The right wing fervor over the decision by President Obama to fund research into gun violence is in a word - unbelievable. President Obama is proposing ending a 30 year ban on such funding - a ban supported and promoted by the NRA because they know full well what it will show, it will show that gun violence, like the death of innocents at Netown, is out of control. Well, that decision to fund that research is being called (by the NRA among others) proof of President Obama's plans for a totalitarian take-over of our country. They point to it as evidence of his extremism (Obama's), and that this shows how he intends to make himself dictator, that he supports the unilateral usurpation of fundamental and critical freedoms.
That's right, by funding research, research which may very well show we have far too many violent deaths, deaths possibly avoidable had guns been not so easily at hand, President Obama is trampeling your rights. He is side-stepping the Congress, he is side-stepping Congress' authority to appropriate. Of course, no other President, ever has done such a thing. It's outrageous.
Well, yes, it is outrageous that a small sect of our nation has prevented research into the causes of crime by getting our Congress to quake in their boots and institute bans on research through one mechanism or another.
But it is neither outrageous nor new for a President to use executive authority to conduct certain activities regardless of Congress' objections.
Let's give history a short whirl and see what we define as "fair" and what we call extremism after that.
1. Ronald Reagan secretly funded, despite a specific ban in place by Congress, a secret war in Nicaragua. If you doubt it, look up something called the Boland Amendment. His staffers, John Poindexter and Oliver North, in acknowledging their moral rightness and standing up and taking their lumps for doing "what was right" covered up the actions and provided Ronald Reagan protection against impeachment for engaging in a secret war. Reagan also traded weapons to Iran, a terrorist nation, to fund that war. He said he did not, but he later had to admit in fact he did in violation of long-standing laws. He did so in secret and his staff attempted to cover it up.
2. George W. Bush presented knowingly false evidence to Congress about the threat which Iraq posed. That false evidence, in part, created the pretext for a war which was needless, and lead to the death of about 500,000 Iraqis.
3. That same President Bush, violated the Constitution and our treaties in establishing extra-legal prisons to house people whom we thought were dangerous. He denied them counsel, representation, a chance to plea their case, access to their families. He abetted torture, he approved legal briefs which fatuously argued that such torture wasn't torture.
4. That same President Bush imprisoned US citizens without charge, in what, had the US Supreme Court not stepped in, would been without limit, without respect for the basic guarantees of Habeaus Corpus and due process enshrined in our Constitution.
5. The supporters of that President said that the Executive Branch was "ascendent" during time of war and could, essentially, do whatever it wanted. It took a conservative Supreme Court (including all but one of its conservative members) telling the President (and his neo-con supporters) they were wrong for the President to back down.
6. After that, President Bush repeatedly pushed the envelope of power, refusing to allow for hearings for prisoners, continuing the practice of secretly shipping prisoners around the world, funding it through funds dedicated to other services within the government - funds which are a "black box" for intelligence services - he pushed that envelope, engaging in unconstitutional activities right up until his cases were to be argued before SCOTUS, then he stopped. In short, he knew his actions were unconstitutional (some would call them illegal) and he kept doing them for as long as he could, even though he knew they violated our basic laws and liberties.
Now, given those, I'm quite sure, by contrast, choosing to fund research into gun violence is an extreme and egregious abuse of power. I'm sure those who are calling President Obama a dictator are right that his conduct is incredible, MUCH worse than anything or anyone else. It's obviously more extreme than secretly imprisoning people without charge or hope of release, it's obviously worse than lying to Congress and the country so you can start a war you desire rather than fight the one you need to, and it's so very clearly worse than secretly fighting a war which you've been specifically forbad to do by Congress - obviating the checks and balances in our Constitution in a way far more meaningful than doing research.
