Rape and Death Threats for Dissing American Sniper

Mint Press News

Classic Post: The Second Amendment and the Military Industrial Complex

OK, Maybe the coin has dropped and the concept that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with "gun rights", but is related to the prevention of the establishment of a standing army (like its neighbour the Third Amendment) has soaked in.

The US Constitution is pretty much a pacifist document with the original concept being that the military would follow the Swiss Model. That is there would be a small professional army tasked with training and administration that would support the larger amature (part-time/non-professional militia) Militia. The hope was that would prevent the establishment of a standing army.

As the Swiss model shows, that is an excellent defense force. But it's not very good for aggressive purposes. Also, the Swiss model requires a lot of commitment from people in regard to time. It's not just sitting there saying you're a member of some "unorganised militia"--it's actually training, drill, and other military duty.

We can also add in to this whole stew that the Congress has the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12).

The real fear was standing armies, or to quote Elbridge Gerry:

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.

In 1961, President Eisenhower says this in a speech:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

According to Carl Bogus for nearly a century, the collective right model remained not only widely accepted but uncontroversial. The first article advocating the "individual right" interpretation appeared in 1960. Titled The Right To Bear Arms, A Study in Judicial Misinterpretation, it was a student article in the William and Mary Law Review. Robert J. Spitzer comes to the same conclusion:

"Including these three early articles, a total of eleven articles on the Second Amendment appeared in law journals from 1912 to 1959. All of them reflected what is here labeled the 'court' view of the Second Amendment - namely, that the Second Amendment affects citizens only in connection with citizen service in a government-organized and regulated militia."

Is it coincidence that the "individual" (non-Militia) right interpretation appears at roughly the same time as Eisenhower is warning about the influence of the Military-Industrial complex?

Moreover notice how what Bogus calls "widely accepted" and "uncontroversial" has become controversial--especially on the internet.

Is it a coincidence that this is happening at a time when the Military is being built up to the largest it ever was?

If you've read the primary sources you'll see the founders gave a rat's arse for private ownership of guns. Their prime concern was the possibility of the establishment of a large standing army and the evils such a body brings.

That's what they meant when they were talking about tyranny:

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

See also:

• Bogus, Carl T. THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF SECOND AMENDMENT SCHOLARSHIP: A PRIMER, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment, vol. 76, 2000: 3
• Spitzer,Robert J. "Lost and Found: Researching the Second Amendment"Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment vol. 76, 2000: 349
• Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
• Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia.
• Amendment II
• Amendment III

Remington to Upgrade Military Sniper Rifles

via Outta the Cornfield

These are upgrades that improve "lethality and stand-off distance."  Remington has received a $28,000,000 dollar contract to upgrade 3,600 rifles.

Do the math.  That's $7,777 per gun, which cost less than half that when new.

As a country we sure as hell are on top when it comes to killing humans better than any other but just can't find the resources to develop alternative energy sources or transportation. You know things like that which are important to more people that live here than better ways of killing human beings.

If anyone thinks our country's war stance and involvements around the world will ever become much less than what it is now you are wrong. It is only going to grow larger. We are screwed big time and have been for a very long time.

Our country is addicted to war and the stupids will never question even when it affects them in a negative way.

We love our blood and guts way too much!!

This is one contract out of how many, thousands, tens-of-thousands?, many of which reward military contractors exorbitantly. No wonder military spending is out of control.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Ralph Nader on the Causes of 9/11

via Democratic Underground

Recently, when I agreed with something Ron Paul said, I was attacked for being his supporter. On some sites, being a Ron Paul supporter is a mortal sin. Now, I'm referencing some of the things Ralph Nader says. What will that make me?

The three things that "caused" the 9/11 attacks are, according to Nader

1. our having supported oppressive dictators, furnishing them with arms

2. our support of Israel

3. our inadequate domestic defense systems

Is it true that domestically we had only two UNARMED F-16s? I'd never heard that before. Ralph Nader sure seems to tell it like he sees it, I think he's known for that.

What do you think? Does his 3-point explanation for why 9/11 happened work for you? Aren't those first two points contributing factors towards the anti-American animosity which is present especially in the Muslim world? Have we gone too far in being the policemen of the world and is this just a case of reaping what you sow?


Is it UnAmerican to suggest that we brought this on ourselves, at least in some small way?

He goes on to say the Military Industrial Complex is to blame.

The folly of the MIC is, it not only erodes our economy and destroys our quality standard of living, but it also ensures an empire which is insatiable in terms of the contracts that Lockheed Martin and other want to dominate the world.

I'm a big believer in the idea that the Military Industrial Complex is the true evil entity here. I realize they are necessary and that they do much good too, but I think their power has grown to a point almost beyond stopping, their lobbying and influence peddling power.

