Perspectives

Benghazi, Generals, & the Politician in Chief

Following the terrorist attack on our Consulate in Benghazi, in which Ambassador Stevens, and three US Veterans, working for the US Government were killed, a number of Flag Officers, Generals and Admirals have had their careers or positions cut short.  Rumors are beginning to circulate that the Russian Military Intelligence Service, the GRU, has concluded that the Flag Officers were fired due to a fear by Obama that they were plotting a coup d'etat.  Others are speculating that the same officers were fired for refusing orders to ignore pleas of help by the US diplomats in Benghazi.

These officers include the AfriCom commander, General Carter Ham, the CentCom commander, General Mattis, and, a strike group commander, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette.  This would be in addition to General David Petraeus resigning in the wake of the attack on exposure of an investigation into an affair, and General Joseph Dunford, 2nd in Command of the Marine Corps suddenly stepping down, and General John Allen, who is the ISAF (Afghanistan) commander.

While little has been said on why most of these officers are suddenly being replaced early, resigning, retiring, or relieved, vague allegations have been made against some of them, such as "questionable decision making" or unproven and unsubstantiated allegations of improper emails.  There is little doubt that so many senior officers having their careers cut short in such a short period of time would spark interest by Russian Intelligence.  Intelligence services are always interested in the changes of leadership, the why's, and the implications of the replacements.  There is no doubt a report on it, somewhere in the Kremlin.

On this side of the pond, we should have a public accounting for the strange departures of so many Flag Officers, as it does raise questions, and drive rumors.

Is there a possibility that Obama fears a coup?  It is a possibility.  Those that crave power are often narcissistic, and paranoid.  If it's possible that he fears one, is it possible that there is a chance of a coup?  Highly doubtful.  Our military officers have served under Republicans and Democrats, short of the young lieutenants, who joined in the last 4 years.  There is a significant independence of politics in the military.  The flag officers in question are not in Washington, for the most part, so they don't have the physical capacity to do so either.  Unlike many countries, the opportunity for US Generals to take over the reins of government is incredibly remote, even if they had the motivation and internal support for it. 

There are Generals that are very political, as Admiral Mullen and General Dempsey demonstrate, but they served under President Bush, before openly using their positions in support of Obama's politics.  So, if Obama fears a coup, it is an unrational fear, ie. paranoia.

Obama does have a record of firing Generals that don't toe the party line, whether they support the party and him, or not.  Examples include every General that has been in command in Afghanistan since he took office: General McKiernan, General McChrystal, General Petraeus, and General Allen, none of which served a normal tour as combatant commander, and only one of which is still in the military, but whose next position, as well as current position, is unknown and un-nominated.    Several Generals have been nominated for what amounts to a demotion: General Allen (since withdrawn) for ISAF to EurCom commander, General Petraeus from CentCom to ISAF commander, and General Dunford from Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps to ISAF Commander (possibly withdrawn).

The frequent change of command in Afghanistan has contributed to a flailing effort there.  Different leaders have different styles, and different ways of accomplishing the same goal, but there has yet to be a commander in charge since 2009 that was able to bring his way into fruition.  Consequently, violence in the country has been higher than 2008 (and every year prior) in every year since 2008.  Despite claims of "progress," the "end" of the war will be on the heels of its most difficult years, and without victory.

Admiral Charles M. Gaouette had assumed command of Carrier Strike Group 3 in April, 2012.  Of the current round of firings, his is the most unusual.  He had served less than a year in the position and was relieved during the middle of a "float," which occurs only in the most significant of circumstances, not normally for "questionable judgment."  It generally takes proof of a major error, like shooting at civilian craft, or invading a non-warring country, without orders.

According to some rumors, General Ham was physically restrained during the Benghazi attack, for attempting to assist American defenders, and relieved of command by his 2nd in command.  Authority for such moves would have had to have been ordered from levels higher than the subordinate officer, ie. General Dempsey, the Secretary of Defense, and/or the President.  These kinds of things happen in Hollywood more often than in the US Military.

Nominations by the POTUS for promotions and positions of General Officers are rarely opposed by the Senate.  I can't think of a single instance when a nomination has been denied, and only one, General Pace, that the Reid led Senate made known that would be opposed, and hence his continued position was not nominated by then President Bush.  And despite rumors and political meanderings, until this POTUS, there has been little substantiation that Flag Officers were being terminated for political reasons, at least in the United States. 

Politicians have terminated Generals for other reasons.  Abraham Lincoln fired Generals like Donald Trump fires celebrities, likely extending the Civil War by years, but that is an example of why politicians should stay out of military decisions, rather than why Generals should stay out of politics.  Hitler and Stalin were both known for not only firing, but executing Generals, and that too proved disasterous.

General MacArthur was terminated for openly opposing the restrictions placed on him in the Korean War, and the war was fought to a truce, and still today threatens to become a shooting war again.

The question in my mind is not whether these Generals were considering a coup.  I seriously doubt that.  The question, for me, is whether they told the hard truth the politician did not want to hear; ie. that Al-Qaeda is growing stronger (due to the policies of the POTUS), and that they wanted to, or attempted to do something to change that, either in the Battle of Benghazi, or in an attempt to persuade the politicians about the greater War on Terror.

My hope is that the Generals that have served honorably, and retired gracefully, will soon step up and tell the truth about the situation, but that is rare for good Generals.  More often, the Great Generals, like Petraeus and Schwarzkopf maintain silence in retirement, unlike the political generals such as Wesley Clark and Shinsucki.  And unless the Generals (retired) do step up to the plate, it will continue to be left up to the former NCO's and Colonels to speak out.

