Constitution Club

In the previous post, Dave pointed out the true intentions of the modern day green movement.  While environmentalism is a minor concern, the true intention of the watermelon left (green on the outside, red on the inside) is nothing less than socialist-style control over individuals, families, and businesses.  Certainly the economic interests of the American nation-state are of no concern to them.  And most assuredly, America’s national security is at the bottom of their wish list.  To illustrate this, one needs to only look at the responses to two Supreme Court decisions regarding national security.

This morning, the Supreme Court refused to hear one case and review another case involving national security and worries over environmental issues.  The Court refused to hear a case involving environmental attempts to halt construction of 700 miles of security fence along the southern border.  Normally, the building of such a fence would require the multiple layers of slow, difficult environmental reviews that other public and private projects are forced to endure.  Although I am not crazy about the government not following its own dictates, I think it is smart to charge on toward the construction of the wall.  The environmental reviews are costly and time consuming and will do nothing but give time for millions of illegals to continue to pour through the open borderlands.   The Sierra Club is up in arms over the construction.  Oliver Bernstien, a spokesman for the group said, “This decision leaves one man — the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security — with the extraordinary power to ignore any and all of the laws designed to protect the American people, our lands, and our natural resources,”  Of course only a rabid environmentalist would believe that a fence designed to protect the American people doesn’t meet its intended goal.  But I’m sure his intentions are to protect the arid desert lands of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, right?  Right?  And Democratic Representative Bennie Thompson believes the use of the waiver authority will only spare the Homeland Security Department from addressing “the real issue: their lack of a comprehensive border security plan.”  Hmmm. . . it seems to me that building a wall is squarely at the top of most peoples border security plan.  Call me kooky.

In the case the Court agreed to review, a lower court stopped the navy from using a powerful sonar off of the coast of southern California.  The sonar is apparently too strong and environmentalists fear it will hurt or disorient the poor whales and dolphins.  I am sure that there is no proof of harm, but in the world of radical environmentalism, one only needs to speculate before that theory becomes gospel.  After all, environmentalists are the only people in the world who can ring the siren of impending doom to the earth and have it met with anything but sneers or straight jackets.  The Administration argued that claims of harm to aquatic wildlife were being exaggerated.  This line of reasoning seems entirely plausible since entire careers have been made by exaggerating claims.  Just ask Al Gore. 

Both cases illustrate just how far removed from common sense we have wandered.  The lands, resources, creatures and plants are all very nice and necessary in our free society.  But if we entrust aquatic life to protect our national security, then it better have a big ‘A’ for a belt buckle and be able to command the force of thousands of animals to reap destruction on evil doers.  Frankly, I would just prefer the goverment have the ability to detect sea-bourne danger and keep out those that don’t belong without having to use the bat signal or any other environmentally nefarious device.