Living in the Age of Ultimatums

I am not sure when this age began but it must have been a long time ago.  The thing is it has become a lot more popular this century.  It used to be nations issued ultimatums, then it filtered down to parents, then celebrities, and now former celebrities.  The only problem is what does one do when their ultimatum falls on deaf ears?  Do they believe enough in their position to actually move forward with the threat?

From my chair, it appears most don’t, unless they put the ball in someone else’s hand.  For example, how many of our privileged elite threatened to move to Canada if Donald Trump were elected President?  Once elected, exactly how many fled Southern California, their Chicago/New York penthouses, or their properties in the Hamptons and the Cape?  For all the vilification and threats, I can’t recall a single famous person making the trek north to seek sanctuary from the Donald.

Fortunately for most of them, the organizations who call themselves news outlets are more interested in polling and their own ratings than actually holding people accountable for their words.  Shows like “The View” still exist, Barbara Streisand is still holed up in your palace in Southern California, and Oprah is still interviewing former princes and their mates from the comfort of her stateside estates.

We are living is a world of “Cancel Culture” but this is really just an outcome of the whole idea we get to make ultimatums and everyone must listen to us, because the progressive movement has told us we all have value, unless it is an opinion they don’t like.

This latest spat of ultimatums falls into two groups.  The first is pure silliness, the second may have greater ramifications.  Let’s deal with the silliness first.

Spotify is one of those music streaming services that has become so popular.  From what I understand it’s like those old time AM/FM radio stations, although you can choose your own music to listen to and as long as you are connected to the internet of all things you can hear them through your earbuds.  Obviously, Spotify exists to make money, just like those old time AM/FM stations did.  The question will always be, what makes them the most money?  Radio stations used to play Glenn Miller, then they moved to Rock and Roll, then Country, and then talk/news, all in the hopes of a larger audience share.  I can assume Spotify keeps track of who listens to what on their service.

So, when a 76-year-old hippy got upset with one of the talk radio shows on Spotify he did what all celebrities do these days.  He issued an ultimatum!  It is him or me! Spotify, to their credit looked at the financial implications and told the hippy, it was nice, but don’t let the door hit you on the way out. This created a fervor among other aging hippies who’ve chosen to follow their friend out the door.  Since most of them are millionaires, I don’t expect any of them will suffer real financial discomfort, but ask yourself, when was the last time you actually had to listen to Neil Young, Peter Frampton, or Joni Mitchell or your day wasn’t complete? 

Now we come to the second set of ultimatums!  The one with greater implications.

President Biden, I assume at the urgings of his son’s financial interests in the Ukraine, has told Russian President Putin, there would be serious actions if Russia was to invade the Ukraine.  To back up that ultimatum he has alerted troops to prepare to deploy, and is busy sending a lot of military equipment to the Ukraine to help them prepare for the invasion.  Of course, along the way he has said he wouldn’t be sending troops to the Ukraine, just military hardware.  The question is what will happen if this threat of action is viewed as the same empty threats Biden has made in the past, and our actions are viewed with the incompetence we showed as we bungled our way out of Afghanistan?

Now putting ourselves into the shoes of Putin, and I don’t do this lightly.  From his perspective the expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries can certainly be viewed as a threat, especially if you consider the historical view of Russians in authoritarian regimes where anything that threatens their absolute authority is a concern. The question then is for Europe, more than the United States.  How do you expand the European Union to offer the economic and defense advantages of western Europe without threatening Russia?

For the United States, with our history of involvement in the internal affairs of other nations, how do we make a convincing argument we are not interested in the overthrow of yet another regime?  Or are we? If so, why?  At this point, do we even know what is in our national interest?

Let’s Talk About Executive Order 9066 and Trump

Last week the news media (ABCNNBCBS, MSNBC, & Fox) and their political punditry are ablaze with the President Trump’s decision to declare the southern immigration problem a National Emergency and fund the construction of a wall over the objections of the Democratic Party.  Speaking to the press Ms. Pelosi (D-CA) said, “If the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created — an illusion that he wants to convey, just think what a president with different values can present to the American people,”

We can debate whether or not 150,000 unapproved immigrants a year is an illusion or not, but to put illusions in perspective we should compare that number to a problem the People’s Democratic Party is all over.  Specifically, the number of deaths from firearms (about 40,000 in 2017) most of which were self-inflicted fatalities or suicides.  Every day we hear about how guns are evil and we need new laws, why is one number significant and another, much higher number not?

