Saturday, April 27, 2013

Jonathan Hoenig Calls for Individual Sovereignty

TOS Blog: Daily Commentary from an Objectivist Perspective

Jonathan Hoenig Calls for Return to Americanism

 I had to point out that I am not the only one who uses the phrase "individual sovereignty" in today's world. 

© Curtis Edward Clark 2013

Monday, January 21, 2013

The Debate Is Only About Control--Not Guns

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. The intention of the Second Amendment is to prevent control. Last Wednesday's post about gun rights being inalienable whether or not they are written, was about what we are born with rather than what we are given. What we are given is called 'positive rights'. What we are born with are called natural rights. What laws are supposed to prevent being taken from us are called 'negative rights', and natural rights are 'negative rights'.

President Obama and others said we must "protect the children", sometimes adding "at all costs" or "at whatever cost". But others in the past have said that we cannot protect one person's rights at the expense of another.

On Saturday at one of the many pro gun-right rallies held across the nation, former Marine Damon Locke said to applause at a Florida rally he had helped organize, "We are law-abiding citizens, business owners, military, and we are not going to be responsible for other people's criminal actions."

What lesson does it send to children and to young adults to learn their political leaders have a desire to protect them by diminishing the right of law-abiding citizens? What lesson does it send to demonstrate that when a problem arises, the only means their leaders can think of is to destroy the Constitution?

What lesson, when they are old enough to stop to think that the utilitarian and pragmatic ideas coming out of Washington have gone from the fallacy of the greatest good for the greatest number, to using children as pawns in the fight to control the weapons without which we could not protect our First Amendment?

The right to bear arms does not say which kind of arms. Certainly we do not want live cannons and mortars in our neighbors' back yards, so we ban those things. That isn't about control, it is about immediate safety; in other words, if a cannon shot a round from suburbs of Detroit, where would the round hit, and does anyone have a right to fire a cannon anywhere except on a training field? What if it was not properly maintained and it blew up? We wouldn't let people have tiny nuclear reactors, if they existed, in their homes for their electrical needs, because when those devices have accidents, they are often irreparable.

"The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to shoot deer. It was written to protect your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government," said Judge Andrew Napolitano. 

© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Inalienable Gun Rights Are Not Extremist

Last week, Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed a secret about the Second Amendment: “The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to shoot deer. It was written to protect your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government.”

Why is it a 'secret'? It's a secret because 230 years ago, during a time when the Patriots and other colonists knew they would need weapons to fight the British, they knew they had right under the natural rights theory to own them, though the British government wanted to take them in order to keep the upper hand.

But since that period we have forgotten there might come a day when the federal powers to make us do whatever they wanted would be so great we would have to fight our own government. The NDAA which the President signed on New Year's Eve day, gives him the authority to use the military to arrest and detain indefinitely any American he chooses, for reasons he does not have to disclose.

On April 19, 1775, after British General Thomas Gage sent 700 trained troops to Concord, Massachusetts, the shot heard round the world began a war. The British had come for the guns of Americans. "Their own government had come to disarm them." [1] Arizona, Tennessee, Washington, Virginia, and six local governments including one in my home state of Michigan, have either nullified the NDAA, or are debating doing so. Several sheriffs and other law enforcement officials have stated they will not enforce the NDAA. In some places states have made it illegal for state authorities to enforce the NDAA and certain provisions of ICE rules. [2]

About Napolitano's comments, "Charles Blow wrote in The New York Times, 'These extremists make sensible, reasonable gun control hard to discuss, let alone achieve in this country, because they skew the conversations away from common-sense solutions on which both rational gun owners and non-gun owners can agree.' "

So those who defend the natural right of property ownership against a government that would abrogate those natural rights are the "extremists"; those who see the Second Amendment as something added to the Constitution, rather than as something which reinforces it as an "inalienable", right are common-sensical. 

Why is it a violation of the right-to-safety of other people to have a populace who is armed and has violated no laws? Is it because someone could steal his mother's guns and shoot 20 children and 6 adults?

If that is the reason, then who is to prevent President Obama or another President from sending another "General Thomas Gage" to some part of the U.S. to disarm people it knows will fight the tyranny of a government that does not act Constitutionally, but rather acts like a utilitarian extremist?

© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Gun Control and the Second Amendment

President Obama's stance, indeed the stand of anyone who is against ownership of guns or of specific guns and/or of specific bullets, clips, or other portions of guns, are acting as utilitarians. This is against the concept of natural rights inherent in the Constitution.

Opponents of such restrictions are fighting it on grounds of the Second Amendment. But they are fighting on the grounds that it is that Amendment which gives us the right. It is not. That merely states the right which existed before it was written. Indeed, James Madison and others were fearful that if some of man's natural rights were put into a Bill of Rights, it would seem as if that was the limit of them, that there were no others. But more than that, many members of Congress knew that by listing some of them it would open them to scrutiny 'as written'. In other words, while all natural rights belonged to Man, the way one or another was written could be argued against and altered.

