Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Barack Obama has been spooked

Our president is afraid. He's terrified of the Spooks. I'm not talking about haunted houses or grim apparitions that go bump in the night; I'm talking about spies.

Spooks, or undercover agents, are letting our president know in certain terms that their loyalty is dependent on his willingness to keep the lid on any investigation of misdeeds, torture, and unconstitutional activities of the Bush Administration. The intelligence agencies like the CIA, NSA, DIS, etc. are making it very clear that they want this whole investigation of the previous administration placed forever under the rug.

So, why is the president afraid of these goons? The people, by every poll and measure of popular sentiment is firmly behind bringing the rule of law back to Washington DC and prosecuting the people that took America into the dark places. Why is it taking so long to get a real investigation going over the crimes of the Bush Administration? Crimes were committed. We have convictions, we have evidence, we have perpetrators, why don't we have more trials?

When Obama took office, he faced a complex of Capital City brick walls. He was an outsider that was chosen by people who were more than a little pissed off at the conventional wisdom and the insular bubble of Washington DC. He came into power to make change, change that was a definitive threat to that bubble. One of his first tasks was to take on the mantle of law enforcer, seek out the people that took us to war on a pack of lies and who shredded the Constitution for their own nefarious needs. However, he got schooled as soon as he stepped into the Oval Office for the first time.

The Spooks came for him. They were probably waiting in the Oval Office as he walked in. They represented the entire intelligence community. They had but one message: Back off.

Obama's advisers were the first to cave. Obama couldn't govern without the cooperation of the intelligentsia, the Spooks. The last thing you want is to piss off the Spooks, you'll find your stay in the White House shorter than you thought. John Kennedy found that out.

The Blogs and the Independent media have been screaming for investigations of the Bush Cabal. We've been tearing our collective hair out trying to get Obama to commit to starting an investigation of the Bush Crimes. The evidence is out there. You would have to be a complete moron or a Republican to not see it. What is taking so long?

Obama was still being independent when he choose Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Panetta was no Spook. He is a policy wonk, a government insider. He was an Obama man. The Spooks didn't take this too well. They wanted one of their own. They wanted a career man, a person who had a few CIA skeletons in his closet that could be used to keep him 'honest' or in line. They want the status quo.
Basically, they want Obama to keep his hands off the Agency.

Our intelligentsia, the Spooks, have spent the last eight years doing what they do best. They've been fulfilling every Spooks fantasy by interrogating Iraqi prisoners in less than legal ways. They've been listening in on private phone conversations by ordinary people regardless of the constitutionality. They've been making people disappear into foreign countries so that other agencies can have some interrogation fun. Eight years of good times. Seems a shame that it all has to end.

Enter the Obama Administration and Change We Can Believe In. They were waiting for him.

Ever since the inauguration, Obama has been slowly but steadily moving away from initiating any investigation of the Bush Crimes. He has been Spooked.

It's going to take a lot of pressure to get Obama to change his mind. He still uses that old standby "We need to look forward, not backward". He will risk setting himself against the Spooks, something that may be more powerful than popular sentiment.

My question to President Obama is simply: Just who is running this country, We, the People or the Spooks?

So Mote It Be,
David A.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Defending the Indefensable

My gun-owning friends online here may have problems with this post. I'm going to spout my views and dues on the almighty firearm. In short, the right to bear arms is not absolute.

The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some folks have taken that to mean that they can own every type of weapon created by man, whether its a slingshot or a shoulder-fired Stinger missile. They claim that this Amendment, through its use of the phrase 'shall not be infringed' makes this law absolute. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon. (from the Constitution Library)

I don't begrudge folks from owning weapons to hunt game or protect oneself but there must be limits. The incidents in Pittsburgh, Binghamton, NY, the Unitarian church in Tennessee, starkly illustrate that point and the list is getting longer.

I have no problem with responsible use of firearms, there were guns in my family as I grew up. But when my grandfather died from a gunshot wound to the head, my parents decided it wasn't worth it any more. I've gone hunting with friends and learned to shoot in the military, but I still feel that there are some types of weapons that should never see the light of day in the civilian world.

Responsible use. That's a loaded statement. What actions do we consider responsible?

Scenes from the Real America
(from First Draft)

Is this the real America? Swap meet goons selling every kind of hate garbage, Hitler memorabilia, conspiracy theorists' wet dream bullshit. I grew up in a small town, rural and remote as all hell and I still didn't see this kind of shit. There were John Birchers, my barber was one.

There was a case of red baiting that happened in the mid 60's in my hometown that involved John Goldmark. He was a prominent local politician who's career was ended by a story in the newspaper that accused him of being a Communist. He won a libel case against them which set a precedent across the country.

Twenty years later in 1985, his son Charles, a well respected attorney for the Washington State Democratic Party and a delegate to the 1984 Democratic convention for Senator Gary Hart was violently killed along with his wife and two sons by a man who believed they were Communists.

Guns didn't kill Charles Goldmark but a crazy loon who believed the bullshit from folks like the John Birch Society did.

Here's the scoop... If we could ensure that only sane, responsible, law abiding people would own these assault weapons then the most generous interpretation of the Second Amendment would be valid. But we can never assume that no matter what the climate of society is. Given today's volatile atmosphere and the viral hate speech being spewed on television by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly and on the radio by Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and Laura Ingraham; we have to realize that allowing these very dangerous weapons in society is a recipe for disaster.

We can't find all the nutcases, nor can we stop them all but we can take away some of the most violent weapons. We have to stop the flow of these weapons through our communities and into the hands of those who want to do us harm. Right now, the Mexican drug lords are using surrogates to purchase hundreds if not thousands of firearms from gun shows in Texas, California, and Arizona.

I don't have all the answers and many of you may think my reasons naive but something has to be done. The gun owning community has got to stop sticking its head in the sand and face the fact that their policies and agendas are putting Americans at risk. Where do we draw the line?

Should we just open the floodgates and allow all weapons to be owned? Could I just saunter down to the local gun shop and buy an Uzi, grenade launcher and a box of anti-personnel mines? Where is the line? Should we do away with background checks and waiting periods and let anyone own these weapons? Just served 15 years for a violent crime, here's your Uzi. Been away at the loony bin for being psychotic? No matter, here's an AK-47 with two boxes of ammo, have fun!

These sound ludicrous and far fetched but without restrictions they will be a reality. Going to the market will be like a scene from the OK corral. Gun rights advocates like the NRA fail to see these points because they will 'infringe' on their rights. Better to blind oneself to reality than to take responsibility for the consequences of their agendas.

To my friends in the blogosphere who may disagree with this, let me know where you would draw the line?
(photos from 'Scenes from the Real America' published by the Washington Independent)

So Mote It Be,
David A.