Senator Rubio (R-FL) also condemned the President’s plan when he said, “We have a crisis at our southern border, but no crisis justifies violating the Constitution.  Today’s national emergency is border security.  But a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose the Green New Deal.  I will wait to see what statutory or constitutional power the President relies on to justify such a declaration before making any definitive statement.  But I am skeptical it will be something I can support.”

It’s is funny how this whole national emergency thing seems to work.  The founders imagined in times of emergency the President and Congress would work together to craft appropriate legislation.  But it has become increasingly fashionable for the President to act unilaterally when Congress fails to support his position.  As those who support the President have pointed out the previous President had declared something like 13 emergencies, 11 of which are still open.  The purpose of declaring an emergency seems to be a convenient way to get around the restrictions on the programming of funds defined by the separation of powers in the constitution.  I suggest we put this whole emergency thing in the context of the actions of past Presidents.  But first, let’s review the Constitutional requirements levied on the President.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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 founders believed the real power of the government would be invested in the Congress, and the President acting as a co-equal would execute those powers.  Time has brought changes from the concepts of our founders as the Congress has acquiesced to Presidential decisions, which have made the Executive Branch an increasingly dominant role in the management of the nation's business.  What they did define is the President’s role in the defense of our sovereignty. 

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

So, we come to the idea of exerting Presidential authority through a declaration of a National Emergency, the current political crop would have us believe this is an unprecedented violation of the Constitutional authority.  To which I say, nay, nay![1]  It would seem to me to be far less egregious than the precedent set by President Roosevelt when he did it on February 19,1942.  It read[2]:

Executive Order No. 9066

The President

Executive Order

Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas

Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.

I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.

I hereby further authorize and direct all Executive Departments, independent establishments and other Federal Agencies, to assist the Secretary of War or the said Military Commanders in carrying out this Executive Order, including the furnishing of medical aid, hospitalization, food, clothing, transportation, use of land, shelter, and other supplies, equipment, utilities, facilities, and services.

This order shall not be construed as modifying or limiting in any way the authority heretofore granted under Executive Order No. 8972, dated December 12, 1941, nor shall it be construed as limiting or modifying the duty and responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with respect to the investigation of alleged acts of sabotage or the duty and responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, prescribing regulations for the conduct and control of alien enemies, except as such duty and responsibility is superseded by the designation of military areas hereunder.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The White House,

February 19, 1942.

As the President considered this executive order the assistant to the Attorney General and the Attorney General himself appear to be the dissenting voices among the outraged Democrats of the President’s party.  In a February 2, 1942 memo James Rowe Jr. writes the order would “require the suspension of habeas corpus” and “would be one of the great mass exoduses of history.”

Attorney General Biddle urged caution in the execution of the order as a response the increasingly vocal media outcries coming from the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, and led by columnists Walter Lippmann and Westbrook Pegler,[3] but his concerns were put aside when the War Department relieved the Attorney General of responsibility for the relocation.

So, as we struggled with the aftermath of Pearl Harbor the President’s executive order, declaring a National Emergency and establishing military exclusion zones was used to suspend the safeguards of the Constitution for well over 120,000 American citizens and move them from the military exclusion zones.  Although the Japanese were not mentioned exclusively (Germans and Italians were also subject) those executing the order targeted the Japanese almost exclusively.

Years afterward, during the time of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the US government acknowledged the abuse of rights and paid reparations to the families of those sent to the internment camps.  Although no reparation could adequately make up for the true abuse of government power -- as it acted in such an overtly racist way in response to the hysteria that swept the nation, fueled by the media, in the post-December 7^th days.

During the Obama administration, most of his 13 declared emergencies seem to deal with terror-related activities and targeted the activities of specific ethnic groups, like the Sudanese, or Central Africans, or people engaged in activities in conflict areas like Yemen, Syria or Venezuela.  All of which restrict the rights and actions of individuals engaged in those activities without regard to a nation of origin.

