Gun Control — The Law and the Facts

The following was posted on Facebook recently:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Switzerland issues a gun every household and trains them to use it. Switzerland has the lowest gun-related crime rate of any civilized country in the world and hasn't bee conquered in over 1,000 years.

Now, I have not been able to personally confirm these numbers (which you'll never see in the mainstream media) but the fact that unarmed citizens get shot by evil governments has been well-established by historians. (As is the fact that armed citizens shoot back.)

The liberal agenda in America still includes total and absolute gun control — i.e., removal of guns from the ordinary American.  Not only is this unconstitutional, this doesn't reduce crime, as the liberals keep claiming to justify their program.  The truth, as any conservative knows, is far different.  Individual, personal gun ownership, unrelated to military service, is constitutional and it is an effective crime deterrent.

Here are the law and the facts:

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States;
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution;
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate
(97th Congress, 2nd Session, February 1982)

Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns.

National Institute of Justice, US Dep't of Justice;
in Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse
(Report NCJ-143454, August 1995)

Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right.

Sam Cummings, US District Judge;
US v. Emerson 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (1999)

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms . . . the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN)

According to the National Crime Survey, administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery.  These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon's demands.  Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance.

Prof. Gary Kleck, gun-control advocate, ACLU & Amnesty Int'l member;
in "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research"
Law and Contemporary Problems (vol 49: num 1: 1986)

I add some opinions from people you might be surprised to see on this list:

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi, creator of civil disobedience

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

His Holiness, the Dalai Lama; in a May 2001 speech
on "nonviolent resolutions to conflict"

The world is filled with violence.  Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law-abiding citizens should also have guns.  Otherwise, they will win and the decent people will lose.

James Earl Jones, American actor (the voice of "Darth Vader")

Gun control?  It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters.  I want you to have nothing.  If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna’ have a gun. Safety locks?  You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger.  We'll see who wins.

Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano, American
gangster turned Mafia informant

The Bottom Line:

The 2nd Amendment is for citizens who understand that, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Unknown, very clever person

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

The United Nations – With Friends Like These . . .

Sixty-five years ago, in 1945, there was much to be thankful for. The Axis powers had been defeated, World War II was effectively over (the cleanup would take a while) and the United Nations Charter had just come into effect.  So, how's that whole UN think working out for the USA?

Fallacy #1: The United Nations Charter is a blueprint for peace. 

Yes, that's what they told us back in 1945. Unfortunately, it simply isn't true (and never was) according to Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America’s foremost scholars in the field of international law.  After careful study, he concluded the UN Charter "is a war document not a peace document" and that it "is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace."  The Ambassador further noted:

[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war. . . . Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.

In fact, the so-called Korean and Vietnam Wars used to be called "UN Police Actions" and were conducted with the blessing of, and under the auspices of, the United Nations.
 

In more recent news:

1990 — Pres. GHW Bush went to the UN for authority to invade Iraq.
1992 — Pres. GHW Bush got a Security Council resolution to send U.S. forces into Somalia
1993 — Pres. Clinton received UN authorization to send troops into Haiti.
1994 — Pres. Clinton responded to a UN resolution and attacked Bosnia.
2001 — Pres. GW Bush said his Afghanistan attack plans "have been defined by the United Nations."
2003 — Pres. Bush gets Security Council resolutions 678 and 687 to re-invade Iraq.
Even the US involvement in this year's Libya troubles was a UN decision.
 

Fallacy #2: In the UN forum, nations can talk and work out their differences.

Yeah, there's a lot of talk in the UN.  What has it gotten us?  Well, the fact of the matter (to cite one example) is that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  How do we know this? Because he used them – on the Kurds in his war of genocide and against the Iranians in his war against them.  When a UN-authorized coalition finally went into Iraq to get rid of this madman, we found nothing.

Of course we found nothing!  The UN had debated the invasion option for something like a year and a half and passed resolutions that laid out the whole UN plan of attack. Those resolutions gave Saddam a year and a half to hide said weapons of mass destruction, and he did.  (I think he hid them in Syria, but that's another story.)

The point — the UN telegraphed its blow and Saddam pretty much sidestepped it, making the USA look like the warmongering, imperialist bad guy.  Personally, I don't think either Iraq conflict was justified but, if you're going to fight a war, for heaven's sake — well, let's put it this way:  If you're going to mug someone, do you sent the victim an engraved invitation to the event?

Fallacy #3:  All the money the USA gives away in foreign aid has won us friends in the UN.

You know the old saying, "You get what you pay for"?  Well, the UN is clearly the exception. Take a peek at the voting records of a few nations and the money we (the American taxpayer) are giving them:

Nation	Votes*	Foreign Aid**
Egypt	79%	$1,216,000,000
India	81%	$1,781,000,000
Jordan	71%	$560,814,000
Lebanon	80%	$119,000,000
Morocco	70%	$226,000,000
Pakistan	75%	$390,000,000

*In opposition to positions taken by the US.