What do you think? If Obama's re-elected maybe he'll make good on that old promise to change the lobbying system in Washington. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Glenn Greenwald sounds like the commenters from the Early American Republic.

What is tyranny and how does it manifest according to the people from the Early republic?

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.--Joseph Story

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny.-Patrick Henry

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.--Elbridge Gerry

Glenn Greenwald expresses very similar sentiment to these in his piece Endless War and the culture of unrestrained power, in particular:

Those who wield true political authority as part of an empire are vested with immense power over other people, but those who exercise that authority as part of wars are more powerful still. That kind of power not only attracts warped authoritarians and sociopaths like moths to light, but it also converts -- degrades -- otherwise normal people who come to possess it. That's not a new development, but rather as old as political power itself.

The founders warned of what would happen when standing armies were established. President Eisenhower warned about unwarranted influence by the military industrial complex. Yet, that has happned despite the warnings

There is nothing more dangerous than allowing militaristic power to be exercised without accountability: without oversight, without transparency, without consequences for serious wrongdoing. Yet this is exactly the state of affairs that prevails in the United States. It's also why there are few things more deeply irresponsible, vapid and destructive than forcing citizens, activists, and journalists to retreat into what has become a Permanent Election Mode.

This system of perpetual electioneering transforms people into partisan cheerleaders who refrain from aggressively criticizing the party that is slightly less awful out of fear that the other party might win an election 14 months away, even when their own party is the one in power. Renouncing the duty of holding accountable political leaders who exercise vast power makes one directly responsible for the abuses they commit.

Ponder this thought:

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

And remember what President Eisenhower said:

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

But, it is time that the people regained their freedom from the serfdom of the rich and the masters of war.

Obama Talking at the American Legion

In Minneapolis today, President Barack Obama gave the first in a series of speeches marking the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The president spoke before a crowd of 6,000 veterans at the American Legion's national convention.

In his remarks, Obama called for Americans to honor the solemn anniversary by performing national service, and repeatedly praised the nobility of the 5 million Americans who have served in the U.S. military since 9/11. He called these soldiers and their families members of the "9/11 generation." Obama also expressed humble gratitude for the sacrifice of more than 6,200 American servicemen and women who have been killed in conflict since 9/11.

Isn't anyone else bothered by the failure to admit the invasion of Iraq, orchestrated by the Bush / Cheney administration, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was a big lie? I certainly am.  I'm offended by that.  Where's the outrage, we asked just yesterday.

The Afghanistan operation was a ten-year-long hunt for Bin Laden, if I'm not mistaken.  Unlike attacking Iraq, at least this one made some sense, presuming Bin Laden was the author of the World Trade Center attack and really was hiding out with his Taliban buddies in Afghanistan.  But, what's happened since his dramatic death? Have we pulled out?  Has word one been mentioned about pulling out?  I haven't heard it.

My cynicism extends to the other major operations, Libya and Yemen, as well as the more hidden and secret ones.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not an extreme pacifist and I'm definitely not a Paulist, like I've recently been accused of. I applaud the heroic troops who usually remain unsung heroes, unlike what happened after the Osama's killing.

I can accept that some of the pre-emptive and covert missions are necessary and save lives. But I don't think that applies to the major wars we've been fighting or to most of the smaller ones.

I believe since the time of Viet Nam the government has been increasingly influenced by the Military Industrial Complex. The lobbying and contribution systems, which Obama promised he'd clean up, are what really run the country.

I'd like to see us less involved in policing the world. I'd like to see the military spending cut way down. I'd like to see fewer servicemen killed over the next ten years than the 6,200 Obama mentioned in his speech.

I wondered if that includes the suicides, but I suppose that's something for another post.

What's your opinion? Is casting a cynical eye on the American military involvement tantamount to NOT supporting the troops?  Wouldn't there be many active military members and recently discharged veterans who question these things like I do?

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

The Second Amendment and the Military Industrial Complex

OK, Maybe the coin has dropped and the concept that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with "gun rights", but is related to the prevention of the establishment of a standing army (like its neighbour the Third Amendment) has soaked in.

The US Constitution is pretty much a pacifist document with the original concept being that the military would follow the Swiss Model. That is there would be a small professional army tasked with training and administration that would support the larger amature (part-time/non-professional militia) Militia. The hope was that would prevent the establishment of a standing army.

As the Swiss model shows, that is an excellent defense force. But it's not very good for aggressive purposes. Also, the Swiss model requires a lot of commitment from people in regard to time. It's not just sitting there saying you're a member of some "unorganised militia"--it's actually training, drill, and other military duty.

We can also add in to this whole stew that the Congress has the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12).

The real fear was standing armies, or to quote Elbridge Gerry:

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.

