Posted on 01/07/2010 3:47:01 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
Americans will feel "a certain shock" when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the alleged Christmas Day airline bomber from ever boarding the plane.
In an interview published Thursday in USA Today, White House national security adviser James Jones said President Obama "is legitimately and correctly alarmed that things that were available, bits of information that were available, patterns of behavior that were available, were not acted on."
"That's two strikes," he was quoted as saying, referring to the failed Northwest jet attack and the shooting massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in November. The Army base attack left 13 dead after officials failed to act on intelligence identifying suspected gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a threat to fellow soldiers.
Jones, a retired four-star Marine general, told the paper that Obama "certainly doesn't want that third strike, and neither does anybody else."
Elaborating, Jones said, "The man on the street ... will be surprised that these correlations weren't made" between clues pointing toward a threat from Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Even though the 23-year-old Nigerian man was in a database of possible terrorists, he managed to fly from Nigeria through Amsterdam to Detroit with an explosive concealed on his body.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Airport security falls under the Constitutional prerogative of a "common defense," in Conservative terms now that airplanes can be used as weapons of mass destruction. An attack upon our country with an airplane is an act of war. The Federal government has a Constitutional duty to provide for the "Common Defense." Why do we pay for a military if not to prevent attacks upon our nation? When we no longer fear that Al Qaeda will fly a plane into the Pentagon, or use planes to blow up hundreds of our citizens, then you can argue that a profit-driven company without Federal oversight should handle our national defense. Until then, airport security should be handled like we handle other Defense industries.
Oh, and KC_for_Freedom? You say - Now, when there is a failure of the government system, does anyone care? (Sure they will say they care, but is there any penalty to make them sorry for their errors in judgement? Not likely.
I guess that removing the penalty for poor judgment occurred when we didn't call for the firing of any security officers or government heads after 9/11, which was the worst terrorist attack to ever occur here. You can go to lower Manhattan and still see the big hole where the Twin Towers used to be. But no Conservative called for Bush to be impeached, or for airport security to become completely privatized, after that event.
No, the call was for a military defense. It's primarily provided by private companies, if you look at the way the contracts are awarded or the sheer number of "boots on the ground" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's the way national security is provided, and "common defense" is completely Constitutional.
Just what do you define as socialism? Using taxes to pay for services? If you hate taxes so much that even national defense is "socialism" in your eyes, you should move to the wilderness and provide everything for yourself. Until the, enjoy your "socialized" roads, bridges, water and sewer, vaccinated populations, police and firefighters, snow-plowing, and national military. Until you do that, you're just cheapskate hypocrites in my eyes.
I don't think the jihadis will do that. If they did, the government would not be able to control the average American's backlash against anyone whom even looks like they might be from the ME...
I hear a bus engine cranking up.
So I wasn't the only one who noticed it. That's professional butt-kissing. A Marine officer really shouldn't do that.
Name calling from you is flattering.
As far as your charges, after 9-11 (which was handled in the air as a hyjacking —which we accept as a poor choice in the era of suicide bombers) — there were plenty of calls for the airlines to improve security. (Yes even profiling was mentioned and Bush and Cheney both jumped on the PC bandwagon at that time an campaigned as though profiling was somehow unAmerican.) Security at that time was the sole province of the airlines. TSA is a new and improved approach that I don’t think worked very well.
However I don’t want to debate who should do security as much as determine how security is achieved. As far as I am concerned, a dumb airline approach is equally as wrong as a dumb TSA run system. As far as this goes, I accept that providing for the common defense could be a justification for a government run security system, (and this is particularly true for incoming international flights) but TSA has their head up their posterior. I don’t think their model should be followed. As far as being a hypocrite, I don’t think that charge really applies. I would be cheering for the TSA system if they had stopped this man from boarding the plane. (Incidently, real security results in no incidents and the public would likely not even know how many attacks were avoided — talk about unsung heros). But every time a young man with a prayer rug and compass is searched, we would hear of the injustice of it all. And before you go there, I admit that there needs to be more than profiling, because a terror cell will search until they find a non-profiled type as soon as the profile is developed. I am in favor of high tech searches of all passengers and luggage. I will accept the “invasion” of privacy as long as it has defined limits and legal redress when those limits are trespassed.