**From official US sources (Census Bureau, AID, etc.).

So, we're paying people to oppose us.  That's like the Republican National Committee raising money to re-elect Barack Obama.

Fallacy #4:  The UN was created by people who believed in freedom.

Lloyd Bailey of Gainesville.com says:

The UN was located in the United States at Stalin’s insistence, and the land was donated by the Rockefeller family.  Immediately following the UN establishment, top military secrets were lost by convicted Russian spies that operated under UN diplomatic immunity.  Russia [actually the USSR] was granted 3 votes on the general assembly, while all other nations received one vote.  When Communist China was admitted, original founding member, free China in Taiwan was removed.
The UN was created by the globalist, Council on Foreign Relations, where 21 of its members were involved in the creation . . . the first secretary general of the UN was Algier Hiss, a convicted Soviet spy and CFR member.

The bottom line:

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. [George Washington, Farewell Address, 17 September 1796, emphasis added.] 

President Washington was right, as usual.  The United Nations isn't pro-republic; it is pro-socialist, anti-gun and anti-religion.  It isn't an organization dedicated to peace; it wants its own military to enforce its decrees.  UN diplomats have spied on the USA since Day 1, and are working toward eradicating US sovereignty in favor of a one world government. Make it your business to elect true conservatives on November 6, 2012 and you will have much to be thankful for on November 22, 2012. 

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Executive Orders – A Threat to Liberty?

What is an executive order?

There is no express constitutional provision for executive orders (EOs).  The power to issue executive orders or proclamations is implied by the first sentence of Article 2, Section 1, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."  Former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently stated:

Not "some" or "most" or even "all but a teeny-weeny bit" of the executive power. The President is vested with all of it.  This is particularly noteworthy when compared with the enumerated legislative powers vested in Congress:  "All legislative Powers herein granted."  The Founders understood, based in part on their unfortunate experience under the Articles of Confederation, that the branch of government most likely to be in need of the ability to act quickly and decisively is the executive."[1]

The limit of executive orders/proclamations (there is no practical difference, so we'll call both EOs for now) is another matter.  The most common description was issued by the House of Representatives in 1957:

Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President.  When they are founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may have the force and effect of law . . . Executive orders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, Government officials and agencies.  They usually affect private individuals only indirectly.  Proclamations in most instances affect primarily the activities of private individuals.  Since the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights . . . [t]he President's proclamations are not legally binding . . . The difference between Executive orders and proclamations is more one of form than of substance . . .[2]

So, sometimes they have the force of law and sometimes they don't?  My, that's confusing.

Okay, as orders to the executive branch or other government officials/employees, I have no problem with EOs – the president can issue orders just as any chief executive can issue orders to his employees.

It's much harder for me to see that a president can write laws or that the Constitution grants him power that allows him to write laws.

That isn't actually the focus of this post, that's the preface. My point in this preface is:

EOs exist, and we have to deal with them.

Many actually are innocuous; a few are very worthy of our attention. For example, Flag Day is not an official federal holiday; Title 36 of the United States Code states that the President has the discretion to officially proclaim the observance.  It's part of the way we honor the flag that we formally renew the celebration every single year.  This is a good thing.

What kinds of problems to EOs cause?

Some EOs are not harmless:  Have you heard of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument?  In 1906, Congress passed the Antiquities Act (16 USC 431-433), authorizing the President to restrict the use of particular public land owned by the federal government via an EO.  Bill Clinton used the authority of Antiquities Act (itself questionable constitutionally) to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in September 1996 – the height of his re-election campaign.  A ceremony was held at Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona.  The Governor of Utah and Utah's members of Congress were told about the action the day before the ceremony.  Many believe this was a political ploy by Clinton to win votes in Arizona.  If true, it worked.  Clinton won Arizona's 8 electoral votes by 2.2% (he never had any chance to win in Utah).

The Monument is a popular tourist venue and it makes money – both for the State and for the local communities – and the feds paid Utah $13 million for Utah-owned land within the Monument.  However, it is almost 3,000 square miles in area and contains a large part of the estimated $1 trillion dollars of natural resources that are locked away under federal lands in Utah designated as wilderness.  Money and jobs have been denied to Utah by the action of one person – the president – and natural resources have been denied to every American by the action of one person – the president.

Worse than the activity is the principle behind it – land within the State of Utah was taken by the federal government without the permission of (or even the courtesy of notification to) the State of Utah, and in clear violation of the 5th Article of Amendment to the Constitution.

