HuffPost Horror over Trump Army Secretary Pick Indication Green May be Right Man for Job

“[Dr. Mark Green’s] military awards include the Bronze Star, The Air Medal, The Air Medal with ‘V’ device for valor under heavy enemy fire, and numerous other medals for service. He also was awarded the Combat Medical Badge, the US Army Ranger Tab, and The Expert Infantryman’s Badge, among many others.” [Photo: MarkGreen4TN.com]

“Tennessee state Sen. Mark Green (R), President Donald Trump’s nominee for Army secretary, strongly believes that citizens should be armed ― and not just with any ol’ guns,” HuffPost Senior Political Reporter and Politics Managing Editor Amanda Terkel snarks. “They should be able to possess whatever weapons the military has, because an armed citizenry is the ‘ultimate checks and balances’ against the federal government.”

It’s almost funny—a liberal arts major with experience limited to leftist agitprop making fun of a man who … well, take a moment and read his professional qualifications for yourself. He was a West Point Graduate with an economics degree, a Masters degree in Information Systems from USC and a medical degree from Wright State. He served his country on covert missions and received plenty of decorations for being in harm’s way. He’s a successful businessman. He’s a board member for humanitarian organizations “focused on caring for soldiers and their families as they return with the unseen scars of war.”

So Terkel’s needing to resort to Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule is understandable; it’s all she’s got. Compare her education, experience and achievements with Green’s CV. And note she previously “served as Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and the Managing Editor of ThinkProgress.org.”

Per Discover the Network:

“Think Progress is a ‘project’ of the American Progress Action Fund (APAF), a ‘sister advocacy organization’ of the John Podesta-led Center for American Progress (CAP) and CAP’s entities such as Campus Progress. It also draws freely on the resources of the George Soros-funded Media Matters website edited by David Brock.

Yes, that would be “spirit cooking” dinner invitee John Podesta…

And Terkel’s hoplophobia is also understandable. After all, “She is a graduate of Colgate University,” and that school just went on a four-hour meltdown over an art student with a glue gun.

What she’ll never admit—because she probably doesn’t know, is that Green’s understanding of an armed citizenry is consistent with Founding intent, as expressed by Tench Coxe:

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

It’s also consistent with Supreme Court opinion. In Miller, the court found a short-barrel shotgun could not be determined protected under the Second Amendment because the court had no evidence its possession had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

That’s a key point. The function of the militia was — and is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. The militia came with the intent to match and best a professional military threat.

“[T]he citizenry should be allowed to maintain whatever weapon the federal government has,” Terkel quotes Green, looking for another way to point and laugh. “If they can have an aircraft carrier, I ought to be able to have an aircraft carrier.”

Privateers, indeed, at one time operated vessels of war. And granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal is still a Constitutional power of Congress, even if it does ignore it, along with its power to “provide for calling forth the Militia [and] for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.”

As for the “private nuclear weapon” strawman, Green never argued for that. While no specific power appears to have been delegated in the Constitution to authorize forbidding such private ownership, it does raise questions on how the purposes of the Preamble could otherwise be fulfilled. I haven’t spent a lot of time mulling this over, but could a case be made that Congress is the entity authorized “to raise and support Armies,” and that would be the equivalent of an unaccountable standing army? Another article seems in order to invite discussion on that.

But the nuke issue is a diversion anyway, from Terkel’s main beef, and the real reason “progressives” are outraged over Green. He dared to repeat that the psychiatric establishment considered transsexuals to suffer from Gender Identity Disorder. That the American Psychiatric Association changed its position in 2012 had less to do with new research and discoveries than it did with lobbying by “progressive” political advocacy groups. Also, the guy he’s replacing, Eric Fanning, is openly gay, so that’s another “progressive strike against Green.

If Green is to be faulted, a better reason than his being considered “mean spirited” by “progressives” would be because he misstated a point:

“The Second Amendment, while it allows citizens to protect themselves from other citizens, goes well beyond just allowing us to defend ourselves from a criminal,” Green said at a pro-gun rally in 2013. “The men who penned and ratified this document gave us the right to keep and bear arms as an ultimate checks and balances against the federal government. When considering magazine size and weapon type, comments like, ‘You don’t need a 10-round magazine to hunt deer’ completely misses the point of the Second Amendment.”

They didn’t give us any rights, and Green no doubt understands that. That’s something even the Supreme Court understands:

The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed …

That Green misspoke about something he clearly understands (see video below) can be fixed with a reminder that words have meaning. In the mean time, the facts that he’s for the right of the people to keep and bear arms – and that “progressives’ have their knives out for him – seem like pretty good reasons to welcome his appointment.

It also may explain why John McCain is making noises that don’t, and why CNN is helping pile up on him for speculating on inconsistencies between evolution and his faith.

