-
America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution
July 16, 2010 | 649 comments
-
Reflection on Brains and Barack
March 31, 2010 | 149 comments
-
CIA’s Vulnerability Is Congenital
January 11, 2010 | 54 comments
-
Obama’s Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
November 7, 2009 | 6 comments
-
How Our Best and Brightest Think
July 22, 2009 | 35 comments
Feature
From Citizens to “Stakeholders”: The New American Constitution
Or just call it the New Obama Constitution.
(Page 3 of 4)
The same was true of other social entities. Perón established an industrial bank, which engaged explicitly in preferential lending. Some sectors—e.g., agricultural export—had a harder time getting loans because they did not fit his view that Argentina should disengage from Britain as much as possible. Others, especially industrialists whose plans fit with his economic nationalism, got easy terms. Especially favored were vehicles, machinery, pharmaceuticals, plastics. Tariff policy served the same ends. Within each sector, executives who showed themselves most harmonious got preferential treatment for government contracts. In sum, the partnership of management, labor, and government yielded impressive profits to the partners while impoverishing the nonpartners and disempowering all but the Perónists.
The Argentine regime of the 1940s and '50s, the echoes of which endure in our time, was possible only because it was upheld by the pseudo-religious worship of Juan Perón’s wife, Evita—a phenomenon all the more significant for being so unlikely. Only because millions of otherwise intelligent people were so emotionally addled as to importune the Vatican to declare Evita a saint could they overlook the ruin that her husband’s regime was bringing upon them. Privilege kept the regime together at the top, while enthusiasm about Juan and veneration of Evita made the unprivileged feel good about themselves.
Mexico
THE INSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTY (PRI) that stamped its character on Mexico from 1934 to 1990 developed out of the circumstances of the Mexican revolution of 1910, not from ideas. Nevertheless, that shape belongs to the same genus as that of the constitutions we are considering, and as such sheds further light on the nature of that genus.
For more than three decades prior to the revolution, Mexico had been ruled by the technocratic dictator Porfirio Díaz, under the forms of a U.S.-style constitution. But neither Díaz, nor his technocrats, nor the figurehead congressmen really represented the country’s increasingly antagonistic prominent citizens, some based on the land, some in industry, others in the army, all well armed. From start to finish, the revolution was about which of these claimants would be left standing, and what he would do with the others’ retinues. After nearly 14 bloody years, the winner was Plutarco Elías Calles who, having physically eliminated his opponents’ retinues, spent the next four years persecuting Christians with fire and sword. In 1934 Calles made Lázaro Cárdenas president, thinking he would be his tool, but who arrested him and pacified the country by institutionalizing the ruling party. In sum, the PRI, as it was named in 1938, was all about Mexico’s barons agreeing to share the loot in peace under any given president, while jockeying for a better share under the next one—including the labor and peasant leaders who kept their charges in line and passed the crumbs to them.
The PRI made small farmers members of the National Peasant Confederation (CNC), and enrolled wage workers, by sector, into the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM). Each of these became a “sector” of the party, along with the “military sector” and the “popular sector.” The military sector was then folded into the popular one, and that effectively subdivided into interest groups both functional and geographic. That the party secured the loyalty of each group’s leaders by franchising to them the power to extort from those below their level, which power subsequent levels franchised further down in ways that we characterize as corrupt, is less interesting than the fact that the PRI’s essence is unremarkable in the modern world: Government power organizes society into groups that agree to be thus organized in exchange for the wealth that comes from privileged power over their subordinates, subject only to demonstrating loyalty to the system.
Officially anti-Christian, the PRI tried to build an official culture for Mexico that would legitimize its rule and fulfill the people’s longing for moral meaning. That culture had three components, touted on murals, in curricula, and in subsidized literature: “We are all Indians, and ours is the continuation of a glorious pre-Columbian history.” “The Gringos stole our land, try to oppress us in countless ways, but we resist them heroically.” “Unlike and against the Gringos, we are part of the world’s progressive movement, and believe that the state exists to take care of the people.” These myths, along with patronage backed by force, made modern Mexico what it is.
The European Union
THE EUROPEAN UNION uses the word harmony arguably more than any
other to describe what it is about. The ideas of Jean Monnet and
friends in the 1920s that germinated into the
1956 Treaty of Rome and eventually the EU arose out of the desire
to restore some of the harmony that World War I had destroyed. It
is difficult to overstate the contrast between how freely persons,
goods, and ideas moved throughout Europe before 1914 and the
passports and protectionism that persisted after the war. It is
just as difficult to argue against the widespread sense that, prior
to 1914, increased popular representation had made governments
throughout Europe more bloody-minded than they had ever been. For
Monnet and other heirs to the 18th-century Physiocratic tradition
of Diderot, the path to peace and prosperity lay in de-emphasizing
political repre sentation. If people could be habituated to
treating each other as valued suppliers and customers rather than
as political adversaries, then they would live in peace and
prosperity once again.
World War II flattened the remaining obstacles in the way of Monnet’s vision by discrediting what was left of nationalism in Europe. By the late 1940s the need to eat and to be warm had overwhelmed all political questions except whether to align with America or with Stalin—for most, not much of a question. Moreover Germany’s Konrad Adenauer, France’s Charles de Gaulle, and Italy’s Alcide de Gasperi, the principal figures of postwar Europe, advocated both siding with America and European integration. As Catholics and patriots, they envisaged a Europe of nations governed by elected representatives. Theirs would have been a chastened, wiser version of pre-1914 Europe. They supported the Treaty of Rome’s integration of European markets, sector by sector, under a European Commission, as part of a “political Europe.” Their vision failed because there was little political substance left in European hearts and minds, and no sentiment for common, purposeful political existence. Hence the technocratic work of the Commission ended up being all the Europe that’s there.
