For extraordinary heroism, distinguished service, and devotion above and beyond the call of duty. During the first attack by Japanese airplanes on the Naval Air Station, Kanoehe Bay, on 7 December 1941, Lieutenant Finn promptly secured and manned a 50-caliber machine gun mounted on an instruction stand in a completely exposed section of the parking ramp, which was under heavy enemy machine-gun strafing fire. Although painfully wounded many times, he continued to man this gun and to return the enemy's fire vigorously and with telling effect throughout the enemy strafing and bombing attacks and with complete disregard for his own personal safety. It was only by specific orders that he was persuaded to leave his post to seek medical attention. Following first-aid treatment, although obviously suffering much pain and moving with great difficulty, he returned to the squadron area and actively supervised the rearming of returning planes. His extraordinary heroism and conduct in this action were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

Are you prepared to defend yourself from the local gang-bangers?  If you don't already own a gun, you should get one, learn how to use it, and be ready.  The police won't be doing it anymore.  They will be too busy giving criminals a stern talking to.

A story in today's Wall Street Journal reports on a new plan for combating crime to be unveiled Monday at the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

At least 30 cities are expected to announce Monday that they are joining an unorthodox crime-fighting program that relies on persuasion, rather than arrests, to cut down on criminal behavior.

The initiative, run by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, targets violent crime and open-air drug markets that are the scourge of some communities. The program is potentially controversial because it involves not prosecuting known offenders if they agree to quit their criminal activities.

Potentially controversial?  There's no “potentially” about it.  The plan calls for police to watch the criminals go about their criminal activities, document them, and then bring the bad guys in for a sit down where they will be told, “Stop being a mutant, or we're going to tell you to stop again.”

Under the project, law-enforcement officials and prosecutors in the cities identify individuals operating in violent-crime areas who haven't yet committed serious violent crimes, and build cases against them, including undercover operations and surveillance. The culmination is a "call in" when the case is presented to the would-be suspect in front of law enforcement, community leaders, ex-offenders and friends and family.

"The prosecutor talks to them and lets them know: 'we could arrest you now but we won't because the drug dealing stops today, the violence stops today,'" said Jeremy Travis, president of John Jay. "If you continue, you now know the consequences and you've seen the case against you but we don't want to send you to prison."

Well, that should do it.

We have all had friends when growing up who maybe had a nine o'clock curfew.  At nine o'clock they headed into their homes – and we knew why.  They faced real, immediate consequences for not following the rules.  They had strong parents.  We also had other friends who did as they pleased, and when called on it, would mouth off to their parents.  We would step back so there was a place for their teeth to land – but the parents did nothing except ask them to be more respectful in the future.   The stern words carried no weight.  Our friends knew it, and the same thing would happen over, and over, and over again.  They had weak parents.

This “National Network for Safe Communities” program is just a form of weak parenting on the grand scale, and the criminals know it.  They are surely laughing at what may be the dumbest idea on how to deal with society's bottom feeders since – I don't know – maybe the decision to close Guantanamo with no plan on what to do with the illegal combatants being held there.

Then there's Kim Jong Il laughing at Obama's stern words about nuclear weapons.

Dennis P. O'Neil

It's not that I am abandoning my nom de plume.  In fact I am quite fond of the Saltwater handle.   I am proud of the essays I have written under that name.  So much so, that I will continue to use it.  The main difference is that I will be appending my given name to the end of each article.

This change was inspired by a discussion at Bob's My Uncle's Backyard Grill Blog under the comments section for his What Do You Think? post.   During that discussion, I repeated the final phrase from our Declaration of Independence – our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.  The more I thought about those words, the more I realized it was time for a change I have been mulling over for some time.

Townhall gave me the option of changing the name on all the posts at once, but that seemed the easy way out.  To reconfirm my commitment to the cause, I chose to edit all my posts – one at a time – to add my name to each.   If Janet Napolitano and her minions want to come after me for being one of those right wing extremists, I will not stand accused of hiding behind an assumed name.

Dennis P. O'Neil

Now, some graduating classes have marched into this stadium in easy times – times of peace and stability when we call on our graduates simply to keep things going, and don’t screw it up. Other classes have received their diplomas in times of trial and upheaval, when the very foundations of our lives, the old order has been shaken, the old ideas and institutions have crumbled, and a new generation is called upon to remake the world.

