United States Declarations of War

The United States Congress has issued a formal declaration of War on 5 occasions:

  • War of 1812 vs United Kingdom (June 18, 1812 – December 24, 1814)
  • Mexican-American War vs Mexico (May 13, 1846-February 2, 1848) – Declaration of War occurred after America and Mexico had commenced hostilities.
  • Spanish-American War vs Spain (April 1898-December 10, 1898)
  • World War I vs Germany/Austria-Hungary (December 17, 1917-)
  • World War II vs Japan (Dec 8, 1941), Germany/Italy (December 11, 1941) Bulgaria/Hungary/Romania (June 5-1942).

The United States has acted militarily without prior declaration of War from Congress on at least 125 other occasions, including Korea in 1950, The Philippine-American War (1898-1903), the war against the Apache nation from around 1840-1886, Vietnam.

The “Police Actions” clause, the War Powers Act (1973) and United Nations Security Council Resolutions have been used to address questions of legality.

Book Recommendations recounting the courage of those who defended our liberty

The Longest Day: The Classic Epic of D-Day by Cornelius Ryan

Flags of our Fathers

D Day: June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II

1942: The Year That Tried Men’s Souls, Winston Groom

Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway, Jonathan Parshall (and Miracle At Midway, Gordon W. Prange)

Ship Of Ghosts: The Story of the USS Houston, James Hornfischer

Ghost Soldiers: The Epic Account of World War II’s Greatest Rescue Mission, Hampton Sides

In Harm’s Way: The Sinking of the USS Indianapolis, Doug Stanton

Barack Obama says “57 states”

Obama claims to have visited 57 U.S. states during the campaign:

… it is just wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in fifty …. seven states? I think one left to go. One left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit but my staff would not justify it.

Obama Advisors want higher gas taxes…

“If anything, we need higher gas taxes.” – Alice Rivlin, former Clinton White House budget office, now Barack Obama supporter, May 6, 2008

Hillary Clinton and John McCain agree that the Federal gas tax should be eliminated for the summer. Barack Obama advisors argue for a higher gas taxes. Experience shows that one who is willing to raise one tax or not cut taxes is much more likely to raise others.

Hey Rivlin, it is our money. Donate more if you wish yourself. Put your money where your mouth is, or is that too much to ask?

Hyphenated Americanism

Hyphenated Americanism is not American. Everyone is, in theory, a hyphenated American of some sort. However, we are either Americans or not. From Chinese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans.  Why is anyone an anything-American?  If they are American, the item before the hyphen is unneeded.

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American… There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

It is similar to the entire “black-white” garbage of the past.  Skin color is unimportant, people are American, if you need to identify the country or human.

Harry Reid says we have a voluntary tax system

April 2, 2008, Harry Reid , U.S. Senate Majority Leader. Clearly Harry Reid is a fool:

[Update: May 1, 2008:  here is the video:


Jan Helfeld: …if the government is in the business of forcefully taking money from some people in order to provide welfare benefits to others, how will the people whose money is being taken feel about the government?

Harry Reid: Well, I don’t accept your phraseology. I don’t think we “force” people…

Helfeld: Taxation is not forceful?

Reid: Well, no.

Helfeld: It’s voluntary?

Reid: In fact, quite to the contrary. Our system of government is a voluntary tax system.

Helfeld: Oh… if you don’t want to pay your taxes, you don’t have to?

Reid: Of course you have to pay your taxes, but…

Helfeld: The government will force you to pay, or they’ll fine you or imprison you. Won’t they?

Reid: We have a voluntary system. The fact of the matter is, that if when you pay your taxes — you see, in many other countries, it’s not voluntary. For example, in many countries, the government makes sure that your employer takes out every penny. Many countries don’t file income tax returns. Why?

Helfeld: We have withholding here too, don’t we?

Reid: Pardon me?

Helfeld: Withholding.

Reid: With some program, yes. But I’m talking about in some countries, European countries as an example, there… you don’t file an income tax return. There is no need to, because your employer takes all the money out. That’s the difference between a voluntary and an involuntary system.

Helfeld: But can…? Can…?

Reid: You can choose to not pay your taxes, but I don’t accept your phraseology, that you forcibly take money from somebody else and give it to others. You know, that’s the way it is on any program. I mean…

Helfeld: Can the taxpayer…?

Reid: …highway program is the same. We…

Helfeld: Excuse me.

Reid: We take money, we “forcibly” take money in your phraseology, but…

Helfeld: But can…? Let me ask you something.

Reid: …build highways with it, put people in the Army.

Helfeld: Can the taxpayer decide not to pay his taxes if he wants?

Reid: He can… He can not pay his taxes if he wants.

Helfeld: What will be the…? What will happen?

Reid: He’ll be subject to civil and criminal penalties.

Helfeld: They’ll put him in jail — they’ll use force against him. He pays… everybody pays taxes under threat of jail or fines: on the threat of force. In other words, you are forced to pay your taxes. Whether you fill out your form voluntarily or whether its withheld by your employer, you don’t have a choice on whether you can pay taxes that are going to be used for welfare programs — you can’t make that choice.

