Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Recent World Visitors and Today's Reader feedback comments

I really enjoy getting visitors from everywhere. I've found that most of my readership comes from around the US and other countries. I do have some California readership, but it doesn't compare to the other two segments of visitors.

Thanks to the following recent international readers from: Aguadilla, Puerto Rico; Gif-sur-yvette, Centre, France; Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia; London, United Kingdom; Tukums, Tukuma, Latvia; Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa; Taipei, T'ai-pei, Taiwan; New Westminister, British Columbia, Canada; Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Kalnciems, Tukuma, Latvia; Riga, Latvia; Vanda, Southern Finland, Finland; Bangalore, Karnataka, India; Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom; Skopie, Karpos, Macedonia; Beausoleil, Provence-alpes-cote D'azur, France; Portsmouth, United Kingdom; Paris, Ile-de-france, France; Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan; Quarry Bay, New South Wales, Australia; Biringham, United Kingdom; Rotherham, United Kingdom; Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom; Vancover, British Columbia, Canada; Matlock, Derbyshire, United Kingdom; Rekhasim, Hefa, Israel; Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada; Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada; Pembroke, Ontario, Canada; Munster Nordrhein-westfalen, Germany; Rotterdam Zuid-holland, Netherlands; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Chester, Cheshire, United Kingdom; and Seoul, Seoul-t'ukpyolsi, Korea.

Now let's talk about some reader feedback on one of my past columns. Today I got four emails regarding a column that I wrote October 5th "America in Crisis: Are we facing martial law?" (I'm just putting names and not where their from)

Jeff Betts wrote, "

I am not sure how much you follow what is going on as far as

arms sales and ammo sales. As I have observed people are stocking

up on both. So if say there are 150 million armed people out of the 300

million in this country good luck to this unit. Also after having talked to

active duty Marines they told me they would not fire on there own people

for Obama anyway. I know for a fact that I have never seen this many

people preparing for an uprising in the 30 years I have followed politics.

They don't trust Obama and are not prepared to roll over and let him

take away our rights.

Chuck Mason wrote:

Good morning,

I wanted to write you and thank you for your article on Martial Law.  I share your concerns and have been speaking to my family at home about this.  I wanted to share links that may be of interest to you.  Please take a moment to view or read each one.

Thank you again,

           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4

  1. http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm
  2. http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1062
  3. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5515356061137526953
  4. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7763

I WROTE BACK:

Thanks Chuck,

For the good informative links.It's nice to know that there are other people as considered as I am about this "strike force" in the American homeland.

CHUCK WROTE BACK:

I am in Warrenton VA and I read your work.

I feel when voters speak, the government listens.

In this case, http://www.times-standard.com/davestancliff/ci_10461558, the govt is clearly demonstrating that states no longer have rights and this is really why the Civil War started.  Slavery was the cause, but States Rights were the issue.  When voters cast their ballot, our govt needs to listen.  Thank you for your hard work.

Carlene & Ken Richardson wrote:

THANK YOU, THANK YOU...This kind of information really needs to be out to the

public...We appreciate your effort.

Gerard Neautt wrote: (email to me & a Letter to the Editor at the Times-Standard.)

Sir,

Your columnist wrote:

"As It Stands, the idea that active duty soldiers will be used to control unruly civilian crowds is both terrifying and unconstitutional."

and

"The last time I checked, the use of the military in domestic activities was prohibited by law, with the exception of the National Guard units under the authority of the states."

Those statements are incorrect.  The use of active duty Federal Military forces is governed by the "Posse Comitatus" law, not the Constitution, which prohibits the President from unilaterally sending forces within the United States for any purpose other than to stem an invasion from another country (in our case that would be Canada and Mexico or maybe Cuba).  Mexico tried it once, it failed.

National Guard units are under the command of the governors of their respective states and can therefore be deployed at their discretion.  To be deployed by the President of the US they must first be activated and them become part of Military Branch of which they are part (i.e. National Guard is Army, Air National Guard is Air Force, et.al.).

Military forces can be deployed with permission from Congress, with the declaration of Martial Law ( which would be across the entire country), or at the request of local authorities.

In 1957 the mayor of Little Rock Arkansas requested and received assistance from an Active Duty Army unit when the problems with integration became extremely tense and threatened to break out into violence.  The mayor could not ask the governor to deploy the Arkansas National Guard because the governor did not support integration.  The mayor asked then president Eisenhower to send in the Army to maintain order.  The President seeing the situation did send in the Army.

Here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

Active duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine personnel were used in the Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts but were delayed because the Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, did not request the aid in a timely manner.

That a unit dedicated to a specific task is set up is not unusual.  Please keep in mind that crowd/riot control is not normally part of military training!  Having a unit dedicated to that type of task with the right equipment and rotating units in and out to get the right  training ensures that IF they are called upon they will be able to accomplish the tasks immediately instead of learning 'crowd control' on the job.  That was tried once in Ohio with predictably disastrous results.

If this column was an "opinion" piece, Mr. Stancliff's concern is duly noted, but his glaring inaccuracies make it nothing more than an attempt at inflammatory journalism.  Perhaps Mr. Stancliff could write a follow up article explaining what the law is and why the scenarios he envisioned in his first article couldn't come about.

I'm not holding my breath!

I wrote back:

Let's see if I got this right...

You read my column in the Opinion Page and wondered if it was an opinion.