It should be clear to you by now the category into which all of you fall. For we gather here tonight in times of extraordinary difficulty, for the nation and for the world. The economy remains in the midst of a historic recession, the worst we’ve seen since the Great Depression;

The economy remains in the midst of a historic recession, the worst we’ve seen since the Great Depression; the result, in part, of greed and irresponsibility that rippled out from Wall Street and Washington, as we spent beyond our means and failed to make hard choices. We’re engaged in two wars and a struggle against terrorism. The threats of climate change, nuclear proliferation, and pandemic defy national boundaries and easy solutions.

Now, in the face of these challenges, it may be tempting to fall back on the formulas for success that have been pedaled so frequently in recent years. It goes something like this: You’re taught to chase after all the usual brass rings; you try to be on this “who’s who” list or that top 100 list; you chase after the big money and you figure out how big your corner office is; you worry about whether you have a fancy enough title or a fancy enough car. That’s the message that’s sent each and every day, or has been in our culture for far too long – that through material possessions, through a ruthless competition pursued only on your own behalf – that’s how you will measure success.

Now, you can take that road, and it may work for some. But at this critical juncture in our nation’s history, at this difficult time, let me suggest that such an approach won’t get you where you want to go; it displays a poverty of ambition. That in fact, the elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short-term gain over lasting achievement is precisely what your generation needs to help end.

So, graduates, it’s now abundantly clear that we need to start doing things a little bit different.... And as a nation, we’ll need a fundamental change of perspective and attitude.... I’m talking about an approach to life, a quality of mind and quality of heart; a willingness to follow your passions, regardless of whether they lead to fortune and fame; a willingness to question conventional wisdom and rethink old dogmas; a lack of regard for all the traditional markers of status and prestige, and a commitment instead to doing what’s meaningful to you, what helps others, what makes a difference in this world.

That’s a great motto for all of us, find somebody to be successful for. Raise their hopes. Rise to their needs.... You may look in the mirror tonight and you may see somebody who’s not really sure what to do with their lives. That’s what you may see, but a troubled child might look at you and see a mentor. A homebound senior citizen might see a lifeline. The folks at your local homeless shelter might see a friend. None of them care how much money is in your bank account, or whether you’re important at work, or whether you’re famous around town. They just know that you’re somebody who cares, somebody who makes a difference in their lives.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it.... Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

I struggled for a way to address this insanity until I came across a great rendition of the Pat Donahue parody, Would You Like to Play the Guitar?  Thanks go out to the anonymous YouTube talent know only as Fret Killer for lightening my mood and inspiring the following:

Would you like to become a Czar?

With expense account and a car?

Hitch your wagon to Barry's star?

Here is your chance to make it big.

Cabinet appointees are hard to confirm.

Questions on taxes make them squirm.

They are watched like hawks by those on the right

And Congress insists on its oversight.

So, if you want a job with real vig

Don't take a Secretary gig.

Would you like to become a Czar?

Work inside the DC bazaar?

Show how so much smarter you are?

You should be working for The One.

Obamessiah's building a second tier

Of policy wonks to rule through fear.

The White House has openings for more than a few,

Obedient Czars and Czaresses who

Will work to get his left-wing changes done.

Who needs a Constitution?

Would you like to become a Czar?

Throw your weight around near and far?

Write regulations? Har-dee-har-har!

Well then, this may be your shot.

It really doesn't matter which job you should choose,

It's only the peons who lose.

Health, banks, environment, maybe energy

Or geek Czar of Technology.

So, Marxists come pick your favorite slot.

It's yours, qualified or not.

All the monkeys aren't in the zoo.

Even monkeys can be czars too,

And they're good at turning the screw.

It doesn't matter who you are,

When having power without par.

Yes, it's good to be a Czar.

Dennis P. O'Neil

Article III of the United States Constitution addresses the Judicial Branch of our form of government, defining the scope of, and limits to, the powers reserved for the Judiciary.  For years we have heard about “activist judges legislating from the bench” as the left dragged their every losing cause before the courts, seeking to impose by judicial fiat what they could not accomplish through the ballot.  Now that the left has seized power of the remaining branches of government, the courts may be the only remaining obstacle in their march toward socialist domination.  Nothing makes this more clear than the events surrounding bonuses paid by companies covered in the “Wall Street” bailout.

