The American Spectator

Richard Baker| 1.6.10 @ 7:47AM

Why don't we instead just kill 100 terrorists and let one go free?

A Wise Man Once Said...| 1.6.10 @ 4:03PM

Follow The Money.

No need for Outlandish Theories or Conspericies.
The truth is right in the open, don't get fooled my misdirection (think of the magician and slight of hand) and redirection. Look in the open, but keep your eyes open, you will find the trail to follow - it will be the money trail.

The kid on the plane to Detroit, he is poor. His FATHER, take a look at him - research and observe... there is the path to concsiousness ( in there lay the future ).

JW| 1.6.10 @ 7:48AM

Obama et al has the agenda of putting the Bush Administration on trial and in the process putting the US on trial and will use any means to do it, even if it means letting terrorists go free.

martin j smith| 1.6.10 @ 7:51AM

The 2010 election should be made into a referendum
Yes or NO on appeasement and socialism. Period.
Or if you prefer, Freedom versus Dictatorship.

S.L. Toddard| 1.6.10 @ 7:55AM

The mindset exhibited by Mr. Tucker in this piece has been explained and exposed for what it is:

...The citizenry has been trained to expect that our Powerful Daddies and Mommies in government will -- in that most cringe-inducing, child-like formulation -- Keep Us Safe. Whenever the Government fails to do so, the reaction -- just as we saw this week -- is an ugly combination of petulant, adolescent rage and increasingly unhinged cries that More Be Done to ensure that nothing bad in the world ever happens. Demands that genuinely inept government officials be held accountable are necessary and wise, but demands that political leaders ensure that we can live in womb-like Absolute Safety are delusional and destructive. Yet this is what the citizenry screams out every time something threatening happens: please, take more of our privacy away; monitor more of our communications; ban more of us from flying; engage in rituals to create the illusion of Strength; imprison more people without charges; take more and more control and power so you can Keep Us Safe.

This is what inevitably happens to a citizenry that is fed a steady diet of fear and terror for years. It regresses into pure childhood. The 5-year-old laying awake in bed, frightened by monsters in the closet, who then crawls into his parents' bed to feel Protected and Safe, is the same as a citizenry planted in front of the television, petrified by endless imagery of scary Muslim monsters, who then collectively crawl to Government and demand that they take more power and control in order to keep them Protected and Safe. A citizenry drowning in fear and fixated on Safety to the exclusion of other competing values can only be degraded and depraved. John Adams, in his 1776 Thoughts on Government, put it this way:

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."

As Adams noted, political leaders possess an inherent interest in maximizing fear levels, as that is what maximizes their power. For a variety of reasons, nobody aids this process more than our establishment media, motivated by their own interests in ratcheting up fear and Terrorism melodrama as high as possible. The result is a citizenry far more terrorized by our own institutions than foreign Terrorists could ever dream of achieving on their own. For that reason, a risk that is completely dwarfed by numerous others -- the risk of death from Islamic Terrorism -- dominates our discourse, paralyzes us with fear, leads us to destroy our economic security and eradicate countless lives in more and more foreign wars, and causes us to beg and plead and demand that our political leaders invade more of our privacy, seize more of our freedom, and radically alter the system of government we were supposed to have. The one thing we don't do is ask whether we ourselves are doing anything to fuel this problem and whether we should stop doing it. As Adams said: fear "renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable."

What makes all of this most ironic is that the American Founding was predicated on exactly the opposite mindset. The Constitution is grounded in the premise that there are other values and priorities more important than mere Safety. Even though they knew that doing so would help murderers and other dangerous and vile criminals evade capture, the Framers banned the Government from searching homes without probable cause, prohibited compelled self-incrimination, double jeopardy and convictions based on hearsay, and outlawed cruel and unusual punishment. That's because certain values -- privacy, due process, limiting the potential for abuse of government power -- were more important than mere survival and safety. A central calculation of the Constitution was that we insist upon privacy, liberty and restraints on government power even when doing so means we live with less safety and a heightened risk of danger and death. And, of course, the Revolutionary War against the then-greatest empire on earth was waged by people who risked their lives and their fortunes in pursuit of liberty, precisely because there are other values that outweigh mere survival and safety.

These are the calculations that are now virtually impossible to find in our political discourse. It is fear, and only fear, that predominates. No other competing values are recognized. We have Chris Matthews running around shrieking that he's scared of kung-fu-wielding Terrorists. Michael Chertoff is demanding that we stop listening to "privacy ideologues" -- i.e., that there should be no limits on Government's power to invade and monitor and scrutinize. Republican leaders have spent the decade preaching that only Government-provided Safety, not the Constitution, matters. All in response to this week's single failed terrorist attack, there are -- as always -- hysterical calls that we start more wars, initiate racial profiling, imprison innocent people indefinitely, and torture even more indiscriminately. These are the by-products of the weakness and panic and paralyzing fear that Americans have been fed in the name of Terrorism, continuously for a full decade now.

http://www.salon.com/news/opin.....index.html

I think this passage bears repeated reading:

"What makes all of this most ironic is that the American Founding was predicated on exactly the opposite mindset. The Constitution is grounded in the premise that there are other values and priorities more important than mere Safety. Even though they knew that doing so would help murderers and other dangerous and vile criminals evade capture, the Framers banned the Government from searching homes without probable cause, prohibited compelled self-incrimination, double jeopardy and convictions based on hearsay, and outlawed cruel and unusual punishment. That's because certain values -- privacy, due process, limiting the potential for abuse of government power -- were more important than mere survival and safety. A central calculation of the Constitution was that we insist upon privacy, liberty and restraints on government power even when doing so means we live with less safety and a heightened risk of danger and death. And, of course, the Revolutionary War against the then-greatest empire on earth was waged by people who risked their lives and their fortunes in pursuit of liberty, precisely because there are other values that outweigh mere survival and safety."

