plenty of money to pay the bills. What is obvious to those of us who do not work on the east side of the Potomac, just put some projects on hold. Cut other projects and extend some payments for thirty days. The same thing every business in America does when money gets tight. This is Econ 101.
The question is will government, with support of the press, be effective in frightening the citizens over the debt ceiling issue? If so the ceiling will be raised again… Like the list above another list can be made around the raising of the spending levels. Each time a big to-do is made and in the end and without the voter's consent the debt ceiling has been raised.
Raising spending ceiling = more long term debt
More long term debt = greater tax burdens on our children
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken a couple of week ago finds that only 26% of Likely U.S. Voters feel that the spending cuts proposed by congressional Republicans will significantly reduce federal spending and deficits. Fifty-three percent (53%) recognize that the proposed GOP cuts will have little impact on overall levels of spending and deficits. One-in-five voters (21%) are not sure.
While recognizing they won’t make much of a difference, voters still support short-term budget cuts. Fifty-seven percent (57%), in fact, think making deeper spending cuts in the federal budget for 2011 is more important than avoiding a government shut down.
Voters expressed similar feelings about the three-year freeze on government discretionary spending that President Obama proposed in his State of the Union speech last year. While most approved of the freeze, 81% said it would have no impact on the nation’s historic-level budget deficits.
It’s not energy or tax dollars we’re in short supply of. It’s vision in which we have a deficit. We have no leaders who can fill the American canvas with a picture of a positive future and then lead us there. Instead, we have the leadership of failure and diminished expectations, as if by design.
We are being told by the president that the future will be rationed, portioned off, each according to his needs with Big Brother watching over every aspect of production from healthcare to energy, from retirement to immigration enforcement- defining for us who gets to stay here and who does not, instead of letting the law decide. We have a government of men, now, not laws.
Shenanigans pure and simple….. What are the poor voters to do? AND the answer is just what we are doing….We are in the throws of replacing as many of the 'old guard' as we possibly can each election cycle after another at the Federal and State levels. The GOP leaders in the House must go….either by leaving office or by adding more new members to override them. Same is true with the Senate. Senator's Ryan's budget he says will bring the nation to a balance budget in 2025. Who cares…2025 this man doesn't know where he will eat breakfast next Tuesday much less what congress will be doing a decade from now.
Not only is the GOP leadership an embracement and they are just as destructive as the DEMs. For sure, neither has our best interests at heart.
American poet Ella Wheeler Wilcox once wrote that “to sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men.”
562 days, 6 hours, 15 minutes till the polls close on the 2012 elections. The way to predict the outcome is to enlighten and co-op one person a day to the Tea Party mission.
Ron
docnick37@gmail.com
http://theoxfordteaparty.blogspot.com/
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Presidential War Powers
This article by George Friedman was published in John Mauldin's news letter which I always read and have read for a long time. You can read him also at (johnmauldin@investorsinsight.com)….
Given our latest overseas endeavor in Libya I thought this article would draw our attention to how all of this Presidential war power came about and how it has been abused.
Mr. Friedman's article is simple, clear and certainly needs no comment from me.
What Happened to the American Declaration of War?
March 29, 2011
By George Friedman
In my book “ The Next Decade ,” I spend a good deal of time considering the relation of the American Empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic. If there is a single point where these matters converge, it is in the constitutional requirement that Congress approve wars through a declaration of war and in the abandonment of this requirement since World War II. This is the point where the burdens and interests of the United States as a global empire collide with the principles and rights of the United States as a republic.
World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds, but the Constitution is explicit in requiring a formal declaration. It does so for two reasons, I think. The first is to prevent the president from taking the country to war without the consent of the governed, as represented by Congress. Second, by providing for a specific path to war, it provides the president power and legitimacy he would not have without that declaration; it both restrains the president and empowers him. Not only does it make his position as commander in chief unassailable by authorizing military action, it creates shared responsibility for war. A declaration of war informs the public of the burdens they will have to bear by leaving no doubt that Congress has decided on a new order — war — with how each member of Congress voted made known to the public.
Almost all Americans have heard Franklin Roosevelt’s speech to Congress on Dec. 8, 1941: “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan … I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.”
It was a moment of majesty and sobriety, and with Congress’ affirmation, represented the unquestioned will of the republic. There was no going back, and there was no question that the burden would be borne. True, the Japanese had attacked the United States, making getting the declaration easier. But that’s what the founders intended: Going to war should be difficult; once at war, the commander in chief’s authority should be unquestionable.
Forgoing the Declaration
It is odd, therefore, that presidents who need that authorization badly should forgo pursuing it. Not doing so has led to seriously failed presidencies: Harry Truman in Korea, unable to seek another term; Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, also unable to seek a new term; George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq , completing his terms but enormously unpopular. There was more to this than undeclared wars, but that the legitimacy of each war was questioned and became a contentious political issue certainly is rooted in the failure to follow constitutional pathways.
In understanding how war and constitutional norms became separated, we must begin with the first major undeclared war in American history (the Civil War was not a foreign war), Korea. When North Korea invaded South Korea, Truman took recourse to the new U.N. Security Council. He wanted international sanction for the war and was able to get it because the Soviet representatives happened to be boycotting the Security Council over other issues at the time.
Truman’s view was that U.N. sanction for the war superseded the requirement for a declaration of war in two ways. First, it was not a war in the strict sense, he argued, but a “police action” under the U.N. Charter. Second, the U.N. Charter constituted a treaty, therefore implicitly binding the United States to go to war if the United Nations so ordered. Whether Congress’ authorization to join the United Nations both obligated the United States to wage war at U.N. behest, obviating the need for declarations of war because Congress had already authorized police actions, is an interesting question. Whatever the answer, Truman set a precedent that wars could be waged without congressional declarations of war and that other actions — from treaties to resolutions to budgetary authorizations — mooted declarations of war.
If this was the founding precedent, the deepest argument for the irrelevancy of the declaration of war is to be found in nuclear weapons. Starting in the 1950s, paralleling the Korean War, was the increasing risk of nuclear war. It was understood that if nuclear war occurred, either through an attack by the Soviets or a first strike by the United States, time and secrecy made a prior declaration of war by Congress impossible. In the expected scenario of a Soviet first strike, there would be only minutes for the president to authorize counterstrikes and no time for constitutional niceties. In that sense, it was argued fairly persuasively that the Constitution had become irrelevant to the military realities facing the republic.
Nuclear war was seen as the most realistic war-fighting scenario, with all other forms of war trivial in comparison. Just as nuclear weapons came to be called “strategic weapons” with other weapons of war occupying a lesser space, nuclear war became identical with war in general. If that was so, then constitutional procedures that could not be applied to nuclear war were simply no longer relevant.
Paradoxically, if nuclear warfare represented the highest level of warfare, there developed at the lowest level covert operations. Apart from the nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, there was an intense covert war, from back alleys in Europe to the Congo, Indochina to Latin America. Indeed, it was waged everywhere precisely because the threat of nuclear war was so terrible: Covert warfare became a prudent alternative. All of these operations had to be deniable. An attempt to assassinate a Soviet agent or raise a secret army to face a Soviet secret army could not be validated with a declaration of war. The Cold War was a series of interconnected but discrete operations, fought with secret forces whose very principle was deniability. How could declarations of war be expected in operations so small in size that had to be kept secret from Congress anyway?
