- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged constitution
What Happened to the American Declaration of War?
What Happened to the American Declaration of War? is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
By George Friedman
In my book “The Next Decade,†I spend a good deal of time considering the relation of the American Empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic. If there is a single point where these matters converge, it is in the constitutional requirement that Congress approve wars through a declaration of war and in the abandonment of this requirement since World War II. This is the point where the burdens and interests of the United States as a global empire collide with the principles and rights of the United States as a republic.
World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds, but the Constitution is explicit in requiring a formal declaration. It does so for two reasons, I think. The first is to prevent the president from taking the country to war without the consent of the governed, as represented by Congress. Second, by providing for a specific path to war, it provides the president power and legitimacy he would not have without that declaration; it both restrains the president and empowers him. Not only does it make his position as commander in chief unassailable by authorizing military action, it creates shared responsibility for war. A declaration of war informs the public of the burdens they will have to bear by leaving no doubt that Congress has decided on a new order — war — with how each member of Congress voted made known to the public. Read the rest of this entry »
The Third Jihad
Posted by Gary in Threat Watch on 9/Nov/2010 07:31
Bill Whittle on Gun Ownership
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, Opinion on 7/Nov/2010 17:02
Whatever your views on the Tea Party might be, (this is neither a plug for nor a criticism of the Tea Party movement) Bill Whittle makes some valid points as he examines the role of gun ownership as a bulwark against the power of the Big State, and talks about some of the logical problems the gun control movement seems to ignore.
State snatches baby when dad accused of being ‘Oath Keeper’
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News, Opinion on 9/Oct/2010 05:58
Johnathon Irish, fiancé and baby
“A 16-hour-old newborn was snatched from her parents by authorities in Concord, N.H., after social services workers alleged the father is a member of Oath Keepers.
The organization collects affirmations from soldiers and peace officers that they would refuse orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, in light of what they perceive as the advance of socialism in the U.S.
The father, Johnathon Irish, told WND that the affidavit signed by Child Protective Service worker Dana Bicford seeking government custody of newborn Cheyenne said the agency “became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the ‘Oath Keepers.'”
Irish, in an interview with WND, said officers and other social services workers ordered him to stand with his hands behind his back, frisked him and then took his daughter from him and his fiancé at Concord Hospital where the baby had been born.”
The Second Amendement Get Its Due
From Reason Magazine’s October issue:
The invalidation of handgun bans throughout the country, accomplished in the space of two years, was sudden and surprising even to those who have spent decades laying the groundwork. Take Alan Gottlieb, founder and president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which began backing Gura’s various gun lawsuits after Heller. Since founding the SAF in 1974, Gottlieb has been hosting academic conferences, supporting legal scholars and historians, and filing carefully targeted lawsuits in defense of gun rights. Still, he says, “six years ago if you had said [the gun rights community would] see two cases get to the Supreme Court and two victories, I would have said, ‘Not in my lifetime. Maybe in someone else’s.’ â€
This demonstrates that liberty will remain as long as there are paladins who will defend it.
CIA Wants To Kill American Citizen
No matter how you feel about Anwar al-Awlaki, the the Yemeni-based inspiration for some of the recent attacks, you can’t circumvent the Constitution. The man is on a CIA “kill list” which should upset anyone who loves this country and what it stands for. American citizens are guaranteed the right to a trial by a jury of their peers (sixth amendment). So far he has been convicted of nothing and the government claims “state secrets” anytime anyone mentions a trial. Let me just say that the state would not exist if not for the people who created it. If this man is killed then anyone of us could be taken out and then the whole system breaks down.
This man deserves to be sent to the afterlife as soon as possible, but I will be damned if anyone thinks themselves above the law, especially the President, who studied constitutional law.
BREAKING: Firearm Regulation Hearing Set for the 14th
The U.S. Senate has scheduled a hearing for the 14th of September titled “Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process”
Does that sound good to anyone? If you live in or near D.C. I urge you to sit in on this hearing and report back what was discussed. It sounds to me like another improper use of the “commerce clause”.
Additional Info: The hearing was called by the chairman of the committee Senator Leahy of Vermont.
EPA Denies Petition on Ammunition Ban
From: EPA
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today denied a petition calling for a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA sent a letter to the petitioners explaining the rejection – that letter can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/sect21.html
Steve Owens, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, issued the following statement on the agency’s decision:
“EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – nor is the agency seeking such authority.
Ban of all traditional forms of ammunition? Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 29/Aug/2010 16:06
Barack Obama has teamed up with liberal special interest groups to use the un-elected bureaucrats in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban all traditional forms of ammunition.
That’s right, Obama and his cronies are trying to ban ALL your ammo.
