The Reason Why You Can't Reason with Libertarians

This is an argument which I recently had with a loony libertarian. While I'm really conservative in pretty much every aspect, I hate when people mouth off about the Patriot Act... or George Bush. I challenge anyone to do as good a job as Bush did while in office considering all of the problems which he faced. And as for the Patriot Act, it's not only precedented by our Founding Fathers, but it has no negative implications to the average American. As long as you're not calling Mohommed the turban-toting terrorist in Abu Dhabi, then your phone calls are not being listened to. And beyong that, if you have nothing to hide, then what is there to worry about from having your phone tapped? This is all regardless of the fact that numerous terrorist cells have been discovered in America because of this Act, and that no one has really lost any of their rights. Some people just can't be reasoned with. Plato knew this. And while I wouldn't condone Plato's method of dealing with this problem (killing unreasonable people), I can see where he comes from.:

Mike Cinko:
I think you have to be very careful about the unabashedly slanted Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and a lot of stuff on Fox news. Those guys were fervently behind George Bush when he was slicing and dicing our freedoms with the Patriot Act and invading Iraq.One place that IMO should be DAILY READING for everyone here is http://www.campaignforliberty.com/They have daily opinion pieces there that often give great libertine insight into what is happening to our country. Their blogs are very good as well.Fox News does have one hour long show that I catch every week--usually via link from the Campaign for Liberty site--called "Freedom Watch". Along with host Judge Andrew Napolitano (no relation to Janet), they usually have Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods and other guests to discuss current events that impact our personal and financial liberties.

Me:
I'll have to disagree with you slightly Mike, as much as I love the Constitution, I don't believe that the Patriot Act was in direct opposition to its fundamentals. The Act, as controversial as it has been made, was only intended to monitor phone calls and electronic transmissions which were made to known terrorist operatives overseas. While it does leave some potential for abuse, such as "spying" on American citizens, such things are almost completely fabricated as the average US citizen has nothing to fear. It is worth noting that a number of terrorists have been apprehended in the US and other nations because of intelligence gathering allowed under this Act. With that said, the Act should stay in existence until the War on Terror is over and, upon the end of that War, be made null and void.

Mike:
The 4th amendment says...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I'm no lawyer, but the Patriot Act opened a number of doors that violate this. It allowed wiretapping and monitoring of internet activity (which you pointed out). But it didn't allow this just for those with probable cause. It allows this on ANYONE. Further, the Patriot Act created a 100-mile from the border (or major waterway adjacent to a border) zone where "border patrol" agents could stop and search ANY vehicle without warrant or probable cause. That encompasses 2/3rds of Americans, by the way. Unfortunately, your "nothing to fear" premise is flawed, as the Patriot Act gave rise to the TSA searches when boarding airplanes. And because its definition of "terrorist" was vague, it created a way to allow people that--in the view of the TSA agents, were not a popularist Democrat or Republican types--to be stopped, searched, hassled and potentially arrested--for reasons that had nothing to do with airline safety.In short, the 4th amendment protects us from being searched and hassled for no reason. If they had potential terrorists in their sights and they have probable cause or a warrant, there's nothing in the Constitution holding them back. If they had no probable cause, then they can't do it. Period. Aspects of the Patriot Act are indeed in direct conflict with the Constitution.

