Showing posts with label 2012 elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 elections. Show all posts

Why, as a Small Business Owner, I Am Voting FOR Mitt Romney, and Not Just Against Barack Obama

During the month of October, I have been doing a series on the reasons why I am voting FOR Romney and not just against the current president. The first two installments of this series dealt with why, as an evangelical Christian, I am supporting Mitt Romney.  Last week, I wrote about my reasons as a freedom-loving American for voting for Romney.  Today, I want to list some of the reasons why, as a small business owner, I am voting FOR Mitt Romney and not just against Barack Obama. 

I have been self-employed for 14 and a half years.  In 1998, when I was 27 years old, I cashed in an IRA with a little over $10,000 and opened a mortgage broker company in El Paso, Texas.  My father had been working for another mortgage broker company in town, and he wanted to come into the company too, so we became partners. All we had to work with was the money in the IRA, so every penny had to count.  I found two offices that we could sublease, fully furnished, for $245.00 a month to include utilities.  We could not afford a computer, but the sublease did include a used portable Brother typewriter which we used heavily.  My father and I split the cost of a multi-purpose fax/copy machine.  We filed our incorporation papers as an S corporation in the state of Texas and we were in business. We didn't have a copier, but we had our fax machine for single paper jobs, and I drove to Kinkos several times a week to make copies of the loan packages we were sending out for approval. We did not have a refrigerator, but I brought our lunch and soft drinks to work each day in a Styrofoam cooler. 

In 1998, the Texas home equity law had just been passed, and the overall housing market was pretty healthy, but competition was stiff.  We had to prove ourselves to earn every deal.  We did not have any money for advertising but I knew that through hard work and diligence we could prove ourselves and build a business, and although for the first year and a half we barely made enough to survive, within less than two years we were making enough to lease our own office suite and a copier and to purchase an office-size fridge. Within five years we were able to purchase our own building.  By 2006, half of my family was employed by the company I had started with $10,000.

Owning a business is one of the most work-intensive, grueling journeys that any person can undertake.  In good times, competition is fierce.  In bad times, there is barely enough money to pay the bills.  In all times, a successful small business owner can expect to work long days, week in and week out.  For most of the 14 and a half years that we have had our mortgage company, my normal workday was 10 hours Monday through Friday, and I came to work many Saturdays and Sundays.  Our business is one in which there are strict deadlines--especially since we did primarily purchase transactions in which borrowers had contracts with deadlines that had to be met.  Any additional work that I did in the community, such as the service on boards of various organizations, had to be done outside of those hours.  The borrowers had to be taken care of and their transactions had to be closed in a timely professional manner because our service was the primary commodity that we sold.

Anyone who thinks that all small business owners are rich has never owned a small business.  I am now 42 years old.  I have never owned an expensive car--my last three cars have been Honda Accords.  I have never taken a nice vacation.  The last time I took a week off was in 1998 when my youngest brothers graduated from BYU and I took a week to go be with them in Utah.  Little did I know that I would never be able to have that much time off work again.  Over the past four years, as the economy has continued to crash and mortgage guidelines have tightened until qualifying is nearly impossible, I have seen my income shrink dramatically but my hours in the office have not decreased commensurately.  Our industry has been buried under a tsunami of regulations, paperwork and federal licensure requirements so expensive that I could no longer afford to keep a New Mexico license as well as a Texas license.  I have looked around several times over the last few years with the idea of changing industries because the mortgage industry is such a mess, but everywhere I go I find other small business owners who are being buried under their own sea of regulations and paperwork, or whose businesses are strangling because of the overall poor health of the economy at large.

Small business owners are truly the engine that moves the economy. We are productive because we have to be.  We don't get an "A" for effort or extra credit just for showing up.  We earn our own paychecks with our direct efforts every day or else we shut down.  Our reward for long hours of toil is that we get to come back and do it again tomorrow--we have made enough money to cover our office expenses and keep our homes out of foreclosure.

When I opened my business, I knew that it would be a lot of work, although honestly I was unprepared for the extent of the work and also for the fact that it would never get easier--I naively believed that sacrifices made in my twenties would be made up for with a life of greater comfort later.  But I believed that opening and growing a business would provide security for the future.  My father was fired from his job when I was a teenager, and the horrible financial problems that our family faced redefined many aspects of our lives from that time forward.  As a small business owner, I believed that I was building something unique from which nobody could "fire" me.  I might have individual disagreeable customers who did not like me and who did not come back, but I reasoned that if I worked hard and provided good service, I could build a strong business of repeat customers. I was not intimidated by my competition because I knew that I could compete and carve out a place for myself in this industry and that as long as I maintained a good reputation, I would be able to work. In that I was correct.