So now we come to President Trump’s executive order, declaring a national emergency at the border so he can reprogram money to build a wall.  I am hard pressed to understand how his declaration rises to the level of unconstitutionality set as the precedent by previous administrations.  Maybe someone can help me out on this.  Is he proposing we suspend habeas corpus for our citizens or even the non-citizens who will confront the wall?

As with all things Trump, I guess the courts will sort this out and if he loses the media will have a field day.  If he wins we won’t hear much, if anything, at all.

---

[1] A line from the late comic John Pinette

[2] https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=74&page=transcript

[3] http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/pdfs/internment.pdf  page 8 of 12 “Document 4: Memorandum to the President from Attorney General Francis Biddle, February 17, 1942:

The Weinberger Doctrine.

When Should We Use Military Force?

I served in the USAF for just under 22 years, and in that time, I saw us end the Vietnam war, engage in a number of brief military operations (with varying success), and fight a short, but violent, conventional war to reestablish Kuwait sovereignty.  Along the way, there were a number of Secretaries of Defense, most of whom made some impacts that may have been newsworthy at the time but left little impression on me.  There is one exception to this and he was Ronald Reagan’s first SECDEF – Casper Weinberger.

In supporting the President, he along with the Secretary of State George Schultz created the conditions to broker an international reduction in Nuclear Arms between the Soviet Union and the United States and NATO with the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces talks.  But their shared strategic vision would ultimately lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Yet, despite these successes for America, he was routinely criticized by President Reagan’s political opponents in the Congress.

During his tenure, we saw the military forces of the United States begin the rebuilding and modernization the Nixon/Ford and Carter administrations had put off after the withdrawal from Vietnam as they dealt with the inflation caused by unbalanced federal spending.

But what I find to be his greatest contribution was something I doubt any of our modern politicians have a clue about.  When it first came out it was known as the Weinberger Doctrine.  It was a simple set of statements on when and how the US should use its military force.  They are listed here.

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies.
2. If we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all.
3. If we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives.
4. The relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed–their size, composition, and disposition–must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. Before the U.S. commits forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.

What I think we are seeing today are the choices of a generation of politicians and statesmen who’ve not had the military experience to know the true cost in the human capital of a shrinking military as an instrument of national policy.  The one thing this current war without end will do is change that as more veterans enter into political office.  I just wonder what lessons and experience they will bring as they rise to positions of greater authority.

Unfortunately for us, there is no clear path for disengagement when administrations change or popular support wains.  Sadly, it seems for most of our politicians the commitment of American lives is not an important determination in their political decision making.  They think in much grander, and opaquer, terms where the morality of their position can be justified within the broader context of national security.

Should We Build a Wall?

Sometimes I can only shake my head.  I’ve seen a number of postings on FB about how walls are ineffective and can be defeated.  Some have gone so far as to invoke God as being against walls.  It gives me reason to question the sanity of those who are opposed to a particular wall, or really a political belief in sovereignty yet are unable to make rational arguments supporting their position.  It is far easier to stand on a corner and shout the other side is insane, than it is to decide, perhaps they are not.

We can start with simple yes or no questions but regardless of the answers, it will never alter the positions of those who are for or against a border wall, because the time for logical debate is long past and neither side is willing to concede they are maybe wrong (even a little bit).

The real issue at hand isn’t whether or not we should build a wall, or even if walls are effective or not, those are only wonderfully convenient talking points to mask the foundational question, “Should the laws of a sovereign nation be subject to the whims of outside political activists who have gathered together to trample on the laws they dislike?” Unfortunately, that question is unanswerable in the 15-second sound bites we’ve now come to accept from the media as they cull through the politicians and other elite seeking just the right 15-seconds to inflame their viewers.

After the 2016 election, the Congress created a Special Investigation into this question as it dealt with the allegation of Russian influence/corruption of the voting process.  So far, after two years of investigation and some $30 million dollars, there remains no clear indication whatever Russia did – had any distinct impact on the national vote.

It has long been said we are a nation of sheep and there is a lot of truth to that, for like sheep all most of us want to do is live our lives in peace and let someone else guide or guard the flock.  The politicians and the power-elite know this and gain their power from the flock as they drive them in whatever direction suits their particular need.

