Category Archives: Federal Gov’t

Talkin’ bout our imperial overlords in Washington, don’tcha know?

One More Question

Leave a reply

Herschel Smith over at the Captain’s Journal has a few questions about the National Security Force being proposed by Obama. They’re good questions, like (paraphrasing):

  • If it’s just as well funded, where’s the money going to come from?
  • If it’s just as well equipped, does that mean tanks, bombers, Strykers?

I’m tempted to make jokes about this organization, such as, “hey, if he wants a civilian defense force, Blackwater’s for hire!” I’ll pass on the snark for once. However, I do have a few questions that aren’t on Herschel’s list, that I’d like to see answered first.

  • What is the purpose of this force?
  • What will it’s training be like?
  • Where will it be deployed?
  • To whom does it answer?
  • What type of people will be recruited?

There are two kinds of security. Internal, and external. Internal security involves police-type work and enforcement of the law on people who don’t want to obey it. External security involves imposition of a national will on another group of people, whether that will is “don’t shoot your neighbor” or “don’t shoot us.” They’re similar in some ways, but different in others. Given the level of combat in Iraq until recently, a “civilian” force would be nothing more than a collection of targets and hostages. I can’t imagine deploying a super-sized LAPD SWAT team to Iraq, and being nearly as effective against insurgents and Iranian-supplied RPG’s, mortars, AK-47’s, IED’s etc., as the military was.

It’s not just a matter of gear, it’s also training and mindset. The military has over 200 years of experience in getting tens of thousands of people performing widely different tasks, and operating on the same page. One of those reasons is military discipline. You disobey an order in the military, your butt can end up in the slammer. (At least.) You don’t obey it in a civilian job, you can be fired. Whoopee. If I’m a civilian security force member, I have to know that the guy next to me can quit at any time; he might not do it in the middle of a fire-fight in Bosnia, but he’s not exactly the Marines when all hell breaks loose This isn’t to say that there aren’t cultural and human imperatives to support a fellow security force member in a tight spot, just that these are MUCH weaker in a force that has no “institutional” memory and little power to punish deserters. If the force does have the power to punish, not just fire, deserters or those who disobey orders, then it’s not civilian. It’s just a military force in disguise. Therefore, I believe this should not be called a “civilian” force, but what it really is: a “quasi-military” force.

So is the plan to deploy a few million heavily-armed, poorly-trained, volunteer targets around the world? That’s going to be popular with the mothers back home…

Or is the National Security force for internal use? Will the act of Congress that authorizes this force permit or bar it from being deployed in the U.S.? If it is meant for domestic use, then it has to be equipped and trained differently from the “lavishly equipped” military. (Ask a soldier sleeping in a tent in Afganistan just how lavish it is…) Lets look at internal use.

Internal security involves the apprehension of those defined as criminals by the government. It will require forensics, detective skills, informants, databases of criminals, and so on. But wait, we already have these in the FBI. Why do we need a large, lavishly equipped force as big as the military to perform these functions? Why do we need three million extra people under arms inside the U.S.? Is our crime problem that bad? Well, you could give the National Security force enough medium or heavy weaponry to suppress violent outbreaks of up to city-wide level. Helluva police force, but otherwise, there’s no point in having it; existing city and state forces, backed up by the National Guard have sufficed. (“But what about Kent State?” screams the audience. Well, what about it? Do we have rioters at our colleges today? If you’re planning on having any, why? And what does Kent State have to do with anything? Four dead rock and bottle throwers no more validates a national security force thirty-five years later, than the Gulf of Tonkien incident would validate our going back to war with Vietnam today.

So, if we assume this force is meant for external use, it will need to have military training, military equipment, and military discipline. You can’t keep the peace if you’re not willing to wage war on those who would break it. And if it’s for internal use, it needs to be equipped to investigate and detain “criminal” elements, plus, at that size, probably it will be used to suppress disorderly elements among the people. So the aim of the force will be obvious from the training and equipment — which we won’t really know until after the force is being formed, will we? So why would we create this big, expensive force, just as Sen. Barney Frank says (paraphrased) “Let’s cut spending on the military by 25%”?

