Oathkeepers Speak Out re NDAA

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/01/04/michael-lemieux-ndaa-follow-up-and-further-treasonous-acts/

Just a quick excerpt, and it was hard to choose one. Every paragraph has weight.

I sympathize with the Oath Keepers, and I see where they are coming from; widespread, ever more intrusive regulation is problem on all levels of government.

On the other hand, there ARE such things as externalities and market failure, and there ARE such things as water shortages and pollution. Nor will these problems spontaneously solve themselves. Nor is the government going to knock down your door and seize your light bulbs, or your toilet, or your shower head. They are regulating what may be sold. That is a constraint on freedom, but you know, not in the same category as, well, indefinite detention or the gun point seizure of old fashioned light bulbs. I'll also point out that most other civilized countries have comparable environmental regulations, and yet have no equivalent to the NDAA. Or the TSA, for that matter. Indeed, much have much more oppressive environmental regulations than we do, and yet they seem to have a far lower rate of doors being violently knocked down for regulatory violations . . .

I fear, Oathkeepers, that the problem lies not in our environmental regulations, but in ourselves. Because the public actually seems to care more about lightbulb regulations and toilets than it does about indefinite detention. Indeed, the House has tried to delay the implementation of the lightbulb regulations . . . but they did not even blink at the NDAA. Apparently, we can cite the Constitution and all our Congressmen about our right to use an inefficient lightbulb (indirectly harming other citizens in the long run) a right that is not expressly stated in the Constitution, but we cannot bother to do so to protect our right not to be detained indefinitely without trial, a right that certainly IS expressly guaranteed by the Constitution.

Oh, and actually . . . about those light bulbs . . . you are not forced to use compact florescents (which, by the way, are not all that toxic unless you got in the habit of eating them or are the world's absolute clumsiest homeowner). The light bulb companies have developed more efficient incandescent bulbs for people who want to use them and will be making them available. If you like, you can use those. LEDs are also becoming more feasible as bulbs. The change in the law seems to have spawned a wave of light source innovation as companies are forced to find a way to produce a light bulb that people like and find affordable. Perhaps that would have happened anyway, perhaps not. But lets represent the situation accurately, please?

I took it, Lil, as using it as an example of the actual involvement federal government now has in our day to day lives, versus what was intended and the compact with the People set out in the Constitution, rather than specific gripes.

Addressing a broad audience has its pitfalls, especially when a great deal of that audience only deals in generalities and is conditioned to respond to hyperbole

Unfortunately, the result of such rhetoric is a public that doesn't see a difference between lightbulbs and indefinite detention, or worse, gets really upset about lightbulbs but cheers torture and indefinite detention. Feeding the ignorance of a public that deals only generalities and only responds to hyperbole simply results in an ever more hysterical and ill-informed public (and worse, convinces moderate members of the public that people objecting to grievous civil rights violations are paranoid lunatics) Not to mention the alienation of allies that think "I'm talking about fundamental human and civil rights, and you're comparing it to light bulb regulations? Excuse me?"

Although I recognize that ever increasing involvement in people's lives is a matter for concern, and the ever increasing number of federal crimes and incomprehensible regulations is a genuine liberty issue, I'll point out that the sort of gross violations of the Constitution represented by the NDAA have occurred virtually since the Founding (see e.g. the Alien and Sedition Acts). It is not a straight line from petty economic regulations to arrest and detention without trial. Both may be unconstitutional, but they are not strongly interconnected . . . and actually, the light bulb and toilet regulations are bad examples of that, since although I'm sure they weren't foreseen at the founding, they plausibly fit under the Commerce Clause.

I'll also point this out. If I wanted to take away the freedoms of Americans without them noticing, I might raise a big stink about lightbulbs.

"Look, they are taking away your right to use the lightbulb of your choice and replacing it with poison! They are evil, they want to take away your liberties! What would the Founders have thought! Its the end of the Republic! Sic sempter tyrannis!"

And while they were distracted with THAT . . . "Oh, we're just locking up these brown people with strange beliefs without trial or a warrant for the indefinate future. We might torture them too. Nothing to see here. Its for your safety . . I mean, you can't be free if you aren't safe, right? Oh, no, it would never apply to white, non-Muslim normal people like you, don't be silly! Have to go . . .heard there's a conspiracy to force you to buy mercury laden lightbulbs . . . hey these guys might be in on that . . . "