Me:
While I understand the possible negative effects of the Act, I also find that there is acceptable precendent to it. In 1798, John Adams, one of the Founders, signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in an effort to find and deport French agents during the Quasi-War. Those agents...French Republicans, aka Socialists, were trying to infiltrate the US to gain support for their revolution. This is strikingly similar to the current US War on Terror, in which radical revolutionaries are declaring a war against America and are recruiting Americans to support them. Now, while the Alien and Sedition Acts were not quite as expansive as the Patriot Act (they didn't have phones in 1798), they served the same purpose, to protect American lives by restricting some freedoms. True, the Constitution promises us privacy, however, if someone was to break into your home and try to kill you while you sleep, wouldn't you want the police to enter your premises without your permission and apprehend the criminal? Same theory applies, just on a larger scale. Governments have long exercised extra-constitutional powers during war time and this is beneficial since it is more efficient to have singular rule during time of crisis...and after such crisis is over, rule should return to the people since they govern best in times of peace. The Alien and Sedition Acts were to play an important role in protecting the country. The Patriot Act does the same as there have been NOT one single act of terror perpetrated on US soil since 9/11. However, as Thomas Jefferson did by repealing the Alien and Sedition Laws when he came to office, so should our president do once the War on Terror is over.

Mike:
Because an Act or ruling was made by government, it is automatically and unquestionably a legitimate Constitutional exception? Think long and hard about what you're saying here. Your agreement that the Constitution is acceptably optional staggers me. Oh wait! But that's only in times of emergency, right? Did you know--I heard this from a former Presidential candidate--that the US has been in a Presidentially declared state of emergency since FDR took office? That's right... for the better part of A CENTURY. Why is that? Perhaps because Executive powers are expanded during declared "national emergencies"? So by extention of your logic, Constitutional exceptions have been OK for the last 1/3 of the USA's existence.On the Sedition Act... Part of this act put men in JAIL for SPEAKING against anyone in the government except the Vice President. Then you're OK with 1000 of us to be put in jail and considered FELONS after the April 15th protest then, right? You suggested that Jefferson repealed the Sedition Act because the crisis had passed. Not so. The Sedition Act ended on the last day of John Adams's term. And as you admitted, when Jefferson took office, he IMMEDIATELY pardoned the imprisoned Sedition Act victims and returned their fines to them. So either it was a staggering coincidence that the Quasi-War ended on the last day of Adams' term, or your reasoning is faulty.On the Alien Enemies Act... It was never repealed and is still in force today.On the police... Your example is completely unrealistic. So no, I'd rather the police NOT enter my home without my permission. The second amendment gives me the power to defend my property if needed. Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect me. Did you know that?