In the meantime, the Benghazi and Afghanistan commissions of Congress should call these Generals to testify.  The American People deserve to know if the Generals are guilty of misconduct, or they were fired for political reasons.  The American People deserve to know if the Generals were ready to save Americans' lives, even if their politicians were not.

BIOs: RADM Gaouette, General Dunford, General Ham, General Allen, General Mattis, General McChyrstal, General Petraeus, General McKiernan

Related articles

Obama sends Hillary to take blame for Benghazi

Congress hears testimony on 9/11 Benghazi terrorist attack

Administration would prefer you forget about Benghazi attack

Three Months Later: No Justice, Unanswered Questions on Benghazi

Benghazi report forces resignation of four US state department officials

Let's establish some rules for government here...

To begin with, let's get this straight: the government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.  We're making the government, reluctantly, because its a necessary evil, but we're limiting it because well, history proves that government usually abuses power (Preamble).

So, we're going to select Representatives by election, and they are the ones that are going to write all laws.  If they suggest a law, the President then has a choice to make it a law or not.  The Representatives are going to the people we think are the most level-headed, and smartest, and most like us.  ONLY Our Representatives can suggest increasing taxes on us, and they're the ones that will tell the government how much it can spend.

We get to decide when we hold elections, through Our State governments, and the politicians have to work, at least once a year, in December.  Since we already have governments (States), and they're closer to us than you are, we're going to have Our Representatives at those governments send Senators to also keep you in line.  We'll pay you for the work you do.

Our Representatives can fire the President if he breaks the law or becomes a tyrant.

Don't be taxing us into the poorhouse.  Don't be spending Our Money like drunken politicians.  You have to tell us how every dime is spent.  All your taxes have to be uniform to all.  You can't be playing favorites.  Only Our Representatives can borrow money.

Our Representatives will make the rules for the Military, and pay Our Troops and build places for training and living of the Troops.  And before you go starting wars, you have to convince Our Representatives that we should go to war.  No one gets to use Our Troops against us, unless there's a rebellion.

You can't make laws against things that already happened.  Any laws you make are only about the future, and no one is guilty of breaking the law before it was made.

Our Representatives get to make the laws for what goes on in Washington DC too.  They get to decide about printing money, building post offices and roads to them, and make copyright and patent laws, as well as punishing pirates.

Don't be taxing us a bunch of money.  And don't be spending Our Money without Our Representatives saying you can.(Article 1)

And because we know that there needs to be someone to conduct the day to day business with the world, we'll pay a guy to preside over the government we authorize.  He doesn't have any authority over us.  His job is to run the government, not to rule the People, us.  Remember, we're the boss, not you.  You don't rule us.  We rule you.  You work for us.

He can talk to the Ambassadors of other countries and make agreements with them, for us, if Our Senators say its okay.  And if the Senators say so, he can pay people to help him run the government.  If the Senators aren't around, he can hire someone TEMPORARILY until they start working again.(Article 2)

And since we know people are always arguing over stupid things, we'll let the President suggest judges that Our Senators have to approve, to settle disputes. The judges get to judge.  They don't get to make any laws.  You have to let us decide, by jury, if the person did what you said they did.  And you can't be hauling him off to another place to have the trial.

And you can't be killing people just because you call them traitors.  You have to prove they actually helped the enemy, while we're at war, not just because they said they don't like how you act or you think they insulted you.  To prove they are traitors, you have to have two people swear they did.  (Article 3)

Citizens of one State get to move to other States and be Citizens there if they want to, and the new State will trust the other one's papers.  Criminals will be sent back to the State where they did the crime.  All the States will be run by Representatives elected by the People too.  The Federal government is responsible for making sure foreigners don't invade their borders.  (Article 4)

If you don't like the rules we made for you, you can suggest changes, but 2/3rds of the politicians have to convince 3/4ths of the States to change Our Rules. (Article 5)

We'll pay the debt you racked up in the old government, and all the agreements you made.

Our government, Our Rules.  These Rules supercede all rules, agreements, and anything else you say or do.  If you want to make a rule we said you can't, it doesn't mean anything, no matter how many times you say it does.  Now, before you can be part of Our Government, swear that you'll obey Our Rules.  (Article 6)

These Rules are in effect as soon as 3/4ths of Our States say so. (Article 7)

Yeah, we figured you'd get too big for your britches, so here are some more rules for you:

We get to say what we want to say, where we want to say it.  We can do it in churches, papers, or in petitions and protests.  And you can't tell us what religion to have, nor stop us from praying.  You can't stop us from telling you that you're a bunch of blood sucking leeches.  (1st Amendment)

We get to keep Our Guns.  Guns are important to keep us Free.  You ain't takin' our guns.  (2nd Amendment)

Our Troops won't get free lodging on Our Property, unless there's a war going on.  Otherwise you have to pay us rent if you want us to give Soldiers a bed. (3rd Amendment)

You don't get to look through Our Stuff unless you can prove to a Judge that we did something wrong.  You don't get to take Our Stuff from us either.  That means you can't go through any of Our Stuff, not our pockets, nor our homes, nor our papers.  You can't search NONE of Our Stuff, unless you prove to a judge that we did something wrong. (4th Amendment)

You can't try to kill someone, unless a bunch of us (grand jury) says there's a reason to give him a trial.  You can't take Our Stuff, until you've proven to us (due process/court) that someone did something wrong or you pay us a fair price for it.  You can't keep trying to prove someone guilty.  You get one chance.  You can't take his Stuff, his Liberty, or his Life, until you have proved he's a criminal. (5th Amendment)