That has happened in the modern case of the Second Amendment. The right does not exist because it is written; it was written because it exists, and because some Congressional leaders believed it necessary to say they existed.

A Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary, but would even be dangerous. James Madison agreed with Alexander Hamilton, who asked, "For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do [by Congress]? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

The harming of another in his person or property is not a right, natural or otherwise. The restriction of a natural right is the prerogative only of a tyranny. 

© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

More Nasty Politics Heading Our Way

"Brought together by the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Communication Workers of America, and the NAACP, the meeting was invite-only and off-the-record. Despite all the Democratic wins in November, a sense of outrage filled the room as labor officials, environmentalists, civil rights activists, immigration reformers, and a panoply of other progressive leaders discussed the challenges facing the left and what to do to beat back the deep-pocketed conservative movement."

Of course they met at the HP of the NEA, the National Education Association.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Jumah At the DNC

"There is no thought of original intent or original meaning in the way the Democratic leaders are giving this nation away to those who would see its downfall..."

The Washington Times reported yesterday that as many as 20,000 participants could show up for what is being billed by the participants and the Democratic National Convention as 'Jumah at the DNC'. Jumah is Arabic for 'Friday', and is the biggest prayer event of the week.

"The DNC lists the assembly as an 'official function' and claims that the leaders of the program are typical of the DNC community. The group is hardly 'mainstream,' being represented by Siraj Wahhaj, who will be the 'Grand Imam' for the gathering....Wahhaj and the co-leader of the Charlotte event, Jibril Hough, are both heavily involved in the separatist American Islamist movement," said the Times.

It then goes on to explain how this Islamic gathering at the DNC will be a "prime example of taqiyya".  This will cover a protest by the participants directed at the Patriot Act, the NYPD, Islamophobia, and anti-sharia issues. Most of the participants, said the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, "will likely come from Hough and Wahhaj’s radical networks that have long been entrenched in the Charlotte area. Make no mistake they are part of the Islamist movement."

Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), the national Muslim American non-profit that is coordinating the two days of events for leaders of the separatist, American Islamist movement, are receiving "a national stage and as much credibility as the DNC can muster," said

There are many baffling and troubling concerns here. The first may be how any organization can be taken seriously when referring to "indigenous" Islamic Americans--but many must be doing so, including the DNC. 
Second, why is the DNC giving a religious platform to any group, let alone to those who in the past have advocated replacing the Constitution with sharia, as some of the participants have?

Third, why didn't the DNC vet the leaders better? Oh, wait--they did. Siraj Wahhaj's own website says lists his upcoming events as an Islamic Relief fundraiser, the funds of which will go to Iran and Myanmar, among other nations. It also lists a fundraiser for the Council on Islamic-American Relations, called radical and Islamicist by other American groups of Muslims.
CAIR was founded in 1994 by alumni of an older group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. The IAP, founded by senior Hamas figure Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, calls for the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state under Islamic law in Israel's place. (In 1996, CAIR would condemn the U.S. government's decision to deport Marzook as an "anti-Islamic" act.)
CAIR's first executive director, Nihad Awad, publicly declared himself a supporter of Hamas at a 1994 forum at Barry University in Florida.
One of CAIR's original advisory board members, Siraj Wahhaj, served as a character witness for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman is the blind Egyptian cleric convicted in 1995 of conspiracy to bomb New York landmarks. CAIR described Rahman's conviction as a hate crime. source
"The FBI [severed] its once-close ties with the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, amid mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas." source

There is no thought of original intent or original meaning in the way the Democratic leaders are giving this nation away to those who would see its downfall, and who must have applauded on September 11, 2001. No patriotic Muslim American would need an 'official' jumah at the DNC.

'Like' on Facebook  
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Freedom Thoughts

>Spike Lee said our expectations of Obama were of being a 'black Jesus'. The website I Will Not Vote For Obama in 2012 said, "Like us if you didn't expect him to be anything other than a Marxist dictator." [!!] What I can say is that no way did I think America would let him get away with being such an openly progressive president who is also openly anti-exceptionalism. (I also say Spike Lee insults the American sensibility of desiring only a President who values individualism and of upholding-- or raising--the integrity of the office.)
>"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." – Robert A. Heinlein One example of that division is this next item:
"Are social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter 'information monopolies' that should be regulated as public utilities? ....utility-like regulation may be necessary not so much to satisfy economic or equity rationales, but to achieve various social policy objectives..." source
When a man or a group of them creates something, what is the reason for calling the achievement a monopoly, and wanting to regulate economically, if it isn't for the purpose of control--and of control only? The free market will un-monopolize natural monopolies. Google, for example, is in jeopardy of losing its status as the #1 search engine because 30% of Google searches are for something now found on Amazon, which who's own on-site product search engine is gaining momentum. The desire to label one, leads to the next. When will someone see Amazon as the 'information monopoly' for goods sold?

>"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis

>"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus

>"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson 

'Like' on Facebook
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012