General James N. Mattis, known to his troops as “Mad Dog Mattis,” has retired after 41 years of military service on May 22, 2013.
Gen. James N. Mattis has been commander of the United States Central Command since 2010 and led the 1st Marine Division into Iraq in 2003.
The Marine Corps Times called Gen. James N. Mattis the “most revered Marine in a generation. However according to reports, President Barack Obama decided to force the Marine Corps legend out early because he rubbed Obama and his administration the wrong way, and forced them to answer tough questions regarding Iran.
General James Mattis was an inspirational leader and a legendary wordsmith:
1. “I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”
2. “The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.”
3. “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
4. “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”
5. “Marines don’t know how to spell the word defeat.”
6. “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
7. “The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.”
8. “You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”
9. “There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.”
10. “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”
11. “There is nothing better than getting shot at and missed. It’s really great.”
12. “You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”
13. “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”
14. “I’m going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years.”
15. “Demonstrate to the world there is ‘No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy’ than a U.S. Marine.”
16. “Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.”
Gen. James N. Mattis will be remembered as a brilliant commander who insisted on speaking honestly.
Only a few like Gen. James N. Mattis come along per generation. They are brilliant, dedicated, and they are selflessly devoted to their duties. . . They give their unvarnished opinions and recommendations when asked by their political masters or the Congress, then salute and, to their deaths, will carry out the orders they are given. We are less as a Nation when men like Gen. James N. Mattis go over the side, as the Marines say, for the last time.”
The NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is an American hero. Every American should wish we had many more people like him (including Bradley Manning and Julian Assange), not fewer. He is a genuine patriot. He has done far more to bring accountability to government than ANY current Republican Congressman or Senator who sticks his chest out and says he believes in “limited government” and “the Constitution.”
Of course, there are many who hold the exact opposite view, that he is a traitor and not a hero. Such people include conservative commentators, retired military officials, and a number of Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
Trying to understand their objections to the invaluable service Mr. Snowden provided our country, they just don’t make any sense.
Here, in no particular order, are the most pointed arguments his critics have leveled at him:
1. “He’s a high school dropout.” This is just ridiculous, and a blatant personal attack. And this is only said to distract the listener or reader from learning about what it is Snowden really did. If it is wrong to drop out of high school, why didn’t these guys criticize Princess Diana? What about Thomas Edison? Benjamin Franklin? Albert Einstein? All these people dropped out of high school too, and that had no long-term effect on their character now, did it?
2. “He has endangered national security.”
Keep in mind that “national security” is an ambiguous phrase that is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence or our Constitution. It pretty much means whatever a fearmongering, warmongering politician (like Lindsey Graham or John McCain) wants it to mean. In other words, it is a term that can easily be used to manipulate people into giving up their freedom. For over a decade, the American people (probably one of the most gullible in the world) have happily traded their liberty for security. And to quote Benjamin Franklin (one of my favorite Founding Fathers): “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Personally, I would much rather die a free person from terrorists than live under a tyrannical, fascist government that knows my every move.
3. “He has broken the law. He violated his agreement/oath to keep this information secret.”
One must ask a question for the people who make this claim: What if a law is unjust? Were abolitionists wrong to hide slaves just because slavery was the law of the land in America in the 1800s? Was Oskar Schindler wrong to hide Jews just because Adolf Hitler said that to do so was wrong? Was Sophie Scholl wrong in exposing the horrors of the Nazi government with her fellow patriots in the White Rose non-violent resistance group? I do fear that many of the authoritarians calling for Snowden’s head (who essentially believe anything the government says no matter what it does) would support the Nazis and the pro-slavery politicians if they lived in a different time. Obey the powers that be, right guys?
Another question: What about Mr. Snowden’s oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (specifically the Fourth Amendment, which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”)? Turns out Edward was just following this oath and did not forget it, unlike 99.99 % of the other people (it seems) who “take” the oath.
Oh, and the government violated ITS agreement (the Constitution) with the American people first! Why don’t Snowden’s critics stand up for the rule of law? Why is it his defenders who are doing so instead?
UPDATE: June 23, 2013
ACLU to Obama: “We are tired of living in a nation governed by fear”.
Under President Obama, the United States is “a nation governed by fear,” the American Civil Liberties Union says in an open letter that echoes the criticisms Obama has made of George W. Bush’s national security policies.
“We say as Americans that we are tired of seeing liberty sacrificed on the altar of security and having a handful of lawmakers decide what we should and should not know,” the ACLU writes in a statement circulated to grassroots supporters and addressed to Obama. “We are tired of living in a nation governed by fear instead of the principles of freedom and liberty that made this nation great.”
It’s strange to read in light of Obama’s disavowal of Bush. “Too often — our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions,” Obama said in 2009. “Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us — Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens — fell silent.”
The ACLU is circulating that statement in response to the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute Edward Snowden, who leaked information about the National Security Agency’s data collection programs before fleeing to Hong Kong (and now, Russia).