If you're trying to convince us he's a criminal, you have to have the trial right away.  It's got to be in public and in the place you said he did it.  You can't be using the infamous "someone" as a witness to your allegations.  Either the person says it to the guy on trial, or it doesn't get said.  And the guy you accuse gets to have one of those educated, double-speaking lawyers too.  You're not the only one that gets to hire the liars.  (6th Amendment)

Any time more than twenty bucks is on the line, we get to have a bunch of us decide, a jury of us. And if a jury says we're not guilty, you can't take us to a different court and try again.(7th Amendment)

You can't make us pay a bunch a money while we're waiting for a trial.   And you can't be making up cruel punishments, even if our peers say we're guilty.(8th Amendment)

Just cause we didn't tell you you couldn't do something doesn't mean you can.  Anything we didn't say you could do, you can't.  Remember, WE are YOUR bosses, not the other way around. (9th Amendment)

Let me say this again, if we didn't tell you you can do it, you can't.  Anything we didn't say you could do, are things we get to do, or Our States get to do.  (10th Amendment)

Like we said in the beginning (Preamble), WE, THE PEOPLE, are in charge of the government.  You work for us, not the other way around.  We tell YOU what to do, what you can and can't do.  Don't be getting too big for your britches.  Don't start thinking you can tell us what to say or do, or what we can or can't own, or what we can or can't buy, or what we have to buy.  Don't be trying to take Our Stuff, or looking through it.

Related articles

What Were the Founding Fathers Thinking!?!?

Disturbing Detention: Former Marine held for Facebook Rants

The Moral Conundrum of Bureacrats

The Rights & Responsibilities of the US Constitution

Marine takes torch as Spokesman for Sanity

Citizenship & Constitution: Your Freedoms and My "Right" to Restrict it

Forms of Democracy & Government

The Declaration of Independence

Marine takes torch as Spokesman for Sanity

Cpl Joshua Boston, former Marine, stepped into the spotlight following his open letter challenging Senator Feinstein's gun grab legislation, and calling Britain's Piers Morgan to return to the island of Banned Guns.  Boston is representing sanity fairly well though Obama has decided not to deport the gun hating Morgan who is on a crusade to scrap the Bill of Rights.

UPDATE: Piers Morgan was fired in May of 2004 from his Editor position at Britain's Daily Mirror for publication of falsified pictures of Troops mistreating Iraqi prisoners.

Meanwhile, someone claiming to have also been a Marine, decides to throw his two cents into the pool:

"Boston’s attitude towards authority is frankly disgusting and his open letter is wrong in both its assumptions about why the gun-control debate has become heated, and the reasons why we should care about his opinions at all. It implies that because he served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Marine, that he can choose which laws to obey while at home." "Anonymous Marine," as reported at This Ain't Hell 

Let's put this in another context: Politicians and journalists attitude towards the Supreme Law of the Land is frankly disgusting and their open contempt for the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect is wrong in both the arrogance that they are above the law, and the reasons why we should allow them to sit in their chairs at all.  It implies that because they won a popularity contest in the career pathes of the least trusted people in our Nation that they can choose which instances they will obey the Supreme Law of the Land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."  Article VI, US Constitution

In other words, the hierarchy of law is: The US Constitution (including Amendments), US Law made in accordance with the Constitution,  Treaties, and State Laws.  Any law that violates the provisions of the US Constitution is hence not a law, including treaties, including treaties with the UN.

"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." Amendment II, US Constitution.

Activist judges included, any law that infringes on the Right of the People to keep and bear arms is hence illegal and NOT a law to begin with.  "Common Law" does not supercede the US Constitution, as the Judicial Branch is not given legislative authority, and are specifically bound by the US Constitution above and beyond their bounds of State and US Law, and common law legal proceedings which are also bound by the Law.

Hence, the only Constitutional or legal means by which that Right can be infringed is to amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd Amendment itself.  No Vice-President, President, Journalist, Judge, UN body, or even the unanimous votes of the entire Congress can legally infringe the Right of the People, unless the Constitution itself is amended.

The anonymous Marine, along with General McChrystal, need to review their oath, to the US Constitution, and the Constitution which they swore to protect.  It supercedes the whims of Congress, Presidents, Governors, Mayors, Politicians, and Pundits of the MSM, particularly those non-Citizens.

Piers Morgan, who is a journalist, a profession that is supposed to report the facts, not to advocate policy, is not an American, and has a passport for a place that has already banned firearms.  If he wants to live in a place with the soaring violent crimes of a gun-free country, he can move home.  If he wants to advocate for something, it should be for the arrest of his fellow journalist David Gregory to be arrested for breaking current gun laws in that gun-free mecca of violence and hot air, Washington DC.

Piers states (on CBS) that his brother is an officer in the British Army and has served in Afghanistan.  That does not mean he "understands," as he claims, what a Warrior sacrifices.  That means his brother does, not him.  Piers states that he doesn't want his child growing up in a country with assault weapons, which are almost "M4 machine guns," further demonstrating his ignorance of weapons.  (M4 carbines are NOT machine guns and the only way that AR-15's are "assault rifles" is by declaration of politicians and parroting of journalists.)  The automatic firing M4 is an assault rifle, as is an automatic version of the AK-47.  Civilian semi-automatic weapons are NOT.

However, given the updated information above, Piers is probably not very welcome in the Island Nation.  I doubt visits to his brother's house are welcomed either.  Given his lack of integrity, even by journalist standards, he fits right in at CNN, who must have known of the pictures published by Piers. The Piers Morgan resume ain't so shiny either.

Piers has a place to go, home.  It already meets his criteria.  As a subject of the British Empire, he doesn't have a dog in this debate.  We broke our chains of the monarchy 237 years ago, and restated Our Independence, and the Independent Rights of Our Citizens in 1812, when they attempted to enslave Our Sailors.  In both wars, we were outgunned and outmanned, by a Empirical force that was better trained and equipped, but let not the memory of Andrew Jackson and Tennesseans at New Orleans fade too quickly.  That battle was fought with the best firearms a civilian could buy, and more Volunteers than Jackson could pay, but a far smaller force than the Empire sent.

No where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention what a Citizen "needs" or "hunting purposes."  What it explicitly states is "shall not be infringed."

Related articles

Citizenship & Constitution: Your Freedoms and My "Right" to Restrict it

Will Obama Use An Executive Order To Enact Gun Control?

Extraordinairy Resilience

Former Marine Tears Down Piers Morgan's Anti-Second Amendment Arguments

Wisdom From Charlie Daniels

Wyoming to Preserve the Second Amendment?

Who Authorizes War? Constitutionally? UN or Congress?

The Bill of Rights, with Your Host, Piers Morgan!

Some Americans will be Disarmed

Despite the facts, some are arguing that long metal tubes embedded in plastic, ie. rifles, are evil.  Senator Feinstein is arguing that we should ban and confiscate the tools of self-defense, though she owns and carries firearms herself, and works behind the protection of armed security.

Several politicians have stepped up to the podium to bemoan the electoral muscle of the NRA, but the NRA cannot pull a lever or push a button for any candidate.  What it does do, is monitor the politicians and tell the voters how a particular candidate has voted on gun legislation.  The influence of the NRA is that the majority of voters are against unConstitutional gun restrictions, in most of America.

Paul Howe, a 20 year Special Operations veteran and weapons instructor, explored the possibilities of how gun confiscation programs would be executed.  In essence, he concluded that a forcible attempt to take firearms from the People would result in violent resistance, and that those officials that attempted it would be run out of town.  In places like Texas, where Mr. Howe works, and in places like Tennessee, he is possibly correct.  In places like Chicago, California, and New York, things could very well be different.  In fact, much of the Northeast and the Left Coast have already voluntarily given up huge parts of their 2nd Amendment Right, voluntarily, without a fight.  These days, I don't underestimate the people's willingness to tolerate "small" abuses of tyranny, by the government they "know."

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”– Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y.

Others have opined that the gun control debate is just a distraction technique, to get people's attention off the fact that Obama just raised taxes on 100% of America's workers, and other negatives out of Washington.  At a minimum, FICA taxes went up by 2% on the first dollar (and most of the rest)you made this year, and 2% on your employer for paying you to work, as well as the ObamaCare taxes.  These tax increases won't pay for the new subsidies to DNC special interests, like "green energy."  In their arguments, the politicians know that the House will prevent gun grabs, and are happy that the economy and fiscal cliff are finally seeing reduced air time in the media.

Even General McChrystal decided now was the time to break his silence.  He opined that M4's belong on the battlefield, not in schools.  Who could argue with that?  I'll argue that airplanes belong in the air and airports, not on the roads and rivers, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to land one on your own cornfield, or keep one in your barn.  When I was on the battlefield, I preferred that I had better weapons than the enemy, and that the bystanders be unarmed, but that doesn't mean I shot someone just because they had an AK-47, or even took it away from them.  It just would have been easier to identify the actual enemy if non-combatants didn't have weapons, and that I could have shot all those that did, from a distance beyond the AK's effective range. 

Then again, General McChrystal was fired by the politician he voted for, and ordered that Our Troops unload their weapons inside our bases in Afghanistan.  Perhaps, he should have weighed in on why that politician ignored him and his recommendations on Afghanistan, instead of whether or not American Citizens should be stripped of their Rights.  Perhaps, he should protect the Constitution he swore to protect, rather than the party he voted to put in power.

The gun industry and sports stores got an economic boost from the "debate," as law abiding citizens stocked up on what they feared would be taxed out of the supply system, or banned outright.  Or as others have opined, Americans aren't stocking up before a ban, but preparing for a Civil War.

While the state legislature in Tennessee along with county and municipal officials discuss meaningful means to safeguard Our Children, politicians in other States are passing new laws that infringe the 2nd Amendment Rights of their subjects.  Some of the new measures do include armed officials at the schools, as well as controlled entry points into those schools, with locked doors and key cards to get inside.  Tennessee is considering the authorization of armed teachers, which has worked in Utah and Texas.  The discussion of School Security did not start after Newton, but it was given greater prominence as a result.

On the other hand, Govenor Cuomo is pushing for banning even more rifles in the State of New York.  The mayor of Burlington, VT has enacted new laws against rifles, though there appears to be no history of rifles being used in Burlington crimes.

And while the MSM returns to using the Aurora, CO massacre as an emotionally charged call for banning the means of self-defense, it ignores the more recent San Antonio theater shooting, in which a massacre was prevented by a woman with a gun.  They ignore the Aurora church shooting which preceded the theater shooting, where an Armed Citizen prevented another massacre.  They ignore thousands of such stories every year, because it doesn't fit their argument. 

Some are claiming that the NRA and gun-owners are out of touch, and short on facts, or unskilled in debate.  I contend that those that defend the Constitution, and Individual Liberty, are instead poor at executing their "marketing campaign."  History and facts are clearly behind Liberty and small government leading to prosperity, and national prominence. 

I would argue that the MSM's monopoly on information dissemination has hamstrung those that oppose their view.  While the internet provides the tools for information to be disseminated outside of the MSM monopoly, even those that report information on websites rely on the MSM for their sources of information.  This has created a circuitous cycle where the MSM still controls the debate, while individuals can falsely conclude that they are immune from its influence.  The MSM talks about Aurora, or Newton, or Karzai, and the bloggers and Facebookers cite them.  If you don't believe me, just look at the topics you discuss on Twitter and Facebook versus what the MSM is talking about.

While there are occasions that the internet buzz forces the MSM to address that which they attempt to ignore, like the Green Movement in Iran, or the Islamist takeover in Egypt, or Benghazi terrorist attack, it is both rare, and again slanted to their views.  While CNN has no qualms publishing classified information from the US, it bowed to the demands to keep its reporters out of the streets of Tehran.  And as they ignore the persistance of Islamist terrorists taking over the revolution in Syria, their female reporters are indicators as they cover their hair in the presence of Islamists.  The more their hair is covered, the more extreme the Islamist faction.

Some facts: 33,808 Americans were killed in automobile accidents in 2009.  4,872 of those killed were not even in a vehicle.  4,092 of those killed were simply walking along.  In contrast, 351 people were murdered with a rifle in 2009 (323 in 2011).  Personal objects (817 murders) such as hand and feet, blunt objects such as hammers (623), knives (1,836), and shotguns (423) were used in more murders than were rifles of ANY kind in 2009.

Hopefully, there will never be a call to ban hands and feet, though more people are killed with them.  It is impractical to attempt to ban hammers, though there are probably fewer of them.  And despite the fact that cars kill more people than firearms, by more than 100 times the rate, I haven't heard anyone call for a ban on automobiles, other than the environmental whackos, and that's for an entirely different reason.  Ten times as many pedestrians were killed by cars than were all Americans killed by rifles, and yet, there's no call to ban Sports Cars, or Limos, or even Pintos.

And let's look at England, as "gun murders" there are often used as proof that dis-arming the People leads to lower crime rates.  The reality is that it does change the weapons used, but that England has a far greater violent crime rate, per capita, than does America.  We could look at Mexico, but there are far more similiarities between the English and Americans than there are between Mexicans and Americans.  Still, the gun murder rate in Mexico is far greater than in either, and they've banned guns for far longer.  More than 12,000 were murdered over drugs alone in our less populous Southern Neighbor in 2011.

In England and Wales, 615 murders occurred in the 2009-10 timeframe, along with 588 attempted murders.  Of the 54,509 sexual crimes, 13,991 women and 1,174 men were raped, making Detroit's 427 rapes look like a safe haven. There were 1,868 kidnappings.  England and Wales had 55,240,000 people at the end of that period, or roughly 1/6th the US population.  There were 871,712 violent crimes in that period, which includes part of 2009 and part of 2010.   There were 32,491 charges of illegal weapon possession, along with 9,962 conspiracies to commit murder, in 2007/08.  19% of violent crimes involved a weapon, including 7,995 involving firearms and 33,771 involving a knife.

Only 45% of violent crimes were reported to the Police in England.  Of those not reporting, 52% said they believed the Police could not or would not do anything about it (or it was "too trivial"), while 36% said they dealt with it themselves.  Another 3% said they didn't report it because it was "a common occurrence."  There were an estimated 2.2 Million violent crimes committed in England & Wales in 2010/2011.

England and Wales have a violent crime rate of 1,574 per 100,000 in 2009/10 and far worse than even America's most violent cities, such as Chicago's 1,050 per 100,000 or Washington DC's 1,326/100,000.  And far worse than the US National rate of 405 per 100,000.  What do Chicago, DC, and England have in common?  Anti-gun laws.  In contrast, Chicago is far more urban than England, and England is less urban than America as a whole.

Many argue that we "must do something."  The "something" so many argue for ignores the facts, and plays on emotion.  The "something" almost always calls for greater government interference in the lives of individual Citizens.  It may feel like we have "done something" by holding a protest or signing a petition, and sometimes those are the best ways for Individual Citizens to "do something," but the most important "something" we can do is educate ourselves, and point Our Friends and Family to the base information, so that they can as well.  It may be emotionally satisfying to "do something" but before we do, we should look at the facts, and make the decision based on logic and reason, not just jerk our knee in reaction.

In this particular case, the fact is that about 1 in One Million Americans are killed by a rifle, so banning rifles, much less a particular type of rifle would have negligible or no effect on anything.  The problem is not the means by which a life is taken, but the person who takes the life.  As the trend in China demonstrates, evil, or psychotic individuals if you prefer, will use the weapons on hand to commit violence.  In their case, is mass stabbings at schools, since that is the weapon to which they have access, and all guns are banned.

And if the government banned cars, more people would be killed in horse accidents.

 

DATA sources:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1106.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/rds/s?rds.hosb1210pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210.pdf
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/user-guide-crime-statistics/userguide-crimestats-tabs?view=Binary
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14071-the-san-antonio-theater-shooting-the-media-ignored

 

Related articles

McChrystal Fired, Obama Translated

Let's Repeal the Second Amendment

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles

Citizenship & Constitution: Your Freedoms and My "Right" to Restrict it

The Warrior Spirit in Defense of Liberty

A recipe for activism against efforts at gun control

The Warrior Spirit in Defense of Liberty

Sheepdogs don't take the world for granted.  They know that not only does evil exist, but that the wolf will attack on his terms, and that he, the Sheepdog, may not be as prepared, mentally and physically, as he would like to be.  The Sheepdog knows the battle may come, that he does not win.

“Lord, make me fast and accurate. Let my aim be true and my hand faster than those who would seek to destroy me. Grant me victory over my foes and those that wish to do harm to me and mine. Let not my last thought be “If only I had my gun”; and Lord if today is truly the day that You call me home, let me die in a pile of brass”  Rhino Den

The Sheepdog knows that only with constant vigilance, and preparation, will he be ready for the day the Wolf comes, and that only in that moment will his abilities and actions be proven.  All of the bold statements before that mean nothing.  All of the bragging thereafter will seem hollow.  It is that moment in time that matters.

[No advertising partnership exists between WOTN and Ranger Up, nor has RU authorized use of its photos to WOTN.  Ranger Up is a Veteran Owned business, with a great blog, and Warrior themed T-Shirts.  Sheepdogs everywhere find a kindred spirit in the words expressed there.]

The same vigilance is necessary in verbal and political defense of Our Constitution and Liberties, as are necessary in the physical defense of Our Nation and People.  Just as the Wolf may use the same weapons to kill Our Citizens, as the Sheepdog uses to defend the Sheep from the Wolf, so too can the political wolf use words to strip Our Citizens of Our Rights, as the political Sheepdog use to defend them.  So too, can a tyrant use elements of Security to oppress the People, as a Statesman uses those elements to defend them from harm.

Unlike most of the world, in America, it requires the tacit approval of the People, to oppress them.  The power of words becomes more important.  The power of persuasion becomes paramount.  But, it may not forever be so.

The ruling class, with the cheerleading of their Main Stream Media, continues to call, to persuade, to use the power of speech, to call on The People to support the suppression of Rights of the People.  They continue to call for ever increasing "security measures" to reduce the personal security of the Citizen, while decreasing the Rights of the Citizen from those "security measures."

The Sheepdog alone cannot defend against these incursions on Freedom.  And some Sheepdogs may even find themselves a tool of the Oppressor.  Our Sheepdogs in blue must guard against the incremental incursion into the Rights of the Protected.  They should more strongly condemn those Wolves that slip into their midst than the Wolves they hunt in the wilds, but they must swear allegiance to the law, not the ruler.  And should the ruler order them to act against the law, against the Constitution, they must disobey those orders, for the Sheepdog serves the People, not the ruler.  The Sheepdog follows the Law, the Constitution, not the whims of the ruler.

As we navigate these troubled waters, Our Sheepdogs need the protection of the Sheep, of the People, from the ruling class in Washington, from the corrupt class in Chicago, from those that would de-fang them, from those that would disarm the Sheepdog. 

Those that would suppress Liberty, and oppress The People, have lulled the Sheep with specious speech.  Those that would be rulers and those that sing their praises, now try to tell us that if only we disarm the Sheepdog, the Wolf will end his attacks.  Despite the reality that Chicago, where they have de-fanged the People, violent crime is 3x greater than in Tampa, where the People are encouraged to provide the first line of defense against the Wolf, they tell us that we should take the means of defense from the law-abiding Citizen, knowing the criminal will retain his ill-begotten weapons.

Those that would suppress Liberty tell us that some speech must be outlawed, and label it as "hate speech."  They tell us we should limit our words to only that which is politically correct.  They tell us that any dissent from the politician in chief is "racist."  They tell us that Our Troops should have no voice.

Those that bid the People to allow them to rule their lives for them, have convinced the voter to ignore their deeds and blindly endorse the Party in all it does.  They have succeeded in diverting the Peoples' attention from their actions in Washington to the antics of mis-behavers in Hollywood.  They've convinced parents to trust the schools to teach their kids their morals instead of the Bill of Rights.  They've bought the compliance and obediance with trinkets to the masses, while ignoring their duties. 

Their sirens sing their songs, and condemn their opponents as "do-nothing" as they ignore their duties to control the purses-trings of the People's Treasury, rather than restrict the People's Liberties with new legislation.  And it seems that no matter how loudly the Sheepdogs bark, the Sheep will not awaken to the Wolves in their midst.

The Sheepdogs are barking, and it behooves the Sheep to awaken from their slumber.

Related articles

On Sheep, Wolves & Sheepdogs, LTC David Grossman

What to do about those "Crazed Combat Vets?"

Disturbing Detention: Former Marine held for Facebook Rants

Confessions of a Gun Carrying Patriot

When is Violence the Answer?

The Moral Conundrum of Bureacrats

If a Soldier were to disregard the 3rd Amendment, and occupy the house of a Citizen, the people would be outraged.  If he were to follow the orders of a superior and execute a prisoner, they would demand his imprisonment.  There is clarity in such cases, and the Soldier understands these immoral and unlawful orders may not and can not be carried out.  Superiors understand that such orders will not be carried out and do not utter them.  They have sworn an Oath, to protect the Constitution, and have learned when orders are Superceded by higher law.

But what of the lesser transgressions?  The more ambigious legal conundrums?

The 4th Amendment guarantees the Right of Citizens to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...."

What if a bureacrat, or law enforcement official is armed with a law which requires him to search persons and documents?  What if it is the job of the bureacrat to search the documents, without a Warrant, or to search their persons without cause?  To refuse would be cause for termination?  Does not the legislation of Congress or the Orders of the President make lawful what the Constitution prohibits?

No, it does not become Constitutional or lawful just because Congress or the President says so, just as it would not become lawful for the Soldier to commit murder just because he was ordered to do so. 

The bureacrat knows however that if he refuses an un-Constitutional order, he will be terminated.  In most cases, he was hired by the government to do precisely what he is being ordered to do, though also swearing upon employment to uphold the Constitution which prohibits it.  The bureacrat knows that behind him are a hundred people willing to accept those orders, for the sake of the high pay, bountiful benefits, and "safety" of a government job.

So, the bureacrat justifies, in his own mind, that the citizenry is paying him to follow the dictates of politicians, despite the Rights enumerated in the Constitution.  The politicians praise the bureacrats as "public servants," even as they order them to disregard the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, to which they have sworn to uphold.

And these abuses are accepted by the People, as recognized by the Founders themselves, in the Declaration of Independence, "that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."  They further noted "that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."  In most cases, the people ignore the abuses, because they convince themselves it's only someone else abused, and often "that there's no reason to worry if you're not breaking the law."

History is replete with tyrannical governments, and the bureacrats which supported them, which subjected and are subjecting their people to far greater abuses than are our rulers, but those in power in Washington should take note that Liberty is ingrained in the DNA of the American People, that it is not a generation removed that the People would have stood up against the current dictates of Washington.

In such discussions, politicians will often point to the "will of the people" as justification for legislation which subverts the Supreme Law of the Land, but there is a reason that the Founders established a Republic, rather than a democracy.  There is a reason that they established the Bill of Rights as supreme to any popular legislation by the majority of rulers in Washington, or even a Treaty signed by them. 

And while the politicians claim to speak in the name of the people, they do so as they see fit, and do what they desire, regardless of the voice of the people.  TARP, the UAW bailout, and ObamaCare were all opposed by the People, yet Pelosi, Obama, and Reid pushed it through anyway "so we could see what is in it."  Obama claims his re-election means the people want higher taxes and more spending, though neither were on the ballot, and the people elected a House of Representatives that ran against those things.

And there is a reason that the Founders made clear in the 9th Amendment that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"  and in the 10th, that, "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution clearly delineates the authorities of the THREE (not four) branches of government.  Legislative authority, as well as the power of the purse, and taxation lies with Congress.  The authority to preside over that government lies with the Executive.  The President is given the responsibility of running the day to day business of the government, NOT to rule the day to day lives of the People.  The power to judge disputes, of law or property, lies with the judiciary.  It clearly states that domestic law is the purview of State governments, while interstate and external policy belongs to the Federal Government.

The erosion of Constitutional principles began nearly as soon as the Founders established it.  Alexander Hamilton himself accepted it only reluctantly, as better than the document it replaced.  He worked the rest of his life to create a stronger central government, with fewer constraints.  Then again, what he really wanted was a monarchy, and he knew it wasn't going to happen.  It took centuries to get where we are, and would not be possible if the people themselves understood the Constitution, and the reasons for it. 

The biggest blows to the Constitution came in the early 20th Century, a series of Amendments to it, which left the States with no representation in Congress, prohibited the sale of the government's primary source of funding, and established a more lucrative form of taxation.  The 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified in 1913, and the 18th in 1933.

Few politicians would seriously challenge the Constitution for decades to come.  Instead, Congress, with signature of the President, would use the power of the purse, to co-erce State legislation, such as helmet laws, seat belt laws, and speed limits.  Because the Treasury could collect more taxes than it needed to run foreign policy, it held those dollars hostage from States that failed to bend to its will.  The States became subservient to Washington, instead of the people.

But there has been no period in American History, when the rulers in Washington have so clearly flaunted their disregard for the Supreme Law of the Land.  The POTUS is demanding that Congress give up the power of the purse, while he orders TSA to commit searches of persons, and the IRS to relieve the People of their earnings, if they don't buy things he wants them to buy.  Congressmen of the 111th Congress have flat out stated that they will not be constrained by the Constitution, and the President has declared that "it is a flawed and outdated document."  The Secretary of Defense (Panetta) flat out told Congress that the Executive Branch not only feels no compulsion to get approval for war (Syria, Libya), but that he doesn't even need (or plan) to tell them about it when he decides to bomb foreign TV stations or commit the Nation's aircraft to war.

And Bureacrats, which would demand imprisonment of a Soldier that followed orders to commit murder, face the situation to refuse un-Constitutional orders and be fired, to quit of their own accord and be replaced, or to carry out those orders, as judiciously as they can.  These bureacrats, which can see the moral clarity when thinking of problems of enforcing the dictates for Hitler, Stalin, or Ahdiminijihadist, must justify to themselves that they are "only enforcing the law," as did Troops on all sides in World War II.  Their very means of survival, their paycheck and livlihood, is at stake if they refuse.  They are not forced to swear allegiance to "the party," but rather co-erced to pay the Union, which will be more than willing to hang out those that fail to pay, and eagerly protect those that follow their party decisions, no matter how lazy and inefficient.

I can honestly say I wouldn't want to be faced with the moral conundrum of a Federal bureacrat.  I cannot honestly say how I would decide.  I like to believe I'd choose to defend my Oath to the Constitution, but the threat of losing one's livlihood is one helluva threat.  It's far easier to see the moral clarity from the outside looking in.

And as to the rulers in Washington, remember that Americans may one day awaken to the reality.  I can only hope it will be in time to peaceably elect true Representatives, to turn back the abuses, because if Americans cannot be convinced by speech of their need to protect their Rights of Citizenship, no degree of violence will force them to re-establish those Rights, and those Rights themelves would be placed in jeopardy in a Civil War.

In the meantime, if my article of the promised land of low (State) taxes has you considering a move to the South, remember too that low taxes mean greater Liberty for your neighbor as well, and less government, that it means you can't tell your neighbor what to do on his property.  It means the government won't enforce your desire to remove his old junk car, or stop him from target shooting (so long as those bullets are not ending up on your land), or make him buy something.  So, if you want big government, go to San Francisco, or New York, or Chicago, where its illegal to own the means to defend yourself, and live on thee hope the Police come in time. 

Down here, neighbors help each other and you're responsible for the repercussions of your own actions.  Bring your snobbiness and you'll likely end up on your own, isolated and alone in a sea of Liberty.  Be a good neighbor, and you'll find the meaning of "neighborly" and "Southern Hospitality."  You might be awoken by a chainsaw too early in the morning, only to find the tree that fell across your driveway is just firewood, or kept up too late with legal fireworks on the night we celebrate Independence, but you're likely to be welcomed to the neighborhood with a warm Pecan Pie, and that feared phrase: "You ain't from around here, are ya?"

You may have a millionaire neighbor that wears bib overalls, an unkempt beard, and has a trailer home, but don't judge his intellect by how carefully (and slowly) he chooses his words, or how much grease is on his clothes from working on his own car.  Don't judge his education by a lack of ten dollar words.  You may one day appreciate his hard-working, traditional values of independence when your own car won't start.  Yeah, we can get our own cars on the road down here.  We don't have to wait 45 minutes for the tow truck to change the tire.

Related articles

What Were the Founding Fathers Thinking!?!?

An incomplete record of Obama's anti-Military legacy

Citizenship & Constitution: Your Freedoms and My "Right" to Restrict it

The Rights & Responsibilities of the US Constitution

Constitutional Law Professor: Get Rid of the Constitution!

Lawmaker: Tweak Constitution to affirm gun rights

Is America's Constitution No Longer Wanted by "Most" Americans?

A Liberal Comes Clean: We Hate the Constitution

Policing for Profit: Highway Robbery on a Suspicion, by the Government

Who Authorizes War? Constitutionally? UN or Congress?

US spends more than 215 countries combined

The United States spends $7.9 Trillion between Federal and State governments, including Social Security benefits.  These spending programs are wrapped up into one in most other Nations.  This amounts to 31.2% of all spending by governments worldwide.  To put it another way, US governments spend more than next 4: Japan, China, Germany, and France combined and collects as much tax as Japan, China, and Germany, combined.  Of 225 governments analyzed by the CIA world fact book, US governments collects more taxes than 208 governments combined, and spends more than 215 of them, combined, including Greece.

California alone, collects more taxes than all but 13 governments worldwide, and still can't balance its budget.  The combined total of India's one billion people pay half as much as Californians do in taxes, and its government spends less than the booming Indian economy does.

The US Federal deficit alone could fund the Italian government, with a surplus, or Britain, or France, or even the 3rd biggest spending government in the world, Germany.  There are 53 countries in the world that have a balanced budget, chief among them, Brazil, with a booming economy.  The US deficit could fund all of them combined.  The US Federal deficit alone is as much as China collects in revenue from its billion people.

Americans are paying enough taxes. 166.3 Million Americans are paying nearly $5 Trillion/year in taxes.  That's 2.37% of the world's population of 7 Billion people paying 22.6% of all taxes collected in the world.

State and Federal governments are spending much more money than is necessary, or helpful.  If spending or debt caused economic growth, then the US economy would be growing faster than any other in the world.

In the business and finance world there is such a term as "good debt," as well as "bad debt."  Good debt is money borrowed that causes more money to come in than what is paid in interest to borrow the money.  Good debt would be money borrowed to build the factory that produces the next major consumer item.  In households, your mortgage would be considered "good debt," but a rental mortgage would be better debt (assuming you were profitably running the property.)

In economics, it is purported that you can grow an economy by one of two means: cut taxes or spend more.  To an extent, that is true.  A government that borrows money to provide transportation for goods from an industrial area to a port, will see that money returned exponentially, in new tax revenue.  The government that borrows money to throw lavish parties for its bureacrats and politicians will see its debt grow without positive return.  The government that borrows money to tear up a good road and build it again ("Stimulus" bill) will also see no positive return.  It slows transportation temporarily, without adding any benefit.

Hence, the interstate system built by Eisenhower, as well as the Autobahn system built by Hitler, saw the economies boom and tax revenue spike.  And yet Obama's "stimulus" spending that exceeded the spending of all but 8 governments in the world has done nothing to help the US economy.

Every dollar that the government takes from those that produce goods, decreases the amount that they can use to produce more things.  You can't run a government, or protect those producers, without taxes, but the government should not take money from the producers without providing necessary services in return.  It should not tax, just because it can.  Spending for the sake of spending is wrongheaded, and in this case, theft.

China provides an example of the kind of deficit spending that is beneficial to economic growth.  It spends about 4.8% more than it collects from its people, but has done so to modernize its military, and to expand its infrastructure, including transportation, ports, and energy production.  It was expanding its infrastructure to such a great extent that worldwide copper and concrete prices soared, as well as oil prices.  When it doesn't see double digit economic growth, financial markets see it as a downturn.

And Communist China is buying up America, while American consumers are buying their cheaply made goods.  Communist China is loaning money to American politicians, so they can keep forcing American factories overseas, to China. 

Temporarily, the Federal government is paying very little interest rates on that Debt.  When those interest rates return to "normal," the deficit and debt will truly balloon.

The US government is spending more money than 95.6% of all the governments in the world.  Not spending enough money is not the problem.  Not enough taxation is not the problem.  Americans are paying more than 92.4% of world's governments are collecting.  2.4% of the world's population (American workers) are paying 22.6% of the taxes collected in the world.  It is time to return to the Constitutional limits of what the Federal government can do.  It is time to cut spending to what is Constitutional.  It is time to end pork spending.  It is time to quit spending by Congress and the President that we don't have and can't afford to pay the interest on.

Related articles

The "Fiscal Cliff," Taxation, and the Economy

Taxing The Buffett Farmers, Veterans, & Elderly

Liberty or Government Mandate: You can't have both

Fiscal cliff deal will add $4 trillion to US deficit, says CBO