There was then the need to support allies, particularly in sending advisers to train their armies. These advisers were not there to engage in combat but to advise those who did. In many cases, this became an artificial distinction: The advisers accompanied their students on missions, and some died. But this was not war in any conventional sense of the term. And therefore, the declaration of war didn’t apply.
By the time Vietnam came up, the transition from military assistance to advisers to advisers in combat to U.S. forces at war was so subtle that there was no moment to which you could point that said that we were now in a state of war where previously we weren’t. Rather than ask for a declaration of war, Johnson used an incident in the Tonkin Gulf to get a congressional resolution that he interpreted as being the equivalent of war. The problem here was that it was not clear that had he asked for a formal declaration of war he would have gotten one. Johnson didn’t take that chance.
What Johnson did was use Cold War precedents, from the Korean War, to nuclear warfare, to covert operations to the subtle distinctions of contemporary warfare in order to wage a substantial and extended war based on the Tonkin Gulf resolution — which Congress clearly didn’t see as a declaration of war — instead of asking for a formal declaration. And this represented the breakpoint. In Vietnam, the issue was not some legal or practical justification for not asking for a declaration. Rather, it was a political consideration.
Johnson did not know that he could get a declaration; the public might not be prepared to go to war. For this reason, rather than ask for a declaration, he used all the prior precedents to simply go to war without a declaration. In my view, that was the moment the declaration of war as a constitutional imperative collapsed. And in my view, so did the Johnson presidency. In hindsight, he needed a declaration badly, and if he could not get it, Vietnam would have been lost, and so may have been his presidency. Since Vietnam was lost anyway from lack of public consensus, his decision was a mistake. But it set the stage for everything that came after — war by resolution rather than by formal constitutional process.
After the war, Congress created the War Powers Act in recognition that wars might commence before congressional approval could be given. However, rather than returning to the constitutional method of the Declaration of War, which can be given after the commencement of war if necessary (consider World War II) Congress chose to bypass declarations of war in favor of resolutions allowing wars. Their reason was the same as the president’s: It was politically safer to authorize a war already under way than to invoke declarations of war.
All of this arose within the assertion that the president’s powers as commander in chief authorized him to engage in warfare without a congressional declaration of war, an idea that came in full force in the context of nuclear war and then was extended to the broader idea that all wars were at the discretion of the president. From my simple reading, the Constitution is fairly clear on the subject: Congress is given the power to declare war. At that moment, the president as commander in chief is free to prosecute the war as he thinks best. But constitutional law and the language of the Constitution seem to have diverged. It is a complex field of study, obviously.
An Increasing Tempo of Operations
All of this came just before the United States emerged as the world’s single global power — a global empire — that by definition would be waging war at an increased tempo, from Kuwait, to Haiti, to Kosovo , to Afghanistan, to Iraq, and so on in an ever-increasing number of operations. And now in Libya, we have reached the point that even resolutions are no longer needed.
It is said that there is no precedent for fighting al Qaeda, for example, because it is not a nation but a subnational group. Therefore, Bush could not reasonably have been expected to ask for a declaration of war. But there is precedent: Thomas Jefferson asked for and received a declaration of war against the Barbary pirates. This authorized Jefferson to wage war against a subnational group of pirates as if they were a nation.
Had Bush requested a declaration of war on al Qaeda on Sept. 12, 2001, I suspect it would have been granted overwhelmingly, and the public would have understood that the United States was now at war for as long as the president thought wise. The president would have been free to carry out operations as he saw fit. Roosevelt did not have to ask for special permission to invade Guadalcanal, send troops to India, or invade North Africa. In the course of fighting Japan, Germany and Italy, it was understood that he was free to wage war as he thought fit. In the same sense, a declaration of war on Sept. 12 would have freed him to fight al Qaeda wherever they were or to move to block them wherever the president saw fit.
Leaving aside the military wisdom of Afghanistan or Iraq, the legal and moral foundations would have been clear — so long as the president as commander in chief saw an action as needed to defeat al Qaeda, it could be taken. Similarly, as commander in chief, Roosevelt usurped constitutional rights for citizens in many ways, from censorship to internment camps for Japanese-Americans. Prisoners of war not adhering to the Geneva Conventions were shot by military tribunal — or without. In a state of war, different laws and expectations exist than during peace. Many of the arguments against Bush-era intrusions on privacy also could have been made against Roosevelt. But Roosevelt had a declaration of war and full authority as commander in chief during war. Bush did not. He worked in twilight between war and peace.
One of the dilemmas that could have been avoided was the massive confusion of whether the United States was engaged in hunting down a criminal conspiracy or waging war on a foreign enemy. If the former, then the goal is to punish the guilty. If the latter, then the goal is to destroy the enemy. Imagine that after Pearl Harbor, FDR had promised to hunt down every pilot who attacked Pearl Harbor and bring them to justice, rather than calling for a declaration of war against a hostile nation and all who bore arms on its behalf regardless of what they had done. The goal in war is to prevent the other side from acting, not to punish the actors.
The Importance of the Declaration
A declaration of war, I am arguing, is an essential aspect of war fighting particularly for the republic when engaged in frequent wars. It achieves a number of things. First, it holds both Congress and the president equally responsible for the decision, and does so unambiguously. Second, it affirms to the people that their lives have now changed and that they will be bearing burdens. Third, it gives the president the political and moral authority he needs to wage war on their behalf and forces everyone to share in the moral responsibility of war. And finally, by submitting it to a political process, many wars might be avoided. When we look at some of our wars after World War II it is not clear they had to be fought in the national interest, nor is it clear that the presidents would not have been better remembered if they had been restrained. A declaration of war both frees and restrains the president, as it was meant to do.
I began by talking about the American empire. I won’t make the argument on that here, but simply assert it. What is most important is that the republic not be overwhelmed in the course of pursuing imperial goals. The declaration of war is precisely the point at which imperial interests can overwhelm republican prerogatives.
There are enormous complexities here. Nuclear war has not been abolished. The United States has treaty obligations to the United Nations and other countries. Covert operations are essential, as is military assistance, both of which can lead to war. I am not making the argument that constant accommodation to reality does not have to be made. I am making the argument that the suspension of Section 8 of Article I as if it is possible to amend the Constitution with a wink and nod represents a mortal threat to the republic. If this can be done, what can’t be done?
My readers will know that I am far from squeamish about war. I have questions about Libya , for example, but I am open to the idea that it is a low-cost, politically appropriate measure. But I am not open to the possibility that quickly after the commencement of hostilities the president need not receive authority to wage war from Congress. And I am arguing that neither the Congress nor the president has the authority to substitute resolutions for declarations of war. Nor should either want to. Politically, this has too often led to disaster for presidents. Morally, committing the lives of citizens to waging war requires meticulous attention to the law and proprieties.
As our international power and interests surge, it would seem reasonable that our commitment to republican principles would surge. These commitments appear inconvenient. They are meant to be. War is a serious matter, and presidents and particularly Congresses should be inconvenienced on the road to war. Members of Congress should not be able to hide behind ambiguous resolutions only to turn on the president during difficult times, claiming that they did not mean what they voted for. A vote on a declaration of war ends that. It also prevents a president from acting as king by default. Above all, it prevents the public from pretending to be victims when their leaders take them to war. The possibility of war will concentrate the mind of a distracted public like nothing else. It turns voting into a life-or-death matter, a tonic for our adolescent body politic.
Thank you Mr. Friedman….