“We stand opposed to any attempt to treat Edward Snowden as a traitor,” the ACLU writes. “Snowden is innocent until proven guilty before a court of law and he must be afforded all of his rights as an American citizen. If he is brought to an American court, he must be afforded every opportunity to defend himself and convince a judge that what he did was justifiable and patriotic, even if he is charged with violating laws that themselves pose a threat to our democracy.”
UPDATE: August 3, 2013
NSA leaker Edward Snowden has been granted one year asylum in Russia.
Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said we “should be grateful” to Snowden for exposing the government’s “massive violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
Napolitano went on to say that “Snowden’s behavior is not always easy to defend,” and added that should the NSA leaker ever return to the U.S., his case would “absolutely” end up in the Supreme Court.
UPDATE: January 2, 2014
Edward Snowden Clemency: The New York Times, The Guardian Urge Obama To Help NSA Whistleblower. . .
The editorial boards of The New York Times and The Guardian published editorials on Wednesday (January 1, 2014), urging the Obama administration to treat Edward Snowden as a whistleblower and offer him some form of clemency.
Seven months ago, the former National Security Administration contractor stole as many as 1.7 million highly classified documents about the U.S. government’s surveillance program and released the information to the press. The files revealed how the NSA forced American technology companies to reveal customer information, often without individual warrants, and how data from global phone and Internet networks was secretly intercepted.
While the release of these documents forced Snowden to flee the U.S. and move to Russia, it also alerted the American public — and many U.S. allies — of the government’s intrusive, unethical and possibly unlawful spying efforts.
Beyond sparking public debate, Snowden’s actions have prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to sue the NSA. The suit aims to force the U.S. government to disclose details of its electronic surveillance program and describe what protections it provides to Americans whose communications are swept up during the search for terrorist suspects, Reuters reported.
Eight major technology companies — including Google, Facebook and Twitter — have also joined forces to call for tighter controls on government surveillance.
In November, the White House rejected a clemency plea from Snowden, and told him to return to the U.S. to face trial.
UPDATE: March 2, 2015
DoD Releases “Evidence” of Snowden’s Damages to National Security… and It’s COMPLETELY Redacted.
Per a Freedom of Information Act Request lawsuit filed by Vice News, the Department of Defense has released a report on the damaging effects of Edward Snowden’s 2013 NSA leaks. The only problem? It’s redacted. Entirely. Not a crumb of evidence was present in the “evidence” the government released.
The “assessment” is made up of multiple reports collectively over 100 pages long and was released by the Defense Intelligence Agency, a wing of the Department of Defense. It was made by two dozen DIA analysts and is fully blocked out, save for several headings. For example:
“Assessment”
“Talking Points”
“Compromised Information”
“Background”
“Recommendations”
The redacted reports were constructed from September 2013 to April 2014. According to a declaration signed by the DIA’s FOIA office chair, Aleysia Williams, it was used by DOD “leadership” to “mitigate the harm caused to national security” by Snowden.
David Leatherwood, the DIA’s director of operations, said that to do this, secrecy must be employed (as usual). He alleged:
“To accomplish this goal, the reporting of the task force focuses entirely on identifying the magnitude of the harm. Much of that reporting, for very legitimate reasons, remains classified.”
Further, at a conference on Monday (February 23, 2015), NSA chief Mike Rogers claimed of the Snowden leaks:
“Anyone who thinks this has not had an impact… doesn’t know what they are talking about.”
Since Edward Snowden exposed the expansive spying practices of the federal government, authorities like Rogers have claimed that the former CIA and NSA analyst compromised national security. However, they are yet to provide a single instance of their claims. They have not even been able to prove that the NSA’s bulk data collection has an effect on terrorism whatsoever.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (of the same name as the NSA chair), who had the privilege of reading a different-and apparently less redacted-report last year, insisted,
“[That] report confirms my greatest fears — Snowden’s real acts of betrayal place America’s military men and women at greater risk… Snowden’s actions are likely to have lethal consequences for our troops in the field.”
Rather than focusing on what Snowden’s actions have allegedly done to “troops in the field,” it would be more productive to acknowledge other revelations: America is spying on world leaders, its military has murdered journalists and raped boys in front of their mothers, the CIA botched an attempt to give fake nuclear plans to Iran and later launched a cyber attack while the NSA hacked North Korea long before the Sony scandal. This is but a handful of the egregious crimes committed by the federal government. They have compromised national security and the safety of American troops exponentially more than Snowden’s revelations ever could. They create ill-will and terrorists through corrupt meddling and violence.
The government’s attempts to deflect the realities of its illegal spying are growing increasingly desperate and pathetic. Those at the DIA and DOD have no evidence to offer of their claims but stacks of blacked out pages and the tired talking point that they are “here to help.”
UPDATE: March 4, 2015
Snowden indicates he wants to come home.
NSA whisteblower Edward Snowden’s lawyer says that his client wants to come back to the United States as long as he can receive a fair trial.
