Category Archives: Constitution

The rights to life and to keep and bear arms are inseparable

TAMPA, December 16, 2012 ― The right to keep and bear arms is not granted to Americans in the U.S. Constitution, nor in the “Bill of Rights.” The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, inextricably linked to the right to life.

The 2^nd Amendment recognizes this. It does not say the right “shall be granted.” It assumes the right already exists and says it “shall not be infringed.”

All rights are negative. We do not have a positive right to anything. Rights merely prohibit other people from aggressing against us. If someone is struck by lightning and killed, we feel bad about it, but we do not say his right to life was violated. Neither do we say so if he is eaten by a lion.

The right to life is very narrowly defined as the right not to be killed by another human being, other than in self-defense. The only way to exercise this right is to defend oneself if attacked. There is no other circumstance in which the “right to life” has any meaning.

Given that an aggressor may have weapons or may be a more capable fighter, individuals must be able to arm themselves sufficiently to overcome these disadvantages in order to exercise their right to life.

Natural rights preexist government. They exist in what Enlightenment philosophers called “the state of nature,” which is the state without government. These thinkers had different ideas about nature and society, but all agreed on one thing. Self-preservation is the first law of nature.

John Locke’s “Essay Concerning the true origin, extent and end of Civil Government (1690)” inspired the entire American philosophy, according to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson thought it so important that posterity understand this that he had a resolution passed to proclaim it.

This was due to the important differences between Locke’s philosophy and others. Unlike Rousseau, who claimed that when joining society man had to agree to “the total alienation of all of his natural rights,” Locke said that man entered society to preserve those rights. That’s why the Declaration of Independence says that certain rights are inalienable.

The only rights that man gives up upon entering society is the right to judge his own case in a dispute and to enforce that judgment. These he gives up to the government in return for the superior protection of his life, liberty and property the government supposedly provides.

However, these powers only pertain to crimes that occurred in the past. The government has no power over the future or the present. It cannot prosecute someone for a crime that he will commit tomorrow and it cannot protect the individual from a crime occurring right now.

Therefore, the individual retains the right to defend himself against aggression occurring in the present, even after giving up other powers to the government. Locke is very clear about this:

“Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge…” [emphasis added]

Reason inevitably leads to this conclusion. The right to keep and bear arms exists in nature and is never given up in any social contract, because no government is able to defend its citizen in the present.

This also clears up a common misconception. Since the government is unable to defend you in the present, it is not true that by surrendering the right to bear arms you place care of your life in the hands of the government. You must be placing it elsewhere.

Since it no longer resides in you either, the care of your life must now reside in your attacker.

This is not some theoretical exercise only true in a classroom or lecture hall. This was the very real situation that defenseless teachers and children found themselves in on Friday. The school was a “gun-free zone,” meaning all who entered it agreed to surrender their right to keep and bear arms.

The government didn’t defend them because it couldn’t. The government was only able to respond after the attack commenced. The only one able to make a decision whether they lived or died was Adam Lanza.

One would think tragedies like this and in other gun-free zones like the City of Aurora, Colorado, Ft. Hood or Columbine High School would have taught Americans a very clear lesson. Do not put the lives of our children and their teachers into the hands of homicidal maniacs.

Instead, the hue and cry is for precisely the opposite. Not only should schoolchildren be deprived of their right to life, but all of society.

Locke called any social contract where the individual accepts even worse protection of his life and property than he had in the state of nature “too gross an absurdity for any man to own.” He would call most reactions to this latest school shooting downright insane.

*This article originally appeared in Washington Times Communities

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Part One and A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

Michigan unions say no right to work

Leave a reply

TAMPA, December 10, 2012 – Lansing, Michigan is bracing for an onslaught of protestors following Republican Governor Rick Snyder’s indication that he would sign “Right to Work” legislation currently making its way through the state legislature. President Obama and Harry Reid have both joined Michigan Democrats in denouncing the bill.

As usual, both liberals and conservatives are already demonstrating their skewed perception of reality in weighing in on this debate. President Obama told workers at an engine plant outside Detroit that “what we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages,” as if the law would do any such thing.

However, Harry Reid surpassed all in obtuseness when he called the legislation a “blatant attempt by Michigan Republicans to assault the collective bargaining process and undermine the standard of living it has helped foster.”