Ret. Marine| 1.6.10 @ 8:10AM

Give me freedom or I'll give you death. This has always been my idea of security and safety. This gubmint is no different than an ordinary thug, bully if you will. They prey upon the weak because they can if no one stands up to them and verbally attack the strong because they fear us more than they do their own ghosts of weakness.
I do agree with your assessment, however I will point out there are many millions of us out here who do not buy into the "hi I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" herd mentailty. Remember, "people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Count me and my fellow associates on this list. If you want peace prepare for war, we've been preparing.

Louis Jenkins| 1.6.10 @ 9:29AM

Dear Mr. Toddard:

This is one of the best posts that you have ever written. I agree that personal safety is an individual’s responsibility and not within the realm of BigGovCo. The onslaught of our privacy has never been greater, and the ability of a law abiding citizen to defend his family and self has never been more impaired. Essentially, the citizen is being set up as a target of opportunity. The Constitutional rights to personally defend one’s self is under threat. All by sponsorship of those who say they are working for our safety. In many states if a criminal commits a B&E, and confronts you with a weapon, but then decides to leave because you have a bigger weapon, you are criminally libel if you give him a blast of buckshot in the hindquarters as he departs. Personally, he deserves it. But by law you have committed the crime and the thug is one who has suffered the transgression. (When seconds count law enforcement is minutes away.) Allow each individual to physically ensure his own safety if that is his will. Don’t force the citizen to be a perpetual target of criminals or terrorists. Let them understand that there is a price to be paid even if it is a Grandmother swinging a pocketbook. Do not allow terrorists to assume the mantel of US Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights! This is only a path to one world citizenship standards, which is a threatening trend. As far as the Black Water security guards situation and criminality, I was not there. Right or wrong, in a bad situation the trained and natural instinct is to “light ‘em up.”

S.L. Toddard| 1.6.10 @ 12:38PM

Thank you, Mr. Jenkins, but I did not write that post - it is a quote from the article I linked.

Thom| 1.6.10 @ 4:00PM

S.L. Toddard, I know of no one of credibility that can argue against the wisdom and concerns of the Founders, not just Adams taken in the context of their times but I have to wonder just how those you quote from hundreds of years ago would have reacted to 150KT weapons weighing less than 300 lbs developed with 1970s technology; 3 ounces of a high tech liquid explosive properly placed being able to bring down a mass transit commercial carriers and kill up to 500 in the carrier and perhaps hundreds if not thousands more on the ground?

The former threat while highly unlikely at this point will kill millions in the flash of an eye properly placed and the later is virtually undetectable on passengers outside of full body cavity exams before you board. The Founders knew a bit about mass murder given their experiences with the French and Indians War before the Revolution and thousands of years of the same before that but no technological advancement in the thousands of years prior or even up to the beginning of the 20th century compares to the freely available ability to kill by the hundreds or even thousands with very little effort and ultimately by the millions with some state sponsored effort. Add to this that, on balance similar threats 100, 200 years ago would be met by immediate force by either the military or law enforcement if available but mostly by an individual or groups of individuals would take care of business without regard to having to call their lawyers before they defended themselves. Contrast that to today? The events that took place on 9/11 were easily foiled if the passengers had acted immediately with force. Why didn’t they? The government has some role in that answer but conditioning by both the government and private enterprise backed up with the force of law (both criminal and civil) turned the bulk of the passengers on those planes into sheep long before those 19 men boarded. The passengers responded exactly as their attackers expected. Even today, the risk of negative consequences via criminal or civil actions renders most air traveler’s sheep. Of course the sheep are disarmed by law which makes the would be murder’s job a bit easier to accomplish. The disarming of the sheep both physically and mentally has been going on for decades and I strongly suspect if the Founders were presented with this kind of dilemma on 9/11 would have responded in quiet a un political correct fashion.

Less than 150 years ago someone trying to blow up a mass gathering of people that wasn’t judged insane would have been tried and hung by the end of the first 30 days. Any hint of a conspiracy would have been hunted down and eliminated by force not by weight of legal briefs. Someone caught in the act of trying to blow up something on this scale by an armed individual would have been shot dead on the spot and the local government would have rewarded this individual for doing the civic thing. How does that work out today?

So yes S.L. Toddard, governments of all types when allowed to, trend toward totalitarianism and manufacture fear to gain power if left unchecked but I don’t think you can or Adams could ignore how the playing field has changed in a relatively short period of time due to technology. Those 19 men accomplished more than the bulk of the Japanese carrier fleet in about the same time with almost no effort or risk not because the government has manufactured a culture of fear but because the government has promised what it can not delivery and the sheep are afraid to act in their own behalf where much of this could be dealt with. As to that 150KT 300 lb 1970s technology device, I just don’t think anyone really has an answer on that one given it will fit inside a large Medical device that uses nuclear material to save lives at major hospitals. I believe to fear that is not a product of government tactics to increase its power but with the current Administration’s policy of not letting a good crisis go to waste I won’t bet any of my money on that. To have a healthy fear of “I’m from the government and here to help you” is a good thing on balance but there are threats that “government” must respond to else the primary purpose of governments with regard to national interest will be moot when the real ones show up. It isn’t just “government” that is the problem here.