The fact that the EU deals with people’s lives technocratically does not negate the political character of the things it touches. Who is to rule over whom? Who will gain and who will lose? What kinds of activities, what sort of life do we encourage, what do we discourage, and what do we prohibit? What do we honor and what do we dishonor? What, if anything, do we kill and die to protect, or to destroy? Since 1993 the European Union’s Commission, courts, and parliament have made countless decisions about such matters as well as about the length of condoms and the specifications of lawnmowers. Their decisions about energy have made scores of billionaires, while other decisions about agriculture and fishing have put thousands out of business. Their decisions about what constitutes human rights have effectively promulgated a moral code common to Europe’s ruling class but alien to all of Europe’s nations. Nor does anyone pretend that these decisions emanate from “the people” of Europe, since perhaps the sole item concerning European affairs on which there is unanimity is that the European Union suffers from a “democratic deficit.” Lack of popular mandate notwithstanding, the EU is especially active in cultural affairs, specifically rejecting Christianity as even one among the bases for its legitimacy. The EU is very loud in affirming its own moral superiority, but this substantively empty claim moves no hearts.
Our New Foundation?
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES between the New Foundation that President Obama is instituting and the regimes of the European Union, or of 1920s Italy, PRI Mexico, or Perón’s Argentina are beside the fact that all are variants of one kind of rejection of liberal representative government. What does this rejection mean in America? Here is how it works among us.
Arguably the main American constitutional event of 2008-09 was the passage under the Bush administration, with support from future president Obama as well as from virtually all the nation’s major interest groups, of a $700 billion bill to purchase “troubled assets” from big banks. All agreed that unless the government were given this huge sum with unprecedented latitude and in a hurry, the average American would see his life’s savings disappear. By 2008 the hurried demand for large, unspecified powers under the threat of imminent disaster was no longer exceptional. The Obama administration made it the rule, and used the money to build its “New Foundation.”
The Obama team (different from its predecessor only in degree) purchased few “troubled assets.” With most of the money it bought stakes in the biggest banks, with which it leveraged them to support its political agenda, including the takeover of General Motors and Chrysler, which Obama had also made dependent on the government by lending them “troubled asset” money. Chrysler (with GM to follow) having failed financially, the Obama administration forced it to give a 55 percent stake in itself to the United Auto Workers union, a major constituent of the Democratic Party. The government took the next 30 percent, and gave the remainder to Italy’s Fiat, in exchange for management and technology. In so doing and against bedrock bankruptcy law, it gave some 43 cents on the dollar to the UAW’s unsecured interest in the company and only 28 cents to secured creditors. Meanwhile, part of the deal worked out with the favored stakeholders was that they would produce mainly small cars, with better fuel economy. But few believed that the American public would buy them. Doing this lent support to the administration’s claim of moral authority as savior of the earth from global warming. In an event that would have been unremarkable in Europe or the Third World, the Obama administration took assets from persons independent of it, transferred them to political allies, and bolstered in the popular mind the rationale for its rule.
Robert Rosencrans| 9.8.09 @ 7:48AM
Great article!
Richard Baker| 9.8.09 @ 7:54AM
The Founding Fathers were the most profound political thinkers in history. I'll stand with them and not these artificial substitutes.
S.L. Toddard| 9.8.09 @ 8:19AM
"To object that there is nothing in our Constitution that empowers the government to make deals with some private citizens at the expense of other private citizens or otherwise to shape citizens' lives involuntarily is to have failed to notice that a new constitution has largely superseded the one ratified in 1789."
The one ratified in 1789 declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and the Convention Against Torture treaty - the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution - mandates prosecution of alleged torture crimes.
So, does everyone agree that we should follow the Constitution as it was ratified in 1789, or do we agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?
Louis Jenkins| 9.8.09 @ 8:32AM
"I'm going to get everybody concerned around a big table where all can express their views and their needs."
He left out the those who believe in the Constitution as it was written by the founders. I guess we're not part of the concerned. The Tree of Liberty needs some fertilizer.
Lincoln0583 | 9.8.09 @ 10:20AM
The New American Constitution will be more chance,good!
If you want to buy Nike dunks sb shoes,you can clik site below:
If you want to buy Nike dunks sb shoes,you can clik site below:
Da Dog| 9.8.09 @ 10:24AM
It is a real shame that most of the people who support this administration lack the intellect to understand just what this wannabe dictator has in mind for them. God help us all.
Lincoln0583 | 9.8.09 @ 10:31AM
The New American Constitution will be more chance,good!
If you want to buy Nike dunks sb shoes,you can clik site below:
http://www.dunksbonline.com/me.....c-302.html
Kurt| 9.22.09 @ 8:47PM
Why; anybody that got through this would know better. Shut the f up and quit polluting valuable space before somebody decides to superceed the constitution and shut you up BY LAW! OOps. I thought he could hear me.