Finally, though I did not call for the impeachment of anyone after 9-11, I became a non-Bush supporter after years of bad judgement in office. I am referring mostly to economic positions his administration took leading to massive government spending, similar to what we usually attribute to the democratic party. My understanding of the national security screw-up in 9-11 was that various organizations (FBI, CIA, Etc) did not collaborate largely due to a democrat designed firewall between inteligence organizations authored by Jamie Gorelick. The dept of Homeland Security was established to solve this concern. It clearly did not do its job in this case. Should someone be held accountable? Probably. Will someone, possibly. But will someone please fix the system?
I’m with you there. An inefficient unresponsive bureaucracy that doesn’t do its job sucks, no matter whether it’s private or public sector.
Assigning blame is far less important than devising a winning security strategy. If that strategy involves replacing people, then I want people replaced. If the strategy involves kicking the butts of people who are “experts” in order to get them to do a better job, then kick butts.
The Feds should be in charge of setting policy, requirements, and penalties because this is a matter of national defense. That’s their Constitutional duty.
I get to vote for a new Federal government every four years. I never get to vote for a new business CEO; even if I own stock, I still don’t vote for the corporation president. I can take my business elsewhere, but I have never seen any company change its business policies dramatically because they lost my business (unless they were a Mom and Pop.) But Fed agencies change their administration heads every time there’s a new President.
Obama said a lot of things yesterday that we would have applauded if a Republican President had said them. He said “The buck stops with me,” and “We are at war with Al Qaeda.” He said that we are not going to give up our liberties to satisfy a small gang of thugs and crazy men, and that all of us have a hand in keeping our country safe. He also said that he is most concerned with making people do a better job of keeping us safe. New body scanners rushing into the airports even if civil right folks complain.
Finally, he said that TSA failed because they still are not communicating and connecting the dots, and he is demanding that someone get the job of doing that - apparently no one ever had it! (Can you believe that!)
Well if he does all he says he wants to, and gets some butts kicked and working systems in place, kudos to him even if he is a Dem. If he doesn’t - that’s the end of his Presidency.
Scary and infuriating followup - the Underwear Bomber got onto the plane because his name had been TYPOED on the watch list! What can be done to prevent THAT, I wonder - a simple human error. We make fun of “The system worked,” but it’s true if you think of us as all part of the system. The passengers were informed enough, watchful enough, and brave enough to handle the situation when it arose. Their caution saved the entire plane. Those cautious passengers *are* part of the system, just the same way that air wardens and watchful citizens were during WWII.
It worked. Nothing blew up or got destroyed except the guy’s crotch.
As far as being a “cheapskate hypocrite,” you’ve certainly removed that impression. Getting yelled at for supporting “socialized airline security” got me kind of riled up. Maybe both of us need to approach our fellow Freepers with the presumption of good-hearted intelligence on their part.
(Personal note: I worked in a “public sector bureaucracy” decades ago. The people were trying to do their jobs under very trying circumstances, with belligerent “customers” and tiny budgets. Good employees came in hard-working, efficient and eager, and left after a few years (like I did) because of the abuse of clients and the general public, and because their wages were bottom-of-the-barrel compared to the private sector. Then I saw a lot more fraud, abuse, and downright lying theft in my next business - stock brokerage - than I ever did in student loan administration. So I will never just dump on the public sector for being funded by the taxpayers - *as long as it does its job.* Does that make me a Socialist? NO!)
Thank you for the reply,
I have worked in industry as an electronics system engineer and currently work in the public sector as a high school teacher. I am a board certified safety professional. The things we observe, our behavior, and our beliefs are tempered by our experience and understanding.
I agree that our current security is reactionary and acts much like an unresponsive bureaucracy. This may well be because of poor working conditions and is always due to poor management. You cannot vote for a corporation CEO, but you also do not get to vote for bureaucrats. Your vote for our legislators is also largely visionary as these people screw up again and again but find themselves back in office because they consistently produce an image of doing well by their constituency while fleecing the members of other districts. This of course is illogical, since we all get fleeced equally — but I teach math, and logic is not easy for my students to grasp. Likely it is not a strong subject with my neighbors either.
That a typo was part of the chain of events that led to Mr. PETN in the pants getting on the plane is not surprising. But accountability in this case should be short and swift. Fire the typist, the quality assurance person, and the supervisor. (This does not even need to make the news.) As far as how far up a bureaucracy you go, it’s hard to determine where a slackness of attitude starts, but I would go that far with reprimands at least. When maintenance staff at my engineering company took safety bolts from the base plate of a 20 million dollar satellite to use for a while on their project and left no note and failed to return the bolts before the satellite was lifted they were fired when the 20 million dollar satellite fell several feet to a concrete floor. My company had a policy of usually giving people a second chance but they decided that some mistakes are so severe that the event should be a “teachable moment”.