S.L. Toddard| 1.6.10 @ 7:30PM

"I have to wonder just how those you quote from hundreds of years ago would have reacted to 150KT weapons weighing less than 300 lbs developed with 1970s technology; 3 ounces of a high tech liquid explosive properly placed being able to bring down a mass transit commercial carriers and kill up to 500 in the carrier and perhaps hundreds if not thousands more on the ground?"

What you are asking is whether the Founders were Men of Principle or unscrupulous cravens. Men of Principle, obviously, do not betray their principles in girlish fits of cowardice. There is a term for a such a person, who is virtuous only when it is safe and risk-free to be so: coward. It is only *cowards* who abandon their principles at the first sign of danger.

You ask whether the Founders would stand by their principles when doing so could lead to widespread death and destruction.

I answer: they did exactly that. Why do you think we exalt them so? Because they stood by American republican principles, even when facing the might of the greatest military power in the history of the world. And they stood by them long after, while hostile world powers that dwarfed the United States loomed over their continent. One of those powers stormed through our country with sword and fire, and burnt Washington to the ground. Americans still stood by those principles afterward.

What exactly do we face that compares to that?

Oh yeah - a bunch of crazy, angry bums. Bums that could never, ever, in a million years conquer the United States.

Thom| 1.6.10 @ 8:48PM

S.L.Toddard,
first a true principle has to stand the test of time to be a principle in the first place. It does not expire else it is just a convenient philosophy for life which is often just as practical as principles but does not need to meet such a high standard as a principle. No one is completely principled, never has been and never will be including you. There are far fewer principles than you are willing to accept I suspect.

Second, the heart of the Founding Principles stood that test of time for thousands of years prior to 1776 and pretty much still do but the one you base an awful lot of your beliefs on ceased to have merit about the time German Zeppelins started dropping bombs on England during the first war of the last century. By the time large aircraft could cross the “channel” carrying enough explosives for each plane to take out two city block with its bomb load in the next major world war some of your 16th century principles weren’t looking too good for wear. By the time the first V2 with a 2200 lb warhead and no way to defend against it took at a city block at a time some of that you hold to was starting to look like a suicide pack. By the time the first A bomb went off and could be carried across the Atlantic in an aircraft your whole idea of isolation and living and let live while we sit peacefully behind two very large oceans went completely out the window with sane people. In a world where death to millions with just one weapon can arrive in less than 15 minutes from 4,000 miles away, 30 minutes from 8,000 miles or less than 7 minutes launched from an inbound container ship 200 miles off our coast this concept of yours that the Founders were unmovable rocks and never violated their own stated positions throughout their lives is simply not supported by the facts. There is not one of the original Founders who became President that did not violate at least one of his stated “principles”. Not one.

Third, calling said men “unscrupulous cravens” because they didn’t stick to the absolute letter of what you think are ”principles” would get you asked to demonstrate your one handed shooting skills at 30 paces by sunset well after the Constitution was ratified and in force. Even the “Dove” Jefferson grasped that theory works best when your hands aren’t on the tiller of State. Sending the Marines to invade a foreign country to stop the piracy of our commerce violates a whole lot of so called principles of those purest Founders in your book but makes a whole lot of common sense to most I suspect even today when we are attacked by people from other nations invading our country and attacking us here. They’ve been doing that in one form or another outside this country and now inside this country for over 30 years. I get it, you don’t. They have no interest in conquering us in the conventional military sense but killing as many as they can to accomplish their stated objectives is clearly on their front burner. In the age where technology provides easily and cheaply the means to kills hundreds or even thousands with little effort as compared to even 60 years ago your ideals are naive that we should just die to preserve what you think are principles. The 19 men that killed themselves and nearly 3000 people in this country accomplished comparable results to the attack on Pearl Harbor with minimum investments and efforts because naïve people like you want to put your head in the sand and make all the bad things go away and technological advancements in the last 60 years or so have eclipsed anything the civilized world has seen since the beginning of time. The ground rules have changed and along with that some of your high ideals have expired.

S.L. Toddard| 1.7.10 @ 2:54PM

"Sending the Marines to invade a foreign country to stop the piracy of our commerce violates a whole lot of so called principles of those purest Founders in your book"

No, it doesn't. Defending American shipping violates no principles I hold dear.

Anyway we know where we stand - you believe we should abandon the principles of the Founders because it might be dangerous to adhere to them. I disagree, and do not believe we should abandon traditional American principles in the face of danger. That is fine - you are free to let terrorists dictate your principles.

I elect not to.

victor| 1.6.10 @ 11:48PM

Toddard:
"I answer: they did exactly that. Why do you think we exalt them so? Because they stood by American republican principles, even when facing the might of the greatest military power in the history of the world. And they stood by them long after, while hostile world powers that dwarfed the United States loomed over their continent. One of those powers stormed through our country with sword and fire, and burnt Washington to the ground. Americans still stood by those principles afterward."

Are you saying that America and Americans were "exceptional" in standing for what they believed in?

S.L. Toddard| 1.7.10 @ 2:54PM

"Are you saying that America and Americans were "exceptional" in standing for what they believed in?"

They were exceptional for many reasons.

victor| 1.6.10 @ 11:03PM

"Mr. Toddard:

This is one of the best posts that you have ever written."

Sorry Louis, but you are quite mistaken.

Toddard never writes anything original, but is rather adept at cutting and pasting other people's words.

For example, he uses the words of Glenn, or Glenda, Greenwald, a professional chameleon who is adept at reflecting both liberal and conservative thoughts at the same time.