Now the next question is, if you’re going to form this force, to whom will it answer? If it’s civilian, not the Secretary of Defense. If it’s judicial or prosecutorial, the DOJ would be obvious. But that doesn’t fit either. So, if it’s foreign use, it will have to have its own “department” which may or may not be considered cabinet-level. Obviously, if it’s intended for domestic use, Homeland Security would be the right place.

Homeland Security, with its own quasi-military force of 2 to 3 million people. (Why does that make my butt pucker?) Or some new office entirely? (The puckering gets worse.)

And I have to ask, what kind of people will this force recruit? Or will it be “compulsory youth service?” If it’s volunteer, would it be too much to expect that people who think this force is a bad idea from several perspectives would not join it? And if it’s “compulsory youth service” (read: “draft”) would the members be subject to, shall we say, a certain amount of persuasion that they’re doing A Great Thing? Morale boosting along with the training? Hm. Just realized, if it’s compulsory service, there go those pesky problems with discipline in tight spots; you’re not allowed to quit. Maybe that “Q” in “Quasi-military” should be capitalized.

So will this “Quasi-military” forcet have an oath? No, seriously, the military does. The President does. Police Departments do. Hell, doctors have an oath. In the military, every man and woman under arms with the military, takes an oath, although the last sentence is optional. The enlisted oath of office swears that person to obey all lawful orders. But the officers oath is much more interesting.

I, [name], do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (So help me God.)

Will this “Quasi-military” National Security Defense Force have an oath…. and will it contain that specific obligation? Or will it instead, call upon its members to uphold “the lawful Government of the United States?”

Huge. Freaking. Difference.

So tell me again, what is the point of creating a large “Quasi-military” force that is “as big and lavishly equipped as the military” that the Democratic party wants to downsize?

And why is my butt puckering again?

Congress Shall Pass No Law…

Leave a reply

But they might pass an administrative rule. As usual, the Demorats are up to no good. blogHOUSTON gives us a heads up from Rep. Culberson’s website:

Basically, the Democratic-controlled Committee on House Administration is drafting rules that would prohibit House members from posting content on any but “approved” websites. One can only imagine what kind of list the Dems would draw up.

According to the statement, the Democrats are looking at restricting Member content on websites outside the house.gov domain. Congressman Culberson is quickly becoming a “real time representative” by posting on Twitter.com, where he sends regular updates from the House floor and the halls of Congress, and on Qik.com, where he films and posts video updates on the Internet. This new technology allows him to bypass the mainstream media and shine sunlight into the darkest corners of Congress. If the Democrats strong-arm this rule, he would no longer be able to use these websites and our fundamental right to free speech will be taken away.”

Now bear in mind that this is the same Congress that gets to send mail for free (the “franking” privilege); meant for business but often abused during campaign season to send “informative updates” that are not “campaign materials” to everyone in the congressman’s district. Yet the Dems are trying to stifle taxpayer-free or low-cost alternatives used by its own members.

Why am I not surprised? It’s become clear since the 2004 campaign that the real name of the Democratic party is the “Socialist Worker’s Party.” Hail democracy, comrade!

Keeping Fred

3 Replies

Bob Krumm wants to keep Fred Thompson in the race. So do I. A whopping 5 states with only 5% of the delegates have voted so far, and the media is trying to talk him right out of the race. Dammit, I haven’t voted yet, you bastards! So he hasn’t run the greatest campaign on earth. So what? He’s still the best candidate; frankly, he’s better than the party he’s in. (Granted, that doesn’t take much; being in either of the major parties would qualify him.) Anyway, if there were a Jacksonian Party for real, he’d be my nominee for it.

So anyway, I decided I should give $50. Then I started thinking, “Wait, that’s not even one order of animé. I should bump that up to $100. Yeah. No, wait. I’m saying that making Fred Thompson my next president is only as important as one order of animé? Make that $250…” I had to stop myself from eyeing the $500 button… “It’s just half-a-year’s animé,” that seductive voice kept whispering. I mean, I only make a little over $30k a year.