The current anti-terror system did not work! I don’t like to give a “passing” grade to something that failed because the bomber did not get the formula right. He managed to bring explosive and detonator together and usually that is enough to achieve success. Of course I applaud the flying public for their response, perhaps given enough time he would have started the flammable materials on the plane burning. That too, would have brought the flight down. We still do not know how the materials were brought on the plane, how they were supposed to be mixed, and what the mission was. Perhaps the bomber only wanted to create a ruckus and get a show trial? (Our chemists will be able to tell whether or not the stuff was capable of ignition-to-detonation-transition – my supposition is that if it were not confined in a pressure vessel it never would have detonated—but this depends on how well it was synthesized in the first place. PETN is normally a safe explosive requiring a blasting cap or similar to detonate. The bomber apparently did not have a blasting cap and battery, only a syringe and some liquid?) If the stuff was only going to burn, does this mean he gets off, we have yet to see how our criminal system works in these cases.
I hope this is a wake up call for our bureaucrats, the job they do in many cases is critical and they need to approach it with that in mind. I have nothing against getting good people and giving them appropriate training, even at our expense. I did not mean you were a socialist; I probably use the term too loosely. I do not begrudge the TSA of the job they have, but if they don’t do the job as well as they ought, the airlines should be free to add measures that they deem appropriate to protect their investment in people and equipment. The TSA, for example may well decide to subject passengers to secondary screening using random numbers (to be politically correct). This would be wrong headed. Political correctness is not of overriding importance when life and death are involved. If the airlines wished to enhance security (in the very real event that TSA decides they cannot profile with characteristics that reflect race, national origin Etc.) Then the laws should be written to allow the airlines, on their own to institute other characteristics and additional screening. Examples of appropriate screening characteristics include: paying for a one-way ticket with cash; not having overnight luggage while traveling for longer than a day; returning from one of several countries known to provide terror training within their borders; being on a watch list. I would view the airlines as doing their corporate best to ensure safety of the flying public and would prefer that they be unhampered in these efforts. I hope this does not make me a bigot – I profess not to be and teach in a very ethnically diverse school where I give each kid a chance to develop a sense of logic and be able to make these decisions for themselves.
Thank YOU for your reply. I admit I will be rereading it to make sure that I get the benefit of the full value of your points.
My immediate reaction, besides thanking you for the response, is to ask you where the TSA failed in permitting the PETN components onto the plane. I thought that he originally boarded in Lagos, then transferred to the Northwest Airline flight in Amsterdam. Wouldn’t it have been up to the Dutch authorities to screen for bomb-making components?
I admire your work teaching math and logic to young minds. A sound foundation in logic, as well as the ability to do one’s one research and examine the claims or various ources, is probably the intellectual preparation our nation would profit from most. Sometimes I think that we should all get back to the trivium. The teaching of rhetoric surely would improve our national discourse - although it would probably put a great many of our most highly paid pundits out of work immediately!
If all they were doing was defending this nation, no. Unfortunately, such is demonstrably not the case. Now the military defends the "interests" of those who control the government, not the people, which is but one reason why our borders go undefended. Sometimes, those people are our creditors, not even Americans. Similarly, those elements of our defense system that provide the entire world a "pax Americana" borne exclusively by the American taxpayer while supporting the export of their jobs operate as industrial subsidies. So those I would also condemn.
Airport security falls under the Constitutional prerogative of a "common defense,"
A bald faced assertion if I've ever seen one.
in Conservative terms now that airplanes can be used as weapons of mass destruction.
Since when did an airplane graduate from the equivalent of a bomber to WMD? Compared to a nuke, that is a huge exaggeration. In WWII, when losing thousands of men in a day was not uncommon, you'd have been laughed out of the forum for hyperbole.
An attack upon our country with an airplane is an act of war.
Only when sponsored by a nation.
Why do we pay for a military if not to prevent attacks upon our nation?
Are you suggesting using a standing army to frisk or screen passengers at every concentrated transportation node in the country? What kind of country would that be? I call it "martial law."
When we no longer fear that Al Qaeda will fly a plane into the Pentagon, or use planes to blow up hundreds of our citizens, then you can argue that a profit-driven company without Federal oversight should handle our national defense.