He is in good company with others of his stripe, such as David Brooks and other Faux-Cons.

Toddard prefers to speak the words that others provide for him, much as Paul Winchell provided the words for Jerry Mahoney.

He continually uses up valuable bandwidth cutting and pasting others words as whole cloth.

It is easy to miss the hyperlink and think that Toddard is a lucid and erudite fellow.

He is not. I imagine him to be a leisure suit version of Liberal reader.

artin j smith| 1.6.10 @ 10:54AM

as I understand it, one the actual reponsiblties of government is national defense. Remeber the oath where they say something about defending the constitution and protecting the nation against enemies foreign and domestic ?
I think the vast majority of people expect government to do just that. That means to show that they are taking that responsibility seriously.

While I am great fan of FDR, he did certainly take that responsibility seriously.

Bush could have done a lot more. Obama....He and his followers are just dangerous. But everyone has their own oppinion.
Mine is: we are less safe even than under Bush.

Louis Jenkins| 1.6.10 @ 12:07PM

Dear Mr. Smith:

It is responsible for defense against our enemies foreign and domestic. But the lines are being grossly blurred by the very folks within that government who swore to defend the country. G-string bombers and Gitmo detainees are no longer our enemies, no longer terrorists, just local criminals and will be treated that way in court. So who are these ship of state fools trying to protect? And if the court session reveals a violation of KSM's "Constitutional Rights" where is he going? Further, criminals often go on to commit further offenses. Seems our leaders don't have the US's, and its citizen's, better interests in mind. Is this a ploy to make us give up more freedoms for security?

S.L. Toddard| 1.6.10 @ 1:56PM

"Remeber the oath where they say something about defending the constitution and protecting the nation against enemies foreign and domestic?"

No, because there is NOTHING in the oath of office having to do "protecting the nation". They take an oath to "protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION" - and that is because we Americans value our Rights and Liberties - as enshrined in the Constitution - over our lives.

Al Adab| 1.6.10 @ 4:40PM

You are right about the oath SLT. It is to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Just what action should citizens take to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies when those enemies control the branches of government? What steps might we take to defend our liberties against our own government?

S.L. Toddard| 1.6.10 @ 6:39PM

First, talk to people about it. Your friends, family etc. Write letters to the editor, and to your representatives. Explain to those on the left that when they centralize power in Washington they remove it further from the people, and concentrate it in the hands of remote elites. Explain to those on the right that there is no such thing as a "small government" that can lead, rule over and police the entire world. Second, refuse anyone your vote who does not advocate for Constitutional government, and donate your time and money to candidates and organizations that do. It will mean voting for candidates who have no shot at winning, or voting third party, or writing in candidates, and it will mean voting against the establishment GOP candidate some times even when that candidate may lose without your vote. But you must, must, must deny the GOP your vote except for when they run patriotic Americans (which is to say Constitutionalists). The Grand Old Party does not represent me or you or anyone else here. The GOP (much like the Democrats) represents the deeply entrenched Washington establishment, and the corporate oligarchs that own it wholly. All that the GOP establishment cares about is retaining power. We must show them that the only way for them to regain/retain office is to adhere to conservative principles.

Thirdly - support Rand Paul's candidacy for Senate in Kentucky. He seems to be a good, honest man, and sincerely possessed of traditional American virtues. Were we to gain even that one senate seat it would be a great victory for patriotic Americans - it would mean that for the first time in decades the traditional American system of government and way of life would have an advocate in the Senate.

Margie| 1.6.10 @ 7:50PM

Does Rand Paul believe as his Father does. that the terrorists are terrorists because of America?

victor| 1.6.10 @ 10:48PM

Here is what Rand Paul has to say on Israel:

http://www.randpaul2010.com/?s.....mit=submit

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.10 @ 6:44PM

"Does Rand Paul believe as his Father does. that the terrorists are terrorists because of America?"

That is an absolute distortion. Ron Paul does not believe they are terrorists "because of America". He believes that terrorists *target America* in part because American Big Government meddles in the affairs of Muslim countries, because Big Government supports corrupt dictators, because Big Government bombs, invades and occupies Muslim countries, because Big Government uses its military to kidnap, torture and slaughter Muslims, and because Big Government subsidizes Israel's various wars against Arabs and their treatment of the Palestinians.

Leave it to Marge to not be able to distinguish between "America" and the federal government.

All those things are true, by the way. The recent Christmas Day pants-bomber told the authorities that he planned the attack to avenge Big Government's bombing of Yemen. Al Qaeda has for years stated their reasons plainly. And the Defense Science Board Task Force (charged by Donald Rumsfeld to assess the ramifications of American Foreign Policy) concluded in 2004 that the “underlying sources of threats to America’s national security” are “American direct intervention in the Muslim world,” America’s “one sided support in favor of Israel,” and “the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan” exposes one (somehow) as a Jew-hater, according to Ben Stein. If one acknowledges – as that same Task Force did in 2004 – that “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies.”

Remember, Marge: there is no such thing as a "small government" that can lead, rule over and police the entire world.

Margie| 2.21.10 @ 2:31PM

Limited government.
And as usual, you obfuscate the facts. But that is your very reason for existing.
You are a liar.
Ron Paul actually screeched "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!"
That's the fact, low life.

victor| 1.6.10 @ 11:10PM

Toddard:
""protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION"

So close, and yet so far.

You conveniently left out "Preserve".

Presidential Oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Military Enlistment Oath:
I 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

It is presumed that the Commander-in-Chief WILL "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;", but in your president's case, we will never be too sure what he is "protecting", eh?

