Originally published on November 14, 2009, at http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/afghanistan-war

While Republican Bush II once famously claimed he was “the decider,” the ‘Change We Can Believe In’ promised by his replacement, the Democrat Obama, is hardly any different in regards to the Afghanistan and Pakistan wars.  The media and American people breathlessly await the President’s decision on how many troops to send into the war zone.  With spines made of jelly, Congress is as toothless as a bunch of newborns as they delegate their responsibilities to represent the American people to a single man.  What could they ‘Change’ instead?

Congress could refuse to approve spending to extend this unconstitutional war of aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Congress should instead pass a resolution for a rapid, immediate, and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan and redeployment to protect America’s sieve-like borders.  Congress could increase the reward for the capture of Osama Bin Laden forty times from $27 million to over $1 billion.  Congress should also issue constitutional letters of marque to bring indicted terrorists to justice in a court of law.

To support this stance, I offer the following four key points: First, elected officials must begin behaving like the United States is a nation of laws, not a collection of rogues who delegate their gravest responsibility and immaturely fail to follow the supreme law of the land and declare war. Second, America’s historical foreign policy actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan must be understood, which contain the true reasons why terrorists attacked the United States in 2001. Third, a sober look at the eco-politics of the area, such as opiates and oil pipelines, must be taken. Lastly, we should contain the problem by securing our borders, and with all of the economic unrest, now is no time to be nation-building and quartering troops in foreign lands.   

The Problem of Osama Bin Laden

“The Congress shall have Power… to declare War [and] grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” – The Constitution of the United States, 1787-present. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

When America began bombing Afghanistan in November 2001 and expanded the “War of Terror” by commencing daily bombing of Pakistani villages in September 2008, both assaults were committed against sovereign states without a declaration of war, which is a constitutional requirement. The key justification related to the public for both wars was the tragic 9/11 attacks. The key goal related to the public for both wars was simply to capture Osama Bin Laden.

After having read the July 2004 9/11 Commission Report, there should be enough evidence to bring Bin Laden to trial for the 9/11 attacks.  (1) Even though I believe Bin Laden was behind the attacks, a dispassionate observer would question why the following facts are not generally known by the American public:

1. Per the CIA’s FBIS, Bin Laden said in a public interview on September 18, 2001 that “I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States… Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks…” While he could certainly be lying, why would he deny responsibility? The entire point of terrorism is to advance a cause through violence and fear.  (2)

2. On their “Most Wanted” poster, the FBI does not specify that Bin Laden is wanted for trial in connection to the 9/11 attack which may mean that there is not enough hard or admissible evidence to try him in a court of law. (3)

However, the question of 9/11 responsibility is somewhat moot in the case of Bin Laden. Although he was a CIA “asset” in the proxy war fought against the Soviets in the 1980s, Bin Laden has been America’s enemy since 1998 when, on the anniversary of American troops to Bin Laden’s native Saudi Arabia, simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 12 American citizens. (4A) (4B) The USS Cole suicide bombing which killed 17 American sailors while harbored in Yemen, and the 1993 World Trade Center garage explosion which killed 6 civilians are also tied to Bin Laden. (4A) (5) (6)

However, hurling armies of tens of thousands after Bin Laden is not cost effective, nor is it constitutional – nor has it succeeded after the past 8 years. Therefore I would support the raising the reward for the capture of Bin Laden from $27 million to over $1 billion, and the issuing of a constitutional letter of marque to bring him – and other responsible Al-Qaeda – to justice. Letters of marque and reprisal are warrants issued by Congress to specified parties giving them permission to commit what would otherwise be illegal acts as they capture “marked” enemies or seek retribution, as was done against the Barbary pirates in 1812. (7) The higher reward would incentivize groups to pursue Bin Laden, and could conceivably include US special forces.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are Unjust Wars

“Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” – former President and Supreme Allied Commander in WWII Dwight D. Eisenhower

Besides a formal declaration of war, the “just war” doctrine specifies that wars cannot be preemptive; that there must be a just cause and innocent life must be in immediate jeopardy; that war must be a last resort after all diplomatic initiatives have failed; and it must be proportional in regards to the damage caused by the aggressor. (8)

Neither the Taliban nor Pakistan attacked the United States, and America was not in dire danger of an attack from either the Taliban or Pakistani military.