There isn't a threat of nuclear attack from Russia or anyone else so it is time to step back and reconsider the power given to our presidents when there was a threat. Clearly these last few weeks has brought this problem to the forefront once again. We simply can't have presidents committing our armies wherever and whenever they, in their sole judgment, thinks it necessary.
As the next group of presidential candidates start their runs we need to ask where do they stand on this issue. We are not a trigger happy people and using our might to kill one group of people to protect another group of people in Libya is difficult to pass off as a humanitarian mission. It is possible there are other reasons for our actions but humanitarian doesn't seem to be high on our national security agenda.
The news of the day and the very first surprise I've had today is that our President has announced he is going to run for reelection. Fourteen times sitting presidents have done this. Only five times have they lost. Odds are not good for us. There are 579 days - 6 hours - 55 minutes before the polls close on the 2012 balloting.
We know what the mission is but how will each of us make sure these goals are met. One person, one voice, and one vote.
Ron
docnick37@gmail.com
http://theoxfordteaparty.blogspot.com/
Given our latest overseas endeavor in Libya I thought this article would draw our attention to how all of this Presidential war power came about and how it has been abused.
Mr. Friedman's article is simple, clear and certainly needs no comment from me.
What Happened to the American Declaration of War?
March 29, 2011
By George Friedman
In my book “ The Next Decade ,” I spend a good deal of time considering the relation of the American Empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic. If there is a single point where these matters converge, it is in the constitutional requirement that Congress approve wars through a declaration of war and in the abandonment of this requirement since World War II. This is the point where the burdens and interests of the United States as a global empire collide with the principles and rights of the United States as a republic.
World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds, but the Constitution is explicit in requiring a formal declaration. It does so for two reasons, I think. The first is to prevent the president from taking the country to war without the consent of the governed, as represented by Congress. Second, by providing for a specific path to war, it provides the president power and legitimacy he would not have without that declaration; it both restrains the president and empowers him. Not only does it make his position as commander in chief unassailable by authorizing military action, it creates shared responsibility for war. A declaration of war informs the public of the burdens they will have to bear by leaving no doubt that Congress has decided on a new order — war — with how each member of Congress voted made known to the public.
Almost all Americans have heard Franklin Roosevelt’s speech to Congress on Dec. 8, 1941: “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan … I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.”
It was a moment of majesty and sobriety, and with Congress’ affirmation, represented the unquestioned will of the republic. There was no going back, and there was no question that the burden would be borne. True, the Japanese had attacked the United States, making getting the declaration easier. But that’s what the founders intended: Going to war should be difficult; once at war, the commander in chief’s authority should be unquestionable.
Forgoing the Declaration
It is odd, therefore, that presidents who need that authorization badly should forgo pursuing it. Not doing so has led to seriously failed presidencies: Harry Truman in Korea, unable to seek another term; Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, also unable to seek a new term; George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq , completing his terms but enormously unpopular. There was more to this than undeclared wars, but that the legitimacy of each war was questioned and became a contentious political issue certainly is rooted in the failure to follow constitutional pathways.
In understanding how war and constitutional norms became separated, we must begin with the first major undeclared war in American history (the Civil War was not a foreign war), Korea. When North Korea invaded South Korea, Truman took recourse to the new U.N. Security Council. He wanted international sanction for the war and was able to get it because the Soviet representatives happened to be boycotting the Security Council over other issues at the time.
Truman’s view was that U.N. sanction for the war superseded the requirement for a declaration of war in two ways. First, it was not a war in the strict sense, he argued, but a “police action” under the U.N. Charter. Second, the U.N. Charter constituted a treaty, therefore implicitly binding the United States to go to war if the United Nations so ordered. Whether Congress’ authorization to join the United Nations both obligated the United States to wage war at U.N. behest, obviating the need for declarations of war because Congress had already authorized police actions, is an interesting question. Whatever the answer, Truman set a precedent that wars could be waged without congressional declarations of war and that other actions — from treaties to resolutions to budgetary authorizations — mooted declarations of war.
If this was the founding precedent, the deepest argument for the irrelevancy of the declaration of war is to be found in nuclear weapons. Starting in the 1950s, paralleling the Korean War, was the increasing risk of nuclear war. It was understood that if nuclear war occurred, either through an attack by the Soviets or a first strike by the United States, time and secrecy made a prior declaration of war by Congress impossible. In the expected scenario of a Soviet first strike, there would be only minutes for the president to authorize counterstrikes and no time for constitutional niceties. In that sense, it was argued fairly persuasively that the Constitution had become irrelevant to the military realities facing the republic.
Nuclear war was seen as the most realistic war-fighting scenario, with all other forms of war trivial in comparison. Just as nuclear weapons came to be called “strategic weapons” with other weapons of war occupying a lesser space, nuclear war became identical with war in general. If that was so, then constitutional procedures that could not be applied to nuclear war were simply no longer relevant.
Paradoxically, if nuclear warfare represented the highest level of warfare, there developed at the lowest level covert operations. Apart from the nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, there was an intense covert war, from back alleys in Europe to the Congo, Indochina to Latin America. Indeed, it was waged everywhere precisely because the threat of nuclear war was so terrible: Covert warfare became a prudent alternative. All of these operations had to be deniable. An attempt to assassinate a Soviet agent or raise a secret army to face a Soviet secret army could not be validated with a declaration of war. The Cold War was a series of interconnected but discrete operations, fought with secret forces whose very principle was deniability. How could declarations of war be expected in operations so small in size that had to be kept secret from Congress anyway?
There was then the need to support allies, particularly in sending advisers to train their armies. These advisers were not there to engage in combat but to advise those who did. In many cases, this became an artificial distinction: The advisers accompanied their students on missions, and some died. But this was not war in any conventional sense of the term. And therefore, the declaration of war didn’t apply.
By the time Vietnam came up, the transition from military assistance to advisers to advisers in combat to U.S. forces at war was so subtle that there was no moment to which you could point that said that we were now in a state of war where previously we weren’t. Rather than ask for a declaration of war, Johnson used an incident in the Tonkin Gulf to get a congressional resolution that he interpreted as being the equivalent of war. The problem here was that it was not clear that had he asked for a formal declaration of war he would have gotten one. Johnson didn’t take that chance.
What Johnson did was use Cold War precedents, from the Korean War, to nuclear warfare, to covert operations to the subtle distinctions of contemporary warfare in order to wage a substantial and extended war based on the Tonkin Gulf resolution — which Congress clearly didn’t see as a declaration of war — instead of asking for a formal declaration. And this represented the breakpoint. In Vietnam, the issue was not some legal or practical justification for not asking for a declaration. Rather, it was a political consideration.
Johnson did not know that he could get a declaration; the public might not be prepared to go to war. For this reason, rather than ask for a declaration, he used all the prior precedents to simply go to war without a declaration. In my view, that was the moment the declaration of war as a constitutional imperative collapsed. And in my view, so did the Johnson presidency. In hindsight, he needed a declaration badly, and if he could not get it, Vietnam would have been lost, and so may have been his presidency. Since Vietnam was lost anyway from lack of public consensus, his decision was a mistake. But it set the stage for everything that came after — war by resolution rather than by formal constitutional process.
After the war, Congress created the War Powers Act in recognition that wars might commence before congressional approval could be given. However, rather than returning to the constitutional method of the Declaration of War, which can be given after the commencement of war if necessary (consider World War II) Congress chose to bypass declarations of war in favor of resolutions allowing wars. Their reason was the same as the president’s: It was politically safer to authorize a war already under way than to invoke declarations of war.