With all due respect, I believe you are naive. You assume that giving police an option to enter my property without permission, warrant or probable cause offers me protection. JUST THE OPPOSITE. Why do you think the 4th amendment exists? Because if King George or the territory governor or just some cop didn't like you, the police would enter your home looking for contriband, which also gave them free opportunity to plant something if they didn't find it and arrest you. That's why the rules are LIMITING. Opening one door opens other doors to tyranny.Look at the Steve Bierfeldt case. (Youtube it.) The Patriot Act created the TSA, which searches passengers before they board a plane. Then the vague definition of "terrorists" expanded to include basically anyone whose beliefs did not coincide with the government's, i.e. Ron Paulers, pro-lifers, Green party people, constitutionalists, etc. These instructions came from TSA leadership, not just some cop with an attitude. Bierfeldt was questioned about things that had NOTHING TO DO WITH AIRLINE SAFETY, was threatened to be turned over to the DEA because he had MONEY and was drug off to the police station. It was only after he recorded the incident and released it that eyebrows were raised. THIS is what happens when you open doors.As far as your assertion about safety since 9/11 goes, consider this. All Bush and co. ever said was that the terrorists are out to get us because we're free, Christian, whatever. Do you think Bin Laden is a "politically correct" kinda guy? In other words, do you think he'd softpedal what he said and publicly not say what he really thinks? He doesn't strike me as that kinda guy.A study was done that examined EVERY SENTENCE Bin Laden has said either in writings or speeches about why he hates the US. Once, he did kinda, but not exactly say that he hated us because we were not Muslims. But well over 1000 times (many times more than the next most prevalent reason) he has directly stated that he hates the US because we're over there, killing people and getting involved in the business of the Middle East. Now if you accept the initial premise, you have to accept that the evidence shows that what he wants is us out of there and that's far and away the highest priority reason. The author of the study suggests that they still would probably hate us if we left, but not enough that guys would be volunteering to kill themselves to get back at us.And isn't that a logical position? If China was over here dropping bombs and trying to overthrow our government, wouldn't you be ready to take up arms and fight?Another key point that people today miss... The founding fathers' position on foreign policy was to "avoid tangling alliances" with other countries, so we would be on friendly terms and able to trade with EVERYONE.War by the numbers... About 3000 people were killed on 9/11. Over 5000 soldiers have died and taken over $1 TRILLION with them in an unsuccessful effort to avenge what happened that day.Further still, the reality is that our country is broke. We're up to our eyeballs in debt and in the middle of either the greatest recession since the great depression or the second great depression. And yet, we have thousands of troops in Iraq, Obama ordered more troops into Afghanistan and we have military bases in 130 other countries. We have 10's of thousands of troops in conflict hot spots like South Korea, Germany and Japan.Another stupid question... I keep hearing that the reason we're there is "oil". And that makes sense, since oil is very important to us. But if we leave there, will our $$$ no longer be good to buy it from them? I'd think they'd still take our money.Considering all of this, my position is that we listen to the founding fathers, quit bombing people and ticking everyone off and COME HOME. I believe that will make us SAFER for reasons I stated earlier. Now if we make a focused effort to get Bin Laden that avoids bombing civilians, I might be OK with that. But what I've seen is a lot of mass destruction, sometimes in populated areas when the perpetrators are hiding in caves.As a side note, did you know that the only way for the US to declare war is via Congressional act? And did you know that a war against Iraq or Bin Laden has never been declared, even though we aggressively took out Iraq's army and overthrew their government? How is that possible? Oh yeah, that optional Constitution thing.And if you're OK with the extra-Constitutional Patriot Act, for how long is this OK? At this point, we're 6 years into it with no end in sight. What if we don't catch Bin Laden by 2013? Do we get our God given, Constitutionally protected rights back then after 10 years? At what point do we say enough is enough? What if it's like the Alien Enemies Act and it's never?Your response is appreciated.

Me:
Mike, you are completely off base and I avidly resent and reject your statement that I am naive. Quite the contrary, I have had both a formal and practical education in politics, political science, political theory, and international relations. I am an adept writer and have published and presented materials dealing with the above said subjects and I am currently enrolled in one of the greatest research institutions in the world. With that said, I believe that I have a much wider and more in-depth background in politics than the average American and perhaps even you.

Now, in dealing with the Alien and Sedition Act, you must understand that Jefferson was an avowed 'Republican' meaning that he stood for the French Republic (tyrannical in its own right). Adams wanted to protect America from French influence since the French had previously tried building a 5th column in the US. If you recall, citizen Genet, a Frenchman, was sent to the US in the late 1700s to recruit men for the Republican Army, so the threat of French intervention and war was real. Furthermore, the Quasi-War did end during Adams' term due to negotiaions with Bonaparte, and thus the war was over when Jefferson took office, creating precedent which allows the government to create repressive laws during wartime as long as they are repealed afterwards.

As for the Alien Enemies Act, it needs to be on the books since we have since Adams' time been fighting off enemy agents in our midst. Did you not hear of the recent discovery of Cuban agents living in America? or how about Alger Hiss et al? Yes, I truly believe that during time of war, the government has the right and responsibility to subject its citizens to some extraordinary restrictions. Does a little extra time in the airport line really constitute a breech of the Constitution?

The Constitution is not explicit on war powers, in fact, its not really explicit on anything and that is why, to understand the Constitution one must also look at the writings of the Founding Fathers and those who they relied on for philopsophy and knowledge. The power to declare war was given to Congress, but the power to make war was never mentioned... and finding that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it is only right for him to retain the right to make war. This is important and it is also important that the President has this right without the consent of Congress. Whenever Congress declares war, such as WWI, those acts which are passed to defent the US, i.e. Sedition Act are much more actively pursued and repress many more freedoms than those of the Patriot Act. In that regard I believe the Founders would agree since they understood freedom of speech to be one of the most important rights of man and they knew full well how dangerous a powerful legislature would be....their generation was only a few removed from the Cromwellian era and the rise of the parliament in England.

Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things." This quote really sums up the general consensus of the Founders as they all knew that times would change. And with time the US grew into something larger and more powerful than any other nation in the world. And with that power we gained responsibility to spread freedom and democracy about the globe, whether our help was asked for or not. Take Iraq for example...we were much needed there in order to establish a true democratic republic..we succeeded for the most part, however we definitely should have stayed longer...100 years in necessary.

As for alliances, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Fed 15, "There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties. " The Founders only understood war on a European scale and they did not have the resources to fight such a war. However, since we gained those resources in the early 20th century, we have since allied with many nations and have had many fruitful benefits come from such relationships. And we have saved humanity from the likes of Hitler and other totalitarian leaders.

What it boils down to is that government was created for just a few reasons: 1.) to protect the citizens from enemies both domestic and foreign, even if it means some short-term repressive measures, 2.) to provide a civilian police force to protect citizens in their lives, freedoms and properties, and 3.) to provide a venue for the settling of disputes. That is all. But more important is that government must be given those provisions in order for it to do its job. If the government is no longer allowed to do either of those 3 aforementioned things, then government has become useless and society has dove into the State of Nature...Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Mike:
"Mike, you are completely off base and I avidly resent and reject your statement that I am naive. Quite the contrary, I have had both a formal and practical education in politics, political science, political theory, and international relations. I am an adept writer and have published and presented materials dealing with the above said subjects and I am currently enrolled in one of the greatest research institutions in the world. With that said, I believe that I have a much wider and more in-depth background in politics than the average American and perhaps even you."

It is clear that you are educated and an adept writer. That does not change my view, however. Barack Obama and Barney Frank have very good credentials as well.

"Now, in dealing with the Alien and Sedition Act, you must understand that Jefferson was an avowed 'Republican' meaning that he stood for the French Republic (tyrannical in its own right). Adams wanted to protect America from French influence since the French had previously tried building a 5th column in the US. If you recall, citizen Genet, a Frenchman, was sent to the US in the late 1700s to recruit men for the Republican Army, so the threat of French intervention and war was real. Furthermore, the Quasi-War did end during Adams' term due to negotiaions with Bonaparte, and thus the war was over when Jefferson took office, creating precedent which allows the government to create repressive laws during wartime as long as they are repealed afterwards."

From my readings, "Republican" means that he was an advocate of state powers with limited federal powers, i.e. the 10th Amendment. The correct term at that time was "Federalist", but that term had already been commendeered by the opposing political group, who were really statists (which included John Adams), ironically enough. I am unfamiliar with a tie in with France.

"As for the Alien Enemies Act, it needs to be on the books since we have since Adams' time been fighting off enemy agents in our midst. Did you not hear of the recent discovery of Cuban agents living in America? or how about Alger Hiss et al?"

I'm not opposed to the Alien Enemies act because it is directed at non-US citizens. Which brings us to another interesting point... The guys who flew the planes into the towers and pentagon and Pennsylvanian dirt on 9/11 were all aliens. So EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN must have their rights taken away because a bunch of non-Americans did bad things. That doesn't make sense.


"Yes, I truly believe that during time of war, the government has the right and responsibility to subject its citizens to some extraordinary restrictions. Does a little extra time in the airport line really constitute a breech of the Constitution?"

You obviously didn't address or review the example I gave.

"The Constitution is not explicit on war powers, in fact, its not really explicit on anything and that is why, to understand the Constitution one must also look at the writings of the Founding Fathers and those who they relied on for philopsophy and knowledge."

I agree.