What I did not factor in was the runaway government regulations from newly created agencies full of overpaid, bloated bureaucrats that could destroy my industry and regulate me into oblivion and that no amount of hard work, or good service, or good will in the community would make even the slightest difference. And unfortunately, that is exactly what I have seen happen.  This past January, when President Obama illegally appointed Richard Cordray--a recess appointment while the Senate was not in recess--as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he activated all of the massive powers of the CFPB, including the power to finalize new mortgage regulations and forms.  So I sit here today, typing this post and wondering why I invested so many years in building a business that the government could wipe out with a few computer strokes and a 2000 page + piece of legislation called the Dodd Frank bill.

For that reason, I am dedicating today's post to 4 specific reasons that I am voting for Mitt Romney on November 6th.  I am listing them in no particular order.  Any one of these reasons would individually be enough for Gov. Romney to secure my vote; taken together they are very motivating for me:

1. Mitt Romney has promised to fire Ben Bernanke.  I met Ben Bernanke last year when he was in El Paso to meet the troops at Fort Bliss.  As the 2011 Chairwoman of the El Paso Hispanic Chamber of Commerce I was invited to attend a luncheon round table of small business owners, and I sat next to Chairman Bernanke for about two hours at Carlos and Mickey's Restaurant.  As the small business owners complained that they could not get credit from banks because of new regulations, Bernanke responded smugly that any small business owner being denied credit because of new banking regulations should question the banks further since new regulations do not impede small businesses from getting credit. (Sure they don't.)  For more on this see Lunch with Ben Bernanke Part I. 

Bernanke's Federal Reserve has been the author of regulations which have specifically and purposely destroyed the mortgage industry--discriminating against small business owners and in favor of Wall Street Banks as "legitimate" loan originators, so I am not a fan.  But while his mandates have hurt me, his quantitative easing policies are damaging the entire country.  Right now, as a result of QE3, mortgage interest rates are in the 2.75% range for 15 year fixed mortgages while 30 year mortgages are in the low 3's.  Bernanke claims that quantitative easing does not cost taxpayers any money whatsoever--the Federal Reserve buys Treasury bonds and will resell them when the economy improves.  But in fact, he is hurting taxpayers, because he is buying Treasury bonds from the U.S. Treasury--the taxpayers--at a volume designed to force the interest rates down artificially low, which in turn causes mortgage rates to drop to artificially low levels so that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--also owned by the taxpayers--can make thirty year mortgage loans at 3% interest rates.  Fannie and Freddie (the taxpayers) will be servicing these loans long after interest rates have risen back to normal levels.  Does that sound like a good monetary policy to you?

The Obama Administration would argue that this stimulates the housing market and helps homeowners but I strongly disagree.  In El Paso, where mortgage values never saw the rapid appreciation of other parts of the country and therefore also did not see the degree of depreciation that other areas have experienced, property values continue dropping.  Every home I have had appraised this summer, with one exception, has appraised for less than expected.  Those homes being appraised now which were appraised last summer are appraising lower than they appraised in 2011--not exactly a banner year for real estate. And in my conversations with underwriters from Texas--a state not nearly as hard hit as many others--I have determined that property values are dropping around the state. So quantitative easing is not shoring up property values.

It is also not helping the average homeowner. The people who are refinancing into these historically low interest rates are certainly happy to get the loans, but they don't NEED the loans.  In order to get a refinance with one of these incredibly low rates, borrowers have to have plenty of documentable income, good credit, good assets and equity in their homes.  Borrowers who fit that description already have low interest rates--they are just getting a LOWER interest rate.  Borrowers who are struggling because they are out of work or they can't make their payments must take their chances with a loan modification which they may or may not get.  The legitimate need of many borrowers who really do need help because they are in mortgages they cannot pay due to job loss or reduction of income has given rise to a plethora of frauds and scams as unscrupulous con artists have taken the last savings from those who are desperate in exchange for help that is not coming. And then there are the millions of homeowners who are not desperate--they have not missed any payments and they are not going into foreclosure--but  refinancing to a lower payment would make their lives easier.  Most of them don't qualify under the stringent new requirements. 