Snowden has been in Russia since 2013, living under a three year residency permit after having been granted asylum.
It’s not clear what charges Snowden would face. He apparently won’t come back if he faces espionage charges.
CNN:
“We’re certainly happy for him to return to the United States to face a court in the very serious charges” he faces, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Tuesday, March 3, 2015.
“So he absolutely can and should return to the United States to face the justice system that will be fair in its judgment of him,” she said. “But he is accused of very serious crimes and should return home to face them.”
Kucherena said Snowden has so far received a guarantee from Attorney General Eric Holder that he will not face the death penalty — but that Snowden also wants a guarantee of a “legal and impartial trial.”
Such a trial, Snowden’s legal advisers have said, would mean he wouldn’t face charges under the Espionage Act, a World War I-era law that was used to charge Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.
Snowden’s lawyer said he’s allowed to travel outside Russia now under a three-year Russian residency permit, but that he believes Snowden would be taken immediately to a U.S. embassy as soon as he leaves the country.
“With a group of lawyers from other countries, we are working on the question of his return to America,” Kucherena said.
The government just slapped former General David Petraeus on the wrist for leaking a couple of sensitive documents to his mistress. Does Snowden hope he will get similar treatment?
It’s hard to see how leaking thousands of NSA documents could be considered anything but espionage. Whether that was his intent or not, Snowden’s actions revealed secrets that the enemy could use to avoid detection. Even many Snowden defenders acknowledge this, but believe he should receive whistleblower protection because ot the importance of the programs he exposed.
The political climate has changed since 2013, with people being less upset about Snowden and angrier at the government for theiir illegal snooping. That may play into some kind of plea deal where Snowden would plead guilty to a lesser charge and perhaps avoid jail time altogether, or receive a minimum sentence.
Would he accept any jail time at all? Or would he take his chances in court? The best guess is that he won’t want to risk a long prison term and will accept a deal only if he can serve his time at a minimum security facility. Otherwise, he’ll stay put, hoping the political winds continue to blow in his favor.
UPDATE: June 2, 2015
Snowden awarded freedom of expression prize in Norway.
Oslo (AFP) – Former security contractor Edward Snowden won a Norwegian prize for freedom of expression Tuesday and received yet another invitation to leave his exile and receive the award in person.
The Norwegian Academy of Literature and Freedom of Expression said the 31-year old fugitive had won the Bjornson Prize — named after a Norwegian Nobel literature laureate — “for his work protecting privacy and for shining a critical light on US surveillance of its citizens and others.”
Snowden, a former analyst at the US National Security Agency, has lived in exile in Russia since 2013 after revealing mass spying programmes by the United States and its allies.
The US administration has branded him a hacker and a traitor who endangered lives by revealing the extent of the NSA spying program.
The academy requested assurances from the Norwegian government that Snowden would not be extradited to the US if he travelled to Norway to receive the 100,000 kroner ($12,700, 11,500 euros) prize money in person on September 5, 2015.
Norway’s justice ministry said it was up to immigration authorities, who indicated they would consider any entry request when and if they received one.
Snowden was awarded Sweden’s Right Livelihood Award in 2014 but chose to accept it by video link rather than leaving his exile in Russia.
He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for the second year in a row. The Nobel will be awarded in Oslo on October 9, 2015.
UPDATE: June 23, 2015
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has adopted a resolution calling on member and observer states to improve the protection of whistleblowers. It also urged the US to let Edward Snowden return without fear of criminal prosecution.
The resolution adopted at the council’s meeting on Tuesday called for its member states and observer states to “create an appropriate normative, judicial and institutional framework for the protection of whistleblowers.”
It urged the states’ governments to “enact whistleblower protection laws also covering employees of national security or intelligence services and of private firms working in this field.”
PACE said that the states must also grant asylum to whistleblowers threatened by retaliation in their home countries “as far as possible under national law” if their “disclosures qualify for protection under the principles advocated by the Assembly.”
The 47-nation body upholding human rights and democracy also set up special “guidelines” for staff members on “reporting wrongdoing.”
“The Assembly stresses the importance of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, upholding the right to privacy, freedom of speech and the protection of whistle-blowers, including in the fields of national security and intelligence.”
In a separate paragraph, the resolution called on the US, a PACE observer state, to allow the the US National Security Agency’s (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden to “return without fear of criminal prosecution under conditions that would not allow him to raise the public interest defense.” Snowden faces up to 30 years in prison in the US on charges of espionage and theft of government property.
PACE stated that the US 1917 Espionage Act under which he has been charged, does not allow for any form of public interest defense.
Snowden spoke to council members on Tuesday via video-link from asylum in Moscow shortly after the resolution was voted on.
“We need to set an international standard of protection from retaliation which can be made greater by national governments, by institutions, by organizations,” he said.
He noted that the resolution would help whistleblowers around the world. “If you can’t mount a full and effective defense – make the case that you are revealing information in the public interest – you can’t have a fair trial,” he said.