"The power to declare war was given to Congress, but the power to make war was never mentioned... and finding that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it is only right for him to retain the right to make war."

This is doubletalk. If war is not declared by the only lawful entity that can do so, how can the action of war be legally taken? By this statement, declaring war is pointless. Further, the founding fathers created checks and balances in the system to preclude single entities like the President from having unbridled power. But you say that it is right that the President has unchecked power to make war (below). This is a clear deviation from the Constitutional separation of powers.

"This is important and it is also important that the President has this right without the consent of Congress. Whenever Congress declares war, such as WWI, those acts which are passed to defent the US, i.e. Sedition Act are much more actively pursued and repress many more freedoms than those of the Patriot Act. In that regard I believe the Founders would agree since they understood freedom of speech to be one of the most important rights of man and they knew full well how dangerous a powerful legislature would be....their generation was only a few removed from the Cromwellian era and the rise of the parliament in England. "

Any Act that conflicts with the Constitution must be null and void, since the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. That includes the Sedition Act.(continued)

With Friends Like Us, Who Needs Enemies?

Israel, since its very beginning in the 20th century, has been a beacon in an otherwise foggy and desolate region. The only Jewish state in the world, and the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel has been the proverbial " City Upon a Hill", a state to be recognized and looked up to by those militant and repressive Islamic regimes which surround Israel on all sides. And in that capacity, Israel has survived quite well considering that its enemies are everywhere and at every moment planning her demise.

The early 1900s witnessed a huge rise in Anti-Semitism, especially in Europe (simply recall the Dreyfus Affair in France). Soon, Hitler and his goons played on these racist sentiments and began the Final Solution, pushing to eliminate all Jews. Stalin, who often joked about having killed more Jews than Hitler, did his part too in his frequent purges and massacres. And while many people were killed either in WWII or in the few years before and after, the Jews undoubtedly suffered the most. That is why in 1948, Britain adopted the Balfour Plan, establishing a Jewish state in the traditionally Jewish area of "palestine". Since its establishment, Israel has been constantly attacked by numerous states and individuals claiming that Jerusalem and other parts (Golon Height, West Bank, Gaza, etc) of her territory belong to the Arabs (be it the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, etc).

With that background, fast forward to today. The US has long been the primary supporter of Israel since she is the only bastion of freedom in the Radical Muslim-populated Middle East and she is the only Middle Eastern state which even resembles a 21st century civilization. However, now that Obama has taken office, he seems hell bent on destroying our good terms with Israel by forcing concessions down her throat and pandering with Muslim states like Iran.

He has frequently told Israel that she must stop building settlements in contested lands in order for any peace process to work. What's more, Obama supports Israel giving up some of her territory in order to appease the Palestinians and other groups.

This is beyond ridiculous. Israel has been a faithful and loyal ally of the US and doesn't deserve the treatment she is now receiving, she receives enough such treatment from the rest of the world. While the Palestinians bomb and harass an Israel which they refuse to recognize and while Muslim states like Syria and Iran make announcements that they would like to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth, and while all of the Arab states retain the position that Israel must relinquish East Jerusalem et al. to the Palestinians, it is interesting to note that none of the Arab states have ever offered to relocate the Palestinians within their territory. So much for Muslim brotherhood.

The fact is that Obama, if not a Muslim himself, is a Muslim sympathizer and an American apologist. That is that he is of the Left-Wing school of American thought which states that America is to blame for all of the world's ills... Well with great power, comes great responsibility and also great criticism from the peanut gallery, so it is understood that such schools of thought exist. However, people from such schools should never become president. And now that the biggest apologist of them all has taken office, changes are being made which no doubt will have huge negative effects on the US's power and influence in the world.

