Code Red

It may come as a surprise to regular readers of this blog that I was not always as conservative as I am now.  My parents were very conservative, and I always had pro-life, pro-traditional family values, but when I was in my late teens and early twenties I was much more supportive of welfare and government assistance programs than I am today.  At that time, I held the views of many of the people who now seem to think that I am mean and unfeeling--I believed that the government needed to provide a hand up to people and that those recipients of this federal aid would go on to become grateful, producing members of society.  These views were shaped in part by the fact that when I was a teenager my father lost his job and over the years that followed our family became destitute.  We were never on any type of government assistance--including unemployment.  My father had money saved and after he lost his job, he cashed in his retirement savings which allowed us to live until my brothers and sisters and I were old enough to start contributing to the family's support. From that time on we worked and paid the bills as best we could.  I was deeply aware of how more affluent people looked down on us--and since virtually everyone was more affluent than we were I definitely sympathized with the underprivileged.

What changed?  Was it starting my own business and working the long hours and paying the taxes that are part of self-employment?  Not really.  Certainly, owning and running a business for close to 15 years has made me understand much about how jobs are created, how wealth is built and how excessive regulation stifles and smothers initiative and opportunity.  But the experience that really transformed my thinking about welfare and social programs occurred many years before I became a business owner.  What fundamentally transformed my thinking about government assistance was having up close and personal exposure to it.

Shortly before my nineteenth birthday I began teaching at the local community college, where I worked for years.  I was a part-time instructor in the history department but I also picked up additional classes in developmental education studies and English as a second language.  Since I have a Master of Arts in Humanities Degree with a history major and philosophy minor, I was eager to teach what I had learned in graduate school to students whom I was convinced would prove to be eager sponges ready to soak in knowledge.  I taught hundreds of students over the four years that I was at EPCC.  I opened each semester the same way--by introducing myself and then asking each student to introduce himself or herself and tell me what specifically they hoped to get out of the course I was teaching.  I learned over the years that these early introductions set the stage for the entire semester because in the twenty or thirty minutes that it took for me to meet the students and learn a little about them, I could predict who was going to succeed and who wasn't. I had many older students who had come back to school in an effort to earn a degree to improve their chances for promotion at work.  When I taught English as a second language I had quite a few students who were taking those classes because they needed better English skills for their jobs and several students who were the mothers of English speaking teenagers who wanted to be able to understand their children's conversations.  But every semester, in every class, I also had another type of student.  These were the students straight out of high school who were enrolled for only one reason--their parents had told them they had to either get a job or go to school, and they had decided that school was the better of the two options.

Nearly all of my students were attending school on some sort of financial aid. And I did have some very motivated students who actually worked hard and were eager to learn, but they were invariably the older students who had gone back to school because they had some personal motivation for self-improvement. They virtually never came from that young group of students who were the majority of the class.  In fact, after a few weeks, a good number of these would stop coming to class.  They were still physically going to the campus--I would see them hanging around the halls smoking and chatting with their friends. They might even attend the minimum amount that they had to in order to keep from having me drop them from the class.  But they weren't learning anything because they were not interested in working or studying or doing anything that they needed to do.  They were simply kicking the can down the road a few years on the taxpayer dime--using federal financial aid to give themselves a place to crash so that they could delay going to work and accepting adult responsibilities.  Seeing this colossal waste of opportunity in the form of grants and student loans handed to a group of people who did not appreciate them or take advantage of the education offered taught me the first simple principle of conservatism--what is obtained without effort is not valued.  People only appreciate those things that they work for and sacrifice to get; they never really appreciate anything that is just given to them.

Twenty years later, we have just gone through a horribly disappointing election in which a majority of Americans--though not a very big one--voted to give President Obama a second term.  Young people, minorities and women overwhelmingly voted for big government, more social programs, and more welfare.  In the wake of this election, we see the GOP now trying to figure out how to reinvent themselves to make our party more "relevant".  The GOP leadership appears to be bent on making our party more liberal so that its principles will more closely align with the desires of the electorate. 