By using the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, they want to ban all hunting, target and self-defense ammo that contains lead, no matter how little.
Make no mistake — this is gun control at its worst.
Since your actions have stopped their plans to pass ammo and gun bans so far in congress, they’re using the old end-run.
Obama and his anti-gun cronies in the EPA know that by banning all but the most expensive ammo, they’ve effectively banned your guns in all but name.
And they’ve certainly destroyed the red-blooded American past time of just plain shooting.
To make matters worse, the anti-gunners are hoping to sneak this attack on our Second Amendment Rights through as a bureaucratic rule change.
They know that when they introduce gun control as legislation that gun owners like you and I have tremendous grassroots power.
The anti-gun lobby knows that is you keep the heat on congress most members of Congress will be afraid of angering gun owners so close to an election.
So they’re simply bypassing the democratic, legislative process all together by counting on bureaucrats in the EPA to do their anti-gun dirty work.
Think this doesn’t apply to you? Think again.
The goal of this rule change is simple: drive the price of ammo through the roof for all but law enforcement and the military.
Virtually all hunting, target and self-defense ammo has some lead components.
They’re trying to disarm us one bullet at a time.
Petition here:
They Tried To Ban Your Ammo!
The EPA within a matter of hours today went from taking requests about banning lead ammo to completely rejecting the idea.
The EPA had planned to solicit public responses to the petition for two months, but this afternoon issued a statement rejecting a 100-page request from the Center for Biological Diversity, the American Bird Conservancy, and three other groups for a ban on lead bullets, shot, and fishing sinkers. The agency is still considering what to do about sinkers.
Vigilance is required if we are to maintain our liberties.
14th Amendment: Is birthright citizenship really in the Constitution?
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 12/Aug/2010 18:26
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment begins this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The key phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” say some experts.
Illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction, in the sense that they cannot be drafted into the US military or tried for treason against the US, said John Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of Law, in a media conference call Monday. Their children would share that status, via citizenship in their parents’ nation or nations of birth – and so would not be eligible for a US passport, even if born on US soil, according to Dr. Eastman.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/319362;_ylt=AjKKaAYntSECCfH1lhxGLbV0fNdF
Alan Keyes: Unconstitutional attack on the state of Arizona
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 30/Jul/2010 17:26
Alan Keyes
“Back in April, I wrote a column pointing to the constitutional provision (Article I, Section 10) that recognizes that when one of the United States is “actually invaded,” the state government may act, without federal authorization, to defend itself.
Due to the federal government’s ongoing dereliction, in open and abusive defiance of existing federal law, Arizona and several other states of the Union are the victims of an ongoing invasion, which endangers and damages the lives and livelihood of their inhabitants.
According to the Constitution’s language, when actually invaded, a state may go to war in defense of its citizens. Arizona has undertaken instead to respond to the invasion by directing its police forces to make a special effort to do what the federal government refuses to do – carry out existing federal law.
But even if there were no such federal laws, Arizona has the clear constitutional prerogative to respond to the actual invasion of its territory.”
Germany’s domestic intelligence service keeping people with “unconstitutional intentions” under surveillance
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 30/Jul/2010 17:20
by Joseph Farah 
“Do you think a political party that seeks to dismantle, ignore or discard a nation’s constitution should be permitted to participate in the electoral process?
It is a question that has been asked before in other countries and is still being asked today.
When communist parties, sworn to revolutionary change, competed in elections around the world in previous decades, there were often real fears that upon taking power they would do away with future elections.
The same fear has abounded in elections in nations where radical Islam is on the ascendancy.
And today in Germany the federal office in charge of protecting the nation’s constitution is keeping leaders of the so-called “Left Party” under surveillance – a decision affirmed this week by the courts.”
A soldier’s Perspective: Disappointed In SCOTUS
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 19/Jul/2010 19:44
“While the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment in striking down the ban on handguns in Chicago, it would be an understatement to say that I’m disappointed at the narrow margin in which it was done.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I think it really goes to show that the Supreme Court has become more a political entity, upholding partisan beliefs and placing them before the language of the Constitution. This goes for both sides. Effectively, the four justices that ruled in the minority believe that the Second Amendment should just be abolished.”
The First Amendment takes a hit to placate Muslims? 4 Arrested in Dearbornistan, Michigan for talking to Muslims about Christianity.
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News, Opinion on 12/Jul/2010 20:20
Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan. "The center is a symbol of the sharp growth and advancement of our Muslim community," - Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini, the spiritual leader of the Center
The four were passing out leaflets about Christianity in Dearborn, which has a large Muslim population. One of the missionaries was engaging in peaceful conversation with several Muslim youths, while the other three were videotaping the dialogue before they were all arrested on June 18.