While the Taliban did shelter Bin Laden, the American government did not exhaust diplomacy – as a matter of fact, the government blindly ignored any efforts by the Taliban. On October 4, 2001, a Taliban plan to extradite Bin Laden to Pakistan for trial failed. (9) On October 7, as the bombing began, the Taliban stated they would place Bin Laden on trial in Afghanistan. (10) On October 14, the Taliban stated they would extradite Bin Laden to a third country for trial if America presented evidence of his involvement. (11)

Proportional? In 2001, 2,976 died during the 9/11 tragedy with 4 planes destroyed, 3 collapsed buildings in New York City, and a damaged Pentagon. In return, we have annihilated many tens of thousands of innocent civilians, many insurgents, and laid waste to countless cities and villages in a country that had no air force. If one includes the 19-year long Iraq War, several million civilian dead is a reasonable total. If this were somehow not enough, 5,278 American soldiers have died abroad. (12)

Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires: History on Brutal Rerun

“Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are.” – George Santayana

The Russians, British, even Alexander the Great have all met with defeat in Afghanistan, where the allegiances of a motley collection of tribes and clans still shift like the wind. America’s present-day involvement did not start in 2001, but instead began in 1979. The Muslim rebels, including Bin Laden, were funded via a proxy war to bled the Soviet Empire dry a few years before its’ failed central economic planning would have accomplished the same feat. President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski – who later was an advisor for President Obama – related in a 1998 interview that America fomented unrest in Afghanistan by secretly funding the Mujahadeen well before the Soviets invaded. When Brzezinski was asked if he regretted funding Islamic fundamentalists and future terrorists, he replied, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”  (13)

Brzezinski’s attitude was typical as America wiped its hands clean and left Afghanistan to tribal warfare which resulted in the Taliban consolidating power in the late 1990s. After fleeing Sudan, Osama Bin Laden found shelter with old contacts in the Northern Alliance and also the Taliban. As is related in the 9/11 Commission Report in chapters titled “The Attack Looms” and “The System Was Blinking Red,” America took very few actions to capture or kill Bin Laden until after 9/11 occurred. (14) However, even after 9/11 America was very hesitant to spend our soldiers’ lives. Consider:

On October 7, 2001 American and British air forces began the bombardment of Afghanistan, which had no air force. Air strikes directed by small British and American special forces units working alongside the Northern Alliance were the key reason the Taliban was defeated very quickly.

On November 13, Kabul was captured by Northern Alliance ground forces.

On November 26, Kunduz was captured by Northern Alliance ground forces.

In December the last major city of Kandahar was captured, also by Northern Alliance ground forces. (15)

During December 12-17 the infamous Battle of Tora Bora was fought in the mountains on the Afghanistan border. It is widely believed that this is when Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan. (16) (Photo)

So President Bush, despite any rhetoric to the contrary, did NOT allow American land forces to pursue him on land. In other words, we launched 150,000 troops over the Iraqi border in 2003 to capture Saddam Hussein, who was completely uninvolved with 9/11, but had only aerial bombardment and a few scant special op/CIA forces in Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden. Bush was content to let the Northern Alliance, a group of tribal warlords, fight a proxy war on our behalf.  (17)

It wasn’t until March 2002 that a major ground campaign was launched by the US to attack Al-Qaeda, and this can be seen by just looking at the casualty list’s details – most of those who died up to March were non-hostile airplane crashes or special ops related deaths. The first US combat death was a CIA operative on November 25. (18)

Will America join the dead phalanxes of Alexander and the rusted tanks of the Soviets in the graveyard of empires? I do not think we should stay long enough to find out. We are spending $400 to deliver each gallon of gasoline to patrol foreign borders, and currently maintaining an expensive army of 68,000 troops in the field. (19) The current National Security Advisor James Jones claimed in October 2009 that there are “less than 100 [al Qaeda] operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.“ (20)

A Tale of Opiates and Oil

“The first casualty when war comes is the truth.” – Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917

These are two fairly taboo subjects when the Afghanistan War is covered by the mainstream press. How much each factor truly played in foreign policy decision-making is left to the reader to decide.

