In September 2006, the USA became a Military Dictatorship

Ah come on, don't get so mellow-dramatic. The United States is based on a Constitution that prohibits any part of the Government from turning the nation into a dictatorship....right?

Wrong. Sorry folks, but its true and very few people ever even knew it happened.

First a bit of history. When the Continental Congress first proposed a national government, many of the states were in opposition based on the feeling that their powers would be overturned by a national government. The founding fathers, also concerned about this possibility, took great pains to draft the "Bill of Rights" and build into the Constitution express power to States and individuals. This ideal was championed for most of our nations history. When events happened that could cause conflicts between States rights and the national government, laws were changed or enacted in an attempt to maintain the equilibrium built into the foundation of the Constitution as a whole.

One of the the most important limits on federal power was the passage by Congress of the Insurrection Act in 1807 which severely restricted a president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. Later on, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions further by adding a two-year prison term on anyone who attempted to use the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress.

It was obvious to our previous leaders that too much power in the hands of one person, or even an elected body of officials, was a dangerous thing. They understood history and knew that gaining unrestricted control of a military was essential in establishing a dictatorship.

Lets zoom ahead now to the Republican lead Congress of September 2006, just months before the mid-term elections. This group, with nearly unanimous support of both parties, passed the The Defense Authorization Act of 2006. This law empowers the sitting president to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” with just a perceived shortfall of “public order,” or in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations.

Ok, not the worst possible scenario, but if you dig deeper into the wording of the law, you quickly understand how this congress changed our rights to freedom to living under a military dictatorship in one fell swoop:

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” Remember that the Insurrection Act of 1807 limited the president's ability to deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition”

The inclusion of words "other condition" is not defined nor limited in any way!

Additionally, this new law gives the president the new authority to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for up to 365 days. Thus, its very conceivable that a sitting President could send the Illinois National Guard to suppress antiwar protests in New York, the New York National Guard to disarm the residents of Texas who, exercising their constitutional rights, resisted a federal law prohibiting private ownership of semiautomatic weapons. In essence, the control by an individual State's Governor to control of the National Guard is trumped by a simple presidential declaration.

If you understand the enormity of this legislation, it should also be clear that we are now living under a military dictatorship. Thanks to the Republican Lead Congress, with nearly full support of both "major" parties, our freedoms now exist only at the president's pleasure.

Even if you want to believe (foolishly) that President Bush would not use this power against the citizens of this country, would you also be so sure about Hilary's use? Obama's? Pelosi?

If the congress didn't believe a president would direct the military against his own people, why give him/her that power in the first place?

If this legislation was so crucial for our safety, why was it just a few paragraphs tacked on to a $500 billion, 591-page bill?

Why has nobody heard of this yet?

I contend that the swiftness of its passage, being hidden in pages of other non-related spending items, and the sequestering of its content from the media and public at large, is directly because the citizens of this country would be up in arms over its mere concept more-less be enacted into law. The fact of the matter is, today the USA is no longer a free populace. Our freedoms and rights now hing on any perceived emergency by the president.

I guarantee you, this is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind, nor what the original States agreed to adopt as national law.

Is there any hope? Some, but don't hold your breath. Senators Leahy and Kit Bond have sponsored a bill to repeal these changes, but nobody in congress is looking at it seriously. Senator Leahy has urged congress to consider the Section 1076 fix, declaring, “It is difficult to see how any Senator could disagree with the advisability of having a more transparent and thoughtful approach to this sensitive issue.”

To summarize this national over-throw by legislation, I'd like to quote James Bovard, writing for The American Conservative:

"... The Section 1076 debacle exemplifies how the Washington establishment pretends that new power will not be abused, regardless of how much existing power has been mishandled. Why worry about martial law when there is pork to be harvested and photo ops to attend? It is still unfashionable in Washington to worry about the danger of the open barn door until after the horse is two miles down the road."

Believe in all party positions?

I sure would like to support a political party that held 100% of my beliefs. The reality however, is that such a party doesn't exist. For the longest time I felt that the Republican party's platform was the closest to my list of beliefs, but over time I have come to realize that what they say is not what they do.

Anyone who knows me would be shocked that I'd switch to the Constitutional party if they only gave a cursory look at the party platform. In this day and age, I think most people's attention would be drawn first to their stand on the Iraq war, and the war on terrorism in general. I'll tell you right now that the Constitution Party is wrong on these points. Their stated position is that we should surrender Iraq and leave. I can't disagree with this stand any more fervently. The war is NOT lost, and it is important that we finish the job we started.

I'm not as convinced as I once was that we needed to invade Iraq, but we did and we can't leave it for the terrorists to take over. Iraq is a strategic piece of real-estate and when we finally come head to head with Iran (which will happen), we'll need our presence in Iraq. I'm more convinced that this was the, if not at least a big part, of the justification to go there in the first place. I don't believe that such a strategy was wrong either. We need to look at the future, and plan for all probably contingencies when it comes to defending our Nation, and ultimately the world.

The current thinking in the Constitution Party is that the US shouldn't be the police of the world. I'd like to think we don't have to be, but the only way that would work is if the rest of the world suddenly became peace loving democracies. The U.S. is the superpower these days and it is our collective responsibility to use the gifts God gave us to assist those under oppression whenever, and wherever, possible. I don't think we should do it alone, but as recent history has proven, there are other nations in the world who believe that freedom is worth fighting for.

So in the end, even though this is a BIG issue, I have to say that while I disagree with the party on the issue of foreign war, I believe that the stand on boarders and national security outweigh the differences regarding Iraq. I have no doubt that the leadership of the party wholeheartedly support all means necessary to secure our freedom and our future. There are many paths to a common goal. Some are better than others, but the reality is, we never really know what the best course of action was, until its long over.

We must have a Christian in the Whitehouse

Chuck Baldwin, the 2004 CP Constitution Party Vice-Presidential Candidate, gave a speech the other day which brought up an interesting point that I hadn't really concidered.

So far on my blogs, I haven't really specified that I am a stauch, born-again Christian (I sure hope nobody is surprise though!). Part of my 'party searching' was based on the ideal of having a real Christian in the Whitehouse some day. I felt this was extremely important so that the USA would have a leader willing to take us back to the founding ideals of our constitution.

Mr. Baldwin however, changed my mind. Not that having a Christan man at the helm would be a bad thing, but it isn't necessary for the President to actually be a Christian. In a nutshell, the reason for this is that anyone who holds true to the constitution will be exercising the ideals of Christianity in terms of our governing. Since the founding fathers based the constitution on Christian beliefs and values, anyone who actually upholds those tenants will be following the fundamental Christian beliefs.

This should not alarm non-believers in the least, provided that they share the goals of returning this great nation to its roots, to the idea that all men are created equal and have 'natural-rights' given to them by their very being. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I believe that these are gifts from the Lord God, one does not necessarily have to believe in God to desire these standards for all American citizens.

Therefore, I have eliminated the "requirement" that the next candidate I will support be a professing Christian, so long as he believes in the principles our founders strived for, and died for, when they established our nation.