The Kuyperian Commentary

Politics, Economics, Culture, and Theology with a Biblical Viewpoint

Archive for the category “Security”

How National Surveillance Arrogance Projects Its Faults On Others: James Woolsey Is the One Who Should Go To Prison!

by Mark Horne

A simple summary of what has happened: The government has secretly provided itself with a secret interpretation of the laws passed by Congress that it then secretly applies and used laws of secrecy to bind all who knew the truth about what the government was doing to secrecy.

I leave aside what might or might not be the full scope of the PRISM program and simply point out that the collection of phone data from Verizon is patently illegal, an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment.

This Administration, and surely the Bush Administration as well, arrogated to itself the right to defecate on the Fourth Amendment and threaten anyone who told the American people about what it was doing with severe penalties.

The full depth of this arrogance comes out in James Woolsey’s projection of his own sin onto Edward Snowden’s character.

I think Mr. Snowden had no right to arrogate to himself the right to decide where to strike the balance between liberty and security. As President Obama pointed out a couple of days ago this balance has to be struck, and the court system, particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, the Executive Branch, the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress with the Reviews by the Congressional Committees every few months… this has been a very precisely crafted system for making the decision about where to strike the balance between liberty and security. And Snowden arrogated that entire decision to himself.

No he didn’t. Snowden didn’t arrogate any decision to himself. He simply took it from Woolsey’s small group of friends and gave it back to the American people to decide.

The precisely crafted system was the Fourth Amendment. It is clear and precise in its wording. That system was over thrown by a small group of people who were all compelled by threats of laws if they allowed anyone else to know what was going on. The members of the Congressional Committees were not able to exert any leverage on policy because they were required not to talk about it. They simply were drafted into a pseudo-democratic rubber stamp system. The FISA court is even more of a joke, long known as a system that rubber stamps whatever the regime wants. But the Verizon phone records obviously far exceed any authority of the FISA court.

And all talk of democracy is pure deception in such a context. No politician can campaign on issues he is not permitted to talk about. No politician can be held accountable for practices that he demands be kept secret.

The bottom line is that Woolsy’s oligarchy were the ones to arrogate to themselves the right to cancel the Constitution and decide where they wanted to “strike the balance.” They are a criminal conspiracy and they deserve to be exposed and prosecuted as enemies of the American people. If the terrorists “hate us for our freedoms,” we can add the charge of aiding and abetting the enemy. For these oligarchs have obviously pursued a campaign of appeasement.

Snowden didn’t arrogate any decision for himeslf. He, rather, exposed to daylight those who had arrogated the power to themselves in darkness.

So, naturally, Woolsey wishes life imprisonment upon Snowden. The stakes are too high to do otherwise. Either most of our present (and past?) executive branch are no less than pirate raiders, criminals who need to be prosecuted; or Snowden is guilty of a crime. Woolsey wants his native oligarchy to remain in power. Snowden must be sacrificed for that to happen.

Bless the Police with Bishop Myriel & NT Wright

Sacramento County Sheriff's Department

April 2013: Sheriff’s Deputy taking my picture outside a High School in Elk Grove, California.

By Steve Macias, Executive Director of Cherish California’s Children

I have had quite a few interactions with the police.

It is unusual for a month to go by in which I don’t have an encounter with the boys in blue.

I’ve spent time dealing with the officers hired to troll college campuses, I’ve been sat on a curb in handcuffs for being “overeager” with a videocamera, I’ve been threatened and detained by cops who were unhappy with the stir I’d caused as I peacefully protested abortion, and I’ve been given a “good talking to” dozens of times.

This is the consequence of being a Christian activist in the land of the free.

In many ways it has made me resent the uniform. Read more…

The Lunacy of the TSA

I write this post from a hotel room in Ireland. I am on vacation here this week with my beautiful wife, and we are enjoying every moment of our stay. It was the travel here that was less than desirable. Read more…

US: A Promise

“US: A promise”

A Poem of American Love For Vision and Revision

by V. O. Waver

Know I would never have you doubt our love; it will endure
For we, the people, spoke our words: of them we may be sure
That they were never writ in stone – now we are more mature
of this united state, my love, be ever so secure

Don’t tell of ancient meaning laid within our founding caper
Don’t say your freedom was elusive, fleeting as a vapor
Don’t say your liberty was strong, but now you see it taper
There’s been a revolution, love; it’s just a piece of paper

Once all you wanted was the freedom to procure a tea
For me to harbor your decisions in obscurity
But I’ve decided what you need is not my purity
And I’ll be watching you my dear to give security

For I will never let you go, as sands of time do run
And I’ll be firm with promises as rising of the sun
Here to enact some sequences next decade to be done
Your mind can know my faithfulness, while I’m out having fun

I may not have the means to fund, but there’s a strange solution
I bless your scooting over, dear, to make room for intrusion
I bless your silence, as I force your frequent absolution
I bless your will to love a man of weakest constitution


Luke Welch is a conservative in politics. He has a master’s degree from Covenant Seminary and preaches regularly in a conservative Anglican church in Maryland. He blogs about Bible structure at SUBTEXT.

Bush, War, Conservatives, and the Search for Consistency

One of the perplexing dilemmas we face as those who oppose the over-reach of the Federal Government is the inconsistency we see in such movements. While on the one hand, we opine viciously in opposition to all forms of welfarism, on the other hand, we support and encourage our military efforts ( a form of international welfarism).
In his essay for The American Conservative, Ivan Eland discusses this inconsistency and warns conservatives that they can’t have it both ways:

“Conservatives should be leery of jumping into wars not only because American powers may become overextended—especially in a time of fiscal crisis—but because war makes government expand rapidly at home, even in areas of national security.”[1]

It is also fair to say that the Conservative mood has changed drastically in these last few years. Just as Democrats are quick to oppose a policy under a Republican governance, so too are they quick to support that same policy under a Democratic presidency.[2] I would like to think Republicans have learned their lessons, but they are just as prone to falling into the cycle of political hypocrisy. On a positive note, I have heard growing opposition to Obama’s Drone Strikes’ Policy from Republicans. Much of this opposition stems from the non-hawkish Senator, Rand Paul.