Micheal Tomlinson| 9.8.09 @ 11:36AM
Who can doubt Constitutional lawyer Barack Hussein Obama? How dare anyone question his motives or ask to see his law school transcripts. He's told you he was tops in his class and that should be good enough. Asking for his law school transcripts is like asking to see his birth certificate -- a right wing ploy to prove he's a liar.
If tyranny is good enough for the Iranians it is good enough for us . Who can doubt the benefits of the UN telling us how to defend our country, sharia law, isolationism, putting women in their place and letting the Palestinians get those pesky Jews in Israel?
Even Hitler apologist Pat Buchanan, Obamacon Peggy Noonan and S. L. Toddard have praised Obama in some form or fashion and embraced elements of his agenda. Who are we to doubt them, Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews?
Who needs a Constitution when we have Barack Hussein Obama?
Kurt| 9.22.09 @ 8:52PM
Or Lincoln taking over Maryland thus proving that Federal power is the ultimate. Or FDR telling poor folks that if they choose birth control he will feed the family. Obama is but a symptom of the ignorance and the greed. God help us indeed!
S.L. Toddard| 9.8.09 @ 11:38AM
"Who needs a Constitution when we have Barack Hussein Obama?"
The United States Constitution - which you pretend to revere - declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and the Convention Against Torture treaty - the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution - mandates prosecution of alleged torture crimes.
So, Mike, should we follow the Constitution or do you agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?
Kurt| 9.22.09 @ 8:55PM
We should do our best to protect the the citizenary of this country-not force them into tyranny.
Al Adab| 9.8.09 @ 12:06PM
Toddard:
You are repeating yourself man. Apparently OCD has taken control of your mind. Usually your comments have some value.
Over the last Oh, say seventy years, our failure to adhere to the Constitution in the name of expediency has caused us myriad woes. Now, President Obi-One ,aka Al Naqis, clearly calls our attention to the fact that we honot our Constitution only in the breech.
If we are in fact becoming the state outlined above a new world order is upon us. The remaining question is: How can Citizens defend their Constitution against their government? Several states have recently rediscovered the Tenth amendment. Perhaps there is Hope after all.
Kurt| 9.22.09 @ 8:58PM
Yeah, until someone is told they might get their federal milk tit taken away.
Big J| 9.8.09 @ 12:08PM
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment:
Signatures to the UN Convention against Torture
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture and made declaration, under Article 22, that they agree to allow individual complaints to the Committee against Torture
Algeria
Argentina
Austria
Canada
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Uruguay
Yugoslavia
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture
Australia
Belize
Brazil
Cameroon
Chile
Colombia
Cyprus
Egypt
Estonia
Germany
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Jordan
Libya
Mexico
Nepal
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Senegal
Somalia
Uganda
United Kingdom
Venezuela
Yemen
States which have Ratified the Convention Against Torture and made declaration, under Article 28, that they do not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture to investigate allegations of widespread torture within their boundaries
Afghanistan
Belarus
Bulgaria
China
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Israel
Ukraine
States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture
Belgium
Bolivia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Gabon
Gambia
Iceland
Indonesia
Morocco
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
Sudan
United States of America
Created on July 14, 1994 / Last edited on January 25, 1997
Get a life, Toddard. At the very least, get your facts straight. Your ignorance is on display for the rest of the world to see.
Kurt| 9.22.09 @ 9:03PM
The UN? The folks who see no problem sending child molesters into peacekeeping missions? Indeed the UN is the driving force behind what is ailing us today. They know you can't handle yourself so they will do it for you-will you accept?
S.L. Toddard| 9.8.09 @ 12:14PM
ROFL
The U.S. ratified the treaty in October, 1994.
Now, as I was asking (I just can't seem to get an answer on this): The United States Constitution - which you pretend to revere - declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and the Convention Against Torture treaty - the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution - mandates prosecution of alleged torture crimes.
So, should we follow the Constitution or do you agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?
Big J| 9.8.09 @ 12:37PM
Alright, toddard. Someone needs to update the U.N. website, and I concede. The Senate did ratify this in '94.
How many investigations do you actually want?
How many officials need to classify waterboarding as "not torturous" for you to set aside your witch hunt?
How much proof do you need that your family was kept safe because of the so-called "failed policies" of the last 8 years?
What are YOU willing to sacrifice for political expediency?
And what, pray tell does your posting have to do with the article posted here?
None of these will be answered with any relevance whatsoever. You are not capable. Your hatred for the Bush administration clouds your common sense. You are not alone in your BDS, but you are in the minority.
The bible says turn the other cheek. I personally guarantee you that if a thug or group of them broke into my house with the intent of and / or the success of kidnapping, raping or murdering my wife, there would be no turning. If my philosophy were any different, I would hope for my wife's sake that she would seek a more suitable partner.
I wonder what yours think about your viewpoints?
Alright, back to the broken record. "The constitution, blah, blah, blah,...."
I feel for Mrs. S.L.
S.L. Toddard| 9.8.09 @ 12:54PM
“Alright, toddard. Someone needs to update the U.N. website, and I concede. The Senate did ratify this in '94.”
That's quite alright. I’ve done the same thing.
“How many investigations do you actually want?”
One investigation sufficient to the task, though it would (by the very nature of the allegations) have to be massive, and should start with those who authorized and ordered torture and work its way down to the actual torturers.
“How many officials need to classify waterboarding as "not torturous" for you to set aside your witch hunt?”
The Attorney General of the United States himself classified it as torture. That being said, the torture that took place went well beyond water torture. Over a hundred people died in our torture chambers, remember.