While the low interest rates do not impact everyone, the inflation that quantitative easing produces does affect all of us.  From rising food costs, to rising prices of commodities, to rising gas prices, we all feel the effects of inflation.  Those same families who don't experience the benefits of the low interest rates notice that they have much less money every month due to rising prices.  Bernanke and his monetary policies need to go.

2. Mitt Romney will repeal Dodd Frank.  Dodd Frank was sold to the American people as a populist effort to reign in Wall Street and the big banks, but Governor Romney was exactly correct when he said that Dodd Frank was the biggest "kiss" the Wall Street Banks had ever received.  In reality, Dodd Frank discriminates against small businesses and community banks in favor of the Wall Street Banks.  I personally bank at a local bank--as a result of Dodd Frank they closed their mortgage department last year because they cannot comply with the onerous new regulations. From new forms that change disclosure of costs to make bank loans artificially appear less expensive than broker loans, to new forms and procedures required only of brokers, each part of Dodd Frank dealing with mortgages is written to favor the Wall Street banks at the direct expense of smaller competitors.  And the regulations and paperwork that we have seen until now are just the beginning--after the election the qualified mortgages are about to be unveiled which will effectively regulate average American families out of homeownership and which will make it impossible for small mortgage businesses to remain operational.  Like so much of what we have seen from the Obama Administration, Dodd Frank does the exact opposite of what it purports to do--it concentrates wealth and power into the hands of an elite few while stripping everyone else of their opportunity to work and compete in the mortgage industry.

3. Mitt Romney will repeal Obamacare.  I am particularly infuriated when I hear liberals smugly talk about companies with no health insurance as moochers.  In 1995 my mother was in a horrible accident where she was run over by the family van.  Because of the severe financial problems, she had no health insurance and, other than the surgery to repair the extensive damage done which included multiple broken bones, she had virtually no health care.  When we started our business, I knew that eventually I wanted us to have a good health insurance policy.  I had to wait until we were making enough money to pay the premiums, but after we got established our company set up a small business policy with Aetna which provided excellent coverage for everyone employed here.  The business paid 100% of the premiums.  A couple of years ago, we had to let the insurance go because we could no longer afford the premiums, and so now I am uninsured again--not because I don't value health insurance, but because the economic polices of this Administration have made it impossible for me to afford it.  I cannot afford to pay fines in lieu of insurance to a government that is increasingly taking every additional dollar for taxes while regulating more and more strictly how much I am allowed to earn.  If Gov. Romney wins this election and gets the economy moving, I will be glad to go out and purchase health insurance again, but when I buy it and what I purchase should be my decision and mine alone.

4. Last but certainly not least--Mitt Romney understands that small businesses matter.  He said correctly that the policies of the last decade have heavily favored Wall Street corporations over small businesses.  I cannot speak for every industry, but I can certainly affirm that this has been true for my industry.  The fact that he understands this and recognizes that those of us who have small businesses are not going to work the hours we work and make the sacrifices we make only to be buried under regulations and see every extra penny consumed by taxes tells me that he has a proper perspective on the role of business and business owners.

On November 6th, I am going to go to the small, rural polling area where I have voted in every election since I was eighteen and I am going to cast my ballot for Mitt Romney and a straight GOP ticket.  The outcome of this election will determine what my job title is in January of 2013.

Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen and several other books. Her  novel The Planner, about an out of control, environmentally-driven federal government, is available on Kindle and in paperback. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net.






Why (as an Evangelical) I Am Voting for Mitt Romney..Not Just Against Barack Obama

We have heard a lot this election season about the importance of voting in the upcoming election.  Many believe that this election is the most important in our nation's history--I agree with them.  But we are so focused on wanting to get rid of Barack Obama as President that we have largely ignored our own candidate.  People who supported one of the many other Republicans who ran in the GOP primary may feel that they are merely voting for "the lesser of two evils."  That feeling, combined with nagging uncertainties that some have about Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith--fears that are being fueled by the Democrats in many cases--leads election observers to conclude that this year we in the RNC are not voting FOR anybody, we are merely voting AGAINST something we don't like--further proof that the GOP has disintegrated into the party of NO.

That is why I am using my final blog posts before the election to write about why I am voting FOR Mitt Romney and not just against Barack Obama.  To be sure, I want badly to see Obama lose this election.  But I want to see him replaced with a qualified man who can do the job.  Today's post is why, as an evangelical Christian, I am voting for Mitt Romney. 