Per the most recent, highly detailed United Nations report, the opium crop is over twice the pre-invasion levels. In fact, up until the invasion in November 2001, the Taliban’s mission to eradicate the crop was well underway due to their religious beliefs as seen by the dramatic drop in this chart. (21) The claim that the invasion has slowed down the drug trade is false; the war has accomplished the exact opposite.  This is a major cash market, with Afghanistan supplying over 90% of the world’s opiates.

The second topic is the geopolitics of oil.  While Afghanistan itself does not have fossil fuels, the vast and fairly-untapped reservoirs of oil and natural gas lie in the former Soviet satellite nations on the Afghan northern border. The Caspian Sea region is landlocked and there are plans to pipe the resources out via a Turkish or an Afghani-Pakistani pipeline, but political instability makes this difficult. A modern “Great Game” of geopolitical power struggles with the Russian, Chinese, Indian and Iranian governments is well underway. (22)

Border Security and the Economy

For those who do not heed the Constitutional limits on government, the brutal lessons taught by history, the immorality of unjust war, here are another two attempts to reason – border security and the economic turmoil.

As a chemical engineer, in industry when attacking customer problems, the first step is always containment of the problem, followed by root cause analysis, then preventative actions. In the case of 9/11, the Bush II administration made a foolhardy leap directly to preventative action, and has still not contained the threat of terrorism. In fact, even the “root cause analysis” from the 9/11 Commission did not begin until 14 months AFTER 9/11 instead of on 9/12/2001.  (23) Despite all the wasted bureaucracy in creating the monstrous $44-billion-a-year Department of Homeland Security, the American border is still a sieve with more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese as evidenced by rampant illegal immigration. (24) Returning the overseas Defense Department troops back to actually defending our borders with civilian border patrol staffing access points is extremely crucial for two reasons – our border security and our budget.

We must extricate our country from the overseas military empire of well over 700 bases in 150 of the planet’s 194 countries costing well over $1 trillion before it is too late. (25) With unemployment raging at over 20% and the dollar currency in crisis, imperial overstretch will result in the further stripping from the false Keynesian economy of our capital equipment, businesses, and jobs. If we and our children are to have peace in our lifetimes, we must drop the silly notion of America serving as the “world’s policeman” and JUST BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

What kind of “policeman” patrols city streets with tanks, assault rifles, automated Predator drones and calls in aerial bombing and strafing runs to “peacekeep” the neighborhood? Washington DC is full of warmongers, armchair generals and chicken hawks who have no idea what the horrors of war entail. If our country were truly in danger of being invaded, I would be among the first to protect my family and friends. (Photo courtesy Leon Kuhn.  Used with permission.)

The enemies I have chosen to peacefully rise up against instead walk the halls of government.  Errant foreign policies are to blame for 9/11 and any future acts of terrorism on our soil.  In return for military and CIA meddling during the past century, America was hit on 9/11 by “blowback,” a CIA term coined to describe what goes around comes around.  (26) Without our troops stationed on Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari, Kuwaiti, et cetera soil, continuous supply of arms to both Israeli and Arab factions, and continuous bombing of Iraq, and harsh sanctions on Iraq and Iran, we would not have been attacked on 9/11.

We must be far more wary of the reckless spenders who support the Warfare-Welfare state, the FED and corporatist bailouts than of desperate bands starving in caves on the opposite side of the world. The American republic was conceived in liberty and is dead in its grave until We the People decide to fight for our freedoms.  While I draw breath I intend to see that liberty shall not perish under the heavy fist of this unconstitutional and illegal collection of rogues in government.