All of this arose within the assertion that the president’s powers as commander in chief authorized him to engage in warfare without a congressional declaration of war, an idea that came in full force in the context of nuclear war and then was extended to the broader idea that all wars were at the discretion of the president. From my simple reading, the Constitution is fairly clear on the subject: Congress is given the power to declare war. At that moment, the president as commander in chief is free to prosecute the war as he thinks best. But constitutional law and the language of the Constitution seem to have diverged. It is a complex field of study, obviously.
An Increasing Tempo of Operations
All of this came just before the United States emerged as the world’s single global power — a global empire — that by definition would be waging war at an increased tempo, from Kuwait, to Haiti, to Kosovo , to Afghanistan, to Iraq, and so on in an ever-increasing number of operations. And now in Libya, we have reached the point that even resolutions are no longer needed.
It is said that there is no precedent for fighting al Qaeda, for example, because it is not a nation but a subnational group. Therefore, Bush could not reasonably have been expected to ask for a declaration of war. But there is precedent: Thomas Jefferson asked for and received a declaration of war against the Barbary pirates. This authorized Jefferson to wage war against a subnational group of pirates as if they were a nation.
Had Bush requested a declaration of war on al Qaeda on Sept. 12, 2001, I suspect it would have been granted overwhelmingly, and the public would have understood that the United States was now at war for as long as the president thought wise. The president would have been free to carry out operations as he saw fit. Roosevelt did not have to ask for special permission to invade Guadalcanal, send troops to India, or invade North Africa. In the course of fighting Japan, Germany and Italy, it was understood that he was free to wage war as he thought fit. In the same sense, a declaration of war on Sept. 12 would have freed him to fight al Qaeda wherever they were or to move to block them wherever the president saw fit.
Leaving aside the military wisdom of Afghanistan or Iraq, the legal and moral foundations would have been clear — so long as the president as commander in chief saw an action as needed to defeat al Qaeda, it could be taken. Similarly, as commander in chief, Roosevelt usurped constitutional rights for citizens in many ways, from censorship to internment camps for Japanese-Americans. Prisoners of war not adhering to the Geneva Conventions were shot by military tribunal — or without. In a state of war, different laws and expectations exist than during peace. Many of the arguments against Bush-era intrusions on privacy also could have been made against Roosevelt. But Roosevelt had a declaration of war and full authority as commander in chief during war. Bush did not. He worked in twilight between war and peace.
One of the dilemmas that could have been avoided was the massive confusion of whether the United States was engaged in hunting down a criminal conspiracy or waging war on a foreign enemy. If the former, then the goal is to punish the guilty. If the latter, then the goal is to destroy the enemy. Imagine that after Pearl Harbor, FDR had promised to hunt down every pilot who attacked Pearl Harbor and bring them to justice, rather than calling for a declaration of war against a hostile nation and all who bore arms on its behalf regardless of what they had done. The goal in war is to prevent the other side from acting, not to punish the actors.
The Importance of the Declaration
A declaration of war, I am arguing, is an essential aspect of war fighting particularly for the republic when engaged in frequent wars. It achieves a number of things. First, it holds both Congress and the president equally responsible for the decision, and does so unambiguously. Second, it affirms to the people that their lives have now changed and that they will be bearing burdens. Third, it gives the president the political and moral authority he needs to wage war on their behalf and forces everyone to share in the moral responsibility of war. And finally, by submitting it to a political process, many wars might be avoided. When we look at some of our wars after World War II it is not clear they had to be fought in the national interest, nor is it clear that the presidents would not have been better remembered if they had been restrained. A declaration of war both frees and restrains the president, as it was meant to do.
I began by talking about the American empire. I won’t make the argument on that here, but simply assert it. What is most important is that the republic not be overwhelmed in the course of pursuing imperial goals. The declaration of war is precisely the point at which imperial interests can overwhelm republican prerogatives.
There are enormous complexities here. Nuclear war has not been abolished. The United States has treaty obligations to the United Nations and other countries. Covert operations are essential, as is military assistance, both of which can lead to war. I am not making the argument that constant accommodation to reality does not have to be made. I am making the argument that the suspension of Section 8 of Article I as if it is possible to amend the Constitution with a wink and nod represents a mortal threat to the republic. If this can be done, what can’t be done?
My readers will know that I am far from squeamish about war. I have questions about Libya , for example, but I am open to the idea that it is a low-cost, politically appropriate measure. But I am not open to the possibility that quickly after the commencement of hostilities the president need not receive authority to wage war from Congress. And I am arguing that neither the Congress nor the president has the authority to substitute resolutions for declarations of war. Nor should either want to. Politically, this has too often led to disaster for presidents. Morally, committing the lives of citizens to waging war requires meticulous attention to the law and proprieties.
As our international power and interests surge, it would seem reasonable that our commitment to republican principles would surge. These commitments appear inconvenient. They are meant to be. War is a serious matter, and presidents and particularly Congresses should be inconvenienced on the road to war. Members of Congress should not be able to hide behind ambiguous resolutions only to turn on the president during difficult times, claiming that they did not mean what they voted for. A vote on a declaration of war ends that. It also prevents a president from acting as king by default. Above all, it prevents the public from pretending to be victims when their leaders take them to war. The possibility of war will concentrate the mind of a distracted public like nothing else. It turns voting into a life-or-death matter, a tonic for our adolescent body politic.
Thank you Mr. Friedman….
There isn't a threat of nuclear attack from Russia or anyone else so it is time to step back and reconsider the power given to our presidents when there was a threat. Clearly these last few weeks has brought this problem to the forefront once again. We simply can't have presidents committing our armies wherever and whenever they, in their sole judgment, thinks it necessary.
As the next group of presidential candidates start their runs we need to ask where do they stand on this issue. We are not a trigger happy people and using our might to kill one group of people to protect another group of people in Libya is difficult to pass off as a humanitarian mission. It is possible there are other reasons for our actions but humanitarian doesn't seem to be high on our national security agenda.
The news of the day and the very first surprise I've had today is that our President has announced he is going to run for reelection. Fourteen times sitting presidents have done this. Only five times have they lost. Odds are not good for us. There are 579 days - 6 hours - 55 minutes before the polls close on the 2012 balloting.
We know what the mission is but how will each of us make sure these goals are met. One person, one voice, and one vote.
Ron
docnick37@gmail.com
http://theoxfordteaparty.blogspot.com/
Sunday, March 13, 2011
By The People
We have been saying 2012 will not be 2010 until I'm sure all our readers are sick of hearing it….There are any number of reasons for this mantra. Obama, has effectively divided the people of this nation. This division is not simply along the lines of 'Liberal' VS 'Conservative any longer,' but 'Good' VS 'Evil,' 'Old VS Young,' 'Wealthy' VS 'Poor, 'Workers' VS 'Business', 'Federal Government' VS 'State Government' and under these basic headings most radical groups can find a home and support for each of their missions….With a righteousness of all radicals they believe the end always justify the means.
Did Obama create these divisions or did he simply use his skills to clearly define or simply offer a banner for radical groups to rally under? Whether by design or not that is what has happen. (Over the last couple of years I have recommended a few book on a 'must read' list. Creating a New Civilization by Alvin and Heidi Toffler is on the top of that list. To under how Obama so effectively has divided and conquered is what this book is about and was published in 1994 long before Obama had a teleprompter. Please, give it a read. Will take no more than an hour.)