I was a supporter of Mitt Romney in the 2008 election cycle.  I had subscribed to his text message alerts and gotten on his email list one day before he announced that he was dropping out of the race. I was deeply disappointed when he announced that he was not going to pursue his candidacy for president.

Regular readers of this blog know that in this primary season I actually supported Texas governor Rick Perry.  Why?  Because in the intervening years between 2008 and 2011, we as a nation had Obamacare forced upon us, and I had a lot of initial concerns that Mitt Romney would not repeal Obamacare.  I have since listened carefully to his speeches and statements and I now feel comfortable that he will keep his promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act--an action which is going to determine whether small businesses like mine can stay open.  But Mitt's Mormonism was never a factor in my support.

My parents were in the Jesus movement in the 1970s, so I grew up in a Southern Evangelical house. Anyone who has read my book, No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen knows that at the age of twelve I entered Brigham Young University, where I graduated with a bachelor's degree at age fifteen.  My parents reasons for sending me to BYU are too complicated to go into here, but they believed that God wanted me to go there.  I studied the Mormon religion thoroughly--I read all of the doctrinal texts of the church.  Dr. Reed Benson, the son of the then President (Prophet) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, was my religion professor.  All of my brothers and sisters (there are 10 of us) also attended BYU so my association with the school did not end when I graduated.  When I was seventeen years old, my father and sister and I were granted an hour long interview with President Ezra Taft Benson in his offices at Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah.  I was a guest of Dr. Reed Benson and his wife when I spoke at the Utah Home Education Convention.  I never converted to the Mormon faith--I remain a Southern Evangelical to this day--but I know a LOT about Mormonism, Mormon culture and life among Mormons.  While I disagree completely with the theology of the LDS church, I know that Mitt Romney's culture has been badly mischaracterized in the media.  I also know that his background provides him with specific strengths that he will take with him to the White House.  Based on my experiences (a total of sixteen years) spent with members of the Mormon community, I am outlining below some of the strengths that Mitt's Mormonism will contribute to his presidency.

  1. Work Ethic.  The symbol of Utah is the beehive.  Mormon culture emphasizes hard work as a virtue, a responsibility, and a privilege.  Too many people today have an entitlement culture that says that they should not have to work--they should be taken care of.  I read this morning a Facebook post by the RNC that quoted from Mitt Romney's book No Apology where he talked about doing the jobs of every day people in Massachusetts while he was running for governor.  One such job included being a garbage collector for a day.  Mitt would have learned as a child that everyone is expected to work, and no honest, legitimate work is beneath any other honest legitimate work.  That is a lesson that all of us could benefit from right now.
  2. Thriftiness.  During the RNC convention I saw the video of Mitt's sons saying that their father was a "cheapskate." Some of his business partners at Bain Capital agreed. But many people do not know that "waste not; want not" is an important part of Mormon culture.  The Mormons built a thriving community in a state that had among its most notable features the Great Salt Lake and the Great Salt Flats.  Much of Utah is a desolate, foreboding place. They survived there by using and reusing every resource.  During one of my last visits to the BYU campus, I saw preparations for the new library that was being built on the campus.  The student workers who were prepping the area started by cutting the grass and rolling it up as sod so that it could be reused elsewhere and nothing would be wasted.  Our current government which is wasting money and resources with no regard to how we will get more could use the leadership of a man who has been taught the value of frugality.
  3. Patriotism.  When I watched the RNC convention a few weeks ago, I noticed that Mitt Romney knew all of the words to all of the stanzas of "America the Beautiful" and was singing along with the choir.  I smiled--I know only the first stanza, but then I recalled that in Mormon culture patriotism is very important.  Because of the bachelor's program I graduated from, I spent my summers at BYU rather than my winters.  Every year at the Fourth of July, the campus was completely decorated in red, white and blue.  (The campus changes all of the flowers with the season so that they can have theme colors.)  LDS church meetings (which I attended several times as a student at BYU) include patriotic songs in the hymnal.  Mormon culture teaches that the U.S. is a great country with a strong future.  I am voting for a man who will be proud to salute the flag--a man who was taught to be proud of his country from birth.
  4. Respect for life and for family.  Much has been made of large Mormon families, but many who are not part of LDS culture do not understand that Mormons adopt large numbers of children.  Dr. Reed Benson and his wife had no biological children of their own, but they were adopted parents of nine children.  Children are prized and valued in Mormon culture--an attitude that would be a good one for our culture as a whole to adopt.
  5. Sobriety.  I have read comments online that a man who does not drink alcohol is not fit to be president. What nonsense!  One reason that my parents were comfortable sending me to BYU is that we do not drink any alcohol. (I do drink both tea and coffee, but I did not do so for the years that I was enrolled as a student in keeping with my pledge that I signed when I was admitted.)  Christians have argued among themselves for centuries about whether Christians may drink alcohol and there are prominent Christians on both sides of this debate.  But whether you are in the "it's fine; Jesus drank so there's nothing wrong with it," or the "lips that touch wine may never touch mine," camps consider this excerpt from Proverbs 31, "And it is not for kings (the leader of the nation) to drink wine and whiskey. For if they drink they may forget their duties and be unable to give justice to those who are oppressed."  In a culture such as ours which frequently uses intoxicants, what a great role model for young people to have a sober man for president who has lived a successful life without getting drunk and high.
  6. Respect for the rules.  At BYU there were lots of rules.  I have alluded already to the pledge about not using alcohol, tobacco, tea or coffee while enrolled in the school.  One year, one of the sports teams went out and got drunk and the school suspended the entire team for the season. Obeying the rules was more important than winning for the school.
    If that seems excessive, consider this:  We are a nation of laws.  We are supposed to be governed by the Constitution and laws passed by Congress that do not contradict the Constitution--not a series of executive orders issued by a president who thinks he is king.  I am voting for man who understands that he is not above the rules.
  7. At attitude of service.  When the media mentions that Mitt Romney was a bishop in his church, they do not mention that these duties were performed without pay.  All clergy in the Mormon church are unpaid volunteers.  One reason that Mitt Romney has spent so much of his life in volunteer work is that Mormon culture teaches a life of service.  The gates of BYU are inscribed with the words, "Enter to learn; go forth to serve."  Mormonism teaches that no person is above such service--when I met Dr. Benson I was surprised that he volunteered several shifts a week in the church charities--canning, picking crops in the orchards, etc.  Even though his father was the Church leader, he was not exempt from doing all of the work that was required.

