Our President’s Current Unconstitutional Capacity

In an interview with Face the Nation, Mitt Romney reveals that he is willing to attack Iran, without congressional approval. Romney said,

“If I’m president, the Iranians will have no question, but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage therefore, if I’m president, that we need to have war powers approval or a special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.”

The Constitution does not grant the President the power to unilaterally launch war. The President does have latitude to respond without congressional approval if we are attacked.

He is correct, however, that apparently our President “has that capacity now.” He has the capacity, not because it is constitutional, but because our Congress is spineless and more worried about getting re-elected (i.e., blaming these controversial decisions on the sitting President). See reason.tv’s great video about the history of this disturbing power shift.

Advertisements

George Washington Would Have Loved A Large Magazine

Effective self-defense requires using whatever means is necessary and sufficient to provide for that defense. A free people have the right to effective self-defense. Therefore, our citizens have a right to whatever means is necessary and sufficient to provide for their own defense.

Most self-defense laws specify the use of only the force needed for self-defense. I don’t have the right to shoot and kill someone hitting me with a Nerf bat. I do have the right to shoot someone who is pointing a loaded gun at me threatening to shoot me. I’m not required to try a Nerf bat on them first. As the threat and weapon class increases, I am forced to keep-up to provide an effective defense.

Individuals throughout history have tried to make sure they took it upon themselves to be armed with the most advanced weaponry available when their lives depended on it. During the Civil War the standard battle weapon was the painfully slow musket. By mid 1862, the revolutionary Henry lever action rifle was being purchased by individual Union soldiers not satisfied with the risk of the old guns. The Henry was accurate, reliable, and most importantly, allowed for rapid firing of .44 caliber rim-fire cartridges. The Henry was the AR-15 of the 1800’s and, with similar rifles, also significantly influenced the frontier West; and not just for American citizens. Native Americans realized the importance of upgrading their weaponry to keep pace with the invading enemy as their life, liberty, and property were being threatened. With the help of the lever-action rifles, Cheyenne and Sioux warriors destroyed the 7th Cavalry at Little Big Horn. Using common sense to make sure you were not out-gunned was also the reason why the Texans stole the famous, “Come and Take It” cannon from Santa Anna’s army.

A common argument from the left is that even if you could arm the citizens, what good would that do in fighting off the much more powerful militarized opponent? Thank goodness the actual colonist doing the fighting against the British did not take that position. Or how about the North Vietnamese that defeated America’s advanced weaponry with Sun-Tzu tactics and the AK-47? Perhaps even more convincing is that our Government’s own bipartisan foreign policy strategy doesn’t buy the “what’s the point” argument. That is why the US arms citizens of other countries to battle their “tyrannical” governments in an attempt to “promote democracy.” Our own government is trying to promote the second amendment right, for those judged to be on the “correct” side, in other countries. They don’t pass out shotguns and .22s to these rebels, they arm them to compete.

Does anyone really believe that the colonists would not have individually purchased and used any available advanced weaponry options to fight the British? Would George Washington have used a .50 cal sniper rifle or .308 cal assault rifle with hi-tech optics if he had the option? Would he rather have a 4 round, one in the chamber rifle, or a huge magazine cartridge with multiple back-ups?

So why would our own Government NOT want us to have the right to access the same weaponry they would provide to foreign rebels fighting against tyranny?

I also wonder if law-abiding citizens surrounded by gang warfare in Chicago would like to be armed to defend their life, liberty, and property?

With all that in mind, I offer a few suggestions for the necessary and sufficient weapons for our individual defense.

In the home, a nice semi-auto 9mm with a 17 round clip is great to keep by the nightstand, especially if you can put a laser and tactical light combo on it. The recoil is manageable, less muzzle flash, quicker target acquisition than the .45 ACP, the rounds are plentiful and cheap and that allows for lots of inexpensive practice. If the semi-auto scares you, then a good ole fashioned .38 caliber double-action revolver might be just the ticket. It is definitely the easiest to learn and use. In addition, a great pump 12-gauge shotgun, with birdshot, is also handy for bad-guy clearing during a home intrusion or last stand in the closet.

When it comes to concealed-carry, it is mostly about what you feel you can handle and if you can quickly and reliably put shots on target.

For the nightmare apocalypse scenario, whatever that may be, there are still lots of options out there and I’d love to hear your suggestions. Just don’t get stuck with a musket. Personally, I like the Arsenal Firearms double barrel .45 ACP semi-auto pistol.

Whatever you choose, just make sure it provides for a necessary and sufficient defense. It is still your right.

Originally Published on ClashDaily.com

 

 

No Milk for You!

The very idea of being coerced infuriates Americans; and as a people, we are, and always have been, united in our resolve to resist coercion. Left or right, progressive or conservative, we want to be free to express our views and live our lives. We passionately resist the attempts of others to force their will upon us.

We can also agree that there is a certain limit, albeit circumscribed, to the concept of having total freedom to do as we please. Reasonable laws ensure we are not free to harm others (theft, assault, rape and murder are not unalienable rights).

And as a country, we have become upset with our government. Though we may disagree on exactly how our leaders in Washington have coerced us, we can all agree that we have been, and are being, forced to accept things we do not like.

We have had it, and the all-time low ratings of our politicians reflect that.

