I decided to move my blog over to WordPress - you can find it here:
http://trueconservatism115.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Obamacare Unconstitutional?
A federal judge has ruled that the provision in President Obama's health care bill that requires US citizens to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. In light of the news, Democrats both in the Obama administration and in Congress are smugly predicting that the ruling will be overturned.
The sad thing is, they're probably right.
Incoming House Majority Whip Eric Cantor wants to take the case directly to the Supreme Court, and I agree, the case should be brought before the High Court. The problem is, the decision over the constitutionality of Obamacare shouldn't feel like a gamble - yet bringing Obamacare up before the Supreme Court as a Tenth Amendment case feels a lot like playing Russian roulette with the nation's future: in a divided court, it could go either way...and with the Court's recent history of 5-4 decisions, it feels like Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the cylinder. We can only hope that the High Court will stand up for the rights of individuals and the states and acknowledge that the Democrats have overstepped their Constitutional bounds in their health care law.
The sad thing is, they're probably right.
Incoming House Majority Whip Eric Cantor wants to take the case directly to the Supreme Court, and I agree, the case should be brought before the High Court. The problem is, the decision over the constitutionality of Obamacare shouldn't feel like a gamble - yet bringing Obamacare up before the Supreme Court as a Tenth Amendment case feels a lot like playing Russian roulette with the nation's future: in a divided court, it could go either way...and with the Court's recent history of 5-4 decisions, it feels like Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the cylinder. We can only hope that the High Court will stand up for the rights of individuals and the states and acknowledge that the Democrats have overstepped their Constitutional bounds in their health care law.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Reaction Won't Stop Terrorism
There are two main issues surrounding the big stink over the TSA's new policies. The first, which I addressed in my last post on the topic, is the 4th Amendment. Purchasing an airline ticket and attempting to board a flight does not constitute probable cause to justify the kinds of invasive searches these government agents are putting people through. Some pretty basic pre-screening criteria could fix that, but the government is so afraid of accusations of racial profiling that they simply refuse to take the common-sense approach, opting instead for the foolish shotgun approach, hoping that they just so happen to randomly select the terrorists for heightened screening measures.
The other issue has to do with the TSA's modus operandi: they operate primarily as a reactionary agency, which is not an efficient way to stop terrorism.
On 9/11, Muslim extremists hijacked airplanes using box cutters. In response, the newly-formed TSA immediately banned sharp objects on airplanes.
Then, Richard Reid tried to detonate explosives he had smuggled aboard a plane in his shoes. In response, the TSA began requiring all passengers to have their shoes X-rayed.
Then, authorities were able to stop a plot to blow up airliners using liquid & gel explosives that were to be smuggled aboard planes in bottles. In response, the TSA began restricting the amounts of liquids and gels that passengers could bring onto planes (which would not stop a bombing if enough people brought their 3 oz. of explosives on board and combined them together).
Now, the TSA is responding to the Christmas Day bomber, who smuggled explosives on board a plane in his underwear. However, there have been conflicting reports about whether the full body scanners would have detected the type of explosives the bomber had in his underwear - I've seen reports saying that the body scanners would have stopped the attack before the terrorist boarded the plane, and I've seen other reports stating that the body scanners would not have detected the type of explosive he was using.
Either way, the TSA, since its inception after 9/11, has primarily adjusted its policies in response to whatever method has been used in the latest terror attack. This should work fine, as long as the terrorists try to smuggle knives, or explosive-laden shoes onto an airplane, or end up being randomly selected to have a TSA agent check out their explosive-laden jockey shorts. With this kind of reactionary strategy, all the terrorists have to do is use a tactic that they haven't used in the past - something the TSA isn't currently specifically screening for. For example, the full body scanners and pat-downs wouldn't detect explosives smuggled in a body cavity - so if that tactic is used in an attack in the future, will the TSA then begin requiring random body cavity searches for airline passengers? Where does it end?
This is why the TSA's current policy shift won't work: not only does it violate people's Constitutional rights, but as long as the terrorists keep innovating and coming up with new ideas, they will continue to out-think the TSA, and innocent Americans will continue to be put at risk. This is why El-Al style screening measures make so much more sense: these screening measures are proactive, not reactive.
As it is now, the TSA isn't looking for terrorists at all, they are looking for bombs and weapons. The government's politically-correct fear of accusations of racial profiling have forced TSA agents to look for things, not to seek out the people that would use the bombs or weapons to attack America. By removing the human element and looking only for the terrorists' tools, the TSA remains only marginally effective, and chances are they won't be able to prevent the next attack.
The other issue has to do with the TSA's modus operandi: they operate primarily as a reactionary agency, which is not an efficient way to stop terrorism.
On 9/11, Muslim extremists hijacked airplanes using box cutters. In response, the newly-formed TSA immediately banned sharp objects on airplanes.
Then, Richard Reid tried to detonate explosives he had smuggled aboard a plane in his shoes. In response, the TSA began requiring all passengers to have their shoes X-rayed.
Then, authorities were able to stop a plot to blow up airliners using liquid & gel explosives that were to be smuggled aboard planes in bottles. In response, the TSA began restricting the amounts of liquids and gels that passengers could bring onto planes (which would not stop a bombing if enough people brought their 3 oz. of explosives on board and combined them together).