In 1961, President Eisenhower says this in a speech:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

According to Carl Bogus for nearly a century, the collective right model remained not only widely accepted but uncontroversial. The first article advocating the "individual right" interpretation appeared in 1960. Titled The Right To Bear Arms, A Study in Judicial Misinterpretation, it was a student article in the William and Mary Law Review. Robert J. Spitzer comes to the same conclusion:

"Including these three early articles, a total of eleven articles on the Second Amendment appeared in law journals from 1912 to 1959. All of them reflected what is here labeled the 'court' view of the Second Amendment - namely, that the Second Amendment affects citizens only in connection with citizen service in a government-organized and regulated militia."

Is it coincidence that the "individual" (non-Militia) right interpretation appears at roughly the same time as Eisenhower is warning about the influence of the Military-Industrial complex?

Moreover notice how what Bogus calls "widely accepted" and "uncontroversial" has become controversial--especially on the internet.

Is it a coincidence that this is happening at a time when the Military is being built up to the largest it ever was?

If you've read the primary sources you'll see the founders gave a rat's arse for private ownership of guns. Their prime concern was the possibility of the establishment of a large standing army and the evils such a body brings.

That's what they meant when they were talking about tyranny:

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

See also:

• Bogus, Carl T. THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF SECOND AMENDMENT SCHOLARSHIP: A PRIMER, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment, vol. 76, 2000: 3
• Spitzer,Robert J. "Lost and Found: Researching the Second Amendment"Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment vol. 76, 2000: 349
• Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
• Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia.
• Amendment II
• Amendment III

Glenn Beck Isn't Always Wrong

We have more Admirals than we have ships.

What do you think about military spending? Please leave a comment.

Military Spending

Opinione published a wonderful article on Dwight D. Eisenhower.

In a similar manner and almost word for word of the speech he gave to the American people in 1961, in the “Chance for Peace” speech in 1953 Eisenhower warned about the trade-offs:

“The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brink schoolhouse in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with the homes that could have housed 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

Considering that the speech was given at a time when the Red Scare of Communism was gripping the nation and the United States was involved in a military conflict on the Korean peninsula, the speech by Eisenhower showed the former military general to be a genuine leader of the country. Not only concerned or beholden to the interests of the former institution he spent most of his life in, the “Chance for Peace” speech by Eisenhower in 1953 proved that he was concerned about the interests of all Americans.

What's your opinion? What do you think President Eisenhower would say about the military spending President Obama is continuing?

Please leave a comment.

Organized Crime - Monsanto Style

Il Principe recommended a wonderful and eye-opening film called Food, Inc. Although they don't mention Monsanto in their trailer, the main message I took from the movie was that Monsanto is run by the biggest bunch of gangsters in the world. I wondered if that's what The Prince was referring to in his recent comment.

the military industrial complex has transformed into the the corporate political complex.

The thing that struck me about Monsanto in the film, Food, Inc. was the decades-long conspiracy they've engaged in with Justice Thomas and others to gain control of the food supply, the way they've moved the entire world, not only the United States, into dependency on genetically modified foods, and especially the way they now own, OWN, almost all the seeds.

The whole nasty business is well demonstrated by their product called Round Up.




What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Military Industrial Complex

Angry Bear wrote a wonderful post about the real puppet masters.

The impact of militarization is huge, and the long-term wars we are engaged in currently, and their high costs, surely impact our economy. Surely the military-industrial complex and its demands on the tax system (and its potential threats to our democratic institutions) are viable topics at ataxingmatter, as part of the discussion of tax policy and institutional sustainability.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

So Many Military Bases

Tom Dispatch wrote an article about the secret and not-so-secret military bases the U.S. is constructing. Thanks to Il Principe for the link to this wonderful article which supports his frequent writings about the subject on Opinione.

In 2003, when the Bush administration invaded Iraq, the Pentagon already had on its drawing boards plans for building a series of permanent mega-bases in that country. (They were charmingly called “enduring camps.”) Once Baghdad fell and it turned out that, Saddam Hussein or no, the U.S. was going to have to fight rather than settle in and let the good times roll,hundreds of micro-bases were added to the mega ones -- 106 of them by 2005, more than 300 in all. Then, in 2005, Washington decided to trade in its embassy in one of Saddam’s old palaces for something a little spiffier. In its place, on a 104-acre plot by the Tigris River in the middle of Baghdad, for at least three-quarters of a billion dollars after cost overruns, it built the largest,most expensive embassy on the planet. It was planned for a staff of 1,000 “diplomats” with all the accoutrements of the good life and plenty of hired help. (Even now, despite much discussion about “ending” the American role in Iraq, further plans are reportedly being made for the embassy’s staff to double.) This was clearly to be U.S. mission control for the Greater Middle East.