I am very certain that the problems that the GOP faced in this election are not the result of being too conservative.  And I am equally certain that the solution is not to try to rebrand ourselves into a more marketable entity.  As long as we continue to make our elections about which candidate gets the most or best looking celebrity endorsements, we are never going to be able to address any of the real issues that are plaguing either the party or the country.

As I see it, we need to start addressing a couple of fundamental truths:

1. Liberals have a better understanding of human nature than conservatives.  As a result they are able to manipulate people using our basest instincts.  They also have a better understanding of the laws of physics as they apply to humans--specifically the law of inertia which says that an object in motion has a tendency to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force while an object at rest has a tendency to remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.  (This principle of inertia makes it difficult to transform welfare recipients into productive workers overnight since they have a tendency to want to remain at rest.)

Because of these truths, conservatives can never win public relations battles using political theory.  Liberalism simply sounds better.  The idea of a big, benevolent cash-rich government spreading wealth around to make sure that all citizens are happy, well educated, fed and fulfilled is too good a sales pitch.  It is certainly more appealing than a message that tells people to get up early in the morning, go to work, provide for themselves and their families and live as productive, contributing members of society.  As a theory, liberalism will always prevail.  But that leads me to the second truth:

2. Conservatives have a much better grasp on reality than liberals.  In reality, socialism produces sloth and poverty. Government handouts disincentivize individual effort and achievement and produce a society where no one is productive. And the big government that can meet your every need can also strip away every freedom--enslaving the people who looked to it for protection.  History teaches repeatedly that collectivism is a disaster and big, out of control governments become totalitarian and dictatorial. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Because of this truth, conservatives can win political battles by demonstrating the  real world differences between conservatism and liberalism.  Conservative principles produce prosperity, limited government and personal freedom.  Liberal principles produce poverty, and bloated bureaucracy and destroy personal freedom.  The question for us as conservatives now is not how we better market this message or how we rebrand ourselves.  The question is whether we are willing to stand up for our principles and live under them.

Unlike many Americans, I do not support secessionist movements, for two reasons. 

1.  As a student and teacher of American history, I know that the last secessionist movement in America ended with over half a million Americans dead and the secessionist states being forced back into the Union under less than favorable terms.  The southern states remained second-class states for many years after the Civil War.  That is not a model that any of us wants to follow.

2. We have enough conservatives states that we can demonstrate the superiority of conservative principles if we are willing to do it.  If we have the desire, and the will, we can prove in a real world setting that our principles still work and always will. But in order to do this, we have to be willing stop focusing on national politics for a time and instead we have to focus on what we can do within our own states.  By fostering conservatism on a state level, we can showcase its strengths while highlighting the weaknesses of liberalism.  This show and tell approach is going to be the best weapon against the growing popularity of socialism in the U.S. and I believe that it is our only real hope for turning the tide of American opinion.

The rest of my posts for this year will be devoted to some simple ways that I believe we can foster and grow conservatism on a local and state level.  None of the ideas is very radical, and many are currently being explored.  But I think that if all of us who believe in conservatism are willing to stand together and work towards our goals, we can make a big enough impact in our nation's thinking that when we do face liberalism again on a national stage, we can defeat it soundly.

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 implementing Agenda 21, is available on Kindle and in paperback. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net.

Do You Want to See Something Really Scary?

Do you remember Twilight Zone--The Movie? I did not see it--my mother was extremely strict and never allowed us to watch horror movies or even light comedy containing anything that smacked of the occult. But I remember my father coming back from a trip and telling us that he had been driving with his nephew on a dark, wood-lined road when his nephew told about the scene from Twilight Zone where a set of characters are in a car at night trying to scare each other. Finally, one of them says to the driver of the car, "Do you want to see something really scary?" When his friend agrees, he turns his face away, and when he turns back he has become a monster who kills the young man who is driving.

If Hollywood were making that movie today, rather than having the actor turn into a monster, the director could just show him the dismal state of the economy and a list of the executive orders, taxes and new rules waiting for Americans in 2013.  When he saw what is looming in front of us, he would die of a massive fear-induced heart attack.