For freedom, justice, peace and prosperity,

Jake Towne

November 14, 2009

[Note: If you would like to find out what General McChrystal, commander of our forces suggests we do instead, here is his leaked and declassified report. While I had been hoping to find a logical, detailed alternative, unfortunately it reads like a poor high school book report that was turned in 8 years too late. The key takeaway is that “many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating.” (page 5/66)  Also recommended reading is the resignation letter of Iraq War veteran Matthew Hoh, who resigned rather then continue serving in Afghanistan, and Imperial Hubris, a book written by the CIA's Bin Laden unit's former head, Michael Scheuer.]

Source List

(1)  The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004.  http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

(2) FBIS Report. 2004.  “Compilation of Usama Bin Laden Statements 1994 – January 2004.” http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf

(3) FBI’s Most Wanted Fugitive: Usama Bin Laden.  http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

(4A)  The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004. Embassy attacks p. 132-8/585.  USS Cole p. 207-14/585. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(4B) “1998 United States Embassy Bombings.“  Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings

(5) “USS Cole Bombing.”  Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

(6) “1993 World Trade Center Bombing.”  Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

(7) Liberty Bell Center of Constitutional Studies. “What Are Letters of Marque and Reprisal?” http://www.lbccs.org/2009/11/what-are-letters-of-marque-and-reprisal.html

(8) “Just War.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

(9) UK Telegraph.  4 October 2001.  “Pakistan Blocks Bin Laden Trial.“  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358464/Pakistan-blocks-bin-Laden-trial.html

(10) CNN. 7 October 2001.  “U.S. Rejects Taliban Offer to Try Bin Laden.“  http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/

(11) UK Guardian. 14 October 2001.  “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand Bin Laden Over.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

(12) Antiwar.com. U.S. Military Casualty Count.  http://antiwar.com/casualties/

(13) Le Nouvel Observateur. 1998.  “Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski.”  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

(14)  The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004. p. 232-94/585.  http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(15) “Operation Enduring Freedom.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom

(16) “Battle of Tora Bora.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

(17) Bugliosi, Vincent. 2008.  “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.”  p. 214-219.

(18) iCasualties.org. “Operation Enduring Freedom Fatalities.”  http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

(19) The Hill. October 2009.  “$400 per Gallon Gas to Drive Debate over Cost of War in Afghanistan.”  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-

(20) Washington Times. October 2009.  “Obama Aide Downplays Extra Troops in Afghanistan.”  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/afghan-attacks-add-to-call-for-more-troops//print/

(21) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2009.  “Afghanistan Opium Survey 2009 – Summary Findings.” p. 26/42. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_opium_survey_2009_summary.pdf

(22) Johnson, Chalmers. 2004.  “The Sorrows of Empire.”

(23) “9/11 Commission.” Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

(24) White House. FY 2009 Budget. p. 83/342. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

(25) Towne, Jake. 2009.  “America’s Military Empire.“  http://towneforcongress.com/economy/americas-military-empire

(26) Johnson, Chalmers. 2001. “Blowback.”

We provide their responses here.

The politicians’ ignorant, arrogant, and contemptuous answers underscore the need for the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA). EPA would force Congress to demonstrate its Constitutional authority for each bill it passes. Over the past four weeks the Enumerated Powers Act has . . .

• Gained two more co-sponsors in House, bringing the total in that chamber to 54. Check here to see if your Rep. is one of them.
• Remained at 22 co-sponsors in the Senate. Check the status of your Senators here.

Let’s increase the number of co-sponsors! Please write a letter demanding that every member of Congress sponsor the Enumerated Powers Act.

This is what I wrote in my letter . . .   

Can Congress justify its actions “chapter and verse” — that is, by naming the authorizing article, section, and clause of the Constitution?

You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Sponsoring the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA) will signify to me that you take this oath seriously.

