Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 08/15/2013 10:31:47 AM PDT by Nachum
Every day it seems more like the "war on terror" is at home in the U.S. rather than abroad in a foreign country.
Whether it's the NSA denying they scoop domestic communications while their chief tells hackers "we're looking for the terrorist among us," or it's the growing militarization and equipping of domestic police forces, it seems more and more crows keep coming home to roost.
Well, one former Marine colonel has had about enough.
In a rousing confrontation at a local council meeting in Concord, NH, he calls out his government for facilitating what he feels is a needless militarization of a domestic force.
And he should know, he helped build one in Iraq.
"We did everything we could to build the Iraqi Army, and I'm telling you right now, the Department of Homeland Security would kick their butts."
"What we're doing here, and let's not kid about it, is we're building a domestic army and shrinking the military because the government is afraid of its own citizens ... "
"The last time 10 terrorists were in the same place at the same time was September 11th, and all these [armored] vehicles wouldn't have prevented it, nor would they have helped anything."
"We're building an Army over here and I can't believe people aren't seeing it, is everybody blind?"
Watch:
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotsforamerica.ning.com ...
"How could they not know?" [regarding US intelligence gathering on the Boston and Fort Hood terrorists]
pfflier & Boogieman replied, including these quotes at #14 and #30:
Billions of messages in internet traffic how would you find the ones that are relevant?and
No matter how good their software is, it still can only catch a tiny percent of the types of communications that they are looking for.
I don't know what news forums you are reading, but I have read several articles posted here about the specific terrorism related information that was gathered about the Boston and Fort Hood terrorists before their terrorism.
Thank you. I think underestimating the power of the government has been our undoing. And lots of people still underestimate it.
Leader?
Well Jesus is still calling “YOO HOO” across the ages...
Whip Satan and everything else falls in place.
Most prayer of the kind you speak of, I’m afraid, is uttered in a bedeviled fog. It should be more like: “Jesus! You’re the eternal winner, the everlasting champion! We love You! O, glorify Yourself in [name situation]!” We seem to be allergic to the idea that someone might think us like the fanatic Muslims who howl to “Allah,” oh my we must pray politely! Hog wash. God’s raised up these powerfully destructive pagans in part to make us jealous for His glory again, but we won’t get the hint!
How about underestimating BOTH the power, AND the willingness, of the One upon whose shoulders will be the government?!?
This is not rocket science here!
Call vigorously and audaciously for blessings, exalting the Lord, and it kicks Satan’s behind. With Satan licked, the power of the evil human government is undermined. (I did not mean to rhyme here but hey! when I’m on a roll.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've gotta have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
[Obama - July 2, 2008 - Colorado Springs, CO]
and also at 16:42 in this longer clip. . .
Well said. Thank you.
"What we're doing here, and let's not kid about it, is we're building a domestic army and shrinking the military because the government is afraid of its own citizens ... "
A MUST READ.... We don't have forever to stop this insanity... or at this point in time - to expose them.
The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.
The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against.
As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.
This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861.
Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.
======================================
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE PREAMBLE “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...”
What came after the Declaration of Independence was the "bill of particulars" against the colonial ruler--King George III ---that justified the declaration and subsequent colonial rebellion.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,” reads one of Jefferson’s indictments against the king.
(A more than ample description of our govt under Obama.)
It is a pity that so few, today, actually read the full document--it isn't really that long--in context. It is quoted out of context by the Leftists, but Conservatives need to understand that read in context it is a very powerful key to understanding just how flawed is the prevailing approach in Washington, both from an American & a Natural Law approach to the realities of Government & society.
William Flax
Checks And Balances--The Constitutional Structure For Limited And Balanced Government---to guard the people's liberty against government power.
The Constitution was devised with an ingenious and intricate built-in system of checks and balances to guard the people's liberty against combinations of government power.
It structured the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent as to function, but coordinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpations of power. Only by balancing each against the other two could freedom be preserved, said John Adams.
Another writer of the day summarized clearly the reasons for such checks and balances:
• "If the LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL powers are united, the MAKER of the law will also INTERPRET it (constitutionality).
• Should the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE powers be united... the EXECUTIVE power would make itself absolu te, and the government end in tyranny.
• Should the EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL powers be united, the subject (citizen) would then have no permanent security of his person or property. "INDEED, the dependence of any of these powers upon either of the others ... has so often been productive of such calamities... that the page of history seems to be one continued tale of human wretchedness." (Theophilus Parsons, ESSEX RESULTS)
What were some of these checks and balances believed so important to individual liberty? Several are listed below:
• HOUSE (peoples representatives) is a check on SENATE - no statute becomes law without its approval.