Perhaps the senator should ask the residents of Detroit, an entire city laid waste by New Deal union legislation, how they are enjoying the standard of living it has produced.

Libertarians haven’t been able to say this in quite a while, but the conservatives are mostly right on this one, although perhaps for the wrong reasons.

The only troubling sentiment coming from grassroots conservatives is the animosity towards labor unions themselves. Many seem to believe that the mere existence of labor unions causes economic distortions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Labor unions themselves are not the problem.

Like virtually all human misery, labor market distortions are caused by the government. Specifically in this case, they are rooted in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (a.k.a. the Wagner Act).

Read the rest of the article…

Nullification and Secession? Juries can nullify Obamacare and the Drug War with much less drama

2 Replies

TAMPA, December 2, 2012 – For libertarians, the reemergence of ideas like secession and state nullification couldn’t be more welcome. Both are attempts to resist the exercise of arbitrary power, which is power never delegated to the party attempting to exercise it. They should remain the last resort for free people to resist tyranny.

The problem with both remedies is that they provoke confrontation with the federal government. That doesn’t mean they aren’t legitimate tools, but they play into the government’s hands. The government loves war and domination. State nullification and secession give the government the opportunity to employ both.

Using the state government to resist unconstitutional federal laws pits one government against another. Ultimately, it can lead to an armed confrontation between state and federal agents, each attempting to enforce their respective laws. For peaceful freedom lovers, it’s an away game.

Secession brings with it even higher stakes. Although secession is not rebellion, as the seceding state is not attempting to overthrow the existing government, the federal government will say it is. History has taught us that enough people will believe it that the government can justify a war. Like nullification, it’s also an away game.

Jury nullification gives us the home court advantage. There is no enemy that the government can fight its war against. There is no opportunity for violence because none of the government’s edicts are technically violated. Its own rules call for “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

Fine. The trial was held. The defendant was acquitted. Go pound sand.

History supports this argument. When South Carolina’s state government nullified the Tariff of Abominations in the 1830’s, Democratic President Andrew Jackson threatened to invade the state. When the southern states peacefully seceded in the 1860’s, Republican President Abraham Lincoln did invade.

The results have been different for jury nullification. If you’re drinking a beer or enjoying a glass of wine while reading this article, you’re safe from government goons breaking down your door to a large extent because of widespread jury nullification of Prohibition during the 1920’s.

Read the rest of the article…

The fiscal cliff: Another phony emergency to give the government more power

2 Replies

TAMPA, November 27, 2012 – The 24-hour news cycle is dominated with frantic warnings about the “fiscal cliff.” If you merely listen to the sound bites, there is another “emergency” facing the United States of America and only some drastic action by Congress can avert it.

What nonsense. Don’t Americans ever learn anything from even the recent past?

Just four years ago, we were told that if we didn’t allow Congress to give Wall Street almost a trillion dollars of our money, the end of the world would occur. The “bold” legislation was necessary to “save the financial system.” Other than preventing a lot of billionaires who made bad investments from losing their money, I’m not sure what that was supposed to mean.

It didn’t prevent millions of borrowers from losing their homes. That happened anyway.

We were told after 911 that “the world changed” and the 4^th, 5^th and 6^th amendments to the Constitution would have to be trashed. Americans now subject themselves to unreasonable searches without warrant merely for the “privilege” of getting on a plane. They allow presidents to arrest American citizens without a warrant or charges and hold them indefinitely without recourse to a writ of habeas corpus.

The president can even kill American citizens without due process.

It was all supposedly necessary to protect us from…the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. Both defeated the new government security apparatus and were subdued by private citizens.

Both initiatives were accompanied by a non-stop barrage of media propaganda trumpeting impending doom if the government wasn’t given more power.

The fiscal cliff scam is playing out exactly the same way. Day and night, Americans are bombarded with the same message. If Congress doesn’t do something, the world will end.

There are two components to this supposed disaster. The first is the “draconian cuts” to government spending built into the Budget Control Act of 2011. Supposedly, they will “gut the military,” while plunging the economy back into recession.

There is only one problem. Even if Congress fails to make a deal, nothing is being cut from the federal budget.

Let me repeat that. Nothing is being cut.

Read the rest of the article…

The real question about Benghazi: Was Chris Stevens a CIA agent?

Leave a reply

TAMPA, November 25, 2012 ― The media can’t get enough of the “investigation” into what the Obama administration knew about what was happening in Benghazi and when they knew it. Obama survived the initial furor and got reelected, but the controversy rages on.