The Obama administration and Congress are determined to push through “clawback” legislation against AIG.  The legislation is targeted at those current and former employees of AIG who received bonus payments which Obama and Congress find offensive.  The legislation seems to be in direct violation of the Article I Section 9 paragraph 3 which provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

Congress is trying to slip past that bill of attainder provision by broadening the language to encompass bonuses paid by any company receiving bailout funds.  They contest that by not specifically naming AIG, the legislation does not target a limited populace and will pass Constitutional muster, a ploy that might just work.  However, even the dystopia on Capitol Hill is constrained by the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

While the clear intent the legislation is punishment, Congress had to find a way around all those pesky “due process” restrictions.  So they turned to that old Democrat standby, the tax code.  This is not a new tactic.  Their desire to redistribute wealth goes back to the post Civil War era with the federal income tax law of 1894.  This first attempt at soaking the rich was struck down by the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled a two percent federal flat tax on incomes over $4,000 unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759).  The Court relied on Article I Section 9 paragraph 4 of the original Constitution which stated: “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Stung by that setback, the Democratic party actually made passage of an amendment a plank in their platform for the 1896 election cycle.  They succeeded in gaining passage in 1909, aided by conservatives who were caught up in an early form of “bi-partisanship”and mistakenly believed the amendment would fail in the States.  In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified giving Congress the power to lay direct taxes upon individuals.  It is within the framework this creature of the Democratic party that Congress now seeks its revenge.

Yet, there are still those darned contracts which allow bonuses in the first place.  There are three recognized ways to break an existing contract – declare bankruptcy, declare the other party breached the confines of the contract, or declare the contract was legally flawed from the outset.  Each of these requires adjudication in a court of law.  The beast in DC is not content.  Now, the administration is moving for legislation to force not only AIG, but other companies, including those not taking any bailout money, to change those contracts.  The in terrorem effect of these proposals being that companies will “voluntarily” re-write contracts or suffer further government intrusion on their operations.

Americans are finally wising up as Obama and his Congressional enablers rush to plunder our nation.  These are people who scrimped and saved to provide the necessities for their families.  They scrimped and saved even more so their sons and daughters could partake in music lessons, dance classes, summer camps, and other non-essential activities.  They willingly sacrificed for the benefit of those young hearts and minds they hold so dear.

Now, they see their hard earned dollars being grabbed up to support the high living of those who ran themselves into insurmountable debt.  The spendthrifts who bought new automobiles, 52” plasma screen televisions, jet skis, bass boats, vacation time shares – all by leveraging their homes at 110 percent with multiple ARMs – have their palms out.  They are begging Obama to protect them from foreclosure, and Americans are angry.  In ever increasing numbers, they are taking to the streets in protest.  These are not the typical radical protesters decrying America as the root of all the world's ills.  They are common, hardworking folks of all political stripes who simply say, “Enough!”

Apparently their grievances are resonating, and the moochers are howling.  One such example comes from a letter to the editor at the Arizona Republic.  'Pam' belittles those who pay their own way, and ask only that she do the same:

OK, we all get the point. All of you who lived your life the noble way and saved your money, paid with no credit and didn't overextend yourselves, you deserve congratulations.

Your amount of wisdom in early life is apparently as great as in your later life.

You have managed to defy the normal process of life - with age grows wisdom.

There will be a special place in heaven for your efforts.

I also think we should reward you with special gold stars attached to all future obituaries to highlight your special place in society.

I do not know Pam and, given her obvious disdain, have very little desire to make her acquaintance.  However, I do recognize envy when I see it.  Poor little Pam rails at those who demonstrated fiscal common sense, as if it is their fault she apparently did not.  I do not know Pam's financial situation, but I can hazard a guess.

While others traded down their cars, or kept the old beater running with regular maintenance, Pam may have opted for a new Lexus.  While others brown bagged bologna and cheese sandwiches, Pam may have lunched on Olive Garden delivery.  When others cut back to basic cable service to save a few bucks per month, Pam may have ordered the full HD package for her new home theater.  Now, when her tips as head manicurist at Zelda's Hair Care Salon and Tire Center no longer meet her readjusted mortgage, Pam choses to attack those people who played by the rules.

So, as other American taxpayers take to the streets trying to prevent Obama from enslaving the next several generations to an expanding government maw, Pam is lining up for another dose of Hopium.

Dennis P. O'Neil

J.M Powers at God and Country wrote about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's suggestion that drivers could be taxed on miles traveled.  LaHood calls his proposal, “...thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America.”