Many of us thought the unions were dead, a part of our history that had been set aside. Only six percent of American workers outside of government are union members and even this small percentage was enough to destroy the most powerful auto industry in the world with the voters picking up the cost of their outrageous union contracts. (Taxpayers bailing out the auto industry.)
It seem voters in America took a long nap and unions moved into every nook and cranny of Federal and many State governments. Unions member bought and paid for the election of so many elected officials. To the surprise of many these same politicians became ardent supporters of unions. Who would have guessed it?
Government is union's last stronghold.
Early in World War Two Roosevelt personally had to go to John L. Lewis, who had his coal union members out on strike, and ask him to end the strike because it was hurting the war effort. Lewis responded that it was Roosevelt's job to protect the nation and it was his job to protect union workers. We have all watched this same attitude play out in Wisconsin these past weeks. With Wisconsin's Dem Senators, rather that dealing with their state's financial problems related to union workers and union workers benefits, left the state avoiding their responsibilities and are still hiding out. So between Roosevelt's experience and Walker's experience it appears as if nothing has changed in the minds of union leaders over the past half century. What we have been able to see is to what extent unions have bought congressmen at state and federal levels.
The John L. Lewis episode with Roosevelt was a tipping point. Government realized that big unions were dangerous. Like so many other lessons time has blurred the lesson.
Rasmussen Reports
A plurality of Wisconsin voters think voters should have the right to approve or reject new pension plans agreed to by government officials and union members if they'll lead to increased government spending. They are evenly divided as to whether approval should be required for public employee pay raises that push spending higher.
If public employee unions and elected state officials agree to a union contract with increased pension benefits that would lead to higher state government spending, 48% of likely Wisconsin voters think that contract should require voter approval before it can be implemented. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 39% disagree, and 14% are not sure.
Below is a letter that has been sent to many of Wisconsin's congressional members that voted on this Union bill.
"Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your families will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell.
WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we’ve had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it’s going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live. It’s a matter of public records. We have all planned to assault you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn’t leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so “high” on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won’t tell you all of them because that’s just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it’s necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will “get rid of” (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senators that risked everything to go against what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it’s worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!"
This guy talked tough but didn't have the courage to sign his letter.
The Highwayman: Stand and deliver or you will die.
Another threat came from Richard Trumka, the President of the AFL-CIO. He said this was shameless behavior on the part of the Republicans in Wisconsin and in 2012 they will pay for their behavior…. I'm not sure just how he intends to do this given the amount of money and phone bank people the union brought into Wisconsin for the last election and lost. However, they will do more. If the unions lose their foothold in government that would more or less be their demise.
Everything has a season and the season for unions has passed. Most workers will not join unions but Obama and group are standing firmly with them.
Just a note: Seven union bus drivers in Madison were identified in a article I was reading by Ann Coltour. All made over 100,000.00 last year and one made 159,000.00. Retirement benefits for these drivers run about 80% of highest three years salary and this includes health care. (I don't know what everyone else is going to do but I am packing my bag.)
Civil unrest comes to England:
"Hundreds of tax protesters storm the courtroom in England and attempt to make citizens' arrest of a judge.
Raymond Saintclair, who organized the Birkenhead protest, said: "Today was day-one. This is going to happen again and again and again. We have sent a message to this court as one nation and one voice until change comes."
The BCG's main aim is a rallying call for "lawful rebellion." Leaflets handed out by the crowd said: "We, the British People have a right to govern ourselves. "
Novel idea….. Don't you wish we had thought of it...
Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced Wednesday the Department of Education estimates the number of schools not meeting stated federal targets will skyrocket from 37 to 82 percent in 2011 because states are toughening their standards to meet the requirements of the federal law.
So, an estimated 82 percent of U.S. schools could be labeled as "failing" under the nation's 'No Child Left Behind' requirements.
Does anyone wonder what the percentage of schools were failing to do their job before the 'No Child Left Behind' law kicked in? Or possibly, the law kicked in because the same 82 percent were already failing to do their job?
Got an e-mail the other day from a reader who said, "You keep harping on 2012 being harder than 2010. What more do you think we can do?" I wrote him back and asked, "What do you think you can do?" I wasn't trying to be curt in my response but trying (in my poor way) to say Tea Party is just the name given to a grass roots movement... A good one I think.. Grass root movements are simply about one person taking a stand on their beliefs and values along with others who hold similar beliefs and values. When we call our Senator's office that is one voice…The calls are counted one voice at a time. At some point, in every congressional office, there is a tipping point in the numbers. When that point is reached, the congressmen starts paying attention to what's being said.
Returning to the question, "What more can we do?" Well, running the risk of being naïve, let me suggest that if we can't or don't any longer trust our government to run our country and protect the people and our businesses from foreign nations then we must. (Other than WE, I don't see any other hands being raised.) A simple idea we could take on is 'international trade deficits.' (Just for fun.) Lets say 10,000 Tea Party folks in Mississippi chose to not buy $20.00 of foreign made products each week that would equal $200,000.00 in the reduction of the nation's trade deficit. Is this a drop in the bucket? Yes…BUT in a month that number could grow into a million dollars. By the end of the year it could be as much as nine million dollars. Still a drop in the bucket….Here again, just for fun, suppose 500,000 Teaers across this nation participated till the 2012 election lets round this off to about 90 weeks. This equals $900,000,000.00 …BAM...now this number starts to take on real meaning. There are many ways one person plus others who want to make a difference can…Simple choices, over time, will put us back in the driver's seat. If the Teaers were to do such a thing word would get out into the general population. The idea is so simple and the goal so clear that maybe some liberal Republicans, DEMs, and independent voters might come on board with another million people. No matter how the liberal media and the Washington folks spin what the group is doing the fact would be the national 'trade imbalances' particularly with China would start dropping on a daily basis.
For those who are still with me on this math let me point out there is yet another up side to all this…Every dollar we spend on products made in America our GDP goes up even more and with the rise so does the hiring of unemployed Americans.
Its our country and we are going to take it back and keep it safe. Vote with our bucks in one other way each voice can be heard…This a powerful vote.
(Note: When oil reaches about 110 to 120 dollars a barrel the Mideast takes about two billion a week out of our nation and the dollars comes out of each of our pockets. We must get our financial house in order.)
Maine's State constitution required that all men have guns. Those men and those guns were the first line of defense in the protection of the state. I see the Tea Party in similar ways though not with guns but with votes. The vote is the weapon of choice today and the only weapon politicians fear.
The last election the DEMs discounted the Tea Party movement. They will not make that mistake again. They will come after us and anyone we support. They have the money, muscle, and the national liberal media to lead the attack. It will be a full frontal attack….Its going to be ugly and relentless... (Look at Wisconsin these last few weeks. Did that not look like a game of hardball that Walker was in?)
Jumping back to the question, "What more can we do?
We have our State Legislature full of liberal members. So long as they feel safe in their positions they will do what they want. The moment they start getting pressure from their district voters they will start questioning what they are doing. For the most part the people in their district that voted for them have no idea what their congressman is doing. All of these districts have local newspapers. Often read by many voters and then talked about in coffee shops. I think we should start playing hard ball with them on their home turf. Trying to deal with them in hallways in the capitol building is not impacting. Get articles written giving the congressman's voting history. Tell what they voted for and the impact the law has on the voters in their district. If the local papers don't have a real interest in running these articles then pay the paper to run the article as a ad along with their other advertisers. Not just one but a series of articles…Keep the pressure up until the people in the district start questioning their congressman.