“How much proof do you need that your family was kept safe because of the so-called "failed policies" of the last 8 years?”
First I would need some proof that my family was in danger, I suppose. I’ve yet to see any. Then I suppose we’d need to start a whole new conversation, since whether or not torture “worked” is entirely irrelevant as to whether laws were broken and our Constitution violated.
“What are YOU willing to sacrifice for political expediency?”
I don’t understand the question.
“And what, pray tell does your posting have to do with the article posted here?”
Oh – I was just pointing out how disingenuous is the selective reverence for the Constitution around here. People here generally only care when the Democrats violate the Constitution. When the GOP violates the Constitution these same people bend over backwards to justify it, as you yourself are doing. That’s because you and people like you are Republican Party loyalists, not Conservatives or Constitutionalists.
“None of these will be answered with any relevance whatsoever.”
Wrong. I’m the one who *doesn’t* dodge questions here. You’re thinking of… everyone else.
Joe| 9.8.09 @ 1:17PM
S.L. Toddard, there was no torture. Get that through your obviously thick head!!!
S.L. Toddard| 9.8.09 @ 1:36PM
"S.L. Toddard, there was no torture"
What kind of person, wholly ignorant of the truth, would make such a bizarre claim based solely on their own wish that it were true? A child. Really, a toddler. Only toddlers cannot distinguish between the world as it is and the world as they wish it was. Sad.
That being said, torture is *alleged* to have taken place, and investigations and prosecutions are mandated by law. If no torture took place then investigations will clear those wrongly accused, so all the toddlers who claim "there was no torture" should also support investigations... that is, if they're being genuine.
Dixie Pixie| 9.8.09 @ 1:56PM
The main problem with “Stakeholder Government” is that the governments are notoriously fragile. The reasons are both simple and obvious.
Reason One:
A man will fight and die for many ideals like God, Country, Family, Friendship. And Religion, but dieing for the profit margins of AT&T is not among them. After all the purpose of current corporation structure is to concentrate wealth and power at the top of the corporate pyramid. Anyone dieing, wounded or maimed for a corporation obviously will not see any of the resulting corporate profit. So it is not in any workers interest to fight or even care about any change in management. The result is no one cares if a invader overthrows a corporation or nations management. Why support a government / corporation when you will not be supported by that government / corporation. Consider that Italy changed governments with the winds. No Italian government was stable because it was “Stakeholder Government”.
Reason Two:
In a “Stakeholder Government” wealth, property, opportunity, social position, corporate and governmental positions are granted by government fiat. The social result is nothing is socially stable. What government can grant, government can take away. Why should the citizens support such a government? The answer is the citizens do not. The government then has to rely on military force to stay in power as any social organization can overthrow the government with the citizens implicit consent. Not surprisingly sooner or later the Military will overthrow and takeover a “Stakeholder Government” just like Argentina.
Reason Three:
When all the wealth of a nation is dispersed among the population then there is no attraction for any potential invader. After all the purpose of an invasion to gain the nations wealth for the invader which is difficult to impossible when wealth is dispersed. The situation is reversed when wealth is concentrated at the nations governmental capital. The nation wealth becomes a irresistible attraction to a invader. After all the wealth is both localized, portable and spendable. Usually a small well trained force can overcome the target government. Think Cortez's conquest of Mexico.
Put it all together and Obama's conceived goal is a government where wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of an enlightened and socially just leadership. What he will get is the opposite of what he intended. Think political chaos as everyone fights for the top slot and the wealth and power it will bring. Think of the recent history of the Congo as America's future under Obama's wishes. Best of luck with that future. You will need it.
JustRuss| 9.8.09 @ 2:01PM
On the one hand, *allegations* of torture need to be investigated. If it is found that these people are indeed guilty according to the treaty. They should be punished.
The punishment that goes along with the crime of Torture in order to keep your country and family safe is something you should accept before proceeding with said act.
However;
It is already happening in waves, Lefty groups are begining an assault on the system in an attempt to overwhelm it. A single Nature group (can't remember the name right off) filed petition for 600+ species to be added to the endagered species list recently on a single application. A single application is required by our own laws to be investigated and turned around within a certain time frame. Otherwise someone at the whitehouse gets to start tweaking laws and procedures until the system is optimized to the Presidents liking.
If we begin to overwhelm our system with investigations into accusations and alleged torture it might soon become overwhelmed as well leading to more tweaking of the law.
In this instance I say we stand with the Constitution, but beware the plotters.
Grandanne| 9.8.09 @ 2:13PM
Shareholders can include illegal immigrants, Citizens do not.
S.L. Toddard| 9.8.09 @ 2:15PM
JussRuss - you're correct on ALL COUNTS. That assault on the system is one of the reasons we need to stress States' Rights, decentralization and subsidiarity. When power is hyper-centralized in the hands of a few elites (and against the express dictates of the Constitution) as it is in Washington it becomes far easier for special interest groups to influence. We need to transfer to the States the powers delegated to them via the 10th Amendment and work to decentralize power in general from the Fed to the States, from the states to counties, and from counties to cities, towns and neighborhoods.
craig henry | 9.8.09 @ 3:13PM
Bravo! Great article.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.8.09 @ 3:47PM
As one who believes 100% in the Constitution I’d lay down my life to defend it - something rare among Americans and stands in sharp contrast to those who have concocted a fictionalized version of US history to promote an isolationist and/or appeasement agenda detrimental to our nation's security.