It gets still worse:

Also issued by Pres. Clinton on June 3, 1994, Executive Order 12919 states:

"The United States must have an industrial and technology base capable of meeting national defense requirements, and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.  The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness.  The authorities provided in the [Defense Production Act of 1950] shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to all threats to the national security of the United States."

We are all for national defense, right?  Well, not so fast.  This isn't the only EO on the subject.[3]

EO 10995:  "In carrying out functions under this order, the Director of Telecommunications Management shall consider the following objectives: (a) Full and efficient employment of telecommunications resources in carrying out national policies . . . (c) Utilization of the radio spectrum by the Federal Government in a manner which permits and encourages the most beneficial use thereof in the public interest . . . "  That sounds like a federal takeover of the US telecommunications industry – television, radio, maybe even the Internet?
 

EO 10997:    "With respect to the resources defined above [coal, natural gas, oil, etc.], the Secretary shall . . . Prepare plans to claim materials, manpower, equipment, supplies and services needed in support of assigned responsibilities and other essential functions of the Department before the appropriate agency . . ."  That sounds like a federal takeover of the US energy industry.

EO 10998:  "With respect to food resources, food resource facilities, farm equipment, and fertilizer the Secretary shall . . . Develop priorities, allocations and distribution control systems and related plans to insure that available food resources are properly apportioned among and distributed to civilian, military and foreign claimants in an emergency and develop priorities, allocations and distribution control systems and related plans for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer." That sounds like a federal takeover of the US agriculture industry and our food supply.

EO 10999:  "The Secretary shall develop long range programs designed to integrate the mobilization [a military term] requirements for movement of all forms of commerce with all forms of national and international transportation systems including air, ground, water, and pipelines, in an emergency . . ." That sounds like a federal takeover of the US transportation industry.

EO 11000:  "The Secretary shall . . . Develop plans and issue guidance designed to utilize to the maximum extent civilian manpower resources . . . Such plans shall include, but not necessarily be limited to . . . Procedures for translating survival and production urgencies into manpower priorities to be used as guides for allocating available workers . . . Technical guidance to States for the utilization of the nationwide system of public employment offices . . . for screening, recruiting, and referring workers, and for other appropriate activities to meet mobilization and civil defense needs in each community . . . Programs for more effective utilization of limited manpower resources, and in cooperation with other appropriate agencies, programs for recruitment, training, allocation, and utilization of persons possessing specialized competence or aptitude in acquiring such competence."  That sounds like a federal plan to conscript US civilian citizens for any job the federal government deems essential to natural security.

EO 11001:  "With respect to emergency health services . . . the Secretary shall . . . Develop plans and issue guidance designed to utilize to the maximum extent the existing civilian health resources of the Federal Government, and with their active participation, assistance, and consent, the health resources of the States and local political subdivisions thereof, and of other civilian organizations and agencies concerned with the health of the population, under all conditions of national emergency. Maintain relations with health professions and institutions to foster mutual understanding of Federal emergency plans which affect health activities."  That sounds like a federal takeover of the US healthcare industry, although it does specifically mention "their active participation, assistance, and consent," I have to wonder, in light of things like Obamacare and the other EOs, if the feds would actually ask for such consent.

EO 11003:  "The Administrator shall . . . Formulate plans for the development, utilization, expansion and emergency management of the Nation's civil airports, civil aviation ground facilities and equipment required for essential civil air operations, except manufacturing facilities, but including the development of orders for insuring the continued operation of essential civil airports, civil aviation operating facilities, and civil aviation. equipment." That sounds like a federal takeover of the US aviation industry.

EO 11004:  "The Secretary . . . shall incorporate billeting plans in the general welfare guidance program for States . . . Participate in the preparation of plans for determining which areas are to be restored and in the development and coordination of plans for the movement of people on a temporary basis from areas to be abandoned to areas where housing is available or can be made available."  That sounds like soviet-style forced relocations of US citizens. (And didn't that work out so well for the Hurricane Katrina victims?)

EO 11051:  FEMA is authorized to put these (and other) orders into effect during national crises.  Specifically, "In carrying out his responsibilities under this order, the Director is authorized to issue such rules and regulations, and directives, consonant with law and Executive order, as he deems necessary and appropriate to the functions involved."  Whoa, Nelly!  That's an amazing amount of power to put in the hands of a person nobody voted for.

The bottom line:

Reluctantly, I agree that the President should be allowed to issue executive orders and proclamations.  I fear, as I always fear with government, that they have been and will continue to be misused.  If these are good ideas, then Congress should take them up in formal, public debate. These matters should not be decided in the Oval Office, where they get little, if any, media attention.

We have see administrations manufacture crises.  Who is to say that such a created crisis will never be used to strip Americans of their liberties?  Certainly, not I.
 

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.
 

