I am just shocked at how blind us peons are. I just don’t understand how we can think that things will ‘just work out’ and that what happens at the federal level won’t impact us in a significant way over time.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

It is so much more fun when you can just make it up as you go.

You’re right, uh, I mean, correct. Many of us DO get it. Many of us understand the fundamental principle of limited government and the blessing of liberty that it bestows upon its citizens.

I believe that what is most often overlooked in the debates between left and right is the distinction between Federal and State governments. In my opinion, the individual States have conceded far too much of their autonomy and sovereignty to the Federal Government.

To use the health insurance debate as an example, if our neighbors in Massachusetts vote for a single-payer health care system in their state, that is their prerogative. Good for them – voting their own pocketbooks, as it should be. The States should be incubators for their own respective experiments in governance and taxation.

But it does not necessarily follow for one State, or even a majority of States, to then create a mandate via the Federal Government to impose upon its neighbors such a system. This presumes authority far beyond what is permitted by our Constitution or foreseen by its authors.

Maybe if the folks who were union proved themselves consistently as valuable resources and ‘going beyond the call’ type of folks, they might be more valuable to the city.

But I highly doubt it.

Ugly.

Trying to focus attention on Bachmann is a classic debating tactic, deflecting attention from widespread ACORN fraud. Bachmann’s legislation against taxpayer funds for CRA is protection for the American taxpayer, not disregard for the unfortunate circumstances of the foreclosures in her district. King’s article is a clear example of the inherent political bias of ACORN at taxpayer expense. The American taxpayer is tired of political hacks not interested in right and wrong but funding their own political greed.

Frankly, I wouldn’t trust the State Department, either, with such solemn responsibility. As I stated earlier, there is an inherent conflict of interest at Commerce, and State as well. Commerce wants to facilitate trade. That is their primary charter. State wants diplomacy, and wants to “just get along” with friends and enemies alike. While either Department should always work within the confines of national security concerns, should either be burdened with the responsibility of keeping safe our nation’s secrets from her enemies? No they should not, in my opinion.

So, let the President, elected by the People, be responsible for these decisions, not the Commerce Secretary. If the President wants to delegate this solemn obligation, I suggest he delegate to a department whose primary responsibility is national security. The Department of Defense comes to mind.

Remember, we’re discussing missile technology, not coal plant scrubbers.

I think it is important to provide some information that neither the Washington Times nor IBD included in their inflammatory and irresponsible articles: reasoned analysis and references. Neither included pertinent legal analysis of the 2009-31 Presidential Determination and neither bothered to include text of the relevant controls that remain in place. ExportLawBlog provides a legal analysis that indicates that the rule change affects almost nothing of significance but cleans up administrative descriptions to reflect how things are already done. Sounds reasonable and authoritative to me. And a blog from the University of Mississippi School of Law provides a copy of the Determination that includes the original Section 1512 that is still in effect:

SEC. 1512. CERTIFICATION OF EXPORTS OF MISSILE EQUIPMENT OR TECHNOLOGY TO CHINA.

The President shall certify to the Congress at least 15 days in advance of any export to the People’s Republic of China of missile equipment or technology (as defined in section 74 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797c)) that—

(1) such export is not detrimental to the United States space launch industry; and

(2) the missile equipment or technology, including any indirect technical benefit that could be derived from such export, will not measurably improve the missile or space launch capabilities of the People’s Republic of China.

Section 1512 outlines controls that have been and will be in effect. There is no “loosening of controls” and as far as I can see there is no “Endangering Our Children and Our Nation.” There is no flow of sensitive technology that will go to China as a result of this. ALL exports to China must have certification to Congress; this remains the same.

Now, because of past loopholes and lapses it might be reasonable to raise an eyebrow upon hearing about the presidential determination. Fair enough…let’s ask some knowledgable people — legal experts. Let’s find out what it really means. Instead, the Times and IBD editors chose to join other daily non-journalistic, loud, fevered efforts over the last 9 months that strain to automatically paint a Democrat president as a traitor, exotic, insane, weak, stupid, lazy, communist, socialist, un-American, and/or dangerous…no matter what he does. Just as with lapel pins, talking with Iran, health care, death panels, a trip to the theater, and ANY other tidbit of news that can be twisted and exaggerated into a criticism or innuendo, the authors jump WAY beyond what the Determination says to whip up disproportionate fear and anger. When something like this comes around that should be discussed all I can think of are the dozens (hundreds?) of other instances in which these authors and those like them have clearly and demonstrably discredited themselves. Given what I see, their motive is not information, but anger, and if you look around at various right-leaning blogs you’ll see the kind of vitriol and froth that this misinformation can spawn.

The 2009-31 Determination is just the latest excuse to continue a campaign to make the presidency illegitimate or worse. I see this approach to public discourse as one of the major problems in this country over the last 15 years…undermines democracy in any number of ways.

I’m angry alright, but not in the way the authors intended. I did my homework.

James Dockstader

“We can thank public education for American gullibility”

A good education is so important… and teaching critical thinking appears to be so out of date in our schools.

Thanks for posting this.

It should be a powerful lesson for the rest of us.

Thanks for posting.