So, I’m going to spread the load a bit. Help Fred out a bit, will ya? Here’s the link to Fred’08, and here’s the donation page. Don’t tell him I sent you. Not that you can…there really ought to be a comment box on the donate page. Then again it might be counterproductive if folks get too wrapped up in writing a comment, and forget the donation.

Edit: They really need to fix the password generator for the Friends of Fred site. It uses punctuation as a part of the password, and I finally figured out that the “.” at the end of the password wasn’t to end the sentence “Your password is:” it was actually part of the password!

A New Force?

Leave a reply

Instapundit links to an article at The Economist, pointing out that the margin of victory in some Democratic wins was less than the number of votes obtained by the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, it then veers off into the “conventional wisdom” that any Republican voting for the Libertarian Party is just shooting themselves in the foot:

And acting as a spoiler is dubiously effective at achieving one’s goals. In theory, it could pull the Repubicans towards the Libertarians, but in practice, it may just elect Democrats, pushing the nation’s economic policy leftwards.

Well, there’s always that fear. The problem is, if we constantly give in to it, nothing will ever change. We have an electorate that is about as restless as it has ever been. We’ve always had a looney left or and a whacko right; but now that the left is about to be unleashed. Hopes that the Democrats won’t be as stupid as the Republicans were have got to be on a par with opium dreams–come on, they’re the Democrats, you know, the ones that almost handed this election back to the Republicans? Will it scare conservatives and centerists back into the Republican fold? That’s what the Republicans have to be hoping today, as they play musical chairs and put new faces to the front.

There’s only one way to get any change in the status quo: break one of the national parties. I had hopes two years ago, that it was going to be the Democrats that would break first, as the last of the “Libermans” gave up the rear-guard action and decided the only sane choice was to split the party. Instead, it’s going to have to be the Republicans. Fiscal and legal conservatives have two enemies in the Republican party: greedy politicians and the religious fanatics. The first is what got us conservatives into this hole, and the second doesn’t care how much power it gives to the government, as long as (their version of ) the bible is law.

I wish it were still possible to build a national party from the ground up in this country, but the truth is, only about 1 person in 100 has enough desire for change to strike out in entirely new directions, and can combine that with enough will to make a change. If that one person wants to influence 50 of the remaining 99, he or she is going to have to already be in a position of leadership. Much as it pains me to admit is, Joe Blogger down the street isn’t going to get it done. But such people of influence are already part of the current Dem/Rep power structure; they generally don’t see any benefit in being revolutionaries and overthrowing the established order.

The only way to bring these people forth is for it to be clear that they will have followers. And as long as the voters continue to deliver votes to a political class that’s all struck from the same mold, discontent, no matter how strong, will continue to be judged within current boundries; a perceived lack of followers ensures a lack of leaders. Therefore, I judge voters for the Libertarian Party in the recent race as not being counterproductive, but registering their discontent. They are asking for a leader to emerge who will not be just another face, telling the same lies.

Will they get one?

That Was Satisfying

Leave a reply

Just got a call asking me to support my Representative for re-election to Congress. “He has worked tirelessly for Senior Citizens…” blah blah blah.

I interrupted, “But he has not worked tirelessly on behalf of those who believe Kelo v. New London was decided incorrectly. I wrote him in regards to that issue and his response was inadequate. Thank you for calling.”

Click.

Unlike some people, I don’t give the paid campaign hacks a chance to argue with me. (Now if I can just remember who that was so I can link it.)

Enron? Dimestore. Get Ready for Fannie Mae

4 Replies

For two years now, a bigger scandal than Enron has been bubbling away quietly, almost ignored by the mainstream media. It certainly has not made the media the way Enron and Worldcom did. Why? Well, maybe because the culprits aren’t evil capitalists; they’re “good socialists” : i.e.: they work for an organization set up by the government and backed by taxpayer funds. Which is why we’ll have to bail out Fannie Mae to the tune of $11 BILLION if it fails. AHI has a good rundown on the events so far.

