Thursday, October 29, 2009

Afghanistan War is Useless

So opines Ralph Peters. Peters' piece in the NY Post is written in a style that reminds one of a conversation with a friend - it feels informal, like it's from the heart.

I’ve selected three quotes from the article which are very astute and deviate from the typical war-mongering cries from the media to which we’ve come so accustomed.

Now we are warned that, unless we send another 40,000 US troops to convince Afghans we're their friends, unspecified woes will fall upon us like biblical plagues.

The generals refuse to recognize that, from the local viewpoint, the Taliban are the patriots. We're the Redcoats.

So our troops hold their fire and die to protect Afghan villagers who back the Taliban and to protect an Afghan government the people despise. How, exactly, does this advance our national security?

Peters was doing so well until the final four paragraphs where he apparently realized that he was, in fact, a member of the main stream media and the day ended in ‘Y’. A leopard never truly loses its spots, no? Peters feigns the idea of peace (but only against the Taliban) but continues the war cries against the American boogieman: al Qaeda.

Why, according to Peters, are the Taliban patriots but al Qaeda must be eradicated? Is al Qaeda’s skin browner than the Taliban’s?

Peters wrote:
Killing our nation's enemies always makes sense. [his emphasis]

There are so many things wrong with that simple, but powerful, sentence.
First, who gets to decide who “our nation’s” enemies are?
More to the point, who is this collective that Peters has failed to identify that obviously makes up the “our”?
By virtue of the fact that I was born on this land mass known as America, am I to be lumped in with “our”?
If I am part of “our”, am I to wait until I have been given direction by some person or some group of persons so that I can be enlightened as to who “our”/my enemy is?
What if I don’t agree with the fact that someone or group of persons has been labeled as “our” enemy?
Does killing them still “always make sense”?

Tell that to the Japanese Americans during WWII.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Nullification in Ohio

The bureaucrats in the State of Ohio have introduced the "Firearms Freedom Act" which seeks to “... provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words “Made in Ohio” be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio.”

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Don't you Buckeyes feel so well "represented"? I can just hear the shouts now:

"We need to throw the rascals out! These current bureaucrats are violating our rights so we need to replace them with a different set of bureaucrats who can violate our rights in a different way!"

The bureaucrats in Ohio have done the right thing which is to ignore the Feds, or at least they pretend that they are going to. But what are they going to do when the Feds inevitably threaten to cut their federal funding if they don't play nice? Will they have the brass to hold firm to their convictions (if you can call them that) and continue to extend the middle finger to DC?

We shall see. In the mean time, let this be a lesson to all you "Constitutionalists" out there who think that a piece of paper can somehow prevent the bureaucrats from becoming tyrannical.

Sure, the Constitution has a lot of history behind it, it was signed by a bunch of very hallowed dead guys, and I'm sure it looks very important behind the glass and lights for the tourists at the National Archives. But reality has shown that it really isn't worth the parchment on which it's written.

Lysander Spooner said, "...whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

Sunday, October 25, 2009

The Constitution: a non-binding contract

Here is a great article written by Russell D. Longcore that may make you reconsider your thoughts about the US Constitution and its ability to effectively control tyrannical government. It also offers up some tactical advice to Texas in the wake of secession talk.