Well, except, it isn't at all and those who are saying so are blind. They are blind to their own support for President Reagan, they are blind and they forget their own support for the conduct of President Bush. Bush and Reagan came far closer to setting precedents which could be used to setup a dictatorship. Bush and (less so) Reagan engaged in the actions of dictators, secret prisons, imprisonment without charge, extra-legal definitions of the status of prisoners to justify denying them basic rights. President Obama is doing something many Presidents have done, from George Bush using signing statements to avoid parts of laws he didn't like to President Reagan failing to enforce environmental laws, ALL Presidents have used their office to do things which, under the letter of the law is not permitted, but HARDLY makes them dictators.
The differences is both the reason, in this case finding out details which the cowardice of Congress has otherwise prevented, finding DATA, not imprisoning folks - so it is both the reason, but more importantly the lengths to which men will go which makes them evil or good. Good men do bad things for good reasons (justification) but rarely to good men do evil things (lengths) even for good reasons. That takes people who lack compunction. Little other than how people treat civilians, prisoners, and especially those who MIGHT be adversaries, little else differentiates those we call evil from good. Good people give them trials, put them in jail, safeguard them (the civilians AND the prisoners), they seek to avoid civilian deaths and they hold who act improperly accountable. Evil men turn a blind eye to civilian deaths, mistreat prisoners, and protect their agents from prosecution when they've broken the law. Importantly as well, they lie about their conduct, they cover it up. I'm not calling Ronald Reagan evil, but if he were so convinced of his legal authority, which he claimed he was, he would have acted openly and argued his case before the country and the courts. He didn't. He lied and so did is men.
Being outraged about a decision to fund research when Congress refuses to act, while not giving a tinker's damn about rendition, due process, secret prisons or secret wars is failing to see the log in your eye while complaining about the splinter in someone else's. President Obama is no more (and seemingly much less) a tyrant than was Ronald Reagan with the only difference being Obama is being upfront while Reagan attempted to hide from his actions rather than proudly proclaiming they were right. The face of totalitarianism is every bit as much the face in the mirror of citizens who permit the persecution of the defenseless as it is the dictator himself. Those who sat idle while George Bush put people in prison without charge or access to counsel need very much to invest in such a mirror and to aim their hate-filled shouts at themselves.
That's right, by funding research, research which may very well show we have far too many violent deaths, deaths possibly avoidable had guns been not so easily at hand, President Obama is trampeling your rights. He is side-stepping the Congress, he is side-stepping Congress' authority to appropriate. Of course, no other President, ever has done such a thing. It's outrageous.
Well, yes, it is outrageous that a small sect of our nation has prevented research into the causes of crime by getting our Congress to quake in their boots and institute bans on research through one mechanism or another.
But it is neither outrageous nor new for a President to use executive authority to conduct certain activities regardless of Congress' objections.
Let's give history a short whirl and see what we define as "fair" and what we call extremism after that.
1. Ronald Reagan secretly funded, despite a specific ban in place by Congress, a secret war in Nicaragua. If you doubt it, look up something called the Boland Amendment. His staffers, John Poindexter and Oliver North, in acknowledging their moral rightness and standing up and taking their lumps for doing "what was right" covered up the actions and provided Ronald Reagan protection against impeachment for engaging in a secret war. Reagan also traded weapons to Iran, a terrorist nation, to fund that war. He said he did not, but he later had to admit in fact he did in violation of long-standing laws. He did so in secret and his staff attempted to cover it up.
2. George W. Bush presented knowingly false evidence to Congress about the threat which Iraq posed. That false evidence, in part, created the pretext for a war which was needless, and lead to the death of about 500,000 Iraqis.
3. That same President Bush, violated the Constitution and our treaties in establishing extra-legal prisons to house people whom we thought were dangerous. He denied them counsel, representation, a chance to plea their case, access to their families. He abetted torture, he approved legal briefs which fatuously argued that such torture wasn't torture.
4. That same President Bush imprisoned US citizens without charge, in what, had the US Supreme Court not stepped in, would been without limit, without respect for the basic guarantees of Habeaus Corpus and due process enshrined in our Constitution.