Most voters, according to polls, don't have a great deal of confidence in their congressional folks at the state or federal level. However, if the voters knew what their congressman is doing it would seem what little confidence they have would quickly melt.
CNBC
March 8: "Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages"
"Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare programs, and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total income, wages and salaries of the U.S. population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn't taken before the majority of baby boomers enter retirement."
I can't imagine how this news flash got out on CNBC. Could it be that some part of the national media is waking up?
Be sure and watch these two videos….It may take awhile to the load the first video. Also note, this report was not done by the national media nor, to my knowledge, been covered by any of the national media.) The second video will speak for itself. (You may just want to copy these in your browser. If you do this step it will be easy from you to send them to friends…and maybe unschooled voters you might know.)
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/25764282/index..html
http://www.youtube.com/embed/tsH8xvjTAlo
A government for and by the people will be The New Norm.
Ron
docnick37@gmail.com
Http://theoxfordteaparty.blogspot.com
Did Obama create these divisions or did he simply use his skills to clearly define or simply offer a banner for radical groups to rally under? Whether by design or not that is what has happen. (Over the last couple of years I have recommended a few book on a 'must read' list. Creating a New Civilization by Alvin and Heidi Toffler is on the top of that list. To under how Obama so effectively has divided and conquered is what this book is about and was published in 1994 long before Obama had a teleprompter. Please, give it a read. Will take no more than an hour.)
Many of us thought the unions were dead, a part of our history that had been set aside. Only six percent of American workers outside of government are union members and even this small percentage was enough to destroy the most powerful auto industry in the world with the voters picking up the cost of their outrageous union contracts. (Taxpayers bailing out the auto industry.)
It seem voters in America took a long nap and unions moved into every nook and cranny of Federal and many State governments. Unions member bought and paid for the election of so many elected officials. To the surprise of many these same politicians became ardent supporters of unions. Who would have guessed it?
Government is union's last stronghold.
Early in World War Two Roosevelt personally had to go to John L. Lewis, who had his coal union members out on strike, and ask him to end the strike because it was hurting the war effort. Lewis responded that it was Roosevelt's job to protect the nation and it was his job to protect union workers. We have all watched this same attitude play out in Wisconsin these past weeks. With Wisconsin's Dem Senators, rather that dealing with their state's financial problems related to union workers and union workers benefits, left the state avoiding their responsibilities and are still hiding out. So between Roosevelt's experience and Walker's experience it appears as if nothing has changed in the minds of union leaders over the past half century. What we have been able to see is to what extent unions have bought congressmen at state and federal levels.
The John L. Lewis episode with Roosevelt was a tipping point. Government realized that big unions were dangerous. Like so many other lessons time has blurred the lesson.
Rasmussen Reports
A plurality of Wisconsin voters think voters should have the right to approve or reject new pension plans agreed to by government officials and union members if they'll lead to increased government spending. They are evenly divided as to whether approval should be required for public employee pay raises that push spending higher.
If public employee unions and elected state officials agree to a union contract with increased pension benefits that would lead to higher state government spending, 48% of likely Wisconsin voters think that contract should require voter approval before it can be implemented. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 39% disagree, and 14% are not sure.
Below is a letter that has been sent to many of Wisconsin's congressional members that voted on this Union bill.
"Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your families will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell.
WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we’ve had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it’s going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live. It’s a matter of public records. We have all planned to assault you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn’t leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so “high” on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won’t tell you all of them because that’s just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it’s necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will “get rid of” (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senators that risked everything to go against what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it’s worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!"
This guy talked tough but didn't have the courage to sign his letter.
The Highwayman: Stand and deliver or you will die.
Another threat came from Richard Trumka, the President of the AFL-CIO. He said this was shameless behavior on the part of the Republicans in Wisconsin and in 2012 they will pay for their behavior…. I'm not sure just how he intends to do this given the amount of money and phone bank people the union brought into Wisconsin for the last election and lost. However, they will do more. If the unions lose their foothold in government that would more or less be their demise.
Everything has a season and the season for unions has passed. Most workers will not join unions but Obama and group are standing firmly with them.
Just a note: Seven union bus drivers in Madison were identified in a article I was reading by Ann Coltour. All made over 100,000.00 last year and one made 159,000.00. Retirement benefits for these drivers run about 80% of highest three years salary and this includes health care. (I don't know what everyone else is going to do but I am packing my bag.)
Civil unrest comes to England:
"Hundreds of tax protesters storm the courtroom in England and attempt to make citizens' arrest of a judge.
Raymond Saintclair, who organized the Birkenhead protest, said: "Today was day-one. This is going to happen again and again and again. We have sent a message to this court as one nation and one voice until change comes."
The BCG's main aim is a rallying call for "lawful rebellion." Leaflets handed out by the crowd said: "We, the British People have a right to govern ourselves. "
Novel idea….. Don't you wish we had thought of it...
Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced Wednesday the Department of Education estimates the number of schools not meeting stated federal targets will skyrocket from 37 to 82 percent in 2011 because states are toughening their standards to meet the requirements of the federal law.
So, an estimated 82 percent of U.S. schools could be labeled as "failing" under the nation's 'No Child Left Behind' requirements.
Does anyone wonder what the percentage of schools were failing to do their job before the 'No Child Left Behind' law kicked in? Or possibly, the law kicked in because the same 82 percent were already failing to do their job?
Got an e-mail the other day from a reader who said, "You keep harping on 2012 being harder than 2010. What more do you think we can do?" I wrote him back and asked, "What do you think you can do?" I wasn't trying to be curt in my response but trying (in my poor way) to say Tea Party is just the name given to a grass roots movement... A good one I think.. Grass root movements are simply about one person taking a stand on their beliefs and values along with others who hold similar beliefs and values. When we call our Senator's office that is one voice…The calls are counted one voice at a time. At some point, in every congressional office, there is a tipping point in the numbers. When that point is reached, the congressmen starts paying attention to what's being said.
Returning to the question, "What more can we do?" Well, running the risk of being naïve, let me suggest that if we can't or don't any longer trust our government to run our country and protect the people and our businesses from foreign nations then we must. (Other than WE, I don't see any other hands being raised.) A simple idea we could take on is 'international trade deficits.' (Just for fun.) Lets say 10,000 Tea Party folks in Mississippi chose to not buy $20.00 of foreign made products each week that would equal $200,000.00 in the reduction of the nation's trade deficit. Is this a drop in the bucket? Yes…BUT in a month that number could grow into a million dollars. By the end of the year it could be as much as nine million dollars. Still a drop in the bucket….Here again, just for fun, suppose 500,000 Teaers across this nation participated till the 2012 election lets round this off to about 90 weeks. This equals $900,000,000.00 …BAM...now this number starts to take on real meaning. There are many ways one person plus others who want to make a difference can…Simple choices, over time, will put us back in the driver's seat. If the Teaers were to do such a thing word would get out into the general population. The idea is so simple and the goal so clear that maybe some liberal Republicans, DEMs, and independent voters might come on board with another million people. No matter how the liberal media and the Washington folks spin what the group is doing the fact would be the national 'trade imbalances' particularly with China would start dropping on a daily basis.
For those who are still with me on this math let me point out there is yet another up side to all this…Every dollar we spend on products made in America our GDP goes up even more and with the rise so does the hiring of unemployed Americans.
Its our country and we are going to take it back and keep it safe. Vote with our bucks in one other way each voice can be heard…This a powerful vote.
