Did our Congress just vote away our Liberty?

"We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - the Preamble of the Constitution

What exactly is "Liberty"?  Webster's Dictionary describes it as: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice.

In my first foray into the world of political blogs, there was so many headlines that sparked my interest (frustration and incredulity as well)- the 2013 election, protest movements, unemployment, a nuclear Iran, turmoil in the Middle East, rising oil prices, or a roller coaster stock market.  They all vied for my attention, but the voices in my head got my immediate attention by shouting one word over and over again...LIBERTY!  Without liberty, the other problems don't amount to a hill of beans. (Thank you Humphrey Bogart and Casablanca) Ever since the 9/11 attacks, we Americans have felt that terrorists were the biggest threat to our freedom -our very way of life- and we have vigilantly guarded against these foreign dangers.  However, we didn't expect the threat to our individual liberty to come from within.

On December 1, 2011, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, S. 1867, passed the Senate with a 93 to 7 majority.

As stated in Conservative Action Alerts, "the Senate failed to approve amendments curtailing the power of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, a bill crafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) that would declare the entire United States of America as a military battlefield. The DoD Bill also provides the President power to hold American citizens indefinitely and waives the right to trial, which is codified in the Bill of Rights.

On Tuesday, the Senate rejected Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s amendment 1064 to modify S. 1867; Senator Mark Udall’s amendment 1107 was also rejected.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, on Fox News, commented on S. 1867 last week saying, “It basically says that the President can arrest whoever he wants anywhere in the United States of America, and keep them without charging them for a crime, without letting them see a lawyer, without bringing them to a judge for as long as he wants. How is that consistent with the Constitution?”

Judge Napolitano knows the Constitution.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) wrote recently on his Facebook page that S. 1867 is “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.” Moreover, Amash maintains that the bill capitalizes on misleading semantics; regarding section 1032, he says “‘The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.’ This language appears carefully crafted to mislead the public. Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.”

Senator Paul warned on the Senate floor Tuesday: “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won … detaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.”

Here is a link to Senator Paul's passionate attempt to kill the Indefinite Detention bill before the Senate.
 http://youtu.be/DWApGqE_T-k?hd=1

Once you watch this clip and begin to understand the ramifications of this bill, you'll discover just who the government views as threats?  Could it be your neighbor, your Pastor or a close friend?  Is it me?  Or You?? For starters, any citizen with seven days or more food stored in their home is suspect.  Well, uh-oh.  That's me AND a lot of other people I know. Trust me, I'm no threat.  I'm a proud American who loves her country dearly and just happens to be a great shopper that stocks up when a deal is on hand. More threats? Anyone missing fingers on either hand.  REALLY, are you kidding me? This would be amusing if it wasn't so dang scary. THIS IS A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE, my fellow Americans!  What starts out as the government's attempt to protect its citizens from foreign terrorists, can then easily be used against the very citizens it swore to protect.  What if the powers that be decide they don't like what I'm saying?  If my opinions aren't acceptable?  Will they monitor my Facebook page or this blog and decide I am a threat?  When those in power feel the need to silence dissenting voices, this bill could be the very club they will wield.

President Obama, I implore you, for the sake of Liberty and Freedom, to veto the National Defense Authorization Act.  If it stands, the terrorists have already won by destroying what has always made America great without ever having to launch another attack on our soil.

We have seen the enemy and it is us.  

WisiWuv

Where’s the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline?

President Obama recently delayed making a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline project until after the 2012 election, throwing just about everyone into a fury.  In a nutshell, the environmentalists want the pipeline to go away and just about everyone else wants it to be approved.

So why delay the decision? The only reason I can think of is political - if you don't want to tick anyone off, don't do anything. While this may be good politics, it is lousy leadership.  What do you really stand for, Mr. President?

From this writer's point of view, the risk of the pipeline is minimal, compared to the potential gain. Here are the pluses:

• It allows access to an additional source of oil, providing downward pressure on prices.
• It reduces America's dependence on oil from the Mideast, where we are hardly very popular.
• It is a clear, shovel-ready project that provides a multitude of jobs (they say 20,000 as soon as approved, with many more indirect jobs soon after).
• It would provide much needed stimulus to the economy.  Even the unions, whom I don't usually agree with, like the idea.

The only negative I can think of is the risk of environmental damage from a spill.  While this is always possible, new technology developed over the last few years for preventing spills and cleaning them up has reduced and mitigated that risk to a large degree.

In my humble opinion, the benefits far outweigh the risks.  

But regardless of the direction, it's time for our President to get off the fence and make a decision and live with the consequences.  Mr. President, forget the election for a change and show some leadership.  The American people are smarter than you think and they are watching.

Saint Leo

The Birth of BlueDevilEagle Blog

After months of responding to stuff we saw on Facebook and trying to elegantly express our thoughts in that medium, we decided to branch out into the blogosphere.

We're two friends who haven't met in person in years, but have maintained a philosophical commonality and, at long last, decided to make our voices heard on a bigger scale. From time to time, we'll probably feature some guest viewpoints that we think folks would like to hear.

We are basically conservative, though it could be said that we lean toward libertarianism - we want smaller government and better compliance with the US Constitution. We have many friends in the military and wholeheartedly support them as patriotic individuals, but do not always agree with our government's interference in the foreign affairs of other countries where our national defense is not the objective.

This post will be one of the few that we do jointly - just to kick off the blog.  Most of the time, we'll post separately since we don't necessarily agree on everything.

Additionally, we'll be presenting viewpoints and our personal observations, which don't require much research or justification.  The reason for this is that we want to reflect what our impressions are and the impressions of the folks we know.  Most Americans don't do much research into the facts, but react (and vote) based on the general feeling they get from their friends, politicians, business leaders, and the military.  Additionally, there are very few news outlets that can really be considered objective.

We invite your comments, including dissenting viewpoints.  However, inappropriate or insulting comments will be deleted with extreme prejudice. If you disagree and want to support your position, please cite your supporting sources so we can review them -  repeating sound bites does not qualify.

What's the last thing that we want?  Easy question.  The last thing we want is for folks to think we have all the answers.  It shouldn't be a news flash to anyone that we don't.  But we will consider ourselves successful if we get more people thinking about this stuff and talking to others about it.

Talk to your neighbors.  Talk to your kids.  I know this sounds crazy, but talk to your spouse. Post respectfully on Facebook and Google+.  Start a blog like we did - it's really easy.  But don't sit back and complain that you can't make a difference. And please, please vote for the candidates that best represent your beliefs on how our country should be run.

In the age of the Internet, everyone can easily get their thoughts out there.  If you're not sure about your ideas, put them out there as a question - "I heard someone suggest this.  How come this isn't a good idea?"  If your idea is good, folks will gravitate toward it.  If it has merit, folks will comment and you can refine it.  If it's a bad idea, someone will point out why and you'll have a new perspective.  I can't see anything wrong with that approach.

And so it begins.  We look forward to some meaningful, constructive discussions.  Subscribe to our blog "BlueDevilEagle" - we look forward to hearing from you.

WisiWuv
SaintLeo