So magnanimous of you. So instead you'd systematically violate our 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment rights just so that you can feel safe, just so that you don't have to get your brain out of using government to solve every security problem. And if you think "profit making Defense industries" don't drive political decisions about security, I have news for you. It's but one reason why we have the system we have now. After trillions of dollars spent on national defense against a power with bomber aircraft and REAL WMD, we had a system incapable of taking down a subsonic, unarmed plane with a known location and 45 minutes of warning before it hit... the PENTAGON!!! The irony of such incompetence is overwhelming.
Worse, this is the second time you've argued that a company with a profit motive is a bad thing. Frankly, if they do a better job for less, they deserve every nickel.
So, no sale for me, but for you, it won't be enough. You see, these Islamo-thugs won't stop at airports. Transit stations will be next. What will you do then? Respond with an ever bigger and more invasive police state so that people can get through a two-hour wait on the way to and from work??? How about toll plazas on bridges? I just can't wait until you get your "profilers" standing at every light rail station and bridge in the country. Yep, then when the socialists are elected again, they'll declare you a threat and make sure YOU have no freedom of movement. Care to bet they wouldn't do that with a unionized government bureaucracy in charge of "security"? If you think they don't have a "profit motive" in terms of power, I've got news for you. Such is the history of governments since the dawn of civilization.
When you invest government with the power to violate the rights described in the Constitution, you invest the government with powers ripe for abuse. That's why a private system, capable of employing any screening method that they see fit, is preferable. If you don't like them or have reason to fear their services, alternatives will become available, but at least the scope of the problem remains limited. When government either fails, we reward it with increasing powers to the point where there is no recourse. We all pay for that kind of stupidity.
I assume that you are informed enough to know the history behind the federal regulation of airport security and air flight - the creation of the FAA, the Department of Transportation, and airport screening involving metal detectors, et al. These are Constitutionally legal duties of the Federal government, which involve protecting the common defense and the regulation of interstate commerce.
It is not just my hyperbole that attacks with airplanes are attacks with “weapons of mass destruction.” Attacks with airplanes have been legally defined as “attacks with weapons of mass destruction” following Executive request and Congressional approval following 9/11. The Christmas Day bomber himself was indicted on Wednesday with charges of attempted murder and trying to use a weapon of mass destruction to kill nearly 300 people. Hyperbole it may be, in your opinion, but it is now the law of the land.
You prefer “a private system, capable of employing any screening method that they see fit.” You lost that argument, both in the court of public opinion and in the courts of law, over fifty years ago. This isn’t just “bald-faced assertion” - it is historical and legal fact, which you can look up if you wish.
Even your preferred private companies use the powers of the Federal government in their screening methods. What we call the “no-fly list” isn’t enforced by the Feds, but by the airlines themselves, who refuse to sell a ticket to anyone who is on the Terrorist Screening Database (TSD), which is maintained by the FBI.
As far as “profiling” goes, I have never advocated it, nor do I here. Profiling is too easily eluded once its criteria are known.
Nor am I even close to advocating using “a standing army to frisk or screen passengers at every concentrated transportation node in the country”. Yes, that would be tantamount to martial law. While that is done in other countries, here in the US we use state and local organizations to maintain security in airports. Even the military guards stationed at NY Port Authority facilities do not frisk or screen travelers, but are there only in case of disturbance.
Nor am I arguing against a profit-making companies. My full statement is “a profit-driven company without Federal oversight” in the case of national defense.
Uh, no, they're not. The courts may have said so, but this is way beyond the scope of original intent. It should properly have required an amendment. Oh, and I am a scholar on that topic, so don't go there.
Thus, you are building your entire thesis upon an Admiralty Law understanding of the Constitution pursuant to the War Powers Act of 1933 and the bankruptcy of the United States at that time. It's bogus.
You lost that argument, both in the court of public opinion and in the courts of law, over fifty years ago.
That would be nearly a century, sirrah. However, since when did "public opinion" trump the Constitution without an amendment? So, once again, you prove that you are a social democrat, not a Constitutionalist conservative.
Now as to the basis of that argument, it was corporate power that lobbied for regulation in the first place during the Teddy Roosevelt administration, popular indoctrination to the contrary. I don't expect you to understand the reasons for it, but it's a matter of economies of scale in the lawyering and paperwork business.
This isn’t just “bald-faced assertion” - it is historical and legal fact, which you can look up if you wish.
So, although it isn't a "bald-faced assertion, it is in error as a matter of historical fact.
Even your preferred private companies use the powers of the Federal government in their screening methods.
Yes, they love fascism, as apparently do you. What they choose to do in a free market is fine with me. It's the means of getting there that's the problem. Your system is incapable of site specific differentiation and socializes risks while privatizing benefits.