Dai Alanye| 1.6.10 @ 4:28PM

Toddard must be a true devotee of the filibuster, based on the length of his posts. Better he should quote less and reason more.

And he seems to miss the point. What Tucker is arguing is a need for rationality to guide our policies. The thrust of the law is to do justice. It will always be imperfect, but when the incorrect begin to outnumber correct decisions it is time to ask whether the law is in need of changing.

"Better ten guilty go free than one innocent be convicted" is a fine motto for domestic justice but does not and cannot apply to war. For good or ill, in war the acceptance of collateral damage has always existed. In our eagerness to neutralize all terrorists we must accept that a few quasi-innocents will be harmed.

I say “quasi-innocents” because if you associate with criminals, even if innocent you must expect to be occasionally arrested. And if you associate with terrorists you must accept the risk of now and then being blown to bits. This is plain common sense.

Justice Jackson famously said, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Whether he applied this rightly or wrongly at the time he said it, all rational Americans must agree that to treat enemy combatants to the rights of American citizens is hardly an aid to victory. And victory is the only reasonable justification for war.

Now as to the wisdom of the methods of Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Agency honest folk may well disagree. For myself, I believe profiling by actions, nationality, religion, and race would be more effective than the politically-correct intrusions upon our privacy that are presently in use. In the case of Panty-bomber, his actions alone should have led not only to refusal to let him board but his detainment and interrogation. Instead, our deliberately-clueless government has chosen to add more questionable methods to the screening process, and to compound a score of pro-active errors with the addition of Constitutional rights to a foreign enemy.

This is beyond madness, and bordering on treason.

Richard Baker| 1.6.10 @ 8:07AM

The ether is becoming static-ridden and disrupted. Can someone tell me the source?

victor| 1.6.10 @ 11:19PM

I believe it is coming from Toddard's cave.
Something called "Beans on Toast Deluxe"

Brat Magursky| 1.6.10 @ 8:08AM

Don't forget along with the Plain View Doctrine the 4th Amendment standard that you cannot look for an elephant in a matchbox which is precisely why I keep my elephant in one. I can't think of one politician who governs by the inherent rights of the people, they instead exert overbearing government on the masses funded by the small minority of extremists...think I am off base ? just ask George Soros.....as Will Rogers once said "it is a good thing we aren't getting all the government we are paying for"

megapotamus| 1.6.10 @ 9:18AM

In an old Doctor Who there was a bureaucrat, human, who ran a prison planet for a greenie and declared with great gravitas that it was far preferable that ten thousand innocent be punished rather than one guilty party go free. The instant inflation from the original is instructive. Yes we might allow ten guilty to walk on procedural grounds in, say, a year. But 100? One thousand? Ten-thousand? The quantity does change the character at some point which is why admitting the Lefty premises is never, ever wise. Bush admitted the premise of socialized medicine with the SCHIP and prescription drug benefit along with a raft of other programs that take FROM each according to their abilities (to pay) and deliver TO each according to their declared needs. And even now you will listen in vain to find anyone.... ANYONE in elected office that opposes Ocare on moral, Constitutional or anti-socialist grounds. No, this particular gub power grab is just too big and too fast... it is not quite practical but could probably be made so if a couple of Republicans can be enticed to endorse it. Did NO ONE who won office as a Republican or conservative mean what they burped up to get elected? The Nelson debacle is exemplary. Yeah, the guy is a Dem but he was about as pro-life as a public figure can get but we see that these so-called convictions are just a marketing ploy as were and are the anti-Big-Gub protestations of Bush's Compassionate Conservatives. Sorry boys and girls, you may believe that the Welfare State can co-exist peaceably with limited, Constitutional gub but this is a fantasy. It is freedom with potholes or it is totalitarian, cradle2grave nannystate.... AT BEST! And the do-gooder nostrums can only proliferate until they make the rest of society unworkable. Releasing caught criminals, when only tiny fractions of crimes are ever solved, is the quickest route to this collapse. Look east to the UK and west to California. We are surrounded and the savages are encroaching fast. Act accordingly.

MikeN| 1.6.10 @ 9:25AM

There is a big difference between the two lines.
Ten men go free versus a hundred changes things.
Consider if it said better a million go free than an innocent be jailed. You would have to let everyone out of prison.

Tenn Slim| 1.6.10 @ 9:51AM

Opine
Of COURSE it is not going to be pretty
The OBNA is following the lead of the Idiotic Code Pink folks, the Moveon.org folks, Soros from the West Wing. He is not Naive, he is dedicated, sure to the Cause.
We are the serfs, not supposed to listen, read, or heaven forbid, comment.
YOUR choice, Marx or Madison?
end
Semper FI

Ret. Marine| 1.7.10 @ 7:53AM

Where did I put that musket? Semper Fi

Anthony| 1.6.10 @ 10:34AM

Abbott and Costello (Obama & Napolitano) have indeed met al Qaeda!! But you really got to hand it to these 7th century fanatics, who would of thought of disguising a terrorist as Joan Rivers?? What a clever deception. Thankfully, our people on the ground were on to the trick!!
In the mean time, stooge Brennan can get back to attempting to connect the beach balls, because connecting the dots, for these dolts, is way beyond their pay grade, as vice stooge Biden would say.

Al Adab| 1.6.10 @ 10:44AM

Who can enlighten me? By what stretch of the imagination is it that the Constitutional protections of Citizens are extended not only to non-citizens, but to enemy soldiers who stand in opposition to the very rights that citizens enjoy?