A review of US history from Washington to Obama reveals the US has had interaction with foreign nations since its beginning. It was the Jay Treaty and President Washington’s moderately pro-British policies that led pro-Jacobin Thomas Jefferson to craft our modern two-party system, Washington who sent representatives overseas to negotiate treaties and policies without legislative approval and Washington who laid the foundations for an undeclared or Quasi War with France. Like so much of our political history George Washington, our truly greatest President, laid the foundations for modern America.
Of course, as one who believes the US and not the UN or international law establishes our foreign and domestic policy, I oppose the Obama administration’s political witch hunt to persecute former administration officials and agents of the US government. The interrogation techniques used against non-US citizens (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri) were deemed legal and only later dubious legal and Constitutional actions at the behest of foreign powers and groups have brought them into question.
If Obama, Democrats and their supporters were interested in justice and not merely trying to prop up or divert attention from an unpopular White House then the Clinton administration, the chief architect of America’s policy of rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques, would be under scrutiny too. Yet, Clinton is ignored. Political partisanship and not justice motivates Obama and his henchmen.
I’m surprised how quickly self-described defenders of the Constitution are willing to subvert US sovereignty to placate anti-American institutions and reward petty political partisanship.
S.L. Toddard| 9.8.09 @ 4:03PM
"Of course, as one who believes the US and not the UN or international law establishes our foreign and domestic policy"
That's fine if you believe that, but you're wrong. Article 6 of the Constitution establishes that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
"As one who believes 100% in the Constitution..."
The United States Constitution - which you pretend to revere - declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and the Convention Against Torture treaty - the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution - *mandates prosecution* of alleged torture crimes.
So, should we follow the Constitution or do you agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?
Dixie Pixie| 9.8.09 @ 4:18PM
Upon further reflection, I now think a “Stakeholder Government” is a stepping stone to a full scale African style National Liberation government. For those of you who fell asleep during recent Africa History, a National Liberation government always degrades to a strong-man style government. In a National Liberation government a “Great Leader” partitions bits and pieces of the government and economy to his political supporters in exchange for their loyalty. The “Great Leader” supporters run their fiefdoms for their economic gain. As a result the country is asset-stripped down to the bare rock.
Consider Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe.
Consider the “Czars” have no purpose unless they are a replacement for the current Cabinet style government. Once the Czars are trained the current executive branch can be dismissed and Czars will rule the executive branch by fiat. The rest of the government will soon follow then the private economy will be consumed. At that point a full National Liberation Government will be a accomplished fact.
Be advised most of the “Czars” are admirers of the African Liberation movements. What we could be looking at is National Liberation from above.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.8.09 @ 4:59PM
Funny that an isolationist wants to turn the interpretation of US law over to the UN. You need to be consistent Toddard -- either you are an isolationist or you aren't.
Interpreting our Constitution, laws and treaties is not the purview of the UN or other foreign entities. You may not like that, but it is still reality in the US despite Obama and Democrats.
I agree with the US Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that concluded water boarding 3 Muslim terrorists was legal ipso facto not torture (thus protecting the Clinton and Bush administrations and the interrogators). That the current occupant of the White House and his lackeys interpret it differently does not justify their persecution of those who have a different interpretation. Politicizing policy and legal differences is a hallmark of petty dictators like Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe (allies of Barack Obama and his toady Eric Holder).
What you, Obama and Democrats want to do is legitimize partisan political reprisals as “Constitutional law” thereby destroying the very principles of the Constitution and democratic process. If we go down this path then every time there is a Democrat administration (Republicans are never as petty or partisan) they’ll use the “legal system” to exact revenge on the previous Republican administration and their current political enemies. Such a scenario should terrify all Americans who value liberty and our Constitution’s protections. If anyone is treating our Constitution indifferently it is those who would use it as a tool for petty political payback (i.e., you and Obama).
Hopefully, with a new Congress and President in power in 2012 legislation will be passed that makes it clear foreign terrorists do not have the protection of the US Constitution. That we will not extend to them rights reserved for combatant states and legitimate military personnel. Extending Constitutional liberties to foreign terrorists diminishes the rights of Americans and increases the power of foreign governments and institutions over our citizens. That would seem anathema to someone who claims your position on foreign intervention, but as is clear consistency isn’t your strong suit.
Finally, I think it is time we told the UN "no mas!" The US checkbook is closed and you're no longer welcome in our country. Not because I want to avoid foreign entanglements, but rather I resent the US funding defenders of tyranny and state sponsored terror as found in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Burma, etc.
Louis Jenkins| 9.8.09 @ 5:20PM
Perhaps treaties of George Washington's day should be considered. A treaty in that day and age was for peace, alliance, or trade. A modern treaty usually involves the UN, a most rancid and disgusting organization if ever there was one, and involves multiple nations, each with its own hidden or joint agenda, usually against the US. Seldom does one read of a treaty, proposed or otherwise, that is favorable to this country. For a president to negotiate a treaty that does not protect the US, or infringes on our Constitution, is a treasonous act. For instance, the UN gun ban is considered by many as an infringement to our 2nd Amendment rights, and if approved, will remove our choice as bonafide US citizens.