The resolution backed up the May report made by PACE’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights’ rapporteur Pieter Omtzigt.
The issue of whistleblowers’ safety was raised following the disclosures made by Snowden in 2013 concerning mass surveillance and intrusions of privacy carried out by the NSA and other intelligence agencies. Public concern was also raised following charges brought against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who found asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK. He has been residing there for three years, fearing extradition to the United States where he could face espionage charges.
UPDATE: October 5, 2015
Edward Snowden Says He’d Go to Prison to Come Home
Speaking to the BBC, the NSA whistleblower said his lawyers were still awaiting a plea deal from the U.S. government.
Edward Snowden isn’t the spy who came in from the cold, but he might be edging slowly toward the warmth.
In an interview with the BBC, the beloved and reviled whistleblower said he’d presented concessions to the U.S. government in an attempt to return to his home country from Russia. “I’ve volunteered to go to prison with the government many times,” Snowden said, according to The Guardian. (The BBC program is not viewable in the U.S.) What I won’t do is I won’t serve as a deterrent to people trying to do the right thing in difficult situations.”
But his overtures haven’t been met with any concrete plea offers: “We are still waiting for them to call us back.”
Former NSA boss Michael Hayden gave the BBC a typically hardline answer, saying, “If you’re asking me my opinion, he’s going to die in Moscow. He’s not coming home.” But there are signs both sides have softened a bit. Shortly after leaving office, former Attorney General Eric Holder told Michael Isikoff that Snowden had sparked an important discussion about surveillance. Holder seemed to signal the Justice Department might be thinking about some sort of plea deal for Snowden: “I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with. I think the possibility exists.” However, Holder’s successor Loretta Lynch said the U.S. government hadn’t altered its position.
The position Snowden laid out to the BBC would appear to represent a softer view, too. After Holder’s comments in July, Snowden’s lawyer Ben Wizner applauded Holder for his openness, but rejected even his hypothetical ideas. Wizner said Snowden wouldn’t accept any deal that involved a felony plea and prison time. “Our position is he should not be reporting to prison as a felon and losing his civil rights as a result of his act of conscience,” he said.
In March 2015, former General David Petraeus struck a plea deal with prosecutors in a leak case, derided by many observers as evidence of a double-standard for different kinds of leakers. At the time, another of Snowden’s lawyers, Jesselyn Radack, said her client would accept a similar deal.
The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Snowden’s remarks. While it’s hard to parse these lawyerly statements and bluffs, one could easily read the last few months as having brought the two sides closer together on a possible arrangement. But closer and close enough are not the same thing.
UPDATE: October 29, 2015
European Union tells countries to protect Snowden as human rights defender.
The European Parliament on Thursday (October 29. 2015) voted to encourage its member countries not to extradite Edward Snowden to the U.S., in a decision that the government leaker called a “game-changer.”
The nonbinding resolution, narrowly approved in a 285-281 vote, acts as a symbolic blow to the Obama administration’s calls for Snowden to be returned to the U.S. and face criminal charges that could land him in jail for years.
The resolution calls for the European Union’s 28 member states to “drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistle-blower and international human rights defender.”
Snowden has spent the last two years holed up in Russia, on the run from U.S. espionage charges filed against him following his theft of vast amounts of secret government documents.
Though he has repeatedly expressed a desire to come back to the U.S., he has refused to do so unless granted a fair trial. Advocates of Snowden say the charges against him make it likely that he would be prevented from fairly giving his side of the story in court, should he return.
In Washington, State Department spokesman John Kirby said the U.S.’s position “hasn’t changed a bit.”
“He needs to come back to the United States and face the due process and the judicial process here in the United States,” Kirby said. “That’s been our position from the beginning.
“It’s our belief that the man put U.S. national security in great danger and he needs to be held to account for that.”
Earlier Thursday, a federal appeals court refused to immediately shut down a National Security Agency surveillance program revealed by Snowden in 2013, since it is already due to be wound down later this year.
UPDATE: December 22, 2016
Snowden Responds To Declassified House Report Alleging He Has Ties To Russian Intelligence
On Thursday (December 22, 2016), the House Intelligence Committee released a declassified report into former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden that alleges he has maintained ties with Russian intelligence agencies.
The 37-page report —some of which remains classified—includes a detailed report of his career as a government worker, and how he managed to extract millions of documents from the NSA without being detected by exploiting a vulnerability the agency was unaware of. The exploit itself is redacted in the report.
At the heart of the report is the conclusion that Snowden is not a whistleblower and did harm to national security. Several serious charges are made against the former NSA worker, including a claim he “has had, and continues to have, contact with Russian intelligence services” since taking asylum in Russia after fleeing the United States.
The report—which lawmakers noted is a “review” and not a formal investigation—cites classified information to support the claim, making the evidence of it unavailable to the public. The document also contains 20 specific accounts of apparent damage Snowden’s actions have caused, but those too have been redacted.