Somehow this must derive from the Left's view of America as guilty and opposition to it's systems as most just. Somehow they have extended "civil disobedience" to include the battlefield. The illogic of that view is apalling.

However, at the same time, in domestic policy, dissent is no longer "the highest form of Patriotism" but a racist reaction by troglodytes to the person of the President.

We begin to see the first steps toward the formation of a single party state at home and an international government abroad. From climate control to close Gitmo; from health care to trials for enemy soldiers, all roads lead to Rome and that is a journey we must not take.

Margie| 1.6.10 @ 3:36PM

Excellent post, Al Adab, you are in good form today, as they say!
You perfectly hit the nail on the head. Especially with your second paragraph. It is indeed the Left's view, the Blame America First crowd of America Haters, like Toddard & co., who ever so deceitfully and cunningly do the very thing while all the while trying to make it look like they are against big government. They believe the mentally deranged Ron Paul when he says "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!"
~Your second paragraph perfectly explains the mindset of the Left and why they think like they do.
They are the dangerous ones, the enemies from within.

Al Adab| 1.6.10 @ 4:43PM

Thank you Margie. Always happy to try to add to the conversation.

Now that we have identified our domestic enemies as those controlling the branches of government, just what steps might we citizens take to defend our Constitution against our own government which only recognizes that Constitution in the breech? There is our dilemma.

Margie| 1.6.10 @ 5:28PM

Al Adab,
What we do is what we know already to do:
As Sarah Palin is saying right now on Sean Hannity's program.. vote for conservative Republicans. Starting now in the 2010 elections.. find out who they are in your area and back them. That is our system in this country. As Americans it is our duty to do so. The enemies of this country are not only those who attack us from without but are also those who lie and accuse us of being "Occupiers" and "killers of women and children by "our so doing", and those who, like Ron Paul say "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!" Toddard and co. say these things and are despicable. To me they are also enemies. Anyone who would place their vote for any man who speaks that way is also an enemy of this great country! I choose to take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but to instead expose them. Eph. 5:11. That's what my God calls me to do.

explosion proof floodlight| 11.25.10 @ 1:28AM

If freedom has a natural home in the modern world, therefore, it is the nation-state: the legal entity that claims sovereignty within a bounded territory, and which can grant freedom within that territory through its law.

Yosemeti Sam| 1.6.10 @ 10:57AM

"Better a Hundred Terrorists Go Free…"

Best method of freeing up terrorists - is on the battlefield.

Bulletproof solution: short - and to the point!

Sweet justice with the added bonus of 70 hags waiting for them.

Sparing, too, a lot of candles from those who would conduct vigils for the downtrodden terrorists. LOL.

JeanieLou| 1.6.10 @ 11:35AM

In pointing out the fact that cops were likely on the payroll of drug dealers and therefore they often looked the other way, I can't help but think that may be reason why Obama and his thugs look the other way with terrorism. Might they be in cahoots? Some payoffs going on?

Yes we can| 1.6.10 @ 12:15PM

Remember what happened after the "shoe bomber" incident? Now we have to take our shoes off to get through security at the airport. What do you think we'll have to take off next after the Undies bomber incident?

cynic| 1.6.10 @ 2:57PM

Si Se Pudenda?

Nortnern Rebel| 1.6.10 @ 1:26PM

Mr. Toddard:

If I may humbly remind you, the constitution is for American citizens, and does not apply to non American combatants.

We didn't apply the American justice system to nazi war criminals, and we shouldn't apply it to the evil towelheads.

They are lucky we don't shoot them in the head on the battlefield with bullets dipped in pig fat.

that is proper justice.

S.L. Toddard| 1.6.10 @ 2:05PM

"If I may humbly remind you, the constitution is for American citizens"

You are quite wrong. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to legally limit what our federal government may and may not do. Our Constitution makes the treaties enacted by the United States the "Supreme Law of the Land", and our treaties both A) ban torture without exception and B) guarantee the humane treatment of all prisoners in our custody. Also in the Hamdan decision the Supreme Court confirmed that the Geneva Conventions apply to all detainees - even accused terrorists.

Sorry.

George Field| 1.6.10 @ 2:32PM

Sorry to you too S.L. Toddard. I think the supreme court decision happened because too many liberals trying to change our country into something else sat on the court and made a stupid decision based on their desires rather than on the constitution.

victor| 1.6.10 @ 11:30PM

Can you cite for me the particular part of the particular Geneva Convention that covers non-uniformed, non-chain of command, non-ranked and non-members of organized military forces?

That particular Supreme Court decision was made by those who do not believe our law is the only law to be cited, but international law is just as good, if not better, eh?

S.L. Toddard| 1.10.10 @ 3:25PM

"Can you cite for me the particular part of the particular Geneva Convention that covers non-uniformed, non-chain of command, non-ranked and non-members of organized military forces?"

Sure: Common Article 3

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/.....tions.html

http://gulcfac.typepad.com/geo....._the_.html

"That particular Supreme Court decision was made by those who do not believe our law is the only law to be cited, but international law is just as good, if not better, eh?"

Article 6 of the Constitution establishes that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." I understand that you and the other talk-show "conservatives" here have no love for the Constitution of the United States, but for those of us that do, we do not believe in picking and choosing which portions of the Constitution should be adhered to. That sort of anti-American mindset is the stuff of liberals, neoconservatives and other radical Leftists.

Northern Rebel| 1.6.10 @ 1:30PM

The last post was written by me, and the name is a typo. I don't change my name every other post, like the fascists that post here.