What is the real question here? Judging from media coverage and the Congressional investigation, we might assume that the only matter to be resolved is whether the Obama administration knew that a coordinated terrorist attack was underway, rather than a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim film. According to this narrative, Obama could have been more proactive in responding to the attack and sent in military assistance to try to save Stevens and his associates.

None of this would seem to be the stuff of a major scandal. The Obama administration may or may not have handled the situation properly. If they didn’t and tried to cover up their incompetence, it would hardly be a new Watergate. The intensity of the controversy doesn’t jibe with its supposed cause.

Or is there another reason for a cover-up by the White House? Was Chris Stevens a CIA agent?

Read the rest of the article…

As far back as October 25, Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano asked this question and he was not alone. He cited his colleague Justin Fishel’s report on the same subject. According to Fishel:

“In reality, CIA agents and other intelligence officials were operating out of Benghazi conducting delicate missions, including the search for over 20,000 deadly shoulder-fired missiles previously owned by Muammar Qaddafi’s Libyan forces … Both the CIA outpost and the consulate were attacked on Sept. 11. Two of the men killed, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were hit by indirect fire while defending the intelligence post, not the consulate.”

If the September 11 attack targeted a CIA base actively conducting covert operations within Libya, it renders the whole question of whether the attack was a reaction to the infamous video or a coordinated terrorist attack moot. Under those circumstances, it would be neither. It might more accurately be described as a “counterinsurgency operation” carried out by forces opposed to the new U.S.-installed Libyan government. Perhaps they were aligned with the ousted Qaddafi government. Perhaps they were al Qaeda who were happy to accept U.S. assistance in getting rid of Qaddafi and are now happy to turn on the U.S. That would be a familiar story.

Regardless, Stevens’ death might have been collateral damage in an attack against a known (in Libya) CIA covert operation. Or Stevens might have been a CIA operative himself who was not only participating in the post-revolution operations in 2012 but had actively participated in the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime. According to Napolitano, this theory might fit the facts better than any offered so far.

“Now we can connect some dots. If Stevens was a CIA agent, he was in violation of international law by acting as the U.S. ambassador. And if he and his colleagues were intelligence officials, they are not typically protected by Marines, because they ought to have been able to take care of themselves.”

If Stevens was a CIA agent actively involved in covert operations, it would be a major international scandal. It would call into question not only the Obama administration, but all of the U.S. government’s activities during its decade-long “war on terror.”

So why have neither the media nor the Congressional committee even asked the question?

Fishel confirms that the House oversight committee investigating the incident has been instructed not to investigate certain aspects of the Benghazi operation.

That means that no one is even trying to get at the truth. The Congressional investigation and the media frenzy amount to little more than a distraction for the American public, which seems to have taken the bait hook, line and sinker. They join the two major parties in fiercely debating a non-issue while ignoring the crucial questions asked by a few actual journalists.

Was Chris Stevens a CIA agent? Was the attack on Benghazi a terrorist attack or a counterattack against a covert military operation? Are there other U.S. diplomats actively participating in covert operations while posing as ambassadors of peace to foreign governments? Has the U.S. government become as immoral as the terrorists it purports to be fighting? What else do we not know about its international activities?

The silence is deafening.

U.S. Foreign Policy: 100 Years of Failure

1 Reply

TAMPA, November 19, 2012 — An Iraqi diplomat has called upon other Arab oil producers to “use oil as a weapon” against the United States. Fox News reports this as if it should come as a surprise.

“The shocking statement from a democratic government in power only after the U.S. and allies ousted murderous dictator Saddam Hussein in a costly and bloody war laid bare the Middle Eastern nation’s true allegiance,” reports Fox.

The detachment from reality exhibited by news organizations like Fox and Americans in general is stunning. Americans actually believe that Iraqis should be grateful that the United States invaded their country, destroyed their infrastructure, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and made homeless refugees of millions more.

They also believe that after deposing a relatively westernized dictator and putting the Shia majority in power, the resulting government would not seek to retaliate against U.S. support for Israel.

This is by no means an isolated incident. It is a recurring theme. Contrary to official myth, U.S. foreign policy has been a failure for the past 100 years, virtually without exception.