Obama has been offering his hand to Iran for some time, however Iran has yet to accept his proposal. They instead went full steam ahead in violently repressing peaceful protests and fixing an already fixed election. Obama countered by taking nearly a week to even hint at criticizing the radical Muslim regime. These (the Supreme Leader and his cronies) are not the people who need to be negotiated with, these are people that must be killed. They are hurrying to finish building their first nuclear weapons, capable of destroying Israel, while Obama looks on. Once they gain this boost, they will undoubtedly become the hegemon of the Middle East and a new arms race will begin there, putting Israel at the hands of Radical Muslims (not a safe place to be).

Some may say that our alliance with Israel is out of date...that the Jewish lobby is too strong and it determines too much of our foreign policy (Mearsheimer et al.). Some even go as far as to say that out Founding Fathers warned of such entangling alliances, however, that is untrue. Our Founding Fathers did not want to get involved politically or militarily with foreign powers. But that's because they understood that America was in its infancy and had neither money nor men to devote to a full-scale European war. This idea is best summed up by Ben Franklin

"I think that a young state, like a young virgin, should modestly stay at home, and wait the application of suitors for an alliance with her; and not run about offering her amity to all the world; and hazarding their refusal. Our virgin is a jolly one; and tho at present not very rich, will in time be a great fortune, and where she has a favorable predisposition, it seems to me well worth cultivating."


As long as Israel remain the sole democracy in the Middle East, and as long as her enemies continue in search of ways to destroy to her, the US needs to support Israel whole-heartedly. Our alliance secures us some stability in the Middle East and a first-responder to instability and danger. If the Palestinians want peace, then they should stop sending their rockets into Israel. Perhaps they may even finally recognize the state and open up true non-violent political dialogue similar to the IRA of 1998-2005. And if the Arabs are so worried about the Palestinians, then they should slice off a nice chunk of their own territory and offer it up as a good-will gesture to their Muslim brothers.

Socialism and labor

JoAnn Ailes, writing in the Gary Post (July 24), is completely misguided on her thoughts about Socialism and trade unions. If you believe that Socialism and unions have a healthy relationship, just look at Cuba, where the union members (98% of the pop.) make pitiful government-set wages and remain well below the poverty line. What she fails to understand is that human greed is what fuels a successful economy. In the marketplace, this proves beneficial as it pushes entrepreneurs to develop new and more efficient technology and expand companies so as to create more jobs.

The unions have a necessary role to play in providing clean and safe workplaces. However, unions have a tendency to become more powerful than private companies and have in many cases done more harm than good. They put workers out of jobs by forcing companies to offer impossible pay and benefits and they often employ scare tactics and restrictive measures to keep non-union workers from finding employment in their fields.

What’s often forgotten is that companies are expensive to run. Not only does the employer have to pay the property tax and lease, but also wages and benefits and a number of other taxes just to operate in the US. Most significantly, employers have to pay the exorbitant US corporate tax, one of the highest in the world, at nearly 40%. This is the reason why companies move overseas: workers there will work for less, and most importantly, other nations have lower corporate taxes so companies can afford to hire employees.

The Isle of Man, a small island off the British coast will actually pay companies to relocate there and they enforce no capital gains tax on them. IOM is currently celebrating their 26th consecutive year of growth! Just goes to show that people prosper where corporate greed succeeds.

The End of the Liberal Arts Education

Since the 5th century, a formal education has consisted of what is known as the liberal arts. These arts consisted of diverse disciplines: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, rhetoric, grammar, natural sciences, music and the like. The great European universities of the 11th and 12th centuries were steeped in these arts and all great students were held responsible for learning them. A number of such students became famous philosophers, mathematicians, musicians, poets, theologists, political scientists, psychologists, archaeologists, etc. And the world is no doubt better for having known them.

Unfortunately, since the dawning of the 21st century the liberal arts students have increasingly become viewed as unnecessary and unskilled. Seemingly, these students that spent over $40,000 for their undergraduate careers, are simply not able to function at the level needed to succeed in this world. So, slowly, BAs and BSs are becoming a thing of the past and in their place, the A.A. and other community college degrees have stepped.


