A cynic might say Posse Comitatus has been repealed

Buried in the Defense Authorization Act for 2007 is a provision that changes dramatically the relationship between ordinary Americans, their government and their military. The Defense Authorization Act contained a highly objectionable provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard, which included changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order without the consent of the nation's governors. The modification to the Insurrection Act gives the president the authority to send the military into the streets of America as a police force to "restore order." They aren't even calling it the Insurrection Act any more. Instead, it has the Orwellian-sounding "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order." It is all so broad that virtually any protest can be determined to be a danger to the United States and troops could be deployed into the streets of America.

There is a specific name for such actions. Martial Law.

The Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts have been a cornerstone of American freedom since 1878. Posse Comitatus was passed to prevent the United States Military from being used to enforce elections in the repatriated confederacy after reconstruction. Now, 128 years later, it is part of our libertarian heritage.

Here is the text of the Posse Comitatus Act

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

This bit of Federal Law is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the guise of law enforcement.

Here is the direct text in question from page 19 of the Defense Authorization Act:

Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies. Section 1042 would amend the Insurrection Act to make explicit the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces, including the National Guard, within the United States to restore order or enforce federal law after a major public emergency, such as a natural disaster, epidemic, or terrorist attack. Current practice, in a major public emergency, is for the governor or legislature of a state to request assistance from the federal government. The Federal Emergency Management Agency then organizes the federal government’s response to that request.

This provision would clarify the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces in response to public emergencies without first receiving a request from state authorities in cases where the President determines such action is necessary to restore public order or enforce federal law. This section also would authorize the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by such an emergency. If this clarification would encourage the President to use the armed forces more frequently or more
intensively than is the current practice, the potential cost could be significant. However, because CBO does not have a basis for determining the frequency of such emergencies or the magnitude of the potential involvement of the armed forces, CBO has no basis for predicting the potential cost of this section.

This caught the attention of the sober individuals at the Congressional Budget Office. At the very beginning of the CBO Cost Assessment, the CBO stresses

Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) excludes from the application of that act any legislative provisions that enforce the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that section 1042 would fall within that exclusion because it would expand the authority of the President to employ the armed service to protect individuals’ civil rights. Therefore, CBO has not reviewed that section of the bill for mandates.

I don't know about you, but that little bit makes me nervous. Especially given the track record of this administration.

Exactly one Senator has raised a note of protest over this egregious power grab. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont has been the lone voice of dissent. On 29 September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." Leahy claimed that this provision had been "slipped in,as a rider with little study while other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." Leahy went on "The implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous. There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty." (emphasis mine) Leahy finished his comments by wondering aloud how we got to this point. "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

I too wonder how we got here Senator. This is indeed disturbing news, and this provision needs to be repealed immediately when the Democrats take their seats in January. If it is not, I fear the consequences.

The only reason I can sleep at night knowing about this is due to the fact that I have faith in the men and women of our military and the men and women of honor who lead them, and in the fact that they take their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and protect this country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and if we are going to start reinterpreting what constitutes a domestic enemy, where might that stop, Mr. President? Better men than you have failed in such pursuits.

We have a Village Idiot today

Control immigration

Republicans should control Congress after the elections because they offer the best chance of controlling immigration.
B.J. Blackerby,Parkville

I know, I know. I said I was going to knock off annointing an Idiot of the Day, but some days, like today I just can't resist.

All one needs to do is look at the chart on the left to see that the lie has been put to this meme.

Immigrants, both legal and illegal come here for economic reasons. As long as businesses hire illegals they will come. As long as the federal authorities turn a blind eye and don't prosecute businesses that hire these undocumented workers, they will continue to do so. That is a no-brainer to most people who actually, you know, posess a working thinking apparatus.

I wish this chart went back a couple of years farther, to show the contrast with Clinton vs. Bush 41. When Clinton came into office, prosecution of businesses hiring undocumented aliens spiked as the real culprits were taken to task. Prosecution of businesses went from a couple of hundred per year to approximately 1500 per year. The numbers fell as businesses realized they would be held accountable for their hiring practices. When Bush 43 came into office, installed by big bidness, prosecutions of these businesses dropped steadily, to the point that a whopping three were prosecuted for hiring undocumented labor in 2004.

Now who is it that can be trusted with immigration issues again? You were saying Mr. Blackerby?