Nor am I even close to advocating using “a standing army to frisk or screen passengers at every concentrated transportation node in the country”. Yes, that would be tantamount to martial law.
It's where your system is going, like it or not.
What we call the “no-fly list” isn’t enforced by the Feds, but by the airlines themselves, who refuse to sell a ticket to anyone who is on the Terrorist Screening Database (TSD), which is maintained by the FBI.
There is no reason competing insured third parties can't maintain such lists, but for the fact that our maze of crooked precedents makes them liable for the content and consequences. The reality is that such lists were once common back in the day of Lloyds and square-masted shipping. They eventually got governments to assume those risks.
As far as “profiling” goes, I have never advocated it, nor do I here. Profiling is too easily eluded once its criteria are known.
Fine. Tell us what Constitutional means you wish to employ to manage the situation without more of the same. I have a list. Do you?
Nor am I arguing against a profit-making companies. My full statement is “a profit-driven company without Federal oversight” in the case of national defense.
When the Feds go crooked, what is your recourse? Global government? That's a serious question BTW, because it's where your line of thinking is going.
Two comments on your post:
First, you make a very good point by noting that it was not TSA but Holland who was responsible for the screening of passengers. I suspect Holland is as adamant about not using profiling as we in America. (At least the PC majority). Alas, the point you make actually bolsters my argument for the airlines being responsible for more security (as I point out it is their employees on the flight, and their airplane). They were in Holland, and are every other place that they take on passengers. They are also major stakeholders in security. So let them do what they believe will stop terror.
Of course there is the other aspect that TSA, FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, Customs… all have input into the process. If the watch list was correct, and the no-fly list current – I suspect the Dutch would have kept our PETN laden character off the flight. They also probably would have released him, as they would not have found any explosives Etc. Thus I still maintain we can do better. It remains to be seen how the current administration will achieve a higher standard. Screen everyone? How many body scanners do we need? (And on this topic, I am not worried about a privacy violation using these devices. I would in fact use them clandestinely in places with large crowds. But I would safeguard the images and make certain that people with integrity were involved at every stage.)
Finally, you comment that profiling is deficient because once known the profile can be defeated. Certainly, I would agree that there are radicals of every makeup you can identify but this is still not a sufficient argument against profiling. One would have to show that profiling results in the same result as not profiling at all, or if you prefer economics one would have to show that the cost benefit of using profiling was negative. A good profiling system would eliminate many of the terrorists that are in the pipeline today and force their leadership to seek fringe radicals who might also be double agents. Both results oriented profile analysis and cost benefit analysis would be extremely likely today to show a benefit to some aspects of profiling, (belief in radical Islam, visit to a terror training locale, being reported by a member of your own religion or family, could be considered invariants in the fight against terror. Yes, this is only an assertion, but one I believe could be confirmed at the present time.
And finally, yes to improving education and returning to basic knowledge. How refreshing that would be in the current climate. BTW, teaching is the best job I have ever had.
Absoluty correct. But I would expect this from the author of Natural Process: That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature.
It's an amazing story.
Well, if you don't agree with the constitutionality of these agencies as determined by our Courts, then there is really no point in our discussing anything further. You have your interpretation of the Constitution. I am using the one that is actually being utilized and enforced by the Courts right now.
You have the constitutional right to challenge these interpretations in court, all the way up to the Supreme. As a scholar, perhaps you'd even be found to have standing. Why don't you go do that? Please?
Actually, I was building my argument upon the 1926 Air Commerce Act, which gave these duties to the Department of Commerce. The Act was, yes, a response to public opinion, but was duly voted upon by the Congress, and signed by President Coolidge. The Air Commerce Act was demanded by the American public because the "free market" was failing so abysmally at keeping the general public safe. That's the system that our Constitution provides for carrying out the will of the People - they can lobby their government for action.
Yes, "over half a century ago" (if you are opposed to the use of "fifty years ago", "sirrah") these agencies were created by Congress. They have been determined to be Constitutional. If you disagree, take it to Court and have this interpretation, and these Agencies, overturned. Get an amendment passed that brings us back to "original intent" as you interpret it.
Of course, there has been a lot of case law and Constitutional law adjudicated since the days of Admiralty Law, Lloyds of London, and the three-masted schooner. Even if you don't agree with it, and prefer to stick with 18th Century jurisprudence, these later decisions do take precedence. And if you don't agree with that, you have the right to file a suit. Go ahead.