However, it’s based around all the things that did make it into the media, however obscure the reporting was. What it doesn’t address is this: What is the Fannie Mae’s Foundation’s connection with radical organizations like La Raza, MALDEF, the Lawyer’s Committe on Nuclear Policy, Human Right’s Watch? Well according to this, they help fund them. (Link takes 2-5 minutes to load).

Someone want to explain what a quasi-public entity, whose board is appointed by the president and whose solvency is guaranteed by taxpayer funds, is doing engaging in this sort of nonsense?

Sure Fooled Us, Dubya

2 Replies

And all this time he had us thinking he was so smart he was just looking dumb to make folks misunderestimate him. I began to wonder about his sanity as far back as the Miers nomination. Now… nope, lets face it, he was just plain stupid. Well, he’s just pissed off another (ex-) supporter.

Unless we start seeing a sharp reversal in conduct, I’m done with George W. Bush. This isn’t about politics — it is about the proper stewardship of the laws and the Constitution.

I keep telling people: the Republicans are no longer the answer. Sadly, Ross Perot wasn’t either, being more of a flake than anything else. (Aside: One thing I still want to hear him explain: If NAFTA was going to cause a great big sucking sound as all our jobs went south, why the hell are the Mexicans still coming north?)

So we’re just going to have to form our own party. Jacksonian, anyone?

Ubu to the Republican Party: So Long, and Thanks For All the Pork

4 Replies

And illegal immigration, pork, half-assing the War on Islamofacism, pork, creating another huge bureaucracy, more pork, nearly blowing the SCOTUS picks, and, oh, probably a dozen other little things that don’t quite come up to the level of major grievance, such as not prosecuting seditionists. (As much as I’d like to, I can’t blame you for Banner of the Stars III not being licensed in region 1 yet.)

At this point, I’ve given up on the Republican Party. I’m not voting for them just to keep the Dems out of office. That’s what they want and expect. The only way to remind them of who their bosses are is to humble them. Break them on the anvil of the voting booth, and reforge them into something better.

However, I no longer believe that is likely, and I can’t continue holding my nose and hoping. Therefore, I am no longer a Republican. Henceforth, I am a member of the Jacksonian Party, even if it’s just a party of one. For those who would like to know more about the beliefs of this party, and why Andrew Jackson is it’s namesake, I recommend this article.

DeLay Resigns

3 Replies

Meh. I was, at best, a lukewarm defender; it was more that I hated Ronnie Earle’s prosecutorial misconduct than liked DeLay. Because I didn’t. I’ve disliked him since he got neck-deep into screwing over Metro for about three years; I consider him one of the main reasons that the train is an inner-city boondoggle instead of a commuter rail line like we need. Or does anyone else remember how DeLay blocked federal funding for years in order to prevent Metro from running a line out to his Missouri City base?

Anyway, when I saw that one of his aides had pled guilty, I figured, “Well, maybe there’s some fire behind Ronnie’s smoke after all.” (Remember, those are the trumped-up state charges that I still expect him to beat because they’re essentially ex post facto; it’s the fed charges that nailed his aides.) Evidently, the Feds had a whole lot more on him, and his buddy may roll over and testify against him for a lighter sentence.

See ya later. Ain’t gonna miss ya, Tommy boy.

Eroding Support for DeLay?

Leave a reply

Over at BlogHouston, this thread got a response from the Chronicle to questions raised by Kevin and Evan over the poll data behind the headline I posted the other day.

This “certain and likely Republican primary voters” tab is the source of the 39 percent figure on DeLay GOP primary support; we’ve posted it to the site.

Crosstab Info

So if I’m reading that correctly, DeLay’s support among:

Voters certain to vote in the Republican primary = 54.4% Very or Somewhat Favorable.
Voters certain or likely to vote in the Rep. primary = 50.2% Very or Somewhat Favorable

But the figure that the Chronicle chose to stress was the answer to:
“Four candidates are running in the Republican Primary being held in the 22nd Congressional district. If the election were held today, which of these candidates would you most likely vote for?”
Tom Delay = 38.5%
Despite the fact that:
Don’t know or refused to answer = 52.1%

A rather high %, I agree, especialy in comparison with the 58.2% of respondents that voted for Tom Delay last time.