The article goes on to describe the incredible proliferation of bases in Afghanistan, naturally at staggering cost. Meanwhile, at home things have not been so good.

What's your opinion? Is this unprecedented military expansion necessary for the security of America? Do you think some of this money could be used better at home?

Please leave a comment.

Military Academic Complex

Opinione published an article about the little-know facet of the Military Industrial Complex which ensures future generations of "leaders."

As American students return for another semester at universities around America, Opinione thought it would be an excellent time to discuss how the Pentagon’s influence in higher education has contributed to the militarization of American society and perpetual wars waged by a callous and inept political establishment. Although the average American is not even aware of the power and influence of the larger military industrial complex, most Americans would be shocked to learn how much money the Pentagon contributes to America’s research universities and Ivy League Schools. Known as the “Golden Triangle”, a group of military agencies, the high technology industry, and research universities, the military academic complex is influencing the bright young minds in America to develop the next generation aerial drone, stealth destroyer, and other items related to death and destruction.

What's your opinion? Is this something to worry about? Certainly we need good minds involved in military development and spending in the future, but do you think it's gone too far? Even our current administration has increased military spending. Will this be the real source of our eventual bankruptcy? What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

The Stars and Stripes

Il Principe has published a fascinating indictment of the main stream media.

The institution of the military is one of the most trusted and respected institutions in America and the newspaper The Stars and Stripes, is considered the official record of the U.S. Armed Forces. Although The Stars and Stripes newspaper may appear to be the mouthpiece for the Pentagon and would never report anything negative about the military, a recent news story first reported by the Stars and Stripes dispels all these preconceptions and biased opinions.

I admit, I'm certainly one who thought exactly this way. I find it absolutely fascinating that a story like this could break first in the Stars and Stripes.

The story reported by the Stars and Stripes involves a private corporation, The Rendon Group, who was hired by the Pentagon to produce background profiles on journalists covering the war. While this story was alarming enough, making the issue more disturbing is the total lack of reporting the story has had in the mainstream press.

One result of the assessments of war correspondents is, in some cases, military commanders determined whether to imbed journalists with their troops based on the Rendon Group evaluation. This may have slanted the entire world perception of the wars.

The Prince's conclusion about why this happened is fascinating too. He says it indicates a growing discontent among the military itself as to the management of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's your opinion? Do you find it strange that a story like this came out in the Stars and Stripes instead of, let's say, CNN? What about that discontent among military personnel? Is that becoming a problem or is the fact that we've got an all volunteer military ensuring that mainly those who agree with the policies are joining?

What's your opinion?

Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

On the great site called Opinione, Il Principe has written a piece on freedom, which follows nicely on the Richie Havens video I posted yesterday.

As mankind has progressed over the centuries and into the 21st century, the meaning of freedom is viewed differently by people around the world and is measured in various ways. Should freedom be measured by economic, free speech, the type of government, or the level of civil rights its citizens enjoy? It is interesting to note that the only category that America is number one is the level of defense spending and gun violence.

Most of the time when an American politician talks about freedom in a speech, they are usually talking about a quantitive measure of freedom rather than a qualitative measure of freedom.

Yet, as the Grand Prince points out, even popular rankings like the number of millionaires and other measurements of quantitative freedom, America is behind the rising powers of Asia. The United States "does not even rank as the leading country in a World Bank report on doing business, which is ironic considering how much pride most Americans take in being a country with a capitalistic based economy."

Americans do not see the correlation between the half trillion defense budgets of the US government and an Empire of Bases around the world, which allow other countries to invest more in their social welfare programs, to being a factor in why their own citizens have less domestic services available like health care for the poor and less fortunate. The military industrial complex or just simply put the Pentagon’s budget, is like the 800-pound gorilla in the room no one wants to discuss. It used to be a 300-pound gorilla but just as the average American has gotten more obese, so has our old friend the gorilla.

What's your opinion? Does the Prince have a point here about defense spending? Has our country gone too far with the business of policing the world? Is it often just a smoke screen for the oil business and other private interests?

If these suggestions are true, how could those responsible possibly get away with such a thing. Here's how.

Part of the reason why most Americans do not see the correlation between the lack of health care and the huge military defense budgets and all is related expenditures is due to the low ranking of the American press. In the latest Reporters without Borders analysis of press freedoms around the world, America is considered the 41st best in the world for press freedom. Countries like Taiwan, South Africa, and Ghana have better press freedoms and a better variety of news sources than America does.

What do you think about that indictment? Wouldn't the O'Rielly and Beck nonsense which is countered by folks like Keith Olbermann indicate there is great freedom in the American press? Or are they all just examples of a big charade designed to keep people from seeing what's really going on? What's your opinion?

Please leave a comment.