Pingback| 9.8.09 @ 5:44PM
The American Spectator : From Citizens to "Stakeholders": The New … | Crime Lawyer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Michael Tomlinson| 9.8.09 @ 5:55PM
Louis amen! The US should run from not embrace the UN. Aside from TARP one of the worst mistakes of the Bush Presidency was going along with the Admirals and endorsing the Law of the Sea Treaty. Such rags are anti-American and should be rejected outright by the US as infringements on our sovereignty. The UN is a failed experiment and the sooner we distance ourselves from it the better. We should keep our membership, but do like the Arabs and third world and not pay for it.
Here is a suggestion for Barack Obama when he is at the UN on September 24. Instead of kissing tyrant ass, as usual, ask the Security Council to pass a resolution condemning President's for Life and demand free elections in Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Syria. Now that would be an Obama speech worth seeing.
Big J| 9.8.09 @ 6:48PM
Michael and Louis: Bravo, my friends. I was thinking it, but could not articulate.
Like most cowards, our toddard has slithered away into the night, it would seem.
Haven't opened up that "whole new conversation" yet, I suppose.
I sure am glad to have such good company among the posters here. Eventually, the bobs, toddards, liberal readers, jim rices and others will either get it or leave.
I'm good with it either way.
lawyerchik| 9.8.09 @ 6:50PM
What should really be frightening in all of this is the realization that when Obama "meets with everybody" and asks other people for what they want, it is because HE DOESN'T KNOW. He has no clue what to do, so he's asking everybody around him what they want - if he gives it to them (or at least promises to do so), and then it backfires or they decide they don't like it, he's off the hook because he gave them what they said they wanted. And, it gives him *something* to do - instead of figuring out what he should be doing as President of the entire United States, and not just the most vociferous bits of it.
S.L. Toddard| 9.8.09 @ 7:53PM
"Funny that an isolationist wants to turn the interpretation of US law over to the UN"
What an odd Straw Man to construct. I do not propose to turn "interpretation of US law over to the UN", I only note that Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution - which you pretend to revere - declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and the Convention Against Torture treaty - the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution - *mandates prosecution* of alleged torture crimes. You claimed - perhaps in a whimsical bit of humor? - to be "one who believes 100% in the Constitution". Was that a joke? Perhaps you meant all of the Constitution except Article 6? Which is to say that you believe in the Constitution... when it is convenient. Isn't that correct?
"You need to be consistent Toddard -- either you are an isolationist or you aren't."
I am a non-interventionist. I believe we should withdraw from most alliances and treaties. That does not mean that I disregard the Constitution and believe our gov't is bound by no laws, as you do. Because I personally believe certain treaties to be unwise does not mean I do not recognize the *fact* that we are bound by them per Article 6 of the Constitution. But you're not really "one who believes 100% in the Constitution", are you Mike?
"Interpreting our Constitution, laws and treaties is not the purview of the UN or other foreign entities. You may not like that, but it is still reality in the US despite Obama and Democrats."
I like that just fine, of course. I especially like the part that declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". You know - the part of the Constitution you don't care for, because like Obama and other progressives you believe in the Constitution only when it is politically expedient. Isn't that correct?
"I agree with the US Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that concluded water boarding 3 Muslim terrorists was legal ipso facto not torture (thus protecting the Clinton and Bush administrations and the interrogators)"
That's nice, and I agree with the Attorney General of the United States that waterboarding is torture. That's neither here nor there, though - allegations of torture have been made above and beyond water-torture, and the Convention Against Torture - which the Constitution you pretend to believe in establishes as the "Supreme law of the land" - compels investigations into the allegations. If you believe no torture took place then surely you support investigations to clear those so wrongly smeared, no?
"That the current occupant of the White House and his lackeys interpret it differently does not justify their persecution of those who have a different interpretation"
Oh I see. The Constitution has no fixed meaning in your view - it's just an airy fairy "living document" that means whatever the beholder wishes. Tell me, Mike, how do you interpret this part of your beloved Constitution:
"all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"
Seems crystal clear to me.
"Politicizing policy and legal differences is a hallmark of petty dictators like Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe"
And torture chambers are the hallmarks of monstrous dictators like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. And using euphemisms like "policy differences" to describe war crimes is the hallmark of a dishonest, intellectually bankrupt hack lacking the ability to formulate a coherent argument.
"What you, Obama and Democrats want to do is legitimize partisan political reprisals as “Constitutional law” thereby destroying the very principles of the Constitution and democratic process."
You mean the Constitution that establishes that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"? Your argument - what there is of it - is so transparent as to be laughable: we cannot hold our most powerful elites accountable for violating the Constitution, because that would... destroy the Constitution... that you don't believe they should be bound by (see: Article 6) in the first place. Good lord do you ever listen to yourself?
"If we go down this path then every time there is a Democrat administration (Republicans are never as petty or partisan) they’ll use the “legal system” to exact revenge on the previous Republican administration and their current political enemies."
Yes, that is the point of having laws in the first place, you know - we have them, and enforce them, so that people will not break them. That is exactly why we prosecute those who break our laws - so that those who follow do not. Our leaders should fear prosecution and respect our laws accordingly.
"Such a scenario should terrify all Americans who value liberty and our Constitution’s protections."
But you are not one of those people - you are a phony patriot who cares for the Constitution only when it is convenient. What do you care?
"Hopefully, with a new Congress and President in power in 2012 legislation will be passed that makes it clear foreign terrorists do not have the protection of the US Constitution."