Now, the TSA is responding to the Christmas Day bomber, who smuggled explosives on board a plane in his underwear. However, there have been conflicting reports about whether the full body scanners would have detected the type of explosives the bomber had in his underwear - I've seen reports saying that the body scanners would have stopped the attack before the terrorist boarded the plane, and I've seen other reports stating that the body scanners would not have detected the type of explosive he was using.
Either way, the TSA, since its inception after 9/11, has primarily adjusted its policies in response to whatever method has been used in the latest terror attack. This should work fine, as long as the terrorists try to smuggle knives, or explosive-laden shoes onto an airplane, or end up being randomly selected to have a TSA agent check out their explosive-laden jockey shorts. With this kind of reactionary strategy, all the terrorists have to do is use a tactic that they haven't used in the past - something the TSA isn't currently specifically screening for. For example, the full body scanners and pat-downs wouldn't detect explosives smuggled in a body cavity - so if that tactic is used in an attack in the future, will the TSA then begin requiring random body cavity searches for airline passengers? Where does it end?
This is why the TSA's current policy shift won't work: not only does it violate people's Constitutional rights, but as long as the terrorists keep innovating and coming up with new ideas, they will continue to out-think the TSA, and innocent Americans will continue to be put at risk. This is why El-Al style screening measures make so much more sense: these screening measures are proactive, not reactive.
As it is now, the TSA isn't looking for terrorists at all, they are looking for bombs and weapons. The government's politically-correct fear of accusations of racial profiling have forced TSA agents to look for things, not to seek out the people that would use the bombs or weapons to attack America. By removing the human element and looking only for the terrorists' tools, the TSA remains only marginally effective, and chances are they won't be able to prevent the next attack.
The Second Korean War?
It looks like the big news of the day is that North Korea and South Korea have started shooting at each other. North Korea started shelling a South Korean island this morning, and is threatening further "merciless" attacks. Meanwhile, South Korea is threatening massive retaliation, and reports have come out that the South has returned fire.
This is definitely a chintzy situation; hopefully diplomacy will win out and the two Koreas will be able to resolve the situation peacefully. We went through enough hell in the first Korean War; we don't need a second, and with the North in possession of nukes, it's a whole new ballgame.
Keep both nations in your prayers as they hopefully move forward to a cessation of hostilities.
This is definitely a chintzy situation; hopefully diplomacy will win out and the two Koreas will be able to resolve the situation peacefully. We went through enough hell in the first Korean War; we don't need a second, and with the North in possession of nukes, it's a whole new ballgame.
Keep both nations in your prayers as they hopefully move forward to a cessation of hostilities.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The TSA is Out Of Control
This stink going on with the TSA doing their body scanner/aggressive pat-down thing truly is ridiculous, if only for one reason: the 4th Amendment.
The 4th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, states:
Since when did wanting to fly on an airplane constitute probable cause to have breasts and genitals groped in search of explosives? I totally understand the safety concerns surrounding terrorism and air travel, but this situation is ridiculous. The new policies were put into place because of last year's underwear bomber, but that situation could have been avoided had they given this type of increased screening to each and every passenger who was on a terrorist watch list. Doing this to random people just doesn't make any sense at all.
Personally, I fully support National Opt-Out Day. The government does not have the right to perform these searches solely based on the fact that people purchased airline tickets and want to fly on a plane. I know there has been a lot of hysteria over "racial profiling," but "no profiling" is not an acceptable alternative. Is it too much to ask to have some expectation of competency for the people expected to keep our airports safe? They should be able to use at least some basic profiling criteria to differentiate between potential terrorists and innocent civilians.
But then, to add insult to injury, the TSA is threatening $11,000 fines for people who opt-out of the body scanners and then leave the airport without going through the groping pat-down.
On the one hand, I can understand the TSA's mentality: if they automatically assume that everyone who flies is a terrorist, they will be more likely to catch the terrorists...but what the Department of Homeland Security and TSA seem to be ignoring is the fact that Americans have rights, and their current policies violate the US Constitution. When President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program became public knowledge, the bottom line was that, whether it helped to catch terrorists or not, it violated the Constitution, and it could not be used. The same message needs to go out about the TSA's new policies: while these aggressive new policies might help the TSA to catch terrorists (emphasis on the might, because it'll only help if the terrorists get chosen for random screening), they have already violated hundreds, if not thousands of American's 4th Amendment rights. It may be inconvenient for the TSA to have to work around the 4th Amendment in order to do their job, but the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is a fundamental right for all American citizens. It was written into our Constitution for a reason, and the TSA, as an agency of the US government, is bound by US law to abide by it.
The 4th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Since when did wanting to fly on an airplane constitute probable cause to have breasts and genitals groped in search of explosives? I totally understand the safety concerns surrounding terrorism and air travel, but this situation is ridiculous. The new policies were put into place because of last year's underwear bomber, but that situation could have been avoided had they given this type of increased screening to each and every passenger who was on a terrorist watch list. Doing this to random people just doesn't make any sense at all.
Personally, I fully support National Opt-Out Day. The government does not have the right to perform these searches solely based on the fact that people purchased airline tickets and want to fly on a plane. I know there has been a lot of hysteria over "racial profiling," but "no profiling" is not an acceptable alternative. Is it too much to ask to have some expectation of competency for the people expected to keep our airports safe? They should be able to use at least some basic profiling criteria to differentiate between potential terrorists and innocent civilians.
But then, to add insult to injury, the TSA is threatening $11,000 fines for people who opt-out of the body scanners and then leave the airport without going through the groping pat-down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)