    The stories of Mitt's kindnesses that we heard during the convention are actually an outgrowth of his faith. Likewise, when Ann Romney made her famous Welsh cookies for the Secret Service, I smiled because I know that as the wife of the bishop she would be accustomed to making food items to take to women in the community who were ill, or grieving or had just had babies, and she would be used to receiving their support during her own illnesses.  Service to the community and to others is one of the most important Mormon virtues.  It is a stark contrast with our current president and his wife who appear to feel that they are entitled to be on permanent vacation with an entourage.
Finally, Mitt Romney's Mormonism gives him an understanding of what it is to be an outsider.  The only people we are allowed to discriminate against in our society are those with whom we disagree ideologically.  Mormons have been mocked, marginalized and ridiculed since the church started--the doctrines of the church are currently satirized in the Broadway play The Book of Mormon.  (I experienced some of this when No Regrets was published, and I received a letter telling me that I could not possibly be a Christian and have attended BYU.)  Yet, Romney does not allow other people's perceptions of him, his family or his church to dictate his life.  He has learned how to be okay with being different.  That is another good lesson that we could all take from his presidency.

If you are a Christian and have doubts about Mitt Romney based on his Mormon faith, I hope that the seven reasons I have outlined above will help you to view a Romney presidency differently.  If you are concerned that he will somehow make the nation Mormon--don't be.  As I mentioned at the start of this post, I have nine brothers and sisters--of the ten of us NONE converted to Mormonism.  But we took away a lot of good virtues from our time at BYU, and it is those same virtues that I hope that our country can learn from President Romney.

Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen and several other books. Her novel, The Planner, about an out of control, environmentally-driven federal government, is available on Kindle and in paperback. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net.






Indefinite Detention, The NDAA, and You

Regular readers of this blog know that it is entitled "Paying for Protection" because it focuses on the ways that we as Americans give up our rights and freedoms to the government in exchange for promised protection against all sorts of potential ills.  In no case is this more evident than in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which allows indefinite detention without charges without trial of persons who are accused of acting against the U.S. government.

The Indefinite Detention Provisions of the defense spending bill passed by Congress last year and signed by President Obama on December 31, 2011, state that the U.S. government has the right to detain  "a person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."  The act does not define what is meant by "associated forces" or "directly supported." 