In his 2007 book, A Tragic Legacy, Glenn Greenwald details many of the former Bush supporters who have now come to see the light on America’s endless wars. Among them is Rod Dreher, a former contributor to National Review. In 2001, Dreher declared, “Thank God we have a Republican in the White House.”[3] Dreher later describes his regret for supporting Bush’s policies:

I see that I was the fool…the consequences of his (Bush’s) failure will be far, far worse than anything Carter did.

These political transformations are the results of a long line of unintended consequences, or what Chalmers Johnson referred to as Blowback.

I am convinced that serious minded Republicans are willing to count the cost, and the cost has been high. The U.S accounts for more than 50% of the world’s military spending[4] and with all that might it has left the Middle East desolate and unstable. The eloquent “No Nation-Building ” answer given by then candidate George Bush should be our policy. It is costing us too much. And as Eland observes, once warfare starts, taxes and spending continue:

Conservatives should not fail to recognize that war is the most prominent cause of the massive welfare state that has been erected in the United State.

Hopefully, consistency will return to small-government conservatives. We cannot continue to stay on budget at home, while distributing our credit cards abroad.

[1] The American Conservative, January/February 2013

[3] Greenwald, Glenn, A Tragic Legacy: How Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency, 34-35.

[4] Ibid. 3

The Next 4 Years Under Obama

What do we do?


This is critical. The GOP Establishment is going to claim that Todd Akin is the reason Romney was defeated. We have to point out that Obama shifted into a Pansexual Leftist campaign, and Romney refused to fight on the other side. The only mention of abortion I remember coming out of his campaign was an ad assuring voters he did believe that kids conceived by rape could be legally killed.

Homosexual Marriage

Fight continues. I expect Romney to blame the Religious Right for making too much of this issue.

Drone Homicides

Obama now owns these for another four years. That gives Christians who are awake time to show how readily the use of drones is appropriate to a commander-in-chief who thinks babies should be killed if they survive abortions.


If it can be done overseas, then it can be done here. Obama has explicitly emphasized this point, and owned it. We need to make sure the reasoning sticks. The objective should be a Republican President in 2016 who repudiates totalitarian, coercive social engineering on every continent, not just on North America.

Financing Terrorists to Induce Regime Change

Obama has effectively armed and financed Al Qaeda or similar groups in Libya and Syria. If Romney had won the Presidency, he would have owned this policy. But with Obama as the leader, we have a chance, again, to show how much more appropriate it is for a Marxist to export violent revolution and chaos rather than a professed “conservative.”

National Security State/TSA Groping Regime

Again, Obama now owns all of this. Let’s use him to get conservatism back on track with real civil rights.

Drug War

We have four years to oppose prohibition and SWAT Teams, which are now Democrat property.

Economic Policy/Corruptocracy

We need to get people to realize how much Obama followed Bush’s playbook on the economy and Wall Street.


I wish God had granted us the Senate. But if we can really expose and investigate “Fast and Furious” and Benghazigate, we can hopefully paralyze the president.

This is off the top of my head. What else should we do? Please make some suggestions or corrections to my ideas in the comments.

Obama’s “Horses and Bayonets”

President Barack Obama mocked Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Monday for his repeated attack over the size of the Navy, which he has said proves the president doesn’t prioritize national defense.

“You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets,” Obama said during the presidential debate. “We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

It is understandable why the President doesn’t like bayonets, he prefers the big guns. The Nobel Peace prize laureate has preferred to use drones in his barrage of unconstitutional wars. What good are bayonets and horses to a man who cowardly launches drones against third world countries, like the 254 drones against Pakistan. When the debate came down to how we will protect our military, the President said, “Neigh.” He continues to demonstrate his ineptitude as commander-in-chief.


This blog has been brought to you by the letter B. B for Bayonets.

Steve is executive director of Cherish California’s Children and founder of the St. Anselm Leadership Institute. Steve and his Wife, Sarah, live in California’s gold country and are members of Church of the King Sacramento. Link to Steve’s blog, follow Steve on Twitter @SteveMacias


ImageSo, in the debate tonight, Obama said he thinks we need nation-building at home.

If God is just that is what we will be given.

I hear reports that DHS is experimenting with using drone over the United States.

American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial and killed by the President without one as well. They can be denied permission to fly and more denials are in the pipeline.

Nation-building at home. We get what we inflict on others.

Rush Limbaugh’s Evolution on Afghanistan

Jack Hunter observes Rush’s new position:

When American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan as retaliation for an accidental Quran burning earlier this month, Limbaugh asked, “It’s gotten to the point: Why are we there? If this is the end result of us being there, let’s get these people out, bring them home and the hell with the place over there.”

Here is what Rush said two years ago:

“The thing that bothers me about this is that we’re there, whether we should have done or what we’ve done here or for is now irrelevant. There’s only one thing to do: win. You know, ‘What about Afghanistan?’ Easy. We win, they lose.”


A Harsh Assessment of the President

Hasan concludes:

Over the past three years, the former constitutional law professor has failed to close Guantánamo Bay, expanded the detention facility at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, defended the use of warrantless surveillance and military tribunals, and – shockingly – asserted the right to assassinate, via drone strike and without due process, US citizens he deems to be terrorists. As the leading US legal scholar Jonathan Turley has argued, “the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties”.

Post Navigation