Let's start with the executive orders issued by the Obama Administration.  President Obama has repeatedly complained that our current system which requires that laws be passed by Congress is just too difficult to navigate, so he prefers to run the country by executive order.  Below is a short list of some of the major executive orders which he has signed while President:

UPDATE NOVEMBER 1, 2012:  Yesterday when I initally posted this, I took the executive order list from a popular email that is circulating.  A reader commented that in reality many of these executive orders date back to the Kennedy Administration, although they are still in force and could be used by the president. However, I strive to always be accurate, so I have corrected my list today to include only executive orders signed by the President this year.  Each of these is recorded in the Federal Registry:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13602 signed March 15, 2012, creates the White House Council for Strong Cities and Communities to implement locally-driven community and regional planning approaches.  Think Federally-driven implementation of Agenda 21 goals for Smart Growth and Sustainable living.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13603 signed March 16, 2012, gives the federal government via various federal agencies control over all food, agriculture, livestock, farm equipment, all energy, all modes of transportation, all waterways, and all other resources including construction, in case of a national emergency and allows the secretaries of various departments to prioritize and allocate resources in both emergency and non emergency situations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13618 signed July 6, 2012, gives the federal government power over all modes of communication in a national emergency.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13624 signed August 30, 2012, call for increased investment in industrial energy efficiency, allowing federal agencies to set and enforce new standards for manufacturing energy use.   

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13625, signed August 31, 2012, calls for the Federal Government to do a more thorough job assessing the mental health and possible mental instability of our troops and requires that federal agencies enroll 100,000 troops in a comprehensive mental health study no later than December 31, 2012. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13626 signed September 10, 2012, designates the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of Agriculture as additional trustees for Natural Resource Damage Assessment and restoration solely in connection with injury to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of natural resources, including their supporting ecosystems, resulting from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. This order will give the EPA power over the areas affected by the Gulf Coast Spill of 2010 (effectively guaranteeing that they will never have any industry or drilling in these areas again.)

FURTHER UPDATE NOV 1.  (This morning Janet Napolitano announced that since Congress has failed to act with a CyberSecurity bill sufficient to meet the needs of the nation, immediately after election day the President will be issuing an executive order restricting the internet.) 

In addition to the executive orders, we have his signature legislative efforts which did pass through Congress--Obamacare and Dodd Frank.  Obamacare imposes taxes and restrictions on freedoms of Americans which we will just begin to experience in January of 2013, such as the new 3.8% tax on the sale of houses.  The taxes, fees and fines of Obamacare threaten individual access to healthcare and the very existence of small businesses nationwide.  And Dodd Frank, one of the scariest pieces of legislation ever passed, is about to produce crippling new regulations that will put homeownership out of the reach of average Americans.

We can expect greater and greater central management of our lives from Washington D.C. as the President forces us out of single family suburban housing and into tiny cramped quarters in the cities as part of "sustainable living."  And we can expect massive new powers bestowed on the EPA which will destroy the coal industry and cripple energy production while causing prices to skyrocket.  These new regulations are ready to be implemented but have been specifically delayed until after the election.

We can also look forward to 2 trillion dollars in tax increases to pay for massive spending and more nationalization of industry as the President campaigns by telling us that he wants to do the same thing for every industry that he did for the auto industry.  (Meaning, I suppose that he wants to take over all businesses and then sell them to foreign entities as he did Chrysler.)

We can expect greater inflation as fuel prices continue to increase, and we can anticipate even higher unemployment so that the ranks of the 23 million already unemployed will swell as more and more businesses shut their doors under the weight of heavy taxes and regulations.  The ranks of the 47 million people on food stamps will also swell, while the number of seniors will begin to shrink as the government rations health care.

And let's don't forget about implementation of the indefinite detention provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.  In September, the Obama Administration was able to get a three-judge panel to overturn the stay previously issued to prevent detention without trial or charges for Americans accused by the government of being threats to national security.  In a second term, we can look for the president to begin to use these broad powers against those he deems "domestic terrorists."

Anyone of the above list could be the subject of its own horror movie.  Taken together, there is nothing I can imagine that is scarier than an Obama second term.

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.