So, what is the answer?  Unlike others who suggest they speak for God, I don’t know.  What I do know are the following facts. 

• Over the past 200 years, America has been in the enviable position of not spend massive amounts of energy and capital guarding its borders.  We had acceptable relationships with both Mexico and Canada and none of us saw much need to invade the other.  Sure, we had entry points and we had coastal defenses in case those pesky Europeans wanted to invade, but for the most part, everyone knew the rules and followed them.  Canada kept the Arctic hoards from coming south, and Mexico kept the Incas from coming north.
• Immigrants of the past are not the same as immigrants of today.  There were rules that were followed, and for the most part, they assimilated into the culture adding to our society with their foods, their art, and their histories.  Today’s immigrants are overwhelming the communities as many try and force their culture on the natives without a real desire to assimilate.  At the same time, we native Americans seem to have lost our identities and shared cultural values as we fracture into ever-smaller groups, each demanding a superior place in the social fabric.
• The historical labels of Liberal and Conservative are no longer valid descriptors.  Liberals today are intolerant of those who oppose their views and seek power through manipulation.  Conservatives have no true sense of the natural evolution of society and tend toward knee-jerk reactions against the more extreme social changes.  Labels remain only so those in power can herd the right sheep into the appropriate flocks.
• As long as America remains a viable market for addictive drugs the flow of those drugs from their various points of origin will continue.  The by-product of this is the issue of human trafficking and the increased expenses of border security.  So far, every strategy the US government has tried in its “War on Drugs” has failed.  We’ve filled our jails and watched as lives are lost to the addiction.  I am not sure the government can ever fix this problem, for its root is in a moral choice each individual makes and regardless of what politicians may say the Government is amoral.

So, at the end of the day should we build a wall or should we just do away with Homeland Security?  I guess the answer depends on who you think the new arrivals will vote for.

So It Begins

-->

Photo from Reuters/Y. Gripas

Michael Flynn, has resigned.  His fall from grace was pretty quick and marks what I assume will become the beginnings of an administration frequently forced to let senior members go due to some political misstep.  I expect the social media propagandists are already making up the “I told you” memes about how this administration will be plagued by scandal, while the past one was “scandal free.”

Just two small points.  First, if anyone really looked at the last administration I doubt seriously they would believe it was scandal free.  Of course, in almost any other administration the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the DOJ gun running, and cover-up of the Clinton corruption would have led the press to call for the heads of the departments, if not the President himself, but when you have the press and all the democrats in Congress circle the wagons you can do almost anything.   
Remember how President Obama pledged to make his administration the most transparent ever?  No?  Well you’re not alone because no one ever held him to that pledge, and we had perhaps the opaquest and least scrutinized administration in my memory.

The second point is we now have a press and a professional bureaucracy setting out to make life as miserable as possible for the President.  Because of his outsider status and personally off-putting style, bad information will flow from the executive branch departments like water over the Oroville Dam spillway.  The opposition groups will do everything in their power to make mountains out of issues that were swept under the rug in past administrations.   

I don’t know if that is a bad thing, but it would be nice if there was some uniformity in holding administrations accountable to the people and not just when people we don’t like are in charge.

Funny Thing About 1984

I just read George Orwell’s book 1984 is making a resurgence on the reading lists.  It is again becoming fashionable for the metropolitan elites to read it as they question the government under Donald Trump and the Republicans.  The funny thing is the conservative movement has been talking about 1984 since 2009 when the Democrat’s swept into power.  Funny how perspectives change as we strive to crush the constitution, limit free speech and expand government surveillance and control.

In 2013, I wrote Ben Franklin Had It Right, talking about how if we are willing to give up our freedoms for the illusion of security we will ultimately lose those freedoms.  For the past 8-years supporters of the President were willing to do precisely that, now supporters of the new President appear willing to allow him to remove even more, and of course the opposition is outraged at the thought.

The unfortunate thing is once you’ve surrendered those protections, you cannot easily get them back just because you don’t like the new administration.  You can bluster, you can protest, you can destroy, and you can argue about “alternative facts” but you’ve allowed the precedent to take place and that is all that really matters unless some fundamental shift in the real-politic occurs.