We also have very strong opinions about what is good for the country. But if we are not careful, good intentions can lead to tyranny. We can debate the concept of general welfare, and even within the debate we can recognize the “grain of truth” in our opponents’ arguments. The Right acknowledges that the poor need some type of help. The Left understands that our country needs some degree of military protection. What we can’t seem to agree upon is the amount of both. And as free debate disintegrates into emotion-laden rhetoric, the career politicians capitalize on this emotion to further their own careers, while at the same time jeopardizing all of our liberties by growing the national debt.

The way they do this is by professing they are simply trying to provide for the general welfare.

Thomas Jefferson exposed this tactic to twist the enumerated powers. He agreed that Congress does have the power to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare. However, they are not to lay taxes for any purpose they please: only to pay debts and provide for the general welfare. Similarly, they are not “to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

He emphasized this subtlety as, “giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.” That would reduce this to, “instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

Throughout history, those in authority tend to undermine and tarnish the very revolutionary concepts they claim to espouse. Just as many churches have abandoned Christ’s true teachings, many politicians have abandoned the Constitution.

A great example of this attempt to provide for the “general welfare” by violating individual rights can be seen in the following video. It definitely puts a new slant on the famous “got milk?” slogan.

Regardless of your politics, please continue to speak out against attempts at coercion and violation of individual freedoms that do no harm to others.

Visit the good folks at Reason.com for more about this saga.

The quotes from Thomas Jefferson are from:

Thomas Jefferson, On the Constitutionality of a National Bank, February 15, 1771

Originally Published on ClashDaily.com

 

Workers of America, Unite! (In Philadelphia, August the 11th)

On August 11th in Philadelphia, union members from all over the nation will reveal “America’s Second Bill of Rights.” They have a purpose; “to counter those forces preaching austerity” by exerting pressure on both parties prior to the national conventions.

In a memo to national and international union presidents, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka is, “encouraging union members and leaders to engage in policy discussions around the convention committees, including the Platform, Rules and Credential Committees.”

They should have less competition and distractions while they work their magic if the Dems follow Pelosi’s advice to stay home and campaign.

The Workers Stand for America site outlines their Second Bill of Rights:

  • The Right to Full Employment and a Living Wage
  • The Right to Full Participation in the Electoral Process
  • The Right to a Voice at Work
  • The Right to Quality Education
  • The Right to a Secure, Healthy Future

Curiously absent were; The Right to a Hot Mate, and The Right to Eternal Bliss in An Afterlife of Your Own Choosing.

Workers Stand for America noted FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights,” presented during his State of the Union in 1944, was their inspiration: he laid out his vision for a postwar America, “where every American would be entitled to decent work, education, medical care and retirement security.”

 I think most of America would agree that the “Rights” proposed would be great general “Goals” for our country. There is a difference.

F.A. Hayek noted that though two men might exhibit equal effort, skill, and knowledge, “one may be a success and the other a failure” because in a free society it is the “use of particular opportunities” that determines usefulness. When living freely, payment is not to be expected because of the skill we’ve learned but rather by choices of individuals, “our skill for using it rightly.” We are not entitled to any particular position simply due to our talents. To claim that, “would mean that some agency has the right and power to place men in particular positions according to its judgment.” FDR himself proposed to exert just such a power. He recommended to Congress the adoption of a “National Service Law” that, “for the duration of the war, will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make available for war production or any other essential services every able-bodied adult in this nation.”

 The All-Providing Government feeds you, clothes you, then owns you (and may not let the unions strike).

As Hayek continues, “All that a free society has to offer is an opportunity of searching for a suitable position, with all the attendant risk and uncertainty which such a search for a market for one’s gifts must involve.” This founding principle of our country does not mean freedom will be easy, and many resent that.

Regarding the other proposed “Rights.” The right to full participation in the electoral process is already guaranteed to all U.S. citizens. There is a catch, however, you must actually be a U.S. Citizen.

The right to a voice at work sounds fine, unless that is code for preventing their voices to be heard when they vote freely to not be coerced by a union they don’t want to join.

They propose the right to a quality and “affordable” education from pre-kindergarten through college. Our educational system is a failure. Now we are going to make it even more “affordable” and higher “quality” somehow by expanding government involvement in the process?

And finally, they propose the right to Obamacare and perpetual entitlements for all; “the right to a baseline level of health care, unemployment insurance, and retirement security” as well as confronting, “inadequate pension plans.”

There are some things we can agree on. Our economy sucks, things are bad, and there is no real end in sight. Our country would be stronger if we were all employed, making good wages, voting legally, having a voice at work, able to afford and obtain a quality education (if you want one), and being healthy and able to retire. FDR had a great quote (displayed on the Workers Stand for America site), “True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”

 My question is, when in the history of humanity, have people become more free and independent, when they became increasingly more dependent on a government that is going broke?

In closing, I do have my own proposal for a “Second Bill of Rights:”

  • The Right to Expect That Congress Reads All Bills Before Voting
  • The Right to Re-read the First Bill of Rights Until It Sinks In

Feel free to offer other suggestions to add to my list – it is your right.

The Hayek quotes come from, F.A. Hayek’s chapter “Responsibility and Freedom” found in, The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition.

Originally Published on ClashDaily.com