They still have the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions as established by the Supreme Court in Hamdan, as well as those afforded by the Convention Against Torture and the War Crimes Act. It's funny, isn't it, that the phony Tough Guys (such as yourself) who quake in fear of "Islamofascism" and who deride it as a "medieval ideology" are those who hysterically shriek the loudest that we must *torture* so they can feel safer? Are you really so afraid of the world that you would destroy all the Founders bequeathed us - their ideals, the Constitution itself - and turn us into a lawless dictatorship with torture chambers to assuage your paralyzing fear?
How sad. How transparent. How... juvenile.
Now run along and troll the Fox News Right blogosphere for an argument to regurgitate. You bring it here, I'll destroy it again, and we can repeat until you're too embarrassed to come back.
Sound good?
Haha
conservative Bob| 9.8.09 @ 8:16PM
S.L.
You cannot frame the argument such that I must accept your premise or discard my reverence for the constitution.
Your whole argument is a specious, and has nothing what so ever to do with article. No surprise there as that is your objective all along isn’t it?
You cannot deal with the subject at hand so you feel compelled to highjack the discussion with arguments totally unrelated.
That is unless your point is that any previous act that does not conform to your personal view and priority of extra-constitutional activities legitimizes any subsequent act of extra-constitutional activity regardless how heinous the constitutional breach.
Any surrender of American sovereignty is misguided at best and will ultimately work against the interests of the Republic. It may be lost on some that the ratification of this dubious treat was the final act of Liberal Democrats just before losing control of both houses.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.8.09 @ 10:08PM
Toddard, sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your dribble, but I wanted to be careful to respond without undo emotion and I do have a life unlike some.
The US Justice Department (not your beloved UN) made the legal interpretation that empowered our government to glean information from terrorists through what some call enhanced interrogation techniques. Everyone from the President down to the interrogators worked within those parameters and is thus protected from capricious and politically inspired prosecution. That even extends to the Clinton administration that used rendition and enhanced interrogation long before the horrors of 9/11. One wonders why, if according to you, there is no threat from Islamic extremists or militants Clinton used these tools to gather information? Why when there was no threat? Could it be like Van Jones and other conspiracy theorists and/or Muslim apologists you believe the US, George Bush or the Zionists were the real masterminds of 9/11? One can only marvel at how twisted the kook’s thinking is.
When Congress later changed the ground rules and spelled out a different code of interrogation our methods of interrogating Muslim terrorists changed. President Bush and the CIA, who respected the checks and balances of our Constitutional system, got it, but you don’t. Like Obama and Holder you may be comfortable with capriciously creating “new” legal interpretations to persecute political opponents, but reasonable Americans understand the danger and overwhelmingly oppose Obama’s witch hunt to counteract his declining poll numbers.
No one is calling for Muslim terrorists to be tortured and none were. You need to get a grip on reality. Water boarding is scary, but not life threatening. The three Muslim terrorists that experienced it are still alive and in custody. If I understand correctly at least one is now a critic of his previous murderous lifestyle. I do fear for their safety if they ever fall into the hands of al Qaeda then they’ll be reminded of what real torture is.
As a warning you should never observe a police interrogation of criminals. You’d be shocked at how bad the bad cop can be.
I don’t think Hamdan was Constitutional law. It was statutory law and thus can be voided by Congress passing new statutes. In ruling against the Bush administration the main thrust of the majority opinion was that the administration did not have the authority to set up military commissions without Congressional authority, because the commissions did not comply with the UCMJ. Congress can remedy that if they choose in 2012 with new statutes and I hope they do. If they don’t then Hamdan stands.
Again you need to better understand how our system of checks and balances works. I know as one sympathetic to Obama and Democrats you want an all powerful court or better yet rule by an elite oligarchy, but that isn’t the way our country works. That’s just another debt we owe our founders.
One is on a slippery slope when they think the Supreme Court has the right to infer Constitutional rights to non-citizens captured in armed conflict against the US outside of the continental US or its territories. For current political purposes the Democrat party may be hamstringing the American judicial system and the rights of real American citizens with their assistance of a Supreme Court corrupted with the idea that foreign law is relevant in interpreting US law (it isn't).
As for the protections of the Geneva Conventions if we choose to extend them to non-state Muslim terrorists that is our prerogative, but the articles themselves were expressly written for states at war. Al Qaeda is not a state nor does it represent a state unless you ascribe to the idea that dar-al-Islam is a shadow state representing the Caliphate that Muslim extremists want to impose on the Muslim world or world in general. Still that doesn’t seem to merit the realities of a state that the Geneva Conventions were specifically crafted for. Again the US can extend those rights to non-state terrorists, but that is a mark of our beneficence and we are not bound to follow the policies of other nation states in this regard. Frankly, I don’t give a damn what the UN or EU thinks. Let the EU clean up its own house where the rights of citizens are being abridged to pander to Muslim extremists in their midst.
Of course, all US troops that have fallen into Muslim terrorist’s hands have been tortured and killed. There are no Geneva Conventions accorded American troops fighting Muslim extremists.
You ass when I mock Obama and his lackey’s it is for thinking they can make up Constitutional law willy-nilly like you approve of. It is you and Obama who seek to change the rule of US law, because you find it inconvenient or politically unacceptable. You do have a problem understanding anything not prepackaged for you.