Snowden, who remains in Moscow, took issue with the report. He refuted its claims on Twitter, arguing the document is rife with “ obvious falsehoods.”
The former NSA contractor dismissed the claim he is working with Russian intelligence by attempting to discredit the source of the information.
The House Intelligence Committee’s document points to an NPR interview with Frants Klintsevich, a senator in Russia and deputy chairman of the country’s defense and security committee, in which he claims Snowden has shared intelligence with Russia.
Snowden pointed out that Klintsevich said in that interview audio he was “only speculating.” He also noted earlier this week Klintsevich claimed NATO was behind the assassination of a Russian ambassador in Turkey despite there being no evidence to support the claim, indicating the Russian senator may be making politically motivated claims in both cases.
Many of the charges made in the report were dismissed out of hand by Snowden, who refuted a claim he went to a hacker convention and met Chinese hackers as “ false and insane ” because he “never went to any hacker con during my time in government.” He also dismisses an argument he should have gone to the NSA’s Inspector General George Ellard by noting Ellard was recently removed from his post for retaliating against whistleblowers.
Snowden called the document “an endless parade of falsity so unbelievable it comes across as parody,” but noted it unintentionally exonerates him by documenting his many attempts to report waste, fraud, and abuse to his superiors.
“Bottom line: this report’s core claims are made without evidence, and are often contrary to both common sense and the public record,” Snowden concluded.
UPDATE: September 17, 2019
“Full Interview: Edward Snowden On Trump, Privacy, And Threats To Democracy | The 11th Hour | MSNBC
On the eve of his memoir ‘Permanent Record’ being published, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden talked at length from Moscow with MSNBC’s Brian Williams in an exclusive interview. This is their discussion in its entirety, edited down slightly for clarity.
Aired on 9/17/2019.
UPDATE: March 12, 2021
The REAL Reason Edward Snowden Hasn’t Been Pardoned
Mark Peter Begich is a United States Senator from Alaska and a member of the Democratic Party is a patriot.
Mark Begich strongly supports the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and protected by the Alaska Constitution.
Mark Begich is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, owns firearms and was one of the first Anchorage citizens to obtain a concealed weapons permit when it was required. Most recently, Mark applauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns.
Mark Begich is a corporate member of the Association of the United States Army, a member of the Air Force Association and a life member of the National Rifle Association.
Mark Begich voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. The amendment ensured that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is done thousands of times a day at airports across the country.
Mark Begich signed H.R.197&S.845, that establishes a national standard for the carrying of concealed firearms (other than a machinegun or destructive device) by non-residents. Authorizes a person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a concealed firearm in another state.
Mark Begich sponsored the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act, allow licensed firearms dealers to sell or deliver any firearm (currently, rifles or shotguns) to any state if the licensee meets with the purchaser and the transaction complies with the laws of the state in which the transfer is conducted and the purchaser’s state of residence; and eliminate the requirement that a licensee must conduct business at a gun show only in the state that is specified on the licensee’s license.
Mark Begich co-sponsored Veterans’ Heritage Firearms Act;
* Provides a 90-day amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record any firearm acquired before October 31, 1968, by a veteran while a member of the Armed Forces stationed outside the continental United States.
* Grants such an individual limited immunity with respect to the acquisition, possession, transportation, or alteration of such firearm before or concurrent with such registration.
* Extends such immunity to a veteran who attempts to register a qualifying firearm outside of the amnesty period if the veteran surrenders the firearm within 30 days after being notified of potential criminal liability for continued possession.
* Transfers each firearm qualifying as a curio or relic which has been forfeited to the United States to the first qualified museum that requests it Publishes information identifying each such firearm which is available to be transferred to a museum.
* Makes a prohibition against transfer or possession of a machine-gun inapplicable to museums.
Mark Begich signed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, it amends the federal criminal code to provide for reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms in different states by persons who are not prohibited by federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and who are carrying a valid state license or permit for carrying a concealed firearm; or otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in their state of residence.
Mark Begich, who faces re-election in 2014, ignored Obama and the outright lies from supporters by voting against universal background checks in gun purchases. Despite leftist blathering to the contrary, the ballyhooed background checks expansion would have created a de facto national gun registry, long the dream of those whose ultimate goal is confiscation.
We should all give thanks Mark Begich stood up for what is right. This was a noble act in defending the U.S. Constitution, for he was one of four democrats with the courage to do so.
UPDATE: June 29, 2013
Mark Begich has since voted in favor of gay marriage, and to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. Although most Americans dislike how he voted on both of these issues, they’re not in direct violation of the United States Constitution. Therefore Mark Begich is still considered a patriot even-though he is now hated by many of his constituents.
UPDATE: November 4, 2014
Mark Peter Begich lost in the Alaska Senate election of November 2014.
Terry Lakin was imprisoned for defending the Constitution.