Continue reading →

Abramoff and “Indian Nickels”

1 Reply

Apparently the Chronicle’s Washington bureau ran out of bad things to say about Tom DeLay, so today’s not-news comes from Janet Elliott of the Austin bureau. Since the Justice Department hasn’t yet produced a smoking gun (or even a smoking cigarette) to link Tommy-boy to some dirty cash, she gets tapped to inform us of Ronnie Earle’s latest fishing expedition: some of Abramoff’s clients donated money to groups linked to DeLay, so by golly, he supoenaed the records!

The group raised $2.5 million from three Abramoff clients, including $1 million from Russian businessmen, the Post reported. Abramoff worked with Buckham to organize a 1997 trip to Moscow by DeLay.

Neither Buckham nor Geeslin could be reached for comment.

Buckham’s lobbying firm, the Alexander Strategy Group, employed DeLay’s wife, Christine, paying her $115,00 during three years. DeLay’s lawyers have said she was paid to determine the favorite charities of members of Congress.

While I’m not defending this sort of thing, I am puzzled as to why it’s only news when Republicans do it. Where do you think all those “Institutes for The Liberal Cause of the Moment” come from, anyway? And where do their “fellows” and “directors” go during Democratic administrations?

(Personal note: I hope Ronnie doesn’t subpoena me for any records of “in-kind” donations to the 1980 Reagan campaign, where I worked as an unpaid volunteer. I totally forgot to get a receipt. I mean, Reagan is sure to have known some people who know some businessmen who gave to Tom DeLay. . . .)

But I’m really posting to draw your attention to Nick Danger’s post over on RedState.com There he reaches back to a 2001 post from the incredible and sexy (drool!) Michelle Malkin, to shed some light on just what Abramoff might have been doing when he disbursed all that money from the Indian tribes –it may not have been theirs to start with:

Continue reading →

The World According to Harry

Leave a reply

“We’ve become like the House of Commons. Whoever has the most votes wins. It hasn’t worked that way in 216 years.” — Harry Reid, House Minority (Democratic) Leader.

Yes, he actually had the nerve to say those words, though whether it was before or after he used a parliamentary trick to shut the Senate down again, I don’t know. You know how it is. Those pesky voters put people in office that they want to pass laws, but God the higher being of your choice / none of the above forbid they be allowed to do their job if they are in the majority.

The mindset of the Democrats has been exposed for all to see. Democrat != Democracy. That != is programmer for “is not equal to.” But in this case, “in opposition to” is more accurate. Anyone know what the symbol is for that one?

The mask is off; vote for a Democrat at your peril.

Gee, nice trophy, Mister!

Leave a reply

That title is meant to be spoken in the “Golly, gee willikers!” type of 1950’s Ron-Howard-as-Opie voice we all learned to know and detest on old weekday re-runs, back before gameshows, Divorce Court, and Oprah took over the airwaves. Well, I learned to detest it, anyway. If you’re under 30, you probably have no memory of that. Lucky you.

So anyway, some folks have what’s called an “I Love Me” wall in their office. It’s the one where they put up all the certificates, awards, plaques, trophies, and everything else they’ve ever been given or won. Now the exact motives for that are often at variance, but the basic motivation is always the same: Pride. Someone’s damn proud of the job they’ve done, and they want you to know it. The absolute top prize in this catagory isn’t something the hang on the wall, though, nor a case to sit in front of it and house all your other trophies. It’s the wall itself–and the building it’s attached to. Getting it named after you, well, that’s the biggest trophy of all.