• SENATE is a check on HOUSE - no statute becomes law without its approval. (Prior to 17th Amendment, SENATE was appointed by State legislatures as a protection for states' rights - another check the Founders provided.)
• EXECUTIVE (President) can restrain both HOUSE and SENATE by using Veto Power.
• LEGISLATIVE (Congress - Senate & House) has a check on EXECUTIVE by being able to pass, with 2/3 majority, a bill over President's veto.
• LEGISLATIVE has further check on EXECUTIVE through power of discrimination in appropriation of funds for operation of EXECUTIVE.
• EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE in filling important posts in EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
• EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE before treaties with foreign nations can be effective.
• LEGISLATIVE (Congress) can conduct investigations of EXECUTIVE to see if funds are properly expended and laws enforced.
• EXECUTIVE has further check on members of LEGISLATIVE (Congress) in using discretionary powers in decisions regarding establishment of military bases, building & improvement of navigable rivers, dams, interstate highways, etc., in districts of those members.
• JUDICIARY is check on LEGISLATIVE through its authority to review all laws and determine their constitutionality.
• LEGISLATIVE (Congress) has restraining power over JUDICIARY, with constitutional authority to restrict extent of its jurisdiction.
• LEGISLATIVE has power to impeach members of JUDICIARY guilty of treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors.
• EXECUTIVE (President) is check on JUDICIARY by having power to nominate new judges.
• LEGISLATIVE (Senate) is check on EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY having power to approve/disapprove nominations of judges.
• LEGISLATIVE is check on JUDICIARY - having control of appropriations for operation of federal court system.
• LEGISLATIVE (Peoples Representatives) is check on both EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY through power to initiate amendments to Constitution subject to approval by 3/4 of the States.
• LEGISLATIVE (Senate) has power to impeach EXECUTIVE (President) with concurrence of 2/3, of members.
• The PEOPLE, through their State representatives, may restrain the power of the federal LEGISLATURE if 3/4 of the States do not ratify proposed Constitutional Amendments.
• LEGISLATIVE, by Joint Resolution, can terminate certain powers granted to EXECUTIVE (President) (such as war powers) without his consent.
• It is the PEOPLE who have final check on both LEGISLATIVE and EXECUTIVE when they vote on their Representatives every 2 years, their Senators every 6 years, and their President every 4 years. Through those selections, they also influence the potential makeup of the JUDICIARY.
It is up to each generation to see that the integrity of the Constitutional structure for a free society is maintained by carefully preserving the system of checks and balances essential to limited and balanced government. "To preserve them (is) as necessary as to institute them," said George Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
http://www.nccs.net/articles/ril31.html
“I don’t know what news forums you are reading, but I have read several articles posted here about the specific terrorism related information that was gathered about the Boston and Fort Hood terrorists before their terrorism.”
Yes, in those cases, I think they had enough info to look a lot closer at those guys and they dropped the ball for some reason. But those weren’t the only events the poster was talking about, and it seemed like they were under the impression that the NSA spying program was a magic ball that should have caught every terrorist from 9/11 on up. We’re not living in “Minority Report” yet, so that’s just a silly idea to have.
That was after killing millions. I would hope it could be stopped sooner here.
I would ask many here: Are you blind? Probably at least half were perfectly all right with the activities of Law enforcement after Boston. At least half are all right with law enforcement “check points” on our public roads. At least half are perfectly OK with “stop and frisk” the way it’s conducted in New York City.
But, what’s a little Liberty if it means security, right?
The only ways to detect that using electronic surveillance would be incredible luck on the part of the analysts or incredible stupidity on the part of the terrorists. And that assumes there are emissions to analyze.
The only plausible way to detect something like that would be HUMINT that would point to an electronic source that could be monitored and analyzed..
Its called bread and circuses to keep the peasants occupied.
In this case its Obama, Dems and the GOP that are providing the circus and the ‘bread’ is food stamps and O-care.
Living in Maryland I have no expectations of freedom here, till I can leave if that day ever comes.
Florida’s kind of nutty but it’s nice here... think about it as an option...
Well said. The administration has no real political opposition and we have a void of honest and moral leadership.
” “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,” reads one of Jefferson’s indictments against the king.
(A more than ample description of our govt under Obama.) “
Our situation is just as bad.
Crisis, reaction, solution.
Government creates (or allows) an event to happen. People demand the government do something. They do. Pretty clear to me.
These measures have always been about tyranny toward the American citizenry. People are getting what they have demanded. Government is always happy to oblige.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.