(Note: When oil reaches about 110 to 120 dollars a barrel the Mideast takes about two billion a week out of our nation and the dollars comes out of each of our pockets. We must get our financial house in order.)
Maine's State constitution required that all men have guns. Those men and those guns were the first line of defense in the protection of the state. I see the Tea Party in similar ways though not with guns but with votes. The vote is the weapon of choice today and the only weapon politicians fear.
The last election the DEMs discounted the Tea Party movement. They will not make that mistake again. They will come after us and anyone we support. They have the money, muscle, and the national liberal media to lead the attack. It will be a full frontal attack….Its going to be ugly and relentless... (Look at Wisconsin these last few weeks. Did that not look like a game of hardball that Walker was in?)
Jumping back to the question, "What more can we do?
We have our State Legislature full of liberal members. So long as they feel safe in their positions they will do what they want. The moment they start getting pressure from their district voters they will start questioning what they are doing. For the most part the people in their district that voted for them have no idea what their congressman is doing. All of these districts have local newspapers. Often read by many voters and then talked about in coffee shops. I think we should start playing hard ball with them on their home turf. Trying to deal with them in hallways in the capitol building is not impacting. Get articles written giving the congressman's voting history. Tell what they voted for and the impact the law has on the voters in their district. If the local papers don't have a real interest in running these articles then pay the paper to run the article as a ad along with their other advertisers. Not just one but a series of articles…Keep the pressure up until the people in the district start questioning their congressman.
Most voters, according to polls, don't have a great deal of confidence in their congressional folks at the state or federal level. However, if the voters knew what their congressman is doing it would seem what little confidence they have would quickly melt.
CNBC
March 8: "Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages"
"Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare programs, and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total income, wages and salaries of the U.S. population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn't taken before the majority of baby boomers enter retirement."
I can't imagine how this news flash got out on CNBC. Could it be that some part of the national media is waking up?
Be sure and watch these two videos….It may take awhile to the load the first video. Also note, this report was not done by the national media nor, to my knowledge, been covered by any of the national media.) The second video will speak for itself. (You may just want to copy these in your browser. If you do this step it will be easy from you to send them to friends…and maybe unschooled voters you might know.)
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/25764282/index..html
http://www.youtube.com/embed/tsH8xvjTAlo
A government for and by the people will be The New Norm.
Ron
docnick37@gmail.com
Http://theoxfordteaparty.blogspot.com
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Does Debt Matter?
Government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. Government does not keep the country free. Government did not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished. (Not sure who said this.)
BUT government for years has gotten in its way….From the thirties on government has entwined itself into the lives of people and business. Little bit here and there till finally a tipping point has been reached. Now what is left is this generation of voters who can't imagine their lives without some form of government social program. This talk of reducing the size and scope of government even somewhat is frightening and I can understand why it frightening. This is not just about this second or third generation welfare recipients but through the mired of social programs, family tax credits, SS, colleges grants, etc.. Many families, if not most, are dependent on government for their standard of living. The effect of just cutting back here and there on the programs will have a impact to some degree on them. With this said, who then is left to make the sacrifice?
Latest and greatest non-politically funded poll:
There are widespread misperceptions about the state of the federal budget. A majority of voters incorrectly believe the federal government spends more on defense/foreign aid than it does on Medicare and Social Security (63%).
Also, a similar majority (60%) incorrectly believes problems with the federal budget can be fixed by just eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Voters do not casually agree with these untruths- at least 40% strongly agree.
Further, less than half (44%) believe Medicare and Social Security costs are a major source of problems for the federal budget (49% disagree).
The waste in government is a strong concern to voters – again 60% believe fixing the waste will solve the nation’s budget problems, and voters say that 42% of each federal dollar is wasted.
Voters are comfortable with significant cuts to the federal budget. First, a majority (53%) of voters have paid “a lot” of attention to the debate over federal budget cuts, and a mere 21% say the $60 billion in cuts that Congress is considering is too high. A plurality (36%) say the cuts are too low, with 31% saying they are about right. (21 % + 31% = 52% )
The political impact for a member(s) who is in favor of the cuts appears to be a net positive. A majority (52%) are more likely to support their members of Congress if he or she supports these cuts, while only 28% are less likely. Support for re-electing a member who votes in favor of these cuts is high among Republicans (67%), and reaches majority support among Independents (54%). At the same time, 45% say they will be negatively impacted by the cuts, while 33% will feel no impact and 13% believe they will be positively impacted.
Voters who said they would be negatively impacted were asked a follow-up, open-ended question, on how they would be impacted. The top response was that it would hurt Social Security and Medicare benefits (22%), followed by “unsure” (17%), and that it would generally cut government services (14%).
Voters are divided on who they would blame if the government is forced to shut down for not having a budget. While 37% would blame the Republicans in Congress, 20% would blame the Democrats in Congress and 22% would blame Obama.
Polls are nothing more or less than a snapshot but here we are trying to get more or less a token cut in spending and there is no real will in the country to do so. Certainly no overall will to do so in our Senate…
What seem most incredible is the folks who benefit most from these social programs seem to have no awareness that the money they receive is taken from their neighbor. What is also incredible is the neighbor doesn't seem to realize the money is taken from them by their government and given to these recipients. Some do....Most don't think about it… Nor do they question all the other ways governments spend their money.
This country is not about to go under but with the passing of each day our standard of living slips. Or national and individual debt goes up. This economic downturn has decimated the middle class the very families who pick up a huge part of the national tax burden.
Last year we added 1,853,000 new people to the country
Labor force dropped 312,000
Those not in the labor force rose to 2,165,000
In Jan (2011) 319,000 dropped out of the work force
In Feb (2011) 87,000 dropped out of the work force
Best estimate is 40 odd million people are on some government support program. Everyone associated with government tells us things are looking better. (I meant to mention to our readers that I got this great buy on the bridge from Vicksburg over into Arkansas. I'm willing to sell an interest in the bridge if anyone wants to get into this really good deal.)
Has anyone noticed that the GOP in both houses are keeping as quiet about what they are doing as the DEMs did? Rand Paul and a couple of others are the exceptions.
More time that passes the more it seems we must raise our goals of electing a majority in both houses and in the process we must be selective and replace many of the old guard…. Time is not on America's side… A welfare system, our medical system, and the national printing press is all under the control of a government that is not responsive to us and do not behave responsibly. A fourteen trillion dollars debt is looming and this group of leaders are fiddling.
Does Debt Matter?
Americans are not pessimists. A their core American are optimists. However, lots of trees makes a forest and what so many American are looking for is a few good trees. Like congress and main stream media voters get caught up in the euphoria of finding the one small tree. (I.E. a 60 billion dollar cut and a 4 trillion dollar budget.) Heaven help us.
Does debt matter? It was and is growing debt and excessive credit that brought this nation to a financial tipping point. National and international credit, for the past ten years, has grown at an annualized rate of approximately 11%, while real GDP has grown approximately 4% over the same timeframe, meaning credit and debt growth has outgrown GDP growth by an astounding 275%.
Many American families have topped even these numbers. So the question of whether or not debt matters can be answered in the number of home foreclosures. If we, the voters, do not keep our family house in financial order we should not expect/demand our government to keep the national house in order. We haven't for the most part and our government certainly hasn't. We intend to balance our check book and they do not. (Turn on any nightly news and listen to our leaders rational.)