I stand by what I say here, and do not try to hide who I am, like David Matthews, Bob, Alan brooks, Liberal reader, or whatever your name is today.

victor| 1.6.10 @ 11:32PM

Not too worry NR, to quote Woody Guthrie: This Lap Top Kills Fascists.
I got your back.

RAMIII| 1.6.10 @ 1:33PM

Mr. Tucker, you have nailed it here. "It is staggering to try to grasp the naïveté of the Obama Administration in leading us down this path."

When a government of a people who have tasted freedom began to subdue and oppress their own people at the expense of giving their enemies freedom, revolution seems to be the only solution. Perhaps revolution at the polls will be enough, but I do not hold out much hope in entrusting our Republican elected officials with the correction of the erroneous path this country is on.

The truth will eventually be triumphant, but it will take much courage and perhaps more.

philfl63| 1.6.10 @ 1:37PM

Just a minute. Those Blackwater guards were all professional former spec ops guys. They were not trained in political correctness. They were not hired for their kumbaya abilities, but they were hired to protect our political and diplomatic officials who were traveling in Iraq. I was there on a different tourist itinerary (military) and traveled the streets of Baghdad. If those men shot up the joint it is because there was a threat. Anyone in the crossfire was an unfortunate casualty of their own countrymen's murderous treachery. If the military also investigated the incident, you can bet that there was pressure from on high to find the guards guilty no matter what, because the military was subject to the ridiculous nonsense of rules of engagement. Thus, we could only fire if we were already down with a sucking chest wound. Those guys were not going to wait for that, and they put lead downrange to protect their wards. That is what they were paid to do. If the opposite had happened, and the guards were killed and their principals became casualties then everybody would be clamoring for Blackwater's head on a plate for failing to protect the personnel they were paid to protect. If we had not been subject to the incredible buffoonery of PC and ROE, we could have gone into Iraq, laid waste as needed and then negotiated with them while our bootheels were on their throats.

RAMIII| 1.6.10 @ 1:43PM

You also are correct. Our spec ops guys have extremely high standards and take their responsibilities and power seriously.

Our men in uniform on the ground have behaved themselves in a most exemplary way, especially considering the obstacles all these self-serving politicians have placed in their way.

Margie| 1.6.10 @ 3:44PM

Thank you for speaking the truth and sticking the reality of warfare and and and the courage and dignity of those who fight for us! Still, the S.L. Toddards of the country will try to rip them to shreds.

Northern Rebel| 1.6.10 @ 2:06PM

Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan, have seen the handwriting on the wall. Harry Reid is next!

And the walls come tumbling down on top of the fascist democrat party.

Time for a celebratory toast to evil's demise!

"President" Anti-Christ will be building houses with Jimma soon.

RAMIII| 1.6.10 @ 2:37PM

You mean to tell us that he will not lose graciously and will remain in the spot light indefinitely?

Al Adab| 1.6.10 @ 2:49PM

Gentlemen:
Have you stopped to consider for a moment the possibility that there may not be an election after 2010? The public doesn't much care about self-government and certainly the majority party would prefer one party rule.

cuban pete| 1.6.10 @ 5:37PM

With this in mind I heard today that Chuck S. & Barney F.are floating some legislation that will eliminate state boards of election and install federal control over voter registration. Which will mean no voter registration,hence if you show up at a poll you'll vote no questions asked. Guess why they would want to that.

Al Adab| 1.6.10 @ 6:09PM

Pete, At least every Pedro could vote.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.10 @ 6:36PM

Al Adab, Pete,

I beg to differ. There WILL be elections after 2010.

...there will simply be a lot less votes cast.

Take a deep breath gentlemen, and hear me out. It would be totally beyond imagining...right now...for the changes to be made...
But!
If the elections in november ...this year guys...go to the communists, (pardon the shorthand), the next election voter registration will be based upon a valid tax return.*

My cousin, whose name I will not use, is a world renowned economist. Back in 1980 he told me: "Ken, I should not be allowed to vote. I get more money from the State than I contribute to the "state; obviously a conflict of interests."

"Not only that, the "poverts" should not get a vote, because they too get more money from the state than they contribute to it."

I have never forgotten that conversation, gentlemen.
...makes sense to me.
Help me out here guys. Who said "if he will not work...neither shall he eat."
Gentlemen, fine conservative candidates are registering for election all over the country these days. Let's make November 2010 the watershed event.
Failing that, I foresee a lot of blood, sweat, and tears.

Al Adab| 1.6.10 @ 6:49PM

Ken,
Hook 'em Horns.
Perhaps we could just disenfranchise everyone who gets a govt. check. That would cull the lists and prevent the parasites (like your honest cousin no insult intended) from voting themselves more money from the public fisc. I do hope many more elections will follow with increasing majorities for Freedom.

John II| 1.6.10 @ 7:23PM

Help me out here guys. Who said "if he will not work...neither shall he eat."

St. Paul, in the second letter to the Thessalonians, 3:10. I like the rest of the passage too:

"For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living."

Ever notice that liberals don't like St. Paul?

cuban pete| 1.6.10 @ 7:53PM

Exactly, Paul was a cranky guy who believed that there are consequences.

victor| 1.7.10 @ 12:18AM

Northern Rebel:
"Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan, have seen the handwriting on the wall. Harry Reid is next!

And the walls come tumbling down on top of the fascist democrat party."

Yes, the rats are leaving the sinking ship rather briskly, are they not.

We may yet win the 2010 elections by default.