We’re constantly told that the United States has a “special role” in the world, due to its status as sole superpower and the role it has played over the past century “defending freedom.” This is pure delusion.

A small percentage of Americans are vaguely aware that Osama bin Laden did not create Al Qaeda (Arabic for “the base”). It was started in Pakistan by Sheik Abdullah Azzam with CIA support. According to veteran reporter Eric Margolis,

“I know this because I interviewed Azzam numerous times at al-Qaida HQ in Peshawar while covering the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. Azzam set up al-Qaida, which means “the base” in Arabic, to help CIA and Saudi-financed Arab volunteers going to fight in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. In those days, the west hailed them as “freedom fighters,” writes Margolis.

Continue at Communities@ Washington Times…

President Obama: Staying out of Gaza conflict your biggest test

1 Reply

TAMPA, November 16, 2012 – Dear President Obama,

Push may be coming to shove in Israel. There is only so long that one side can tolerate rockets being fired into its territory and the other can tolerate living under martial law imposed by a foreign power. The whole world hopes for a diplomatic solution, but one side or both may insist upon war.

If it comes to that, then you will face the biggest test of your presidency. Under enormous pressure to do otherwise, the right decision will be to do nothing.

The government you run is bankrupt and the nation is weary of war, especially the pointless kind we’ve waged in the Middle East over the past decade. History will eventually judge both of those wars U.S. defeats. A mighty empire invaded a third world backwater and was eventually expelled by guerilla “freedom fighters” defending their homeland. It’s an old story, but apparently neither voters nor world leaders learn much from history.

For now, the U.S. can declare victory in Afghanistan and withdraw and only good can come of that. What we cannot afford, economically or from a national security standpoint is to go right back into the Middle East, this time with world war a very real possibility.

There is already some speculation that a major offensive by Israel into Gaza may merely be a warm-up for a war with Iran. That may or may not be the Israeli government’s intention, but no rational person can deny that the situation has enormous potential to go there. At that point, it will be more important than ever to adopt the foreign policy that 24 consecutive U.S. presidents said was what made our nation wealthy and powerful: nonintervention.

U.S. citizens have been badgered for a decade with the tired argument that history has taught us not to “appease” a dictator. First Saddam Hussein and now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been the latest Hitler. Appease them, we are told, and they will not stop until they take over the world. Of course, no one stops to ask the obvious question: With what?

Let’s talk about Hitler and what we learned from history. Chamberlain’s infamous agreement is rather late in the game to pick up the story. Let’s rewind back to Hitler’s rise to power. It could never have happened without the economic hardship Germans suffered as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. That one-sided treaty would never have been signed had the U.S. not entered WWI and turned a stalemate that all countries wanted a way out of into a decisive Allied victory.

Sound familiar? It should, although there is a major difference here. Any war between Israel and either the Palestinians or Iranians – or even both of them together – would not be a stalemate. It would be a decisive Israeli victory that might lead to a lasting peace, if all of the players understand that they are on their own.

Continue at Communities@ Washington Times…

Interview (Video): Christina Tobin of Free and Equal Elections Foundation

Leave a reply

TAMPA, November 4, 2012 – “Remember, remember the 5^th of November.”

So says Christina Tobin, found and chair of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, a 501 (c)3 non-profit formed to ensure a fair an open electoral process for all. The organization is sponsoring its second presidential debate this election season on November 5^th at 9 PM EST. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson will square off against Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

Johnson and Stein won the right to participate by finishing first and second, respectively, in an online vote conducted after the first Free and Equal debate on October 23^rd. In addition to Johnson and Stein, Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode and Justice Party nominee Rocky Anderson also participated in the first debate.

While united in their opposition to the two-party system, Johnson and Stein have very different ideas about the role of government and the solutions to America’s problems.

“They do have a different take on things such as healthcare and so on, but my feeling is that the two-party system has been playing us for over a century now and they’ve made us quite divisive. I do foresee, after this election, a huge movement of independents running for office and finding, well, we do have a lot in common across the spectrum,” said Tobin.

Watch the video interview at Communities@ Washington Times…

Read Free Chapters of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America here!

Support for Kill List and NDAA make Obama and Romney unfit for office

Leave a reply

TAMPA, November 2, 2012 – It wasn’t so long ago that the following statement could only appear in a dystopian novel or movie script:

The U.S. President has killed an American citizen without due process, without even charging him with a crime. His decision to do this has been challenged by members of neither party.