Powers rightly expressed concerns about how implementation of such a plan, with the government tracking our daily movements, has the possibility for very negative impact on personal privacy and freedoms.  In describing this chilling scenario, Powers asked, “What's next?”

If this is the way of the future as envisioned by Obama, what is next?

Obama's Administration will eventually have to come to grips with all the promises made by Liberals buying votes.  It is an extensive list – “New Deal”, “Great Society”, “Hope and Change” – all designed to grow continued dependency on governmental subsidy.  As more gather at the White House gate with their palms up, the piggy bank will soon empty.  The standard Liberal immediate fix will be to have the Fed printing presses churn out more money, leading to runaway hyper-inflation.

The biggest problem on the horizon will be an aging population queuing up for their Social Security, placing additional strain on the system.  Those who didn't buy into the Madoff style scheme of lifetime government pensions, and actually made plans for their own retirements, will be crushed when their nest eggs are destroyed as US currency plummets to the value of single-sheet bathroom tissue.  They will also be forced to line up for some of Barack's beneficence, causing total system collapse.

The Welfare program was approaching such a state, but was headed off by removing recipients from governmental dole.  Those able to work had to go to work.  A similar solution will not work for Social Security.  There will come a time where “thinking outside the box” is needed to thin the growing retirement rolls.  People can not grow younger to stay off Social Security.  The only sustainable alternative must dictate finding solutions that ensure fewer people reach that point in life.

Powers referred to the classic George Orwell novel, “1984”, as the model for LaHood's solution to falling gas tax revenues.  I fear that the “out of the box” thinkers may draw on a more recent hack novel for inspiration on solving a Social Security crisis – a story where maintenance of senior citizens was no longer a problem – Logan's Run by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson.

Obama came to the Valley of the Sun on Wednesday to pitch his $50 $75 B bailout for homebuyers who couldn’t afford the homes they bought when they bought them.  Greeting him on arrival were about 500 ordinary folks wanting to express their thoughts about the Generational Theft Act of 2009 Obama signed into law on Tuesday. (Wait, don’t get ahead, this is a BIG bill, you might need some time to read it.) 

The crowd continued to grow while awaiting Obama's standard fashionably late arrival.

Phoenix radio host, Bruce Jacbos, is organizing a “Mock” demonstration protesting the Economic Stimulus during Obama's visit to Mesa on Wednesday.  I have my sign ready.  I'll be the one asking for a yacht.

Dennis P. O'Neil

“That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes...”

That, in a proverbial nutshell, explains the intended relationship between the States and the Federal government. The Federal government exists because the States agreed to join together for their common benefit, yet still retain their identities within the whole. To this end, the framers of the Constitution intentionally limited the scope and power of the Federal government.

To insure continued personal freedom for the citizenry, and viability of separate State identities under this compact, they initiated a series of Constitutional amendments further defining the boundaries to power allocated this combined government. The first nine amendments addressed preserving and protecting individual liberties. The Tenth Amendment specifically limited intrusion by an overreaching government in those matters deemed under purview of the separate States: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The meaning and protections embodied therein have fallen by the wayside over the last several decades as Congress passed legislation after legislation designed to usurp State and individual rights. This consolidation of centralized power proceeded almost unnoticed, buried in bits and pieces amid thousands of pages generated daily on Capitol Hill under the guise of being for the common good. The New Hampshire resolution is a warning to the other States and Commonwealths:

“[T]hat to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States ... they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.”

Congress has forgotten, or ignored, its place in the structure of this nation – nothing more than a creation of the agreement between and among the States, now run amok, as outlined in the New Hampshire resolution.

“Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them.”

The New Hampshire resolution cautions against blind trust in the Federal government and issues a call for the other States to join in the fight to preserve their rights under the Constitution:

“[T]hat it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism -- free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

The New Hampshire resolution gives a final warning about the consequences of allowing Federal government to remain unchecked and in violation of the Constitution that created it:

“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.”

Has it come to this?

Some other States reclaiming sovereignty and demanding their Tenth Amendment protections:

State of Washington House Joint Memorial 4009 serves: “Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.”

State of Michigan House Concurrent Resolution No. 4 affirms: “Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment”

State of Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2024 demands: “That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”

State of Montana House Bill No. 246 AKA the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act” challenge to imposition of Federal gun control laws