“Officer’s Oath: Why My Vow to Defend the Constitution Demanded That I Sacrifice My Career” is Lt. Col. Terry Lakin’s moving first-hand account of faith and patriotism that led to court-martial, imprisonment and the stripping of all military rank and privileges, including his Army pension.
Lakin, an Army flight surgeon, was court-martialed because he refused to obey deployment orders, arguing Barack Obama had not documented his eligibility for the presidency under Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution.
“What I do not understand and still don’t,” Lakin writes, “is why Obama did not just come forward with his key documents and be done with it. Instead, he ordered all of his important records to be kept under seal.”
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin’s “Officer’s Oath: Why My Vow to Defend the Constitution Demanded That I Sacrifice My Career” is available now at WND’s Superstore
Addressing both the short-form and the long-form birth certificates released by the White House, Lakin notes they are digital scans of purportedly official documents, neither of which would be acceptable as evidence in a court proceeding.
“So tell me: Who has something to hide?” he asks. “It would seem to be President Obama, and sooner or later the voters of this country are going to make it clear that his stonewalling cannot continue.”
Lakin has explained that he was compelled by his officer’s oath to uphold and defend the Constitution when he was ordered to deploy to Afghanistan. Along with questions about the authenticity of the Obama birth documents, some constitutional scholars argue Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was not an American citizen.
Ironically, Lakin’s deployment orders required him to bring five copies of his birth certificate.
“I had read the orders several times and had glossed over a detail that had previously seemed routine, but this time I felt like Wile E. Coyote getting smacked by an anvil,” he writes. “I needed a birth certificate to deploy, but the president did not need one to order my deployment. This was nuts.”
Lakin’s day of decision was April 12, 2010.
That day he packed his car as though he were going to be on Flight 1123 out of Baltimore/Washington International Airport at 8:20 a.m. He expected to check into Fort Campbell, Ky., no later that 3 p.m. that afternoon.
Instead, he headed to the Pentagon, where he took a photo of himself with his bags to prove he was still willing to deploy if Obama’s eligibility could be validated.
That’s when Lakin’s nightmare began.
When he was court-martialed for refusing to obey orders, he found himself looking at the paintings on the wall behind the jury members.
He writes:
As fate would have it, these were portraits of various Founding Fathers, and I wondered what they would be thinking. I strongly suspected they would be seeking the truth, about Obama’s citizenship status, about his Connecticut Social Security number (there is no reason why Obama would have a Connecticut number), about the multitude of unanswered questions surrounding this man. Here, however, to emphasize the real issues would likely have resulted in a reprimand from the judge and a harsher sentence from the jury. How, I wondered, had our country descended to this level of apathy?
Lakin writes an equally emotional passage about his final moments of freedom with his family.
What does one say to a wife and children before leaving for prison? I tried to instill in my seven-year-old the conviction that he was now the man of the house and needed to take care of the family. I told my eleven-year-old daughter to be the best help to her mom she could be. All the while I was holding back the tears lest I set off my little one and turn this into an emotional free-for-all.
Lakin contends Congress should have demanded Obama show his birth credentials when he declared he was a presidential candidate in Springfield, Ill., on Feb. 10, 2007.
The officer’s downfall was his determination to seek the truth about Obama’s eligibility when the establishment media showed no interest in it.
Supporters say that by prosecuting Lakin, the United States military abandoned the principles articulated by the Nuremburg Trial at the end of World War II asserting the Nazi military and government officials had a responsibility of conscience to adhere to a higher order of morality than simply follow orders.
Lakin proclaimed his loyalty to the higher order of the oath he took as an officer, choosing on moral grounds to disobey the orders he was issued by a commander-in-chief who refused to allow the Hawaii Department of Health to open the vault and show the world Obama’s original 1961 birth records, if any truly exist.
Rand Paul is the junior United States Senator for Kentucky. He is a member of the Republican Party, and the son of former Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian, and in 2008 and 2012 as a Republican. He first received national attention in 2008 when making political speeches on behalf of his father and is the first United States Senator to serve simultaneously with a parent in the United States House of Representatives.
On March 6–7, 2013, Paul engaged in a talking filibuster to block voting on the nomination of John O. Brennan as the Director of the CIA, questioning Barack Obama and his administration’s use of drones, and the stated legal justification for hypothetical lethal use within the United States.
Paul held the floor for 12 hours and 52 minutes, at times ceding to several other Republican senators as well as one Democratic senator, Ron Wyden, who joined in questioning the use of drones and related topics. He noted the purpose of the filibuster was mostly regarding drone policy, particularly usage on noncombatants on U.S. soil. He argued that the language administration officials had used when questioned over that potential usage of drones was unclear, and could potentially lead to a slippery slope where citizens could be targeted merely for expressing views different than those of the president. He asked for the administration to say they will not target noncombatants on U.S. soil. Attorney General Eric Holder replied later on March 7, stating that the president does not have the authority to use weaponized drones within the U.S. to kill, without due process, Americans not engaged in combat; he stated that he was “quite happy” with the response. During the filibuster, Paul was able to appeal to many other voters, including some who had not previously supported him or his father, Ron Paul. He was also able to appeal to voters who had supported his father, but were skeptical towards him. Paul said he was amazed by the support he got from Americans and from fellow senators and even congressman who entered the senate chamber against custom, in order to show their support. Even Nevada Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and satirical talk show host Jon Stewart expressed some praise for Paul.
