The increasingly worthless Constitution

In response to yesterday’s post about the Obama administration’s policy of authorizing the assassination of American citizens who are suspected of being a terrorist threat, I get the following email:

This is nothing new. The CIA has always had the “first strike” right to kill. Just as a Police Officer does and you and I do if threatened. It is my understanding though that there is no legal ability in our justice system to take a terrorist off a plane and shoot him in the head. Did you read that post I put up the other day. It is what the Judge said to the shoe bomber after his trial. It puts all this “trial” talk into to perspective. For the record I would prefer if the terrorists would just be killed before trial. It’s cheaper. If we fail to accomplish that then legally our only other option is our justice system. If we can send nazi’s to trial surely we can handle these goat herders.

There are a number of things that are incorrect about the above statement:

1 The CIA (or any other government agency, for that matter) does not have rights. They have powers. LARGE difference.

2 The Obama administration has been bleating on about how terrorists have RIGHTS, and should be allowed access to lawyers, fair trials, etc. Or did they only deserve that when Bush was in charge?

3 Note also that the CIA has never had the authority to operate inside the United States.

4 First kill suspected terrorists, THEN try the survivors in the Justice system because it is CHEAPER? Really?

5 Here is the same question I asked during the Bush administration: just who decides what a terrorist is? The Homeland Security Secretary?

6 There is a very large difference between assassinating a person who you think MAY be a terrorist, and shooting a person because they present an imminent threat to the health and safety of others. The fact that there is time to get the approval of the Justice Department is evidence that there is no imminent threat. Imagine, if you will, a police officer calling the Mayor to get permission to kill a suspected bank robber.

Democrats and Republicans both need to stop all this bickering, and stop being apologists for their parties. This is why I am not in either party- I see no difference between the two- they are both willing to oppress the proles in order to advance their agendas.

Several times in my life, I took an oath to defend my nation against all enemies- foreign AND domestic. I am beginning to wonder if that makes me a potential target for assassination.

Due process

Our Constitutional rights are under attack every day. Anyone who has followed my blog knows that I frequently write about the Second and First Amendment.

I have written about the third amendment, and how that right applies to us today.

the same goes for the Fourth.

Last May, I wrote a post about Ashton Lundeby, the 16 year old being held without trial, or even access to an attorney. At the time, I wrote this:

When the Patriot Act was passed, many Americans warned that this law would be abused. We were told that we were being ridiculous and paranoid. “Everyone deserves their day in court,” we said. We were told that terrorists didn’t deserve constitutional protections. “But what happens when the definition of terrorist is expanded?” we asked. “That won’t happen,” we were told, “stop being paranoid.”

Well, here we are. First, it is kids calling in bomb threats. Then, it will be some other demographic that fits some legally technical definition. It will not be long before people who own evil assault rifles are declared to be terrorists.

(Remember that the Obama administration has already said that veterans are potential terrorists.)

Here is the next step down that slippery slope:

The director of national intelligence affirmed rather bluntly today that the U.S. intelligence community has authority to target American citizens for assassination if they present a direct terrorist threat to the United States.

There is more:

According to U.S. officials, only a handful of Americans would be eligible for targeting by U.S. intelligence or military operations. The legal guidance is determined by the National Security Council and the Justice Department.

Where does the Constitution grant that power?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.- Amendment V, United States Constitution.

Funny, I don’t see anything in there about summary executions by the so-called Justice Department. I wonder how long it will be before the execution list is as inaccurate as the no-fly list, and how long it will be before the Second Amendment proves its value.

Crisis

A paramedic comes to me and shows me a monitor strip of a patient in new onset Aflutter at a rate of 180. The patient was unstable, and the medic treated the patient by cardioverting him at 50joules. The patient converted, and transported to the hospital in a SR with all symptoms resolved.

An hour later, the duty supervisor comes in and begins telling the medic that he should not have cardioverted the patient, and instead should have given the patient adenosine. This touched off a discussion where I pointed out that adenosine will not work to correct Aflutter, and that studies have shown that adenosine can, in some cases, even CAUSE Afib or Aflutter. Since we no longer carry cardizem, I told the supervisor that cardioversion was the correct thing for this medic to have done. He replied, “Well, adeosine wouldn’t have hurt her. What’s the big deal?”

Now keep in mind this is the same supervisor who happened upon a code, and had to call another medic on his cell phone and ask him “What drug comes after epi in an asystole code?”

$3.83 trillion

That is the proposed Obama budget for FY 2011, that is the fiscal year that begins October 1, 2010. A whopping $3.83 trillion. That staggering sum is following the $3.72 trillion for the fiscal year we are currently in. Assuming that Obama doesn’t ask for, and Congress doesn’t approve, any other spending, and assuming that tax receipts hold true to predictions, and assuming that interest rates don’t rise, the US government will show a $1.56 trillion deficit in 2010, and a $1.27 trillion deficit in 2011, bringing the national debt to about $15.2 trillion by the end of FY2011.

There are quite a few assumptions there. I am sure that something else will happen in the next two years to force the administration to spend more than predicted. After all, when has the government ever done anything under budget?

When Obama took over the presidency, we were $10.6 trillion in debt. We are now $12.3 trillion in debt. We are budgeted to be $15.2 trillion in debt by the end of next fiscal year. This is change?

I think we have reached the point of no return. There is no way we can pay back the money we owe, even if we had the will to do what is required of us, and we don’t have the will to stop spending.

Dave Ramsey- banking shill or fool?

I turned on the AM radio while I was on the way home the other day, so that I could get a traffic report that would help me escape the early evening gridlock that I was stuck in, and I listened to several minutes of the Dave Ramsey show. The majority of his message makes a lot of sense- pay your bills, don’t go into debt, etc. Then a person called in and asked if he should invest in buying gold. Now, I don’t have an exact quote, but the gist of Mr Ramsey’s comments were as follows:

Gold has barely broken even when compared to inflation over the past 50 years, and you are better off in a mutual fund than you are buying gold.

That statement is a little misleading, and I am not sure if I should be hoping that Dave Ramsey is a liar or a fool. Lets see why:

First, the dollar was pegged to gold until 1933 when the Bretton Woods agreement went into effect, pegging the price of gold at $35 an ounce. This ended in 1971, when Nixon canceled the system. This means that gold remained at a fixed price until 39 years ago. To compare any stock market fund to the price of gold in any year before 1971 is either deliberately misleading, or shows a lack of knowledge on the part of the speaker.

Buying 25 ounces of gold in 1971 would have cost $875.

Comparing the price of gold to stocks, I turn to the DOW. There are problems with the DJIA, and I will discuss them in a bit, but for now lets assume that Dave Ramsey bought one share in each DOW company in 1971. That would have cost him $868.

Lets take a look our investments, shall we?
In 1976, my gold is worth $3,270 and Dave Ramsey’s stock is worth $975.
In 1981, my gold is worth $14,000 and Dave Ramsey’s stock is worth $947.
In 1986, my gold is worth $8,800 and Dave Ramsey’s stock is worth $1,582.
In 1991, my gold is worth $9,475 and Dave Ramsey’s stock is worth $2,730.
In 1996, my gold is worth $9,925 and Dave Ramsey’s stock is worth $5,405.
In 2001, my gold is worth $6,587 and Dave Ramsey’s stock is worth $10,759.
In 2006, my gold is worth $13,831 and Dave Ramsey’s stock is worth $10,953.
In Jan 2010, my gold is worth $27,200 and Dave Ramsey’s stock is worth $10,067.
Edited to add:
In October 2010, my gold is worth 33,350 and Dave Ramsey’s stock is worth $11,169.

So you can see that gold has outperformed the market for the last 39 years, with the exception of the period between 1996 and 2001. Even that is misleading, since there have been changes in the makeup of the companies that comprise the DJIA. During the time period of 1996 to 2001, AT&T, Hewlett Packard, The Home Depot, Intel, Microsoft, and Wal Mart were all added to the DJIA. Also considering that the DJIA has a multiplier that is used by banks to adjust the numbers, the prices that are quoted for the DJIA are inflated.

Had I bought $10,000 in stock in 2001, I would have $9356 today. Had I bought $10,000 in gold in 2001, I would have $41,293 today.

Bad advice, Dave.