While the media-fueled frenzy goes on about how supposedly different Romney and the conservatives are from Obama and the liberals, no one even raises an eyebrow about this terrifying political development.

Not even the left, which quite correctly howled at passage of the Patriot Act and the Bush administrations’ other assaults on freedom.

Bush and the Republicans committed egregious crimes against liberty, but did not go near this far in violating the even more important right to life.

The president makes a mockery of the term “due process” by claiming the requirement is fulfilled by a panel of his own self-appointed czars and cronies reviewing the case. This doesn’t even pass the constitutional test. The panel is exclusively comprised of members of the executive branch of government. Judicial power is explicitly denied to the executive by the plain words of the constitution.

At any previous time in American history, a summary execution by the executive without due process would have been considered cold blooded murder and an act of tyranny. Yet, it has happened in the light of day and neither the political class nor the citizenry has batted an eye.

If even this does not rouse American citizens to stand up to their government, to what would they conceivably say “no?”

Given Romney’s endorsement of the president’s action, there is a well-worn term that applies to both candidates for president. “Unfit for office” has been wasted in the past on extramarital affairs or scandals involving some misappropriation of funds in private business. Like the cry of “wolf!” its impact has been eroded by overuse.

However, it is a gravely serious charge. It denotes a fundamental moral failing that puts a candidate completely beyond consideration.

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney are unfit for office due to their support for the presidential kill list. Regardless of where they stand on economic policy, foreign policy or social issues, this position alone should disqualify them in any civilized society.

So why hasn’t it?

The only possible answer is the American public has become so numb to the exercise of arbitrary power that they are unable to even raise a bleat while being led to the slaughter.

It is almost anti-climactic to point out that if you are not summarily executed by either a Romney or Obama administration, you may be arrested by the military without a warrant and held indefinitely without charges, recourse to a writ of habeas corpus or any appeal to an impartial judge. This provision is part of the last NDAA bill which the president signed and which Romney stated he would have signed as well. It is the law of the land.

So was the Reichstag Fire Act in 1930’s Germany. That did not make it right. Without exaggerating, that is where we are right now.

Anyone who watched the first Third Party Debate could not have helped but notice that the various candidates were as different from each other individually as they were collectively from Romney or Obama. Green Party candidate Jill Stein is so far left on economic policy that she makes Obama look like Warren G. Harding. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is so laissez faire that he makes Romney look like Woodrow Wilson.

However, all of them agreed on one thing. The basic protections of personal freedom and security guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are not open to negotiation. That is the “red line” over which the government may not tread. That line is the one tangible thing that has made America different from the worst tyrannies of history.

A vote for Obama or Romney on November 6^th is worse than wasting your vote. It is surrendering not only your liberty but your very life to the discretion of the all-powerful state. It is accepting a station even lower than a slave’s.

Fortunately, you do have other choices. Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in at least 47 states. Many of the other candidates may be on your ballot as well. Florida’s ballot will provide twelve choices for president. Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein will debate again on November 5^th, one day before the election.

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, you will find among these choices a candidate you agree with at least as much as you agree with Romney or Obama. What you will not find is a candidate who claims arbitrary power over your life.

Do not give your consent to a candidate who does.

2nd Third Party Debate: Will Americans Remember the 5th of November?

Leave a reply

TAMPA, October 31, 2012 – “We’ll have to agree to disagree.” When uttered in a political context, there is no passive-aggressive cliché that I detest more than this one,

Invariably, this is the rejoinder offered by the statist who has painted himself into a corner while trying to justify his invasion of the life and property of others. Unable to honestly answer the question, “Aren’t you advocating the initiation of force against your fellow man?” the statist will end the conversation with this insipid bit of anti-reason, usually with condescending sanctimoniousness.

The problem is that one side of the argument is agreeing to refrain from invading the property of anyone else, while the other side claims doing so is his right. There is nothing either fair or civilized by “agreeing to disagree” under these circumstances.

Of course, the problem isn’t that the statist holds this opinion.

It is his right to hold any opinion he wishes and to express that opinion freely. The problem is what happens next. Informed by his opinion, the statist then goes into the voting booth and votes himself the life and property of other people.

Worse yet, according to the bizarre principles presently governing American society, he is then provided with the ill-gotten gains by the politician.

Continue at Communities@ Washington Times…

Read Free Chapters of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America here!