I guess they’d rather not have someone who understands the Constitution in any position of responsibility:

UPDATE: Sadly, Mark Green has withdrawn his name from consideration, citing all the lies being spread about him as a major reason.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

Categories: 2nd_amendment, All

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. winnparish 3 May, 2017, 19:47

    It’s about gd time!

    Reply this comment
  2. Cal 3 May, 2017, 20:00

    Nice, he almost has the US Constitution correct.

    Treaties – that is also found writing within the US Constitution; basically those that serve within the federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution. Those that serve within the position of the US President and within the Senate get the Authority they use to act from the US Constitution. The objects of their lawful powers are LISTED within the Constitution. It requires that the President and Senate BOTH must be authorized in the Constitution to act on an object before any Treaty created by them – on that object – will qualify as “the supreme Law of the Land”. If it is not authorized within the US Constitution, then the President and Congress create the Treaty does not make it “Law”, binding the American people and our nation to it. Instead it is a usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such. It is NOT binding because the objects and the ways that the Treaties MUST be created are found in writing within the US Constitution and anything created outside of that delegated authority is fake, basically “color of law”.

    Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution… On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace.”

    John Jay, Federalist 64 says that treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation”.

    Madison, Federalist 42 says treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors and consuls and to commerce.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “… a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.”

    Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause, Federalist 33: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

    When he is speaking of treaties superseding the Bill of Rights, the courts, etc it is important to realize that ONLY the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof IT is supreme; not the courts, not the legislature, not the US President, nor foreign nations and foreign entities, not governmental agencies, etc.

    Remember that all three branches of the federal government was created by the states when the STATES created the US Constitution to be their REPRESENTATIVE in dealing with mostly foreign affairs. The judicial branch was one of the three branches created, and those that serve within the judicial branch are also bound to that contract, to that document that created them. they do not get to “re create” the US Constitution which is their contract and that they are also Oath bound to. (The US Constitution is a COMPACT between the states, and a supreme CONTRACT to all who serve within our governments.

    When he speaks of the Second Amendment, it is made clear in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights that these are RESTRICTIONS and FORBIDDENS placed upon all who serve within our governments, and most are above and beyond the authority delegated because that authority was RETAINED, KEPT by the people.

    Preamble to the Bill of Rights: Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

    Reply this comment
  3. Gawfer 4 May, 2017, 08:27

    Had to email the Tench Coxe reference to MS Terkle.
    Fun making liberal heads pop!

    Reply this comment
  4. Milt 4 May, 2017, 09:07

    Many thanks, this great print will go many miles.

    Reply this comment
  5. Barbara Fee 4 May, 2017, 09:13

    I guess these people dont realize that under the National Firearms Act LAW ABIDING citizens cam possess everything from Machine guns to tanks to artillery as long as they were registered prior to May 1986. Yes exploding shells for artillery and tanks are not allowed but 75, 105 and 155mm solid shot can be devastating.
    These people act like they can close their eyes and wish it all away. Not realizing that the Musket of 1776 was every bit the military weapon of its day as the M4 is today.
    Liberalism is a disease that we need a cure for

    Reply this comment
  6. emee 4 May, 2017, 09:26

    IT IS WAY PAST TIME… NOW THAT IS A REAL AMERICAN … A REAL MAN… DAMN I AM IMPRESSED… AND HE JUST SPITS IT OUT… OH I LOVE IT…

    Reply this comment
  7. Dave 4 May, 2017, 13:00

    I just can’t believe the comments of these individuals that have no knowledge of the topic. Trying to act as experts that should be listened to with no qualifications to justify anything that they right or say. Thank GOD for Oath Keepers. As a new member I just wish I could do more. Keep up the good work patriots.

    Reply this comment
  8. Charlie BROWN 4 May, 2017, 18:05

    After all the negative press, that I have read today, Pres. Trump had better get this guy on board and operational stat, or We the People are sunk and that leaving Trump dead in the water.That is good news David if the Pres signs on and does not waiver.

    Reply this comment
  9. Charlie BROWN 4 May, 2017, 18:09

    P.S. at this point I believe that the country must withdraw from Agenda 21 and a gentle bye-bye from the UN

    Reply this comment
  10. GW 4 May, 2017, 20:29

    I’m with Sen. Green !!!

    Reply this comment
  11. WGP 5 May, 2017, 11:38

    “They should be able to possess whatever weapons the military has, because an armed citizenry is the ‘ultimate checks and balances’ against the federal government.”

    I’ve been preaching that forever! Yet the NRA fans don’t seem to acknowledge the necessity for such equality in firepower. Can I afford an F-16 or even a Barret M82, maybe not…but those who can do.

    Reply this comment
  12. Mack 5 May, 2017, 15:55

    He’s Gone. Waved the White Flag. Too bad.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*