On March 25, 2013, an announcement was made by senators Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, threatening that they would hold more filibusters over any pieces of legislation that enforce gun control on the house floor, in the Senate. The White House prompted a warning letter, in response. These senators attempted to implement this filibuster on April 11, 2013, but was dismissed by a vote of cloture, 68-31.
On April 23, 2013, Paul said he supported the use of domestic drones in cases of imminent public danger or a violent crime in progress, such as the Boston Marathon bombings or an armed robbery.
Paul stressed that using drone technology against wanted criminals and suspected terrorists is different than arbitrarily using it against average American citizens.
Watch for yourself below, and post a comment letting us know what you think. Did Rand Paul just pull a reversal on his perspective regarding the use of drone technology, including the use of deadly force without due process?
UPDATE: April 6. 2015
US Senator Rand Paul is set to announce on Tuesday the official beginning of his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Though he has a record of thwarting his party’s establishment, a Rand Paul candidacy will likely not be as bold.
Paul has indicated of late that he will work to court more conventionally-conservative voters — and big money donors — while attempting to maintain his perceived outsider, libertarian credentials.
Here are ten things to know about the Kentucky senator a day before he announces his candidacy with the slogan: “Defeat the Washington machine. Unleash the American dream.” Beyond Tuesday, expect a spectrum of political pandering.
1. Foreign policy
After years of falling on the anti-interventionist side of the debate over America’s place in the world, Paul straddled the line during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in February. Paul said, according to the Washington Post, that his presidency would focus on “a national defense unparalleled, undefeated and unencumbered by nation-building.”
Last June 2014, he said US policy had created extremist-laden “jihadist wonderlands” in the likes of Iraq and Libya through America’s persistent meddling in the affairs of foreign nations. And while he has called likely Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a “war hawk” bent on involving the US in further conflicts in the Middle East, he has also pined for more American military action in order to “destroy” the Islamic State, an extremist group especially strong in Syria and Iraq.
While voting for war against Islamic State, Paul also opposed arming rebel groups in Syria, criticizing the effort for potentially boosting the same fighters that are battling alongside Islamic State militants in the Syrian civil war against President Bashar Assad.
Paul has also called for a boycott of Saudi Arabia, America’s influential ally in the Middle East and leading partner in the coalition fighting Islamic State militants.
2. Iran
On Iran and its nuclear program, Paul has not been as hawkish as some of his peers in the GOP. In 2012, he voted against a non-binding resolution to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, calling the proposal a de-facto declaration of war. He has also opposed harsher sanctions against Iran, again saying he was against to any effort that could be considered an act of war.
“Before sending our young men and women into combat we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of war, over the advisability of war and over the objectives of the war,” Paul said.
Paul has chastised his party for obstructing nuclear negotiations between Iran and Obama administration officials. Yet, last month, Paul signed a Republican letter sent to Iran leadership announcing that any deal the Obama administration negotiated with Tehran over its nuclear program would likely dissolve if a Republican replaced Obama in January 2017, when Obama will leave office. The move was decried as political meddling in diplomatic affairs by a US Congress. Paul said he only signed it to strengthen the president’s hand.
“I want the president to negotiate from a position of strength, which means that he needs to be telling them in Iran, ‘I’ve got Congress to deal with,'” Paul said, adding, that he also endorsed the letter based on his support for the separation of powers invested in the US Constitution.
“I wouldn’t have signed the letter had he [Obama] not altered immigration law on his own, had he not altered the health care law on his own, and had he not taken us to war on his own,” Paul said.
3. Military spending
Paul has called for further cuts to US military spending, an opinion seldom voiced among his party.
“I believe national defense is the most important thing we do, but it isn’t a blank check,” he said last year. “Some conservatives think, ‘Oh, give them whatever they want and that everything is for our soldiers’ and they play up this patriotism that, ‘Oh, we don’t have to control defense spending.'”
“We can’t be a trillion dollars in the hole every year,” he added.
But, as foreshadowed by his comments in February over an “unparalleled” and “undefeated” national defense, he seems to understand that calling for cuts to the military budget won’t get him far with many non-libertarian Republicans. To that end, after his campaign announcement on Tuesday, he will appear at at Patriots Point in South Carolina’s Charleston Harbor, using a World War II aircraft carrier as a background prop, according to the Washington Post.
4. Drone strikes
Paul has argued against extrajudicial drone assassinations of American citizens, such as was the case with Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. In 2013, Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan as head of the Central Intelligence Agency over the Obama administration’s justification of drone strikes against Americans.
“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” he said during the filibuster.