This is not merely a symbolic matter. I have to pay attention to the laws you guys pass, and comply with them. Therefore, I will take your failure to become an active co-sponsor as an endorsement of lawlessness, because that is the choice before you . . .

Will you endorse the Constitution or lawlessness?

The EPA says Congress must pay attention to the Constitution, that “. . . each Act (must) contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act.”

Several members of Congress have been asked to cite where the Constitution permits them to force Americans to buy health insurance. THUS FAR, ALL SUPPORTERS OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE FAILED THIS ONE QUESTION TEST. Some were even insulted that we would question their power.

In fairness, they were caught off-guard, but now you can give me a researched, thoughtful response. Please tell me, “Where does the Constitution permit you to force Americans to buy health insurance?”

If you can cite specific Constitutional provisions that permit this, I want to hear them, and I insist that they be mentioned in the health care bill.

If you can’t specify any such authority, you are bound by your oath of office to oppose mandatory health insurance.

If you write me saying that you oppose the individual mandate, please know that I’m grateful. But you’re not off the hook, because . . .

You should still co-sponsor the Enumerated Powers Act, and, as a sponsor, work passionately to bring it to a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.

The EPA will actually make your job easier. It will tell you right away if a bill’s provisions are Constitutionally legal.

You expect me to obey the law — to avoid lawlessness. I expect the same from you.

Do not underestimate the importance of this issue. More and more Americans are starting to care about what the Constitution actually says. They understand that Congress’s legitimate powers are limited to those listed in the Constitution, and are further restrained by the Bill of Rights (including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments).

The longer Congress ignores the Constitution, the more we will conclude that the problem isn’t simply that Congress is ignorant of what the Constitution requires, but rather that most members are contemptuous of the Constitution, and are deliberately breaking both the law and their oaths of office.

The longer you refuse to sponsor the Enumerated Powers Act, the more I will assume this about you personally. I will take this into account as I discuss your re-election with other voters.

END LETTER

You can send your letter here.

Please take additional steps to spread the word, recruit more DC Downsizers, and increase the heat on Congress:

• Ask other people to send a letter to Congress — forward them this message (be sure to clip off the Dispatch footer when you do)
• Digg this message on our Blog: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/healthcare-reform-amp-enumerated-powers-will-your-congressional-reps-endorse-the-constitution-or-lawlessness
• Start a monthly pledge so we can reach more people
• Make a one-time donation to further our work

Your support is our progress.

Jim Babka, President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Sources:

Does the Constitution’s Commerce Clause permit the health insurance mandate? DownsizeDC.org has shown that, even with permissive jurisprudence by the Supreme Court, Congress still lacks the authority to impose the health insurance mandate on Commerce Clause grounds.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Ron Paul’s efforts at having HR.1207 voted on as a standalone bill never really had a chance. Instead, it will arrive to the House floor attached to Barney Frank’s little boy, his comprehensive financial regulatory reform bill. The draft legislation grants new powers to the Federal Reserve and creates more regulatory controls over the market. If the free market is god, this bill is the devil. However, the bill will now have something good attached to it now that HR.1207 was added to it as an amendment.

Ron Paul makes a name for himself by always considering the Constitution while weighing his votes. Should Paul supporters expect him to don his Dr. No mask when his 30+ year fight against the central bank finally comes to a vote on the House floor? Will Paul vote against auditing the Fed because it is attached to an obviously unconstitutional bill? The libertarian purists among us may expect him to do so, but I expect him to vote for the evil to get the good. In fact, I would expect most if not all Paul supporters will give him a pass on this one. Tell us what you think in the comments section to this article.

He has already indicated what he will do in his press release covering yesterday’s committee vote:

“While HR 3996, if passed, will grant sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve, at least with this amendment attached, it won’t be acting in secret anymore. This is a major victory for Federal Reserve transparency and government accountability. I am very grateful to Congressman Bachus and all the other Members who were so supportive and helpful in this effort,” stated Congressman Paul.