Although the Obama Administration stated that the bill would never be used against American citizens, even his most liberal allies concede that the president has vigorously defended this law since its passage.  Almost immediately after it was passed, a group of journalists brought suit against this law claiming that because of their work in getting interviews with terrorists they could be subject to indefinite detention without trial.  Judge Forrest agreed and issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of the indefinite detention provisions in May of 2012.  In August, the plaintiffs and the government went back to court to argue their case again, and on September 13th the judge issued a permanent injunction on the grounds that the indefinite detention provisions violate the U.S. Constitution.  However, the Administration that promised to never enforce these provisions declared them necessary to national security and persuaded a different judge to lift Judge Forrest's ban on indefinite detention.  That means that as of the date of this writing, the government has the power to arrest and detain, indefinitely and without trial, any American for pretty much any reason.  A three-judge panel is supposed to begin a review of section 1021 tomorrow (September 28th).

Most disturbing, however, are some of the facts of the law that the suit in front of Judge Forrest revealed.  First, a person can be detained by "unwittingly" supporting belligerent forces, such as innocently sending money to a friend who is on a terror watchlist.  Attending a party or a fundraiser for a group that ends up on the terror watchlist can lead to a black van arresting you and taking you away, as can attending a protest or a rally.  The government attorneys refused to assure Judge Forrest that the journalists performing their normal duties would be safe from detention.

Since word has begun to spread of the dangers of indefinite detention, local governments have gotten involved.  At least nine states have passed "anti-kidnapping laws" to protect their citizens against indefinite detention without trial by the federal government.  But enforcement of these laws would be difficult, since the military will be handling these detainees on military bases.

The very concept of indefinite detention flies in the face of everything that we as Americans believe and every protection that has been afforded to us by our Constitution.   The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Bill of Rights guarantee Americans due process, and those guarantees are being destroyed by sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Although the law was supposedly passed to help the government contain al-Qaeda, Americans need to be asking themselves who it is really intended for.  Do we really believe that a government that has invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House but can't find time to meet with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu really needs indefinite detention to deal with al-Qaeda?  I think it much more likely that the real targets of indefinite detention are the rest of us in light of recent comments from Chuck Schumer and other high profile Democrats that the First Amendment is not absolute and in light of the President's remarks to the UN only yesterday that the future cannot belong to people who are disrespectful of Islam. (That would be everyone who professes a different faith than Islam, along with those who profess no faith at all, since Islam requires that everyone be a follower.)  Those facts, coupled with Homeland Security's watchlist of potential domestic terrorists, which includes people who believe in pro-life causes, ex-military, and people who quote the Constitution, should sound warning bells for our entire nation.  This law and it's potential applications have the ability to destroy the very fabric of our nation.

What can we do?  Joyce and I have written our new novel, The Chosen, about indefinite detention.  In our novel, set just three years from now, the main character is detained partially because of his support of the nation of Israel, and his wife takes his case to the Supreme Court.  But in real life we know that we cannot rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to undo the consequences of elections. If the section 1021 of the NDAA is to be stopped, we the people have to the ones to stop it.

  1. Everybody needs to get out and vote in this election.  The Obama Administration, in spite of his protests to the contrary, has been a driving force in getting section 1021 of the NDAA moved forward.  He insisted that the language be put in the bill in the first place, and his Adminstration has fought every legal challenge to it.  His assertions that he will never use it against the American people are lies--if he weren't planning to use it he wouldn't be fighting so hard for it.
  2. We need to start pressuring Congress and the Senate about this language.  All references to indefinite detention need to be removed from the 2013 National Defense Authorization Bill.  We also need to find out whether we need to pass additional legislation to repeal the 2012 provisions. 
  3. For years we have had persistent rumors of FEMA camps waiting for detainees.  The newest rumor involves a FEMA camp at Palmdale, California, that has a crematorium and reportedly not much else. We need to pressure Congress to open an investigation to determine whether these rumors are true.  If it is determined that they are true and that we have allowed the government to construct the equivalent of massive concentration camps on U.S. soil, we need to insist that all such camps be destroyed.  Such facilities are antithetical to American freedoms and should not exist.


Get informed. Get involved.  Stand up for the Constitution.  Fight for the laws of our country.  Every American deserves a trial.

Read Alexandra's new novel, The Chosen, free on Kindle October 3rd through October 8th.

Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen and several other books. Her newest novel, The Chosen, about one small group of Americans' fight to restore the Constitution and end indefinite detentions without trial, will be available on Kindle and in paperback October 1st. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net.