Part of your argument has a surprising interpretation of American history. it was corporate power that lobbied for regulation in the first place during the Teddy Roosevelt administration, popular indoctrination to the contrary ... but it's a matter of economies of scale in the lawyering and paperwork business.
I can understand that you probably believe the legislation of the Progressive Movement that regulated business should be overturned (except for, perhaps, things like women's suffrage which were enacted by amendment).
But can you please direct me to histories outside of "popular indoctrination" that provide evidence that businesses themselves were fighting to be more heavily regulated? Wage and hour legislation, the regulation of food and drugs, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act - these were all supported by business at the time, who lobbied for these restrictions upon their actions, the reasons being "a matter of economies of scale in the lawyering and paperwork business."? I will happily read any history that can prove this to be the case, especially with the use of contemporaneous historical evidence.
Finally, you ask me a serious question.When the Feds go crooked, what is your recourse?
Changing those in government through legal means. Impeachment. Having those who are crooked be arrested, indicted, tried, and sentenced if proven guilty. These are all provided for in our American system already. We can handle our own problems without needing any one-world government.
By the way, are you in favor of profiling, or not? It's difficult to tell from the way you discuss it in your separate posts.
KC-For_freedom, this is one of the best *discussions* I’ve had here on FR in quite some time. It’s inspired me to do some research on exactly how the “no-fly list” is compiled.
It turns out that the “no-fly list” is actually a misnomer - it’s a really the Terrorist Screening Database of about 55,000 people, which is put together by the FBI based on a list of about 500,000 called TIDE.
TIDE is the database created after 9/11 to centralize information about known and suspected terrorists. It was based on its predecessor, known as TIPOFF, a State Department terrorism database, and is run out of the new National Counterterrorism Center.
Unlike most other government databases, TIDE mixes records on U.S. citizens with records on aliens. And unlike its predecessor, TIDE can store biometric information such as fingerprints and DNA records.
Unclassified portions of the TIDE database are used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Terrorist Screening Center as well as the Transportation Security Administration for its no-fly list and selectee list, as well as many other government agencies. Each agency decides what criteria to use to accept a name from TIDE, which sets a very low bar on what information it will accept.
And it’s called the no-fly list because the airlines use it - they run the list against their computerized ticketing systems. They won’t sell a ticket to anyone on it, or let them board if they come to the gate with a ticket.
The “Christmas Day Bomber” was on TIDE, but not the TDS. He was actually profiled because he hit certain flags, and passed an airport interview at Schiphol - you can read about their security procedures:http://www.securitydirectornews.com/?p=article&id=sd200904ao5v37, He wasn’t nervous and struck his fellow passengers as normal - until he set himself on fire.
Here’s a very informative article from Scientific American about what could have stopped the guy:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=what-could-have-stopped-the-christm-2009-12-2
Theses scanners may be expensive, but in the long run may may prove less costly than frisking every passenger or letting a plane be exploded.
So, for the background history for which you asked, I am asking that you start with the first four articles on my site detailing how the seeds of the corporate mercantilist (fascist) governmental structure we have were hidden in the Constitution and its amendments, thence to be "interpreted" by the Supremes so that the pigs at the trough could cash in. All were well received here at FR.
Thank you for your links to the essays. I am a fervent devotee of Constitutional business history
I received a copy of “The Essential Gnostic Gospels,” by Alana Jacobs, as a Christmas present. Although these are New Testament, as opposed to Old Testament, writings, I am hoping that you can give me your quick opinion. I unfortunately cannot translate ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek. Perhaps someday - if I am able to live long enough. There is never enough time, or perhaps physical strength, to get everything accomplished.
By the way, the view of your forests is revivifying.
Sorry for the typo - it is *Alan* Jacobs that is responsible for the new edition og the Gnostic Gospels.
I don't think you'll find such a thorough picture of how and why the regulatory system works the way it does anywhere else.
BTW, there is an error in the Patrick Henry piece re the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is in force but was never ratified by the US. We are abiding by it anyway by respecting the spirit of treaties upon signature without ratification, even when they have been specifically rejected by the Senate (as was Kyoto). I'm working on a rewrite, but physical projects have taken their toll. I need it to rain so that I can spend the time.
I wrote long thesis papers on both the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States and Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, (admittedly 30 years ago.) However, my intellectual interest in government regulation of business has continued fervently until this day. I will enjoy reading all of your links on business, as well as your Biblical examinations.Congratulations on being able to support your family with the author's life. It is a hard struggle at times. You have a spirit of intellectual questing that is rare and admirable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.