Then you suggest that I'm not allowed to express my opinion because it does not agree with yours.

You sited a couple of incidents where active forces were used. If you noticed, that was mentioned in the column.

The "Posse Comitatos" law has been under assualt by critics for years because it does challenge the Constitution which forbids this kind of arrangement with active troops.

You say my statements are incorrect. Siting a contoversial law is supposed to be your proof that I'm wrong. With your obvious bias in this situation you seem to have overlooked the Consitition.

Finally, I would like to share something with you: this Martial Law column has been the most read article in the entire newspaper for over a month. I have received hundreds of letters from people in all walks of life throughout the country - including lawyers- who agree with this column.

The bottom line is this; I respect your right to not agree with my column.

Gerard wrote back:

Mr. Stancliff,

The link I had did not link to an "opinion" page.  If the page I viewed was an "opinion" page it was not clearly marked as such!

I did NOT suggest that you weren't allowed to express an opinion. I just said you should get all the facts

"Posse Comitatus" is very strict in what is and is not allowable regarding the use of the military in the within the U. S.

We actually had to sign a form stating we were volunteering and not part of a military deployment when some of us volunteered to help search for a missing child!

The incidents I cited are historical facts and were entirely within the parameters of the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act.  The instances were cited to show the point that the President cannot order troops into an area "on a whim".

The Constitution does not prohibit the president from deploying troops within the U.S.  Amendment III of the Bill of Rights does prohibit the quartering of military personnel without the consent of the owner and just compensation.

The Posse Comitatus Act limited the president's ability to deploy troops for use in law enforcement .  Prior to that act the President could send Federal troops anywhere to enforce the law without congressional authorization!  It was only because of the reconstruction after the civil war and the use of Army personnel in the southern states that the president's power was curtailed.

The Union troops were actually an "army of occupation" and could have been left there indefinitely but Congress stepped in and passed the Posse Comitatus Act.  The Insurrection Act of 1807 also "limits" presidential power in deploying the military.

There is some question as to whether those acts are Constitutional since Congress does not have the authority to take powers away from the president that are given him by the Constitution.  The only legitimate way to reduce (or augment) the powers of the presidency is by Constitutional amendment.  There is always, however, the "power of the purse strings"!!

Lastly, not ALL lawyers would agree with you!  (Actually if you get a roomful of lawyers to agree on anything other than lunch you have a major accomplishment!)

I did not, nor would I ever, not allow anyone to express their opinion.

BTW I got your second email as I was writing this one and haven't had the time to look at all the links.  I did look at the first

"video".  That looks like a large scale decontamination/quarantine facility.  Considering the chemical/biological warfare expertise of the Chinese military and their penchant to sell to the highest bidder....might be good planning!  A large facility well away from populated areas would minimize further contamination/spread of the contaminant.   I wouldn't be surprised if we were an attacked within the next few years!!

Consider this:  55 gallons of the right material and you can decimate the entire population of a major city.  Bring the material in small containers as part of a larger shipment of some safe material and it gets by U.S.Customs!

You would need a very large facility to process and treat the survivors, if there are any! 

BTW Sunny and 40 here!  Cooler than normal!

I WROTE BACK...

Hi Gerard,

I just wanted to say thank you for your last email. It appears that the link you used didn't note that this was an Opinion piece. Can you tell me where you got the link?

For some reason I got three emails just this morning on the subject, along with yours. That tells me some web site has picked it up since I first wrote the column on Oct. 5th.

Forgive me for asking, but are you stationed with this new unit we're talking about? If so, I want you to understand that have nothing but respect for all of our armed forces.

I'm a combat Vietnam Veteran (1970) and have been a veteran's advocate for well over twenty years.

I'm a freelance journalist who writes for the Times-Standard (a daily newspaper in Eureka, CA) and the McKinleyville Press, a weekly, in McKinleyville, CA.)

Thanks again for all of your points. It's warm (mid-fifties), cloudy, but should clear today here in Humboldt County.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours,

GERARD WROTE BACK:

Dave,

No apology necessary!

Regarding where I got the link...I honestly don't know!  I briefly shut my computer due to a software issue and since I have my computer set up to wipe my internet history I won't be able to track it down.

I am no longer on active duty, I'm retired AF.

Was involved with NBC (that's Nuclear, Biological, Chemical not the TV network!) decon teams.  That's why I mentioned my take on that facility.

Get all the sick/contaminated people in one place (and keep them there) so it doesn't spread, concentrate all your medical personnel where you need them, destroy all the contaminated clothing, material and waste by burning.

Was at Travis AFB in Fairfield.  Nice country Northern California.  I liked the Russian River area and the coast around Santa Cruz.  Loved the skiing in the Sierra's.  Go play in the snow and get back home and not have to shovel the driveway!!  Not like here in Maine!! 

Have a great Thanksgiving!

Hope you'll be with family and friends. 

You may, at your discretion, overindulge in consumption of turkey, mashed potatoes and gravy.

You may want to help out the lobstermen in Maine through this difficult financial time by adding lobster to your Thanksgiving meal.

It WAS on the menu at the original Thanksgiving!!

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/292359-3/MaineNews/Mainer_Eat_lobster_on_Thanksgiving/

http://www.history.com/minisites/thanksgiving/viewPage?pageId=873


 

No comments: