One has to wonder what type of bizzaro world we have entered when an Obama surrogate can assail the executive qualifications of John McCain. Albeit true, Senator McCain is no poster-boy for those of us who truly value freedom its pureist forms, but few can assert with any degree of seriousness that Senator McCain served with honor, indeed heroically in the face of unimageaable pain and torture. Regardless of this, Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander and failed 2004 presidential candidate has assailed McCain in a matter that can only be interpretted as a slight against all Americans who have served their country, and even those of us who haven't.

According to Clark, McCain's credits are of no great importance:

"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
-Wesley Clark

Perhaps General Clark is right, being shot down while flying combat missions in the service of your country is no great feat and apparently refusing to bow to almost un yielding pressure while captive in an enemy POW camp speaks nothing to a person's character either...what exactly is the message to all the other former POWs out their?

General Clark also derided McCain's experience on the grounds that his military service encompassed no executive responsibility and thus can be completely discounted. By General Clark's own reckoning only those military personal who held executive authority have experience that would qualify for the presidency. By this manner of circular logic only three president's in American history (Washington, Grant, Eisenhower and maybe Jackson) were qualified for the office.

Anyone who is a champion of the Constitution and liberty knows that there is no shortage of material upon which to attack the lackluster John McCain, yet this is best Obama's generals can muster? An attack which can only boomerang on the equally unqualified and unspectacular Barack Obama.

Links:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/29/america/campaign.php

In a recent Washington Post article , Professor Arthur Kellerman takes issue with the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the 2nd Amendment (big surprise).

While Professor Kellerman, does not hesitate to criticize Justice Scalia for his conclusion, the same arguments can be made in critiquing the esteemed professor. The professor’
Such arguments, as those posed by Kellerman are conspicuously absent when answering the question: what do you do if the unthinkable takes place and your home is terrorizes by a knife (or gun wielding) bandit intent on doing you harm. Should we simply wait and hope the police arrive before the assailant is finished robbing raping or murdering his intended victim? Why exactly is Professor Kellerman so opposed to the principle of self –defense? Since when did being a citizen of the United States entail surrendering certain basic human rights to the state? Indeed, 74% of all violent crimes committed in the United States do not involve firearms, yet we are to believe that barring law abiding citizens will save us from crime. Such a premise is purely beyond the pale of reason. Nor does it explain why countries like Australia and Britain have seen increases in violent crime as firearms have become all but impossible to acquire, nor does it explain how violent crime has increased as gun restrictions have become more ubiquitous in the United States.

As Kellerman notes, there are incidents in which firearms have caused accidental deaths or been the instrument by which suicides have been committed. In Japan, where firearms, are virtually unknown by the general populace, suicide far outpaces anything seen in the US or anywhere else in the industrialized world. The assertion that suicide is a result of the presence of firearms is as spurious as the assertion that the presence of cutlery leads to stabbings.

Yes accidents can and will happen but does this realty lead to the draconian decision to ban all firearms? Verily, 55000 annual deaths on American roads certainly hasn’t lead to Kellerman’s call for a ban on motor vehicles, nor has it lead to a call to ban home swimming pools, even though statistics clearly show that more accidental deaths occur in homes with swimming pools than they do in homes with firearms.

Then there is the subject of concealed weapons permits, while this is not addressed directly by the professor, it warrants such attention. Perhaps Kellerman refuses to address this matter because such data would reveal that less than 1% of firearms related crimes involve those citizens who have met the requirements to obtain a firearms license. The point being that law abiding citizens meeting certain reasonable requirements before they acquire firearms present no danger to themselves, only ne'er do wells who show no respect for the law in the first place. And it also begs the question, of those homes the professor supposedly studied in which the presence of firearms was related to some unjustifiable homicide, in how many of those homes were the owners legally able to obtain or possess a handgun?

Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702864.html

The fallout from yesterday's Supreme Court decision will likely continue for some time and as the dust settles we have the opportunity to take a closer look at the decision.

According to Justice John Paul Stevens, the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias (and thus the second half of the amendment is purely superfluous) though in every other instance when the framers mentioned the people, such as the 10th amendment, it did indeed refer to the "people."

In any regard Stevens' contends that the true purpose of the amendment was to prevent congress from disarming the various state militias and replace them with a standing army.

Using Stevens' own logic, can it not be argued that this has already been done? After all, the Militia system was eleminated nearly 100 years ago, replaced by the National Guard, which is very much an arm of the national army bearing little resemblance (or automomy) to the
former militias they replaced.

Stevens further asserts that their is no indication that the framers ever intended to enshrine the right of self defense in the constitution. Indeed even if that were true, which it certainly is not, the 9th amendment would surely protect this long held right from the intrusion of the statists. But of course the 2nd amendment most certainly does enshrine the principle of self defense, as this was the purpose of the militia and as these bodies were composed of private citizens who regularly furnished their own weapons it would be extreemly difficult to fathom any other rational argument that is not tainted by the stain of statist thought.

Today in perhaps the most anticipated of the US Supreme Court, the justices, have ruled that the Washington DC gun ban is unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision declared (rightly) that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.

For some time now, those who have opposed individual gun rights have argued that the 2nd amendment only applied to militias, this argument is without merit given the entire wording of the amendment and when one takes into account the circumstance of 18th century America. The militia has no modern equivalent. The militia of the 1700s and beyond was an informal all volunteer group of citizens dedicated to protecting themselves, their families and communities. The modern National Guard, while similar in function is a fully integrated component of the US military command structure, unlike the militias of yore.

The courts decision, uploads the rights of individuals to protect themselves, their families and their property. yes there are some that believe only the state should have that function, but I suppose their tune would be quite different if suddenly a bandit chose their home as the next home invasion target, perhaps they could just tell the criminal to wait 15-20 minutes until the police arrive.

Naturally this decision will be vilified by the left who will site erroneous gun facts, that reward criminals by disarming law abiding citizens and providing them with easy prey to fall on.


Previous Articles on Gun Ownership:
Another word on Gun Violence

The VT Massacre and the inevitable Gun Control Debate

Right to bear arms faces the high court

Why they voted no


Links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00928420080626?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

It is a well documented fact that the US border with Mexican is both extremely porous, and dangerous. General Pershing could have attested to this fact nearly a century ago. Sadly in the intervening century little has changed. Instead of Pancho Villa, we have a never ending tide of illegal immigrants, and while many (if not most of them) are benign seeking only better opportunities, others are far from innocent. In fact some are quite dangerous.

In addition to this ever growing flow of illegal immigrants there is a growing amount of crime being committed in the border states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California. These crimes have been committed by Mexican drug lords and now apparently they are being committed by the Mexican army itself. While the Mexican army is not formally at war with the United States, the corrupt nature of certain Mexican officials, including soldiers does give reason for concern.

Perhaps even more disconcerting is the realization that our political leaders in Washington on both the left and the right display not even the slightest bit on concern for our national security interests, much less the rule of law, both of which are threatened when a sovereign nation refuses to protect its own borders as we have done. Are political leaders appears more concerned with winning elections and scoring political points with various interest groups rather than upholding the Constitution, but then again why should this come as a surprise? Our leaders have been ignoring the very laws they have been swoen to uphold for generations.

Links:
http://kfyi.com/pages/local_news.html?feed=118695&article=3875223

Would not a return to the Articles of Confederation be preferable for all those Americans who cherish freedom (granted this is a ever shrinking minority group).

In theory the US Constitution is the preeminent symbol of effective government, one that recognizes the needs of the majority, while securing the rights of even the smallest groups. In theory the Constitution limits the reach and scope of the national government, guaranteeing our basic individual freedoms, including above all self determination. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution, for example, should, in theory, enshrine the sovereign rights of the various states which make up this republic.

This premise, however, is sound insofar as future generations remain dedicated to the principle and letter of the Constitution, in reality in over 230 years of history we have seen this is far from the truth. No sooner was the ink dry on the much heralded Constitution had Congress passed laws restricting free speech and during the 20th century a continuous erosion of state sovereignty occurred, first during the so-called Progressive era, continuing during the New Deal, the Great Society and right up to present day abominations like the No Child Left Behind Act.

Today the Constitution is little more than a guideline, to be conveniently ignored whenever possible. Today our courts have deemed it a proper function of the state to seize property in order to raise money and regularly site foreign law (rather than the Constitution) in rendering decisions. When we have arrived at such a state, we must recognize that the Constitution is no longer in force. Sadly the very document that gave birth to our republic contains the seeds of its destruction. Our Constitution, which includes such flexible language like the "elastic clause' has allowed our federal government to continually erode the rights of both the states and its citizens, while paying only lip service to the concept of federalism.

Under the now defunct Articles of Confederation, the powers of the federal government were greatly limited, and the sovereign powers of the individual states were greatly enhanced. If we are defenders of liberty we must recognize the power hungry have made a mockery of our constitution and so long as the current system remains in place, we can expect nothing less than the unchecked expansion of the federal government.

In a previously referenced article, Senator Barack Obama, addressing a meeting of Democratic Governors, outlined some of his plans for the economy. In reality, it was little more than an insane political prescription for economic stagnation:

Obama said he would work with them on policies that would help, including a plan to spend billions in taxpayer dollars to build roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects that could create jobs and improve transportation routes. Obama asked if they have projects that were ready to go if they had the money, and there were nods and calls of "Absolutely!" around the table.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVH680&show_article=1

After reading this can anyone truly believe that Obama or the 16 Democratic governors present are fans of economic liberty. Is this the 1930s or the 21st century. Does Barack Obama truly believe that the path to economic recovery is to levy massive (and historic) tax increases to finance vast public works projects. And exactly who will fill these jobs? And are these the types of jobs that Obama wants to create in modern day America?

Is this how Obama envisions America will be able to compete with the emerging economies of China, India and Eastern Europe? It must be, after all he favors the status quo when it comes to our under-performing, outclassed schools, that produce students who lag far behind the rest of the developed world. And with out world class education, digging ditches and laying pavement is about all the next generation of Americans will be qualified to do. Already American companies are forced to import an ever growing number of engineers and scientist to fill their employment needs

Its a tired saying when one argues that the left favor nothing but "tax and spend" policies but it sadly continues to ring true. So much for the "New Democratic Party" of the Clinton era. Obama's planned re-birth of the WPA is no recipe for America's long term economic vitality (further highlighting his economic ignorance).

What this country needs, first and foremost is an energy plan that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, thereby reducing inflationary pressures, something the left (and the right) have failed to enact in the nearly 40 years since the first oil shock. Secondly we need a climate that encourages economic growth and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama and his leftist friends favor a punitive tax structure that punishes success and rewards idolatry while simultaneously re-invigorating the modern American welfare state. Does anyone actually believe the farce of a "windfall profits tax" will lead to lower costs for the American consumer, to say nothing of job growth?

Today in a Florida speech that would surely make Dr. Joseph Goebbels blush, the esteemed in-experienced, weak-minded smoker, and collectivist-leaning Senator from Illinois decried proposals to open the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to oil exploration.

According to Senator Obama, the savings would be minuscule and would be non-existant for over 20 years. This pronouncement alone should automatically disqualify Obama for the role of chief executive. Either teh presumptive Democratic nominee is knowingly distorting the facts, is ignorant or is seeking to ensure our continued dependence upon a band of oil rich tyrants from Venezuela to Saudi Arabia, whatever the motivation, if it were anyone other political leader would we not argue that that individual has no business leading the United States of America.

America can ill afford such misguided and foolish leadership mentality. With each passing day, Barack Obama further demonstrates why he should never occupy the White House, or any other leadership position in government.

Every American desrvesto know the answer to this question: Mr. Obama, what is your motivation for endorsing an energy policy that enshrines American subservience to Middle Eastern dictaors? Why do you cling to a policy of ignorance and champion that policy to your equally ignorant followers?

Previous Post on Oil Exploration Proposals:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2008/06/american-left-and-energy-dependence.html

Link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVH680&show_article=1

Its not everyday that one can say "George Bush gets it right," in fact its been a rare occurrence within the span of nearly a decade, but today one can say just that with regard to the president's energy challenge to Congress. Today, in this politically charged climate, the president called on Congress to take steps toward energy independence, thereby reducing skyrocketing energy costs.

The president's plan was four fold:

1. Open the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration and drilling
2. Open ANWR to exploration, as it was originally intended
3. Bring Oil Shale resources on to the market
4. Increase America's refining capacity

On all four counts the president is right, naturally these issues will only address short-term consumption needs, as our long term future lies in energy alternatives like hydrogen and various synthetic liquid fuels. But it is the short term that should concern us all, after all the problem of high energy costs threaten to completely destroy the US economy.

Naturally the American left came out in strong opposition to the president's proposals.

"another page from (an)... energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry — give away more public resources."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi

"This is not something that's going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular..."
-Sen. Barack Obama

"...we cannot drill our way out of this problem"
-Sen. Harry Reid

The fact is, the American left, with each passing day, appears more and more to have been invested in the ongoing immizeration of this country. When people like Barack Obama tell us that such measures won't have any impact on short term energy prices, it demonstrates the type of economic ignorance that only a weak minded smoker could exhibit. The fact is that roughly 40-50% of oil prices are a direct result of trading on the commodities market, which is essentially speculation about the long term pricing of energy resources. A strong commitment by the United States to reduce its dependence on foreign oil would have an immediate impact on oil prices. Need we forget that nearly a decade ago then president Clinton vetoed a similar measure to open ANWR to drilling, where would we be today if our esteemed former president had teh insight to serve as a steward for our energy security, rtaher than covering for one scandal after another?

Now we are to believe that the left has the best interest of the American people at heart? This is difficult to fathom when every move toward energy independence is met with opposition, what is the motivation? If not either to cripple the country economically for short term political gain?

Senator Reid claims that the oil companies control millions of acres in oil leases that are not being used to drill on and thus no further opening of such lands is warranted. This of course is nonsense when one considers the fact that the cost to drill in many of these areas would exceed the benefits. But then again from the standpoint of such demagogue politicians American industry should give away resources rather than make a profit in the first place. How else can one explain a new proposal by House Democrats to nationalize the nation's refineries and another Democratic plan to tax windfall profits. While the president's proposals would work towards reduced cost and energy independence the only proposals made by the left call for socialism, higher taxes and higher costs for the American consumer.

Both proposals will have an impact on energy, one works for us, the other works against us. How gullible are we as Americans that such a position is even defensible?

Links:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_bi_ge/offshore_oil
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/PainAtThePump/story?id=5197676&page=1

Ever wonder how any sane person who calls themselves a liberal, or the disgustingly euphemistic "progressive," and yet calls themselves a champion of the constitution and liberty.

Liberalism is diametrically opposed to liberty, much less the US Constitution for the simple fact that Modern American Liberalism (Not to be confused with Classical Liberalism), asserts that it is a fitting and proper role for the state to use its coercive powers to reallocate the wealth, labor and resources of private citizens in pursuit of a purported collective good. Essentially a liberal would argue that an all powerful state by right should make decisions on our behalf.

This certainly isn't the first time in human history that a select have argued that they and they alone should dictate the proper direction for our individual endeavors, that "they" know best. Indeed, the slave masters of the antebellum era certainly felt that way. A liberal cannot support individual liberty, individual recognition and individual achievement as it challenges the supremacy of teh state in such matters. As archtypical liberals like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton have noted, there is a war against teh idea of the "individual."

Remember the SCLC (the Southern Christian Leadership Conference), the illustrious civil rights organization co-founded by Martin Luther King and Ralph David Abernathy. The organization stood at the forefront of America's struggle for civil rights for all its citizens in the 1950s and 60s.

How far the great have fallen. No longer is the SCLC the towering example for everyday, now it is a towering symbol for ignorance and perhaps worst. The SCLC, headquartered in Atlanta, has called for a boycott of the nation's leading oil companies, who collectively control less than 6% of the world's known oil reserves and who's profit margin is far eclipsed by most banks and retail organizations like wal-mart and even cosmetic companies, yet because of collective ignorance the SCLC has duped its followers into believe that these actions will have any impact on the price of oil.

One can only imagine what direction the SCLC would have taken had King lived, but one can only guess that an individual as learned as King would not be so foolish as to waste his time in such a manner. Instead of focusing their energies in a fashion that could yield real results, like pressuring congress to reduce exorbitant fuel taxes or removing limits on domestic fuel production, we have an organization that essentially is doing nothing. One might as well protest at Apple Computer in Microsoft raises its prices or protest at Macy's if JCPenney were to raise its prices.

Link:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/06/16/gasoline_boycott.html

The Phalanx was write and as we noted 3 years ago, the oil companies have become easy targets for pandering politicians playing to an economically ignorant and uneducated electorate. How else do you explain politicians parading the corporate heads of five of the nine largest oil companies who collectively control less than 5% of the world's know oil; reserves and balme them exclusively for the recent run up in oil prices?

As previously stated in the Phalanx:

“Big oil” scores record profits…lets get the pitchforks

Lets say an individual opens a sandwich shop in a small town. He sells a variety of sandwiches to local patrons and tourists. The shop owner sells each sandwich for $3 a piece. The cost to produce each sandwich is about $1.85, which means the shop earns $1.15 profit on the sale of each sandwich. What does the shop owner do with their profit? Whatever they desire. They can expand their business, invest it, save for the children’s college fund, use it to purchase a house in the mountains, etc…Now lets suppose, that a rival sandwich shop closes down, or lets suppose the population doubles in the town, all of a sudden the demand for sandwiches doubles. More and more people are coming in to the sandwich shop, buying more and more sandwiches as lines wrap around the corner. Because demand has doubled, so too have the shop owner’s profits. Now should the shop owner charge less and earn less simply because more people want his product? No…of course not. The same can be said of a person’s labor. Labor, is like a product, we sell that labor to an employer in return, they pay us an agreed upon wage, after cost of living, transportation, food, etc…anything left over can be considered profit. Lets suppose there is a labor shortage at Company X and they simply can’t find enough software programmers or garment makers or crane operators, those they interview demand 25% more in salary. Should these potential employees lower their salary demand simply because there is a labor shortage? No…of course not. By the same token, the oil companies shouldn’t be compelled to lower their prices because demand has increased. Oil prices have increased because of the shear-increased volume in demand from China, India, Eastern Europe and right here in our own backyard. As demand increases oil companies will sell more barrels of oil and thus their profits will inexorably increase. This is known simply as the law of supply and demand. The oil companies, like any businesses are in business to make money, they aren’t charities or governments giving away a product or service. This message, however, is lost on politicians today, who look upon the oil companies as easy targets as they seek to score political points with the voters. No one likes to pay high prices so why not attack the oil companies and thus politicians maneuver to craft proposals that would place caps of profits and other such foolhardy schemes. Make no mistake about it…as soon as we allow the government to dictate what a business (large or small) can charge for its services, its only a matter of time before the same government dictates what salaries we deserve, and how much we can spend on a new car or house or how much we can own or where we can own it. There’s a word for such forms of government, it starts with an “F” and ends with an “ascism.”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/28/OIL.TMP

One thing is for certain, in a nation where more people understand the intricacies of American idol than the concept of supply and demand, it should come as no surprise that foolish politicians will continue to chose the path of least resistance and blame the easiest target. Perhaps we can hope that some courageous individuals will ask these politicians what are they doing to reduce America's dependency on foreign oil.

The 2008 US presidential election is shaping up to be the most important election in history, certainly a number of pundits and politicians seem to think so, and they are 100% correct but not for the reasons they postulate. This election year is important as in may spell the final and permanent death of freedom in America. Since the so-called Progressive era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries we have seen a steady erosion of freedom in this country, corresponding with an ever-growing federal government.

During the turn of the century “progressive” movement a number of well meaning advocates called on the government at all level to play an increasingly active role in our daily lives. Through the passage of the 16th amendment we gave the government the intrusive authority to monitor and tax our wages, thereby giving the state the financial power to expand by leaps and bounds during the 20th century. During the nineteen teens we called on the government to legislate morality through the farce of Prohibition and during the Great Depression we surrendered to the government the responsibility for taking care of our selves and planning for our futures, when it was the government that played a key role in mortgaging that future in the first place. During the 1960s we lead our selves to believe that we could destroy poverty, not through hard work but through handouts, and what have we to show for it?

That brings us to the present day, where freedom is now in the death struggle of a defeated combatant. No more do Americans speak of freedom, self-sacrifice and personal responsibility as they once did. No more do politicians speak of what we can do for our country, rather they speak of entitlements, of regulating this and taxing that, all the while the country spirals ever closer to bankruptcy. A tyranny of the majority (or dare we say…the proletariat) is at hand with the election of Obama. Even with McCain it would only be a question of time.

With the November general election a new era of ever expanding government will be upon us and as the government assumes greater paternal control over our lives, we can look forward to having even less say in personal social or economic matters. Already we are forced to send our children to the worst performing schools in the industrialized world with no viable alternatives. Already we are forced to cede an ever-growing percentage of our salary to the government for a grossly mismanaged social security system and yet not we are asking that very same government to manage our health care. Who is so foolish as to believe that the same government that bankrupted social security and Medicare can be trusted with our healthcare? Apparently quite a few as these are the same people eager embracing the Marxist policies of Obamanomics. Does it help that Obama is a seemingly honest and caring individual? Perhaps, but that will be of little solace when our country has gone the way for Germany or France.

Links:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/democrats.wednesday/index.html