5. The supporters of that President said that the Executive Branch was "ascendent" during time of war and could, essentially, do whatever it wanted. It took a conservative Supreme Court (including all but one of its conservative members) telling the President (and his neo-con supporters) they were wrong for the President to back down.
6. After that, President Bush repeatedly pushed the envelope of power, refusing to allow for hearings for prisoners, continuing the practice of secretly shipping prisoners around the world, funding it through funds dedicated to other services within the government - funds which are a "black box" for intelligence services - he pushed that envelope, engaging in unconstitutional activities right up until his cases were to be argued before SCOTUS, then he stopped. In short, he knew his actions were unconstitutional (some would call them illegal) and he kept doing them for as long as he could, even though he knew they violated our basic laws and liberties.
Now, given those, I'm quite sure, by contrast, choosing to fund research into gun violence is an extreme and egregious abuse of power. I'm sure those who are calling President Obama a dictator are right that his conduct is incredible, MUCH worse than anything or anyone else. It's obviously more extreme than secretly imprisoning people without charge or hope of release, it's obviously worse than lying to Congress and the country so you can start a war you desire rather than fight the one you need to, and it's so very clearly worse than secretly fighting a war which you've been specifically forbad to do by Congress - obviating the checks and balances in our Constitution in a way far more meaningful than doing research.
Well, except, it isn't at all and those who are saying so are blind. They are blind to their own support for President Reagan, they are blind and they forget their own support for the conduct of President Bush. Bush and Reagan came far closer to setting precedents which could be used to setup a dictatorship. Bush and (less so) Reagan engaged in the actions of dictators, secret prisons, imprisonment without charge, extra-legal definitions of the status of prisoners to justify denying them basic rights. President Obama is doing something many Presidents have done, from George Bush using signing statements to avoid parts of laws he didn't like to President Reagan failing to enforce environmental laws, ALL Presidents have used their office to do things which, under the letter of the law is not permitted, but HARDLY makes them dictators.
The differences is both the reason, in this case finding out details which the cowardice of Congress has otherwise prevented, finding DATA, not imprisoning folks - so it is both the reason, but more importantly the lengths to which men will go which makes them evil or good. Good men do bad things for good reasons (justification) but rarely to good men do evil things (lengths) even for good reasons. That takes people who lack compunction. Little other than how people treat civilians, prisoners, and especially those who MIGHT be adversaries, little else differentiates those we call evil from good. Good people give them trials, put them in jail, safeguard them (the civilians AND the prisoners), they seek to avoid civilian deaths and they hold who act improperly accountable. Evil men turn a blind eye to civilian deaths, mistreat prisoners, and protect their agents from prosecution when they've broken the law. Importantly as well, they lie about their conduct, they cover it up. I'm not calling Ronald Reagan evil, but if he were so convinced of his legal authority, which he claimed he was, he would have acted openly and argued his case before the country and the courts. He didn't. He lied and so did is men.
Being outraged about a decision to fund research when Congress refuses to act, while not giving a tinker's damn about rendition, due process, secret prisons or secret wars is failing to see the log in your eye while complaining about the splinter in someone else's. President Obama is no more (and seemingly much less) a tyrant than was Ronald Reagan with the only difference being Obama is being upfront while Reagan attempted to hide from his actions rather than proudly proclaiming they were right. The face of totalitarianism is every bit as much the face in the mirror of citizens who permit the persecution of the defenseless as it is the dictator himself. Those who sat idle while George Bush put people in prison without charge or access to counsel need very much to invest in such a mirror and to aim their hate-filled shouts at themselves.
"His staffers, John Poindexter and Oliver North, in acknowledging their moral rightness and standing up and taking their lumps for doing "what was right" covered up the actions and provided Ronald Reagan protection against impeachment for engaging in a secret war."
ReplyDeletePointdexter, North, Abrams, Secord and most of the rest of that cabal did not do it for their country; they did it for themselves. They did it to get rich and they lied through their teeth under oath. They should all still BE in jail.