An argument could be made (and Paul seems to be implying it by his quote) that the financial regulatory reform bill is going to pass anyway and with Paul’s audit included in it, the bill’s attack on the free market will be softened. If they gut Paul’s amendment (like Mel Watt and Barney Frank tried to do in committee) as it moves closer to a floor vote it wouldn’t be shocking to see Dr. Paul morph into Dr. No once again.

So it is certainly bittersweet, but at least it’s not all bitter and no sweet.

——————————————-

UPDATE: It looks like Paul will still push for a separate vote on HR.1207 as a standalone bill. I don’t think those in power will let it happen, but I never thought his bill would get as far as it has already, so we’ll see.

I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Similarly, each new Senator must submit the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Despite this, almost none of the 535 members of Congress take this oath seriously.  Either they are atheists who do not care about the religious and humanistic consequences of violating these oaths, or they have subscribed to the faulty notion that the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Constitution somehow trumps the words of the Constitution itself — which of course is impossible because it’s the Constitution that gives the various parts of government, including the Supreme Court, its powers, not to mention the fact that this governing document declares itself the Supreme Law of the Land.  Indeed, Article VI of the Constitution explicitly states:

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 the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

So given the clear fact that the Constitution, as written, is the ultimate rulebook, and members of Congress swear to “support and defend” the Constitution, it certainly gives a rational person pause when the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives not only pushes a blatantly unconstitutional bill (in the form of health care “reform”) but virtually laughs in the face of a reporter who asks “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Without blinking, Pelosi’s immediate reply was an incredulous, “Are you serious?”

Walter E. Williams explores this exchange in his latest commentary entitled, “A Minority View: Constitutional Contempt”:

…Later on, Pelosi’s press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Suppose Congress was debating a mandate outlawing tea-party-type protests and other large gatherings criticizing Congress. A news reporter asks Nancy Pelosi where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to outlaw peaceable assembly. How would you feel if she answered, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” and ignored the question. And what if, later on, someone from her office sent you a press release, as was sent to CNS News, saying that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce,” pointing out that demonstrations cause traffic jams and therefore interferes with interstate commerce?

Continue reading Walter E. Williams’ article here.

November 11, 2009 11:11 AM

Today, many Americans take a moment to remember the veterans that have fulfilled their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  All too many have paid the ultimate price, many defending their fellow soldiers, and many believing they were defending their countrymen.  I am sure that this year the all-too-fresh Fort Hood tragedy will be on the minds of all veterans.  As I stated in the campaign’s veterans plank:

“Service members shoulder a heavy burden when they volunteer to risk their lives in defense of our country. They perform a necessary function in our society and for their service veterans receive deserved benefits and gratitude. However, the greatest way to honor them is to keep them out of unnecessary conflict. The only just war is one carried out in self-defense, as a non-aggressor, and as a last resort.

“It’s important that we have a strong military to deter attacks against the our country and protect it when attacked. However, asking our young men and women to participate in unjust war is a moral abyss that we as a country should never leap into. If we aspire to be a just nation ruled by laws we must resolve to never ask our military men and women to engage in unconstitutional warfare and nation-building missions.”

Honor our soldiers abroad by bringing them home to protect our borders.  Never EVER accept the shipping their bodies and brains to a war zone without a constitutional declaration of war. 

One of the disappointments I have had with the antiwar movement, generally speaking, is that somehow they believe they have elected a “peace candidate” in Barack Obama.  As a result, they have been largely silent for 10 months while the troop escalation to 68,000 and record American combat deaths continued in Afghanistan, and troop levels remain steady on the Iraq War front.  One shocking interview is Antiwar Radio’s Scott Horton debating with a co-founder of CodePink (the group had formally been for immediate withdrawal under Bush II) why American troops should remain in Afghanistan. Even if your thoughts on foreign policy differ from mine, the reversal of principles without reason is disturbing.