And it’s got to be a building. I mean, I could say I drove over the “Sidney Sherman Bridge,” and maybe one person in ten (from Houston) would know which one I mean. And how many of you have ever had a desire to roll your eyes at the absurdity of the “Juan Seguin Memorial Interchange?” But everyone would know instantly when I say “Bush Intercontinental” what I mean. Well, technically, that’s a whole complex of buildings and such, which is an even bigger prize than a mere building. So maybe that should be the top prize? Let me think about this…. Houston was named after some Sam that lived in the 19th century. Washington (state) was named after a guy called George. And when you get down to it, “America” is, at it’s base, taken from a mapmaker and braggart named Amerigo Vespucci. Ok, so maybe a mere building isn’t top prize. But it’s the highest prize that anyone can reasonably aspire to these days, I feel certain.

Now back in the old days (circa 1985), there was an ettiquite to this practice. To get a building named after you, you had to have one major qualification: You had to be dead. It’s not like it was a difficult qualification to obtain, but there was also a special qualification, and that varied. Not only did you have to be dead, but you had to qualify as: a politician, an artist, famous, rich, a really smart scientist, a tragic death, or something similar. I remember when my college built a new band building, they named it something snazzy, like “the band building.” The students groaned at the inventiveness, and joked that the administration was only waiting on the band director to die so they could name it after him. Aside: we had a helluva underrated band and drill team. They were better than the state’s biggest college, an SEC member, could boast. Way better.

How silly of us — they eventually named it after a donor, much later. Using dead people may solve any arguments between live egotistical candidates, but money simply trumps them. It was many long years before I became wise in the ways of the college endowment.

But then came the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavillion, and I discovered something new: that the “dead” rule only applied to politicans. Rich folks didn’t have to be dead. I thought it was pretty tacky, and I recall a few people commenting that it was normal to name stuff after dead people, or maybe it was just me commenting to everyone else.

Quickly afterwards though, things went downhill from there. Bush 41 was barely out of office when the airport was named after him. A few eyebrows were raised, but since then, “admirers” have named other buildings after live politicians, or anyone else the owners felt to be a likely candidate. After all, dead people may argue, and live donors may give you money, but live politicians can give you other people’s money. Lots of it. So the sucking up commenced.

Tomorrow, another step forward into the bold new world of political uberclass will be taken. As the Club For Growth reports, Senator Thad Cochrane has named a building for himself. Or seen to it that it will be. Language inserted into the corporate agribusiness subsidy & welfare program agriculture appropriations bill, to be voted on tomorrow, reads:

The Federal facility. . . known as the “Southern Horticultural Laboratoryâ€?, shall be known and designated as the “Thad Cochran Southern Horticultural Laboratoryâ€?…

(Ellipsis mine.)

Yes, that’s right. Senator Cochrane of Mississippi, the chairman of the Appropriations committee, member of the Agriculture Appropriations sub-committe, has given himself an “I Love Me” building in his home state.

Tacky. I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking that’s a nice piece of pork to go after… Mmmmmm. Bacon. Too bad this is in Poplarville, MS instead of Macon, GA. Then we could be makin’ bacon with Macon. (Fans of the South Park DVD’s will get it.)

Miers Some More

Leave a reply

Just got my “Elite Republican” membership card in, much to my surprise. Amazing, and all this time I thought you had to be rich or in business for yourself. But hey, $31k/yr civil servants must be able to make it, since only elites are criticizing Miers, and since I’m criticizing Miers again, I must be an elite, so $31k/yr civil servants. . . Anyway, you get the picture.

So. Is the Republican Party leadershp really this dense? Running away from Porkbusters, bad enough. Sorry, I find recent pretty words by Hastert very unconvincing (of course, this is Novak writing, so he manages to be totally unclear and never mention the blogsphere.). Not sitting Bush down and bitch-slapping him until he shows some freaking sense over Miers is just dumb. Prominent supporters are flip-flopping to oppose her, and Michelle Malkin has got another roundup.

The more Democrats that jump out to defend her, the more I think she should be defeated. After fifty years of approvals (Roberts is the only SCOTUS justice to be approved by a Republican Senate in that long), there is no way in hell I’m going to approve of anyone the Democrats do.