On second thought, maybe Harry Reid's office can be the Senate Roach Motel:
They go in, but they don't come out!

northern rebel| 1.6.10 @ 6:19PM

RAMIII:Oh God, I forgot about that Part! ;o(

No democrat ever leaves the stage gracefully anymore, since LBJ. Funny thing about fascists, huh?

S.L. Toddard| 1.6.10 @ 6:44PM

"No democrat ever leaves the stage gracefully anymore, since LBJ. Funny thing about fascists, huh?"

I agree with Northern Rebel. Not leaving the stage after your time in office expires is proof of Nazi-style facist tendencies.

Also:

Cheney blasts Obama on Christmas Day plane scare
http://www.boston.com/news/pol.....sts_o.html

victor| 1.6.10 @ 11:39PM

Considering that you and the rest of your tribe has put GW and Cheney on trial for the longest time, you really cannot blame Dick Cheney from confronting his accusers.

Your president has plenty too be criticized for.

rodney888| 1.6.10 @ 7:07PM

One quibble: Mr. Tucker says that Obama will learn what a mistake it is to put KSM and others in civilian courts.

I think it is possible--maybe not likely, but possible--that Obama has known all along that chaos would result, but by god he's going to stick to his principles. Or, worse yet, that such chaos serves his purposes. After watching this guy for a couple of years, I put nothing past him.

Northern Rebel | 1.6.10 @ 9:47PM

Mr. Toddard:

Vice-President Cheney isn't gunning for a Nobel Arafat prize, nor is he he keeping himself in the limelight in order to command $100,00o for a speach in which he criticizes his country overseas.

mr. cheney is concerned that our country is going in the wrong direction, and has no personal profit motive. That's what separates a patriot from a fascist.

Obviously, you are incapable os seeing the difference, because you agree with the forces that would undermine the United States of America.

May God have mercy on your soul, sir!

OR, NOT!! :o)

victor| 1.6.10 @ 11:41PM

Herr Toddard does know the difference. He just does not give a tinker's cuss. Or that you even know that he knows.

S.L. Toddard| 1.10.10 @ 10:56AM

"Vice-President Cheney isn't gunning for a Nobel Arafat prize..."

What's the problem? I was just agreeing with your contention that refusal to leave the stage after your time in office expires is proof of Nazi-style fascist tendencies. By your own standards, Cheney is a fascist. We are in complete agreement here. You're not going to change those standards now that you realize they categorize Dick Cheney as a fascist, are you?

That would be downright hypocritical.

Flee| 1.6.10 @ 10:40PM

The quote reminds me of an old SCTV character, Harry Filth, who shoots a crook several times while he is trying to escape, then tells him to stop, then tells his boss he would kill a 100 innocent bystanders to get scum like that off the street. Why does Toddard post on this site? Can't he find some gutters to clean or something around the house to do?

china racking| 1.7.10 @ 2:05AM

http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com

Force Factor| 1.7.10 @ 7:12AM

They are not terrorists until we state them as terrorists right now Bush has them in there as enemy combatants they have been there for what, 3-5 years without trial. This is America sir, they are our problem.
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-.....?C=2236872

Marsh| 1.8.10 @ 4:30AM

Funny how everyone who comments on the recent Blackwater trial claims to have a top secret insider source who supports their point of view. It's also funny how the State Department audio recordings recall the details of the ambush as they were happening, And nevermind that one of the Blackwater vehicles had to be towed away after it was damaged in the fire fight. Clearly those "evil" "corporate" Blackwater "mercs" just randomly opened fire on unarmed civilians because... uh... well, they're just so evil!

*eye roll*

lain| 1.11.10 @ 1:14AM

The kid on the plane to Detroit, he is poor. His FAnike outletTHER, take a look at him - research and observe... there is the path to adidas outletconcsiousness

Sometime Spook| 1.30.10 @ 6:16PM

A most interesting and wide-ranging article. While I can understand the fascination and focus on the Blackwater trial and business, letting terrorists go is a no-brainer. There is no doubt that Khalid Shaik Mohammed should be tried but not in a civilian court. He is a member of an organization that declared war on the US and the Western world over 20 years ago. The place for him is a military tribunal because he is an enemy combatant. Under the circumstances, it would be better to disappear 100 terrorists and risk public ire rather than letting them decamp to Lebanon and train even more terrorists.

As for Blackwater, my understanding is that many of the problems concerning this issue stems from outsourcing government functions. It makes sense to the free market theorists and some pragmatists. However, if ever there was a place/time to come badly unstuck, it was with this crowd and their activities.

ms office 2007| 3.21.10 @ 12:19AM

Office 2007 Professional
Office 2007 Ultimate

karen| 4.2.10 @ 5:00AM

For men always fit the occasion if there is any doubt about what a man should wear. Sometimes an invitation is not very specific about the www.herveleger-outlet.com
; or it’s a place you are not familiar with so you don’t know what the dress code for the venue is likely to be. www.us-chaneloutlet.comIt’s very embarrassing to be asked to put on something more suitable or to ‘up’ one’s dress standards before being allowed to enter a restaurant or nightclub.

brands| 11.8.10 @ 5:47PM

blackwater is so deep , there are many of the problems concerning this issue

pampers boy| 11.8.10 @ 5:50PM

I think it is possible--maybe not likely, but possible--that Obama has known all along that

ppob| 11.13.10 @ 12:35AM

indeed difficult to cope with drug syndicates and terrorism, willpower alone is not sufficient if not supported by all layers.

Converse| 8.11.11 @ 9:34PM

is good