Politicizing the law as Obama and Holder are doing is dangerous and threatens the underpinnings of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The foundation of our Constitution is more at stake with Obama and Holder politicizing a policy dispute than the Bush administrations interpretation of our laws and treaties that 3 terrorists could be water boarded. Bush allowed the system to work, though he may not have agreed with the other two branches, but Obama isn’t and won’t. Just one more example of why the Bush Presidency was a good one and Obama’s isn’t.
Thank you for the Dick Durbin moment when you spewed forth your anti-American bile. No doubt it was cathartic to get your hate out, but to imply men and women serving and protecting this country are like the brutes of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union is the hallmark of a cowardly and weak argument. By projecting onto others your own twisted ideas of reality you reveal how miserable a human being you must be. I feel genuinely sorry for you.
Touche Bob for nailing the Democrats and Clinton ratifying this piece of UN filth. Thank you for your post. It is time our leaders thought about what is best for the US and not the world.
tailgunner| 9.8.09 @ 10:50PM
If it's torture, then every member of the Armed Forces who went through SERE survival training or Special Forces training has a case against the US.
Shut the f**k up, idiot.
tailgunner| 9.8.09 @ 10:53PM
Under the Geneva Convention, 'unlawful combatants' include terrorists, spies and saboteurs.
'Unlawful combatants' have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER under Geneva.
They can and should be summarily SHOT once they're determined to have no intelligence value.
Pingback| 9.9.09 @ 2:50AM
The Importance of a Criminal Defense Lawyer | The Lawyers Information Hub links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tine Holm | 9.9.09 @ 3:15AM
we should follow the Constitution as it was ratified in 1789 and agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient.
ugg boots uk
cheap ugg boots
Pat Shreffler | 9.9.09 @ 3:18AM
No doubt it was cathartic to get your hate out, but to imply men and women serving and protecting this country are like the brutes of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union is the hallmark of a cowardly and weak argument.
Bailey Button Ugg Boots
cheap ugg boots
S.L. Toddard| 9.9.09 @ 7:18AM
"You cannot frame the argument such that I must accept your premise or discard my reverence for the constitution."
There is no other way to frame it. The following is inarguably true: Our Constitution establishes that our treaties are binding and are "the Supreme law of the land". Our treaties make torture illegal, and mandate investigations and prosecutions into torture *allegations*. Ergo you either support investigations/prosecutions, or you DEFY THE CONSTITUTION.
Read through Michael Tomlinsons screed above - notice how he refuses to meet this point head on? That is because it is irrefutable fact - there is no wiggle room; he has no refutation, no counter-argument. He cannot have one, by definition - because there is none. Of course we have the ability to withdraw from treaties and so forth - but we have not withdrawn from them yet, and at the time of the alleged torture the Convention Against Torture, Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act were all binding U.S. law. Your problem is that you have to choose between your Constitution and a political party. Michael Tomlinson has already chosen his political party over the Constitution - that does not surprise me personally, because it's always been clear that his loyalty was to the GOP and not to any principled conservatism.
S.L. Toddard| 9.9.09 @ 7:21AM
"'Unlawful combatants' have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER under Geneva."
The ability of the Fox News Right to shut out all news that contradicts the world as they wish it was is truly astounding. The Supreme Court, in Hamdan, decided that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees, including accused Terrorists. On top of that, both the Convention Against Torture (signed by Reagan) and the War Crimes Act make torture - of anyone - by the U.S. illegal.
S.L. Toddard| 9.9.09 @ 7:25AM
"Toddard, sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your dribble, but I wanted to be careful to respond without undo emotion... etc"
You say you wanted to respond but you still have not. Here is my only question:
The United States Constitution - which you pretend to revere - declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and the Convention Against Torture treaty - the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution - mandates prosecution of *alleged* torture crimes.
So, Mike, should we follow the Constitution and proceed with investigations/prosecutions, or do you agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?
Pingback| 9.9.09 @ 10:42AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : From Citizens to "Stakeholders": The links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jim O'Brien| 9.15.09 @ 5:53PM
Not only is Obama a Socialist Liar, he does not believe in the rule of law.
Jim| 9.25.09 @ 7:11PM
Recently I was pondering that somehow this administration, with it's cries of fascist, seemed to have a lot in common with Musolini. Thanks to your excellent article I have a clearer understanding of what had been just a nagging feeling, a hunch if you will. I wish you would expand on that thesis, with a much more detailed comparison of the fascist principles currently guiding our government.
akaCG| 10.26.09 @ 2:14PM
Mr. Codevilla:
When and where did Barack Obama say the following, as quoted at the top of your article:
"I'm going to get everybody concerned around a big table where all can express their views and their needs. And I'll express mine, and that will make sense of them all because I'll be president."
Aside from a half-dozen personal blogs that reference the quote back to your article, I have not found a mention of it anywhere. Neither in any debate transcripts, nor in any interview clips, nor in any newspaper articles. I find that surprising. A quote like that would have gone viral throughout the blogosphere during the campaign, and a current search for the quote would yield scores of "hits" by now.
Thank you.
Pingback| 3.28.10 @ 11:20PM
republican 101 » Blog Archive » the daily republican pick of the day: “From Citizens links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 9:46PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica
sex hikayeleri | 3.16.12 @ 7:15PM
your my frends ..Good days
John Mike | 2.26.13 @ 7:16AM
American Constitution is a great constitution. I really very impressed. Here is a web page describing about the salient features of the constitution of USA.
Visit the link mentioned below:
http://www.magviewonline.com/f.....on-of-usa/