Reid: Well, but the reason our system is called a voluntary tax system — and I recognize, you know, that ultimately you can’t cheat your taxes, but our… We have many provisions in the law they don’t have in most countries: we have deductibility for home interest on mortgage payment, they don’t have that in most countries, we have deductibility for certain excessive expenses as relates to health — doctors, hospitals — we have all kinds of tax — some people call them “loopholes” but others would call them “incentives for people to do business” — and that’s why… You know, you’re not “forced” to pay certain taxes. There are ways… if you decide to buy a home and…

Helfeld: You can decide not to pay taxes? In the United States?

Reid: I mean, I really don’t understand what you’re trying to get at. If you’re… What… the point of the matter is…

Helfeld: Because you objected to my phraseology. You said that… you say that the government isn’t forcefully taking money from some people to provide welfare benefits to others, and, in fact, that’s what it’s doing, because all taxation is forceful. It’s backed up by physical force. If you don’t pay your taxes, the government will intervene with you forcefully. So you don’t have a choice. It’s not voluntary. You can’t decide not to pay and not suffer consequences. If you don’t pay, you’ll go to jail. So: you’re forced to pay.

Reid: You don’t… you don’t go to jail. Some people go to jail. There are all kind of civil penalties if you don’t pay your taxes: you pay interest and you pay penalties. The fact of the matter is, our system is a voluntary system.

Commander in chief of our economy? How about Freedom?

“It’s time for a president who is ready on day one to be the commander in chief of our economy.” Hillary Clinton, March 27, 2008

“I don’t want to run the national economy! I want your national economy runners to leave me alone!” Dagny Taggart, Atlas Shrugged

The nature of freedom is being in charge of your own life. Freedom means freedom in every sense, from the economy to your personal life. A free people do not need a “commander in chief” of our economy. Liberty means you can live on a commune in Wisconsin or a free city in Florida. A free economy implies capitalism. All other statist systems from communism to socialism to fascism, rely on force to take your freedom away from you. The people who say “capitalism does not work” are saying “freedom doesn’t work.”And what they mean by that is they want power over you to force you to change reality for them and make the economic systems based on force work.

There is no middle ground between liberty and tyranny.

Obama says “Typical White Person”!

Barack Obama describes his white grandmother as a “typical white person.” Can you imagine the outrage if Hillary Clinton described someone as a “typical black person” or a “typical asian person”? What if Hillary said something about Obama being a “typical black man”. Geraldine Ferraro was castigated for her comment about “if [Barack] was a white man” Where is the outrage now?

In part he said: “She is extremely proud, and the point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person who, you know, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there is a reaction that has been bred into our experiences that don’t go away…”

Patrick Henry needs a bit of revision today!

My liberal cousin ends his emails with this wonderful Patrick Henry quotation:

” . . . I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! – March 23, 1775″

All the while he supports policies such as these:
1. Government run health care. So much for the freedom of doctors and patients to work together on their fees and treatments. You’ll be told what health care you can have and the doctor will be told how much he or she will be paid for it. Patrick Henry would want freedom for both. (Yes, insurance needs to be reformed, but again, the answer is freedom – freedom for insurance companies and people to buy from each other instead of having the government stand between the two. And freedom to take your insurance with you if you change jobs.)
2. Minimum wages – there is no freedom to negotiate your own wage. Both the employer and employee are restricted by government. Patrick Henry would not like this.
3. Redistribution of earnings. Let us say exactly what this means instead of using double-talk: you take some money from someone who works and give it to someone who needs it, supposedly, more than you do. Instead of you owning the products of your labors by right, you own them by sufferance of the majority. Patrick Henry would not like that and neither would the Constitution.

So, Patrick Henry needs a little revision today because although Patrick wanted liberty for everyone, today’s liberals only seem to want it for approved people and approved areas:

. . . I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me AND EVERYONE ELSE liberty, or give me death!

The liberal version seems to be:

. . . I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me AND NO ONE ELSE unless I approve of them liberty, or give me death!

The only answer is freedom and that implies an economic system that is based on freedom. There is no debate between capitalism and statism, it is a debate between freedom and statism. And statism is any philosophy that uses the state to greatly restrict your freedom to live your life as you please.

Remember that ‘business’ does not pay taxes, they merely collect them from the consumers and pass them along to Washington. Businesses pass along any taxes to you. The rhetoric behind “tax business” is obfuscation to get more money for Washington to spend in trying to buy your vote.

Sharpton says don’t seat Florida and Michigan Delegates in 2008

“I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic party’s rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice. …I knew the rules, abided by them, and ultimately accepted the consequences. Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair both to the candidates (including Senator Edwards) and to Democratic voters everywhere.” – Al Sharpton, February 13, 2008, part of Rev Sharpton’s letter.

Reverend Sharpton,you are exactly right,thank you for stating that. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is patently unfair. As a Florida resident I don’t like the handling of the delegates for the Democrats or Republicans, but the rules were set by both parties for 2008 and we are stuck with them now. Perhaps for 2012 the parties will revise their rules in light of these events.

Individual Rights and Today's Issue