Over our history we have endeavored and our perseverance has brought us through many difficult times. During those earlier times we were a different people. We were a group that no one in their right mind wanted to mess with. Our leaders could say we are all going up 'that hill' and we all went up that hill. We did because there was a sense of trust. That trust has been betrayed. The betrayal has fragmented the people. There are no longer shared common beliefs, values,or principles.
A few can't do the lifting for the many.
Once a congressional member has been reelected twice they are very difficult to unseat. Yet,these are the ones we need to re-vet… Do the members have the vision and courage to do the things that needs to be done to put our national financial house in order?….
Historically leaders 'show up' in crisis. Look closely at some of these new governors…. Look at some of the new house members… The leadership that is needed is out there. We just need to find them.
Look ar some of the poll numbers above. Elections are 606 day, 4 hours, 4 minutes till the polls on 2012 elections. If all the Teaers enlighten one person per day, on average, 2012 will become a perfect storm. There are plenty of Rand Paul's out there. We just have to find them and that is our job, our mission, and the nations hope.
A note from our Federal Government.. (CBO)
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POSTS LARGEST DEFICIT EVER
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government will post a $223 billion deficit for the month of February, making it the largest monthly deficit ever posted in U.S. history. (Just a little add-on to brighten your day.)
If its to be its up to we….
Ron
Docnick37@gmail.com
http://theoxfordteaparty.blogspot.com/
BUT government for years has gotten in its way….From the thirties on government has entwined itself into the lives of people and business. Little bit here and there till finally a tipping point has been reached. Now what is left is this generation of voters who can't imagine their lives without some form of government social program. This talk of reducing the size and scope of government even somewhat is frightening and I can understand why it frightening. This is not just about this second or third generation welfare recipients but through the mired of social programs, family tax credits, SS, colleges grants, etc.. Many families, if not most, are dependent on government for their standard of living. The effect of just cutting back here and there on the programs will have a impact to some degree on them. With this said, who then is left to make the sacrifice?
Latest and greatest non-politically funded poll:
There are widespread misperceptions about the state of the federal budget. A majority of voters incorrectly believe the federal government spends more on defense/foreign aid than it does on Medicare and Social Security (63%).
Also, a similar majority (60%) incorrectly believes problems with the federal budget can be fixed by just eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Voters do not casually agree with these untruths- at least 40% strongly agree.
Further, less than half (44%) believe Medicare and Social Security costs are a major source of problems for the federal budget (49% disagree).
The waste in government is a strong concern to voters – again 60% believe fixing the waste will solve the nation’s budget problems, and voters say that 42% of each federal dollar is wasted.
Voters are comfortable with significant cuts to the federal budget. First, a majority (53%) of voters have paid “a lot” of attention to the debate over federal budget cuts, and a mere 21% say the $60 billion in cuts that Congress is considering is too high. A plurality (36%) say the cuts are too low, with 31% saying they are about right. (21 % + 31% = 52% )
The political impact for a member(s) who is in favor of the cuts appears to be a net positive. A majority (52%) are more likely to support their members of Congress if he or she supports these cuts, while only 28% are less likely. Support for re-electing a member who votes in favor of these cuts is high among Republicans (67%), and reaches majority support among Independents (54%). At the same time, 45% say they will be negatively impacted by the cuts, while 33% will feel no impact and 13% believe they will be positively impacted.
Voters who said they would be negatively impacted were asked a follow-up, open-ended question, on how they would be impacted. The top response was that it would hurt Social Security and Medicare benefits (22%), followed by “unsure” (17%), and that it would generally cut government services (14%).
Voters are divided on who they would blame if the government is forced to shut down for not having a budget. While 37% would blame the Republicans in Congress, 20% would blame the Democrats in Congress and 22% would blame Obama.
Polls are nothing more or less than a snapshot but here we are trying to get more or less a token cut in spending and there is no real will in the country to do so. Certainly no overall will to do so in our Senate…
What seem most incredible is the folks who benefit most from these social programs seem to have no awareness that the money they receive is taken from their neighbor. What is also incredible is the neighbor doesn't seem to realize the money is taken from them by their government and given to these recipients. Some do....Most don't think about it… Nor do they question all the other ways governments spend their money.
This country is not about to go under but with the passing of each day our standard of living slips. Or national and individual debt goes up. This economic downturn has decimated the middle class the very families who pick up a huge part of the national tax burden.
Last year we added 1,853,000 new people to the country
Labor force dropped 312,000
Those not in the labor force rose to 2,165,000
In Jan (2011) 319,000 dropped out of the work force
In Feb (2011) 87,000 dropped out of the work force
Best estimate is 40 odd million people are on some government support program. Everyone associated with government tells us things are looking better. (I meant to mention to our readers that I got this great buy on the bridge from Vicksburg over into Arkansas. I'm willing to sell an interest in the bridge if anyone wants to get into this really good deal.)
Has anyone noticed that the GOP in both houses are keeping as quiet about what they are doing as the DEMs did? Rand Paul and a couple of others are the exceptions.
More time that passes the more it seems we must raise our goals of electing a majority in both houses and in the process we must be selective and replace many of the old guard…. Time is not on America's side… A welfare system, our medical system, and the national printing press is all under the control of a government that is not responsive to us and do not behave responsibly. A fourteen trillion dollars debt is looming and this group of leaders are fiddling.
Does Debt Matter?
Americans are not pessimists. A their core American are optimists. However, lots of trees makes a forest and what so many American are looking for is a few good trees. Like congress and main stream media voters get caught up in the euphoria of finding the one small tree. (I.E. a 60 billion dollar cut and a 4 trillion dollar budget.) Heaven help us.
Does debt matter? It was and is growing debt and excessive credit that brought this nation to a financial tipping point. National and international credit, for the past ten years, has grown at an annualized rate of approximately 11%, while real GDP has grown approximately 4% over the same timeframe, meaning credit and debt growth has outgrown GDP growth by an astounding 275%.
Many American families have topped even these numbers. So the question of whether or not debt matters can be answered in the number of home foreclosures. If we, the voters, do not keep our family house in financial order we should not expect/demand our government to keep the national house in order. We haven't for the most part and our government certainly hasn't. We intend to balance our check book and they do not. (Turn on any nightly news and listen to our leaders rational.)
Over our history we have endeavored and our perseverance has brought us through many difficult times. During those earlier times we were a different people. We were a group that no one in their right mind wanted to mess with. Our leaders could say we are all going up 'that hill' and we all went up that hill. We did because there was a sense of trust. That trust has been betrayed. The betrayal has fragmented the people. There are no longer shared common beliefs, values,or principles.
A few can't do the lifting for the many.
Once a congressional member has been reelected twice they are very difficult to unseat. Yet,these are the ones we need to re-vet… Do the members have the vision and courage to do the things that needs to be done to put our national financial house in order?….
Historically leaders 'show up' in crisis. Look closely at some of these new governors…. Look at some of the new house members… The leadership that is needed is out there. We just need to find them.
Look ar some of the poll numbers above. Elections are 606 day, 4 hours, 4 minutes till the polls on 2012 elections. If all the Teaers enlighten one person per day, on average, 2012 will become a perfect storm. There are plenty of Rand Paul's out there. We just have to find them and that is our job, our mission, and the nations hope.
A note from our Federal Government.. (CBO)
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POSTS LARGEST DEFICIT EVER
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government will post a $223 billion deficit for the month of February, making it the largest monthly deficit ever posted in U.S. history. (Just a little add-on to brighten your day.)
If its to be its up to we….
Ron
Docnick37@gmail.com
http://theoxfordteaparty.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)