Paul has also expressed concern for the threat to privacy posed by everyday use of unmanned aerial vehicles in American skies. The federal government is currently crafting rules regarding domestic drone use.
5. NSA reform
Some consider that Paul began his slide away from his roguish denunciations of Washington’s power abuses long before the present day. He has excoriated revelations of the National Security Agency’s global spying regime, exposed by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden in 2013, going as far as to sue the Obama administration over the constitutionality of the NSA program that collects metadata on US citizens’ phone calls.
“There’s a huge and growing swell of protest in this country of people who are outraged that their records are being taken without suspicion, without a judge’s warrant, and without individualization,” Paul said. “I’m not against the NSA, I’m not against spying, I’m not against looking at phone records. I just want you to go to a judge, have an individual’s name and [get] a warrant. That’s what the Fourth Amendment says.”
Yet when the admittedly tepid NSA reform bill was a mere two votes from passing the US Senate in November, Paul balked, saying the legislation was not strong enough. Paul later claimed he “felt bad” that the legislation failed, because it “probably needed my vote.”
The ‘no’ vote by Paul, a civil libertarian in the mold of his father and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, was seen by some as a fig leaf to Mitch McConnell, the powerful, well-connected top Republican in the Senate.
The vote has also received criticism from Sen. Ted Cruz, the only official Republican presidential candidate thus far, who voted for the legislation and is expected to challenge some of Paul’s support among unorthodox modern American conservatives.
And despite his overall opposition to the NSA’s vast surveillance powers, Paul said he opposes clemency for Snowden, who was responsible for revealing abuses Congress should have flagged in the first place. Paul did say, though, that Snowden — currently in exile in Russia — should only get a few years in prison for the unauthorized disclosures.
6. Criminal justice reform
In response to national outrage over the utilization of military weaponry by police in Ferguson, Missouri — which is emblematic of police forces across the nation — Paul has been among the few in Congress to consider stemming the flow of Pentagon excess to towns across America. At congressional hearing in September, Paul said heavy-handed use of force by police in Ferguson was “thoroughly un-American,” and that the Pentagon’s 1033 program should be shuttered.
In mid-March, Paul appeared at at Maryland’s Bowie State University, a historically black college, to champion criminal justice reform. He told the crowd of 200 students and community leaders that reforms to the justice system are necessary because current sentencing laws are harsh and disproportionally affect African-Americans. In the wake of the damning US Department of Justice report on the Ferguson Police Department and court system, Paul spoke out against practices such as excessive fines that have become an economic boon to local governments, as well as the seizure of private assets by police prior to criminal conviction.
“It’s predominately [affecting] African-American, it’s predominantly [affecting] Hispanics. But if you want one common denominator, it’s predominantly [affecting] people who live in poverty,” he said at Bowie State. “It’s unfair and it ought to stop. This is one thing the president and I agree on.”
While some lauded the sentiments expressed by Paul, others were not as impressed.
“I found him superficial,” Bob Woodson, president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, told the Washington Post. “I think these guys have got to do more than show up. Going to Howard [University] and then going to Ferguson [Missouri]? I don’t know what that was all about. His talk about the militarization of police felt like pandering.”
7. Religious freedom and gay rights
Paul has not commented on Indiana’s controversial ‘religious freedom’ bill, which many see as an attempt to discriminate against others based on one’s religion. Paul did say in March that, “The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government,” the Washington Post reported. As the Huffington Post reported last week, Paul has not supported marriage equality rights for gays and lesbians.
8. Marijuana legalization
Paul has supported legalizing small amounts of recreational marijuana, and he has sponsored legislation to legalize medical marijuana across the nation.
“The main thing I’ve said is not to legalize them, but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of times,” he has said of nonviolent drug offenders going to prison for decades during America’s so-called ‘war on drugs.’
9. Audit the Fed and IRS reform
One of Paul’s longtime positions has been to audit the Federal Reserve.
“The Fed’s operations under a cloak of secrecy have gone on too long and the American people have a right to know what the Federal Reserve is doing with our nation’s money supply,” Paul said when he proposed an audit bill in 2013. “Audit the Fed has significant bipartisan support in Congress and across the country and the time to act on this is now.”
Reform of the Internal Revenue Service is another Paul priority. One method of doing so, he has said, involves instituting a flat tax that is the same for all taxpayers, rather than a progressive or tiered tax system.
“What you’d have is an attrition if not an outright elimination of the IRS because it would be so simple that people would comply, and it would be very simple to know whether they complied or not,” Paul said in 2013.
10. Plagiarism accusations
In late 2013, the Washington Times newspaper announced that it is ending a regular column by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul following a series of plagiarism charges against his work. Paul was accused of not only failing to properly cite references for his written and spoken work, but also of essentially lifting passages verbatim from other sources. He took responsibility for the tainted work, saying he has staff and advisers who help him with his speeches and columns.
“Ultimately, I’m the boss, and things go out under my name, so it is my fault,” he said. “I never had intentionally presented anyone’s ideas as my own.”