Since their activities were carried out peacefully, State Representative Tom McMillin believes the missionaries were falsely arrested.
“This is the first step in a series of steps that the city of Dearborn is taking to placate the large Moslem population that they have there, and they don’t mind stepping on the constitutional rights of Christians to do that,” [McMillin said]
All four…plead not guilty today. They are represented by Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, who points to the Constitution.
“If people are offended by the fact that they were preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims and trying to convert Muslims — well, guess what, we have a First Amendment,” Muise points out. “This is a free society. It’s not a police state.”
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC): the missionaries’ free-speech rights were violated…no criminal laws were broken.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1083036
The point of sharing this story is not to disparage Muslims – but to point out that there is a valuable lesson that Muslims in the US could learn. Maybe where you come from it’s OK to intimidate and threaten people into silence, so they are afraid to say anything that might upset or “insult” you. Here in the United States people are allowed to speak freely, even if we disagree with them.
That’s kind of important to us.
If you are here to genuinely become a part of our society, and are willing to respect our values, live by our laws in real peace, real tolerance, then you are welcome here – even if we totally disagree with your theology.
If you are here to dominate and intimidate – and you are teaching your children to do the same – then we have a problem. If you want to teach submission to Allah, that’s fine. If you are going to teach that America is evil and must be thrown down and replaced with a caliphate run according to Sharia law, then we have a problem.
Do not take advantage of our hospitality and openness. Do not mistake generosity for weakness. You came here as guests, do not be rude to your hosts. You think you have a better way? Fine, talk about it. Share your views. But don’t intimidate or bully people who disagree with you.
If you want to have an Arab Festival, share your culture, fine. But you don’t get to bully or stifle people who disagree with you. What am I talking about? This video is an example of the kind of disrespect and rudeness that offends US, the citizens of the United States. You came into OUR home and treated OUR people in a disrespectful, insulting, bullying manner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEPod-hxD7g
Oh, and by the way, this is not me expressing “hate” or “intolerance”, this is me saying, “If you are going to live in a civilized society, you need to behave in a civilized fashion.” If that is too difficult, if it offends your religious views, then please, go somewhere else – maybe to a place where others have those same religious views that clearly are very important to you. It will be a lot less stressful for you and quieter here for us.
Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini, “the spiritual leader” of the Center in Dearborn, said that a major goal of the new mosque will be to reach out to non-Muslims, to educate people about Islam. “There are many misconceptions existing in the minds of non-Muslims in this country about Islam, unfortunately.”
http://www.jafariyanews.com/2k5_news/may/15michigan_islamiccentre.htm
I would suggest there are also many misconceptions existing in the minds of Muslims in this country about Christianity, as well – but you will never break free from those misconceptions if you are unwilling to listen and discuss ideas with people who don’t agree with you.
Oh, yeah, and if Islam really is a religion of Peace and Tolerance – show us. Demonstrate that for us in the way you interact with us. (A good place to start might be for the Muslim leadership in Dearborn to encourage authorities to release these 4 people – or you could really impress us and invite them to share their beliefs at the Islamic Center. Now that would be an impressive display of tolerance.)
Also, the concern expressed here is not because Christians were insulted or treated unfairly – it is concern that the Constitution is being ignored and disrespected.
many British citizens are saying that the police are so worried about Muslim violence they are backing off enforcement of the country's laws.
You know how upset you feel when you think your Prophet (PBUH) has been treated with disrespect? Well, we get kind of bent out of shape when it looks like the Constitutional rights of our citizens get treated with disrespect – even when they are Christians. If it turns out that these 4 people were arrested because they exercised their right to freely express their views and it “upset” someone, then we have a problem.
To be clear: it’s not a Christian thing, it’s a Constitution thing. If you have trouble with that…maybe you’d be more comfortable in a country that is run by Sharia Law. And please, don’t waste our time whining about “religious bigotry”. This is the country that even allowed Scientology and followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Touched by His Noodly Appendage, a parody of The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo
Go ahead and follow your cherished beliefs – but play nice and don’t be rude or violent and show the courtesy of respecting our most deeply held values – one of them is the of freedom of expression without fear or threat of violence.
And one last thing: if you’re going to be staying on here in the United States, please do us all a favor and develop a sense of humor and somehow get a thicker skin. All this righteous indignation is getting tiresome. Every little thing offends you deeply and sparks an angry mob seething with outrage.
If the Lutherans and Baptists were like this we’d have riots every day over pot luck dinners gone wrong and deacons with hurt feelings.
“How dare you baptize by sprinkling!”
BOOM!
“How dare you baptize by dunking!”
Boom BOOM!