[1] © 2011 Hillsdale College. Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
[2] Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers, a staff report by the House Committee on Government Operations (85th Congress, 1st Session, 1957).
[3] The complete texts of these EOs (and others) have been collected at DisasterCenter.com.  Each EO can be viewed at <http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/XXXXX.htm> ("XXXXX" being the specific EO number.)  The site appears to be privately owned and operated, but has no "about" page.

Change by the Numbers — A 100-year History

Statistics compiled by Ben Reng, a recent convert to political activism:

Year	Population (millions)	Budget (billions)	Debt (billions)	Balance (billions)
1900	76.2	$20.5	$2	+$0.041
1935	127.0	$73.3	$28	-$3.0
1957	170.0	$81.8	$270	+$2.2
2000	280.0	$1,700	$5,600	-$17.9
2010	310.0	$3,500	$14,000	-$1,400
Increase	4x	170x	7,000x	1,400x

Also noteworthy

1900	No federal income tax; it was considered unconstitutional.
1935	Congress passed the Social Security Act.
1957	Most of the national debt is leftover from World War II and was $2 billion lower than 1956; the last year the total US debt DECREASED.
2000	The Clinton administration fiscal policies brought an end to Reaganomics, the longest sustained period of growth in US history, according to the Heritage Foundation.
2010	The Obama administration's first year budget deficit was four times that of the 2008 deficit, the last Bush budget.

Commentary by Ben Reng:

With a few thoughts of my own.
 

I've spent my life watching from the cheap seats.  I participated in one of the worst entitlement mentalities available:  That I shouldn't have to contribute my effort to my nation's governance.

Our nation wasn't built to work like this.  It wasn't built for passive citizenship.

Like Ben, I spent most of my life barely involved in politics.  Until I was past 40, I never did anything political, except vote.
 

We have a misnomer in this country.  Our nation doesn't elect leaders.  In this country, we have leaders in our churches, in our military, in our businesses and, most of all, in our homes.  In America, we elect representatives.
 

It was not always so:  Remember your high school history classes?  Do the names Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun mean anything to you?  If not, they should.  This was the Great Triumvirate of the US Senate in the 1830s and '40s, the greatest statesmen that chamber ever knew.

For a generation now, conservatives have been content to be Nixon's "Silent Majority."  We've bought into the foolish concept that it's unacceptable to talk about religion, politics, or money in polite company.  We've allowed the media to become dominated by people who do not share our values.
 

We've hesitated to talk to teenagers, in their most intellectually formative years, about our traditional values, for fear of being "uncool."  We've allowed our children to be taught in a system that doesn't reflect our values.  We've lost the ability to understand the math of our economy, and as such have become uncomfortable trying to even teach it to our children.
 

Are we actually afraid to discuss religion, politics or money in "polite company"?  I'm not, anymore.  Of course, it's easy for me because most of the people I hang out with today are also interested in saving this country from oblivion.  It does cause some silent moments at holidays, since I am the only conservative in my family, and one of the few things more important than politics is family harmony.
 

The idea behind this mad pyramid scheme is simple:

Spending money is addicting.  If you translate that to government speak, it runs something like this:  "If we don't spend our whole budget this year, we can't justify asking for more money next year."  Politicians really think this way, and it doesn't matter to them that the American electorate doesn't want it.  Polls bear this out:

Rasmussen Reports – 22 October 2008 – No more stimulus

58% of U.S. voters say more tax cuts will better stimulate the economy than new spending.
32% agree the government should pass another economic stimulus package; 43% disagree.
Men favor new tax cuts over spending 64% to 22%; Women favor tax cuts 54% to 23%.
 

Rasmussen Reports – 19 November 2010 – Cut spending

58% of likely voters say they’d prefer for a candidate who'll work to cut federal spending.
54% think a member of Congress who works to get as much federal money as possible is more interested in improving his reelection chances than in what’s best for his constituents.
67% of mainstream America prefer a candidate who cuts spending.
55% of the political class likes one who goes after it.
 

Pat Toomey, The Wall Street Journal – 24 July 2008 – America Wants Less Pork

54% of general election voters chose the frugal candidate.
29% chose the profligate [spend-thrift] candidate.
 

Dennis Jacobe, Gallup, Inc. – 27 June 2008 – No Income Redistribution

84% of Americans prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions.
13% support taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.
50% of Americans more likely to believe government is doing too much.
43% believe government should do more to solve the country's problems.
 

The bottom line:
 

American's aren't stupid, despite what professional politicians think.  But we have a growing portion of our society that is addicted to government spending.  That portion is loud and well organized and they support politicians who'll sell us out for a few votes.  Sadly, many voters also listen to those voices.

Let's make 2012 a watershed year by drowning out the voices of the few who lie, cheat and steal for political power.  Let us support and elect men and women of character and backbone who will cut the unnecessary and unconstitutional budget items and bring America's fiscal policy back to sanity.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.