Here is my message – only when the members of the antiwar movement unite with the constitutionalists will our wars abroad cease.  Those outraged at the violations of the rule of law,  the violations of the criteria for “just war,” (video below) and the immorality of the slaughter of innocent “collateral damage” must join forces or be cut to pieces as seen in the 1734 Ben Franklin cartoon.  Read the campaign’s Iraq War plank here, and the Afghanistan War plank will be posted shortly.

This campaign was selected to appear on the subscription magazine cover of The New American with constitutional candidates Peter Schiff, Adam Kokesh, RJ Harris, Marvin “Chick” Heileson and Rand Paul.  Notably, both RJ Harris and Adam Kokesh are veterans who have served in the Middle East and oppose the wars.  The magazine PDF can be downloaded from The New American here or below.

That Freedom Shall Not Perish,

Jake Towne

The New American #2524 – Constitutional Candidates issue with Jake Towne

Directly following his monologue he talks with authors, Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman regarding the Constitution, enumerated powers, and nullification. This show is a must-see for all of us.

Watch the entire show below, but if you don’t have time then take 10 and watch the first segment. It makes me happy that Beck has obviously given the Judge near free reign about what guests appear on the show and the topics that are discussed.

When the Judge is host of the Glenn Beck show, the show is no longer the Glenn Beck show. It becomes Freedom Watch, the Judge’s current online only show.

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

There is also a lot more to learn about, like the suppression of the gold price.

Hope to see many attend the Constitution rEVOLution Tea Party on November 22nd at Philadelphia’s City Hall and at the FED.  I will be giving a campaign speech at the gates of the FED this time around, and you won’t want to miss it!!

For the Republic!!

Jake Towne

November 8, 2009

Originally published October 31, 2009 at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/jake-towne-on-foxs-freedom-watch-with-judge-napolitano-1

On Wednesday, October 28th, I traveled down to the Drexel University campus to appear on FOX New’s Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano, Drexel’s Student Liberty Front, Pennsylvania State Representative Sam Rohrer, and Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation.  I was a panel member for the first two sessions covering the concept of “just war” and also the current “financial fiasco” which can be seen below, or watched on this playlist link.

On the first session, my plank on the Iraq War can be read here, and the “War is a Racket” essay by USMC General Smedley Butler can be read here.  In the second session, my plank on the Federal Reserve is here, and I highly recommend “Fractional Reserve Banking in Pictures” to understand the current fraudulent monetary system.

I will discuss the Federal Reserve in more detail as a keynote speaker this November 22nd at the Constitution rEVOLution Tea Party in Philadelphia.  Locally, I will be given a few minutes to talk about constitutional money on Friday, November 6th at 7 PM in Palmer Township.  Details on both of these upcoming events are here.

This was my first time on a major news network and I must say that I was quite impressed with Judge Napolitano – he is quite the media professional.  As a professional chemical engineer, not a career politician, it is quite a bit different to have to immediately answer fastball questions than in person or even phone interviews.  However, practice makes perfect, and trial by fire is the best way to learn quickly.

Judge for yourself how I did, and please leave any comments or suggestions to improve below!  I was not part of the panel for the last two parts but the remainder of the show can be watched here.

If you don’t know what Freedom Watch is then please check out http://freedomwatchonfox.com/. It’s an online only show hosted by the Judge catering to freedom-loving people everywhere.

Check out the excellent discussions from the show today below.

The bill is an unprecedented attack on personal liberty.

Please send a letter to Congress demanding they oppose Pelosi’s bill.

Here’s what I wrote:

HR 3962 will hamstring our finances. But it’s also full of blatant attacks on individual liberty.

For instance, chain restaurants and vending machine owners will be forced to publish calorie information on their menus. That’s not interstate commerce… unless the state line cuts through a McDonald’s counter. Congress can’t order private property owners around this way, and the Free Press clause of the First Amendment also clearly forbids this mandate. Calorie reports may be nice, but that’s outside of the government’s lawful scope.

HR 3962 also violates the broad 9th Amendment protection of individual liberty, and the 10th Amendment’s requirement that federal power be limited to only those functions listed in the Constitution.