Now, in some cases, community colleges can be helpful. They teach certifications in areas that are rapidly hiring. But in many cases, these schools are simply for those who don't know what they want to do with their life and would rather not spend the money and time to go to a real 4-year school. In short, these schools are for those who can't accept a challenge.


Garden Design, Fire Science, and Cabinetry are all classes taught at Ivy Tech and there are many more that honestly should not be a part of any degree. And while some Ivy Tech graduates have a necessary place in the world, it seems that now they are more important than those who spend twice as much time and money learning substance. This view is now being upheld by our dear General Secretary Obama as he announced last week his hope that $12 billion dollars be spent to help support community colleges.

This all while state institutions across the country raise their tuition rates 5-6% and private institutions suffer from lack of state funding. Many people vastly underestimate the importance of the liberal arts education. To some folks, courses such as philosophy, political science, western civilization, American history, etc. are simply a waste of time and teach nothing of significance to students. However, it is not so much the content of such courses that is significant, it is the thought processes which are formulated by advanced study and thought. Such processes, once learned, are invaluable to students who use them to make tough, last-minute decisions in the real world. What's more, they teach students to think in the abstract, develop models and formulas and strive to conduct new research. What research possibilities are granted at community colleges? What new techniques or theories have come from the halls of Ivy Tech? None. But they do turn out a large number of cabinet makers!

College is not for everyone, and community college is for those who can't hack it at the 4-year level. No one great has ever come from a community college and it is doubtful that they ever will. Instead of pushing childrentowards community college, Obama should support high -schools in briefing them in their myriad options: military service, trade school, peace corp, civil service, the workforce and...the 4-year undergraduate college.

Caudillo or Hero?

June 28th was a great day for democracy...at least until the events of that day pan out. On June 28th, the Leftist president of Honduras, Mr. Manuel Zelaya, was dismissed from office by the Honduran Army, an army loyal to the state rather than the president. While Hondurans cheered at the subsequent swearing in of Mr. Roberto Micheletti as the new president, Zelaya had already begun collecting his international allies in an offensive of words and sanctions that have been rarely used. As the leaders of the 'free world' bore down on the small Central American state, Micheletti and his people refused to allow Zelaya back into the country, even with reduced powers.

The Latin American republics have often been trivialized by army tough-men, called Caudillos, taking power at will from democratically elected leaders. However, this case does not fit that typical Latin American model. The Honduran Army acted on orders from the Congress in deposing Zelaya and, in a shocking move, placed Zelaya's proper successor in power instead of seizing it for itself.

But, why would the Army oust a sitting president? Well, that may be for many reasons, some unknown. Zelaya had tried to hold a plebiscite concerning proposed changes to the Honduran Constitution, which, as many have stated, would have led to the Constitution being fundamentally altered to offer the president unlimited terms in office. Such moves on behalf of Latin American presidents, especially members of the New Left, are frequent, i.e. Hugo Chavez. However, in this case, the Supreme Court of Honduras declared such a vote illegal and issued orders for the detention of Zelaya. Zelaya was then jetted out of the country and barred from reentry.

Since then, the US and many other nations have condemned Micheletti and the Honduran Army, and have aided Zelaya in trying to regain his position. Economic sanctions have been imposed by the US and the OAS, cutting down on valuable trade for the Honduran economy.

This is wrong. To say that a president is so just because he was democratically elected is farcical at best. Wasn't Hitler democratically elected? And it would have been applauded in 1943 if the German Army deposed Hitler. However, the so-called democrats of today, most of them Democrats with a big 'd', feel that such leaders have a mandate from the people and should be left to serve in their capacity, even if that means taking a little illegal initiative and altering the constitution so as to become a modern-day dictator. Such thoughts are dangerous and ignorant.

Micheletti should be recognized by the international community as the true president of Honduras. Zelaya should remain exiled. And the Army of Honduras should be applauded for saving democracy from itself.