Even though the Supreme Court has blown a gaping hole through many Constitutional protections of economic freedom — and blamed their lawlessness on the Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce — it’s apparent that even this wide hole is too small for Congressional ambitions. Does anyone on Capitol Hill even know what interstate commerce is?

An example of this is the unprecedented, totalitarian attempt to force people to acquire government-approved insurance or face tax penalties. If Congress can force us to buy a particular grade of insurance, can it also force us to subscribe to “approved” newspapers?

The Supreme Court has ruled in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922) that Congress can’t use the tax code to regulate behavior it doesn’t otherwise have power to regulate.

In United States v. Lopez (1995), United States v. Morrison (2000) and even Gonzales v. Raich (2005) the Court decreed that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to regulate activity that is NOT economic — such as NOT buying, NOT producing, or NOT making something. NOT buying insurance can’t be buying or making something.

That means, if you want to pay for this fancy plan, you’ll have to steal the money the old-fashioned way — a tax increase. You might want to review the matter in this Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html

You swore an oath to obey and protect the Constitution. Please honor that oath. I insist that you stand up on behalf of liberty and oppose this bill.

END LETTER

You can send your message here.

And then share this message with friends:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/pelosi-s-healthcare-bill-an-unprecedented-attack-on-personal-freedom

You can also keep up with DownsizeDC.org on Twitter and Facebook, where we provide links to news and commentary relevant to our campaigns plus additional interesting odds and ends.

You can follow us on Twitter here: http://twitter.com/DDCDispatch

And on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/DownsizeDCorg/92777977517

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

The reason Bob McDonnell beat out Creigh Deeds in Virginia was not because McDonnell represents some new style small government Republican. McDonnell won because Deeds made campaign mistakes. McDonnell made none. Deeds lost the race more than McDonnell won it.

The same is true for the New Jersey race. Corzine, a former chairman at Goldman Sachs, easily became a scapegoat for a failing economy and political corruption. So, he lost.

What Tuesday’s election results really demonstrated was a lack of conviction for either Democrats or Republicans. When the political spectrum shines red, then blue, then red, then blue, over and over again something tangible comes to light:

America is not rooting for either party to win. America is rooting for the underdog.

After 8 years of Clinton, George W. Bush was the underdog. In 2004, Bush was still the underdog largely due to his perceived strength (however false it was) in fighting “those who attacked us on 9/11″. That quickly soured so much that by 2006 the Democratic Party was the underdog so they won control of Congress. If Bush was up for re-election himself in 2006, he’d have lost.

The 2008 election cemented the underdog theory with America getting the chance to elect the first African American President. McCain, largely a Bush twin, had no chance.

Tuesday’s election results demonstrated that the Republicans are now, once again, the underdogs. This bodes well for them in the 2010 election and it could carry over to the 2012 Presidential contest. Of course, that depends on who has the perceived power at that time.

The point of this “underdog theory” is that we are not happy with the blue nor the red team. When the time comes we just want to take away power from whichever team has it.

For liberty champions this eternal game is growing extremely tiresome.

When everyone buys into the two team league yet no one wants either team to finish in first place, isn’t it time to expand the league?

It just so happens that there is a liberty-loving team already in place ready to be added to the league. Here are their names:

• Rand Paul
• David Hedrick
• Adam Kokesh
• Peter Schiff
• Ray McBerry
• Chris Simcox
• Debbie Medina
• Bill Hunt
• RJ Harris
• John Dennis
• David Ratowitz
• Jake Towne
• Randy Brogdon
• Robert Broadus
• Collins Bailey
• Jaynee Germond
• Bob Parker
• Bill Connor
• Peg Luksik

These are the candidates being celebrated today on the anniversary of Ron Paul’s 5th of November money bomb. To learn more about these candidates please check out ThisNovember5th.com. If you find a candidate you like, then please don’t hesitate to support that candidate with a generous donation.

These are the real underdogs and outcasts. Let’s help make them winners and keep them winning.